Ottoman Empire seen as a continuation of the Roman Empire

[BBadolato]

Don't most Chinese dynasties get seen as successors, despite having destroyed the preceding state?

That's only because The Mandate of Heaven as far as dynasties went is that as long as a dynasty has divine favor it can rule, but if they lose that favor. ie tyranny,natural disasters,discontent then who ever overthrows that dynasty would be legitimate. Provided nothing like the 3 Kingdoms came about.

I don't think there is a similar president with the Roman Empire,even as dynasties changed and emperors came and went. So how would we determine what is a continuation of the Roman Empire? I doubt anyone would think The Holy Roman, Latin, and Russian Empires would be a continuation of it as well the Ottomans.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

How are we defining what is a continuation of the Roman Empire here?

Any state where the ruling class primarily thinks of itself, first and foremost, as "Roman". This works for Byzantium- it does not for the Ottomans or Charlemagne's Empire.

I can't quite believe we're having this discussion, is it not staggeringly obvious?

I repeat the Duchy of Lancaster analogy. The Ottoman Sultans were no more Romans than Queen Elizabeth II is a resident of Lancashire.

 

[Elfwine]

Interested in claiming to rule over "Rum(elia)", yes, be of it, no - to elaborate.

 

[Iori]

Additionally, having the Byzantines themselves be more unilaterally regarded as a continuation of the Roman Empire (strange how some people don't) might assist in this regard,

While I can't speak for everyone it's because it ceased to exist for awhile.

Mind you I seperate the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, and to me the ERE and with it the Roman Empire ceased to exist in 1204, while the Byzantine Empire, a Greek state claiming to be it formed in 1261 and lasted until 1453.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Mind you I seperate the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, and to me the ERE and with it the Roman Empire ceased to exist in 1204, while the Byzantine Empire, a Greek state claiming to be it formed in 1261 and lasted until 1453.

Agreed. The latter had lost many of the institutions of the former, too. The Roman Senate, for example.

 

[Askelion]

Lets see. The early house of Osman is conquered by the resurging Byzantines after the fourth crusade, but are found to be more trouble then they are worth to control, so rather than fully assimilate them, a young nonthreatening member of the house of Osman is made the new ruler, and given a Byzantine position, possibly Despot. As time goes on, this Osman Despotate intermarries with the Byzantine elite, but retains a semi-distinct cultural identity, possibly by continuing to be Muslim. When the empire again begins to recede, the Ottoman Despotate's current ruler feels that his time has come, and marches on Constantinople, declaring himself to be the new Emperor. If he is a Muslim, he will probably need to give his people a high degree of religious tolerance, but can nevertheless attempt to convert them slowly. The new dynasty and Byzantine acceptance of Islam prove to be a turnaround for the empire, and it soon begins to make similar gains to those of the OTL Ottomans, and the Ottoman subculture and Islam begin to flourish, while the people continue to refer to themselves as Romans, use the Byzantine Roman imperial tradition, use the Imperial Eagle as a coat of arms, and speak a mixed Greco-Turkish dialect. That is Ottoman Rome IMO.

I second the opinion that this would be an awesome timeline. Do you want to collaborate Avitus? If a couple of us pitch in we could make something happen here.

And what of you Elfwine? What say you?

 

[Falecius]

I thought Mehmed II didn't take that title until after the fall of Constantinople. If it didn't originate with him, who was the first to take that style?

His father Murad if I remember correctly, but don't trust me too much on that.

For all the others: I was only half-serious.

 

[Falecius]

Been Romanians.

Vlad Tepes begs to differ.

 

[Elfwine]

I second the opinion that this would be an awesome timeline. Do you want to collaborate Avitus? If a couple of us pitch in we could make something happen here.

And what of you Elfwine? What say you?

I have a problem with this:

"The new dynasty and Byzantine acceptance of Islam prove to be a turnaround for the empire, and it soon begins to make similar gains to those of the OTL Ottomans" plausibility-wise.

I think an Ottoman dynasty is interesting - no reason Byzantium can't have a Turkish dynasty - but I think that that a declining Byzantium is not going to turn into an (OTL) Ottoman Empire sized state just because of the dynasty and Islam.

 

[euromellows]

Theoretically if the Ottoman Empire was to conquer Rome itself and hold it for a sustained period of time, would this be considered enough? It would by that point basically hold all the Apostolic Sees of Rome and not only the original capital, but its last capital too (Constantinople).

Also one other option presents itself, though I'm skeptical it would be enough. In OTL Andreas Palaiologos sold his claims to the Byzantine title to both France and later Spain. Could he sell them to the Ottoman sultan instead and would it actually mean anything?

