@@lordgaul- I always feel, without being an expert that Greek=Orthodox and Turk= Muslim, is an oversimplification of a more complex tapestry that used to exist. And maybe the last century has made this a self fulfilling prophecy.
Kinda. You're right but the greeks were part of the Roman empire, they were literally the eastern part of the Roman empire + Rome itself was becoming christian by its fall. The Turks are a completely different, people whose only claim is the right of conquest.
@@lordgaul- in any way no , latins were hugely influenced by the Greeks , look at their architecture , language , religion . The ottomans didn't have almost any similarities with the Greeks at the time and the conqueror can't be the successor . It doesn't make sense
As a greek myself i can say for sure that even today some rural greeks call themselves romans and that even until the greek revolutionary war it was common for greeks to call themselves romans. At that time the greeks were calling all romanians wallachians (vlahi). After Greece became independent and got a bavarian king on the throne that king loved ancient greek history, so he tried shaping Greece into something separate from the roman times. One of the things he did for example was that he moved the capital from Nafplio to Athens, even though at the time Athens were basically ruins of what they once were and even though back then Athens were dangerously close to the Ottoman border
TherE are hardly any real Greeks left living from the ancient Hellas..They are now from the lineage of Romans,Venetians, and even Turks, Especially the people of Greek islands are mostly originated from what is Italy now,former Rome ,then Venice..
@@skylar4735 after Alexander the great the greeks were relying a lot on assimilating other people into greek culture to preserve and expand greekness. I don't care at all if i have the exact same dna as the mycenaeans or if my dna is a jumbled mix of everything. Also you should prove you're correct. I can pull up studies showing that greeks have nearly identical dna to the ancient mycenaeans, but can you show any studies proving your point? I ask because no person who i ever heard saying your claim has ever given any evidence other than "this is the case because this is the case and cope". And finally, roman isn't an ethnicity, it's a nationality. You're confusing romans with latins, and though rome was started by the latins and at first only latins were considered romans they later on allowed people of other ethnicities to be roman citizens too.
I think a comparison to China is very apt. Both were massive empires that dominated a continent for millennia, but went through many dynastic, religious, geographic, and ethnic changes over the centuries. From a western viewpoint, we just think of China having always been “China” despite the dozens of different dynasties it went through. Yet many of them were ruled not by Han, but by outsiders like the mongol Yuan dynasty or the most recent dynasty, the Manchu Qing dynasty. If these dynastic changes don’t mean we can’t call these empires Chinese, it should really make us think about why we don’t call the ottomans Roman.
i personally think the reason people still see france as francs or china as china was because well.. they still exists today. so people were fimiliar with it on world maps. even if it was gaul or frankish kingdoms its still just "historical france".
what does "from a western standpoint" even mean in this context? it's pretty common knowledge in my circles that in a nation-state of over a billion, there are obviously distinct cultures and peoples, and of the CCP trying to homoginize their entire culture into "we are and were all always Han", so who are you speaking for? you can just speak for yourself and not assume your ignorance onto everyone else if you'd be so kind
Well its not just us Europeans that take that perspective. China today does so too. However: Unlike Ottomons, the foreign rulers in China relativly quickly absorbed and inherited traditions, clothing, eating style etc. from the locals (they often maintained distinct differences; though). While Ottomans mostly maintained their cultural tradition, language, clothing, rules of legitimacy and inheritance etc. Therefore I don't see this a perfect analogy. What is true is, that Chinese dynasties were not just new families on the throne like when one Roman emperor was pushed aside by the next usurper but indeed the difference between Chinese dynasties could have well been that of late medieval Byzantium vs. the Rome under Augustus. But the changes within Eastern Roman empire were rather gradual (even the adoption of Greek language in court despite population speaking Greek), while the change that came with the Ottoman rule was drastic and immediate on many levels.
@@aidanrock8719 I think its safe to say that outside of Asia knowledge of Chinese history is way less common than about the Classic Roman Empire. (With Byzantium being probably almost as obscure as China). Especially when we are talking about pre Quing or at least Ming dynasties. I think that ignorance is pretty commonplace to some extent. Interestingly the Cultural Revolution under Mao eradicated a lot of awareness, historic knwoledge and philosophic views from Chinese population and some decades later PRC reintroduced these but in a censored and regime-friendly form. So one could argue that even many Chinese get a very idealized view of their history and could be called ingorant to some extent, not as ignorant than most Euopeans and Americans, though.
@@greenling. I would claim Persia is a better comparison to China versus Ottoman Empire But I find some problem with the whole idea of comparison in general . I think we’ve gotten a little carried away with not remembering that these civilizations didn’t have any inherent basis for comparison, because they didn’t even know each other existed (in detail) except in modern hindsight, after society and civilization has changed as much as it has. When you get down to the nitty-gritty details of how China Persia or Egypt actually functioned, you realize they were all very different societies.
As a Turk, I can say that we don't usually see the Ottomans as a continuation of Roman Empire and treat them as separate entities. But if you ask my own opinion, it is clear that not only the Ottomans but also the Seljuks saw themselves as the inheritors of the Roman Legacy and you have mentioned many of the reasons why that's the case in your video. Another thing that I would like to add is that Mehmed II (the sultan who captured Constantinople and hence called "The Conqueror") was particularly interested in the idea of being the "Roman Emperor". After the conquest, he made the Orthodox Patriarch crown him as "Caesar of Rome/the Romans" or "Kayser-i Rûm" in Ottoman Turkish. He added Roman laws into the Ottoman Legislation. He could speak Greek and Latin. He was intellectually a superior man compared to not only his predecessors but also his successors. He even wanted to invade Italy in order to capture Rome and press his claim even further. His soldiers captured the city of Otranto in Italy but he died shortly after (some historians believe that he was possibly poisoned by either the Venetians or his own son Bayezid whom he didn't get along with). Though, after his death the idea of invading Italy was abandoned.
I agree they are separate entities. The Ottomans were a world power that dominated the Mediterranean Basin for centuries. And created a Turkish culture that is in place today, in many respects. The end of Roman political and cultural sway came to an end in 1204 with the crusader sack of city. The rump state would have fallen much earlier if we’re not for the impact of Tamerlane. The renaissance in the west in 1400’s ( due much in part to Arab preservation of ancient texts) revived Roman and Greece cultural influence west. Not the rise of Ottoman power after the fall of Constantinople. Also the sack of Baghdad by Mongols not only destroyed the most advanced city at that but and precluded any chance of a hybrid culture emerging in east. In many ways the mongol empire’s rise and decline set the stage for a new and different power to dominate the world stage , the ottomans. Just my take- happy to find folks interested in late Roman history.
As a Rumları, one of those stubborn ones that just won't disappear yet. I see it as a inheritance of our legacy too. One of my main reasons comes down to the people. There was a Ottoman historian who asked himself "where did the Romans go" after the fall of Constantinople because he noticed almost all the people spoke Turkish and it had only been 70ish years. So he went around İstanbul and asked shop owners and bakers and fish mongers about themselves and their families. Through talking with these people he came to realise that they didn't go somewhere but became the Turks that he thought replaced them. Science backs this up with the Turkic migration estimated to be 15% of Anatolia's population in the 11th century and that 15% is the average Turkic haplogroup occurrence. If Mehmed II conquered Rome for us I'm sure the Greeks would be singing a different tune about the Turks today.
"inheritors" i think you mean "destroyers and pillagers of ".. a bunch of wannabe savages from the eastern wastes taking credit for the advancements brought by centuries of Roman and Greek men.
The root of the question is what does it mean to be Roman. Is Roman an ethnicity? Is it a political system? Is it a language? Because all of those changed over the course of Roman history. We tend to look at things like the Romans as a static snapshot of one point in time (the classical period) and anything that falls outside of that we don't consider Roman. But Rome was never stagnant and it evolved and changed over the centuries. So back to my first point we have to define what it means to be Roman first.
By the point or Western Rome's collapse, 'Roman' didn't refer just to ethnic Italians, but also to people of 'barbarian' ancestry who had acquired Roman citizenship. I think we need to look at Western civilization through the same lens we look at Chinese civilization as. We are the Romans, our civilization is a continuation of their civilization.
I think it is not an ethnicity since Romans were Latins (indoeuropean speakers that descended into Italy thought Pannonia and north Italy) nor a language. It is related to citizenship , since romans were aware of the fact thier small numbers must force them to "romanize" or instillate a way of living and a mindset close to their, then making them "Romans". So it is something really close to american citizenship: firstly established by anglosaxon people but open to everyone. so, answering your question, it means being an holder of a citizenship which imply being faithful to the roman state.
to be Roman is to be a citizen of Rome, i.e born within the Roman imperial borders to a Roman parent. or later on given citizenship by the Roman authority. it is mostly an ethnicity but it welcomed a few barbarians here and there. but turks ? romans ? a joke must first make sense to be funny...
@@houssamassila6274 many turks were already roman citizens even before turkic raids of anatolia since they were hired to figth for roman country. There were even half turkic emperor of rome Leo, son of tzitzek. Eastern rome was in touch with turks way before than ottomans and selcuks. It didnt start with raids.
It Is a mix of all of these things and after you surpass a certain treshold you can claim to be Roman. Where the treshold lies Is a debate that Is too long to explain in RUclips comments
As once an Ottoman Turkish expert who spent time in the archives and a translator, I often encountered in the court language they (the sultans) referred themselves as Kayser-i Rũm / the Caesar of The Romans.
@@sneed457no, In Arabic, Ottoman empire was called "Sultanate Al Rumiyyah سلطنة الرومية" In Persian it was ''Romestan" The land of Rome. This simply means no country or empire was ever ruled on Lineage but the name of land
@@sneed457well if you also ruled over all of mars and martians and treated by other powers as ruler of mars then yes you could call yourself emperor of mars. Because you know that was what ottomans did :)
Wow! That was fantastic. Both your purposes were fulfilled for me; I learned *a lot* about the Ottomans (especially the early Ottomans) that I had never been exposed to, and I totally get your point about separating the objective event from the interpretation we attach to it. Just an outstanding video.
As a Turk, I think the title of "kayser-i rum" was important in the classical age of Ottoman Empire, especially during the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror. After we took Constantinople, nomadic traditions of Turkish state changed radically and adopted lots of Roman traditions. Even Turkish classical music influenced largely from byzantine music. But after Yavuz Sultan Selim conquered most parts of the Muslim world like Egypt and Levant and became the Khalifa, ruler of Rum was just a title among very other titles (e.g. Süleyman's letter to Francis I of France).
@9/11 was done by bush Huh? Egypt, Dimashq, Mecca, Madina, Yemen, al-Quds, Basra, Baghdad, Tunis, Algiers... They had at least one fourth, if not one third, of the Islamic world under their banner, geographically.
@9/11 was done by bush Lol do you care to explain what you mean by that? I mean, I don't care personally for Islam, I believe I'd have a better life, had the Ottomans not leaned on Islam as much as they did, but what you said is simply factually wrong.
Had Constantinople reconquered Anatolia and Turkish Muslims become one of the “Roman” ethnicities (even though “Roman” did eventually become the de facto ethnicity of the empire), an Ottoman power grab could have been seen much more in the line of traditional dynastic struggles. After all, the transition from pagan to christian emperors didn’t happen overnight. The fact that they took power from outside the empire’s borders and did not see themselves as Roman subjects excludes traditional ways of seeing it through the lens of internal power struggles
Puts words to my thoughts perfectly. The outside factor is important especially since they brought in their own customs, philosophies, and the like. Though an imperfect comparison but still useful, the Mongolians took Russia, China, and Iran yet were seen as outsiders and invaders imposing their own identity upon the existing sociopolitical structures rather than inheritors by conquest. A similar situation can be said with the turks upon Rome. The difference being the turks killed the last remnants of Rome, claimed the seat while redecorating the house rather than the Mongolians which were pushed out or absorbed into the once conquered peoples.
This is almost true as the ottomans and seljuks before them were still considering themselves as entities within the roman empire, which was more geographical and ideological. Ottomans even structured themselves copying byzantines. This is very similar to how a commander in the roman empire can take over Egypt and then challenge the throne.
@@technosins7123 For most of Roman history, being Roman was fundamentally tied to being a Roman citizen in the Roman state. I think it was actually probably due to the Seljuks that for the first time, one could be a Roman by ethnicity and not nationality. From an outside perspective, maybe they were living in the historical lands of Romans. But until then, being a Roman was associated with living in the Roman state. I have a feeling this might be partially why the West ended up losing Roman identity (along with political disunity). After the Seljuks, most citizens of Rome were Greek speaking Romans in a proto nation-state. This is why Turks could be the rulers of the Romans but not Roman Emperors (they killed the Roman political entity, after it had previously been destroyed by the western Europeans).
@@gideonmele1556 Thank you :) I think we are already in agreement, but to elaborate, I think it's ok if customs and philosophies change. That is indeed a summary of the history of Rome. They just changed internally within the Roman state. If a Turkish regional noble had taken the throne, spread Islam, and over the centuries morphed into something similar to the Ottoman Empire, it would've still been a continuation of the Roman state.
Rome has been a cultural power. As such, it is still present now in many aspects of our lives. To complicate the matter, the peoples in the Italian peninsula and Greek peninsula came in the respective locations in waves long before there was a Greek or a Roman culture. In historical times, I would consider that a strong culture influences ethnicity almost unilateraly. It does not take long to assimilate a culture, while ethnicity comes with its own complexities and rather large time constants always under cultural influences.
Superb video! I love how you impart the relevant information, and your own opinion, without dragging the video out like many other history channels do.
An interesting thing about the Ottomans is that they brought together two separate imperial strands: the Roman Empire, as mentioned in this video, and the Caliphate, following the conquest of Mamluk Egypt in 1517.
Well it was more of a change. As the Ottoman Empire existed, it changed its Focus from being Roman to being the Caliphate. The Projection of the Empire changed to being the Islamic after its Zenith was over, in the Times of Mehemed 2, Selim and Süleyman the Empire was seen as the Roman Empire
This was so refreshing, to hear about how people viewed themselves in the past vs how we interpret things today, plus the acknowledgement of possible bias and the varying ways of defining what it means to be "Roman". It reminds me of some of my history lessons where end of Middle Ages and start of Renaissance would be constantly was retold as a story of 'boom in this year everything changed'. Too little time is dedicated to causes of events, the overall socioeconomic environment and beliefs people had, instead we keep memorizing dates... I also think that Roman Empire basically ended with the conquest of Constantinople but also, it was never pointed out to me that Ottomans called themselves Kayseri Rum, or that they called themselves that. Perhaps it was to make people recall the gigant that Rome was and be like 'remember the guy who built hagia sofia? he was amazing, he did amazing stuff. and I'm just like him, but even better because I defeated him'. By 'him' I mean Rome as a legacy which to this day is viewed as one of the most, if not the most, legendary and retold stories of its kind.
Using self-designation by a conqueror as a criterion for "X"-ness has its limits though. The Latin emperors who ruled in Constantinople from 1204 to 1261 also called themselves "Emperor of Romania", Romania being the Byzantine Empire, or "Rum". Yet we consider their state a separate entity. I feel that this is not different from denying the Ottomans their supposed "Romanness". Certainly the Greeks themselves would have disagreed with the claims of the Muslim Ottomans, as they had done with the Roman Catholic Latins.
@@ansibarius4633 I never thought self-designation was an appropriate criteria. In fact, I never said it was 😅 All I said was "it's refreshing to hear how people thought of themselves". We don't talk of Ottoman sultans as emperors of Rome either, even if they governed from Istanbul (once Byzantine). To me it was interesting to find out they called themselves so.
@@katexy7179 Ah, OK, maybe I misunderstood then. To be honest, I am not sure if the Sultans really looked at themselves that way. Maybe they did, but then again, taking the titles of your conquered enemy and proclaiming yourself as their legitimate ruler is not such an uncommon practice (Alexander and the Roman Emperors were for instance considered to be "pharaohs" of Egypt after they conquered that country). It can be a strategy for discouraging rebellion, as it makes it easier to brand any claimant who would try to restore indigenous rule a traitor rising against his lawful sovereign instead of a foreign conqueror.
As an aside, it's worth listening to Constantine XI Paleologus' final speech just prior to the fall of Constantinople (available on RUclips). He's one of those under appreciated figures in history who, if born in a different time, world have been a great general. But he was we'd to an empire that was on its last leg, fighting the turks who were themselves great militarily with higher military technology.
prior to taking the reins as Emperor, while still Despot of the Morea, he did raise the largest army the Romans had seen in over a century to retake lands in southern Greece and hopefully re-establish a border at the ancient Hexamillion Wall much like Majorian and Anthemius, the Romans had a way to have the absolute greatest of people rise to the top in times of crises, just sometimes it was all too far gone to matter
@@lightbringer2794 pair of thousands that surrounded themself three layers of walls which was one of the most advanced strongholds at its time. what interesting is turks never had to rely on those walls for protecting them afterwards.
@@reckoner8210 Nope, not an advantage when there is a blockade from all sides and sappers and cannons tearing down the walls. The walls need defenders, without people, no one can defend the walls.
@@reckoner8210 because cannons and the improvement of weapons made them useless. Also when would the ottomans needed to use the walls? They had all the lands around them. By 1900’s those walls aren’t stopping shit.
No it wasn't... Since u dumb f**ks are so blinded by 'whitewashed islamic propaganda/bul**hit' No they were not, if they were one why they opressed people who were Roman/Romanoi.. grekoi/romanoi people or simply put 'modern greeks' were Roman since when roman republic conquered Greece they were not considered as opressors or fereign cuz they were much influenced by them even tho to be fair in the begining even tho they were not considered opressors they were considered as semi-barbarians but that didn't last for long, during the late Pax Romanum Roman Empire 222 granted greeks citizenship therefore making them officially acknowledged as Romans also there were migration and intermarrige between the two so yeah this makes them legitimate also not talking about the fact that religion was the same at least with little intermidiate period before the great Schism which lasted till 1054, Roman institution lasted till 1453 or 1479 if u take in the account last reminent of Eastern Roman culture or Dospotate of Epirus, turks were neither part of western or eastern way they were muslims and from altaic background fought Rome and took countless slaves from balkans ...they are as legit as HRE(THEY ARE NOT) When u learn history start with basics and from begining not from the fu*king middle
I define myself as Turkish. I speak Turkish, I think Turkish. but I remember feeling very comfortable culturally when I was in Greece. same food, same manners, same music. In fact, it would be useful for me to make this clear. I do not feel the same comfort when I go to the eastern region and Kurdish cities in my own country. Food changes, music changes, behavior patterns change. my village is a mountain village of Konya. Stones from the historical ruins of the ancient Roman period were used in our mosque in the inner region of Konya, Turkey, and in the village where my ancestors lived for hundreds of years. Stones with a cross on them, with Hellenic writing. we may be descendants of Islamized Romans, or perhaps descendants of nomadic Turks who came from Khorasan on horseback. not important for me. For example, the symbol of my city is the double-headed eagle and it was also the symbol of Byzantium. My father is blond, blue-eyed, and white-skinned, and my mother is dark-skinned with brown eyes and wheat-skinned. I have a mix of both colors. I am a mixed person, just like Turkey, which was once called the "Greek Land". In essence, we are familiar with the idea in the video, I have to say that the Karaman Orthodox who left my city with the 1922 "population exchange" were Turkish-speaking Christians. There were Turkified Romans as well as Christianized Turks. there were even Turkopols who lived in this geography long before the Ottoman Empire and fought in the crusader army. As a Turk, I am happy to live in this geography, to have this food culture, this music, this way of life. I would also like to thank the Romans who contributed to this.
I am a Greek- like in the way you said, think and speak as such- who now lives in the US, and I can fully attest to feeling at home with Turkish people, at least those from the West Coast & Istanbul. Finding fellow Greeks around here is- to this point- impossible. However, I have met a few Turks and it is like a breath of fresh air. That is to say, I don't feel alienated when I speak to them, nor do I have to put effort into feeling like the other person understands what I am trying to convey. Of course culturally, we are not fully one and the same, however the similarities are like no other, I feel.
Im Turkish too. Think exactly like you. Its really surprising to see that kind of uniting, moderate and open-minded person in anywhere of the world, let alone Turkey. Today we have bunch of losers that struggle with their inferiority complex. They feel bad because they are Turkish and try to become something else that they're not. They even bow down to imperialist powers agendas while trying to cure their complexes. And in the other hand we have ultra nationalists that see themselves and their nation so superior they can never be wrong nor evil. Always all the other nations are against us, planing and executing conspiracies always. But the superior point is here that where we stand. Not hating and try to mask who we are. Exact opposite we love our people and love our culture and country that we want them to live good lives. And at the same time we dont see ourselves above every nation that were blind to our weaknesses. We embrace everything that contributed to our culture, Romans and even beyond them. This is how we pull our country out of the mess thats in. This is how we prosper and provide a good future to our next generations, that we couldn't get unfortunately. Sorry if I babbled too much but I couldn't help my patriotic feelings overflowing. Peace my brother.
@@jasonb.9790in Turkey we say us Turks are Muslim Greeks and Greeks are Orthodox Turks. Similarities are like no other as you said indeed. Cheers to the day when our governments will not squabble with each other and love one another like us common folk do. Peace.
