Would this Alternate Ottoman Empire be considered Roman?

Yes or No?


  • Total voters
    33

BlueThunder25

Gone Fishin'
Having minimal butterflies, would this Ottoman Empire be remembered by history as being Roman? How about being recognized during its existence?:
  • The official name is the Roman Empire starting from Osman, with the demonym being "Roman".
  • Across at least the Islamic world, the term “Roman” becomes synonymous with being a subject or citizen within the Ottoman Empire.
  • Latin is the co-official language alongside Turkish.
  • Technically, Mehmed II becomes Byzantine Emperor after the Fall of Constantinople, then annexes the Ottoman Empire. This makes the Ottomans a direct continuation from Ancient Rome.
  • The Grand Duchy of Moscow does not declare itself as Third Rome.
  • The Ottoman Empire considers itself to be the Third Rome (Islamic), with First Rome being from 753 BCE-380 CE (Pagan), and Second Rome being from 380 CE-1453 CE (Christian). The Coat of arms of the Ottomans is a double-headed eagle.
  • The Roman Senate is restored.
  • Ottoman Armies are called Legions.
  • The majority of Islamic and Greek people in the Empire consider themselves Romans including the government, military, and academics. This is reflected in writing.
Would it take more than this?

Edit: Opps. The answer "Yes" means that it would be considered Roman. Sorry for being unclear.
 
Last edited:
Having minimal butterflies, would this Ottoman Empire be remembered by history as being Roman? How about being recognized during its existence?:
  • The official name is the Roman Empire starting from Osman, with the demonym being "Roman".
  • Across at least the Islamic world, the term “Roman” becomes synonymous with being a subject or citizen within the Ottoman Empire.
  • Latin is the co-official language alongside Turkish.
  • Technically, Mehmed II becomes Byzantine Emperor after the Fall of Constantinople, then annexes the Ottoman Empire. This makes the Ottomans a direct continuation from Ancient Rome.
  • The Grand Duchy of Moscow does not declare itself as Third Rome.
  • The Ottoman Empire considers itself to be the Third Rome (Islamic), with First Rome being from 753 BCE-380 CE (Pagan), and Second Rome being from 380 CE-1453 CE (Christian). The Coat of arms of the Ottomans is a double-headed eagle.
  • The Roman Senate is restored.
  • Ottoman Armies are called Legions.
  • The majority of Islamic and Greek people in the Empire consider themselves Romans including the government, military, and academics. This is reflected in writing.
Would it take more than this?
Make it more Hellenic.
 
Would need to be Christian or else the whole thing doesn't work. Greeks wouldn't see the Turks as Roman if they remain Muslim. Nor would anybody else in Christendom see things from the Turkish point of view.
 

BlueThunder25

Gone Fishin'
Would need to be Christian or else the whole thing doesn't work. Greeks wouldn't see the Turks as Roman if they remain Muslim. Nor would anybody else in Christendom see things from the Turkish point of view.
By the logic that Romans need to be Christian, the Pagan Romans were never Roman.

That is where the Ottoman division of Rome into a Pagan, Christian, and Muslim periods comes from. The idea is that nations evolve over time.
 
Last edited:

Vuru

Banned
The thing is, at that time, being not christian automatically means you're a foreigner and not a part of european civilization
 
By the logic that Romans need to be Christian, the Pagan Romans were never Roman.

No. The way that it has been seen by the Catholic and Orthodox churches is that the Roman world was naturally virtuous in many respects and so was well prepared to receive the Gospel. That's why classical learning is so valued. An entirely new and foreign religion associated strongly with Arab culture would be seen as the end of the entire Roman tradition. There simply isn't room for it in the Greek mind or in any European Christian's wildest imagination, really.

That is where the Ottoman division of Rome into a Pagan, Christian, and Muslim periods comes from. The idea is that nations evolve over time.

That's basically just the common Muslim historical narrative. Christians would never accept it. ASB.
 
Last edited:
Having minimal butterflies, would this Ottoman Empire be remembered by history as being Roman? How about being recognized during its existence?:
  • The official name is the Roman Empire starting from Osman, with the demonym being "Roman".
Why would they even do this in the first place, you know-with the actual Empire right next to them? I could see a Sultanate of Rum type name (but that referred to their rule of Anatolia, not a claim of being Roman) happening or highlighting the claimed John Tzelpes Komnenos connection a lot more, but a demonym feels absurd.
  • Across at least the Islamic world, the term “Roman” becomes synonymous with being a subject or citizen within the Ottoman Empire.
Hard to believe, since they had known what exact the Romans were long before the Turks were in the picture. Not impossible though.

