But was it better than Rome?

But was it better than Rome?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanoğlu_family
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It was Rome

No it wasn't. Same as the Byzantine Empire wasn't Rome.

This

t. T*rk

hell no. kek

What did we get from rome huh????
>muh Roman Catholic Chruch?

bleh, shit teir religious cult that is bent on destroying the world.

Ottomans? uh the fucking Ottoman chair, Ottoman Tapestry, Ottoman Brush, Ottoman Kebabs! have you had those?? so fuckin good.
>could have united Europe and the middle east and had gasoline dirt cheap but no America and Jews had to step in and say fuck your oil, its ours. Bullshit dude!
my only regret is that they didn't colonize.

OP here guys, I just wanted to state my own opinion.

Compare and Contrast time.
Both Empires achieved in gaining their mass territory by overseeing an already established state. Both Had already inherited land that they could claim as well as wealth. Both had little or at least moderate resistance in their expansion that they both could afford to spend resources on.

to Contrast. The Ottomans came to power post Renaissance, A time where there was a growing population, massive amounts of wealth, and very few areas on the map that hadn't already been filled in yet. Not to mention their religion, the general religion of Islam was already heavily practiced in most of the states where their empire expanded to.

Rome however was facing a lot of unknown. Trade had not been established, lands were roaming with tribes of barbaric people that were not willing to give up their land all at once. Not to mention their expansion had reached its capacity before they adopted Christianity.

Rome had a wayyyy harder time expanding their Empire then the Ottomans ever had.

Ignoring all that GDP or population of land size, I think Rome is more worthy of its own title than the Ottomans ever will be. Not to mention they should be more appreciated for their expansion north. They did what no other Empire could do by expanding Mediterranean culture to lands that had little hope of ever uniting.

Not even a Romaboo, prove me wrong, I know little of Rome desu.

>gasoline dirt cheap...... America and Jews

either so stupid beyond belief or bait.
Almost would have believed you were serious if you didn't mention the jews.

Roman Empire lasted 2000 years.

Ottoman one 500.

So, that. About 1/4 as good. Which isn't really that bad.

>expansion as the only civilization amongst barbarian tribes is harder than expansion as a small initially nomadic peoples amongst already established empires

No, Rome was the undisputed preeminent power in western Eurasia for close to 700 years. The Ottomans reached that status for maybe 100 years and even then they weren't that far above the neighboring powers.

>I think Rome is more worthy of its own title

No shit sherlock.

>literal continuation of rome
>'byzantine' simply a modern construct

and to be fair by the same logic the ottomans are the continuation, though to a lesser extent, with them being more like the mongols taking on chinese customs than actual descendants of chinese emperors

hey man, some people honestly argue that Byzantine, HRE, and the ottomans did better.

sure but they weren't nomadic people at the point when the ottomans came to power.

>literal continuation of rome
>doesn't control rome

There's a reason we consider the PRC as the heir to china and not Taiwan.

Just a retreading of mighty Greek boots

Was the sick man of Europe better than the most consequential European Empire in human history?

Russia, Prussia, France, Spain, Portugal and the UK all built vastly more impressive and formidable empires.

>and to be fair by the same logic the ottomans are the continuation
No, you fucking retard. The ottomans were not literally half of the roman empire, living under roman law and government systems with gradual change over time. The ottomans were an outside force that conquered land that was once romans.

I don't consider the PRC China.

>Barbarians over run the Roman Empire and establish their own kingdom
>i-i-it's totally the roman empire guys!

>Rome
Everyone after it claimed to be the legitimate successor. Subjects continued using it's culture and conventions after it fell.
>Ottomans
Everyone of their subjects hate them and have unique sayings about how bad Turks are in their languages. No one reminiscences about their legacy but Turks. No one uses the institutions they had either.

Yeah, the Ottomans did use some of the Romans culture. Heck, tried to copy it ealier with the Sultanate of Rum (Rome).

No. Conquering Muslims did not take on Roman culture.

At least we can all agree it was worse than Muhammad's Islamic Empire, right Veeky Forums?

Why were the Romanian Principalities never fully part of the Empire? Did they have any actual autonomy?

guys, the roman empire can be restored. since the ottomans can claim to be the successor of roman imperium, and the source of this legitimacy is transfered through the sultans, i.e. the bloodline of the osman dynasty, all we need to do is convince one of the many ottoman crown princes alive to conquer a state and set up new roman empire. all we need to do is get one living person who lived under the ottoman empire to walk into our territory so the chain of living experience who has experienced the roman empire (no matter how vestigial) will transfer its spirit into our new dominion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanoğlu_family

It wasn't Rome because it wasn't a legal successor.

The Ottomans conquered Constantinople by force.

Calling them the new Rome would be like calling the kingdom of Odoacer or the Ostrogothic Kingdom successors of Rome.

Idiotic.

>the kingdom of Odoacer or the Ostrogothic Kingdom successors of Rome.
they were though

> they were though

Nope.

Yes.

No

There are several other states that made similar claims though. For example; Venice claimed to be a direct continuation of the Roman Republic; Russia claimed direct continuation from Rome through religion, proclaiming Moscow the "third Rome"; the HRE claimed direct continuation from Rome through Charlemagne who was proclaimed King of Rome by the Pope, and so on and so on.

Romans moved the imperial regalia to Constantinople and just carried on in spite of the Barbarians. They never acknowledged them as the rulers of Rome.

Well, actually, the imperial regalia had been moved much earlier than that due to the strategic advantages to having the Emperor closer to the eastern border which had effectively created a divide between the Latin and the Greek halves of the Empire years before the Latin half fell.

Rum in Sultanate of Rum designates the area, they called Asia Minor "Rome"

One of the Ottoman Sultans was descendant from Byzantine Emperors and Mehmed got crowned by the Patriarch

Agreed

No.

Is Ottoman law still influencal in legal systems all over the world?

Is Ottoman language one that was widely used outside the empires borders long after its decline?

Is Ottoman architecture something that was copied and built upon by countless many cultures?

Is the Ottoman rulers title somethinig so sought after countless rulers called themselves so?

Is Ottoman governing and administration something other nations took as a model?

I can go on forever. There are reasons why Rome is regarded as such, as birthplace of Western civlizations, as one of the mightiest empries of all time, as something so influentual we still feel it today. The Motherfucking SENATUS POPOLUSQUE ROMANUS, the true and original, the one everyone tried to copy and never came close.

Turdistan remains as one of, if a noteworthy attempt at it, no more.