The Ottoman Empire was basically just an Islamified Rome. It was more Roman than the Holy Roman Empire itself.

The Ottoman Empire was basically just an Islamified Rome. It was more Roman than the Holy Roman Empire itself. Why is this denied in the collective consciousness?

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >more Roman than the HRE
    Doubt
    >successor of Rome
    Could have been, but it chose to become the Caliphate instead when Selim the Grim conquered the Mamlukes and the holy cities. It can't be both Rome and the Caliphate.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >held constantinople
      >the caliph was declared the roman emperor by the greek orthodox patriarch
      >government and law were based off of roman government and law
      I dunno man, sounds pretty Roman to me.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The problem is that Western Rome never fell to Muslims (except for North Africa and Iberia for a while) and therefore had more legitimacy in calling itself the continuator of Roman cultural traditions

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The problem is that Western Rome never fell to Muslims
          It's even worse than that. They fell to barbarians.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those barbarians became Romanized pretty quickly and ruled fairly well. One of their offspring revived the Empire after more than 300 years of hiatus.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >One of their offspring revived the Empire after more than 300 years of hiatus.
            LARP

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >LARP
            was taken seriously by tens of millions for over 1000 years. I think you don't know what larp means

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >empire of ROME
        >never held ROME
        hmmmm

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >declared the roman emperor by the greek orthodox patriarch
        If it wasn't by the Pope then its heretical.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Romans partook in actual Christianity, not ecumenical boy-fricking and alms fleecing practiced and preached by Germanic invaders.

          >held constantinople
          >the caliph was declared the roman emperor by the greek orthodox patriarch
          >government and law were based off of roman government and law
          I dunno man, sounds pretty Roman to me.

          The Ottoman State was its own separate entity that Mehmed had vested interest to romanize. The Byzantine Empire was a continuous state that you can draw a direct throughline from Rome's foundings to Constantinople's fall. Saying the Ottoman's were Roman is like saying India is British or Japan is American.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the Indians were raped to the point they averaged only 6% poojeet while the rest was English dna, they could rightly stake a claim to the identity. The Turks are more Greek than the current Slav rape babies in Greece oddly enough. And Greek meant Roman for thousands of years so why not

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Genetics (especially of the working class) has precisely nothing to do with whether a state has an unbroken continuity or not. From the founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople, there is a civil and cultural chain of events that directly ties those states together chronologically. Mehmed's state does not have that. Mehmed is as much of a Roman Emperor as Odoacer; in fact, probably less so because Odoacer just implanted himself in what remained of Rome's administrative systems rather than making new ones like Mehmed did. There is actually a civics term for Mehmed's Roman-Styled Ottoman Empire: that term is Successor State.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Byzantine Empire was a continuous state that you can draw a direct throughline from Rome's foundings to Constantinople's fall.
            This exact same argument can be made about the Ottoman Empire though.

            >Saying the Ottoman's were Roman is like saying India is British or Japan is American.
            Right, that's the point, saying that the Byzantine Empire was Roman is absurd.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This exact same argument can be made about the Ottoman Empire though.
            You literally can't, it's clearly a distinct legal polity that didn't have a succession of legal power dating to the ancient Romans. The Byzantines were just medieval successors in an unbroken legal tradition of the same state.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's clearly a distinct legal polity
            Like Byzantium.

            >that didn't have a succession of legal power dating to the ancient Romans.
            Like Byzantium.

