Why do some believe the Ottomans are a continuation of the Roman Empire?

This is something I’ve seen brought up repeatedly in discussions relating to either of the two. Frankly, I’m not sure why this is so. They had very little in common besides being based out of Constantinople and (kinda) ruling over the same geographical areas. Some people even take it a step further and suggest the Eastern Roman Empire really ended in 1922, which is honestly ludicrous, because if simply owning Constantinople made you the automatic successor to Rome, the Republic of Turkey would be considered as such.


As far as I’m aware only Mehmed himself ever took the claim of Caesar-I-Rum seriously. Almost none of the Sultans after him ever believed themselves to be continuing the Roman state in anywhere other than propaganda or diplomatic interactions. So why do people still think this?
 
I don't think it's a very common occurrence when people think the Ottomans of as a legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire. As you said, even the Ottomans did not take their Roman titles seriously after Mehmed II and styled themselves as a distinctly Turkish entity, although they could've theoretically stressed their position as Romans in opposition to Russia, who did consider themselves as the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire.
 
This is something I’ve seen brought up repeatedly in discussions relating to either of the two. Frankly, I’m not sure why this is so. They had very little in common besides being based out of Constantinople and (kinda) ruling over the same geographical areas. Some people even take it a step further and suggest the Eastern Roman Empire really ended in 1922, which is honestly ludicrous, because if simply owning Constantinople made you the automatic successor to Rome, the Republic of Turkey would be considered as such.


As far as I’m aware only Mehmed himself ever took the claim of Caesar-I-Rum seriously. Almost none of the Sultans after him ever believed themselves to be continuing the Roman state in anywhere other than propaganda or diplomatic interactions. So why do people still think this?
The greek Used it, and the Osmali pushed it very hard plus Rome was considered a Mediterranean polity and they got half of it at their zenith.

Plus if some germans who never fully owned rome called themselves the roman empire, the greek and them the Osmanli have the same right with their new rome too
 
The Trapuzentines, the Austrians, Spanish, French, Russians (on an on and off basis), Iranians and Chinese recognized the ottomans as the legal successor of the Byzantines. Who were the successors of Rome. The Ottomans may not have stressed the title, but that doesn't mean it wasn't (half-true at least) true. The Roman Schism between the Ottomans and the HRE is an interesting thing to look into and often overlooked by many. I would recommend reading up on it. Charles V and Ferdinand I certainly addressed the Ottomans as the Caesar of Rome.
 
Ottomans demanded Austria to humiliate itself and only call the Sultan emperor, not using the imperial title for itself when dealing with ottomans until peace of Karlovitz. So claiming no one except Mehmed cared is not correct. It even had to pay tribute to “Rome”. Ottomans took from Byzantines the food, music, court and administration, architecture and a decent chunk of philosophy. Ottomans were the same mixture of population that Byzantines were with a bit of Turkic added in.
The reason Turks are not seen as Roman. They’re not Christian and they were the big antagonist for centuries of Christian Europe. They can’t be done because to Europeans Rome was them.
I don’t see Byzantines as Romans, but if you do I don’t see how Ottomans aren’t.
 
The Trapuzentines, the Austrians, Spanish, French, Russians (on an on and off basis), Iranians and Chinese recognized the ottomans as the legal successor of the Byzantines. Who were the successors of Rome. The Ottomans may not have stressed the title, but that doesn't mean it wasn't (half-true at least) true. The Roman Schism between the Ottomans and the HRE is an interesting thing to look into and often overlooked by many. I would recommend reading up on it. Charles V and Ferdinand I certainly addressed the Ottomans as the Caesar of Rome.
From what I checked it has to do more with a tantrum or view of the ottoman empire rather than true acknowledgement on part of the habsburgs seen by the treaty of constantinople in 1533
 
Ottomans demanded Austria to humiliate itself and only call the Sultan emperor, not using the imperial title for itself when dealing with ottomans until peace of Karlovitz. So claiming no one except Mehmed cared is not correct. It even had to pay tribute to “Rome”. Ottomans took from Byzantines the food, music, court and administration, architecture and a decent chunk of philosophy. Ottomans were the same mixture of population that Byzantines were with a bit of Turkic added in.
The reason Turks are not seen as Roman. They’re not Christian and they were the big antagonist for centuries of Christian Europe. They can’t be done because to Europeans Rome was them.
I don’t see Byzantines as Romans, but if you do I don’t see how Ottomans aren’t.
Because unlike the ottomans or any one for that matter they actually had a legitimate continuity the eastern empire was new conqueror it was an admistritive division that survived and kept going uninterrumped till 1204 ( which some consider to be the date of the fall of the roman empire )

The change or religon was not due to an outside force Christianity originated in the Roman empire and a roman emperor legalized it and another one made it it's religon , islam was born out of it and brought and adopted by an out side power been the turks .

