Historiography of a Christian *Ottoman Empire

[Fabius Maximus]

For some hand-wave-y reason, the Turks of Rum convert to Orthodox Christianity during the 12th century. Then, a few hundred years later, some Turkish nobleman founds an Ottoman Empire analogue, which goes on to take Constantinople from the Byzantines.

Now, IOTL Mehmet the Conqueror and his successors occasionally used the title Kaisar i-Rum (Caesar of Rome), but it was never a particularly important title and neither contemporaries nor later historians really considered the Ottoman Empire to be a continuation of the Roman/Byzantine Empire. Basically, I was wondering whether this would still be the case if the *Ottomans were Christian: would their rulers play up the "heirs of Rome" angle more, and would other people, both contemporary and in later times, view their state as the genuine and legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire?

 

[The Professor]

Absolutely yes.
I would note that it would probably be seen similarly to the Latin Empire

 

[Tripledot]

What I wonder is why the the alt!Ottomans wouldn't assimilate and simply become a continuation of the Greek Byzantine empire.

 

[Prince de Pringondani]

I think people and historians would consider the Ottimans as legal heirs of the Byzantine empire if they were Greek Ortodox christians.I see them adopted the Greek culture and language abd i don't think that they will have any rulers named Mehmed for that is an Moslim name

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Whilst I agree with the idea that they certainly would push (and perhaps even declare war to claim the title) to be the rightful Roman Emperors, a significant part of why the Turks were so successful were Ghazi - unless the Turks have a Christian version of that, Roman-Turk history could be very different.

Now, if the Christian-Turk-Alt-Ottomans rose up, they may do something very cheeky. Post-Frankokratia Trezbizond did its own thing, the turks did another, and the Romans did their own as well. A strong Christian Turkish ruler could swear loyalty as a vassal, and focus on conquering the rest of Anatolia with tacit Roman support - and then garner support from Roman dynatoi to force the Emperor to make him Kaisar.

 

[Halagaz]

Well, if the Turks in question had become Orthodox Christian centuries ago, then they would also have gradually adopted all sorts of Byzantine customs, culture, ideology and aspects of Byzantine state organization. Far more so than the Ottoman Empire in OTL.

Their rulers would milk the "heirs of Rome" thing for all it's worth, the state would resemble its Byzantine predecessor much more closely than OTL's Ottomans did, and they would be considered a legitimate continuation by most people, if probably not by everyone.

A lot depends on whether they just conquer the whole region, or some Byzantine successor state survives to challenge their claim; like Nicaea and Epirus challenged the Latin Empire's claim to be a legitimate continuation of Byzantium.

 

[Indicus]

I see no real reason why the Turks, of the line of Seljuk, holding a Persianized culture, would convert to Christianity.

But following this logic, I think these Turks would certainly be considered of the direct line of Rome.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

What I wonder is why the the alt!Ottomans wouldn't assimilate and simply become a continuation of the Greek Byzantine empire.

If whoever converts them decides to translate the liturgy into Turkish (kind of like Cyril and Methodius had done with Slavonic centuries earlier), there could well end up being separate Turkish Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches, which would prevent the Turks assimilating entirely into Greek culture.

 

[Byzantion]

I think people and historians would consider the Ottimans as legal heirs of the Byzantine empire if they were Greek Ortodox christians.I see them adopted the Greek culture and language abd i don't think that they will have any rulers named Mehmed for that is an Moslim name

There had been Turkish Christian families among the powerful families of Byzantium.