Print Page | Close Window

Ottoman Caesars

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Description: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
Moderators: Sparten, Azimuth, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=2286
Printed Date: 23-Jul-2017 at 09:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Ottoman Caesars
Posted By: Degredado
Subject: Ottoman Caesars
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2005 at 14:11
WELCOME, OUR CURRENTLY ACTIVE FORUM HAS MOVED OVER TO:

http://allempires.net/forum/forums.html

, ADMINISTRATION

______________________


O.K. I have a simple question. I read somewhere that when Mehmet the conqueror took Constantinople, he called himself Caesar of all of the Romans. This very same source said that since then, the Ottomans laid claim to every bit of land that was once part of the Roman Empire. Is this true? And did the Ottomans even consider rebuilding the Roman empire in their image?

-------------
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas



Replies:
Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 12:24
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.

-------------
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?


Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 13:29
Yes, Mehmet II Conqueror planned an invasion of Italy but he died, the invasion left unfinished. Otranto in Italy was under Ottoman occupation.


Posted By: Degredado
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 14:01
Conquering Italy is one thing. I'm talking about remaking the entire Roman Empire.

-------------
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 14:17
what you're all forgetting is that the Ottoman image of the Roman empire was in fact the byzantine empire at the time the Turks arrived in Anatolia.


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 14:26

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.



-------------
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin


Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 19:43
Thrones are gained by power. None of the Roman Emperors were elected like recep tayyip erdogan. Ottomans did the same like their descendants...


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2005 at 17:18
It's true that one of Mehmed II's titles was Kayzer-i Rm.

-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Imperatore Dario I
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 10:53
Mehmet II certainly did crown himself  Emperor of the  Romans, and he did attempt an invasion of Italy (he captured Otranto for a very short amount of time). But by no means was it accepted by the pope , really.

-------------

Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 11:19
 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 http://www.romanity.org - 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?



Posted By: Qnzkid711
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 11:26
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.  




-------------
"Europe and Asia are finally mine. Woe to Chritendom. She has lost her sword and shield."
Ottoman Sultan after hearing of the death of Skenderbeg.


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 11:42

Originally posted by Qnzkid711 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.    



Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 11:59
It would have helped Mehmet a little if he had taken Rome itself.


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 18:52

Originally posted by Catt Catt wrote:

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

Yes this is an other possibility.



Posted By: Imperatore Dario I
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 07:04
Originally posted by Catt Catt wrote:

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.


-------------

Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 10:48

Quote 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



-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:01
I thought that the Ottomans considered themselves as the Caliphate? Oh well different propaganda for different eras.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:08
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. 


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 19:23
Originally posted by Alparslan Alparslan wrote:

Originally posted by Qnzkid711 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.    

 
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.


Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 00:21
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.


-------------


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 02:56
Originally posted by Penelope Penelope wrote:

Originally posted by Alparslan Alparslan wrote:

Originally posted by Qnzkid711 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.    

 
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.
 
 


-------------



Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 07:22
Originally posted by Tyranos Tyranos wrote:

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".


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 14:36
Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I Imperatore Dario I wrote:

Originally posted by Catt Catt wrote:

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 Tyranos wrote:

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.


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 19:04
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I Imperatore Dario I wrote:

Originally posted by Catt Catt wrote:

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 Tyranos wrote:

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.
 
 
 
There is an old post of mine dedicated to Otranto: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=14877&KW=Otranto&PID=273963#273963 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=14877&KW=Otranto&PID=273963#273963
 
 


Posted By: kurt
Date 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.



Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date 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.  


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 00:04
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

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.
 
 


-------------
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


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 15:43
Originally posted by ihsan ihsan wrote:

Quote 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.
 
 


-------------



Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2009 at 13:37
Originally posted by Tyranos Tyranos wrote:

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.


-------------
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



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net