  • Latin is the co-official language alongside Turkish.
Why on earth?! Makes zero sense from a practical point. Greek might make sense, but Latin has zero utility as an official language-it may be a vanity of project of an Emperor or two but is going out of the window as soon as one person does not care enough (as it will be superficial to a ridiculous extent).

]
  • Technically, Mehmed II becomes Byzantine Emperor after the Fall of Constantinople, then annexes the Ottoman Empire. This makes the Ottomans a direct continuation from Ancient Rome.
Im skeptical if they would care to bother with this much ridiculous legalese, and if it possible in a meaningful way in the first place.

  • The Roman Senate is restored.
Again, why on earth? No one is going to go back to Republicanism (absolute ASB) but something like the Byzantine Senate is possible, but is again a vanity project that wont outlive the conqueror.

  • Ottoman Armies are called Legions.
Lolwut? Why on earth?

OK, so the big problem here is the demonym bit. The Turks were quite well aware who the Romans were and that they were distinct from them. Sure, Mehmet claimed to be Kaisar-i-Rum, but it was one of many titles (and he in fact was ruling over the Romans, so that is a legit claim) and it did not mean he assumed a Roman identity (being Lord of the Romans does not mean you are Roman). The Turks knew perfectly well that the Rum were Orthodox Christians and they were Turkish speaking Muslims since before Manzikert, and a single dynasty this late in the game is not going to change it. I mean, why on earth would a leader of a group of people who had espoused a different identity for eons (one orthogonal to Romanity in almost all ways-so not even a Bulgarian or Serbian esque excuse to work) would suddenly change his very ethnic identity overnight? This sounds like a time for a coup or a rival Beylik to flay them into dustbin of history. Late 13th century is too late for the dividing line between Roman and Turk to go away. A quick collapse post Manzikert could perhaps just barely pull this off (I am skeptical but I can see possibilities) but otherwise both sides knew that they were distinct people. You have a Sultan who is the Lord of Romans-great, the dhimmi know their place in the world! You have a Sultan who identifies as a Roman? Wait-that must mean he is an apostate who needs to be dealt with. Late 13th Century is waaay too late in the game for this to change, and the marginal utility is too strongly negative.

There is also the bit that the East did not exactly have to go to pre-Heraclius times to find Rome-they had it all along and knew what it was. 800 year anachronisms are unlikely to last beyond a single patron Sultan, but those could be tolerated as they cause no harm (then again, might just be the excuse the Jannisarries need for a coup). Christian Europe is never going to accept them to be Roman anyways (see the whole Irene of Athens fiasco and beyond for how much they recognized the actual Roman Empire), and such "Romanizations" will be so superficial that no serious historian will give it more than a passing glance. Won't stop AH debates though :p

You want a Roman Ottoman Empire? Here is how you do it: First Crusade fails, Anatolia remains Turkish and they need local manpower to rule-preferably local manpower of the right religion letting the ethnic dividing lines dont solidify as fast. Greece again conquers her conqueror when a Greek muslim called Osman in Bithynia rises to high office and seizes control of the beylik, which then expands to become the Ottoman Empire. A post 1204 collapse also may do the job, but the dividing lines are clearer and I don't really think it can be achieved.
 

BlueThunder25

Gone Fishin'
Why would they even do this in the first place, you know-with the actual Empire right next to them? I could see a Sultanate of Rum type name (but that referred to their rule of Anatolia, not a claim of being Roman) happening or highlighting the claimed John Tzelpes Komnenos connection a lot more, but a demonym feels absurd.
Hard to believe, since they had known what exact the Romans were long before the Turks were in the picture. Not impossible though.

Why on earth?! Makes zero sense from a practical point. Greek might make sense, but Latin has zero utility as an official language-it may be a vanity of project of an Emperor or two but is going out of the window as soon as one person does not care enough (as it will be superficial to a ridiculous extent).

Im skeptical if they would care to bother with this much ridiculous legalese, and if it possible in a meaningful way in the first place.

Again, why on earth? No one is going to go back to Republicanism (absolute ASB) but something like the Byzantine Senate is possible, but is again a vanity project that wont outlive the conqueror.