So yeah there are plenty of arguments as to why would some one consider the Byzantines to be the Roman empire and not the ottoman
 
a distinctly Turkish entity,
Perso-Turkic is IMO a more accurate description - the Ottomans identified more closely with the settled Persianate empires of the East (although they did indeed base their empire in Rumelia), not with the illiterate peasantry.
Ottomans demanded Austria to humiliate itself and only call the Sultan emperor, not using the imperial title for itself when dealing with ottomans until peace of Karlovitz.
Charles V and Ferdinand I certainly addressed the Ottomans as the Caesar of Rome.
This is a misunderstanding of the affair. To the Ottomans the Sultan was superior to all monarchs; their monarchy was theoretically universal (yes, this was a Greek influence, though likely not directly). To recognize the Holy Roman Emperor as an Emperor - a title which also connoted universal monarchy - was to make him equal to the Sultan, when to the Porte the Ottoman equivalent of foreign monarchs was the Grand Vizier.
So claiming no one except Mehmed cared is not correct.
The Trapuzentines, the Austrians, Spanish, French, Russians (on an on and off basis), Iranians and Chinese recognized the ottomans as the legal successor of the Byzantines. Who were the successors of Rome...
It's not that Mehmed was the only one who cared; he was the only who seriously had pretensions of restoring the Roman (=Byzantine) Empire and was the only one who fashioned himself as a direct successor to the Roman Emperors, from Augustus to Constantine XI. The others merely treated it as a principally geographic title; the Ottomans were part of the Roman geographic sphere to the rest of the Islamic world (and to China), and their heartland was indeed Rum (=Rumelia), while the birthplace of the dynasty was Anatolia (also considered geographically part of Rum). To tell a Sultan that he was not Rum would have dumbfounded him; he would not have had the ability to see Rome through a faux-Latinate veneer.
Ottomans took from Byzantines the food, music, court and administration, architecture and a decent chunk of philosophy.
I don't see how being influenced makes the Ottomans 'Romans' -- they were also influenced by the Arabs and the Persians, after all.
Ottomans were the same mixture of population that Byzantines were with a bit of Turkic added in.
This does not make them a continuation of the Roman Empire -- all it means is that the Ottomans considered themselves to be ruling over Roman lands (without actually identifying as 'Roman' themselves).
... big antagonist for centuries of Christian Europe.
Not really, no: they were principally the 'antagonists' of Austria and her allies, not all of Europe (France, for instance, had a strong alliance with the Ottomans well into the 18th century).
 
This is something I’ve seen brought up repeatedly in discussions relating to either of the two. Frankly, I’m not sure why this is so. They had very little in common besides being based out of Constantinople and (kinda) ruling over the same geographical areas. Some people even take it a step further and suggest the Eastern Roman Empire really ended in 1922, which is honestly ludicrous, because if simply owning Constantinople made you the automatic successor to Rome, the Republic of Turkey would be considered as such.


As far as I’m aware only Mehmed himself ever took the claim of Caesar-I-Rum seriously. Almost none of the Sultans after him ever believed themselves to be continuing the Roman state in anywhere other than propaganda or diplomatic interactions. So why do people still think this?
It's principally a misunderstanding of the title altogether -- Rome to most people (as a result of the Enlightenment, really) connotes Italy, Augustus, and the Colosseum, when to the Ottomans this distinction did not exist. Rome was really all they knew; their Empire was centered in Roman lands (Rumelia) and they were from Anatolia (Rum). Furthermore, their capital was New Rome (Constantinople); to tell an Ottoman (in this case, a member of the bureaucratic-military elite) he was not Roman (at least in a geographic sense) would have been baffling for him.
 
Last edited:
Ottomans demanded Austria to humiliate itself and only call the Sultan emperor, not using the imperial title for itself when dealing with ottomans until peace of Karlovitz. So claiming no one except Mehmed cared is not correct. It even had to pay tribute to “Rome”. Ottomans took from Byzantines the food, music, court and administration, architecture and a decent chunk of philosophy. Ottomans were the same mixture of population that Byzantines were with a bit of Turkic added in.
The reason Turks are not seen as Roman. They’re not Christian and they were the big antagonist for centuries of Christian Europe. They can’t be done because to Europeans Rome was them.
I don’t see Byzantines as Romans, but if you do I don’t see how Ottomans aren’t.
The Byzantines were not a “successor” of Rome, they were Rome. The same one as Augustus and Trajan. There is no comparison between the “Byzantines” and the Ottomans.
 
