Ottoman Caesars

That would be an utopia, even for them. The ottomans had to face too many a big number of powerful nations like France, England or Spain.

Conquering Italy is one thing. I'm talking about remaking the entire Roman Empire.

The Byzantines always called themselves Romans. And their emperor was the Caesar of Romans. Mehmed II certainly laid claim to this title by right of conquest. This was added to the long list of Ottoman emperor's titles. It means more like the ruler of Greeks or the land of the Byzantines.

But also most historians think that Mehmed II wanted to become the only emperor, the way the Roman emperors were. It is said that he had considered converting to Christianity in return for official acknowledgement as the only emperor from the Vatican. He certainly planned an invasion into Italy, and started it. Later, during Suleyman's time Austria acknowledged that the Ottoman Emperor was the emperor of the Romans (with Vienna threatened, they didn't have much choice).

I also think it impossible (for the Ottomans or anyone else) to revive the Roman Empire at that time.

It's true that one of Mehmed II's titles was Kayzer-i Rûm.

 The phrase "Byzantine Empire" was coined and popularized by French scholars such as Montesquieu, an influential figure of eighteenth century intellectual life.. He was the same author whose seminal volume The Spirit Of The Laws did much to inspire the Founding Fathers of the United States in their writing of the American Constitution. Like other thinkers of his time, Montesquieu revered the ancient Greeks and Romans with immoderate enthusiasm as masters of politics and culture to be emulated. Following a Western European tradition that extended back to the early Middle Ages, Montesquieu regarded the Empire at Constantinople as corrupt and decadent. Although he wrote a long history of the Empire at Constantinople, Montesquieu could not bring himself to refer to the Empire at Constantinople with the noble names of "Greek" or "Roman." From the obsolete name "Byzantium," Montesquieu used the word "Byzantine." The word "Byzantine" denoted the Empire and connoted its supposed characteristics: dishonesty, dissimulation and decadence. The English scholar Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire treated the Empire after the sixth century as an epic of unrelieved degradation and corruption.

From the webpage www.romanity.org

The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the New Rome on Bosphorus, dubbed Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine I had transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. Long before Constantine I, the idea of "Rome" had become dissociated from the Eternal City on the Tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, whereever he lived. Before the Imperial period, in 89 BC, a Roman law had granted Roman citizenship to people throughout Italy. Afterwards, citizenship became extended to an increasing number of people in different parts of the Empire. In 212, Emperor Caracalla declared all free persons in the Empire to be Roman citizens, entitled to call themselves Roman, not merely subject to the Romans. Within a few decades, people begin to refer to the entire Empire less often [in Latin] as "Imperium Romanorum" [Domain of the Romans] and more often as "Romania" [Romanland]

Is this true?

Qnzkid711 wrote: Yea but you also have to realize that while Constantinople knew themselves as Roman, there were not regarded as such. The western world knew them as the Greek Empire and their leader was not a Roman Emperor to them, but a Greek Emperor. So techically the whole idea of the ROman Empire , to the west, had ended long ago. It s even said on some occassion that Justinian was the last Roman Emperor.

It is not important that western world knew them as Romans.

The fact that they were the Romans of east Rome. Western world; Holy Roma-German Empire were claiming that they were representing the Rome. In fact in Germany there were never be a Roman rule. This was a power struggle.

They were adressing them as Greek to show them "out of Christianity".  Remember Orthodox - Catholic rivalery. The term Greek was a symbol of being pagan.

In fact Mehmet the Conqeror saw him as the descendants of Trojans. He said that "by taking Constantinople we took the revenge of Troia". In those days even in Europe many people were thinking that Turks were the descendants of Trojans.

It may be it is because Romans were claiming the same think and Rome had been established by Trojans. So that they may have some sort of emphaty with Mehmet the Conqueror.    

Catt wrote: It would have helped Mehmet a little if he had taken Rome itself.

Yes this is an other possibility.

They were adressing them as Greek to show them "out of Christianity".  Remember Orthodox - Catholic rivalery. The term Greek was a symbol of being pagan.

It was Karl the Great who for the first time called the (Eastern) Roman Emperor as the "Greek Emperor". And the Catholic-Orthodox division wasn't around in the early 9th century

The Ottomans considered themselves many things, one of which was Kayser-i Rum. Actually that's one of the reasons why the Ottomans conquered Constantinople: Being Caesar of Rome. 

Edited by Tyranos - 07-Oct-2007 at 00:22