Forming Roman Empire as an Islamic Nation

[khedas]

The Roman Empire was Pagan until a civil war turned it into Christian. So I don't see why turning it Islamic is insulting.

Indeed, that was what was thought in the XVth century - that the Empire would take strength under a new religion. It had done so in the past, so why not now? (this talk was not liked by the Church, of course).

OTOH, what I consider as insulting is that one of the chief enemies of the Romans (Turks) are allowed to form it. IMO, reforming Roman Empire should be restricted to Latins and Greeks.

Well, the HRE was formed by Germanics, the very same peoples that led to the downfall of the Western Empire. Both in 800 AD as in 962 AD, who had military strength called the shots. And for Muslims (who cared nothing about the words of the Pope nor the Patriarchs), the rebuild would come strictly through military force and (attemps) at religious conversions, anyway.

They wouldn't need to accept it, the ERE and HRE didn't accept each other's claims either.

They did. Techincally, with the fall of the Western Empire, the Empire became whole again in 480 (death of Julius Nepos), and thus Byzantium regarded itself as the only Roman Empire.

The many successes and coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor, however, where impressive, and Constantople officially aceppted him as 'Emperor of the West', thus officially re-dividing the Empire. This was later confirmed for the Ottonian Emperors. Who in turn recognized Constantonople as the Eastern Roman Empire ('Romania'), though they called them 'Greeks' instead of 'Romans', which was what the Byzantines referred themselves as. The Byzantines, in return, called all westerners 'Franks', to link them to Charlemagne's Empire.

I can imagine how the poor new emperor would react to the christians refusing to accept him as Emperor.

"Most glorious emperor! I bear grave tidings...The western kingdoms doesnt accept your claim of being emperor of rome!"
"...OMG!!!I like totally care about what they have to say, even though i got more guys with swords then they do, and control pretty much half of europe already!!!........ NOT!"

Quite. That was precisely what the Ottomans were thinking. They would never be accepted by the Christians other than by force. But having a pretext and a link to the Roman Empire (remember, in Western Civilization all Empires to link themselves to Rome, one way or another; whence german and austrian Kaisers, Russian and Bulgarian Tzars, the US having a Senate and classical buildings, Napoleon being a Consul and then Emperor, etc), is one way to diminuish resistence - and it did have a psychological impact on western populations - like I mentioned, the rumours abounded that the Ottomans were bent for the rebuilding of the Empire everybody admired.

Outside christendom, it also gave the Ottomans a good excuse to intervene in Syria and Egypt, clash with Persia in Mesopotamia and getting North Africa as vassals - all territories part of old Rome's Empire.

 

[ziamatt]

I doubt the rest of the Europe would easily accept heathens speaking a totally foreign tongue as their emperors just because they called themselves Kaiser-i-Rum.

The rest of Europe didn't accept schismatics speaking a totally foreign tongue as their emperors just because they called themselves Roman Emperor.

 

[TheReaper]

Yeah, and its not like Rome was always christian anyway, they didn't convert till Constantine. And yeah, the reason there's no swastikas in those games is because they wouldn't be able to legally sell their games in several European countries. Anyway, I'm currently looking to see what file contains the requirements to form the Roman Empire to check for certain.



EDIT: Apparently Everything I had to say was already said in the minute or so it took me to post

 

[Kaiserjagen]

Being Roman during the middle ages, particularly with the early part of the medieval empire (400s-800s) really was synonymous with being Christian. The Ottomans made a claim that they were the successors of the Empire but never really saw themselves as THE empire in any shape or form (e.g. the state was still known as the Ottoman Empire or less formally the Turkish Empire).

And people seem to have an unclear understanding on what this decision to "re-form the Roman Empire" really is in this game. Even the in game text just describes it as a recognition by the rest Christendom of the Emperor in Constantinople's status as the Roman Emperor. This was a title that at least in the symbolic level meant you were the head of the Christian/European world. Thus the event wouldn't really make sense if used by Muslims as Europe would NEVER accept them as the Roman Emperors. This event does not create a new empire title but simply renames the existing Byzantine title and keeps all the history files/claims of the old one (all the way back to Tiberius Caesar). I've modded it in my game so the event destroys the HRE title too as that seems to make more sense.

 

[Zhetone]

I think the fact that the requirements for mending the schism fall within the requirements of reforming the Roman Empire really do show that it's about being a united Christian empire...Muslims could not just claim ownership over all Christian lands and expect to get away with it, but an emperor in Rome who has united Christianity, owns all the holy lands, and has immense power has that sort of claim and has the ability to claim to be a Roman emperor.

 

[Lucius Drake]

The Roman Empire had passed out of the idea of a physical state and passed into the realm of an idea. If you have immense military strength and you declare that you are an Roman Emperor -- who can really say no?

 

[grisamentum]

Being Roman during the middle ages, particularly with the early part of the medieval empire (400s-800s) really was synonymous with being Christian. The Ottomans made a claim that they were the successors of the Empire but never really saw themselves as THE empire in any shape or form (e.g. the state was still known as the Ottoman Empire or less formally the Turkish Empire).

And people seem to have an unclear understanding on what this decision to "re-form the Roman Empire" really is in this game. Even the in game text just describes it as a recognition by the rest Christendom of the Emperor in Constantinople's status as the Roman Emperor. This was a title that at least in the symbolic level meant you were the head of the Christian/European world. Thus the event wouldn't really make sense if used by Muslims as Europe would NEVER accept them as the Roman Emperors.

