Could there be an 'anti' Caliph feature

[Yazman]

The Sultans of Rum considered themselves the successors to Rome the empire, while Byzantium was considered by the wider European community to be the successor to Rome. It would be the same as if I claimed I am the president in stead Joachim Gauck, while he's widely accepted - I might consider myself, but nobody else does.

That simply isn't true. They did not consider themselves successors to Rome. The Sultanate of Rum was called that simply because that region was known as Rome at the time. As far as they were concerned, they were living in Rome, but did not consider themselves the heirs to the classical Roman empire.

 

[Darkgamma]

Hm, you're right. I did put it as a follow-up to my logical adversary's claim.
The Ottomans did, though, but they're from a bit of a later date.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Please, go on, I am munching popcorn while I read this thread. It's better than cinema!

 

[Darkgamma]

Stephen R. Anderson: "Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes."

 

[Divi]

Stephen R. Anderson: "Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes."

Is this where I threaten you with the MIT Inquisition

Anyway I admit I did make a mistake and confused Seljuk Rum and the Ottomans (that said my point on the ottomans stands: if Rome is a meta-concept, there is nothing in that meta-concept about being greek christians otherwise the meta-concept doesn't exist in the first place; the ottomans were also for a while subjects of Byzantium and were largely greek in descent). And I'm starting to wonder whether the idea of almohad heresy with its own caliphate might not actually work... The only issue would be that I suspect the Almohad caliph would be more likely to fall apart from foreign invasions than how they did historically (which was by being squeezed between the growing Marinid emirate which had set its sights on taking over Mauretania, and Castille-Leon)

 

[Darkgamma]

The meta-concept falls apart the moment the Roman Empire falls, after which Translato Imperī takes place. My point was that the Greeks living in the Empire in the space of 476-1453 were the actual Romans. Greeks in Magna Graecia (after the withdrawal from Italy) weren't Romans, nor are the Greeks now, but the Greeks living in Byzantium (the Rome of then) were. It's not a question of linguistics, as even Brythons, Basques and Dacians were Romans at some point in time. Romans were simply the inhabitants of the Roman Empire (and that's where it gets fuzzy because thus Germans were Romans up until the Napoleonic wars)

 

[Yazman]

Hm, you're right. I did put it as a follow-up to my logical adversary's claim.
The Ottomans did, though, but they're from a bit of a later date.

As far as I know (and I could be wrong here) while it is true that Mehmed II took the title "Keyser i-Rum" (Caesar of Rome), he was the only one who did so and not a single Ottoman emperor afterwards ever took that title. It's also more likely that he took the title because he had a great appreciation for Roman culture, he even encouraged former citizens of the ERE to come back to Constantinople after the conquest.

So it's not really true that the Ottomans as a whole considered themselves the successors to the Roman empire. Mehmed II possibly considered himself a spiritual successor, but that isn't really representative of the Ottomans as a whole, but rather his personal interest in & adoration of the Roman empire. That none of his successors kept that title reflects that, I think.

 

[Darkgamma]

Well, I'm not as versed in Ottoman history, really
Appears you're right again I thought the title was kept further down the line

 

[BlackBarook]

Your point would likely make more sense if you didn't pick an example that was wrong to begin with. Turkish muslims with persian court culture are no less roman than christian greeks with largely persian court culture (there was extremely little roman left in late Byzantium).

I was referring to the pre-Christain Roman Empire. I should have clarified that.

It IS a matter of semantics. I was responding to TheChronoMaster who had asked if there was any historical precedent for an Islamic equivalent of an anti-papacy, and there was a rough equivalent.

How can there be? The Papacy and the Caliphate serve two different purposes. For there to be an equivalent, no matter how rough, would mean pigeon-holing one role into the other. The role of the Caliph is political while the Pope was spiritual.

The whole point of certain historical popes being considered "anti-popes" is that they, IN YOUR WORDS (paraphrased for christianity), were not considered popes in the eyes of the majority of Christians, and they did not expand beyond a certain geographical area.