This is a misunderstanding of the affair. To the Ottomans the Sultan was superior to all monarchs; their monarchy was theoretically universal (yes, this was a Greek influence, though likely not directly). To recognize the Holy Roman Emperor as an Emperor - a title which also connoted universal monarchy - was to make him equal to the Sultan, when to the Porte the Ottoman equivalent of foreign monarchs was the Grand Vizier.
And? And that certainly does not dissuade the point. Charles V, Ferdinand I, Francis I, Manuel I, all the strongest monarchs of Europe wrote to the Ottoman Sultan, Selim I and later Suleiman I as Caesar of Rome, not Rumelia as you call. The title was relevant as far as the Crimean War. According to the Crimean War by Orlando Figes, Sultan Abdulmejid I, with tacit support from Napoleon III and Palmerston complained to Russia otl during the Russian ultimatum that the Russian demands were not sustainable as it would infringe on Abdulmejid I's title of Roman Emperor. The Crimean War declaration from the British Parliament also wrote down Abdulmejid I as the Caesar of Rome as one of his titles when naming him as their ally, not Rumelia.
It's not that Mehmed was the only one who cared; he was the only who seriously had pretensions of restoring the Roman (=Byzantine) Empire and was the only one who fashioned himself as a direct successor to the Roman Emperors, from Augustus to Constantine XI. The others merely treated it as a principally geographic title; the Ottomans were part of the Roman geographic sphere to the rest of the Islamic world (and to China), and their heartland was indeed Rum (=Rumelia), while the birthplace of the dynasty was Anatolia (also considered geographically part of Rum). To tell a Sultan that he was not Rum would have dumbfounded him; he would not have had the ability to see Rome through a faux-Latinate veneer.
It was Murad III and Ahmed I who tied the title to Rumelia. From Chapter 28 of Osman's Dream
1619932533805.png


From what I checked it has to do more with a tantrum or view of the ottoman empire rather than true acknowledgement on part of the habsburgs seen by the treaty of constantinople in 1533
it may have been a tantrum, but it did lead to the Habsburgs agreeing to recognize the Sultans as Caesars.

The Byzantines were not a “successor” of Rome, they were Rome. The same one as Augustus and Trajan. There is no comparison between the “Byzantines” and the Ottomans.
What more of a legal argument in the feudal era is needed outside of recognition from the great monarchs of europe?
 
Last edited:
Because unlike the ottomans or any one for that matter they actually had a legitimate continuity the eastern empire was new conqueror it was an admistritive division that survived and kept going uninterrumped till 1204 ( which some consider to be the date of the fall of the roman empire )

The change or religon was not due to an outside force Christianity originated in the Roman empire and a roman emperor legalized it and another one made it it's religon , islam was born out of it and brought and adopted by an out side power been the turks .

So yeah there are plenty of arguments as to why would some one consider the Byzantines to be the Roman empire and not the ottoman

Actual legitimacy based on what? They spoke Greek, used Greek for religion, the line of Roman emperors was extinguished within a short period since fall of Rome and replaced by local nobles and power brokers. Change of religion was due to topside force. The discrimination of pagans, destruction of Roman culture and temples, persecution of priesthood’s, forbidding of religious practices. Empire was born trough conquest of Roman republic itself and destruction of milenia of tradition.
Perso-Turkic is IMO a more accurate description - the Ottomans identified more closely with the settled Persianate empires of the East (although they did indeed base their empire in Rumelia), not with the illiterate peasantry.


This is a misunderstanding of the affair. To the Ottomans the Sultan was superior to all monarchs; their monarchy was theoretically universal (yes, this was a Greek influence, though likely not directly). To recognize the Holy Roman Emperor as an Emperor - a title which also connoted universal monarchy - was to make him equal to the Sultan, when to the Porte the Ottoman equivalent of foreign monarchs was the Grand Vizier.