If you look at where the Turks originally came from, which is most modern day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan and surrounding areas (eg Mongolia, Russia, China), many Turkic peoples there look either Mongolic, Iranic (the Iranic peoples used to live far and wide, especially in Central Asia and Russia, Ukraine & Romania) or North Caucasian (eg Dagestan) in appearance. Whereas you don't find these people so much in modern day Türkiye. I think Azerbaijan is a good example. As you likely know, the name "Azeri" comes from the people who lived there for millenia before Turkic invasions. It refers to the name of the language spoken, which was an Iranic language, close to the other Caspian Sea Iranic languages (same branch as Persian). And yet, these people are Shia Muslims. The Turkic peoples did not change the Azeri people's religion, only their language, which obviously now they speak Azerbaijani, a language very close to Turkish. So the people of Azerbaijan are basically still the same Azeri Iranians, but they speak a Turkic language. This is similar to the Gaulic people of France. As you probably know, the Gauls had their own language in France, a Celtic language, until Caesar conquered Gaul for the Romans and Latin replaced Gaulic. The Romans did not settle and colonize Gaul, they merely ruled over it. So the native French people, even though they are speaking a derivative of Latin, are still the same Gaulic Celtic people, mostly, although Italian, Spanish and Moorish immigration did happen to the South and Germanic immigration to the northeast and Britonic/Breton migration to the northwest. So... sorry for it to take long to get hear, but dare I suggest that the Turkish people are still largely descended from the same Indigenous Hatti and Indo-European speaking Anatolian/Hittite, Greek, Armenian and others who have inhabited the land for thousands of years. Of course there is "Turkic blood" too, but even the Turkic invaders of Anatolia themselves were a highly nomadic people who had the afforementioned mix of Mongolian, Iranian and Caucasian blood. Being Turkic is probably the least genetically dependent (or rather most genetically diverse) group of people in the world, so it is more based on language and culture than anything.
Wonderful reminder that there are often SIGNIFICANT differences between the fragmented records of those living in the past compared to later historiographies. Histories may add intelligibility (FOR US NOW), but may not reflect what those living then understood. A brilliant reminder that asking questions has ALWAYS BEEN NECESSARY.
I really like how you described the importance of prescribed meanings. I love history, and you've helped bring a new perspective when it comes to learning about history!
Excellent content! I am so pleased to see that RUclips algorithm can still pull out such gems from its depths for me! Loved your presentation, especially that it touches on interpretation of history and projection of our understandings of today to past. As a person who was born and raised in Turkey, holding half Turkish half Kurdish ethnicity, and currently living in Greece for many years; - I feel very happy, first and foremost, to see the humility that takes place in the comments section. Not gonna lie, wanted to fish for some aggressive comments (or even a fight) to make my day, but find out that people can actually conduct themselves in an articulate manner. Feeling even happier :) - As Speros Vyronis argues, that there should be distinction between how we perceive "the end of an empire" with "the end of a civilization". Empires, with their dynasties, ruling classes, religious/political affairs may end up or overthrown in due time either by a successor entity (or even a nation-state, perhaps even a revolution) or by a challenging power. Civilizations on the other hand, do live on much longer with tradition, ceremonies, culture, ruling practices and public affairs, independently from the successor entity. In relation to your presentation, it is helpful to keep in mind what Ostrogorsky analyzes - that Eastern Roman Empire (which was not called Byzantine Empire back then, as you mention in your presentation) even in its declining years had tried to keep the monopoly of the title "King of Romans" (Βασιλευς Ρωμαιωη) as a form of power, declaring the ruling dynasty as "protector of Christians and Christendom". Many rival empires had the ambition to claim or challenge that title, and until the arrival of Charlamagne's Frankish Empire (Which he claimed the title of "Kaizer", derivation of "Ceaser", and crowned by the Roman Catholic Church) the sole monopoly of this title was kept with the Byzantine Kings. As such, Ottoman Empire was also carrying this ambition; to have that title not only for political legitimacy of its future rule, but also to showcase that it is the torchbearer of the "Roman Civilization", not "another random tribe". (Sources: (i) Speros Vryonis, "Byzantine Civilization, A World Civilization"; Byzantium: A World Civilization, Angeliki E. Lalou and Henry Macguire, Dumbarton Oaks Collection - (ii) Ostrogorsky, G., "Die Byzantische Staatenhierarchie", Seminarium Kondakovianion, 8.1936 / An English translation could be found by searching the author's name and "Byzantine Emperator and Hierarchical World Order") - It is also worth to mention that the discourse of nationalist views and ideologies in both Turkey and Greece have shaped around the relationship that both nation-states formed with their current history and the history of the Byzantine Empire. I am not a nationalist myself at all, and after many years I am able to understand that Greek Nationalism's identification with "the glory of Byzantine Empire" and Turkish Nationalism's identification with "the glory of the Ottoman Empire, which crushed Byzantine Empire" have been deliberately nitpicked certain parts of history only and have been established to create the myth of a nation and "an imaginary community", since it does not carry the historical realities of that era (considering how the Ottoman Sultan wanted to claim the "Kaizer-i Rum" title, especially). This deliberate and false interpretation of history has been also very detrimental between the relationship of the peoples of these respective countries (along with many other, more recent historical realities and atrocities, of course). Thus, I feel quite happy that with a humble video such as yours did not trigger a series of irrelevant discussions and outbursts (which can even end up with racial slurs), but rather as a platform where everybody placed their own experience growing up in their respective country and how this video relates to their understanding of today. My faith in small but quality RUclips channels have been restored! So thank you above all for that :) To all the fellow people of the shared geography of the Aegean Sea and the Levant; very nice to see us that we can engage in this gracious manner with each other, especially in this tense environment between the Turkish and the Greek State. I call Greece home as much as call Turkey home, and enjoy a humble life treading between the two. And I always feel very glad to realize that we, as citizens of Turkey and Greece, (but much largely, of the world) have much more in common to celebrate and have much more to learn together! Γεια σας σε ολους και σε ολλες! Cümleten herkese selamlar!
İstanbul'dan selamlar :) I guess the reason you don't see aggressive idiots here is that the content and the level of English is too high-level for them to even watch and understand the video :) I also think that the presenter himself sets a good example for his audience. Thank you for the information and your positive messages for all people.
I always thought the Ottoman Empire to be a continuation of the Roman Empire. The sultans were emperors, and we're addressed as imperial highnesses. And they were till the end of the empire conscious of this. The greek minority, by the way, is still called the Rums.
probably if the Ottoman Empire had moved further west and taken Rome, it would have transformed into the Roman Empire due to changes in demographic composition and mutual assimilation
Cool stuff man, especially your perspectives at the end! Love how you take care to interpret biases all while being aware you're subject to them yourself
I don't think the ottomans were romans. They had their own customs, laws, different faith. However, their subjects were roman. In contrast, Justinian adapted the roman law to make it more christian, however there is clearly a continuity. Another example, the roman republic fell, but you can't say the empire was not Roman. The example you gave with France, seems to me something similar to the fall of Roman Republic, a civil war, rather than barbarians taking over. If Germany permanently occupied France and the occupation lasted more than 600 years, turning most French people into German, then I would say that the nation of France ceased to exist at the moment of its occupation.
I agree. If the Ottomans had adopted Roman language and customs and basically kept the empire the same except for the ruling dynasty I would consider them a continuation of the Roman empire. But they completely displaced the Romans and turned Anatolia into a Turkic country. It's why we consider all the different ethnic groups that ruled China but the populace remained Chinese and the ruling class became Chinese.
In Rome, which was pagan and Latin, Christian and Greek became a change. Of course, states such as the Ottoman Empire and the Holy Rome were not as Roman as the Byzantines. but it would not be right to exclude it completely from the system. For every nation in the Mediterranean basin, Rome symbolized absolute power, nothing more.
It really seems like our present understanding of nationhood is ethnic. France stayed France because it remained ethnically French. Rome fell in 1453 because it was conquered by another ethnicity. It really does expose the racism at the heart of human society if nothing else. Great vid
I don't think the french revolution is a good comparison when talking about the change in political system because it was an internal change rather than a takeover by an outside regime. A more appropriate comparison for france is the takeover of gaul by the franks
Ok how about the change from Frankish barbarian kingdom to Latin French? The identity of a 6th century Frank and a 19th century French citizen is immensely different and the both lived in France/francia and the rulers even though they were a different religion would be considered franks.
@@edgargross2789 I mean you can still largely see Greek culture and influence in turkey and even ethnically, a large part of the anatolian gene pool is still greek. But yeah I do get your point about language and culture but the change was very gradual and took hundreds of years of assimilation.
@@googane7755 large part of anatolian gene pool is not greek but “greek speaking anatolians” which are descendants of hittites,luwians,karians,lycians and many more. There were many different peoples before greeks in anatolia but in time they became greek in terms of culture and language, after turks took anatolia they became turks in terms of same reasons.
When i studied Art History, I especially appreciated two classes i followed, one on Late Antiquity, and another on Islamic Art. In the first, one day our teacher said ‘The Roman Catholic Church is a direct continuation of the institutions of the Roman Empire’. In the second (i want to remember this as happening the same week) our teacher said ‘the Islаmic Stаtе, when it 1st invaded Byzantine territories in the 7th century, became a direct continuation of the institutions of the Roman Empire’.
This came up in a paper that I had to do, and my answer is "it depends" on what way you see it. Here's the synopsis of how it was presented: *Legally:* Yes, by right of conquest. In those days (and also today tbh) because Mehmet II did conquer the city in 1453 and he did crown himself as "Caesar of the Romans" (among many other titles) and assumed the mantle of protector of the Romans (within of course the context of sharia law which relegated them as second class citizens and deprived them of many of their rights such as land ownership, horse ownership, displays of wealth and a very stringent review of displays of religious symbology and church construction & maintenance) the Ottomans are the legal successor of the Eastern Romans. As for any legal codes from the previous Eastern Roman Empire, while a few were incorporated into the Ottoman laws, they were mostly applicable to the non-Muslim minorities. That's because the daily rule of the non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire was actually done by the Patriarch of Constantinople, for the Eastern Orthodox, the Armenian Patriarch for the Armenians and the Chief Rabbi for the Jews. So while some laws of Eastern Rome might have survived, they probably never saw any application on the Muslim subjects, which is important because the Ottoman Empire at it's zenith was a theocracy. *By Blood:* This is a tricky one. The Seljuk nobles definitely did marry and produce heirs with the Imperial and noble families of the Eastern Romans. We also know that Mehmet II did claim that he was a descendant of one of the Emperors, though that may have been one of many pretexts he used to justify his conquest of Constantinople. Even after the fall, the Sultans did have heirs with many Roman (along with Albanian, Slavic and Jewish) women in their harem. In tandem we have proof that some of the Eastern Roman nobility converted to Islam to find a cushy position in the new Ottoman administration. We also know that a good chunk of the Ottoman army (and by extension citizens) were former Christian Roman subjects that converted at some time. But leaning on this brings the question of "what makes a Roman a Roman and what makes a (Ottoman) Turk a Turk?". Even before the idea of "Turkishness" began to arise in the 1800's, there was a huge degree of separation between the Turkish and non-Muslim communities, which was frankly done by design as stated in the legal section. To put it bluntly, if you go to today's Republic of Turkey (which let's be honest is the cultural successor to the Ottomans) and say that they are the successors of Justinian, the Komnenians and the Paleologos, you will (at best) get a puzzled look. *Culturally:* Definitely not. While we treat the Eastern Roman Empire as a different entity from its earlier "whole" counterpart, the Eastern Romans followed a clear cultural and philosophical evolution of its united predecessor. Some of the prestigious institutions, such as the consuls, senate etc., continued to operate long after the pagan days of yore and sometimes even until 1453. The Eastern Romans definitely identified themselves with their ancient counterpart such as Augustus, Cicero, Octavian, Virgil etc. What offsets everybody about the Eastern Roman Empire is the Greekish-ness of it all since they also considered themselves successors of Achilles, Socrates, Aristotle, Alexander the Great etc., however at that point Greek and Roman civilizations had practically fused into one or as one RUclipsr said _"The Romans became Greek, and the Greeks not only became the Romans but the _*_last_*_ Romans"_ . On the other hand, the Islamic Seljuk and Ottoman imposition is more a cultural intrusion than a physical evolution of the Roman civilization. Their religious rituals were done in Arabic, the noble titles were mostly Persian, their script was (again) Arabic and their language was Turkish. The Ottoman art and aesthetic along with their philosophical outlook was definitely Middle Eastern, where religiously they at best tolerated the Roman Christian minorities. And using the French Revolution is not the right perspective, since said revolution was an organic event done by a disgruntled cohort of the local French middle class that was fed up with the archaic feudal system, making the whole process integral to the French identity. In contrast, if you go to the non-Muslim Balkan nations (especially the Eastern Orthodox ones), the Ottoman rule is seen as an intrusive deviation in their history. So on a spiritual/cultural level, the answer is no.
I love this. Great explanation of the issues involved. A little off topic (because I don't want it to take away from your overall comment, which is awesome), I think your thoughts at the end about my France analogy support my point in an interesting way. I'm guessing you and I would probably agree that we COULD see the Ottomans as a continuation of the Roman empire, if we look at it from the Ottomans' point of view, recognizing that others at the time might well have disagreed with them. When you say republican France is in continuity with the ancien regime, "organic," "integral to the French identity," aren't you doing the same thing? We COULD see the French Republic that way, if we look at it from the republicans' point of view. Would we see it that way if looking from the monarchists' point of view? I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. But it seems you're adopting the republican narrative and assuming that opposing French narratives don't exist. It would be like taking the Ottoman definition of "Roman" at face value and ignoring the Byzantines who would have disagreed with them. To paraphrase the video, the French Republic happened, but to call it a continuation of pre-revolutionary France is an interpretation we project onto it. Maybe a mistake in my video was taking for granted my own interpretation of the French Republic (one of rupture rather than continuity with what came before) and not explaining what I meant or why that comparison makes sense to me. But anyway, thank you for summarizing your paper. I enjoyed reading it.
@@premodernist_history Thanks for the level headed reply. It's often rare to find one on RUclips. As to answer (some of the questions) to the best of my ability here's my shot: _I'm guessing you and I would probably agree that we COULD see the Ottomans as a continuation of the Roman empire, if we look at it from the Ottomans' point of view, recognizing that others at the time might well have disagreed with them._ Yes. If you look at it from an exclusively legalistic point of view and even to an extent from a sanguinary one. I'm not refuting or fully agreeing with the thesis of the video, I'm just saying it depends on the perspective one looks at it. The curious and interesting thing about the Balkans and Anatolia is that (contrary to the narratives that the nationalists are fed) is that its history is _shades of grey_ . _When you say republican France is in continuity with the ancien regime, "organic," "integral to the French identity," aren't you doing the same thing? We COULD see the French Republic that way, if we look at it from the republicans' point of view. Would we see it that way if looking from the monarchists' point of view?_ Here we have the peculiarities of history. Yes using said words I am implying the same thing regarding France. And many exiled nobles did think that, though it was more of "look at how France is going to the dogs" rather than "France will be wiped off the map and assimilated by someone foreign". It had more similarities of how the exiled white Russians thought of the Bolsheviks, malicious elements degrading their once utopian existence. The Ottomans do not fit in that mold. They came from the outside and brought to their Roman subjects laws and customs that were foreign to them. They also didn't follow any of the artistic or religious practices that their subjects did (though you can see the influence of Byzantine architecture on Ottoman mosques). I guess that the closest French experience to that would probably be Vichy France, an external foreign element with some aspects of Frenchness to justify its legality, though this is a very broad stroke because Ottoman history is very multifaceted. Ultimately, it boils down to the concept of interruption disestablishment and reestablishment and how does the old reconcile with the new. Still interesting video. Keep up the good work.
@@premodernist_history Tocqueville (a French aristocrat, by the way) argued that the institutions of the ancien regine had survived the Revolution to a much greater degree than most people realised and, in fact, plenty of the reformations attributed to the revolution originated in the ancien regime (eliminating feudal privileges, for example). Furthermore, changes such as the one in the calendar were only temporary. Therefore, I do not think the two cases are even remotely comparable. The political structure and social fabric of the Eastern Roman and Ottoman Empires were very different.
@@premodernist_history This is common in history, Bolshevik Russia isn't legally a continuation of the Russian Empire and Russian Republic but we treat it as such, in a lot of revolutions they try to completely break away from the preceding state but will claim continuity for diplomatic reasons (especially for territorial claims). The modern Kingdom of the Netherlands was established under the guise of continuing the Republic of the 7 United Netherlands, but its institutions are more similar to that of Revolutionary France than the old confederation. The People's Republic of China has nothing in common with the Republic of China, but claims continuity, meanwhile nobody recognises the actual Republic of China as a continuation of itself seeing it rather as "Taiwan". This is despite all of its institutions and administrative culture surviving there to this day. Legal continuity is always difficult to determine with revolutionary changes.
I'm Turkish and we are taught that Byzantine Empire ended in 1453, and that Ottomans call themselves the king of the Rum's (Rum also means Greek btw), and indeed they were the ruler of the Greeks. They do not call themselves the Roman Empire, but the ruler of the Romans is one of their titles. Just like you said. I don't think that Christianity defines the Roman Empire. I think it's the other way around, Roman Empire defined the Christianity as we know today. So in a way, if you would like to, you could call Ottomans as Romans. I have heard and sometimes used the term "Muslim Rome" for the Ottoman Empire. I think it is a distinguishment.
They did use the title Roman Emperor and that was the casus belli for the campaign against the other Roman Empire (the HRE) resulting in the famous and dramatic but ultimately failed siege of Vienna. It was of course just another title along with Ottoman Sultan and Caliph, but they did use it all the way to the republic. Arguably Mehmed VI was the last Roman Emperor ever, as well as the last Caliph.
@@premodernist_history in Muslim prophesy the end times will see a Muslim ruler with Rome as the capital of the world and he ascended the throne in Rome wearing a toga
Rum does not mean greek. It means roman, and it is used to refer to greeks/christians as they used to call themselves roman. But it does not mean greek.
Christianity was a direct produce of the Roman Empire, whereas Islam was an external imposition. The Ottomans were the sucessors of the old Caliphates, not Rome's.
If you take a close look at culture and subcultures such as architecture, hygiene traditions, cuisine and such, there is clear connection between Eastern Roman and Ottomans. I grew up in Turkey and lived in Roma for a bit while training as an architect, so at least architecturally, I can confidently say that it is clear Ottomans adopted and innovated upon the famous dome construction methods of ancient Roman's, i.e. works of Mimar Sinan. Also the word Rum is still used today and it is not mutually exclusive. You could technically be an Ottoman Rum. People confuse ethnicity and nationality a lot of the times...
They emulated some stuff as partisans did with seleukids they did not continue anything rome gave western civilization streets cities and legal systems. Ottoman had no fucking streets.
This seems similar to the Turkic dynasties in India calling themselves "Hindu" despite them being Muslims from a different culture. Hindu was the name given to the people of Hindustan, the land around the river Indus which Persians called Hindh (from Sanskrit Sindh). That meant that Hindustan referred to the region which people today call India(the landmass around Indus). Rulers of Delhi like Aurangzeb called himself Malik al Hind (Master of India). The culture of the Hindus was called Hindi. Incidentally, Hindistan is the name of India in Turkic languages.
@@papazataklaattiranimam usually(since Indians called themselves Bhartiya, not Hindustani). Some people call them Tulugu, a name which is sometimes synonymous with being Muslim.
It's also interesting to see how the Ottomans were looked at in other parts of the world. These are entires from a 1895 Punjabi dictionary: ਰੂਮ rúm RÚM ਰੂਮ s. m. Rome; in India, it signities Constantinople and the Turkish Empire. ਰੂਮੀ rúmí RÚMÍ ਰੂਮੀ a. Roman or as universally understood in India a Turk, Turkish:- mastakí rúmí, s. f. The name of a resin, mastich. See Mastakí Rúmí.
Awesome find! Thanks for sharing! That gave me the idea of checking some other dictionaries on archive.org: A New Hindustani-English Dictionary (London, 1879), page 717: rumi, n.m. A Turk. Vocabulary of the English and Malay Languages (London, 1887), page 94: Rum (Ar.) Constantinople. Benua Rum--the Turkish Empire, or ancient Rome. Looks like we have a pretty stark difference between how the phrases "Roman" and "Roman empire" were defined in the West and in the Islamic world. That line in the Punjabi dictionary, "or as universally understood in India, a Turk" got me thinking. Maybe part of the stumbling block for a lot of the commenters on this video is that they don't realize that the Ottomans did not use the term "Turk" to describe themselves. For Europeans, "Turk" meant all Ottoman Muslims, and then later excluding the ones who spoke Arabic. But in the Ottoman empire, "Turk" meant a rural pastoralist.
Yeah, but Cemal Kafadar had already written about it twenty years ago, and he warned against conflating the Ottoman conception of "Rum" with any western notion of Rome.
Wonderful video! Another interesting point that is often not mentioned is the fact that the Imperial Ottoman Dynasty claimed patrilineal descent from the son of a Komnenos emperor. Although contested, this was often used as further reinforcement to aid claims of legitimacy to Roman succession and being the natural follow up to the emperors as “Kaysers” who laid claim to a blood connection.
I am greek, sadly our school-taught history is not even worth discussing, the ottoman period is mostly glossed over, painted with dark colors etc. Certainly no chance of calling the ottoman empire roman or greek in there. But of course, the obvious and key thing that you forget to mention in your video is that we talk about empires, not ethnic states here, these empires, Rome, Byzantium, the Ottoman empire etc, were more about a ruling class and their system of power than the ethnicity and language of their subjects. Religion was certainly a more important aspect of all this but again, this is an era very far from modern nation-states.
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 There is no true successor, many have claimed the title, but yeah, you can't turn back the time, in the following centuries there were different empires, big and small, with different people and in different situations, that lasted a long or a short time... It feels dumb to look for a successor, like football fans looking for the second Messi etc. History doesn't work this way.