            >The Byzantines were just medieval successors in an unbroken legal tradition of the same state.
            No they weren't, but ironically the Ottomans WERE the successors of the Byzantine empire n an unbroken legal tradition of the same state.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no they weren't
            They were. After Rome fell in 476, Odoacer went to Constantinople to return the purple mantle and diadem. This is a history board, this should be common knowledge. You're wrong about the rest too btw, but let's start from 476, and then we'll move on to Odoacer, Theodoric, and Justinian if we have time.
            Suggested reading: The Dark Ages by Charles Oman.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And the Greek Orthodox Patriarch declared the Ottoman Caliph as the Roman Emperor, what's your point?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Non sequitur.
            Not to mention the Greek patriarch does not make one a Roman emperor. Especially when said patriarch is basically a puppet of the local strongman. My point is that the Ottoman Empire cannot be called the new Roman Empire or Third Rome. Nor can Russia for that matter. Both lacked the legitimacy of the Byzantine empire and the Holy Roman Empire, which continued to exist until 1806.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the Greek patriarch does not make one a Roman emperor.
            The entire claim to the legitimacy of Byzantium as the Roman Empire rests on him doing just that, anon. That's why every Byzantine Emperor past Constantine claimed to be Roman, because of the Patriarch's authority to do just that.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it doesn't. The patriarch was subservient to the emperor, not the other way around. You are misinformed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This, and it’s the reason the schism happened, why should a secular ruler be able to demand homage from God’s most leal servants? Most of Christianity didnt think so, so left the Greeks behind

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ottoman Law was not at all based on Roman law and their system of administration was also not derived from the Roman bureaucracy and didn’t resemble it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >i-it just can't, okay?!

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        By late Antiquity Rome was firmly tied with Christianity. Charlemagne revived the empire as an institution in 800 AD and was crowned in real Rome, although it only became capital for the duration of his stay, like every other place in the empire. Mehmet II conquered Nova Roma in 1453. By then, there was already an established practice of choosing emperors in the West that excluded Mehmet completely. He could have made the claim to be the new basileos of the Greeks, and it would have been accepted as a fait accompli. But Roman Emperor meant something more than that.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The roman emperor ship and the caliphal title just so happened to be held by the same person in the same way that the title of the Great Khan of the Mongols and the Emperor of China just so happened to be held by the Manchu Qing emperor.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not how it works. What Italian, German, French, or Spaniard would have accepted Mehmet II as a Roman emperor? Being a Roman emperor does not mean what you think it means.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    That ottoman empire map is very exagerated in north africa
    They didnt even control 100 % of the coasts in algeria for exemple, lot of regions were never controlled by the ottomans

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      based kabyle warriors

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Kinda cringe to portray themselves as le white chad when they were as brown as the turks but yes kabylia and many other algerian regions were never held by ottomans and even the regency of algiers was more of an autonomous province than anything
        Hence why the ottomans didnt cared when the french invaded algeria

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          they didn’t just ‘not care’, hussein dey sent an instruction manual to the french lol, see pic

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Turks aren't Roman. First off they did not take Rome itself. Second they were a foreign group, they were Turks they did not make themselves Roman. It's diffrent with Christianity because The pagan Roman empire BECAME Christian, there was no foreign Christian nation that occupied it.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The 72 equal temperament is used in Byzantine music theory,[5] dividing the octave into 72 equal moria, which itself derives from interpretations of the theories of Aristoxenos, who used something similar

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous
  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it triggers Eurotards to no end.
    LARPing as the successor to Rome is like the official pastime of Europe.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The Ottoman Empire was basically just an Islamified Rome. It was more Roman than the Holy Roman Empire itself. Why is this denied in the collective consciousness
    Except for the part that lebanese punics got replaced by nafris, dalmatians and dacians by slavs and illyrians, greco-anatolians by a totally different non anatolian or greco-speaking people, all hellenized semites became arabs and the heads of the empire were a crowd of barbarians from central asia.

    HRE was even worse since never controlled factual Roman provinces beyond of North Italy and the elites were equally barbaric.

    Napoleon's empire was just to filled of barbarians, kicked out of Spain and quite disliked and at war with formerly ancient provinces.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >empire of ROME
      >never held ROME
      hmmmm

      >newbies when the Roman Empire isn't literally in Rome

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Islam will always be gay because it's fake.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    An important part of Late Roman identity was its state religion, which the Ottomans rejected

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >men wear robes all day
    >hardcore patriarchy
    >masculine warrior culture
    >likes to build courtyards with gardens in the middle
    >likes olive oil
    yeah they're pretty much romans

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >hardcore patriarchy
      Bros they had a century where they ruled by women

