This discussion would be pertinent if Odoacer or Theoderic had ever proclaimed themselves Roman Emperor.
But they didn't.
The governor of New York has ever proclaimed himself the POTUS?
This discussion would be pertinent if Odoacer or Theoderic had ever proclaimed themselves Roman Emperor.
But they didn't.
I was very specific in my post for the reasons why I responded, if you did not understand my point you should have said so. Constantinople was important to the Ottoman Empire because it was the City, similar to a Paris analog. It being Roman was only a small part of why they wanted it, and only a small reason why it would damage their legitimacy.I didn't say they needed to take Italy to call themselves Romans. I said that the fact that Italy was the heart of Rome culturally, geographically and historically did play a role in why these claimants to Romw wanted it. If you think it wasn't you're being naive. For the recrd, the Ottomans and the Caliphate wanted Constantinople for similar reasons. Having it would in their eyes lend legitimacy to their claims to the Byzantine Empire.
Now cut that out!The governor of New York has ever proclaimed himself the POTUS?
I was very specific in my post for the reasons why I responded, if you did not understand my point you should have said so. Constantinople was important to the Ottoman Empire because it was the City, similar to a Paris analog. It being Roman was only a small part of why they wanted it, and only a small reason why it would damage their legitimacy.
Excuse me but technically Justinian had no need to conquer Italy to be acknowledged as Emperor of the Romans: he was already considered as such because what we call the Byzantine Empire is simply the Eastern Roman Empire. After the Western Roman Empire disappeared, there only was one Emperor left: the one ruling in Constantinople. The reason he wanted to reconquer Italy came out of Justinian's desire to restore the Roman Empire in all its glory: that meant recovering the Western Part of the Empire, and more importantly Rome. It was never a question of legitimacy since Constantinople was considered as important as Rome politically and because, as mentioned before, Justinian already was acknowledged as Roman Emperor: it was a question of prestige and bringing back the Golden Age of Roman power in the eyes of Justinian. You could also see it as a way for Justinian to restore Roman authority over the region since the Ostrogoth were supposed to be vassals (feoderati is the word that gave us feudal) to the Romans.He wanted to conquer Italy, because it had legitimacy. It's the same reason the Ottomans wanted it and the HRE and the Caliphate etc.. The fact tht the Byzantines wanted to conquer Taly doesn't bolster their claim to Rome, it weakens their claim to Rome.
It's not really a question about whether Islam is compatible with Roman identity. It's a question of whether or not we can consider the Turks to be Romans or at least their successors/continuators, which is arguably pretty debatable and contestable.You seem to think that Islam was incompatible with a Roman identity.
Source for this?The Ottomans did in fact consider their state Roman and were even recognized as their successors widely.
The big difference is that the Byzantines moving away from ancient Roman culture was a result of cultural evolution within the Byzantine Empire. The Turks already had their own culture before they invaded Constantinople and they didn't switch identity that much: at best you could argue they romanized a bit but even that wouldn't be enough to consider Romans. It's the same way we acknowledge the Romanization of the germanic tribes that invaded the Western Empire but don't consider them to be Romans but Franks, Ostrogoths, Wisigoths, Burgundians, Anglo-Saxons, etc...They did move away from what would be considered Roman culture, but so did the Byzantines.
And nowadays, the King of Spain still bears the title King of Jerusalem, the Two Sicilies and Corsica... You can check, that is actually in Felipe VI's titulature. And most of us know or acknowledge that these are nothing but nominal and ceremonial titles since he rules over none of the territories mentionned.Lee-Sensei said:Until the very end the Sultan had Roman titles. He was the Kayser i Rum.
The people living in Italy before the Ostrogothic invasion? Sure, they were probably referred as Romans. The Ostrogoths themselves? No.Lee-Sensei said:And yet the people living there were still being called Roman a hundred years later.
1) That's certainly what they considered themselves. Never the less, having Rome in his Empire lends legitimacy to Romes claimants. That's the point. They certainly didn't want it for it's economic value.Excuse me but technically Justinian had no need to conquer Italy to be acknowledged as Emperor of the Romans: he was already considered as such because what we call the Byzantine Empire is simply the Eastern Roman Empire. After the Western Roman Empire disappeared, there only was one Emperor left: the one ruling in Constantinople. The reason he wanted to reconquer Italy came out of Justinian's desire to restore the Roman Empire in all its glory: that meant recovering the Western Part of the Empire, and more importantly Rome. It was never a question of legitimacy since Constantinople was considered as important as Rome politically and because, as mentioned before, Justinian already was acknowledged as Roman Emperor: it was a question of prestige and bringing back the Golden Age of Roman power in the eyes of Justinian. You could also see it as a way for Justinian to restore Roman authority over the region since the Ostrogoth were supposed to be vassals (feoderati is the word that gave us feudal) to the Romans.