Nice to see this kind of topics on youtube. So refreshing, reminded me my old days in the faculty. Greetings from a Spanish historian. You earned a new subscriber
What an interesting approach. I enjoyed the video. Of course in Greek schools people are never taught such a thing and I've seen in Turkish schools that the "Byzantines" were simply an enemy they defeated long ago. Of course both of these approaches in each curriculum serve no other purpose but to enhance the nationalistic agenda of each state. Leaving that aside though, as well as the fact that I am Greek, I would argue against this assumption or theory for various other reasons. But first of all we must admit that there is a grain of truth in this theory. Of course this grain of truth goes as far back as the aftermath of Manzikert in 1071. Where the Sultanate of Rum (Sultanate of the Romans) was an actual political entity with a Turko-Persian elite, but Greek-speaking Roman subjects. Now, contrary to the popular belief the population of Anatolia was not massacred and replaced by Turkic pastoralists who had absolutely no idea how to live in advanced urbanized environments and conduct trade and warfare through the sea. In fact we have references that Turkic tribes migrated in Anatolia in the passing of 350 years and mostly on Central Anatolia, due to its similarity with the Central Asian Steppe, from which they hailed. Therefore, even when the Ottomans were the ruling authority most of their subjects were Greek-speaking Christians, or Turkified citizens (either Mixobarbaroi or simply Islamic converts). Moving on to the fall of Constantinople 1453. It is also a very obscure narrative as well but there were many Byzantines who actually wanted Constantinople to fall to Mehmed. The reason is also obscure, but it has its root in the conquest of Anatolia by the Turks as well as the ravaging crusaders from the West. When Constantinople fell in 1204 there were shaped (or came to the surface) 2 different "parties" amongst the nobles. The "western party" and the "eastern party". The western party were more enthusiastic to receive help from the West. The dynasties of Palaiologos and Doukas-Komnenos were some examples. Basically all of those who deemed the Turks (and Muslims in general) as a threat and wanted to get rid of them, by siding with the Pope, which meant the total submission of the Orthodox church. The eastern party on the other hand were growing fond of the Turks, since they saw that the Orthodox religion was well-preserved and occasionally with more power amongst the Turkic leaders (even though they were Muslims). Supporters were the Patriarchate as well as the dynasties of Doukas-Vatantzes and Lascares. This culminated during the last years of Rhomania up to the siege of Constantinople. Where Constantine Palaiologos XI submitted the Orthodox church to the Pope and he granted privileges and land to Latin nobles, in exchange for their help. On the other hand hthe eastern party didn't really oppose to the Turks and Constantine's persistence to unite the churches under the Pope alienated them from him to the point that some would even welcome Mehmed as a liberator. There was this famous saying "better Turkish turban, than Papal tiara". So when Constantinople fell the Patriarch's position was maintained and was appointed as the representative of the Rum subjects. At this point many Roman subjects had recognized Mehmed (who actually spoke more Greek than Turkish) as the Emperor of the Romans. George of Trebizond is the most obvious example calling him emperor of both Romans and Turks. And the byzantine community of Fanari in Constantinople recognized him as such. We also have the Sipahi knights who were mostly Christian knights in the service of the Sultan and fought many battles for him. In fact until 1517 the term Roman Empire makes sense, since the Ottoman state comprised mostly of the Balkans and Anatolia, the heartlands of the Byzantine Empire. However, after the victory against the Mamluks the Ottoman Emperors assumed the Caliphate and thus a new era began for the Ottoman Empire. From that point until 1828 the Ottoman Empire is being transformed in a more "Turkish" or better Islamic state. With the creation of the modern Greek state any last remnants of "Romanness" from the Ottoman Empire disappear, as the state becomes even more fearful of its Christian subject and tries to shield the Muslim population from nationalistic movements under the umbrella of the newly founded Turkishness. We need to understand that the Ottoman Empire was not the same entity from 1400 to 1800. Although in the beginning it could be considered the continuation of the Roman Empire, this was not the case during the last century of the Empire. However, here comes another approach as well. As expressed also by professor Dimitrios Kitsikis the region to which the Ottoman Empire was, was always the land of a globalistic empire (oikoumeniki). From the Persian Empire to the Hellenistic Empire to the Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire, this region was for more than 2 milleniums the center of such an empire. Hence, his arguement continues that as Mehmed II was a Roman Emperor, thus Alexander the Great was a Persian Emperor. The subjects in both cases remain the same, while the new population influx is never as big as the native one. But this is where things start to get tricky. In the Hellenistic Empire (or its successors) even though the few Greeks could never outnumber the Persians, Anatolia (and the Middle-East as well) saw radical changes. First of all, the urban centers were fully Hellenized. With the old rulers (the satraps) the population was more rural and poor, but with the Hellenic civilization brought by the conquest of the Macedonian phalanxes there now arose a new middle class in cities of merchants and artisans who were independent from the ruling class. Literacy rates had also grown (not technological capacity, just literacy amongst the population) and the orientalistic despotism was set aside for the Hellenistic progressive and republican ideas. Therefore event though the state had mostly the same subjects the fundamental structuring of the state had changed. The same principle applies to the Ottoman Empire. Even though the subjects were mostly Romans, the Ottomans were a Muslim dynasty who introduced the Timariot system and transformed the Roman Empire. One could also claim that the Ottoman Empire is the actual Persian Empire. But that would only apply in terms of geography and political power and not as the foundation stones of the state. But all of this is was the result of an external power changing the status quo . And I am glad that you mentioned France for this. The French revolution was just that. A revolution. A social revolution that happened from within. While the conquest of the Roman Empire was a product of conquest. Rome itself had undergone through many internal shifts. From republic to Empire to rump states to another empire. But it always happened from within. And arguably the Roman Empire of Octavian Augustus is nowhere near as similar to the Roman Republic of the previous century. But the Ottomans not only changed the structures of the society but they were also an outside force with a completely different socio-economic structure. Once again I really enjoyed the video and your approach as well.
@@papazataklaattiranimam Interesting source, of which I am aware. I can't say that I disagree with any of the aforementioned statements. I didn't claim that the Ottomans weren't Turkish, but they are a bit far from being called Turkic. There's a difference here especially when it comes to large chunks of population that converted to Islam during the course of 3-4 centuries after the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia. Adding to the mixture the arrival of the pastoralist Turkic people mainly in Central Anatolia you have a yoke from which the Turkish identity comes out of. I am not claiming anything different. In fact the Term Turcia is a western term that was applied to the region during the 11-12 centuries, namely after the crusades. From that point onwards the Muslim population of Anatolia and its dynasties were referred to as Turks by the Europeans. I don't find it curious at all to have western historians calling the Ottomans simply Turks. However, we must not forget that an Ottoman isn't an ethnic group but it would resemble mostly a cast of people. Therefore you would have the Ottoman Rums as well who were greek-speaking Christians. Now regarding the term "Hellene" it was indeed a symbol of ancient paganism. But the Europeans called the Byzantines Greeks many times. We have references such as the Greek Empire or the Empire of Greeks (due to the language), but we all know today that this is nonsensical, since the Byzantines called themselves Rhomaioi. Same as the Ottoman Empire. The people called themselves Ottomans. Including the Rum people, who also proudly claimed that they were Rum. But outsiders simply called them Turks. That also happened in modern Greece. When the refugees came from Minor Asia, even though they were avid Greek speakers and Orthodox Christians most of the people considered them as Turks. Mainly because before the population exchange those people didn't identify as Greeks but as Rum. The problem is as many modern Rum have shown, that there is no word in any other language equivalent of Rum, in a way that signifies a specific group of people in the Turkish society. They are not Greek, but they are not purely Turkish as well. Thus, I think it is really important to understand here that sometimes people consider themselves something different than what others deem them to be. No matter how hard Mehmed II tried to prove to everyone in Europe that he is a Roman Emperor, but nobody really believed him and called him a Turk. So was he or was he not?
I have just one objection to your persperctive and interpretation , that Hellenistic culture brouhht republicanism and "progress" over oriental despotism. Personally I am open to the idea that Roman Empire ended in 1922 though not fully convinced.
@@goshlike76 You have an error. Mehmed II was a proud Turk and Muslim. His thinking was: 1. Roman Empire polytheistic and Latin, 2. Roman empire Christian and Hellenic. The third was why he could not be a Turk and a Muslim.
4:33 Rumi in Jalal al-Din Rumi is not like the Roman but Jalal al-Din he who lives in Rome. He was originally from Turkistan (central asia) who fleed to Anatolia after Mongolian invasion.
So...by that same reasoning, would you argue that when the Spanish crown conquered the Aztecs, it became itself the Aztec empire? The Ottomans conquered what was left of the fledgling Roman empire and absorbed it, end of story.
The aztecs became part of the Spanish Empire for sure. And of course, the Hasburg had the legal right by conquest to call themselves Aztec emperor. They just chose not to.
Man, the whole concept of "Roman" is truly fascinating. Back in the 3rd century BC, it still referred to the city of of Rome, while the rest of Italy was simply allies. But then at some point after the rise of the Empire, the concept expanded to include people throughout the Empire. Culture, religion, even language changed over time. That being said, there's a clear distinction between the Roman people and the Roman state. All the people's of Europe and Americas have some Roman heritage, but we still don't live in Rome anymore. So while the Ottoman sultan was the Emperor of the Romans and the ruler of "Romania," he was not Emperor of Roman Empire. Although the Ottomans definitely proved to be a worthy successor.
That's an interesting twist and a reasonable description/perspective. I have also read the Ottoman Empire being described as a 'reboot of the Byzantine Empire'. Although, as you correctly state, it was never known as that whilst the empire existed. It was described as a continuation of the Eastern Roman, Greek speaking Empire which adopted much of the Empire's ways, including the geography and dwellings and made a 're-skin' of the empire by changing both the language and religion.
A paint job doesn't make a car an airplane. The Ottomans were about as Roman as the Yuan and Qing were Chinese and Victoria was empress of India. Legitimacy by conquest and geography are far more important factors than religion, language and culture.
@@majungasaurusaaaa That's why the Greco Roman empire and Hellenistic period lasted about 1800 years and the Ottomans only 630 years. The Ottomans were a cuckold culture living in the nest of others. Domination does not translate to high culture other than being a culture of conflict. Unless of course you include the bacteria found in yoghurt the culture found in the churning saddlebags of the Turks as they rode from the Mongolian Plateau to Anatolia or, of course the Ottoman footstool - I guess that was a contribution to culture.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Roman isn't an ethnicity it's a city. If we are to become truthful, early Romans were pagans therefore christians can't be true Romans by that logic.
Very interesting. My hard date for fall of Roman Empire is 1204., when the catholic crusaders sacked Constantinople and set up a Latin empire, which functioned as a private enclave of western Germanic nobility. . The minimal restoration in 1260”s was a rump state at best. It lasted till 1453 due to Turkish instability and in 1402 the depredations of Tamerlane gave it a breather. I think any romaness died after 1204. Loved your presentation and respect your opinion.
Funny you should mention that because I've often looked at that event as the reason for Byzantium (The City) being taken over in 1453. I'm never sure if it's due to my overzealous research or ethnic Greek heritage.... (side note) boy visiting Smyrna this year brought up pangs of sadness.
So it was "Roman" enough only when had some power? That's another weird view from a foreigner to decide the name of state based on its own ideology of what Roman should be like...
@@vanmars5718 i dont think he means power as much as an ability to identify itself on its own terms rather than have another culture (germanic or turkish) ascribed to it
@@ericthegreat7805 The Eastern Roman Empire from its beginning until the end always thought that is just the Roman Empire. Nothing else. Even as a multiethnic empire in the beginning either as solely ethnically Greek at the last centuries, the people and the establishment never changed their political and historical identification cause they never stopped having this continuum. The problem is not them, is us today that we don't want to see them as such. We always try to find some excuses, either linguistic, ethnic, religious, power etc to make them less "Roman" worthy. I usually see all this discussions stemmed from a biased point and generally dishonest since those justifications couldn't be said for any modern state. *If USA are got invaded and being weakened aren't gonna be USA anymore? Is that how it works or is only the Byzantines that they have to endure this scrutiny since they used the name "Roman" but they speak Greek and are Orthodoxs and that's very bothering to modern view who wants anything real "Roman" to be Latin speaking and Catholic? I'm not sure we really talk with honesty when it's about Byzantium
In Iraq, people used to call the Ottomans the Romans or “Rum” in many popular poems and proverbs. They described the wars of the Ottomans and the Safavids as the wars of the Romans and the Persians
Concerning the "fall of the western roman empire", i recently read that in 476, no-one thought of it that way. Another warlord hat taken over in italy, and send the empirial regalia back to constantinople. Theoderic later rules as a roman adminstrator. It was only in the reign of Justinian, that a justification was needed to attack the Goths in Italy (which had sworn fielty to constantinople). It is this around that period, the the idea that western rome fell in 476 came up.
Italy was an Eastern Roman protectorate at the time and its identity didn’t change. Its rulers did, but that’s another point. Rulers did change at that point in the west.
I am not sure if you are going read my comment since the your video was published 7 months ago. However to reply to your question at the end of the video about the label people in the area give to Turkish people, I would like to assure that people in Arabia and Iraq look at Turkish people as romans. As an Arab, I heard that from my ancestors that they were occupied by Romans (they meant Turkish). In Iraq, they had a well known old saying which can be translated as: “Between the Persians and the Romans, we are greatly afflicted.” “Romans” here means “Turkish”.
Not true. Population who came here were not Mongols. They were from southern Central Asia and themselves were around only 30- 35% ish East Eurasian themselves. That's the thing you guys never understand. Turkics WERE NEVER Mongols. They were Eurasian people. If you had ever used Vahaduo or qpadm you would know this basic truth. And that's who we are compared to people who came to Anatolia in 11th century... Target: Turkish(Bolu)(NorthWest) Distance: 1.2608% / 0.01260777 49.8 Turkmen_Uzbekistan 26.0 Greek_Cappadocia 12.6 Turkey_WestByzantine 10.4 Ukraine_ Medieval. SG 1.0 Levant_Sidon_1800BC 0.2 Armenian_Ararat Target: Turkish(Muğla)(SouthWest) Distance: 1.5199% / 0.01519901 59.6 Turkmen_Uzbekistan 35.0 Turkey_WestByzantine 5.2 Ukraine_ Medieval. SG 0.2 Greek_Cappadocia
As a Turk it was a great video and i don't think the ottoman empire was a continuation of rome . Thanks for video i think it is important to think like this
That's because of Ataturk erasing both the 'Caliphate' and 'Roman' identities from the former Ottoman state. It's why he changed the name of Constantinople to Istanbul.
The term "Sultanate of Rum" never actually appeared in the historical sources. It was a modern coinage by historians to designate the Seljuk presence in Anatolia.
This goes with conquest theory. Like the Ming-Qing transition. Qing replacing Ming is currently seen as a continuation despite the political, cultural, and other differences. I guess it really does depends
Great Video. Yes correct Ottomans always saw themselves as heirs and continuation of Roman Empire. But this fact was annoying for modern nationalists so it is denied during both Turkish and Greek nation constructing process.
Exactly… finally someone who claims the same thing as I do. A lot of history is not convenient for modern day nation building. If they only left history for what it is and took other subjects to use for nation construction.
I'll second that. You have to remember that the "Byzantines" themselves were split into 2 vehemently opposed factions at the time of Mehmed II's conquest. The pro-Western faction (called pro-Latin) favoured the Frankish/Norman sphere of influence and was seen as hostile to true Roman(=Orthodox) interests. The pro-Eastern faction often thought that Ottoman rule might be more favourable to their interests. A saying of the time went like this: "Better the turban of the Turk than the skullcap of the Pope". You have to remember that the Romans saw the Pope as a heretic,an enemy and an agent of the Devil. The Fourth Crusade had not really helped ease this point of view. Mehmed II walked into Constantinople with the Patriarch of the Church at his side.
Just a small correction: Rumi actually came from the territory of modern day Afghanistan, but his family had to emigrate to Anatolia during his childhood fearing the Mongol conquest.
On historian perspectives you're absolutely right. Mehmed II. the conqueror see himself as the heir of the trojans. He was often compared to other renaissance rulers by historians and ottomanists. The behavior at the ottoman Court changes a lot, compared to the courts at Edirne and Bursa. The continuity are somewhat astonishing, but of course, there are also breaks with the past after the conquest of Constantinople. But the legitimation of the true roman descendants was also established before the conquest thru marriages with byzantine princesses. It was a transition time in the 15/16. century. Interestingly, in the diplomacy with the Latin or orthodox kingdoms, the ottomans was seen as the legitimate roman rulers and the only emprorer of Europe. Including paying of tribute to the King of Kings (ottoman sultans and "Qaisar-e-Rum"). It's also worth to mention, that the people, the orthodox Greeks, have their own continuity in law, behavior, living, thru the so called millet system, the (semi-) autonomy. Yes, there are arguments to believe, the end of the roman empire are fulfilled after the conquest of Constantinople, but as you said, the opposite has also strong arguments. But not for Greek or Turkish nationalists. History and group identities are mostly constructed (invented traditions and imagined communities). Every historian must be aware of this and be careful. Thank you for your important input with this video.
Your claim that "The behavior at the ottoman Court changes a lot, compared to the courts at Edirne and Bursa." is extremely interesting. Do you have any resources to back it up ?
I'm 35 years old Turkish guy, and I did my high school education in Turkey, in between 1st and 11th grade. Then I went to Germany for university, that part is not related with here anyway. We never learned anything like we are the continuum of Roman empire or Byzantine or whatever you want to call it IN HIGH SCHOOL. However we learned that we are a nation that closes middle ages and start a new Era. So the reason of that is pretty simple. Nationalism waves effected obviously a newly found republic. After ruling over 80 different nations over 600 years, we needed a new ID, an ID that we can be proud of. Therefore history classes were taught very epic way. Turks can't be destroyed, but only from inside. Turks starts with Huns then the Göktürks then Seljuks then Ottomans together with other small Turkic dynasties (such as Aydinogullari Karamanogullari, etc etc). So, Turkish youth doesn't need to know that Ottomans tried to be continuum of Romans because why should Ottomans need that since Turks have a glorious history, right? :) Obviously, you don't get to learn in high school that Nationalism is not an ID for middle ages, it's too much detail for 8th grade (14-15 years old) student. However, in University you do get to learn obviously more in detail. Obviously Ottomans were rising but, still it was a new dynasty. In order to increase your legitimacy, defining yourself as succeeding dynasty would not only have diplomatical positive effects but also stability wise positive effects. Therefore Sultan Mehmet also became the guaranteerer of Fener Rum Patriarchal Church, etc etc. So yes, High school curriculum was like that and I highly doubt that it changes any time soon. Maybe 20 - 30 years later, hopefully...
Eskiden nasıldı bilmem ama fatih sultan mehmetin roma imparatoru unvanını kulandığı zaten anlatılıyor yani osmanlının kendini romanın devamı olarak nitelediği günümüzde gayet anlatılıyor. Zaten o zaman çoğu devlet kendini romanın devamı olarak isimlendiriyor rusya, almanya, ispanya vb. ama osmanlı bir şeyin devamı olarak nitelendirilicekse osmanlıyı selçukluların devamı olarak nitelendirmek daha mantıklı olucaktır çünkü çoğu sistem selçuklularda var olan sistemlerin devamı niteliğindedir. Devşirme, tımar vb. Yani romanın devamı olmak o zamanım avrupası için bir prestij göstergesidir ve çoğu devlet ve yönetici kendini romanın varisi olarak isimlendirir. İkincisi tabiki tarih anlatımımız yüzde yüz objektif değildir ve olamazda ama osmanlın yükselişi tarih ders kitaplarımızda ne kadar yer tutuyorsa çöküşüde bi o kadar çok yer tutuyor ama sanrım insanlar görmek istediklerini anlıyor ve öğreniyor. Yani bence :) kitaplarımızda romanın devamı olmamıza bu kadar önem gösterilmemesin zaten bir çok devletin kendimi romanın devamı olarak nitelendirmesi ve bunun pek meşru bir tarafı olamamsı yoksa kim romanın devamı olmak istemez:)
Here in Türkiye, we still call Balkan peninsula as "Rumeli/Roman land" today. We still call old ethnically Greek/Ionian population as "Rum/Roman" today (Not the Greeks in Greece/Hellas. We call them Yunan). We still have a city named "Erzurum/Arz-i Rum/ Roman soil" today. As a Turkish person i can assume, so called "Fall of Rome" happened in 1922, by the abolishment of Ottoman Dynasty. That abolishment made clear that the state given up all of those titles and abolished them also. So it seems "Abolishment of Rome" rather then "Fall of Rome" to me.
In the ottoman times though, Greeks in mainland Greece were also called Rum. The south of Greece is still sometimes referred to as “Rumeli” and Greeks as Romioi. In the West, where they also claimed the title of “Holy Roman Empire”, they called the Byzantines (which was a term that was never used back then), “the empire of the Greeks”.
@@tiusernamenabalw That is incorrect. Only the Greeks in Anatolia were called"Rum" (Roman), the Greeks in the islands and present day Greece were always called "Yunan" (Ionian).
There are already many high quality comments under the video so I may be late to the party. Continuations of Rome is not something that is emphasized in the high school curriculum in Turkey, but popular historians like İlber Ortaylı have mentioned that this was the way how at least some sultans identified themselves (Kaiser-i Rûm). However, the Turkish subjects back in the day had a different self-identity compared to the dynasty. This can be seen (at least in the late ottoman era) in the language commoner Turks were speaking (mostly turkish) and the palace language, Ottoman language which had greek, farisi and arabic word-wealth. This does not prove or disprove your research, but maybe adds a little perspective. Thanks for the videos, amazing work. I appreciate your scholarly attitude and the depth of thought in choosing the subjects of your videos.