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      you forgot
      >kinda gay

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >islam
      >masculine
      What's your next joke, islam promotes philosophy?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Coping cuck

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    God, I wish the Ottomans actually kept up the larp after they conquered Byzantium, it would have made a kino timeline where they allied themselves to the HRE as a way to preserve the Western Roman empire

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because Byzantium being buck broken and turned Muslim is too much for europoors to cope with.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The Sultanate of Rum
    No one ever We Wuzzed harder than this

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Always wondered why it’s not translated as the Sulfanate of Rome

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Probably because of orientalism

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It sometimes is, I think the 'Rum' thing was just to troll the Turks

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >doesn't control Rome
        >the Real Rome is right next to it
        Why would we humor larpgays?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Then eastern Rome is just Byzantium then

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Always wondered why it’s not translated as the Sulfanate of Rome

      It sometimes is, I think the 'Rum' thing was just to troll the Turks

      They weren’t “WE WUZ” at all. Rum was a geographical term because Anatolia was considered Rome the way the modern land between the Rhine and the Elbe is geographically considered Germany. They were a sultanate that ruled over the land of Rome.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rome fell in 476AD. The Greek Larp state wasn't a "successor" of Rome. Nor was the German larp state, or the Russian Larp state, or the Ottoman larp state. These states merely appealed to their self-perceived Roman legacy, sometimes real, most times imagined, for political legitimacy.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong it fell in 641AD
      476 AD is the end of the Roman Dominate in the west
      641 AD is the end of the Roman Dominate in the east

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      the Eastern Roman Empire was just as Roman as the Western Roman empire. Even God Himself called them Romans in the Quran

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Till 641 AD yes

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing special happened in 641 and it’s completely arbitrary

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Heraclius was the last Roman ane the first byzantine
            After heraclius death its roman byzantium and before it was the roman dominate
            The end of the Roman dominate is the end of Rome as we all know

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again completely arbitrary
            Nothing special happened in 641. The dominate didn't just end there was a long series of administrative reforms, and the byzantine administration was clearly derived from the earlier dominate. It was closer in style to Late Rome than the middle republic lmao

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Crossdogs don't like being on the losing side of history, simple as

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who is the real Rome?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Serbia

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just because you shot Jesse James doesn’t make you Jesse James tbh. Byzantium deserves the title of second Rome because it was a direct continuation of the Roman empire as a polity. It doesn’t matter the religion, territory, language, titles or culture, what matters is
    >Is it the same contiguous state?

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's arguments to be made for several successors of Rome
    First there's the split between east and west
    with east continuing and thus being true Rome
    in this line of succession there's 3 "heirs"
    -The Ottomans through conquest and moderate continuation of institution, state and peoples
    -Spain through sale of titles and appointment of succession
    -Russia through marriage and continuation of religion
    Then there's the western branch, the pope of Rome having split off from the pentarchy after Ostrogothic intermission appoints Frankish Charlemagne as roman emperor after several generations his empire splits up in three different successor states, east, west and south
    East becomes the HRE, which is the foundation of the German state or the first German empire with it's current succession in either Germany or Austria
    West becomes France
    South becomes Italy
    The latter three have the weakest line of succession and have been the most recent to make the claim of the third Rome (Germans under the nom of the HRE and for the other Napoleon and Mussolini respectively)

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is like claiming "the Roman Empire was just a Latinized Carthage"

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Sublime
    >Ottoman
    >State
    Neither sublime nor ottoman nor a state

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I guess it had enough of it's own identity

    But yeah an empire that lasted till WW1 that barely existed on textbooks is just suspicious

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There was nothing roman about the ottoman empire except for the emphasis on warfare.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rome never fell, it metastisized, it permeates everything we do and everything we make and every thought we have from California to Cappadocia.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How much emphasis did Sultans put on their ROMANness? Arabs were already pissed off by being ruled by Turks, they wouldn't be glad hear being ruled by Romans.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Literally none at all after Mehmet the Conqueror

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Islamified
    That's why.

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Obligatory death to wienerroaches

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *