History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedOttoman Caesars

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ottoman Caesars
    Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 02:56
Originally posted by Penelope

Originally posted by Alparslan

Originally posted by Qnzkid711

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.    

 
I totally agree. Its not important that the west may have dubbed it the "greek empire". Whats important is that the Eastern Roman Empire, was truely the Roman Empire, weather it was ruled by Greek-speaking people or not.   The Empire's name in Greek was Basileia tōn Rōmaiōn.
 
Yes, point is they thought of themselves as Romans.
 
 

Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 07:22
Originally posted by Tyranos

The Turks at the time were seeking to imitate the glory of Rome and saw themselves its rightful heirs to the complete Roman Empire, after taking of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Turks were devastated on the shores of Southern Italy, they met fanatical and determined resistance.
 
The Western Empire disolved after Romulus Augustulus, but the Pope remained the central figure with retaining still the mainly Romaized Germanic chieftains under his power by dangling the imperial Crown before their very eyes. Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire were frauds with papal support, the Ottomans were another group of frauds. But the process of naming themselves Caesar and seeing themselves as Romans, didnt end in the Middle Ages or such..continued on into modern times, under the titles of Kaiser and Czar ect.
More to the point Mehmet II died and the his successor was not interested in the Italian operation.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
Post Options Post Options   Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 14:36
Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I

Originally posted by Catt

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


I would doubt it. The pope would call for a crusade to drive the Turks out, calling them invaders who illegally seized Rome, etc, etc.
 
He did. But noone answered after what happened to the last crusading army who fought against the Ottomans (battle of Varna, 1444).
 
Originally posted by Tyranos

The Turks at the time were seeking to imitate the glory of Rome and saw themselves its rightful heirs to the complete Roman Empire, after taking of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Turks were devastated on the shores of Southern Italy, they met fanatical and determined resistance.
 
 
Actually they captured and occupied the city of Otranto, and were planning to advance up the Italian peninsula and conquer the whole thing. The pope, after having his calls for a crusade were ignored, even fled Rome. After the Sultan died a year later, however, the plan for both the capture of Italy and the island of Rhodes disintegrated.
 
 
If someone could could conform what I'm writing, that would be great, otherwise the two profoundly eurocentric and in my opinion inaccurate quotes above would be accepted as fact.
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
Post Options Post Options   Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 19:04
Originally posted by kurt

Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I

Originally posted by Catt

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


I would doubt it. The pope would call for a crusade to drive the Turks out, calling them invaders who illegally seized Rome, etc, etc.
 
He did. But noone answered after what happened to the last crusading army who fought against the Ottomans (battle of Varna, 1444).
 
Originally posted by Tyranos

The Turks at the time were seeking to imitate the glory of Rome and saw themselves its rightful heirs to the complete Roman Empire, after taking of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Turks were devastated on the shores of Southern Italy, they met fanatical and determined resistance.
 
 
Actually they captured and occupied the city of Otranto, and were planning to advance up the Italian peninsula and conquer the whole thing. The pope, after having his calls for a crusade were ignored, even fled Rome. After the Sultan died a year later, however, the plan for both the capture of Italy and the island of Rhodes disintegrated.
 
 
If someone could could conform what I'm writing, that would be great, otherwise the two profoundly eurocentric and in my opinion inaccurate quotes above would be accepted as fact.
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
Post Options Post Options   Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 05:43

I guess I'll have to concede defeat then. Lets try not to turn this thread into another debate about which man was more powerful.

Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
Post Options Post Options   Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 13:43
Otranto was occupied by the turkish forces with a surprise. The defenders fought heroicly but they were unable to hinder the turks from occupying the castle. Turks were led by Gedik Ahmet Paşa, a remarkable and diciplined commander. Their goal was to take a fort and make their operations from that base. But the news of the sultans death arrived and Gedik Ahmed Paşa had to cancel the operation because of CEM and BAYAZIDS throne claims. After a couple of years he was dead in this fight. The ottomans were in a civil war and they couldnt give any attention to italy. Totally 1500 ottoman soldiers were garrisoned in otranto. And my friends, for 1,5 year they werent even attacked by a christian army. Otranto was taken by Ferrante with the help of hungarian mercenaries. After the capture the turks fought for Ferrante.
            I think if the energic and ruthless mehmet was alive at the initial phase of the invasion , Italy would be in a trouble. Maybe the famous Italian wars would start much earlier. Could you think. 30-40000 Turks invaded Italy.
             The death of Mehmet is much more important that the second Wien siege. Because at the 17th century ottomans had to little chance against europe. But at the last 15th century , Europe before ronesans and reformation would had much more hard times.  
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 00:04
Originally posted by Sparten

More to the point Mehmet II died and the his successor was not interested in the Italian operation.
 
Because of the very precious piece of fact that there was a title race going on between sons of Mehmed II, Sultan Cem and Sultan Bayezid.
 
Cem later went to exile in various places, Rhodes, Mameluke Empire and finally Italy.
 
Bayezid maintained an extremely passive foreign and military policy contradictory to his predecessors, till the death of Sultan Cem.
 
There was always the risk of Cem returning back to the vicinity of the empire after getting defeated in the title race, supported by enemies of the empire and take over from Bayezid.
 
It was only after the death of Cem that Ottoman Empire once more took up an active foreign and military policy, beginning with a harsher stance towards Mamelukes and conquest of Adriatic islands like Corfu, Zanta and Cephalonia.
 
 


Edited by Kapikulu - 30-Oct-2007 at 00:04
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 15:43
Originally posted by ihsan

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

 
Actually the "Catholic" "Orthodox" split happened far earlier than the trivial "great schism" you are refering to. That schism was not mentioned in either source as "great," it was a trivial event that got picked up as some groundbreaking split between East and West. The two churches had led seperate policies for centuries earlier. The Roman "pope" was never recognized as the leader of all Christianity, nor was any other patriarch, therefore, once Constantinople was raised to a patriarchate alongside the older ones, and Rome it was already contesting with the Roman see for Illyria as Western/Eastern Roman Empire borders shifted.
 
 

Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2009 at 13:37
Originally posted by Tyranos

The Turks at the time were seeking to imitate the glory of Rome and saw themselves its rightful heirs to the complete Roman Empire, after taking of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Turks were devastated on the shores of Southern Italy, they met fanatical and determined resistance.
 
True about all except the devastation.
Ottomans indeed met with strong resistance, however they weren't devastated, they had to depart upon the death of Mehmed II.


Edited by Kapikulu - 28-Jun-2009 at 13:37
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.