12-09-2005 09:36									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse The difference is enormous...

Excuse me if I take the people of the 15th and 16th Centuries opinions on the matter over yours.

The fact that you refer to them as the Byzantines which is a modern name for the Eastern Roman Empire pretty much says it all about your knowledge of the period.

	12-09-2005 09:39									#32
	Increase Your PM Length

You mean the opinions of the Venetians.

Because I can guarantee you that most of Europe didn't recognise the claims of the Ottomans to the throne of Rome.

Especially not the people living in Rome.

	12-09-2005 09:39									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse The Ottomans didn't install themselves at the head of an empire; they killed an empire, and ate it.

Again, a distinction without meaning. They took over an empire and claimed it for their own. They were recognized by their contemporaries as being the legitimate successors of the ERE and a continuation of the ERE.

	12-09-2005 09:40									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

You keep throwing in a claim with no factual basis. Some of their contemporaries recognised them. Some did not.

Most, in fact, did not.

	12-09-2005 09:42									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The Roman Empire fragmented into so many pieces that to claim any single group as their successor is a joke.

The last piece to die was the last group with any sort of real claim to the throne of Rome, and by the time they got swallowed that claim was already pure pretension.

	12-09-2005 09:46									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It's interesting to note that the European possessions of modern Turkey correspond almost exactly to the European possessions of Byzantium immediately prior to its annexation.

	12-09-2005 09:55									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse You keep throwing in a claim with no factual basis. Some of their contemporaries recognised them. Some did not. Most, in fact, did not.

I've got plenty of factual basis. I've read enough material on the Ottomans to do a masters' thesis. I even, briefly considered learning Turkish so I could get my mitts on source material, except Ottoman Turkish isn't the same as modern Turkish, and that's pretty extreme for a hobby anyway.

Until the 1590s, no European country dared treat the Sultan as his equal, but always refered to him as his superior. The sole exception was the Pope, who continually called for holy war against the Ottomans, frequently leading to the misery of those who heeded the call. Even the Holy Roman Emperor defered diplomatically, despite the near constant warfare.

quote: The Roman Empire fragmented into so many pieces that to claim any single group as their successor is a joke. The last piece to die was the last group with any sort of real claim to the throne of Rome, and by the time they got swallowed that claim was already pure pretension.

What you keep forgetting is that even though the Emperor had little actual power, he had great moral authority and was recognized as being important, much like the Holy Roman Emperor. His "blessing" meant something to the various Balkan princes, and even Western Europe trembled when it fell. The Ottomans already had unfetted access back and forth across the Dardinelles.

When the city fell, many Europeans believed that had God abandoned them, some even believed that God favored Islam and converted.

	12-09-2005 09:58									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse It's interesting to note that the European possessions of modern Turkey correspond almost exactly to the European possessions of Byzantium immediately prior to its annexation.

Byzantium ceased to exist in the 3rd century. It was Constantinople, and the political entity was the Roman Empire. The people were called the Romanoi. If you look on maps from that period, it is called Romania. It was called Romania up until the Moldavians and Wallachians changed the name of their country to Romania. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, use it's name, the ERE.

As for the territory controled by it, in Thrace, it controled only the city itself and the small Italian colony of Galeta on the opposite shore of the Golden Horn. It also controled all the Morea, but for a handful of cities held by the Venetians. The rest of Thrace was in the hands of the Ottomans, whose capital was Adrianople/Edirne.

	12-09-2005 10:07									#39
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If the ERE was so meaningless, why did: Skanderbeg adopt the Roman double eagle as his flag, why did the Wallachians become Romania, why did Muscovey claim to be the Third Rome, why did Balkan princes seek confirmation by the Roman Emperor, why did the Ottomans claim the title of Roman Emperor, why did their contemporaires refer to the Ottomans by that term? Because it still had meaning. It still had a powerful hold on the minds of Europeans. They though it was important, so it was important.

It's the same reason the Bishop of Rome has so much authority, even though today he rules directly only a few acres. He's still the leader of the Catholic world. Stop thinking with such a narrow materialist mindset and realize that ideas have power when people act as if they do.

	12-09-2005 10:29									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

John Paul looked like Vespasian!

	12-09-2005 10:29									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I've got plenty of factual basis. I've read enough material on the Ottomans to do a masters' thesis. I even, briefly considered learning Turkish so I could get my mitts on source material, except Ottoman Turkish isn't the same as modern Turkish, and that's pretty extreme for a hobby anyway.

