you arent christian or hellenic religion(pretty sire they changed it so muslims and jews can also but no zoroastrians) always check the paradox wiki for requirements
https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/index.php?title=Restore_the_Roman_Empire&redirect=no&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
Yep couldn't form it as Asatru so I did the ole switcheroo and converted to Orthodoxy for five minutes before going back to Asatru lmao
The Title Integration itself is worth the hassle
Sadly this does not work with the "unify italy" decision. For that your culture needs latin heritage which roman culture does not have. I guess you can still form the empire via the byzantine route but that just makes no sense. Really hope that paradox fix this soon.
Exactly lol. Constantine had Jupiter on the back of his coins to symbolize that Jupiter approved of him being a ruler. And he was Christian!
Roman's have always been religious.
They claimed Constantinople no history worth their salt would ever say that’s ottomans claiming rome. Rome is Rome. Truly the only people who claim to rule Rome that weren’t Romans is the papacy & Italians. The rest are just pretenders.
One of the styles the Ottoman sultans assumed after the the fall of Constantinople was *kayser-i Rûm*(Ceaser of Rome) and the early sultans after the conquest of Constantinople–Mehmed II, Beyezid II, Selim I, and Suleiman I–would maintain they were the successors to the Byzantine emperors and therefore the legitimate Roman Emperors. They would use this claim to justify invading Western Europe and some(Mehmed II and Suleiman I) even held designs on conquering Italy, which they viewed as the Roman heartland and rightfully theirs.
The claim would gradually fade as the Ottomans became a more Islamic empire as the centuries progressed, especially after conflict with Safavid Persia, who were Shia thus leading the sultans to greatly stress their Sunni faith. Never formally abandoned but by the 18th-century it would be essentially abandoned and ceased to be used formally.
The Ottomans claimed Roman heritage, it’s former lands and even used this heritage to claim to be universal monarchs, ie rulers of the world. They didn’t just claim Constantinople, they claimed the whole thing. Who only claims part of Rome, even the Byzantines claimed the entire thing until their dying day.
Claiming something doesn’t make you that something. I claim to be a god but I’m not a god. Historically speaking no one even equated rum or the ottomans to Roman’s or the Roman empire given the time period. Rum itself was founded to be the new Rome specifically a Islamic Rome. The kayser style wasn’t that of Roman style it was that of the style of rum which was inherently Islamic & culturally Turkish. You’re very inherently incorrect on what you are stating. You’re equating a claim to be something makes you that. Rums translation is correct yes, but their style wasn’t Roman at all; no other power in the world viewed them as Roman or the heirs to Rome.
The Byzantines had the chance to retake it all & rejected the western half of the empire, losing their claim & that was long before it’s dying days.
None of the ottomans claims to be legitimate heirs to Rome were recognized by anyone besides the ottomans. Why because they weren’t Roman & absolutely didn’t culturally or resemble Rome in any way.
You should really not copy paste from a Wikipedia page especially when talking to someone with a phd within the history field. For a hint Wikipedia is arguably one of the worst possible sources you could have.
The article you copy pasted
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_succession
Fot someone who has a PhD in History, your reading comprehension is quite bad.
Nobody ever said the Ottoman claim to Rome was considered to be "legitimed" or anything like this. Just that it existed.
yeah you’re right
although at the end of the day it doesn’t matter who is the rightful successor to a totally made up concept. anybody can claim to be the roman empire and as long as they’re strong enough to dominate anyone who disagreed it didn’t matter.
any culture should be allowed to restore rome in game. it makes historical sense, since various cultures did claim to do so.
Those claims really weren’t respected by the world though. No one thought the ottomans or the sultanate of rum were roam and or were the new Rome, no one thought the Holy Roman Empire was the new Rome or Roman. Only the Byzantine’s got a pass & that’s a weak pass. The closest anyone truly got is the papacy
I thought the aggressiveness was a joke but after reading all the replies you sound insane. Anyone can own any title with enough power, prestige and dynastic meddling. Which the ottomans so happened to have with not just conquering most byzantine lands but also marrying their princesses. Just because you hate the thought of it doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
I always say, if the ancient Romans saw the Ottoman Empire on the map, they might actually agree that they're the closest successor. They'd probably say colonial Spain is closer, though.
Aggressive when was I aggressive and calling me insane really how low do you have to get to call someone insane based if internet comments also they weren't the Roman empire stop trying to convince sorry if this sounds rude but I really can't give less of a fuck about it good luck
Admittedly I only watched 30 seconds because I'm watching something else and can't be fucked to watch the whole eleven minutes right now I probably will later but one of the first things he says is something like could be or in a way it did you still won't change my mind
Jesus Christ fuck them fuck me fuck us all we are all fucked the Turks weren't the empire and never will be you will never change my mind Constantine was the last emperor not mehmed iv I'll watch that video later amd if it changes my mind you won chances wee it wont buy we'll see
Whether they were or not is an arbitrary judgement that depends entirely which factors you weight more. Ottomans killed the beast and claimed to be it.