I like how you mention that literally every other dynasty in Roman history achieved the throne by conquest, and that the empire's state religion changed several times throughout its history.
Well I would argue that internal conquests are diffirent from external once in principle. If a US General overthrew the American government and declared himself Emperor of America (Even if that General was say ethnically Hispanic of something) We would probably still see him as more of a legitimate representation of the US government, than if China Conquered it tomorrow and then called themselves the new US.
@@ThatIcelandicDude United States of America is literally just a geographical name with the description of united states. so yeah if china somehow came over and made a puppet of our country, they could def name it "ruler of America" in some way or another.
@@ThatIcelandicDude it is a little complicated than that because right after being founded the Ottomans started marrying their princes to Roman/Greek and Turkic princesses to form alliances and it continued with Slavic slaves, no Ottoman sultan has a Turkish wife(after its first century). Besides if you look at the population in Turkey today, they don't even look like the Turkic-Mongolic people of Asia, there is a significant chunk of DNA that comes from people who resided in Anatolia and simply converted to Islam. For your analogy to be similar, Chinese people who moved to reside in the land of the US should conquer the US gov. and then call themselves the new US, not the country China.
@@ThatIcelandicDude Could argue 1203 is the fall of Rome since Constantiople by that line of thought fell like it did to the Ottomans (external) but to the Latins (external) who establisted an Empire that was culturally and Religiously differenent from the past hundred years of Byzantine traditions. There were rump successor states but same as 1453. Saying the Empire of Nicaea is still the Eastern Roman Empire is a stretch. You can argue they restablished the Empire later but then you accept the Empire fell and for a time there was no Roman Empire. If a state can reestablish its Roman Empireness then does that also legitimise the idea of the Holy Roman Empire then giving 1806 as a date (or 1917 for Russia though that one Is a bad one IMO).
@@paul_5848 Well I'm an Icelander, I consider the modern state of Iceland to be a legitimate successor state to the Icelandic commonwealth and so does the modern Icelandic Government. Even though these two states are sepperated by 700 years of foreign rule. Rome is a bit more difficult ofcourse for reasons im sure neither of us need to list. But I would argue that The modern Icelandic state would have even more of a legitimate claim if a small portion if it never fell under foreign rule and instead held on until it could re-take the rest of the country. Even if that portion was not a direct successor to the Icelandic commonwealth but a territory if it. So I would argue that Empire of Nicea has much more of a legitimate claim to the Empire than the Ottomans ever did, they were a part of the Empire that survived on and ultimately reclaimed the throne. After all they never called themselves the Niceans.
I'm a Turk, my family used to live in Selanik (Thessaloniki) before Balkan Wars. Ottomans called the state we lived in "Rumeli" which means "Land of Romans"
@@mithridatesi9981 Possible, my family was sent there to "Islamize" the region when it was conquered, I also have relatives born in Bulgaria for same reasons as well. It is no doubt they were married to locals at some point.
@@mithridatesi9981 This region is like a melting pot of cultures and populations. Only few can exactly know their roots as many records were destroyed in last 200 centuries during wars. My village is in eastern Black Sea and its name is in Greek. Greeks and Turks were living together in those villages (names were not even changed by Ottomans) and no one knows their ancestors. Maybe it is better that way.
The papal states were ruled by the pope. It had nothing to do with the empire. The papacy acknowledged others as Roman Emperor and never made any claim to that office
@@sneed457 oh good, i caught one! counterpoint: the Pope was the one to crown the holy roman emperor and was therefore the true power behind the throne
@@sneed457 The Pope does sit on *a* throne (the Chair of Saint Peter), but it doesn't matter whether he holds the paper title or regalia of "emperor," since he holds power even above the emperor. If you ask me, being able to crown and depose emperors means you rule over the emperor.
I feel like this argument could be applied to other parts of the empire that fell to Germanic kings. Especially because the gothic aristocracy Romanized and kept a lot of institutions that existed before. If we keep taking this idea to its logical conclusion there's like 40 roman empires. Not to mention all the speakers of latin languages in former colonies many of whom are also genetically descendent of romans. I think it's better to think of the empire as an institution rather than geography or a group of people because the roman people didn't just disappear when the empire fell.
I think the most logical conclusion is that our modern collective Western civilization, encompassing the US and Western Europe is actually Rome. In China, the various kingdoms that have existed for thousands of years are seen as the same civilization. I think the kingdoms and empires of the various Indo-European speaking peoples should be viewed through the same lens, as one continuous civilization.
@@therealdarklizzy the germanic kings adopted a lot of romanness sure, but the germanic element was stronger. the actual laws of the land were germanic. succession laws were germanic. the system of loyality was germanic. the medieval parliaments were germanic. "western europe" is the combination of germanic tribal culture and customs with roman law and customs.
@@therealdarklizzy China has more cohesion in their communication from what I understand, Europe seems to have had a confusing cultural history compared to the rest of the world and continues to have identity and communication issues when confronted with each other's ideals and ideas of the future.
@@therealdarklizzy an interesting thought but this reeks of right wing propaganda, reframing history to their warped understanding of Roman, which usually comes down to being white, Christian, and masculine
Personally I think that the fall of Byzantium to the ottomans represented a ship of Theseus moment. To me the Byzantine were already one degree of separation from the Romans, then come along the ottomans and that just had another degree of separation put in.
@@premodernist_history another note concerning the byzantines the byzantines abandoned everything was it meant to be a Roman they were extremely pro Christian and anti Roman pagan. The West and East went war with each other over religion.
@@edmundprice5276 Whats the difference between russia and England? Step one change the language, next step a different location, step three change religion. The ship of Theseus is an applicable analoge for anything you could do it even with a chair and a bed
The discussion about the meanings & interpretations of history is what I found most valuable about this excellent presentation. When Islam is finally understood as a post Christian religion which evolved with interactions between Byzantine Empire's Orthodoxies and the plethora of gnostic (non Nicean Creed) Christianities that flourished outside the reach of the Christian Roman empire(s), only then might we "westerners" can begin to understand the Islamicate world.
as a turk, we was taught that ottomans claimed the "roman emperor" title, but not because they really saw themselves as the continuation of the romans, but because they wanted to improve their legitimacy, get some sympathy from their european neighbors (or vassals), and as a "casus belli" in their wars against other european factions imagine your landlord gets overthrown somehow and another man replaces him, as he wants to collect your rent, he will suggest the arguement that your new landlord is now him, and you should pay him instead. ottomans' logic was mostly similar to this imo.
As a Turk, from my own understanding I can say that the Roman identity had no connections with religion. Even the pope was convinced about Mehmed the Conqueror being the Kayser-i Rum. Mehmed the II was aiming to conquer Italy before his death, he sieged the fort of Otranto in the south of Naples. Mehmed the Conqueror was a genius of the renaissance.
What I find fascinating on the similarity between Roman and Ottoman empires is that they both masterfully implemented an umbrella state identity onto their subjects which is so alien to modern nationalism. The former "Rhomaios" the latter "Ottoman" and they worked that pre-nationalist phenomenon throughout several ethnicities to assimilate them into their own. The former Greek Orthodoxy, the latter Turkish Islam.
One thing I know about history, dynasties have no bounds to their original ethnicity. They just care about themselves, their legacy. Ottoman dynasty was a sample. They didn't care about Turks. Even they minded Turks less than Greeks. They cared about Islam though.
@@atakanbalaban3543Hayır. Osmanlı için İslam tamamen siyasaldı. Halifelik makamından bile ilk kez 1774'te bahsedildi. Osmanlı hukuku; Bazı şeriat hükümleri,Roma hukuku,Türk kültüründen oluşuyordu. Hiçbir zaman şeriat devleti olmadı. Aynı şekilde padişahların çoğu dindar bile değildi. İslam sadece siyasal statükoyu korumak için kullanılan bir meşruiyet kaynağıydı. Ancak Türklük çok daha ön plandaydı.
Excellent video. Coming from algeria, it always amuse me to see that the West think of themselves as the heirs of the greco-roman civilisation, but its also the case for the muslims and arab nations and this go early as the Arab conquest of egypt and the levant during the 7th century. Arab calife also portrayed themselves as the continuity to roman emperor. The cultures of the mediteranean shares more than what we may tought at first
@@premodernist_history I discovered your channel today and I watched a lot of your videos in one sitting. I love when historians help us understand history in a way that contradict great national narratives. Your work is a true gem from all the history youtubers that only read wikipedia.
Old houses and many village communities (often greek) in Turkiye are refered to as "Rum" or "Rumeli". Generally speaking this reference is not obvious to everybody, but historically interested people are very well aware of that heritage and take it as part of their identity, as they also embrace turkic roots side by side.
Another interesting area with a similar situation would be China. One can easily argue that a "Chinese Empire" has existed for thousands of years. I think a lot of this comes down to whether people have more a political or cultural view on what constitutes a state.
The difference is one of identity. When a Persian converted to Islam, they were still a Persian. But when a Roman converted, they became an Arab or a Turk. The population of Syria and Egypt are overwhelmingly Romans. The Ottoman Sultans were ethnically Roman. The Ottoman bureaucracy and military were almost entirely Roman. But because Roman was linked to Christianity they stopped calling themselves Roman. Finally when nationalism was invented and everyone picked new identities, people were forced to become Greek or Turks based on their religion rather than their culture or language. The Greek identity wiped out the Roman one, except for a few Christians who remained in Turkey, the last people who call themselves Romans.
Yes. Most Westerners are unaware that the "Greek" and "Turkish" identities at the end of the Ottoman empire were based solely on religion, and were not based on genetic background. It's all a matter of arbitrary labels.
The problem is that ethnicity IS an identity. If one ceases to identify with the Romans, one CEASES TO BE ROMAN. The Ottoman Sultans WEREN'T ethnically Roman percisely because of this reason. A Persian convert to Islam remains a Persian because that convert decides to remain Persian. He could have chosen not to.
@@premodernist_history They are not. This is a gross simplification of the actual situation. The phenomenon you describe did exist in many places, but "Romans" and "Turks" meant far more than "Christians" and "Muslims". A Vlach or a Bulgarian, for example, was not a Roman, despite being Orthodox Christian, and a Muslim Arab was not a Turk. The religious institutions never managed to erase ethnic identities throughout the Ottoman period, even if the change of religion very often coincided with the change of ethnicity.
@@premodernist_history Language was also a corelated if not a major basis, along with religion. Orthodox christian Turks(Karamans etc.) and muslim Greeks(Pontids) were a minority during population exchanges.
Religious identity had never ever completely eroded ethnic identity in the Ottoman Empire. IE: Karamanlıs were always called Turks, even when they converted to Orthodox christianity. It was not because of "invention of nationalism". people "picked identities out of thin air" unlike you try to portray. The nationalism wave just seperated those coexisting groups on the basis of ethnicity and language tho.
I feel like one could easily argue that there wasn't one Roman Empire but a series of them (similar to the succession of dynasties in Imperial China), each pretending to be a continuation of the previous one. In this way, we can then say the Ottoman Empire is an iteration of a Roman Empire but so was HRE or Russia
My concept of the ‘Fall of the Roman Empire’ was called into reconsideration when, many years ago now, I read a particular article in the magazine ‘History Today.’ I cannot remember the edition or the article’s title but I do recall that it mentioned the sale of a waterfront property in Massalia by its Roman owner to a Visigoth (presumably based on their names) and the statement of a fee to register the transaction. Somehow,this did not align with the concept of sack and pillage promulgated by contemporary school history textbooks. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems and every past event is open to interpretation. Your videos and arguments are at least as thought-provoking as well as being very enjoyable. Thank you.
Some say the Russia Empire was the Third Rome because it largely reflected the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire lived on in the West when many fled to Italy to escape the capture of Constantinople, this is what many historians say is what sparked the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. All in all, the Roman Empire was a force to be reckon with then, still continues to aspire us, to follow and do as they did.
Gülçiçek Hatun (Ottoman Turkish: كلچیچك خاتون; Greek: Γκιουλτσιτσέκ Χατούν, Gülçiçek = "rose blossom"; originally named Μαρία, Maria) was a Greek woman from Bithynia[1] who became the first wife of Ottoman Sultan Murad I and Valide Hatun to their son Bayezid I.[2]
I do understand what you are saying. And why people would half-heartedly say that. But as you know, it is more of a semantic thing. Just as the example of Vinchy France in a sense. Because nevertheless, they kept their identity all the way from عاشْمان until عَبدُ الْحَميد (who was at least the last “effective” sultan) - always viewing themselves as an Islamic caliphate - “The rulers of روم” was more of a “stick it in your face” type of deal But interesting nonetheless, because as a historian and Muslim I NEVER knew or caught on to the fact that Rumi’s name was based off Rome - but now that I look back on رومى, notably, with Nisbas and Laqabs being used so very often, I almost feel like I got fooled! (haha) Good video (one of the few history channels I truly enjoy)
I actually did a very similar video myself with regards to the Roman Ottoman legacy ruclips.net/video/XVcrYWWP5Yc/видео.html and argued through more by general influence that the Ottoman empire continued the roman empire to a certain degree, though I did not go into the definitions so much but just focused upon the influence generally. I would Argue that the Ottomans were a continuation in a sense, at least more than the "Holy Roman Empire" in a lot of regards.
Mehmet the 2nd after conquering İstanbul called him the Roman Emperor ( Kayzer-i Rum) and minted coins written this in greek ( we call "rumca " language of Rum) . From that time to today we call Ottoman Greeks as "Rum" and their language " rumca " . ( Probably) After establishment of Greece the term "Yonan" then "Yunan" ( maybe from İonian) is used for Greeks in Turkish.
I think it's interesting to consider why other ancient Empires like China, India, Persia, etc were still considered to be China, India, Persia etc even after being conquered by foreign cultures such as the Mongols, Arabs, Manchurians, etc. I think it's because those foreign conquerors were largely successful in adopting the customs and culture of the native population, thereby keeping the culture alive. I don't know if there's much cultural assimilation for the Ottoman Turks of Roman culture, but my guess is probably not.
It's because westerners are ignorant of how much the conquerors infused their own culture into the conquered peoples. So they just call these places by their geographical name. "Marco Polo went to China", they say. Nope, he went to Kublai controlled Yuan which was both fighting the Mongolians under Ariq Boyke and the Southern Song (who were far more "chinese"). Places are like Russia and China have been mongolized far more than meets the eye. Their post mongol versions even in many aspects to this day have more in common with the mongols khanates than Kievan Rus or Southern Song. Mongol rule changed them forever, for the worse unfortunately.
The whole ottoman state system turned to be byzantian/roman by the second half of 15th century. People did not even change a bit. But, none of you is trained in history, you are just repeating what you have been told in schools, which are political instruments of political powers. Listen well the video, he is saying that whoever is trained in academic history is well aware of these things. Not you of course.
Liked your video from Turkey, I saw this video just 60 minutes after I said that i love the roman history. Its a really nice and interesting topic for me (maybe for all the Turks that is just questioning this after reading the Atatürk's words about hector and Fatih calling himself as Kayzer) . Youre just speaking so quiet, slow, relax and well, this was the first history video that i just understood all of it without subs. Happy to see the after videos. Thank you for your work.
What did Atatürk say about Hector? Hector from the Trojan War? I'm glad I'm understandable! I know how rough it is trying to understand a foreign language when they talk fast.
@@premodernist_history Ataturk said simply" we got the revenge of Hector" trojan/anatolian hero, in this way he meant modern day turks have ancient anatolian genes due to intermixing in almost a millenia
4:38 small correction here: Jalal Al din also has a Balkhi in his name. Meaning he was born in the city of Balkh in the greater Khorasan region but migrated to Anatolia due to fear of mongol attacks. He resided in "Rum" most of his life but is not actually from Anatolia.
I’m italian and Ive lived a good amount of time in Turkey. I’ve asked myself the exact same question. Isn’t it the continuation of the Roman Empire? Not in the same format yet, keeping alive the all the energy of conquering, expansion and creation of the old and investing in the new. The energy of the country is the energy of an empire that makes Italy and Greece almost like sleeping civilisations. As if after the end of the Western Roman Empire, the best migrated to the East side and afterwards keep the flame of creation alive.
That's not really accurate though. For example Italy in the Middle Ages was the place of literature, the finest metalwork/artisans and the first land in Europe to urbanise. These things do not happen in a vacuum.
Very interesting subject, excellently explained! Subscribed. Another analogy might be the various non-Han dynasties of China. There may have often been a more persistent institutional continuity, but there would still be a lot of change. Nevertheless, the Qing, for example, are rarely considered to have ruled over a Manchurian empire, when that could be argued.
Some great nuance here to really think about. Almost like replacing every board of a ship throughout its life, is it the same ship or a different ship? I do think a small but huge difference between France changing daily life and the ottomans changing Roman life is that the force of change came from within France by the French ppl. The ottomans were an outside force of change that may not have been aligned with the ppl they ruled. The ppl they ruled may still consider themselves Roman, but would they identify their ottoman rulers as Roman? I think that plays a huge part for legitimizing the ottomans claim.
Ottomans did not claim, actually. They practically called themselves Kaizer, ceaser of romans. They didn't need to ask any permission to anyone. And, as mentioned in the video, the ottomans were maybe outsiders, but not the people. People have always been there, and still are. And how many were those outsider ottomans? 200? 300 maybe? While the people were 12 million. And today 85 million.
@@philharmony a claim is an assertion of fact, it’s not a question. I also made note of the Ottomans in power versus the ppl they conquered, mainly to wonder if the direct descendants of Rome saw the ruling class (ottomans) as truly Roman or just leeching off the name for legitimacy purposes. So I am not sure why you are talking about the difference between the two groups as if I am talking like they are the same people? Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Very hard disagree with your comparison of the 1453 and French change of regimes. France was still run by French and many French aristocrats still held influence in French society after, much of the population remain Catholic to this day. Ottoman Rome meant an Islamic Turkic Ottoman Government running over mostly orthodox Christian Greeks where the ancien regime no longer held influence.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
As a tiny note: A Latin Pagan, like Augustus or Trajan is as different to a Christian Greek as a Muslim Turk is.
Probably muslim turk and christian greek has far more similarities than latin pagan augustus.
@@lordgaul- I always feel, without being an expert that Greek=Orthodox and Turk= Muslim, is an oversimplification of a more complex tapestry that used to exist. And maybe the last century has made this a self fulfilling prophecy.
Kinda. You're right but the greeks were part of the Roman empire, they were literally the eastern part of the Roman empire + Rome itself was becoming christian by its fall. The Turks are a completely different, people whose only claim is the right of conquest.
@@lordgaul- in any way no , latins were hugely influenced by the Greeks , look at their architecture , language , religion . The ottomans didn't have almost any similarities with the Greeks at the time and the conqueror can't be the successor . It doesn't make sense
Trajan was from spain
As a greek myself i can say for sure that even today some rural greeks call themselves romans and that even until the greek revolutionary war it was common for greeks to call themselves romans. At that time the greeks were calling all romanians wallachians (vlahi). After Greece became independent and got a bavarian king on the throne that king loved ancient greek history, so he tried shaping Greece into something separate from the roman times. One of the things he did for example was that he moved the capital from Nafplio to Athens, even though at the time Athens were basically ruins of what they once were and even though back then Athens were dangerously close to the Ottoman border
TherE are hardly any real Greeks left living from the ancient Hellas..They are now from the lineage of Romans,Venetians, and even Turks, Especially the people of Greek islands are mostly originated from what is Italy now,former Rome ,then Venice..
@@skylar4735 DNA tests prove otherwise!
@@skylar4735 after Alexander the great the greeks were relying a lot on assimilating other people into greek culture to preserve and expand greekness. I don't care at all if i have the exact same dna as the mycenaeans or if my dna is a jumbled mix of everything. Also you should prove you're correct. I can pull up studies showing that greeks have nearly identical dna to the ancient mycenaeans, but can you show any studies proving your point? I ask because no person who i ever heard saying your claim has ever given any evidence other than "this is the case because this is the case and cope". And finally, roman isn't an ethnicity, it's a nationality. You're confusing romans with latins, and though rome was started by the latins and at first only latins were considered romans they later on allowed people of other ethnicities to be roman citizens too.
@@johnsarkissian5519 dna tests say Greeks are only 20% Hellenic and Cypriots are 8% (which is based on Proto-Hellenic Yamnaya ancestry)
@@EagleHunter31
Here is a far more credible source:
www.science.org/content/article/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals
I think a comparison to China is very apt. Both were massive empires that dominated a continent for millennia, but went through many dynastic, religious, geographic, and ethnic changes over the centuries. From a western viewpoint, we just think of China having always been “China” despite the dozens of different dynasties it went through. Yet many of them were ruled not by Han, but by outsiders like the mongol Yuan dynasty or the most recent dynasty, the Manchu Qing dynasty. If these dynastic changes don’t mean we can’t call these empires Chinese, it should really make us think about why we don’t call the ottomans Roman.
i personally think the reason people still see france as francs or china as china was because well.. they still exists today. so people were fimiliar with it on world maps. even if it was gaul or frankish kingdoms its still just "historical france".
what does "from a western standpoint" even mean in this context? it's pretty common knowledge in my circles that in a nation-state of over a billion, there are obviously distinct cultures and peoples, and of the CCP trying to homoginize their entire culture into "we are and were all always Han", so who are you speaking for?
you can just speak for yourself and not assume your ignorance onto everyone else if you'd be so kind
Well its not just us Europeans that take that perspective. China today does so too. However: Unlike Ottomons, the foreign rulers in China relativly quickly absorbed and inherited traditions, clothing, eating style etc. from the locals (they often maintained distinct differences; though). While Ottomans mostly maintained their cultural tradition, language, clothing, rules of legitimacy and inheritance etc. Therefore I don't see this a perfect analogy.