Gee. Thanks for that argument from authority. You've made a blanket claim, and your proof is to tell me that you've read a lot.

quote: Until the 1590s, no European country dared treat the Sultan as his equal, but always refered to him as his superior. The sole exception was the Pope, who continually called for holy war against the Ottomans, frequently leading to the misery of those who heeded the call. Even the Holy Roman Emperor defered diplomatically, despite the near constant warfare.

a) This claim is exaggerated

b) It's irrelevant. Who diplomatically recognised the Ottomans as inheritors of the Roman Empire? Certainly not the HRE, as they had their own pretensions. Diplomatic recognition would have entailed the acknowlegement of the bey (later sultan) as suzerain of most of Christian Europe. Venice gave limited recognition to the Ottomans' claims. Other minor Eastern European states might also have done so. It was certainly not the position of most of Europe.

quote: What you keep forgetting is that even though the Emperor had little actual power, he had great moral authority and was recognized as being important, much like the Holy Roman Emperor. His "blessing" meant something to the various Balkan princes, and even Western Europe trembled when it fell. The Ottomans already had unfetted access back and forth across the Dardinelles.

The Emperor had no moral authority. There was still some sort of faded glory associated with the Byzantines, but nobody recognised the claims of the Byzantines over the territory claimed by Augustus (or even Justinian) any more. Western and Central Europe as a whole had ceased to respect the authority of the Byzantines, and whatever remained of the respect for tradition was brought to an end in 1453

quote: When the city fell, many Europeans believed that had God abandoned them, some even believed that God favored Islam and converted.

Some believed that. There was certainly no mass movement toward joining the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans remained a power in the Balkans, but their authority reached only as far as their swords did.

	12-09-2005 10:36									#42
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Gee. Thanks for that argument from authority. You've made a blanket claim, and your proof is to tell me that you've read a lot.

As opposed to you who makes assertions based on what? You can't even refer to the corretly. Why should anyone take you seriously?

	12-09-2005 10:39									#43
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If the ERE was so meaningless

Certainly not meaningless in 550. They had become so by 1453. Their fate was sealed in 1204. They were nothing more than a third-rate power after that. Their pretensions died slowly, but outside their periphery nobody recognised their claims as transferring to the new kids on the block.

quote: why did Balkan princes seek confirmation by the Roman Emperor

Third rate power. Vague circles of influence in the Balkans do not a Roman Empire make.

quote: why did the Ottomans claim the title of Roman Emperor

Why did the HRE claim that title too?

quote: why did their contemporaires refer to the Ottomans by that term?

Why did minor states on the periphery of the HRE recognise them as such? Europe as a whole rejected the Ottomans as heirs to the throne of Caesar. Their pretensions held virtually no sway outside their own borders. Force of arms and force of arms alone brought them further conquest. Certainly not any sense of legitimacy.

quote: Because it still had meaning. It still had a powerful hold on the minds of Europeans. They though it was important, so it was important.

Europeans felt that the capture of Constantinople was important. They certainly never regarded the Ottomans as any more than usurpers.

quote: It's the same reason the Bishop of Rome has so much authority, even though today he rules directly only a few acres. He's still the leader of the Catholic world. Stop thinking with such a narrow materialist mindset and realize that ideas have power when people act as if they do.

And if the Ottomans had collected tribute from Europe beyond the Balkans based solely on their authority as emperors of Rome then you would be correct. Unfortunately, they didn't. Their claims were not recognised. You can keep saying that they were, but you're dead wrong. They held what they held by force of arms. The Catholic Church holds what it holds by moral authority.

Duh.

	12-09-2005 10:41									#44
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Chegitz, even Charles V did not treat the Ottoman emperor as his equal ?

	12-09-2005 10:41									#45
	Remove this text

You chi is weak and your arguments lack substance.

	12-09-2005 10:42									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Byzantium ceased to exist in the 3rd century. It was Constantinople, and the political entity was the Roman Empire. The people were called the Romanoi. If you look on maps from that period, it is called Romania. It was called Romania up until the Moldavians and Wallachians changed the name of their country to Romania. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, use it's name, the ERE.

quote: The East Roman Empire which had its capital in Constantinople from then until 1453, has often been called the Byzantine Empire or Byzantium by modern scholars. By extension, the name Byzantium is often used to refer to the Byzantine Empire, its territory, and its customs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium

	12-09-2005 10:47									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You chi is weak and your arguments lack substance.

On the contrary, you've continually asserted that the Ottomans were widely recognised as heirs to the Roman Empire by states and peoples outside the reach of their arms. This assertion requires evidence, which you have not provided. The very existence of a powerful rival state also using the titles and symbolism of the Roman Empire (much more extensively, I might add) puts the lie to your claims.

Basically, anybody who had something to gain by doing so recognised the Ottomans. Anybody who had something to gain by doing so recognised the HRE. Succession becomes a meaningless concept when faced with such a fragmentation of claims.

	12-09-2005 10:50									#48
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Brachy-Pride Chegitz, even Charles V did not treat the Ottoman emperor as his equal ?

No, he just ran away and refused to face him in battle. His brother (and his successors), Archduke of Austria, however, paid tribute to Suleyman, Selim II, Murad III and Mehment III, and acknowledged himself as a vassal of the Ottomans. Treaties between the Ottomans and every other power in Europe, including those of Carlos V's, acknowledged the authority of the Ottomans.

While it's true their actual authority only extended as far as their reach, their reach was very long, extending from the Atlantic to the Straits of Java, from Somalia to Moscow. Anyone they could reach, and even those they couldn't, like the Queen of England did not pretend to be the equal of the Sultan. Russia and Poalnd paid tribute for hundreds of years. Austria got away with only have to pay for sixty.

	12-09-2005 10:53									#49
	Support Apolyton

do you think they ran away in lepanto or the siege of vienna?!?!

	12-09-2005 10:57									#50
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse The very existence of a powerful rival state also using the titles and symbolism of the Roman Empire (much more extensively, I might add) puts the lie to your claims.

What powerful state would that be? Until Carlos V was elected HRE, the title of HRE was little more than an honorific. After that, it was a hereditary title of the Archdukes of Austria. It only had power because 1st Spain and then Austria were powerful.

And quoting Wiki at me to justify your intellectual laziness? And it only repeats what I said, it's a modern convention. It's not an accurate one.

	12-09-2005 10:58									#51
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Brachy-Pride do you think they ran away in lepanto or the siege of vienna?!?!

Was Carlos V alive for either of those events (I'm assuming you mean the 1683 seige of Vienna, and not the 1528 and 1532 seiges--both of which Carlos V avoided)?

	12-09-2005 11:13									#52
	Increase Your PM Length

I meant the first siege of vienna, not the 1683, by lepanto he had already died.

I didnt mean only him, I was just mentioning someone of similar power who faced the ottomans.

	12-09-2005 11:49									#53
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Poalnd paid tribute for hundreds of years.

Not that I disagree (I don't know for sure) but source, please.

	12-09-2005 11:56									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I'm with KH on this one. Sorry, Chegitz. I don't care if the Turks claimed the title or not, they weren't legitimate successors. Conquerors, certainly, but that's all.

	12-09-2005 17:19									#55
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Russia and Poalnd paid tribute for hundreds of years.

No. Actually, Poles and Lithuanians were giving "presents" to Crymean Khanate (the vassal of Turkey) to prevent its hordes from pillaging Podolia and Ukraine. But this was not an official tribute.

I think that in the treaty of Buczacz Poland was made tributary, 1673, but the parliament never ratified it. Instead it's enacted additional taxes for army against Turks which defeated them under Chocim the same year. In another words, the treaty was never in force.

That doesn't stop some Turks from printing maps on which Poland is (with or withour Lithuania... - which proves how much they know in this subject) depicted as "resting under Ottoman influence since 1573, tributary since 1673"

The Ottoman "influences" since 1573 are the fact that during the first free election, Turkey demanded from Poland to chose Henry Anjou instead of a Habsburg.
And so, when Henry was elected, Turkey got to the point it was because of its demands.




--------
The Sultanate of Rum is actually the name of the Turkish sultanate in Anadolu before the Ottomans, the Seljuk one. And this titulation doesn't prove they considered themselves the successors of Romans, but simply the regions over which Byzantines ruled were called that way. Erzerum (from Arabic Ard ar-Rum - which is Ground of Rome), Bilad ar-Rum (The lands of Rome), Rumelia.
I don't know if Ottoman Turks called their state "Sultanate of Rum" as well. If so, it probably was just one of the titles.
That one of the Italian region is called Romania, it doesn't mean it's successor of late Roman and Byzantine (that means - even later Roman) empire.

