>overthrows the emperor of Rome
>declared Caesar of the Romans by the Patriarch of Constantinople himself
>his realm consitutes the east roman lands
>his people call themselves Romans
The Ottomans are a legitimate roman dynasty
>overthrows the emperor of Rome. >declared Caesar of the Romans by the Patriarch of Constantinople himself
>ywn see kanuni govern and bring up the glorious ottoman empire
why even live
Mehmet II was the only Ottoman Roman emperor; no one after him cared about Rome
>Mehmet II was the only Ottoman Roman emperor; no one after him cared about Rome
No, Maumetus II founded his own Roman dynasty. Every emperor after him from the Maumetian line was just as Roman as him.
He's as much of a legitimate roman dynast as any emperor of the
>
>
>
People always pull this crap to legitimize themselves in the eyes of both their own people and foreigners.
I never understood how people consider emperor heinrich bronkenliengenliech a larper but wali iban walid is the real desl becuz he just is ok.
probably because they're brownoids
>probably because they're brownoids
Several Roman Emperors were of Phoenician, Amazigh and Arab descent.
>German one would be marginally closer to late Roman Emperors, I guess, mainly due to religion.
Before Christianity the Roman Empire had many religions and cults. The Christians just went onto persecute the others once they were in power.
>The Ottomans were foreign invaders that usurped the Byzantines and replaced it with something else entirely.
You mean like the Romans being foreign invaders of Byzantium? You're not even being consistent with your own talking points.
>Them calling themselves Romans doesn't magically make them Roman.
Roman continuation ended with the Fourth Crusade. The Roman / Byzantine Empire that emerged after the Latin period was itself an arbitrary, unilateral recreation with a retrospective lineage to Rome.
There's only two ways to look at the end of the Roman Empire, it's either 1204 or 1922.
The Ottoman Turks didn't pop out of nowhere. They existed in the region for centuries, and then kept expanding territory until Byzantium was just a small city-state when they conquered it in 1453.
This.
The original Greek colony of Byzantium wasn't Roman.
It became Roman when Rome conquered it.
Just like it became Ottoman when Mehmet conquered it.
Not Roman.
You can argue it briefly ceased to exist during the fourth crusade when Constantinople became a crusader state. Buy eventually the Byzantines took it back.
Just because the Turks had lived in the region a few centuries by the time they reduced the Byzantines to a small city state doesn't make them Roman.
>The original Greek colony of Byzantium wasn't Roman.
>It became Roman when Rome conquered it.
>Just like it became Ottoman when Mehmet conquered it.
>Not Roman.
>You can argue it briefly ceased to exist during the fourth crusade when Constantinople became a crusader state. Buy eventually the Byzantines took it back.
Once again, this is completely inconsistent.
When Romans conquered Byzantium it became Roman.
But then when some Greeks conquered it from Crusaders, it also became Roman?
They Byzantines were mostly ethnic Greeks but still Roman. During the Empire you could be Celtic and Roman, Germanic and Roman, Numidian and Roman etc. The Ottomans weren't Roman because they were foreign invaders with a completely different culture, laws, relgion, language and history.
>The Ottomans weren't Roman because they were foreign invaders with a completely different culture, laws, relgion, language and history.
It's like you didn't read anything in the thread.
Or you're just fricking moronic.
>you could be celtic and roman, german and roman, numidian and roman
>but not turkic and roman
ok
Yeah you see the thing is he wasn't turkic and roman, he was turkic, but not at all roman. No roman language, no roman culture, No attempt to be roman or bizantine, he was just a barbarian larping and aping a fancy title for legitimacy, malayan sultans signed their letters in the name of the 3 descendants of alexander the great (in their minds) The king of rome, the king of china, and themselves. This doesn't mean those sultans were actually greek.
>were mostly ethnic Greeks
They didn't believe that
>Celtic and Roman, Germanic and Roman, Numidian and Roman
No to all of those. Celtic wasn't a designation, to be Germanic was to not be part of the Roman system and Numidians were explicitly not Roman, despite existing in the Roman system as an integrated part. There were Numidian Senators, and they were not considered Roman.
>But then when some Greeks conquered it from Crusaders
Those people weren't Greeks. They were Romans.
German one would be marginally closer to late Roman Emperors, I guess, mainly due to religion. I do wonder how much of courtly customs did Ottoman emperors take from Byzantine ones.
The Holy Roman Empire was also legitimate, charlemagne won the long interregnum after Julius Nepos was overthrown
It only died after Napoleon destroyed it, Eastern Rome and Western Rome lasted for thousands of years
I kinda agree
Why does this cucaracha keep posting low IQ posts?
No they aren't. Neither is the Holy Roman Empire. Get over it.
>they aren't because I said so
I bet you also say Byzantium isn't Rome because it isn't le pagan
Byzantium was a legitimate continuatuon the Eastern Roman Empire. Religion has nothing to do with. The Ottomans were foreign invaders that usurped the Byzantines and replaced it with something else entirely. Them calling themselves Romans doesn't magically make them Roman. Same thing happened in the West with Lombards, Franks, Vandals and Goths. We don't call any of those kingdoms Roman for a reason.
The usurption of the latin upper class by Heraclius, the restructuring of the empire's bureaucracy, and the use of the title 'Basileus' should also disqualify the Byzantines from Romanhood by your metric, but it doesn't
Byzantines were legitimate because even though they were very different from the Roman Empire of Augustus their changes naturally occurred as a result of existing for thousands of years not foreign invasion and conquest. A country can decide to drastically change itself yet still be the same country. America is very different than it was in 1776 but it's still America. When Rome decided to become an Empire instead of a Republic it was still Rome. By your logic Alexander was a legitimate King of Persia and Seleucus continued the Persian Empire after he died.
Iskander was a legitimate Shah as was Seleucus
By what metric? Right of conquest?
It does mine. Divide "Eastern Roman Empire" from "Byzantine" Its the Arab Conquests. It was a rapid and near total replacement of damn near everything. Religion, Ethnicity, Territory, Population, Culture, How the government worked, How the military worked, How the people saw themselves, etc. and was also apparent enough in its own time that we start seeing that other states start claiming they are Roman successor states and getting away with it. The switch from Republic to Principate pales in comparison.
When I say religion I don't mean Pagan to Christian. Before the Arabs you had a polity of which huge chunks, maybe even half, were monophysites. And that tension will inform almost every action the State makes if your basis of legitimacy is being the one true empire of the one true religion. Ethnically it turned an Empire that was multinational into something that was essentially Anatolian. And before you point out say the Macedonian Dynasty, no the Severans not being full blooded Romans did not make the Principate no longer Roman either. Culturally and governmentally it did indeed mean massive changes. The loss of the other big urban centers like Antioch and Alexandria made Constantinople part of a Unipolar system. Even during the height of the Principate Rome (the city) could not have dreamed of being so central. And them not being strong enough to do anything about guys like the HRE is part of my point. I'd say an Empire that loses any real ability to maintain exclusive claim to being the sole legitimate successor state isn't the same state. The very fact the Charlemagne could make that claim in a chunk of imperial territory just as large as the east and get a critical mass of people to say "Yeah sure you're the Emperor" is itself damning.
>The usurption of the latin upper class by Heraclius
What the hell are you talking about?
> the restructuring of the empire's bureaucracy
That would not happen until decades after he died.
Being Roman to the Byzantines meant belonging to a specific ethnic group, known as the Romans. It did not mean being part of the state.
>Being Roman to the Byzantines meant belonging to a specific ethnic group, known as the Romans
That just means the only criteria is defining yourself as Roman.
>That just means the only criteria is defining yourself as Roman.
No it doesn't. It means being part of a community, following traditions and culture which others in said community think of as Roman. Just identifying with Roman does not make somebody a Roman, nobody believed that. Ancestry was also an important part of being Roman in Byzantium, whether the more tenuous idea of Latin ancestry or the more straight forward belonging to a self described ethnic group which knew themselves as Roman. Saying that 'the only criteria is defining yourself as Roman.' Is somebody saying they are German, despite having no relation to them, nobody would believe them, and neither did the Byzantines just accept labelling oneself as a Roman meant being part of their ethnic group.
The Roman race died out during the Dominate. Everyone afterward was a romanized LARPer.
>hurrr I am completely unable to comprehend nuance and gradation in history I must interpret labels and legitimacy claims to the letter
Is it an autistic thing?
Since you're calling people autistic I guess you don't an argument.
If one considers the Byzantines Roman than yes, by definition he is Roman since Roman just means
>Calling yourself Roman
>Having some continuity with Rome
Rome fell to a foreign invader who then declared himself ruler of Rome. It’s little different than any other Imperial coup, it’s just that the Osman dynasty lasted longer than any other Imperial dynasty. Being emperor doesn’t require
>Being Roman
>Being Italian
>Being white
>Speaking Latin
>Controlling the city of Rome
If you consider the Byzantines Roman.
I agree except after conquering a country
you can't claim to be a direct continuation of it. Especially if you replace everything about it (religion, ethnicity, language, culture, laws) with something else.
How is conquering fundamentally different from a coup? Did China stop being China when the Qing deposed the Ming? And besides Constantine replaced the religion, numerous emperors carried out massive legal reforms, or cultural shifts.
It's like if you travelled back in time to 1st century Germany as a modern German and were like "ah yes, my ancestors". Yeah it is the successor to Rome in a sense but it was entirely different in culture, tech, ethnicity , everything except name. It's like Charlemagne or Otto larping as emperor.
The Byzantines were Romans, because they were Romans. Can you tell me what separates the "Byzantine" empire from the "Roman" one? When did the "Byzantine empire" start? Why did it start then?
395 with the final division of the empire.
Division of Empire is a modern term used to make things easier. There was no divided Empire, ever in the minds of the Romans and later Medieval people.
>overthrows the emperor of Rome
turks never beat the roman emperor though
>declared Caesar of the Romans by the Patriarch of Constantinople himself
literally who?
>his realm consitutes the east roman lands
there are many realms that constitute the roman lands
>his people call themselves Romans
as does the rest of europe
>implying the Greek Empire (byzantium) was Roman
>implying the fricking Turk empire was Roman
Yikes at this thread
>murders his brothers and creates the Fratricidal tradition for his subhuman kin
>creates harems of Christian boys to diddle
>diddle them so hard one escapes and starts impaling your wienerroach soldiers en masse
>piss off the israelites so bad they decide to genocide all gentiles for eternity (constantinople letters)
>turkish soldiers are so dogshit you need to kidnap more gentiles to be janissaries
>run a failed empire you stole that survives on sheer manpower until you get BTFO in WW1 despite home turf advantage and superior numbers
>dying act is to murder millions of Armenians because nationalism lol
S to spit
>>run a failed empire you stole that survives on sheer manpower until you get BTFO in WW1 despite home turf advantage and superior numbers
Cope greekoid
based the ottomans are a roman dynasty, glory to royalty
>declared Caesar of the Romans by the Patriarch of Constantinople himself
By that same logic you would say the Pope has more authority to declare Emperors.
>his people call themselves Romans
The people do not equal the ruling class.
>By that same logic you would say the Pope has more authority to declare Emperors.
Not since Romul Augustul
Religious figures have never determined, let alone crowned a Western Emperor. In the East, they only crowned them after they had already became Emperor, and this was something instigated by the Emperor. They were not made by coronation, and nobody thought of it as so.