It's not really a question about whether Islam is compatible with Roman identity. It's a question of whether or not we can consider the Turks to be Romans or at least their successors/continuators, which is arguably pretty debatable and contestable.
Source for this?
As far as I know, the Europeans never considered the Turks to be Romans or their successors. To them, the Turks were just foreign conquerors who took over Constantinople and the former territories of the Eastern Roman Empire. They never referred to the Turks as Romans and to their Sultans as the Roman Emperor or successor. The same way, the Ottomans' arch-enemy, the Shahs of Iran/Persia, never called them Romans... And that's coming from a country that had historically been an enemy of the Byzantine Empire!
Besides, as far as I know, the Turks used the word Rumi to describe their European subjects... Not themselves.
The big difference is that the Byzantines moving away from ancient Roman culture was a result of cultural evolution within the Byzantine Empire. The Turks already had their own culture before they invaded Constantinople and they didn't switch identity that much: at best you could argue they romanized a bit but even that wouldn't be enough to consider Romans. It's the same way we acknowledge the Romanization of the germanic tribes that invaded the Western Empire but don't consider them to be Romans but Franks, Ostrogoths, Wisigoths, Burgundians, Anglo-Saxons, etc...
And nowadays, the King of Spain still bears the title King of Jerusalem, the Two Sicilies and Corsica... You can check, that is actually in Felipe VI's titulature. And most of us know or acknowledge that these are nothing but nominal and ceremonial titles since he rules over none of the territories mentionned.
The Sultan calling himself Kaysar-i-Rum is no different. It's a title that he nominally claim but that held no real value. Not to mention, he was more often referred to as Sultan or Caliph by his own subjects and that the title of Kaysar-i-Rum fell in disuse after the death of Mehmed II.
The people living in Italy before the Ostrogothic invasion? Sure, they were probably referred as Romans. The Ostrogoths themselves? No.
The same way there was a distinction between the Franks and their Gallo-Roman subjects, you had a distinction between the Ostrogoths and the (Italo-)Romans. The Turks made the same distinction between themselves and the Rumi they ruled over.
"Rome can not have a Christian identity and be Rome any more than I can call myself their Jesus Christ and not be declared either insane or blasphemous"
That they considered themselves successor of Rome, I did know. That they were considered as successors to Rome by others widely is something I've never heard of. Basically, the way I understand the Ottomans' claim to be the Third Rome is that only the Ottomans agreed to that claim more or less.Lee-Sensei said:You don't even know the Ottoman considered themselves successors of Rome?
Actually, they did recognize the Byzantines as Romans in the early years that followed the fall of Rome. Problems started to appear around the time Irene became Empress in Constantinople: her coronation is one of the reasons the Pope eventually crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the West. After that, tensions between the East and the West started to pull them apart, to the point the Westerners refused to acknowledge Byzantium as the Roman Empire.Lee-Sensei said:3) The Europeans didn't consider Byzantium Rome either. Not in the west at least and not in Italy. And I'd count there word on who's Roman moee than any other European. They called it Imperium Graecorum for understandable reasons.
They still didn't became Romans. Being romanized isn't the same as becoming Roman: the Franks, Ostrogoths, Wisigoths and other germanic tribes adopted some Roman customs but they also kept their own.Lee-Sensei said:4) The Germans that migrated into Itale assimilated into the Latin culture as they were in France, Spain and the other Latin regions of Europe.
Marrying into Roman aristocratic families, keeping Roman institutions and being recognized by the Church is also something that happened with the Germanic tribes that invaded the Western Roman Empire. Same with taking Roman titles to a certain degree. As for occupying the same space and playing the same role in geopolitics, the two go hand and they say nothing about the institutions: it's also not the first time a conqueror takes over a previous' empire's lands as that happened regularly in Mesopotamia during Antiquity. Hell, that's basically Iran/Persia's history in a nutshell. As for taking Byzantium as a capital, it's nothing but symbolic and it means jack on paper.Lee-Sensei said:5) The Ottomans had dynastic ties to Byzantine aristocrats, kept several Byzantine institutions, were recognized by the Eastern Orthodox church, occupied the same space, played the same role in geopolitics, took Byzantine titles and made the Byzantine capital their capital. Personally, I consider it a separate state, but the argument has been made before.