What is true is, that Chinese dynasties were not just new families on the throne like when one Roman emperor was pushed aside by the next usurper but indeed the difference between Chinese dynasties could have well been that of late medieval Byzantium vs. the Rome under Augustus. But the changes within Eastern Roman empire were rather gradual (even the adoption of Greek language in court despite population speaking Greek), while the change that came with the Ottoman rule was drastic and immediate on many levels.
@@aidanrock8719 I think its safe to say that outside of Asia knowledge of Chinese history is way less common than about the Classic Roman Empire. (With Byzantium being probably almost as obscure as China). Especially when we are talking about pre Quing or at least Ming dynasties.
I think that ignorance is pretty commonplace to some extent. Interestingly the Cultural Revolution under Mao eradicated a lot of awareness, historic knwoledge and philosophic views from Chinese population and some decades later PRC reintroduced these but in a censored and regime-friendly form. So one could argue that even many Chinese get a very idealized view of their history and could be called ingorant to some extent, not as ignorant than most Euopeans and Americans, though.
@@greenling. I would claim Persia is a better comparison to China versus Ottoman Empire
But I find some problem with the whole idea of comparison in general . I think we’ve gotten a little carried away with not remembering that these civilizations didn’t have any inherent basis for comparison, because they didn’t even know each other existed (in detail) except in modern hindsight, after society and civilization has changed as much as it has.
When you get down to the nitty-gritty details of how China Persia or Egypt actually functioned, you realize they were all very different societies.
As a Turk, I can say that we don't usually see the Ottomans as a continuation of Roman Empire and treat them as separate entities. But if you ask my own opinion, it is clear that not only the Ottomans but also the Seljuks saw themselves as the inheritors of the Roman Legacy and you have mentioned many of the reasons why that's the case in your video. Another thing that I would like to add is that Mehmed II (the sultan who captured Constantinople and hence called "The Conqueror") was particularly interested in the idea of being the "Roman Emperor". After the conquest, he made the Orthodox Patriarch crown him as "Caesar of Rome/the Romans" or "Kayser-i Rûm" in Ottoman Turkish. He added Roman laws into the Ottoman Legislation. He could speak Greek and Latin. He was intellectually a superior man compared to not only his predecessors but also his successors. He even wanted to invade Italy in order to capture Rome and press his claim even further. His soldiers captured the city of Otranto in Italy but he died shortly after (some historians believe that he was possibly poisoned by either the Venetians or his own son Bayezid whom he didn't get along with). Though, after his death the idea of invading Italy was abandoned.
I agree they are separate entities. The Ottomans were a world power that dominated the Mediterranean Basin for centuries. And created a Turkish culture that is in place today, in many respects. The end of Roman political and cultural sway came to an end in 1204 with the crusader sack of city. The rump state would have fallen much earlier if we’re not for the impact of Tamerlane. The renaissance in the west in 1400’s ( due much in part to Arab preservation of ancient texts) revived Roman and Greece cultural influence west. Not the rise of Ottoman power after the fall of Constantinople. Also the sack of Baghdad by Mongols not only destroyed the most advanced city at that but and precluded any chance of a hybrid culture emerging in east. In many ways the mongol empire’s rise and decline set the stage for a new and different power to dominate the world stage , the ottomans. Just my take- happy to find folks interested in late Roman history.
Anadolu Selçukluları belki de Büyük Selçuklunun Roma ile hiçbir ilgisi yok. Dümdüz düşmanlar.
Was there his successor soliman?
As a Rumları, one of those stubborn ones that just won't disappear yet. I see it as a inheritance of our legacy too. One of my main reasons comes down to the people. There was a Ottoman historian who asked himself "where did the Romans go" after the fall of Constantinople because he noticed almost all the people spoke Turkish and it had only been 70ish years. So he went around İstanbul and asked shop owners and bakers and fish mongers about themselves and their families. Through talking with these people he came to realise that they didn't go somewhere but became the Turks that he thought replaced them. Science backs this up with the Turkic migration estimated to be 15% of Anatolia's population in the 11th century and that 15% is the average Turkic haplogroup occurrence.
If Mehmed II conquered Rome for us I'm sure the Greeks would be singing a different tune about the Turks today.
"inheritors" i think you mean "destroyers and pillagers of ".. a bunch of wannabe savages from the eastern wastes taking credit for the advancements brought by centuries of Roman and Greek men.
The root of the question is what does it mean to be Roman. Is Roman an ethnicity? Is it a political system? Is it a language? Because all of those changed over the course of Roman history. We tend to look at things like the Romans as a static snapshot of one point in time (the classical period) and anything that falls outside of that we don't consider Roman. But Rome was never stagnant and it evolved and changed over the centuries. So back to my first point we have to define what it means to be Roman first.
By the point or Western Rome's collapse, 'Roman' didn't refer just to ethnic Italians, but also to people of 'barbarian' ancestry who had acquired Roman citizenship. I think we need to look at Western civilization through the same lens we look at Chinese civilization as. We are the Romans, our civilization is a continuation of their civilization.
I think it is not an ethnicity since Romans were Latins (indoeuropean speakers that descended into Italy thought Pannonia and north Italy) nor a language. It is related to citizenship , since romans were aware of the fact thier small numbers must force them to "romanize" or instillate a way of living and a mindset close to their, then making them "Romans". So it is something really close to american citizenship: firstly established by anglosaxon people but open to everyone. so, answering your question, it means being an holder of a citizenship which imply being faithful to the roman state.
to be Roman is to be a citizen of Rome, i.e born within the Roman imperial borders to a Roman parent. or later on given citizenship by the Roman authority. it is mostly an ethnicity but it welcomed a few barbarians here and there. but turks ? romans ? a joke must first make sense to be funny...
@@houssamassila6274 many turks were already roman citizens even before turkic raids of anatolia since they were hired to figth for roman country. There were even half turkic emperor of rome Leo, son of tzitzek. Eastern rome was in touch with turks way before than ottomans and selcuks. It didnt start with raids.
It Is a mix of all of these things and after you surpass a certain treshold you can claim to be Roman. Where the treshold lies Is a debate that Is too long to explain in RUclips comments
Subbed from the time travel to Medieval Europe video and staying for the treasure trove of history
As once an Ottoman Turkish expert who spent time in the archives and a translator, I often encountered in the court language they (the sultans) referred themselves as Kayser-i Rũm / the Caesar of The Romans.
Sultan Beyazıdın lakabı Sultanı İklimi Rum olarak bilinir Rum diyarlarının sultanı anlamına gelir
@@tarikyildirim8859ayrıca kafesteki bülbül olarak da bilinir diye hatırlıyorum ben.
I call myself the emperor of mars, that means I am
@@sneed457no, In Arabic, Ottoman empire was called "Sultanate Al Rumiyyah سلطنة الرومية"
In Persian it was ''Romestan" The land of Rome.
This simply means no country or empire was ever ruled on Lineage but the name of land
@@sneed457well if you also ruled over all of mars and martians and treated by other powers as ruler of mars then yes you could call yourself emperor of mars. Because you know that was what ottomans did :)
Wow! That was fantastic. Both your purposes were fulfilled for me; I learned *a lot* about the Ottomans (especially the early Ottomans) that I had never been exposed to, and I totally get your point about separating the objective event from the interpretation we attach to it. Just an outstanding video.
Love when actual historians do history on youtube
"actual historians" = commie propagandists ig
Most actual historians busy arguing to each other
Unlike this video
@@grecoturkish3785 nothing makes a historia be extremely happy than proving another historian wrong.
@@devonwilliams9168This guy has a history PhD and has taught history at the university level. He is a historian.
As a Turk, I think the title of "kayser-i rum" was important in the classical age of Ottoman Empire, especially during the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror. After we took Constantinople, nomadic traditions of Turkish state changed radically and adopted lots of Roman traditions. Even Turkish classical music influenced largely from byzantine music. But after Yavuz Sultan Selim conquered most parts of the Muslim world like Egypt and Levant and became the Khalifa, ruler of Rum was just a title among very other titles (e.g. Süleyman's letter to Francis I of France).
It is like math, we are adopting other peoples work because it is available. Rules that worked for smart people over generations.
@9/11 was done by bush nice nick
@9/11 was done by bush Huh? Egypt, Dimashq, Mecca, Madina, Yemen, al-Quds, Basra, Baghdad, Tunis, Algiers... They had at least one fourth, if not one third, of the Islamic world under their banner, geographically.
@9/11 was done by bush Lol do you care to explain what you mean by that? I mean, I don't care personally for Islam, I believe I'd have a better life, had the Ottomans not leaned on Islam as much as they did, but what you said is simply factually wrong.
@9/11 was done by bush so according to you the only ones who should count are the Rashidun and Umayyads?
Had Constantinople reconquered Anatolia and Turkish Muslims become one of the “Roman” ethnicities (even though “Roman” did eventually become the de facto ethnicity of the empire), an Ottoman power grab could have been seen much more in the line of traditional dynastic struggles. After all, the transition from pagan to christian emperors didn’t happen overnight. The fact that they took power from outside the empire’s borders and did not see themselves as Roman subjects excludes traditional ways of seeing it through the lens of internal power struggles
Puts words to my thoughts perfectly. The outside factor is important especially since they brought in their own customs, philosophies, and the like. Though an imperfect comparison but still useful, the Mongolians took Russia, China, and Iran yet were seen as outsiders and invaders imposing their own identity upon the existing sociopolitical structures rather than inheritors by conquest. A similar situation can be said with the turks upon Rome. The difference being the turks killed the last remnants of Rome, claimed the seat while redecorating the house rather than the Mongolians which were pushed out or absorbed into the once conquered peoples.
This is almost true as the ottomans and seljuks before them were still considering themselves as entities within the roman empire, which was more geographical and ideological. Ottomans even structured themselves copying byzantines. This is very similar to how a commander in the roman empire can take over Egypt and then challenge the throne.
@@technosins7123 For most of Roman history, being Roman was fundamentally tied to being a Roman citizen in the Roman state. I think it was actually probably due to the Seljuks that for the first time, one could be a Roman by ethnicity and not nationality. From an outside perspective, maybe they were living in the historical lands of Romans. But until then, being a Roman was associated with living in the Roman state. I have a feeling this might be partially why the West ended up losing Roman identity (along with political disunity). After the Seljuks, most citizens of Rome were Greek speaking Romans in a proto nation-state. This is why Turks could be the rulers of the Romans but not Roman Emperors (they killed the Roman political entity, after it had previously been destroyed by the western Europeans).
@@gideonmele1556 Thank you :) I think we are already in agreement, but to elaborate, I think it's ok if customs and philosophies change. That is indeed a summary of the history of Rome. They just changed internally within the Roman state. If a Turkish regional noble had taken the throne, spread Islam, and over the centuries morphed into something similar to the Ottoman Empire, it would've still been a continuation of the Roman state.
Rome has been a cultural power. As such, it is still present now in many aspects of our lives. To complicate the matter, the peoples in the Italian peninsula and Greek peninsula came in the respective locations in waves long before there was a Greek or a Roman culture. In historical times, I would consider that a strong culture influences ethnicity almost unilateraly. It does not take long to assimilate a culture, while ethnicity comes with its own complexities and rather large time constants always under cultural influences.
Superb video! I love how you impart the relevant information, and your own opinion, without dragging the video out like many other history channels do.
An interesting thing about the Ottomans is that they brought together two separate imperial strands: the Roman Empire, as mentioned in this video, and the Caliphate, following the conquest of Mamluk Egypt in 1517.
Well it was more of a change. As the Ottoman Empire existed, it changed its Focus from being Roman to being the Caliphate.
The Projection of the Empire changed to being the Islamic after its Zenith was over, in the Times of Mehemed 2, Selim and Süleyman the Empire was seen as the Roman Empire
Also being a Turkic khanate. They combined all these statuses and thus reached an world status. Something no other state has ever reached
Ottomans have nothing to do with the romans
@@Omer.042 Not a Khanate but a Persianate
Another interesting fact, the mamluks back then called themselves "Turkiye," the Ottomans technically destroyed the first Turkey.
This is a fantastic channel. Very comprehensive historical analysis.
Thank you!
This was so refreshing, to hear about how people viewed themselves in the past vs how we interpret things today, plus the acknowledgement of possible bias and the varying ways of defining what it means to be "Roman". It reminds me of some of my history lessons where end of Middle Ages and start of Renaissance would be constantly was retold as a story of 'boom in this year everything changed'. Too little time is dedicated to causes of events, the overall socioeconomic environment and beliefs people had, instead we keep memorizing dates... I also think that Roman Empire basically ended with the conquest of Constantinople but also, it was never pointed out to me that Ottomans called themselves Kayseri Rum, or that they called themselves that. Perhaps it was to make people recall the gigant that Rome was and be like 'remember the guy who built hagia sofia? he was amazing, he did amazing stuff. and I'm just like him, but even better because I defeated him'. By 'him' I mean Rome as a legacy which to this day is viewed as one of the most, if not the most, legendary and retold stories of its kind.
Using self-designation by a conqueror as a criterion for "X"-ness has its limits though. The Latin emperors who ruled in Constantinople from 1204 to 1261 also called themselves "Emperor of Romania", Romania being the Byzantine Empire, or "Rum". Yet we consider their state a separate entity. I feel that this is not different from denying the Ottomans their supposed "Romanness". Certainly the Greeks themselves would have disagreed with the claims of the Muslim Ottomans, as they had done with the Roman Catholic Latins.
@@ansibarius4633 I never thought self-designation was an appropriate criteria. In fact, I never said it was 😅 All I said was "it's refreshing to hear how people thought of themselves". We don't talk of Ottoman sultans as emperors of Rome either, even if they governed from Istanbul (once Byzantine). To me it was interesting to find out they called themselves so.
@@katexy7179 Ah, OK, maybe I misunderstood then. To be honest, I am not sure if the Sultans really looked at themselves that way. Maybe they did, but then again, taking the titles of your conquered enemy and proclaiming yourself as their legitimate ruler is not such an uncommon practice (Alexander and the Roman Emperors were for instance considered to be "pharaohs" of Egypt after they conquered that country). It can be a strategy for discouraging rebellion, as it makes it easier to brand any claimant who would try to restore indigenous rule a traitor rising against his lawful sovereign instead of a foreign conqueror.
As an aside, it's worth listening to Constantine XI Paleologus' final speech just prior to the fall of Constantinople (available on RUclips). He's one of those under appreciated figures in history who, if born in a different time, world have been a great general. But he was we'd to an empire that was on its last leg, fighting the turks who were themselves great militarily with higher military technology.
prior to taking the reins as Emperor, while still Despot of the Morea, he did raise the largest army the Romans had seen in over a century to retake lands in southern Greece and hopefully re-establish a border at the ancient Hexamillion Wall
much like Majorian and Anthemius, the Romans had a way to have the absolute greatest of people rise to the top in times of crises, just sometimes it was all too far gone to matter
The only advantage they had was enormous numbers while the defenders were a pair of thousand.
@@lightbringer2794 pair of thousands that surrounded themself three layers of walls which was one of the most advanced strongholds at its time. what interesting is turks never had to rely on those walls for protecting them afterwards.
@@reckoner8210 Nope, not an advantage when there is a blockade from all sides and sappers and cannons tearing down the walls. The walls need defenders, without people, no one can defend the walls.
@@reckoner8210 because cannons and the improvement of weapons made them useless. Also when would the ottomans needed to use the walls? They had all the lands around them. By 1900’s those walls aren’t stopping shit.
Ottoman empire was much more geographically similar than the other so called Roman empire
You mean the HRE?
No it wasn't...
Since u dumb f**ks are so blinded by 'whitewashed islamic propaganda/bul**hit'
No they were not, if they were one why they opressed people who were Roman/Romanoi.. grekoi/romanoi people or simply put 'modern greeks' were Roman since when roman republic conquered Greece they were not considered as opressors or fereign cuz they were much influenced by them even tho to be fair in the begining even tho they were not considered opressors they were considered as semi-barbarians but that didn't last for long, during the late Pax Romanum Roman Empire 222 granted greeks citizenship therefore making them officially acknowledged as Romans also there were migration and intermarrige between the two so yeah this makes them legitimate also not talking about the fact that religion was the same at least with little intermidiate period before the great Schism which lasted till 1054, Roman institution lasted till 1453 or 1479 if u take in the account last reminent of Eastern Roman culture or Dospotate of Epirus, turks were neither part of western or eastern way they were muslims and from altaic background fought Rome and took countless slaves from balkans ...they are as legit as HRE(THEY ARE NOT)
When u learn history start with basics and from begining not from the fu*king middle
@@phazoneatermetroid77 he could be talking about Russia the “third Rome”
@@phazoneatermetroid77 probably
You mean the most holy, most roman, most imperial empire?
Thanks!
Thank you!
A man can pull off wearing that giant headpiece, he gets to call himself whatever he wants.
I define myself as Turkish. I speak Turkish, I think Turkish. but I remember feeling very comfortable culturally when I was in Greece. same food, same manners, same music. In fact, it would be useful for me to make this clear. I do not feel the same comfort when I go to the eastern region and Kurdish cities in my own country. Food changes, music changes, behavior patterns change. my village is a mountain village of Konya. Stones from the historical ruins of the ancient Roman period were used in our mosque in the inner region of Konya, Turkey, and in the village where my ancestors lived for hundreds of years. Stones with a cross on them, with Hellenic writing. we may be descendants of Islamized Romans, or perhaps descendants of nomadic Turks who came from Khorasan on horseback. not important for me. For example, the symbol of my city is the double-headed eagle and it was also the symbol of Byzantium. My father is blond, blue-eyed, and white-skinned, and my mother is dark-skinned with brown eyes and wheat-skinned. I have a mix of both colors. I am a mixed person, just like Turkey, which was once called the "Greek Land". In essence, we are familiar with the idea in the video, I have to say that the Karaman Orthodox who left my city with the 1922 "population exchange" were Turkish-speaking Christians. There were Turkified Romans as well as Christianized Turks. there were even Turkopols who lived in this geography long before the Ottoman Empire and fought in the crusader army. As a Turk, I am happy to live in this geography, to have this food culture, this music, this way of life. I would also like to thank the Romans who contributed to this.
Wow..this is impressive...
I am a Greek- like in the way you said, think and speak as such- who now lives in the US, and I can fully attest to feeling at home with Turkish people, at least those from the West Coast & Istanbul. Finding fellow Greeks around here is- to this point- impossible. However, I have met a few Turks and it is like a breath of fresh air. That is to say, I don't feel alienated when I speak to them, nor do I have to put effort into feeling like the other person understands what I am trying to convey. Of course culturally, we are not fully one and the same, however the similarities are like no other, I feel.
Im Turkish too. Think exactly like you. Its really surprising to see that kind of uniting, moderate and open-minded person in anywhere of the world, let alone Turkey.
Today we have bunch of losers that struggle with their inferiority complex. They feel bad because they are Turkish and try to become something else that they're not. They even bow down to imperialist powers agendas while trying to cure their complexes. And in the other hand we have ultra nationalists that see themselves and their nation so superior they can never be wrong nor evil. Always all the other nations are against us, planing and executing conspiracies always.
But the superior point is here that where we stand. Not hating and try to mask who we are. Exact opposite we love our people and love our culture and country that we want them to live good lives. And at the same time we dont see ourselves above every nation that were blind to our weaknesses. We embrace everything that contributed to our culture, Romans and even beyond them. This is how we pull our country out of the mess thats in. This is how we prosper and provide a good future to our next generations, that we couldn't get unfortunately. Sorry if I babbled too much but I couldn't help my patriotic feelings overflowing. Peace my brother.
@@jasonb.9790in Turkey we say us Turks are Muslim Greeks and Greeks are Orthodox Turks. Similarities are like no other as you said indeed. Cheers to the day when our governments will not squabble with each other and love one another like us common folk do. Peace.
If you look at where the Turks originally came from, which is most modern day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan and surrounding areas (eg Mongolia, Russia, China), many Turkic peoples there look either Mongolic, Iranic (the Iranic peoples used to live far and wide, especially in Central Asia and Russia, Ukraine & Romania) or North Caucasian (eg Dagestan) in appearance. Whereas you don't find these people so much in modern day Türkiye.
I think Azerbaijan is a good example. As you likely know, the name "Azeri" comes from the people who lived there for millenia before Turkic invasions. It refers to the name of the language spoken, which was an Iranic language, close to the other Caspian Sea Iranic languages (same branch as Persian).
And yet, these people are Shia Muslims. The Turkic peoples did not change the Azeri people's religion, only their language, which obviously now they speak Azerbaijani, a language very close to Turkish.
So the people of Azerbaijan are basically still the same Azeri Iranians, but they speak a Turkic language.
This is similar to the Gaulic people of France. As you probably know, the Gauls had their own language in France, a Celtic language, until Caesar conquered Gaul for the Romans and Latin replaced Gaulic.
The Romans did not settle and colonize Gaul, they merely ruled over it. So the native French people, even though they are speaking a derivative of Latin, are still the same Gaulic Celtic people, mostly, although Italian, Spanish and Moorish immigration did happen to the South and Germanic immigration to the northeast and Britonic/Breton migration to the northwest.
So... sorry for it to take long to get hear, but dare I suggest that the Turkish people are still largely descended from the same Indigenous Hatti and Indo-European speaking Anatolian/Hittite, Greek, Armenian and others who have inhabited the land for thousands of years. Of course there is "Turkic blood" too, but even the Turkic invaders of Anatolia themselves were a highly nomadic people who had the afforementioned mix of Mongolian, Iranian and Caucasian blood.
