Muslim Byzantium ...

That could work. Attempt to mold a monotheistic understanding with the Muslims and Jews to better incorporate them into the Empire.

Our Holy Texts are just basically Vol. 1 is for the Jews, Vol. 2 is for the Christians, Vol 3. is for the Muslims, but overall we are all brothers of the book, just different on how new or old the book we subscribed to is.

Well I doubt that they would take this approach. However, it could be a sense where the theological leanings become such that Islam is seen as a more radical variety of Byzantine Arianism. At least from a Latin perspective. While in the Mid East, a certain level of tolerance develops despite agreement of deep disagreement, between Sunni Islam and Byzantine court Arianism.
 
That would be saying that the US is the christian version of the Native states

America is not Mexico or Peru, there were no native states here, native peoples, yes; (which yes, we did horrendous things unto that cannot be overstated) native cities (the majority of which were long since abandoned), yes, native states, no.

The Ottomans ruled over the same territory, from the same capital, and ruled over the same peoples until they started killing them all en masse.
 
America is not Mexico or Peru, there were no native states here, native peoples, yes; (which yes, we did horrendous things unto that cannot be overstated) native cities (the majority of which were long since abandoned), yes, native states, no.

The Ottomans ruled over the same territory, from the same capital, and ruled over the same peoples until they started killing them all en masse.

Well, the Irroquois had a Confederacy, but granted, they had no Western-style state at this moment. I should've used the word nation. Still, to me the Ottomans were not just Muslim Greeks, they had their own background that differed much from the Byzantine Empire. They have ruled over similar territories (as they are the three ways where an Empire based in Istanbul is likely to expand to), but what I meant is that I don't see a strong enough continuity to call the Ottomans "Muslim Byzantium". But when you state it with the "same place" approach, I get why you consider the Ottomans a successor state.

They had a Turcik culture that they never lost. Their architecture harmonized with Byzantine architecture, but for the rest, they brought their own language, their own practices (like janissaries), so they may be considered as some Chinese-dynasty-circle looking invasion, but to me there is a little more difference than just the ruling family and the faith.
 
America is not Mexico or Peru, there were no native states here, native peoples, yes; (which yes, we did horrendous things unto that cannot be overstated) native cities (the majority of which were long since abandoned), yes, native states, no.

The Ottomans ruled over the same territory, from the same capital, and ruled over the same peoples until they started killing them all en masse.

The part about same people is highly questionable. Byzantium never ruled so far into Europe and the Turkic speaking-Islamic factor in Anatolia was never a populace in Byzantium. Ottomans additionally ruled over a kaleidoscope of differing Islamic sects, all with differing approaches to rule and or suppression. Byzantium and the Ottomans share only one or two peoples that they both ruled, that being the Slavic Bulgars-Serbs and the Greek contingent in Greece. Otherwise, they ruled in effect, totally different and separate cultural spheres.
 
Well, the Irroquois had a Confederacy, but granted, they had no Western-style state at this moment. I should've used the word nation. Still, to me the Ottomans were not just Muslim Greeks, they had their own background that differed much from the Byzantine Empire. They have ruled over similar territories (as they are the three ways where an Empire based in Istanbul is likely to expand to), but what I meant is that I don't see a strong enough continuity to call the Ottomans "Muslim Byzantium". But when you state it with the "same place" approach, I get why you consider the Ottomans a successor state.

They had a Turcik culture that they never lost. Their architecture harmonized with Byzantine architecture, but for the rest, they brought their own language, their own practices (like janissaries), so they may be considered as some Chinese-dynasty-circle looking invasion, but to me there is a little more difference than just the ruling family and the faith.
This, the ottomans were turkish people give the coup of grace but not a muslim byzantium, that is far different animal
 
Top