The Cordoba Caliphate, and the Almohad Caliphate Jeltz mentioned (true, Jeltz), were much the same. In fact it's important for our poses here that Abdul Rahman III of Cordoba WASN'T recognised as the Caliph by the rest of the Islamic world. The people of Iberia did though, and that's enough to constitute something that could translate to an anti-papacy.

I see what you mean with the "anti-pope" thing now, I was just confused with it being compared to the Caliphate. Then an Anti-Calip would be challenging the political power of another due to reasons X, Y, and Z. However how would this impact religious authority in game, and should it?

Just to be a nitpick: Can Abdulrahman the third's rulership be considered an "Anti-Caliphate"? His declaration is treated or seen as an affirmation of the existence and continuation of the Ummyad Caliphate in Andalusia and that those in Baghdad were usurpers.

 

[Yazman]

Well, I'm not as versed in Ottoman history, really
Appears you're right again I thought the title was kept further down the line

It's cool man. Mehmed II is a particular interest of mine. Really the whole issues surrounding "Roman heritage" are quite fascinating so I'm always happy to discuss it. It certainly would've been cool if the title was kept beyond Mehmed II.

I see what you mean with the "anti-pope" thing now, I was just confused with it being compared to the Caliphate. Then an Anti-Calip would be challenging the political power of another due to reasons X, Y, and Z. However how would this impact religious authority in game, and should it?

Right, glad we're on the level now then. I think in CK2 terms it probably wouldn't mean much, unless it was used as a tool to declare independence from another power, in the way that the Andalusians used it. Then again, Abdul Rahman the third was already a king when he declared himself a Caliph, so I guess it would only work for Kings under the rule of Emperors who also have a Caliph in their side. So this is probably a bit too specific a situation, right? I think in game terms it's not really a useful concept.

Just to be a nitpick: Can Abdulrahman the third's rulership be considered an "Anti-Caliphate"? His declaration is treated or seen as an affirmation of the existence and continuation of the Ummyad Caliphate in Andalusia and that those in Baghdad were usurpers.

Well, that's a good question, and I'm sure we could both write lengthy academic papers on the subject, so let's avoid doing that lol. But yeah - Rahman's was an interesting branch of the Umayyad dynasty. Was their claim to the Caliphate legitimate? I think so. Were they the "true Caliphate"? I don't think that's for us to decide, really. Were they any more legitimate than a Shia Caliph in the east? I'm not sure, as the Fatimids had a legitimate claim as well.

I can see where you're going, though - the Umayyad Caliphate was much older and one could make an argument that it was those in the east being the usurpers. That is definitely a position you could take, and probably the position Abdul Rahman the third took when he proclaimed a Caliphate, given that, as you've stated, he claimed it was a continuation of the Umayyad Caliphate.

 

[Theddude]

I think this is a good idea, in fact I've seen it mentioned a few times before and I've mentioned it. In game terms it's useful because currently there's no way to get the Caliph title without literally taking every title from the Caliph until he's landless. It's kind of cumbersome and not really in keeping with reality. If a Muslim ruler is worthy of claiming the Caliphate, he should be able to do so directly and wage war to get his claim recognized. It would, as stated before, also be a way of representing situations like the Umayyads in Cordoba and the Almohad Caliphate, as well as the Ottomans later claiming the title.

Also, as a linguist (student, for now), Rome as a linguistic concept and Rome as a political concept are arguably very different things. I'll leave the political side of it to Political Science people .

 

[handynasty33]

I suggest that the Caliphate (in general) is limited to only one Caliphate which is the Abbasid state. Other rival Caliphates like the Fatimid or Almohad are put as Anti Caliphs. And I like
to say (As I consider myself an expert in Islamic history) that All Caliphs (Sunni or Shia) are required to be descended from the Quraish, which includes the family of the Prophet and other
families) tribe of the Prophet. The Shiites; however, have a different system of Caliphate which is called the Immamate and every Shia sect has its own list of Imams(The primary condition is to be a descended from the Prophet).
Note: The Sunni legal scholars actually included the condition of being a Qurashi as an essential condition of being a Caliph, but the Ottomans and the Almohads broke that rule.