Did the people of the Ottoman Empire consider themselves the successors to the Romans? Also, what are the arguments for the Ottomans being the successors to the Romans?
>>1030954
>Did the people of the Ottoman Empire consider themselves the successors to the Romans?
The Greeks did. The rest didn't.
>Also, what are the arguments for the Ottomans being the successors to the Romans?
By taking over their erstwhile empire.
Anyway, the Qaysar-i Rum title was only ever important following the fall of Constantinople. For the Ottoman Sultans at the time that was it. Boom. This is our empire: more non-Muslims than Muslims, might as well take their royal title now so as not to piss off locals that much.
Except Selim the Grim did the unthinkable: BTFO Egypt, defeated Persia, acquired Mecca and Medina, and basically the whole of the Sunni Islam world.
So Ottoman Sultans quickly demoted their "Caesar" Title in favor of (in particular order)
>Padishah (پادشاه), i.e. Emperor,
>Hünkar-i Khanedan-i Âl-i Osman (شاه خاندان آل عثمان), i.e. Sovereign of the Sublime House of Osman,
>Sultan us-Selatin (سلطان السلاطین), i.e. Sultan of Sultans,
>Khakan (خاقان), i.e. Khan of Khans,
>Amir ül-Mü'minin ve Khalifeh ül-Rasul Rabb al-A’alimin (امیر المؤمنین و خلیفه الرسول رب العالمین), i.e. Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe,
>Khâdim ül-Haramayn ush-Sharifayn (خادم الحرمین الشریفین), i.e. Custodian of the Two Noble Sanctuaries (i.e. the Holy Cities of Mecca, and Medina),
>Qayser-i Rûm (قیصر روم), i.e. Caesar of the Roman Empire (or the Grecian Ceasar)
Since this time they have more Muslims than Europeans now.
>>1030954
The Greek Christian population continued to call themselves Romans, and I believe the Ottomans referred to the European side of their empire as the land of Rum. Up until the 16th century at least I believe the Ottoman court was hellenized enough to consider themselves masters of the Roman imperial tradition, if not exactly Roman emperors in the literal sense. That changed slowly however with the Timurids and Murad II I think when the state became oriented towards Holy War.
To some extent, but not seriously or fervently. After Mehmed II conquered Constantinople he declared himself Kayser-i Rum (Caesar of the Romans). They did abandon that title after a while though. Also, it's simple a title, Ottoman rulers called themselves Sultans, Khans, Caliphs, etc.
Their only claim to the Roman empire is that they conquered Constantinople, they effectively ended the Roman empire for once and for good (that is, if you consider Byzantines legitimate Romans) and the fact that they came closest to making the Mediterranean "theirs", just like the Romans did. It's not really a legitimate claim, like any other claim made post-1453.
>>1030954
Because they conquered the capital of the Roman Empire, killed the last emperor and took his place, making Mehmed II the Roman Emperor by right of conquest.
After the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, Mehmed II declared himself Kayser-i Rum, literally "Caesar of Rome".[12] The claim was recognized by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople,
>>1030954
Most of the People of the Ottoman empire didn't even care about the Ottomans besides being the Dynasty they have to give money to
People no, except Greeks. Only Mehmed II seriously took up title.
But everyone knows real Third Rome is Russia.
>>1031771
>But everyone knows real Third Rome is Russia.
As far as Western Europe was concerned, Russia was "Those weird guys who are Christian but might as well be Tartars."
>>1031781
>Tartars
Tatar.
>>1031799
No. Tartars.
In Western Europe, "Tartary" was the blanket term for Central Asian nomads. Like Mongols, or Turkics.
Hence the eastern part of Russia was called "Russian Tartary" while the Chinese ruled nomads were called "Chinese Tartary."
>>1030954
Did the Turks make any attempts maintain their history in Mongolia or was it pretty much assimilation into the M.E.?
>>1031771
>But everyone knows real Third Rome is Russia.
WE WUZ ROMANZ 'N SHIEEEEEET
>>1031830
>In Mongolia
You mean Central Asia.
Both yes and no.
Yes as in see >>1030988
>Khakan (خاقان), i.e. Khan of Khans
And No, because
"The surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended." -Some British observer in Ottoman Turkey. 1907.
The average Ottoman Gentlemen. And particularly the Nobles, saw themselves as cultured & civilized Muslim gentlemen. Not the tent-dwelling bow, twanging savage who is looking forward to the booties of the next raid.
It's something seen in many Turkic-founded dynasties: harsh denials that they are the same barbarians as their ancestors. Babur -Mughal India's founder- originates his line with his esteemed ancestor, Timur. The Mughal Dynasty saw themselves as Persianized Muslim Nobles. They dislike any connection with Mongols, Uzbeks, or other Transoxanian Turkic Steppe Nomad. In fact they disliked the "Mughal" appelation their Hindu subjects call them. Prefering to go around as "Timurid" or "Gurkani" Dynasty.
Only recently with Turanism was the Turkic heritage being waved as a pride flag by many peoples from Mongolia to -weirdly enough- Hungary.
>>1030954
>what are the arguments for the Ottomans being the successors to the Romans?
1. Occupied roughly the same territories as the Eastern Roman Empire (the "Second Rome")
2. Large, diverse, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-racial empire (just like the earlier Romans)
3. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, Mehmed II declared himself Kayser-i Rum, literally "Caesar of Rome". The claim was recognized by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople
4. Practiced a form of slavery that was very similar to the form of slavery that Romans practiced (see Islamic slavery)
5. Large, powerful standing army with standardized uniforms and equipment (compare Janissaries to contemporary European armies)
>>1030988
That is a based fucking list of titles.
I like their approach of being a modern roman empire.
Is there any reason Ottomans took Christian boys for the Jannisaries other than just easy pickings?
Also, how authentic is this Mongol music?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el93MIxAf-c
>>1032001
>Is there any reason Ottomans took Christian boys for the Jannisaries other than just easy pickings?
Europeans make better infantrymen.
The core elite of the Turkish Empire was the cavalry. And they were only good as cavalry. Their infantry consisted mostly of light infantry fighting in the middle eastern style.
Not conducive when you're fighting in close quarters europe.
>>1032001
Same as praetorian, varangian just mercenaries loyal to their employer
