4 ms·

I would say that it is hard to justify calling any nation where the majority religion is not Christianity (or Christianity that overtime has converted to Christ

I would say that it is hard to justify calling any nation where the majority religion is not Christianity (or Christianity that overtime has converted to Christian Atheism/Agnosticism) a descendant of Rome. As a predominantly Islamic country, I would argue this precludes the Ottomans from being considered a continuation of Rome.

skywal_l 4y ago
Rome became a christian empire pretty late in its history. One might even think that this accelerated its downfall. Originally, Rome was a multi-theist "pagan" empire were the gods of conquered lands could be integrated into the Roman pantheon (most of the original roman gods were greek gods after all). So we could have seen an islamic roman empire in the late stage which, according to the parent is what the ottomans apparently considered themselves to be.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  I don't think this makes a lot of sense as a framing. Although the idea of being the "Continuation of Rome" is sometimes seen to be about dominance over the same areas as the Roman Empire more broadly it is meant as having ideological foundations that began in Rome. And I would argue it is near impossible for the Ottomans to fit this description especially as they were increasingly Islamic and presented themselves as leaders of the pan-islamic world which I think we would agree could not be genuinely thought of as a continuation of Rome. Wikipedia tends to support this interpretation (I know it's wikipedia but still it does back up what I have read in various books about Rome and its aftermath in hearts and mind). Islam is a totalising belief system that claims supremacy and a "blank slate" to the states that have it as a political ideology. This is in direct conflict with claiming to be a successor to the Roman Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_success... > Recognition of the Ottoman claim to be Roman emperors was variable, both outside and within the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were widely accepted as Romans in the Islamic world, with the sultans being recognized as Roman emperors. The majority of the Christian populace of the Ottoman Empire also recognized the sultans as their new emperors, but views differed among the cultural elite. Some saw the Ottomans as infidels, barbarians and illegitimate tyrants, others saw them as divinely ordained as punishment for the sins of the Byzantine people and others yet accepted them as the new emperors. From at least 1474 onwards, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized the sultans by the title basileus. Whereas views were variable in regards to the legitimacy of the Ottomans as sovereigns, they were consistent in that the Ottoman Empire as a state was not seen as the seamless continuation of the Roman Empire, but rather its heir and successor, as the former empire had far too deep theological roots to be compatible with a foreign Muslim ruler. Thus, the former Byzantines saw the Ottoman Empire as inheriting the political legitimacy and right to universal rule of the preceding empire, but not its other theological implications. In Western Europe, where the Byzantine emperors had not been recognized as Roman either, the Ottomans were generally seen as emperors, but not Roman emperors. Views on whether the Ottoman sultans were the successors of the Byzantine emperors or a completely new set of rulers varied among westerners. The right of the Ottoman sultans to style themselves as Roman emperors and claim universal rule was challenged for centuries by the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire, both of whom claimed this dignity for themselves.
  - mcv 4y ago
    I'm not sure what your point here is exactly. Wikipedia supports the idea that the Ottomans claimed to be the successors of Rome, and that many people inside and outside the Ottoman Empire accepted that claim. Not of course the opponents of the Ottoman Empire, who had their own claim to be the successors of Rome, and legitimising that claim meant rejecting the Ottoman claim, but it's pretty hard to argue that their claim was more legitimate than the Ottoman claim. Especially in a discussion that started with the claim that > Spain, the Netherlands, the British Empire and now the United States can be considered as a continuation of Rome it's pretty hard to argue that the Ottomans did not have a claim that's at least as valid as those.
    - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
      Mainly this line: > they were consistent in that the Ottoman Empire as a state was not seen as the seamless continuation of the Roman Empire, but rather its heir and successor, as the former empire had far too deep theological roots to be compatible with a foreign Muslim ruler. Thus, the former Byzantines saw the Ottoman Empire as inheriting the political legitimacy and right to universal rule of the preceding empire, but not its other theological implications. The theological implication tie heavily into the civilizational ideals that a society is based upon even to the modern day. Try and understand modern China without Confucianism for example. The import of Islam into the Ottoman empire was a clear break between any theological/ideological basis that could tie it to Rome and therefore it is not a continuation of Rome. Whereas all the other nations mentioned retained Christianity which for thousands of years was transmitted through the church into these nations and is the oldest institution that remains of Rome. If a nation is not majority Christian (or post-christian) in my view it is unable to claim to be a continuation of Rome in the most meaningful sense (as a transmitter of the major ideas and conventions that held sway in that society).
      - mcv 4y ago
        Yeah, but Rome itself also adopted a new religion towards its end. It was pagan for most of its existence, and turned Christian towards the end. It's true that Russia has claimed the theological inheritance of the Christian eastern Roman Empire with Moscow as the Third Rome, but that still doesn't explain how Spain, Great Britain, the US and the Netherlands could possibly be considered successors.

skywal_l 4y ago

Rome became a christian empire pretty late in its history. One might even think that this accelerated its downfall. Originally, Rome was a multi-theist "pagan" empire were the gods of conquered lands could be integrated into the Roman pantheon (most of the original roman gods were greek gods after all). So we could have seen an islamic roman empire in the late stage which, according to the parent is what the ottomans apparently considered themselves to be.

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
I don't think this makes a lot of sense as a framing. Although the idea of being the "Continuation of Rome" is sometimes seen to be about dominance over the same areas as the Roman Empire more broadly it is meant as having ideological foundations that began in Rome. And I would argue it is near impossible for the Ottomans to fit this description especially as they were increasingly Islamic and presented themselves as leaders of the pan-islamic world which I think we would agree could not be genuinely thought of as a continuation of Rome. Wikipedia tends to support this interpretation (I know it's wikipedia but still it does back up what I have read in various books about Rome and its aftermath in hearts and mind). Islam is a totalising belief system that claims supremacy and a "blank slate" to the states that have it as a political ideology. This is in direct conflict with claiming to be a successor to the Roman Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_success... > Recognition of the Ottoman claim to be Roman emperors was variable, both outside and within the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were widely accepted as Romans in the Islamic world, with the sultans being recognized as Roman emperors. The majority of the Christian populace of the Ottoman Empire also recognized the sultans as their new emperors, but views differed among the cultural elite. Some saw the Ottomans as infidels, barbarians and illegitimate tyrants, others saw them as divinely ordained as punishment for the sins of the Byzantine people and others yet accepted them as the new emperors. From at least 1474 onwards, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized the sultans by the title basileus. Whereas views were variable in regards to the legitimacy of the Ottomans as sovereigns, they were consistent in that the Ottoman Empire as a state was not seen as the seamless continuation of the Roman Empire, but rather its heir and successor, as the former empire had far too deep theological roots to be compatible with a foreign Muslim ruler. Thus, the former Byzantines saw the Ottoman Empire as inheriting the political legitimacy and right to universal rule of the preceding empire, but not its other theological implications. In Western Europe, where the Byzantine emperors had not been recognized as Roman either, the Ottomans were generally seen as emperors, but not Roman emperors. Views on whether the Ottoman sultans were the successors of the Byzantine emperors or a completely new set of rulers varied among westerners. The right of the Ottoman sultans to style themselves as Roman emperors and claim universal rule was challenged for centuries by the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire, both of whom claimed this dignity for themselves.
- mcv 4y ago
  I'm not sure what your point here is exactly. Wikipedia supports the idea that the Ottomans claimed to be the successors of Rome, and that many people inside and outside the Ottoman Empire accepted that claim. Not of course the opponents of the Ottoman Empire, who had their own claim to be the successors of Rome, and legitimising that claim meant rejecting the Ottoman claim, but it's pretty hard to argue that their claim was more legitimate than the Ottoman claim. Especially in a discussion that started with the claim that > Spain, the Netherlands, the British Empire and now the United States can be considered as a continuation of Rome it's pretty hard to argue that the Ottomans did not have a claim that's at least as valid as those.
  - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
    Mainly this line: > they were consistent in that the Ottoman Empire as a state was not seen as the seamless continuation of the Roman Empire, but rather its heir and successor, as the former empire had far too deep theological roots to be compatible with a foreign Muslim ruler. Thus, the former Byzantines saw the Ottoman Empire as inheriting the political legitimacy and right to universal rule of the preceding empire, but not its other theological implications. The theological implication tie heavily into the civilizational ideals that a society is based upon even to the modern day. Try and understand modern China without Confucianism for example. The import of Islam into the Ottoman empire was a clear break between any theological/ideological basis that could tie it to Rome and therefore it is not a continuation of Rome. Whereas all the other nations mentioned retained Christianity which for thousands of years was transmitted through the church into these nations and is the oldest institution that remains of Rome. If a nation is not majority Christian (or post-christian) in my view it is unable to claim to be a continuation of Rome in the most meaningful sense (as a transmitter of the major ideas and conventions that held sway in that society).
    - mcv 4y ago
      Yeah, but Rome itself also adopted a new religion towards its end. It was pagan for most of its existence, and turned Christian towards the end. It's true that Russia has claimed the theological inheritance of the Christian eastern Roman Empire with Moscow as the Third Rome, but that still doesn't explain how Spain, Great Britain, the US and the Netherlands could possibly be considered successors.