 

[Askelion]

I have a problem with this:

"The new dynasty and Byzantine acceptance of Islam prove to be a turnaround for the empire, and it soon begins to make similar gains to those of the OTL Ottomans" plausibility-wise.

I think an Ottoman dynasty is interesting - no reason Byzantium can't have a Turkish dynasty - but I think that that a declining Byzantium is not going to turn into an (OTL) Ottoman Empire sized state just because of the dynasty and Islam.

Certainly not. I just find the prospect of a Turko-Byzantine state enchanting.

While the Turks will likely breathe some new life into the Empire, it would seem to me that they're going to be burdened with the 'imperial baggage' (including the appropriately Byzantine web of the Court) in a way that they didn't when they were a more unique force.

 

[Elfwine]

Certainly not. I just find the prospect of a Turko-Byzantine state enchanting.

While the Turks will likely breathe some new life into the Empire, it would seem to me that they're going to be burdened with the 'imperial baggage' (including the appropriately Byzantine web of the Court) in a way that they didn't when they were a more unique force.

I don't think they have much to "breathe new life into the Empire" with, that's the problem. The Byzantines don't need new life in the sense of breaking stagnation but in the sense of starvation weakened muscles needing to be be restored.

And the web of the Court isn't something Rhomanian or fixed by the Ottomans being different.

But yes, a Turko-Byzantine state would be fascinating - even if it was only a modest polity (say around the 1190 Byzantine borders, give or take), it would be fun to explore how it would look as compared to the OTL Ottomans.

Something like that massively changes events from central Europe to central Asia.

 

[Abhakhazia]

Abhakhazia still sees it as not the Roman Empire, like it's Byzantine predecessor.

 

[Badshah]

hmmm, well a lot of people still don't consider the Byzzies a Roman successor, though they were, so...

 

[Elfwine]

Abhakhazia still sees it as not the Roman Empire, like it's Byzantine predecessor.

What do you consider the definition of Roman Empire as relates to this discussion?

hmmm, well a lot of people still don't consider the Byzzies a Roman successor, though they were, so...

Assuming we either count Nicaea as a continuation of the Bosporus-centered empire or separate (as in, you're not using the term Byzantine for Nicaea onward), the Byzzies aren't even a successor, they're the surviving half of the Roman Empire.

 

[Abhakhazia]

What do you consider the definition of Roman Empire as relates to this discussion?

The Roman Empire fell officially in the year 476 AD, it included the city of Rome as its capital (for the most part), it spoke Latin as its first language.
The Byzantine Empire isn't the Roman Empire because of those reasons. It never was the Roman Empire, even as the Eastern Empire, because, it was independent from Rome. So, Byzantium is not Rome, has not right to be called Rome and shouldn't be considered Rome.

 

[Elfwine]

The Roman Empire fell officially in the year 476 AD, it included the city of Rome as its capital (for the most part), it spoke Latin as its first language.
The Byzantine Empire isn't the Roman Empire because of those reasons. It never was the Roman Empire, even as the Eastern Empire, because, it was independent from Rome. So, Byzantium is not Rome, has not right to be called Rome and shouldn't be considered Rome.

"Officially"?

And what does this mean for the long period where Rome wasn't the capital (most of the period between Constantine the Great and 476, I believe)? And for the parts of the Empire that didn't speak Latin as their first language (the entire eastern half)?

This is a very narrow definition of Roman..

 

[Zuvarq]

The Roman Empire fell officially in the year 476 AD, it included the city of Rome as its capital (for the most part), it spoke Latin as its first language.
The Byzantine Empire isn't the Roman Empire because of those reasons. It never was the Roman Empire, even as the Eastern Empire, because, it was independent from Rome. So, Byzantium is not Rome, has not right to be called Rome and shouldn't be considered Rome.

By that definition Rome either fell in 286 when Rome was no longer the capital, or in the 410s or so when it became hopelessly weak and mercy to barbarians.

I favor 1204 as the date of the end of the Roman Empire.

 

[Elfwine]

By that definition Rome either fell in 286 when Rome was no longer the capital, or in the 410s or so when it became hopelessly weak and mercy to barbarians.

I favor 1204 as the date of the end of the Roman Empire.

Nicaea being a successor state, another polity entirely (with no ties except delusions of grandeur), or a rump state?

 

[Zuvarq]

Nicaea being a successor state, another polity entirely (with no ties except delusions of grandeur), or a rump state?

Combination of all three.