Being Turkic is probably the least genetically dependent (or rather most genetically diverse) group of people in the world, so it is more based on language and culture than anything.
Wonderful reminder that there are often SIGNIFICANT differences between the fragmented records of those living in the past compared to later historiographies. Histories may add intelligibility (FOR US NOW), but may not reflect what those living then understood. A brilliant reminder that asking questions has ALWAYS BEEN NECESSARY.
I really like how you described the importance of prescribed meanings. I love history, and you've helped bring a new perspective when it comes to learning about history!
Excellent content! I am so pleased to see that RUclips algorithm can still pull out such gems from its depths for me! Loved your presentation, especially that it touches on interpretation of history and projection of our understandings of today to past.
As a person who was born and raised in Turkey, holding half Turkish half Kurdish ethnicity, and currently living in Greece for many years;
- I feel very happy, first and foremost, to see the humility that takes place in the comments section. Not gonna lie, wanted to fish for some aggressive comments (or even a fight) to make my day, but find out that people can actually conduct themselves in an articulate manner. Feeling even happier :)
- As Speros Vyronis argues, that there should be distinction between how we perceive "the end of an empire" with "the end of a civilization". Empires, with their dynasties, ruling classes, religious/political affairs may end up or overthrown in due time either by a successor entity (or even a nation-state, perhaps even a revolution) or by a challenging power. Civilizations on the other hand, do live on much longer with tradition, ceremonies, culture, ruling practices and public affairs, independently from the successor entity. In relation to your presentation, it is helpful to keep in mind what Ostrogorsky analyzes - that Eastern Roman Empire (which was not called Byzantine Empire back then, as you mention in your presentation) even in its declining years had tried to keep the monopoly of the title "King of Romans" (Βασιλευς Ρωμαιωη) as a form of power, declaring the ruling dynasty as "protector of Christians and Christendom". Many rival empires had the ambition to claim or challenge that title, and until the arrival of Charlamagne's Frankish Empire (Which he claimed the title of "Kaizer", derivation of "Ceaser", and crowned by the Roman Catholic Church) the sole monopoly of this title was kept with the Byzantine Kings. As such, Ottoman Empire was also carrying this ambition; to have that title not only for political legitimacy of its future rule, but also to showcase that it is the torchbearer of the "Roman Civilization", not "another random tribe". (Sources: (i) Speros Vryonis, "Byzantine Civilization, A World Civilization"; Byzantium: A World Civilization, Angeliki E. Lalou and Henry Macguire, Dumbarton Oaks Collection - (ii) Ostrogorsky, G., "Die Byzantische Staatenhierarchie", Seminarium Kondakovianion, 8.1936 / An English translation could be found by searching the author's name and "Byzantine Emperator and Hierarchical World Order")
- It is also worth to mention that the discourse of nationalist views and ideologies in both Turkey and Greece have shaped around the relationship that both nation-states formed with their current history and the history of the Byzantine Empire. I am not a nationalist myself at all, and after many years I am able to understand that Greek Nationalism's identification with "the glory of Byzantine Empire" and Turkish Nationalism's identification with "the glory of the Ottoman Empire, which crushed Byzantine Empire" have been deliberately nitpicked certain parts of history only and have been established to create the myth of a nation and "an imaginary community", since it does not carry the historical realities of that era (considering how the Ottoman Sultan wanted to claim the "Kaizer-i Rum" title, especially). This deliberate and false interpretation of history has been also very detrimental between the relationship of the peoples of these respective countries (along with many other, more recent historical realities and atrocities, of course). Thus, I feel quite happy that with a humble video such as yours did not trigger a series of irrelevant discussions and outbursts (which can even end up with racial slurs), but rather as a platform where everybody placed their own experience growing up in their respective country and how this video relates to their understanding of today. My faith in small but quality RUclips channels have been restored! So thank you above all for that :)
To all the fellow people of the shared geography of the Aegean Sea and the Levant; very nice to see us that we can engage in this gracious manner with each other, especially in this tense environment between the Turkish and the Greek State. I call Greece home as much as call Turkey home, and enjoy a humble life treading between the two. And I always feel very glad to realize that we, as citizens of Turkey and Greece, (but much largely, of the world) have much more in common to celebrate and have much more to learn together!
Γεια σας σε ολους και σε ολλες! Cümleten herkese selamlar!
İstanbul'dan selamlar :) I guess the reason you don't see aggressive idiots here is that the content and the level of English is too high-level for them to even watch and understand the video :) I also think that the presenter himself sets a good example for his audience. Thank you for the information and your positive messages for all people.
I always thought the Ottoman Empire to be a continuation of the Roman Empire. The sultans were emperors, and we're addressed as imperial highnesses. And they were till the end of the empire conscious of this. The greek minority, by the way, is still called the Rums.
probably if the Ottoman Empire had moved further west and taken Rome, it would have transformed into the Roman Empire due to changes in demographic composition and mutual assimilation
That was a very well written and constructive comment. Selam olsun sana güzel insan!
Cool stuff man, especially your perspectives at the end! Love how you take care to interpret biases all while being aware you're subject to them yourself
I don't think the ottomans were romans. They had their own customs, laws, different faith. However, their subjects were roman. In contrast, Justinian adapted the roman law to make it more christian, however there is clearly a continuity. Another example, the roman republic fell, but you can't say the empire was not Roman. The example you gave with France, seems to me something similar to the fall of Roman Republic, a civil war, rather than barbarians taking over. If Germany permanently occupied France and the occupation lasted more than 600 years, turning most French people into German, then I would say that the nation of France ceased to exist at the moment of its occupation.
I agree. If the Ottomans had adopted Roman language and customs and basically kept the empire the same except for the ruling dynasty I would consider them a continuation of the Roman empire. But they completely displaced the Romans and turned Anatolia into a Turkic country. It's why we consider all the different ethnic groups that ruled China but the populace remained Chinese and the ruling class became Chinese.
In Rome, which was pagan and Latin, Christian and Greek became a change. Of course, states such as the Ottoman Empire and the Holy Rome were not as Roman as the Byzantines. but it would not be right to exclude it completely from the system. For every nation in the Mediterranean basin, Rome symbolized absolute power, nothing more.
@@riowhi7 religion, yes slowly in 5 centuries, the language in the east was always predominantly Greek.
It really seems like our present understanding of nationhood is ethnic. France stayed France because it remained ethnically French. Rome fell in 1453 because it was conquered by another ethnicity. It really does expose the racism at the heart of human society if nothing else. Great vid
@@abrahamcollierYeah nationhood has always been defined by ethnicity.
I don't think the french revolution is a good comparison when talking about the change in political system because it was an internal change rather than a takeover by an outside regime. A more appropriate comparison for france is the takeover of gaul by the franks
Ok how about the change from Frankish barbarian kingdom to Latin French? The identity of a 6th century Frank and a 19th century French citizen is immensely different and the both lived in France/francia and the rulers even though they were a different religion would be considered franks.
Totally
Their culture and language also remained exactly the same. Its just ludicrous to compare the Ottoman transition to the Republic Transition.
@@edgargross2789 I mean you can still largely see Greek culture and influence in turkey and even ethnically, a large part of the anatolian gene pool is still greek. But yeah I do get your point about language and culture but the change was very gradual and took hundreds of years of assimilation.
@@googane7755 large part of anatolian gene pool is not greek but “greek speaking anatolians” which are descendants of hittites,luwians,karians,lycians and many more. There were many different peoples before greeks in anatolia but in time they became greek in terms of culture and language, after turks took anatolia they became turks in terms of same reasons.
When i studied Art History, I especially appreciated two classes i followed, one on Late Antiquity, and another on Islamic Art.
In the first, one day our teacher said ‘The Roman Catholic Church is a direct continuation of the institutions of the Roman Empire’.
In the second (i want to remember this as happening the same week) our teacher said ‘the Islаmic Stаtе, when it 1st invaded Byzantine territories in the 7th century, became a direct continuation of the institutions of the Roman Empire’.
Your teacher was wrong on both counts.
Different teacher each time @@AggelosKyriou
@@isancicramon0926 Both of them wrong, then
@@AggelosKyriou you missed the point.
What Roman Institutions are part of the Ottoman empire or present day Turkey?
This came up in a paper that I had to do, and my answer is "it depends" on what way you see it. Here's the synopsis of how it was presented:
*Legally:* Yes, by right of conquest. In those days (and also today tbh) because Mehmet II did conquer the city in 1453 and he did crown himself as "Caesar of the Romans" (among many other titles) and assumed the mantle of protector of the Romans (within of course the context of sharia law which relegated them as second class citizens and deprived them of many of their rights such as land ownership, horse ownership, displays of wealth and a very stringent review of displays of religious symbology and church construction & maintenance) the Ottomans are the legal successor of the Eastern Romans. As for any legal codes from the previous Eastern Roman Empire, while a few were incorporated into the Ottoman laws, they were mostly applicable to the non-Muslim minorities. That's because the daily rule of the non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire was actually done by the Patriarch of Constantinople, for the Eastern Orthodox, the Armenian Patriarch for the Armenians and the Chief Rabbi for the Jews. So while some laws of Eastern Rome might have survived, they probably never saw any application on the Muslim subjects, which is important because the Ottoman Empire at it's zenith was a theocracy.
*By Blood:* This is a tricky one. The Seljuk nobles definitely did marry and produce heirs with the Imperial and noble families of the Eastern Romans. We also know that Mehmet II did claim that he was a descendant of one of the Emperors, though that may have been one of many pretexts he used to justify his conquest of Constantinople. Even after the fall, the Sultans did have heirs with many Roman (along with Albanian, Slavic and Jewish) women in their harem. In tandem we have proof that some of the Eastern Roman nobility converted to Islam to find a cushy position in the new Ottoman administration. We also know that a good chunk of the Ottoman army (and by extension citizens) were former Christian Roman subjects that converted at some time. But leaning on this brings the question of "what makes a Roman a Roman and what makes a (Ottoman) Turk a Turk?". Even before the idea of "Turkishness" began to arise in the 1800's, there was a huge degree of separation between the Turkish and non-Muslim communities, which was frankly done by design as stated in the legal section. To put it bluntly, if you go to today's Republic of Turkey (which let's be honest is the cultural successor to the Ottomans) and say that they are the successors of Justinian, the Komnenians and the Paleologos, you will (at best) get a puzzled look.
*Culturally:* Definitely not. While we treat the Eastern Roman Empire as a different entity from its earlier "whole" counterpart, the Eastern Romans followed a clear cultural and philosophical evolution of its united predecessor. Some of the prestigious institutions, such as the consuls, senate etc., continued to operate long after the pagan days of yore and sometimes even until 1453. The Eastern Romans definitely identified themselves with their ancient counterpart such as Augustus, Cicero, Octavian, Virgil etc. What offsets everybody about the Eastern Roman Empire is the Greekish-ness of it all since they also considered themselves successors of Achilles, Socrates, Aristotle, Alexander the Great etc., however at that point Greek and Roman civilizations had practically fused into one or as one RUclipsr said _"The Romans became Greek, and the Greeks not only became the Romans but the _*_last_*_ Romans"_ . On the other hand, the Islamic Seljuk and Ottoman imposition is more a cultural intrusion than a physical evolution of the Roman civilization. Their religious rituals were done in Arabic, the noble titles were mostly Persian, their script was (again) Arabic and their language was Turkish. The Ottoman art and aesthetic along with their philosophical outlook was definitely Middle Eastern, where religiously they at best tolerated the Roman Christian minorities. And using the French Revolution is not the right perspective, since said revolution was an organic event done by a disgruntled cohort of the local French middle class that was fed up with the archaic feudal system, making the whole process integral to the French identity. In contrast, if you go to the non-Muslim Balkan nations (especially the Eastern Orthodox ones), the Ottoman rule is seen as an intrusive deviation in their history. So on a spiritual/cultural level, the answer is no.
I love this. Great explanation of the issues involved.
A little off topic (because I don't want it to take away from your overall comment, which is awesome), I think your thoughts at the end about my France analogy support my point in an interesting way.
I'm guessing you and I would probably agree that we COULD see the Ottomans as a continuation of the Roman empire, if we look at it from the Ottomans' point of view, recognizing that others at the time might well have disagreed with them.
When you say republican France is in continuity with the ancien regime, "organic," "integral to the French identity," aren't you doing the same thing? We COULD see the French Republic that way, if we look at it from the republicans' point of view. Would we see it that way if looking from the monarchists' point of view?
I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. But it seems you're adopting the republican narrative and assuming that opposing French narratives don't exist. It would be like taking the Ottoman definition of "Roman" at face value and ignoring the Byzantines who would have disagreed with them. To paraphrase the video, the French Republic happened, but to call it a continuation of pre-revolutionary France is an interpretation we project onto it.
Maybe a mistake in my video was taking for granted my own interpretation of the French Republic (one of rupture rather than continuity with what came before) and not explaining what I meant or why that comparison makes sense to me.
But anyway, thank you for summarizing your paper. I enjoyed reading it.
@@premodernist_history Thanks for the level headed reply. It's often rare to find one on RUclips. As to answer (some of the questions) to the best of my ability here's my shot:
_I'm guessing you and I would probably agree that we COULD see the Ottomans as a continuation of the Roman empire, if we look at it from the Ottomans' point of view, recognizing that others at the time might well have disagreed with them._
Yes. If you look at it from an exclusively legalistic point of view and even to an extent from a sanguinary one. I'm not refuting or fully agreeing with the thesis of the video, I'm just saying it depends on the perspective one looks at it. The curious and interesting thing about the Balkans and Anatolia is that (contrary to the narratives that the nationalists are fed) is that its history is _shades of grey_ .
_When you say republican France is in continuity with the ancien regime, "organic," "integral to the French identity," aren't you doing the same thing? We COULD see the French Republic that way, if we look at it from the republicans' point of view. Would we see it that way if looking from the monarchists' point of view?_
Here we have the peculiarities of history. Yes using said words I am implying the same thing regarding France. And many exiled nobles did think that, though it was more of "look at how France is going to the dogs" rather than "France will be wiped off the map and assimilated by someone foreign". It had more similarities of how the exiled white Russians thought of the Bolsheviks, malicious elements degrading their once utopian existence. The Ottomans do not fit in that mold. They came from the outside and brought to their Roman subjects laws and customs that were foreign to them. They also didn't follow any of the artistic or religious practices that their subjects did (though you can see the influence of Byzantine architecture on Ottoman mosques). I guess that the closest French experience to that would probably be Vichy France, an external foreign element with some aspects of Frenchness to justify its legality, though this is a very broad stroke because Ottoman history is very multifaceted.
Ultimately, it boils down to the concept of interruption disestablishment and reestablishment and how does the old reconcile with the new. Still interesting video. Keep up the good work.
@@premodernist_history Tocqueville (a French aristocrat, by the way) argued that the institutions of the ancien regine had survived the Revolution to a much greater degree than most people realised and, in fact, plenty of the reformations attributed to the revolution originated in the ancien regime (eliminating feudal privileges, for example). Furthermore, changes such as the one in the calendar were only temporary. Therefore, I do not think the two cases are even remotely comparable. The political structure and social fabric of the Eastern Roman and Ottoman Empires were very different.
@@premodernist_history This is common in history, Bolshevik Russia isn't legally a continuation of the Russian Empire and Russian Republic but we treat it as such, in a lot of revolutions they try to completely break away from the preceding state but will claim continuity for diplomatic reasons (especially for territorial claims).
The modern Kingdom of the Netherlands was established under the guise of continuing the Republic of the 7 United Netherlands, but its institutions are more similar to that of Revolutionary France than the old confederation.
The People's Republic of China has nothing in common with the Republic of China, but claims continuity, meanwhile nobody recognises the actual Republic of China as a continuation of itself seeing it rather as "Taiwan". This is despite all of its institutions and administrative culture surviving there to this day.
Legal continuity is always difficult to determine with revolutionary changes.
You have to do more research about Turkish/Ottoman culture and its similarities with the Eastern Roman culture.
I'm Turkish and we are taught that Byzantine Empire ended in 1453, and that Ottomans call themselves the king of the Rum's (Rum also means Greek btw), and indeed they were the ruler of the Greeks. They do not call themselves the Roman Empire, but the ruler of the Romans is one of their titles. Just like you said.
I don't think that Christianity defines the Roman Empire. I think it's the other way around, Roman Empire defined the Christianity as we know today. So in a way, if you would like to, you could call Ottomans as Romans. I have heard and sometimes used the term "Muslim Rome" for the Ottoman Empire. I think it is a distinguishment.
Teşekkür ederim! Interesting that there's a phrase "Muslim Rome".
They did use the title Roman Emperor and that was the casus belli for the campaign against the other Roman Empire (the HRE) resulting in the famous and dramatic but ultimately failed siege of Vienna. It was of course just another title along with Ottoman Sultan and Caliph, but they did use it all the way to the republic. Arguably Mehmed VI was the last Roman Emperor ever, as well as the last Caliph.
@@premodernist_history in Muslim prophesy the end times will see a Muslim ruler with Rome as the capital of the world and he ascended the throne in Rome wearing a toga
Rum does not mean greek. It means roman, and it is used to refer to greeks/christians as they used to call themselves roman. But it does not mean greek.
Christianity was a direct produce of the Roman Empire, whereas Islam was an external imposition.
The Ottomans were the sucessors of the old Caliphates, not Rome's.
Love this guy. This video is literally it.
If you take a close look at culture and subcultures such as architecture, hygiene traditions, cuisine and such, there is clear connection between Eastern Roman and Ottomans. I grew up in Turkey and lived in Roma for a bit while training as an architect, so at least architecturally, I can confidently say that it is clear Ottomans adopted and innovated upon the famous dome construction methods of ancient Roman's, i.e. works of Mimar Sinan. Also the word Rum is still used today and it is not mutually exclusive. You could technically be an Ottoman Rum. People confuse ethnicity and nationality a lot of the times...
They emulated some stuff as partisans did with seleukids they did not continue anything rome gave western civilization streets cities and legal systems. Ottoman had no fucking streets.
This seems similar to the Turkic dynasties in India calling themselves "Hindu" despite them being Muslims from a different culture. Hindu was the name given to the people of Hindustan, the land around the river Indus which Persians called Hindh (from Sanskrit Sindh). That meant that Hindustan referred to the region which people today call India(the landmass around Indus). Rulers of Delhi like Aurangzeb called himself Malik al Hind (Master of India). The culture of the Hindus was called Hindi. Incidentally, Hindistan is the name of India in Turkic languages.
@@papazataklaattiranimam usually(since Indians called themselves Bhartiya, not Hindustani). Some people call them Tulugu, a name which is sometimes synonymous with being Muslim.
Here from Joe Scott! Thanks for the history!
It's also interesting to see how the Ottomans were looked at in other parts of the world. These are entires from a 1895 Punjabi dictionary:
ਰੂਮ rúm
RÚM ਰੂਮ s. m. Rome; in India, it signities Constantinople and the Turkish Empire.
ਰੂਮੀ rúmí
RÚMÍ ਰੂਮੀ a. Roman or as universally understood in India a Turk, Turkish:- mastakí rúmí, s. f. The name of a resin, mastich. See Mastakí Rúmí.
Awesome find! Thanks for sharing! That gave me the idea of checking some other dictionaries on archive.org:
A New Hindustani-English Dictionary (London, 1879), page 717:
rumi, n.m. A Turk.
Vocabulary of the English and Malay Languages (London, 1887), page 94:
Rum (Ar.) Constantinople. Benua Rum--the Turkish Empire, or ancient Rome.
Looks like we have a pretty stark difference between how the phrases "Roman" and "Roman empire" were defined in the West and in the Islamic world.
That line in the Punjabi dictionary, "or as universally understood in India, a Turk" got me thinking. Maybe part of the stumbling block for a lot of the commenters on this video is that they don't realize that the Ottomans did not use the term "Turk" to describe themselves. For Europeans, "Turk" meant all Ottoman Muslims, and then later excluding the ones who spoke Arabic. But in the Ottoman empire, "Turk" meant a rural pastoralist.
Yeah, but Cemal Kafadar had already written about it twenty years ago, and he warned against conflating the Ottoman conception of "Rum" with any western notion of Rome.
Wonderful video!
Another interesting point that is often not mentioned is the fact that the Imperial Ottoman Dynasty claimed patrilineal descent from the son of a Komnenos emperor. Although contested, this was often used as further reinforcement to aid claims of legitimacy to Roman succession and being the natural follow up to the emperors as “Kaysers” who laid claim to a blood connection.
I am greek, sadly our school-taught history is not even worth discussing, the ottoman period is mostly glossed over, painted with dark colors etc. Certainly no chance of calling the ottoman empire roman or greek in there. But of course, the obvious and key thing that you forget to mention in your video is that we talk about empires, not ethnic states here, these empires, Rome, Byzantium, the Ottoman empire etc, were more about a ruling class and their system of power than the ethnicity and language of their subjects. Religion was certainly a more important aspect of all this but again, this is an era very far from modern nation-states.
I maybe biased, but i see Ottoman empire is the true successor of roman especially when they encompass many ethnicities and religions
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 There is no true successor, many have claimed the title, but yeah, you can't turn back the time, in the following centuries there were different empires, big and small, with different people and in different situations, that lasted a long or a short time... It feels dumb to look for a successor, like football fans looking for the second Messi etc. History doesn't work this way.
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 they have absolutely no legitimate claim
Nice to see this kind of topics on youtube. So refreshing, reminded me my old days in the faculty.
