4 ms·

> But now there was no genuine possibility of renewal — in 1453 Rome had truly fallen. I understand how different the Ottoman regime was, but they definitely u

> But now there was no genuine possibility of renewal — in 1453 Rome had truly fallen. I understand how different the Ottoman regime was, but they definitely used many of the already existing roman/byzantine power structures for their rule. Can one not view the Ottomans as another transformation within a continuum of the “Roman Empire”

nigerian1981 5y ago
After the fall of the Byzantine state in 1453, the Ottoman Turkish conqueror Sultan Mehmed II declared himself to have replaced the Byzantine ruler as the new Kayser-i Rum, literally "Caesar of the Romans”
- coldtea 5y ago
  That was just to claim the legitimacy and influence of the prior state he conquered. The western tribes that contributed to the fall of the actual Roman Empire also called themselves the "Holy Roman Empire" later.
einpoklum 5y ago
> many of the already existing roman/byzantine power structures for their rule Reference to justify this? Also, what is "many"? Assuming you don't mean "most", then, no, I don't see how you could justify that claim.
- ah27182 5y ago
  I cant say most, thats hard to argue. But definitely many, i found this Turkish book published online that lists out multiple claims of Byzantine influence: https://emagaza-ttk.ayk.gov.tr/detay/623/some-observations-on-the-influence-of-byzantine-institutions-on-ottoman-institutions-1999 https://emagaza-ttk.ayk.gov.tr/detay/623/some-observations-o... Im sure one can argue that this might be biased, but the influence is definitely there. Its a quick search online.
flexie 5y ago
Shouldn't one look at genetics as well? When a completely different ethnicity invaded and called themselves Roman, and copied the parts they wanted from Roman civilization, but without having almost any Roman ancestry, are we to consider them a continuation of the Roman civilization?
- inawarminister 5y ago
  Well then Rome died in the 600s as the Empire abandoned Latin language and adopted the language of the majority of it's population. Greek. If you're talking about ancestry, most Turks in Turkey are descended from Anatolian and Balkans populations so...
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> to consider them a continuation of the Roman civilization? Yes. A civilization is not a race. It is something above biology. The fact that nobody running things is related to the founder of a civilization does not mean that civilization has somehow fallen and been replaced anew. It means that, at most, a particular regime has fallen from power. Civilizations are larger than their leadership, even their founders. Would anything really change if one day we realized that nobody in the US congress was a blood relation of the founding fathers? I doubt anyone would see that as anything other than an interesting blip in a new cycle.
  - agent327 5y ago
    There should, however, be a significant continuation of the culture for that to be true. A civilisation is also not just a bunch of people living in a geographical location. As an example, the current state of Egypt is not the heir to (or continuation of) the Egypt of the pharaohs. Instead they are the heirs to their conquerors, descended from Arab armies that conquered Hellenistic Egypt (which itself already had a dubious claim to any links with the original, pre-Greek invasion pharaohs). They speak a different language, pray to different gods, and have an altogether different culture; they just happen to live where the pharaohs once had their kingdoms.
    - 5y ago
coldtea 5y ago
It's not about maintaining some structures (which were widely different over time in the original Roman empire as well, e.g. from republic to divine emperor), it's about the culture. There was nothing of the Roman culture in the Ottomans. In fact, the Eastern empire was for its better part already very different culturally from the Roman empire, and was not run by people of latin ethnicity for most of its later life.
- muro 5y ago
  Emperors stopped to be of latin ethnicity much earlier, not after the move of the capital to Constantinople.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Sort of. A few were (Philip the Arab, for example), but many also conflate "not being born in Rome/Italy" with not having latin ethnicity. There were sizable pockets or latin ethnicity (including governors, nobility, and lots of commoners) established in different areas of the empire. Hispania for example was conquested and settled by romans (plus roman soldiers being send there, given land), so a "spanish" emperor is not exactly a non-roman emperor. Even Septimius Severus, which was born in Libya, had latin roman ancestry (albeit mixed with Phoenician).
jltsiren 5y ago
A major reason, and perhaps the most important one, is that the Ottomans never claimed that their empire was the Roman Empire. They claimed they had conquered the Roman Empire and annexed it into their empire. The Ottoman Sultan had many titles, and some of them were considered more important than "Caesar of Rome". They were the Sultan of Sultans, the Khan of Khans, and the Caliph first. They also considered Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem their most important possessions, and the Roman Empire only came after those.