Unless they were conquered and converted to Islam too...

People have really dumb perspectives on some of this stuff.

 

[grisamentum]

The Roman Empire had passed out of the idea of a physical state and passed into the realm of an idea. If you have immense military strength and you declare that you are an Roman Emperor -- who can really say no?

Exactly.

 

[gimel]

Except any self-respecting muslim ruler would just laugh at an idea of assuming REmperor title, since for Arabs it had no meaning (only small parts of Arabia being ever conquered by Romans). Osmans claimed the title mostly because they were not caliphs at the moment of conquering the City. and they wanted some (more) bling As for Sultan-i-Rum it means, I believe, "ruler over Romans", Romans in questions being Romaioi, "Greeklings" of Asia Minor.

 

[ziamatt]

I think the fact that the requirements for mending the schism fall within the requirements of reforming the Roman Empire really do show that it's about being a united Christian empire...Muslims could not just claim ownership over all Christian lands and expect to get away with it, but an emperor in Rome who has united Christianity, owns all the holy lands, and has immense power has that sort of claim and has the ability to claim to be a Roman emperor.

Catholics can still refuse to convert to Orthodoxy and remain as a Catholic heresy. Why couldn't a Muslim claim the title of Roman Emperor and demand that Christendom convert to Islam? The legitimacy of the Roman Empire would be dependent on its ability to subjugate European resistance in either case.

 

[Zhetone]

Catholics can still refuse to convert to Orthodoxy and remain as a Catholic heresy. Why couldn't a Muslim claim the title of Roman Emperor and demand that Christendom convert to Islam? The legitimacy of the Roman Empire would be dependent on its ability to subjugate European resistance in either case.

There's actual logic behind the mending of the Schism, considering Christianity had been united. Islam and Christianity were never one in the same and have huge fundamental differences. So there: That's why they couldn't do that.

 

[ziamatt]

There's actual logic behind the mending of the Schism, considering Christianity had been united. Islam and Christianity were never one in the same and have huge fundamental differences. So there: That's why they couldn't do that.

I think if they had a large enough army they could do whatever they wanted.

 

[Andaries]

The Turks were always trying to be seen as the New Roman empire. The only excuse on here I can Hear is the Roman Catholic world would never stand by that. Guess what if the Muslims manged to conquer most of the former Roman Empire Christians wouldn't have a choice in the mater it would happen and no one could deny that they were the New Roman empire.

To be fair as well No roman Catholic would recognize the Byzantium Rulers as the True Roman Empire as long as the HRE was around. However if the succeed in conquering the territory no one can argue its just a fact at that point. Hence the event going off. I really don't see a point other then minor claiming that Muslims cant do that. If the Turks or Moor invasions of Western Europe had succeeded I guarantee you they would of claimed themselves the Roman Empire they knew the power of the Idea. (Case and Point: sultan of Rum and the Ottoman Empire officially carried the title title Kaysar-i-Rûm "Emperor of Rome"))

edit: Also while were on history Byzantium that is a modern invention Byzantium was always know at that time as The Roman Empire. we just use it today to signify west had fallen and only the East half remained.

 

[Zhetone]

I think if they had a large enough army they could do whatever they wanted.

Not really. I quite doubt that the Christians would've just stood aside and been bossed around.

 

[Varam]

Not really. I quite doubt that the Christians would've just stood aside and been bossed around.

If they've been conquered and have no armies to resist with, then that's exactly what they would do, yes.

 

[Arokel]

I think the closest you are going to get is the Sultanate of Rum. Rum=Rome for those who didn't know.

 

[TheReaper]

I think the fact that the requirements for mending the schism fall within the requirements of reforming the Roman Empire really do show that it's about being a united Christian empire...Muslims could not just claim ownership over all Christian lands and expect to get away with it,

Funny thing, actually, I just reconquered Rome as a Muslim and an event popped up saying that I can mend the great schism if I get the other patriarchies, though I don't know how accurate this is, but I'm definitely going to pursue it.


EDT: I mean Rome the city, not Rome the empire

 

[Ratlegion]

You forgot Brazil.

Is Brazil a European country?

 

[RabidAnubis]

Actually, as soon as they conquered Constantinople, the Ottomans declared themselves the successors of the Eastern Empire. And soon afterwards, heirs of the *whole* Roman Empire, laying claim to the entirety of the territory that was part of the Empire of the Caesars (the Ottoman Sultan held the title 'Kaiser-i-Rum', which means 'Caesar of Rome'). Which is also why they kept the name 'Constantinople' right to the end - Istambul was the name given in 1923 by the Turkish nationalist Atatürk.

Their claims were not so easily dismissed. When the Ottomans conquered Otranto in Southern Italy in 1481, it was ostensibly to start the reconquest of the Western part of the Empire. And in the taverns of Italy, the talk of the time was that the Roman Empire was about to be reborn, but under a new religion.

So, in effect, the Ottomans were pretty much playing LoR. Restricting the rebirth of Rome to Orthodox Greeks is, oddly enough, ahistorical.

This is pretty neat.

 

[ziamatt]

Not really. I quite doubt that the Christians would've just stood aside and been bossed around.

And if the Christians resist, that's where the army comes in. That isn't a very hard concept.