Lolwut? Why on earth?

OK, so the big problem here is the demonym bit. The Turks were quite well aware who the Romans were and that they were distinct from them. Sure, Mehmet claimed to be Kaisar-i-Rum, but it was one of many titles (and he in fact was ruling over the Romans, so that is a legit claim) and it did not mean he assumed a Roman identity (being Lord of the Romans does not mean you are Roman). The Turks knew perfectly well that the Rum were Orthodox Christians and they were Turkish speaking Muslims since before Manzikert, and a single dynasty this late in the game is not going to change it. I mean, why on earth would a leader of a group of people who had espoused a different identity for eons (one orthogonal to Romanity in almost all ways-so not even a Bulgarian or Serbian esque excuse to work) would suddenly change his very ethnic identity overnight? This sounds like a time for a coup or a rival Beylik to flay them into dustbin of history. Late 13th century is too late for the dividing line between Roman and Turk to go away. A quick collapse post Manzikert could perhaps just barely pull this off (I am skeptical but I can see possibilities) but otherwise both sides knew that they were distinct people. You have a Sultan who is the Lord of Romans-great, the dhimmi know their place in the world! You have a Sultan who identifies as a Roman? Wait-that must mean he is an apostate who needs to be dealt with. Late 13th Century is waaay too late in the game for this to change, and the marginal utility is too strongly negative.

There is also the bit that the East did not exactly have to go to pre-Heraclius times to find Rome-they had it all along and knew what it was. 800 year anachronisms are unlikely to last beyond a single patron Sultan, but those could be tolerated as they cause no harm (then again, might just be the excuse the Jannisarries need for a coup). Christian Europe is never going to accept them to be Roman anyways (see the whole Irene of Athens fiasco and beyond for how much they recognized the actual Roman Empire), and such "Romanizations" will be so superficial that no serious historian will give it more than a passing glance. Won't stop AH debates though :p

You want a Roman Ottoman Empire? Here is how you do it: First Crusade fails, Anatolia remains Turkish and they need local manpower to rule-preferably local manpower of the right religion letting the ethnic dividing lines dont solidify as fast. Greece again conquers her conqueror when a Greek muslim called Osman in Bithynia rises to high office and seizes control of the beylik, which then expands to become the Ottoman Empire. A post 1204 collapse also may do the job, but the dividing lines are clearer and I don't really think it can be achieved.
ITTL the Ottomans consider themselves Romans from the very beginning and also try to be Romans, it is not an overnight change.
 

BlueThunder25

Gone Fishin'
Ok. Maybe the Ottomans are not accepted to be Roman at first, but give it a few centuries and maybe they would be accepted in the western world?

How about historians? Would historians believe that the Roman civilization lasted from 753 BCE-1922/1923 CE?
 
ITTL the Ottomans consider themselves Romans from the very beginning and also try to be Romans, it is not an overnight change.

My point is that it is effectively signing a suicide note. Osman became big as he was Ghazi (slayer of infidels fyi) and a damn good one at that-not exactly a career choice made by a Roman. I don't think a Roman wannabe Turk is going to make it big anywhere, without a pre-existing population of muslims who identify as Romans. For that the POD needs to go back to at least Manzikert if they are Turkish speaking, and will definitely not lead to anything similar to the Ottoman Empire we see today. It is far more likely that a more "Orthodox" beylik would stamp it out long before making it big.

FYI: OTL Osman claimed to be descended from John Tzelpes Komnenos (Grandson of Alexios I Komnenos himself)-if that was not enough to make them claim to be Roman (correctly reflecting ethnic identities in that era, which were strongly tied to religion), then it is hard to see what else will (similarly 14th century marriages to Palaiologoi had no effect on the demonym of OTL Ottomans). You will absolutely need a population of Roman muslims in Anatolia long before one of them (mayhaps called Osman) could even conceive making an Empire, forget actually succeeding while sandwiched between the actual Empire and actual Turks.

The point is simple: You are Christian if you are Roman and you are not Roman if you are not. This idea was true from the middle of the seventh century. It is not that it cant be changed, but late thirteenth century (OTL time for Osman I) is too late for it. You can have the Osmanli as Christian Roman Emperors if they convert and join the Roman ethnicity or you can have something like OTL Ottoman Empire-but anything else seems as likely as all the air in my room moving to a single cubic inch in the corner.
 
Top