nigerian1981 5y ago

After the fall of the Byzantine state in 1453, the Ottoman Turkish conqueror Sultan Mehmed II declared himself to have replaced the Byzantine ruler as the new Kayser-i Rum, literally "Caesar of the Romans”

coldtea 5y ago
That was just to claim the legitimacy and influence of the prior state he conquered. The western tribes that contributed to the fall of the actual Roman Empire also called themselves the "Holy Roman Empire" later.

einpoklum 5y ago

> many of the already existing roman/byzantine power structures for their rule Reference to justify this? Also, what is "many"? Assuming you don't mean "most", then, no, I don't see how you could justify that claim.

ah27182 5y ago
I cant say most, thats hard to argue. But definitely many, i found this Turkish book published online that lists out multiple claims of Byzantine influence: https://emagaza-ttk.ayk.gov.tr/detay/623/some-observations-on-the-influence-of-byzantine-institutions-on-ottoman-institutions-1999 https://emagaza-ttk.ayk.gov.tr/detay/623/some-observations-o... Im sure one can argue that this might be biased, but the influence is definitely there. Its a quick search online.

flexie 5y ago

Shouldn't one look at genetics as well? When a completely different ethnicity invaded and called themselves Roman, and copied the parts they wanted from Roman civilization, but without having almost any Roman ancestry, are we to consider them a continuation of the Roman civilization?

inawarminister 5y ago
Well then Rome died in the 600s as the Empire abandoned Latin language and adopted the language of the majority of it's population. Greek. If you're talking about ancestry, most Turks in Turkey are descended from Anatolian and Balkans populations so...
sandworm101 5y ago
>> to consider them a continuation of the Roman civilization? Yes. A civilization is not a race. It is something above biology. The fact that nobody running things is related to the founder of a civilization does not mean that civilization has somehow fallen and been replaced anew. It means that, at most, a particular regime has fallen from power. Civilizations are larger than their leadership, even their founders. Would anything really change if one day we realized that nobody in the US congress was a blood relation of the founding fathers? I doubt anyone would see that as anything other than an interesting blip in a new cycle.
- agent327 5y ago
  There should, however, be a significant continuation of the culture for that to be true. A civilisation is also not just a bunch of people living in a geographical location. As an example, the current state of Egypt is not the heir to (or continuation of) the Egypt of the pharaohs. Instead they are the heirs to their conquerors, descended from Arab armies that conquered Hellenistic Egypt (which itself already had a dubious claim to any links with the original, pre-Greek invasion pharaohs). They speak a different language, pray to different gods, and have an altogether different culture; they just happen to live where the pharaohs once had their kingdoms.
  - 5y ago

coldtea 5y ago

It's not about maintaining some structures (which were widely different over time in the original Roman empire as well, e.g. from republic to divine emperor), it's about the culture. There was nothing of the Roman culture in the Ottomans. In fact, the Eastern empire was for its better part already very different culturally from the Roman empire, and was not run by people of latin ethnicity for most of its later life.

muro 5y ago
Emperors stopped to be of latin ethnicity much earlier, not after the move of the capital to Constantinople.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Sort of. A few were (Philip the Arab, for example), but many also conflate "not being born in Rome/Italy" with not having latin ethnicity. There were sizable pockets or latin ethnicity (including governors, nobility, and lots of commoners) established in different areas of the empire. Hispania for example was conquested and settled by romans (plus roman soldiers being send there, given land), so a "spanish" emperor is not exactly a non-roman emperor. Even Septimius Severus, which was born in Libya, had latin roman ancestry (albeit mixed with Phoenician).

jltsiren 5y ago

A major reason, and perhaps the most important one, is that the Ottomans never claimed that their empire was the Roman Empire. They claimed they had conquered the Roman Empire and annexed it into their empire. The Ottoman Sultan had many titles, and some of them were considered more important than "Caesar of Rome". They were the Sultan of Sultans, the Khan of Khans, and the Caliph first. They also considered Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem their most important possessions, and the Roman Empire only came after those.