Greetings from a Spanish historian. You earned a new subscriber
What an interesting approach. I enjoyed the video. Of course in Greek schools people are never taught such a thing and I've seen in Turkish schools that the "Byzantines" were simply an enemy they defeated long ago. Of course both of these approaches in each curriculum serve no other purpose but to enhance the nationalistic agenda of each state.
Leaving that aside though, as well as the fact that I am Greek, I would argue against this assumption or theory for various other reasons. But first of all we must admit that there is a grain of truth in this theory. Of course this grain of truth goes as far back as the aftermath of Manzikert in 1071. Where the Sultanate of Rum (Sultanate of the Romans) was an actual political entity with a Turko-Persian elite, but Greek-speaking Roman subjects. Now, contrary to the popular belief the population of Anatolia was not massacred and replaced by Turkic pastoralists who had absolutely no idea how to live in advanced urbanized environments and conduct trade and warfare through the sea. In fact we have references that Turkic tribes migrated in Anatolia in the passing of 350 years and mostly on Central Anatolia, due to its similarity with the Central Asian Steppe, from which they hailed. Therefore, even when the Ottomans were the ruling authority most of their subjects were Greek-speaking Christians, or Turkified citizens (either Mixobarbaroi or simply Islamic converts).
Moving on to the fall of Constantinople 1453. It is also a very obscure narrative as well but there were many Byzantines who actually wanted Constantinople to fall to Mehmed. The reason is also obscure, but it has its root in the conquest of Anatolia by the Turks as well as the ravaging crusaders from the West. When Constantinople fell in 1204 there were shaped (or came to the surface) 2 different "parties" amongst the nobles. The "western party" and the "eastern party".
The western party were more enthusiastic to receive help from the West. The dynasties of Palaiologos and Doukas-Komnenos were some examples. Basically all of those who deemed the Turks (and Muslims in general) as a threat and wanted to get rid of them, by siding with the Pope, which meant the total submission of the Orthodox church.
The eastern party on the other hand were growing fond of the Turks, since they saw that the Orthodox religion was well-preserved and occasionally with more power amongst the Turkic leaders (even though they were Muslims). Supporters were the Patriarchate as well as the dynasties of Doukas-Vatantzes and Lascares.
This culminated during the last years of Rhomania up to the siege of Constantinople. Where Constantine Palaiologos XI submitted the Orthodox church to the Pope and he granted privileges and land to Latin nobles, in exchange for their help. On the other hand hthe eastern party didn't really oppose to the Turks and Constantine's persistence to unite the churches under the Pope alienated them from him to the point that some would even welcome Mehmed as a liberator. There was this famous saying "better Turkish turban, than Papal tiara". So when Constantinople fell the Patriarch's position was maintained and was appointed as the representative of the Rum subjects. At this point many Roman subjects had recognized Mehmed (who actually spoke more Greek than Turkish) as the Emperor of the Romans. George of Trebizond is the most obvious example calling him emperor of both Romans and Turks. And the byzantine community of Fanari in Constantinople recognized him as such. We also have the Sipahi knights who were mostly Christian knights in the service of the Sultan and fought many battles for him. In fact until 1517 the term Roman Empire makes sense, since the Ottoman state comprised mostly of the Balkans and Anatolia, the heartlands of the Byzantine Empire.
However, after the victory against the Mamluks the Ottoman Emperors assumed the Caliphate and thus a new era began for the Ottoman Empire. From that point until 1828 the Ottoman Empire is being transformed in a more "Turkish" or better Islamic state. With the creation of the modern Greek state any last remnants of "Romanness" from the Ottoman Empire disappear, as the state becomes even more fearful of its Christian subject and tries to shield the Muslim population from nationalistic movements under the umbrella of the newly founded Turkishness. We need to understand that the Ottoman Empire was not the same entity from 1400 to 1800. Although in the beginning it could be considered the continuation of the Roman Empire, this was not the case during the last century of the Empire.
However, here comes another approach as well. As expressed also by professor Dimitrios Kitsikis the region to which the Ottoman Empire was, was always the land of a globalistic empire (oikoumeniki). From the Persian Empire to the Hellenistic Empire to the Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire, this region was for more than 2 milleniums the center of such an empire. Hence, his arguement continues that as Mehmed II was a Roman Emperor, thus Alexander the Great was a Persian Emperor. The subjects in both cases remain the same, while the new population influx is never as big as the native one. But this is where things start to get tricky. In the Hellenistic Empire (or its successors) even though the few Greeks could never outnumber the Persians, Anatolia (and the Middle-East as well) saw radical changes. First of all, the urban centers were fully Hellenized. With the old rulers (the satraps) the population was more rural and poor, but with the Hellenic civilization brought by the conquest of the Macedonian phalanxes there now arose a new middle class in cities of merchants and artisans who were independent from the ruling class. Literacy rates had also grown (not technological capacity, just literacy amongst the population) and the orientalistic despotism was set aside for the Hellenistic progressive and republican ideas. Therefore event though the state had mostly the same subjects the fundamental structuring of the state had changed. The same principle applies to the Ottoman Empire. Even though the subjects were mostly Romans, the Ottomans were a Muslim dynasty who introduced the Timariot system and transformed the Roman Empire. One could also claim that the Ottoman Empire is the actual Persian Empire. But that would only apply in terms of geography and political power and not as the foundation stones of the state.
But all of this is was the result of an external power changing the status quo . And I am glad that you mentioned France for this. The French revolution was just that. A revolution. A social revolution that happened from within. While the conquest of the Roman Empire was a product of conquest. Rome itself had undergone through many internal shifts. From republic to Empire to rump states to another empire. But it always happened from within. And arguably the Roman Empire of Octavian Augustus is nowhere near as similar to the Roman Republic of the previous century. But the Ottomans not only changed the structures of the society but they were also an outside force with a completely different socio-economic structure.
Once again I really enjoyed the video and your approach as well.
@@papazataklaattiranimam Interesting source, of which I am aware. I can't say that I disagree with any of the aforementioned statements. I didn't claim that the Ottomans weren't Turkish, but they are a bit far from being called Turkic. There's a difference here especially when it comes to large chunks of population that converted to Islam during the course of 3-4 centuries after the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia. Adding to the mixture the arrival of the pastoralist Turkic people mainly in Central Anatolia you have a yoke from which the Turkish identity comes out of. I am not claiming anything different. In fact the Term Turcia is a western term that was applied to the region during the 11-12 centuries, namely after the crusades. From that point onwards the Muslim population of Anatolia and its dynasties were referred to as Turks by the Europeans. I don't find it curious at all to have western historians calling the Ottomans simply Turks. However, we must not forget that an Ottoman isn't an ethnic group but it would resemble mostly a cast of people. Therefore you would have the Ottoman Rums as well who were greek-speaking Christians.
Now regarding the term "Hellene" it was indeed a symbol of ancient paganism. But the Europeans called the Byzantines Greeks many times. We have references such as the Greek Empire or the Empire of Greeks (due to the language), but we all know today that this is nonsensical, since the Byzantines called themselves Rhomaioi. Same as the Ottoman Empire. The people called themselves Ottomans. Including the Rum people, who also proudly claimed that they were Rum. But outsiders simply called them Turks. That also happened in modern Greece. When the refugees came from Minor Asia, even though they were avid Greek speakers and Orthodox Christians most of the people considered them as Turks. Mainly because before the population exchange those people didn't identify as Greeks but as Rum.
The problem is as many modern Rum have shown, that there is no word in any other language equivalent of Rum, in a way that signifies a specific group of people in the Turkish society. They are not Greek, but they are not purely Turkish as well.
Thus, I think it is really important to understand here that sometimes people consider themselves something different than what others deem them to be. No matter how hard Mehmed II tried to prove to everyone in Europe that he is a Roman Emperor, but nobody really believed him and called him a Turk.
So was he or was he not?
I have just one objection to your persperctive and interpretation , that Hellenistic culture brouhht republicanism and "progress" over oriental despotism. Personally I am open to the idea that Roman Empire ended in 1922 though not fully convinced.
Another Greek hater🎉🎉🎉
Don’t take these neo Nazi Greeks seriously.
@@goshlike76 You have an error. Mehmed II was a proud Turk and Muslim. His thinking was: 1. Roman Empire polytheistic and Latin, 2. Roman empire Christian and Hellenic. The third was why he could not be a Turk and a Muslim.
They were slaughtered 😢greek and armenian and assyrian Christian ottoman Muslims ☪️ 😢
4:33 Rumi in Jalal al-Din Rumi is not like the Roman but Jalal al-Din he who lives in Rome. He was originally from Turkistan (central asia) who fleed to Anatolia after Mongolian invasion.
So...by that same reasoning, would you argue that when the Spanish crown conquered the Aztecs, it became itself the Aztec empire? The Ottomans conquered what was left of the fledgling Roman empire and absorbed it, end of story.
Good damn point!
@Hıağ Modern Turks are genetically half Turkic half Anatolian
@Hıağ you will never be roman roach
The aztecs became part of the Spanish Empire for sure. And of course, the Hasburg had the legal right by conquest to call themselves Aztec emperor. They just chose not to.
The relationship between the Aztecs and the Spanish is very different from that between the Ottomans and the Romans [Greeks].
Man, the whole concept of "Roman" is truly fascinating. Back in the 3rd century BC, it still referred to the city of of Rome, while the rest of Italy was simply allies. But then at some point after the rise of the Empire, the concept expanded to include people throughout the Empire. Culture, religion, even language changed over time.
That being said, there's a clear distinction between the Roman people and the Roman state. All the people's of Europe and Americas have some Roman heritage, but we still don't live in Rome anymore. So while the Ottoman sultan was the Emperor of the Romans and the ruler of "Romania," he was not Emperor of Roman Empire. Although the Ottomans definitely proved to be a worthy successor.
This was very interesting to think about and ponder.
That's an interesting twist and a reasonable description/perspective. I have also read the Ottoman Empire being described as a 'reboot of the Byzantine Empire'. Although, as you correctly state, it was never known as that whilst the empire existed. It was described as a continuation of the Eastern Roman, Greek speaking Empire which adopted much of the Empire's ways, including the geography and dwellings and made a 're-skin' of the empire by changing both the language and religion.
A paint job doesn't make a car an airplane. The Ottomans were about as Roman as the Yuan and Qing were Chinese and Victoria was empress of India. Legitimacy by conquest and geography are far more important factors than religion, language and culture.
@@majungasaurusaaaa That's why the Greco Roman empire and Hellenistic period lasted about 1800 years and the Ottomans only 630 years.
The Ottomans were a cuckold culture living in the nest of others. Domination does not translate to high culture other than being a culture of conflict. Unless of course you include the bacteria found in yoghurt the culture found in the churning saddlebags of the Turks as they rode from the Mongolian Plateau to Anatolia or, of course the Ottoman footstool - I guess that was a contribution to culture.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Roman isn't an ethnicity it's a city. If we are to become truthful, early Romans were pagans therefore christians can't be true Romans by that logic.
Very interesting. My hard date for fall of Roman Empire is 1204., when the catholic crusaders sacked Constantinople and set up a Latin empire, which functioned as a private enclave of western Germanic nobility. . The minimal restoration in 1260”s was a rump state at best. It lasted till 1453 due to Turkish instability and in 1402 the depredations of Tamerlane gave it a breather. I think any romaness died after 1204. Loved your presentation and respect your opinion.
Thanks!
Funny you should mention that because I've often looked at that event as the reason for Byzantium (The City) being taken over in 1453. I'm never sure if it's due to my overzealous research or ethnic Greek heritage.... (side note) boy visiting Smyrna this year brought up pangs of sadness.
So it was "Roman" enough only when had some power? That's another weird view from a foreigner to decide the name of state based on its own ideology of what Roman should be like...
@@vanmars5718 i dont think he means power as much as an ability to identify itself on its own terms rather than have another culture (germanic or turkish) ascribed to it
@@ericthegreat7805 The Eastern Roman Empire from its beginning until the end always thought that is just the Roman Empire. Nothing else. Even as a multiethnic empire in the beginning either as solely ethnically Greek at the last centuries, the people and the establishment never changed their political and historical identification cause they never stopped having this continuum. The problem is not them, is us today that we don't want to see them as such. We always try to find some excuses, either linguistic, ethnic, religious, power etc to make them less "Roman" worthy. I usually see all this discussions stemmed from a biased point and generally dishonest since those justifications couldn't be said for any modern state.
*If USA are got invaded and being weakened aren't gonna be USA anymore? Is that how it works or is only the Byzantines that they have to endure this scrutiny since they used the name "Roman" but they speak Greek and are Orthodoxs and that's very bothering to modern view who wants anything real "Roman" to be Latin speaking and Catholic? I'm not sure we really talk with honesty when it's about Byzantium
In Iraq, people used to call the Ottomans the Romans or “Rum” in many popular poems and proverbs. They described the wars of the Ottomans and the Safavids as the wars of the Romans and the Persians
Concerning the "fall of the western roman empire", i recently read that in 476, no-one thought of it that way. Another warlord hat taken over in italy, and send the empirial regalia back to constantinople. Theoderic later rules as a roman adminstrator. It was only in the reign of Justinian, that a justification was needed to attack the Goths in Italy (which had sworn fielty to constantinople). It is this around that period, the the idea that western rome fell in 476 came up.
Italy was an Eastern Roman protectorate at the time and its identity didn’t change. Its rulers did, but that’s another point. Rulers did change at that point in the west.
I am not sure if you are going read my comment since the your video was published 7 months ago. However to reply to your question at the end of the video about the label people in the area give to Turkish people, I would like to assure that people in Arabia and Iraq look at Turkish people as romans. As an Arab, I heard that from my ancestors that they were occupied by Romans (they meant Turkish). In Iraq, they had a well known old saying which can be translated as: “Between the Persians and the Romans, we are greatly afflicted.” “Romans” here means “Turkish”.
Not true. Population who came here were not Mongols. They were from southern Central Asia and themselves were around only 30- 35% ish East Eurasian themselves. That's the thing you guys never understand. Turkics WERE NEVER Mongols. They were Eurasian people. If you had ever used Vahaduo or qpadm you would know this basic truth. And that's who we are compared to people who came to Anatolia in 11th century...
Target: Turkish(Bolu)(NorthWest)
Distance: 1.2608% / 0.01260777
49.8 Turkmen_Uzbekistan
26.0 Greek_Cappadocia
12.6 Turkey_WestByzantine
10.4 Ukraine_ Medieval. SG
1.0 Levant_Sidon_1800BC
0.2 Armenian_Ararat
Target: Turkish(Muğla)(SouthWest)
Distance: 1.5199% / 0.01519901
59.6 Turkmen_Uzbekistan
35.0 Turkey_WestByzantine
5.2 Ukraine_ Medieval. SG
0.2 Greek_Cappadocia
As a Turk it was a great video and i don't think the ottoman empire was a continuation of rome . Thanks for video i think it is important to think like this
That's because of Ataturk erasing both the 'Caliphate' and 'Roman' identities from the former Ottoman state. It's why he changed the name of Constantinople to Istanbul.
Wasn’t there a little province in Anatolia called the Sultanate of Rum? Basically Sultanate of Rome.
There was an Anatolian Anatolian Seljuk state, but artificial sources said it was Greek.
The term "Sultanate of Rum" never actually appeared in the historical sources. It was a modern coinage by historians to designate the Seljuk presence in Anatolia.
Great video. Very well explained. Great skills in explaining such a complex historical situation. Well done and thanks for the video prof!
I also throw this out as an out there theory! Love the vids!
This goes with conquest theory. Like the Ming-Qing transition. Qing replacing Ming is currently seen as a continuation despite the political, cultural, and other differences. I guess it really does depends
Great Video. Yes correct Ottomans always saw themselves as heirs and continuation of Roman Empire. But this fact was annoying for modern nationalists so it is denied during both Turkish and Greek nation constructing process.
Exactly… finally someone who claims the same thing as I do. A lot of history is not convenient for modern day nation building. If they only left history for what it is and took other subjects to use for nation construction.
I'll second that. You have to remember that the "Byzantines" themselves were split into 2 vehemently opposed factions at the time of Mehmed II's conquest. The pro-Western faction (called pro-Latin) favoured the Frankish/Norman sphere of influence and was seen as hostile to true Roman(=Orthodox) interests. The pro-Eastern faction often thought that Ottoman rule might be more favourable to their interests.
A saying of the time went like this: "Better the turban of the Turk than the skullcap of the Pope". You have to remember that the Romans saw the Pope as a heretic,an enemy and an agent of the Devil. The Fourth Crusade had not really helped ease this point of view.
Mehmed II walked into Constantinople with the Patriarch of the Church at his side.
Just a small correction: Rumi actually came from the territory of modern day Afghanistan, but his family had to emigrate to Anatolia during his childhood fearing the Mongol conquest.
settled in konya, you're right . Glory to🇬🇪 by the way. ☮️
As a Turkish, I always respect Roman Empire and Greek people but have never think from this what perspective, it was nice to learn a different idea🌸🌸
I am a Greek, I respect the Ottoman Turks. I had to read foreign scholars to understand the lies we are taught here in school.
On historian perspectives you're absolutely right. Mehmed II. the conqueror see himself as the heir of the trojans. He was often compared to other renaissance rulers by historians and ottomanists. The behavior at the ottoman Court changes a lot, compared to the courts at Edirne and Bursa. The continuity are somewhat astonishing, but of course, there are also breaks with the past after the conquest of Constantinople. But the legitimation of the true roman descendants was also established before the conquest thru marriages with byzantine princesses. It was a transition time in the 15/16. century. Interestingly, in the diplomacy with the Latin or orthodox kingdoms, the ottomans was seen as the legitimate roman rulers and the only emprorer of Europe. Including paying of tribute to the King of Kings (ottoman sultans and "Qaisar-e-Rum"). It's also worth to mention, that the people, the orthodox Greeks, have their own continuity in law, behavior, living, thru the so called millet system, the (semi-) autonomy. Yes, there are arguments to believe, the end of the roman empire are fulfilled after the conquest of Constantinople, but as you said, the opposite has also strong arguments. But not for Greek or Turkish nationalists. History and group identities are mostly constructed (invented traditions and imagined communities). Every historian must be aware of this and be careful. Thank you for your important input with this video.
Your claim that "The behavior at the ottoman Court changes a lot, compared to the courts at Edirne and Bursa." is extremely interesting. Do you have any resources to back it up ?
Your videos are an absolute delight, keep them coming.
I'm 35 years old Turkish guy, and I did my high school education in Turkey, in between 1st and 11th grade. Then I went to Germany for university, that part is not related with here anyway.
We never learned anything like we are the continuum of Roman empire or Byzantine or whatever you want to call it IN HIGH SCHOOL. However we learned that we are a nation that closes middle ages and start a new Era.
So the reason of that is pretty simple. Nationalism waves effected obviously a newly found republic. After ruling over 80 different nations over 600 years, we needed a new ID, an ID that we can be proud of. Therefore history classes were taught very epic way. Turks can't be destroyed, but only from inside. Turks starts with Huns then the Göktürks then Seljuks then Ottomans together with other small Turkic dynasties (such as Aydinogullari Karamanogullari, etc etc). So, Turkish youth doesn't need to know that Ottomans tried to be continuum of Romans because why should Ottomans need that since Turks have a glorious history, right? :) Obviously, you don't get to learn in high school that Nationalism is not an ID for middle ages, it's too much detail for 8th grade (14-15 years old) student.
However, in University you do get to learn obviously more in detail. Obviously Ottomans were rising but, still it was a new dynasty. In order to increase your legitimacy, defining yourself as succeeding dynasty would not only have diplomatical positive effects but also stability wise positive effects. Therefore Sultan Mehmet also became the guaranteerer of Fener Rum Patriarchal Church, etc etc. So yes, High school curriculum was like that and I highly doubt that it changes any time soon. Maybe 20 - 30 years later, hopefully...
Eskiden nasıldı bilmem ama fatih sultan mehmetin roma imparatoru unvanını kulandığı zaten anlatılıyor yani osmanlının kendini romanın devamı olarak nitelediği günümüzde gayet anlatılıyor. Zaten o zaman çoğu devlet kendini romanın devamı olarak isimlendiriyor rusya, almanya, ispanya vb. ama osmanlı bir şeyin devamı olarak nitelendirilicekse osmanlıyı selçukluların devamı olarak nitelendirmek daha mantıklı olucaktır çünkü çoğu sistem selçuklularda var olan sistemlerin devamı niteliğindedir. Devşirme, tımar vb. Yani romanın devamı olmak o zamanım avrupası için bir prestij göstergesidir ve çoğu devlet ve yönetici kendini romanın varisi olarak isimlendirir. İkincisi tabiki tarih anlatımımız yüzde yüz objektif değildir ve olamazda ama osmanlın yükselişi tarih ders kitaplarımızda ne kadar yer tutuyorsa çöküşüde bi o kadar çok yer tutuyor ama sanrım insanlar görmek istediklerini anlıyor ve öğreniyor. Yani bence :) kitaplarımızda romanın devamı olmamıza bu kadar önem gösterilmemesin zaten bir çok devletin kendimi romanın devamı olarak nitelendirmesi ve bunun pek meşru bir tarafı olamamsı yoksa kim romanın devamı olmak istemez:)
Here in Türkiye, we still call Balkan peninsula as "Rumeli/Roman land" today. We still call old ethnically Greek/Ionian population as "Rum/Roman" today (Not the Greeks in Greece/Hellas. We call them Yunan). We still have a city named "Erzurum/Arz-i Rum/ Roman soil" today.
As a Turkish person i can assume, so called "Fall of Rome" happened in 1922, by the abolishment of Ottoman Dynasty. That abolishment made clear that the state given up all of those titles and abolished them also. So it seems "Abolishment of Rome" rather then "Fall of Rome" to me.