It's not that Mehmed was the only one who cared; he was the only who seriously had pretensions of restoring the Roman (=Byzantine) Empire and was the only one who fashioned himself as a direct successor to the Roman Emperors, from Augustus to Constantine XI. The others merely treated it as a principally geographic title; the Ottomans were part of the Roman geographic sphere to the rest of the Islamic world (and to China), and their heartland was indeed Rum (=Rumelia), while the birthplace of the dynasty was Anatolia (also considered geographically part of Rum). To tell a Sultan that he was not Rum would have dumbfounded him; he would not have had the ability to see Rome through a faux-Latinate veneer.

I don't see how being influenced makes the Ottomans 'Romans' -- they were also influenced by the Arabs and the Persians, after all.

This does not make them a continuation of the Roman Empire -- all it means is that the Ottomans considered themselves to be ruling over Roman lands (without actually identifying as 'Roman' themselves).

Not really, no: they were principally the 'antagonists' of Austria and her allies, not all of Europe (France, for instance, had a strong alliance with the Ottomans well into the 18th century).
Is Latin Empire Roman to you and how is it’s conquest different from various civil wars and murder plots to seize the crown? What measure of likeness to Rome itself needs to exist for someone to be considered Roman?
The Byzantines were not a “successor” of Rome, they were Rome. The same one as Augustus and Trajan. There is no comparison between the “Byzantines” and the Ottomans.
You can make that argument in the beginning just when Western Rome fell. Afterwards nope. It was a Greek empire pretending to be Rome, ruled by Greeks who had no relation to imperial line who murdered their way to the throne.
 
Actual legitimacy based on what? They spoke Greek, used Greek for religion, the line of Roman emperors was extinguished within a short period since fall of Rome and replaced by local nobles and power brokers. Change of religion was due to topside force. The discrimination of pagans, destruction of Roman culture and temples, persecution of priesthood’s, forbidding of religious practices. Empire was born trough conquest of Roman republic itself and destruction of milenia of tradition
They they were the Roman empire and not an outsider / conqueror clamimg to be
Also the the line of roman emperor were extinguished? In the west maybe but not In the east
And they used greek ? You mean they way they did for centuries before?

The empire did persecute the pagans sure but then again it was the empire not an outsider group pressing it's religion if we are going to talk about the replacement of tradition then I guess the Roman empire fell with diocletian

"You can make that argument in the beginning just when Western Rome fell. Afterwards nope. It was a Greek empire pretending to be Rome, ruled by Greeks who had no relation to imperial line who murdered their way to the throne."

If we ignore Caracalla edit sure also userpation that's an argument now ? Oh ok then I guess rome fell when Vespasian took power .
As for the latin empire vs the civil wars
Again you said it civil wars it was done by people of the roman empire figthing for the throne of the roman empire

The latin empire was band of crusaders that conquered the city and proclaimed it's ruler so a non roman entity conquering the roman capital
 
Last edited:
Actual legitimacy based on what? They spoke Greek, used Greek for religion, the line of Roman emperors was extinguished within a short period since fall of Rome and replaced by local nobles and power brokers. Change of religion was due to topside force. The discrimination of pagans, destruction of Roman culture and temples, persecution of priesthood’s, forbidding of religious practices. Empire was born trough conquest of Roman republic itself and destruction of milenia of tradition.
I don't understand this argument. Greek was always a lingua franca of the eastern half of the empire : in Palestine, Egypt, Syria it was used more than Latin, which is why the New Testament was written in it - it was the language that could reach the most people in the region. The East empire dropped Latin as an administrative language because it was not needed.

Emperors were regularly overthrown throughout the history of Rome, that was nothing new.

As for the abolition of paganism, that happened in the whole empire, east and west. There was a religious argument that the ERE was not legitimate, but that was based on the schism and the Pope recognizing Charlemagne. But most people at the time did not really question this.
 
Last edited:
For those who do not think that Byzantium was Rome... at what point did it stop being Roman?

The Ottomans have as about as much claim to being the Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire or Tsarist Russia (i.e. none).
 
For those who do not think that Byzantium was Rome... at what point did it stop being Roman?

The Ottomans have as about as much claim to being the Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire or Tsarist Russia (i.e. none).
Exactly by that logic the latin emperors should be treated as roman emperors.
 
For those who do not think that Byzantium was Rome... at what point did it stop being Roman?

The Ottomans have as about as much claim to being the Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire or Tsarist Russia (i.e. none).
Twenty years anarchy. Following it the character of Byzantines under Isaurians definitely changed from the Roman imperial one.
Rome to me died first time with Augustus setting up the empire and second time with the fall of Rome.
 
And you don't think Diocletian changed the Empire's fundamental character rather more than Leo III did? Rome evolved, mate.
 
Top