The Ottomans did perceive themselves as successors of Roman (Byzantine) empire due to conquest of it, and they had some right - but there's no direct link and while Byzantines as later Roman Empire is obvious, Ottoman sultanate as its continuation is something very different.

Also, I'll just remind You all that the last Roman empire was destroyed not in 1453, but in 1461, with the fall of the empire of Trebizond (nowdays Trabzon).
And some Byzantine duchy survived in Crimea even 10 years more.

	12-09-2005 18:28									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Brachy-Pride I meant the first siege of vienna, not the 1683, by lepanto he had already died.

During the 1st seige, Carlos was busy fighting the French in Italy. During the 2nd seige, Carlos held the Imperial Army to Ravensburg (iirc), out of the Ottoman's reach rather the sally forth to Vienna. Carlos wasn't stupid. He knew what happened to rulers who gambled everything on a battle with the Ottomans.

The Battle of Lepanto only happened because the combined fleets of Mediterranian Christendom (minus the French) attacked and the Venetians had invented a new type of ship, the galleas (sp?). Before that, individually those fleets fled before the Ottomans.

It wasn't until the 1640s before Venice was able to stand against the Ottomans at sea on its own, and it wasn't until 1683 that the Ottomans were decisvely defeated by a European power. Hunyadi and Skanderbeg were the only ones who were ever able to defeat the Ottomans consistantly, and all they managed to do was hold them at bay.

	12-09-2005 18:29									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse On the contrary, you've continually asserted that the Ottomans were widely recognised as heirs to the Roman Empire by states and peoples outside the reach of their arms. This assertion requires evidence, which you have not provided.

You seriously expected me to run down to the library at 2am on a Sunday, fill out a request of an interlibrary loan, wait two+ weeks for it to arrive, and then post the proof all in the same evening?

	12-09-2005 18:43									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: and acknowledged himself as a vassal of the Ottomans

That my freind, beyond all your other unproven claims, is completely false, and I challenge you to back that up.

	12-09-2005 18:44									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Heresson No. Actually, Poles and Lithuanians were giving "presents" to Crymean Khanate (the vassal of Turkey) to prevent its hordes from pillaging Podolia and Ukraine. But this was not an official tribute.

It was an official tribute, which happened every year. The Krim were not all that independent of Constantinople.

--------

quote: The Sultanate of Rum is actually the name of the Turkish sultanate in Anadolu before the Ottomans, the Seljuk one.

That was the Seljik Sultanate of Rum. Sultan Beyezit I (the first Ottoman to claim the title of Sultan) claimed the Ottomans were the Ottoman Sultanate of Rum. He asked the Caliph in Cairo for recognition, but I don't know if they received it.

quote: The Ottomans did perceive themselves as successors of Roman (Byzantine) empire due to conquest of it, and they had some right

Thank you.

quote: but there's no direct link and while Byzantines as later Roman Empire is obvious, Ottoman sultanate as its continuation is something very different.

It was different. But the Ottoman Emirate rose up out of ERE lands, not from Turkish controled territory. The army was half Greek, and it was . . . Orhan, I believe, who first married a Roman princess, Cantacuzenos' daughter.

The situation is similar to refering to the Safavid Empire as Persia, even though it was actually an Azerbaijani empire. Europe called them Persia.

	12-09-2005 18:56									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Posit - The United States, at its beginning saw itself as in many ways the successor to Rome - the seat of authority was to be on CAPITOL Hill, one branch of the congress was to be called the Senate, and Washington called New York "the seat of empire" In the 20th century the US emerged as the dominant western state.

Ergo George W. Bush is the heir to the Roman emperor.

Posit - Guev is correct, and the Ottomans succeeded to the Byzantine claim, and WERE the Turkish Roman Empire. Their ruler ALSO claimed the title of caliph, and assimilated Roman universal claims, to those of the Caliphate. The caliphate was abolished in 1924, by Kemal and the Turkish republic. BUT the extreme Salafist-Jihadi movement wants a new caliphate (which is why Osama cited the 1924 date in his post 9/11 statement) While AQ hasnt actually proclaimed Osama as caliph, it seems he and Zawahiri are thinking on those lines.

Ergo Osama Bin Laden is the heir to the Roman emperor.'

Ergo, the War on Terrorism is in fact a civil war over leadership of the Roman empire.