In the ottoman times though, Greeks in mainland Greece were also called Rum. The south of Greece is still sometimes referred to as “Rumeli” and Greeks as Romioi. In the West, where they also claimed the title of “Holy Roman Empire”, they called the Byzantines (which was a term that was never used back then), “the empire of the Greeks”.
@@tiusernamenabalw That is incorrect. Only the Greeks in Anatolia were called"Rum" (Roman), the Greeks in the islands and present day Greece were always called "Yunan" (Ionian).
loving your work - fellow historian
Wow this is some quality stuff! Keep up the good work.
As a Greek, I totally agree with this video💯👍🇬🇷
🇮🇸💨 As a ass, saldım 🙂😉💜.
There are already many high quality comments under the video so I may be late to the party. Continuations of Rome is not something that is emphasized in the high school curriculum in Turkey, but popular historians like İlber Ortaylı have mentioned that this was the way how at least some sultans identified themselves (Kaiser-i Rûm). However, the Turkish subjects back in the day had a different self-identity compared to the dynasty. This can be seen (at least in the late ottoman era) in the language commoner Turks were speaking (mostly turkish) and the palace language, Ottoman language which had greek, farisi and arabic word-wealth. This does not prove or disprove your research, but maybe adds a little perspective. Thanks for the videos, amazing work. I appreciate your scholarly attitude and the depth of thought in choosing the subjects of your videos.
I like how you mention that literally every other dynasty in Roman history achieved the throne by conquest, and that the empire's state religion changed several times throughout its history.
Well I would argue that internal conquests are diffirent from external once in principle. If a US General overthrew the American government and declared himself Emperor of America (Even if that General was say ethnically Hispanic of something) We would probably still see him as more of a legitimate representation of the US government, than if China Conquered it tomorrow and then called themselves the new US.
@@ThatIcelandicDude United States of America is literally just a geographical name with the description of united states. so yeah if china somehow came over and made a puppet of our country, they could def name it "ruler of America" in some way or another.
@@ThatIcelandicDude it is a little complicated than that because right after being founded the Ottomans started marrying their princes to Roman/Greek and Turkic princesses to form alliances and it continued with Slavic slaves, no Ottoman sultan has a Turkish wife(after its first century). Besides if you look at the population in Turkey today, they don't even look like the Turkic-Mongolic people of Asia, there is a significant chunk of DNA that comes from people who resided in Anatolia and simply converted to Islam.
For your analogy to be similar, Chinese people who moved to reside in the land of the US should conquer the US gov. and then call themselves the new US, not the country China.
@@ThatIcelandicDude Could argue 1203 is the fall of Rome since Constantiople by that line of thought fell like it did to the Ottomans (external) but to the Latins (external) who establisted an Empire that was culturally and Religiously differenent from the past hundred years of Byzantine traditions. There were rump successor states but same as 1453. Saying the Empire of Nicaea is still the Eastern Roman Empire is a stretch. You can argue they restablished the Empire later but then you accept the Empire fell and for a time there was no Roman Empire. If a state can reestablish its Roman Empireness then does that also legitimise the idea of the Holy Roman Empire then giving 1806 as a date (or 1917 for Russia though that one Is a bad one IMO).
@@paul_5848 Well I'm an Icelander, I consider the modern state of Iceland to be a legitimate successor state to the Icelandic commonwealth and so does the modern Icelandic Government. Even though these two states are sepperated by 700 years of foreign rule.
Rome is a bit more difficult ofcourse for reasons im sure neither of us need to list. But I would argue that The modern Icelandic state would have even more of a legitimate claim if a small portion if it never fell under foreign rule and instead held on until it could re-take the rest of the country. Even if that portion was not a direct successor to the Icelandic commonwealth but a territory if it.
So I would argue that Empire of Nicea has much more of a legitimate claim to the Empire than the Ottomans ever did, they were a part of the Empire that survived on and ultimately reclaimed the throne. After all they never called themselves the Niceans.
I'm a Turk, my family used to live in Selanik (Thessaloniki) before Balkan Wars. Ottomans called the state we lived in "Rumeli" which means "Land of Romans"
You are probably Greek
@@mithridatesi9981 Possible, my family was sent there to "Islamize" the region when it was conquered, I also have relatives born in Bulgaria for same reasons as well. It is no doubt they were married to locals at some point.
@@mithridatesi9981 Selanik Turks are genetically a mixture of Anatolian + Turkic + Slavic natives. Most were forced out of Anatolia to the Balkans
@@mithridatesi9981 This region is like a melting pot of cultures and populations. Only few can exactly know their roots as many records were destroyed in last 200 centuries during wars. My village is in eastern Black Sea and its name is in Greek. Greeks and Turks were living together in those villages (names were not even changed by Ottomans) and no one knows their ancestors. Maybe it is better that way.
@@ugurugurel1769conflict area also
Here's one for people to argue about: The Fall of Rome only happened in 1870 when Italian Unification finished off the Papal States
The papal states were ruled by the pope. It had nothing to do with the empire. The papacy acknowledged others as Roman Emperor and never made any claim to that office
@@sneed457 oh good, i caught one! counterpoint: the Pope was the one to crown the holy roman emperor and was therefore the true power behind the throne
@@emersonpage5384 but he didn't sit on the throne. The pope crowned many kings and emperors and didn't hold their titles either.
@@sneed457 The Pope does sit on *a* throne (the Chair of Saint Peter), but it doesn't matter whether he holds the paper title or regalia of "emperor," since he holds power even above the emperor. If you ask me, being able to crown and depose emperors means you rule over the emperor.
I feel like this argument could be applied to other parts of the empire that fell to Germanic kings. Especially because the gothic aristocracy Romanized and kept a lot of institutions that existed before. If we keep taking this idea to its logical conclusion there's like 40 roman empires. Not to mention all the speakers of latin languages in former colonies many of whom are also genetically descendent of romans. I think it's better to think of the empire as an institution rather than geography or a group of people because the roman people didn't just disappear when the empire fell.
I think the most logical conclusion is that our modern collective Western civilization, encompassing the US and Western Europe is actually Rome. In China, the various kingdoms that have existed for thousands of years are seen as the same civilization. I think the kingdoms and empires of the various Indo-European speaking peoples should be viewed through the same lens, as one continuous civilization.
@@therealdarklizzy the germanic kings adopted a lot of romanness sure, but the germanic element was stronger. the actual laws of the land were germanic. succession laws were germanic. the system of loyality was germanic. the medieval parliaments were germanic. "western europe" is the combination of germanic tribal culture and customs with roman law and customs.
@@therealdarklizzy China has more cohesion in their communication from what I understand, Europe seems to have had a confusing cultural history compared to the rest of the world and continues to have identity and communication issues when confronted with each other's ideals and ideas of the future.
@@therealdarklizzy an interesting thought but this reeks of right wing propaganda, reframing history to their warped understanding of Roman, which usually comes down to being white, Christian, and masculine
@@therealdarklizzy - Western = Greco/Roman
Personally I think that the fall of Byzantium to the ottomans represented a ship of Theseus moment.
To me the Byzantine were already one degree of separation from the Romans, then come along the ottomans and that just had another degree of separation put in.
The Ship of Theseus is an excellent analogy for the Roman empire. I might steal that.
@@premodernist_history another note concerning the byzantines the byzantines abandoned everything was it meant to be a Roman they were extremely pro Christian and anti Roman pagan.
The West and East went war with each other over religion.
That is too far fetched, you can literally do this with every nation and compare it to literally any other this way.
@@christos3280 Ok, do it with a nation in existence today.
@@edmundprice5276 Whats the difference between russia and England? Step one change the language, next step a different location, step three change religion. The ship of Theseus is an applicable analoge for anything you could do it even with a chair and a bed
These videos add a philosophical texture to history
really interesting topic i wnated to learn more about since i reaD about the ottoman self perception as roman empire - continuation fo a while
The discussion about the meanings & interpretations of history is what I found most valuable about this excellent presentation.
When Islam is finally understood as a post Christian religion which evolved with interactions between Byzantine Empire's Orthodoxies and the plethora of gnostic (non Nicean Creed) Christianities that flourished outside the reach of the Christian Roman empire(s), only then might we "westerners" can begin to understand the Islamicate world.
as a turk, we was taught that ottomans claimed the "roman emperor" title, but not because they really saw themselves as the continuation of the romans, but because they wanted to improve their legitimacy, get some sympathy from their european neighbors (or vassals), and as a "casus belli" in their wars against other european factions
imagine your landlord gets overthrown somehow and another man replaces him, as he wants to collect your rent, he will suggest the arguement that your new landlord is now him, and you should pay him instead. ottomans' logic was mostly similar to this imo.
As a Turk, from my own understanding I can say that the Roman identity had no connections with religion. Even the pope was convinced about Mehmed the Conqueror being the Kayser-i Rum. Mehmed the II was aiming to conquer Italy before his death, he sieged the fort of Otranto in the south of Naples. Mehmed the Conqueror was a genius of the renaissance.
What I find fascinating on the similarity between Roman and Ottoman empires is that they both masterfully implemented an umbrella state identity onto their subjects which is so alien to modern nationalism. The former "Rhomaios" the latter "Ottoman" and they worked that pre-nationalist phenomenon throughout several ethnicities to assimilate them into their own. The former Greek Orthodoxy, the latter Turkish Islam.
One thing I know about history, dynasties have no bounds to their original ethnicity. They just care about themselves, their legacy. Ottoman dynasty was a sample. They didn't care about Turks. Even they minded Turks less than Greeks. They cared about Islam though.
That’s because the idea of the nation as we know is a recent phenomenon. For most of human history people did not identify with their “nation”
@@atakanbalaban3543 Indeed, though the best sultans regarded Islam as political tool rather than a ''way of being'' per se
That was the way it was in that era. The conjuncture of the system of the era. They didn't know otherwise. Many other countries did exactly the same.
@@atakanbalaban3543Hayır. Osmanlı için İslam tamamen siyasaldı. Halifelik makamından bile ilk kez 1774'te bahsedildi. Osmanlı hukuku; Bazı şeriat hükümleri,Roma hukuku,Türk kültüründen oluşuyordu. Hiçbir zaman şeriat devleti olmadı. Aynı şekilde padişahların çoğu dindar bile değildi. İslam sadece siyasal statükoyu korumak için kullanılan bir meşruiyet kaynağıydı. Ancak Türklük çok daha ön plandaydı.
What a great video! I love the fullness of the information you are giving us. Thank you! This was a great introduction to your channel!
Excellent video. Coming from algeria, it always amuse me to see that the West think of themselves as the heirs of the greco-roman civilisation, but its also the case for the muslims and arab nations and this go early as the Arab conquest of egypt and the levant during the 7th century. Arab calife also portrayed themselves as the continuity to roman emperor. The cultures of the mediteranean shares more than what we may tought at first
Yes, you're right. Each took over about half of the old Roman Empire, and they're both heirs of Greco-Roman culture.
@@premodernist_history I discovered your channel today and I watched a lot of your videos in one sitting. I love when historians help us understand history in a way that contradict great national narratives. Your work is a true gem from all the history youtubers that only read wikipedia.
Old houses and many village communities (often greek) in Turkiye are refered to as "Rum" or "Rumeli".
Generally speaking this reference is not obvious to everybody, but historically interested people are very well aware of that heritage and take it as part of their identity, as they also embrace turkic roots side by side.
Very good and accurate analysis!
Please don't stop making videos; keep it up!
Another interesting area with a similar situation would be China. One can easily argue that a "Chinese Empire" has existed for thousands of years. I think a lot of this comes down to whether people have more a political or cultural view on what constitutes a state.
Awesome video. Very informative!
The difference is one of identity.
When a Persian converted to Islam, they were still a Persian.
But when a Roman converted, they became an Arab or a Turk. The population of Syria and Egypt are overwhelmingly Romans. The Ottoman Sultans were ethnically Roman. The Ottoman bureaucracy and military were almost entirely Roman. But because Roman was linked to Christianity they stopped calling themselves Roman. Finally when nationalism was invented and everyone picked new identities, people were forced to become Greek or Turks based on their religion rather than their culture or language. The Greek identity wiped out the Roman one, except for a few Christians who remained in Turkey, the last people who call themselves Romans.
Yes. Most Westerners are unaware that the "Greek" and "Turkish" identities at the end of the Ottoman empire were based solely on religion, and were not based on genetic background. It's all a matter of arbitrary labels.
The problem is that ethnicity IS an identity. If one ceases to identify with the Romans, one CEASES TO BE ROMAN. The Ottoman Sultans WEREN'T ethnically Roman percisely because of this reason. A Persian convert to Islam remains a Persian because that convert decides to remain Persian. He could have chosen not to.
@@premodernist_history They are not. This is a gross simplification of the actual situation. The phenomenon you describe did exist in many places, but "Romans" and "Turks" meant far more than "Christians" and "Muslims". A Vlach or a Bulgarian, for example, was not a Roman, despite being Orthodox Christian, and a Muslim Arab was not a Turk. The religious institutions never managed to erase ethnic identities throughout the Ottoman period, even if the change of religion very often coincided with the change of ethnicity.
@@premodernist_history Language was also a corelated if not a major basis, along with religion. Orthodox christian Turks(Karamans etc.) and muslim Greeks(Pontids) were a minority during population exchanges.
Religious identity had never ever completely eroded ethnic identity in the Ottoman Empire. IE: Karamanlıs were always called Turks, even when they converted to Orthodox christianity. It was not because of "invention of nationalism". people "picked identities out of thin air" unlike you try to portray. The nationalism wave just seperated those coexisting groups on the basis of ethnicity and language tho.
I feel like one could easily argue that there wasn't one Roman Empire but a series of them (similar to the succession of dynasties in Imperial China), each pretending to be a continuation of the previous one. In this way, we can then say the Ottoman Empire is an iteration of a Roman Empire but so was HRE or Russia
My concept of the ‘Fall of the Roman Empire’ was called into reconsideration when, many years ago now, I read a particular article in the magazine ‘History Today.’ I cannot remember the edition or the article’s title but I do recall that it mentioned the sale of a waterfront property in Massalia by its Roman owner to a Visigoth (presumably based on their names) and the statement of a fee to register the transaction. Somehow,this did not align with the concept of sack and pillage promulgated by contemporary school history textbooks. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems and every past event is open to interpretation.
Your videos and arguments are at least as thought-provoking as well as being very enjoyable. Thank you.
Some say the Russia Empire was the Third Rome because it largely reflected the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire lived on in the West when many fled to Italy to escape the capture of Constantinople, this is what many historians say is what sparked the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. All in all, the Roman Empire was a force to be reckon with then, still continues to aspire us, to follow and do as they did.
Gülçiçek Hatun (Ottoman Turkish: كلچیچك خاتون; Greek: Γκιουλτσιτσέκ Χατούν, Gülçiçek = "rose blossom"; originally named Μαρία, Maria) was a Greek woman from Bithynia[1] who became the first wife of Ottoman Sultan Murad I and Valide Hatun to their son Bayezid I.[2]
I do understand what you are saying. And why people would half-heartedly say that. But as you know, it is more of a semantic thing.
Just as the example of Vinchy France in a sense.
Because nevertheless, they kept their identity all the way from عاشْمان until عَبدُ الْحَميد (who was at least the last “effective” sultan) - always viewing themselves as an Islamic caliphate - “The rulers of روم” was more of a “stick it in your face” type of deal
But interesting nonetheless, because as a historian and Muslim I NEVER knew or caught on to the fact that Rumi’s name was based off Rome - but now that I look back on رومى, notably, with Nisbas and Laqabs being used so very often, I almost feel like I got fooled! (haha)
Good video (one of the few history channels I truly enjoy)
I actually did a very similar video myself with regards to the Roman Ottoman legacy ruclips.net/video/XVcrYWWP5Yc/видео.html and argued through more by general influence that the Ottoman empire continued the roman empire to a certain degree, though I did not go into the definitions so much but just focused upon the influence generally. I would Argue that the Ottomans were a continuation in a sense, at least more than the "Holy Roman Empire" in a lot of regards.
Its funny because there was a historical figure (dont remember who) that said "the Holy Roman Empire wasnt holy, nor roman nor an empire"
@@mrcopycat2355 oh yeah, Voltaire's quote about the holy roman empire 'The Holy Roman Empire, An empire that is neither holy, roman or even an empire'
@@theculturedjinni There we go! Thanks
@@theculturedjinniholy German empire Christian ✝️ devils 😈 romans😂
Mehmet the 2nd after conquering İstanbul called him the Roman Emperor ( Kayzer-i Rum) and minted coins written this in greek ( we call "rumca " language of Rum) . From that time to today we call Ottoman Greeks as "Rum" and their language " rumca " . ( Probably) After establishment of Greece the term "Yonan" then "Yunan" ( maybe from İonian) is used for Greeks in Turkish.
No Yunan is the persian term for greeks
@@JananMD so probably after greek wars WE adopted this Term.
Excellent video, excellent channel!
I think it's interesting to consider why other ancient Empires like China, India, Persia, etc were still considered to be China, India, Persia etc even after being conquered by foreign cultures such as the Mongols, Arabs, Manchurians, etc. I think it's because those foreign conquerors were largely successful in adopting the customs and culture of the native population, thereby keeping the culture alive. I don't know if there's much cultural assimilation for the Ottoman Turks of Roman culture, but my guess is probably not.
It's because westerners are ignorant of how much the conquerors infused their own culture into the conquered peoples. So they just call these places by their geographical name. "Marco Polo went to China", they say. Nope, he went to Kublai controlled Yuan which was both fighting the Mongolians under Ariq Boyke and the Southern Song (who were far more "chinese").
Places are like Russia and China have been mongolized far more than meets the eye. Their post mongol versions even in many aspects to this day have more in common with the mongols khanates than Kievan Rus or Southern Song. Mongol rule changed them forever, for the worse unfortunately.
The whole ottoman state system turned to be byzantian/roman by the second half of 15th century. People did not even change a bit. But, none of you is trained in history, you are just repeating what you have been told in schools, which are political instruments of political powers. Listen well the video, he is saying that whoever is trained in academic history is well aware of these things. Not you of course.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Why do you think in that way? Did they start to be more aggressive and less intellectual? I wonder about the reason.
Liked your video from Turkey, I saw this video just 60 minutes after I said that i love the roman history. Its a really nice and interesting topic for me (maybe for all the Turks that is just questioning this after reading the Atatürk's words about hector and Fatih calling himself as Kayzer) . Youre just speaking so quiet, slow, relax and well, this was the first history video that i just understood all of it without subs. Happy to see the after videos. Thank you for your work.
What did Atatürk say about Hector? Hector from the Trojan War?
I'm glad I'm understandable! I know how rough it is trying to understand a foreign language when they talk fast.
@@premodernist_history Ataturk said simply" we got the revenge of Hector" trojan/anatolian hero, in this way he meant modern day turks have ancient anatolian genes due to intermixing in almost a millenia
4:38 small correction here: Jalal Al din also has a Balkhi in his name. Meaning he was born in the city of Balkh in the greater Khorasan region but migrated to Anatolia due to fear of mongol attacks. He resided in "Rum" most of his life but is not actually from Anatolia.
I’m italian and Ive lived a good amount of time in Turkey. I’ve asked myself the exact same question. Isn’t it the continuation of the Roman Empire? Not in the same format yet, keeping alive the all the energy of conquering, expansion and creation of the old and investing in the new. The energy of the country is the energy of an empire that makes Italy and Greece almost like sleeping civilisations. As if after the end of the Western Roman Empire, the best migrated to the East side and afterwards keep the flame of creation alive.
That's not really accurate though. For example Italy in the Middle Ages was the place of literature, the finest metalwork/artisans and the first land in Europe to urbanise. These things do not happen in a vacuum.
Cannot be. Ottoman Emp had little to do with being Roman other than by invading and ruling the territory and peoples of Rome.
love thinking about contemporary perspective.. should be discussed more.. great video.
Very interesting subject, excellently explained! Subscribed.
Another analogy might be the various non-Han dynasties of China. There may have often been a more persistent institutional continuity, but there would still be a lot of change. Nevertheless, the Qing, for example, are rarely considered to have ruled over a Manchurian empire, when that could be argued.
Some great nuance here to really think about. Almost like replacing every board of a ship throughout its life, is it the same ship or a different ship? I do think a small but huge difference between France changing daily life and the ottomans changing Roman life is that the force of change came from within France by the French ppl. The ottomans were an outside force of change that may not have been aligned with the ppl they ruled. The ppl they ruled may still consider themselves Roman, but would they identify their ottoman rulers as Roman? I think that plays a huge part for legitimizing the ottomans claim.
Ottomans did not claim, actually. They practically called themselves Kaizer, ceaser of romans. They didn't need to ask any permission to anyone. And, as mentioned in the video, the ottomans were maybe outsiders, but not the people. People have always been there, and still are. And how many were those outsider ottomans? 200? 300 maybe? While the people were 12 million. And today 85 million.
@@philharmony a claim is an assertion of fact, it’s not a question.
I also made note of the Ottomans in power versus the ppl they conquered, mainly to wonder if the direct descendants of Rome saw the ruling class (ottomans) as truly Roman or just leeching off the name for legitimacy purposes. So I am not sure why you are talking about the difference between the two groups as if I am talking like they are the same people?
Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Thank you for the interesting videos.
Very hard disagree with your comparison of the 1453 and French change of regimes.
France was still run by French and many French aristocrats still held influence in French society after, much of the population remain Catholic to this day. Ottoman Rome meant an Islamic Turkic Ottoman Government running over mostly orthodox Christian Greeks where the ancien regime no longer held influence.