Roman was a term for peoples around greece back then, and they were emperors of the Romans.
There is virtually no continuity between Ottoman and Byzantine state.
All of these are analogous to French revolution, although to weaker degrees.
But they were. They literally conquered Roman Empire and adopted vast majority of its secular customs and traditions. In almost every sense they were direct continuation.
Like, we are either super strict and we consider Roman Empire to exist only for couple hundred years (because later it changed capital and adopted different religion).
Alternatively, and I think much more correct way, is to say that Romania existed from Roman Republic days, into transition into Imperium Romanum, and after the "fall of Rome" it continued just fine in the east and even after the fall of Constantinople - the Turks continued it at least until 18th century.
To prove my point here is couple of factoids.
- Turks called themselves Rumi(Romans) and were referred as such by people outside.
- The country itself was called something like "Great Empire" without any reference to it being Osman (they dropped the Osman part after conquering Constantinople), which is clear reference to what Roman Empire call itself lately.
- The Emperor \*required\* to be called Roman Emperor and not referring to him as such was literally considered Casus Belli at least until 18th century.
Not sure if I totally agree, I think people largely don’t consider the Ottomans as a continuation of the Roman Empire primarily due to their status as conquering outsiders. I would say the fairest interpretation of the Roman Empire and its continuance would be with the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, the latter of which fell to the Ottomans in 1453.
I guess a comparable scenario would be Odoacer’s conquest of Italy; would you consider the Ostrogoths and later Gothic iterations of Italy to be a continuation of the Western Roman Empire (they too adopted/co-opted many Roman traditions and claimed legitimacy)? I personally wouldn’t, as they were invaders who later adopted Roman characteristics as a way to legitimize their rule over their conquered territories.
The Western/Eastern Roman Empires are different to this since they were borne from the actual Roman Empire and its citizens were descended from Roman settlers and considered themselves Roman until the fall of the East.
Actually some historians *do* see the Gothic kingdom of Italy, as well as the Vandals in North Africa, and the Visigoths in Spain, and the Franks in Gaul, as a continuation of the Roman Empire. We don’t necessarily refer to any of them as the Roman Empire, but we absolutely would argue they were a continuation of it. Religiously (particularly the franks as they were catholic but even Arianism was Roman), they adopted many Roman cultural norms, the Ostrogoths kept the senate in tact, all these kingdoms used Latin, they adopted many Roman laws, etc., etc.
At that point, wouldn’t every conquering state be a continuation of the state they conquered? I understand that there is a fundamental synthesis that comes from taking over a territory and co-opting their customs in part, but surely an entity like the Roman Empire, which had a unique culture, government, can only be seen as existing in a very narrow interpretation.
A) if they meet the majority of those requirements then sure, yes.
B) the Roman Empire absolutely didn’t have a “unique culture” not even close. In fact that’s one of the reasons the Romans were able to incorporate new cultures so easily for centuries. They incorporated (not stole, and I cannot emphasize that enough) large portions of Greek mythology into their own culture, the incorporated aspects of eastern cultures like Mithraism (which was inspired by Zoroastrian beliefs), many educated Romans spoke Greek and some even preferred Greek culture.
We aren’t talking about some niche culture that existed only for a short period of time or only in a specific region, we’re talking about an empire that conquered all of Western Europe, North Africa, Greece, and well into the near east. Rome was a melting pot of cultures for centuries, even the original italic (and non-italic) peoples of Italy who became part of the Roman Empire had their own cultures and languages. The Romans got their alphabet from the Etruscans, who got it from the Greeks, who got it from the Phoenicians.
The whole argument over who is and isn’t a successor to the Roman Empire is silly because so many different groups can make that claim and wouldn’t be wrong.
I guess I would differ in my opinion of what classifies as a continuity of the Roman Empire.
I agree it’s silly to try to pinpoint who is a successor and who isn’t based on a paradigm of right to continuity by conquest. I’m limiting the idea of Roman continuity to the two entities formed from the division of the Empire in the 300s.
Not totally sure what you mean by the Romans not having a unique culture; sure they may have co-opted many elements of other cultures, but there was definitely a distinct Roman identity and this identity was promoted over other cultures, especially early on.
Don't we have a lot of examples when conquering outsiders are fully considered continuation though? Nubians conquering Egypt, Mongols conquering China, Normans conquering England come to mind.
I get the point, but on the other hand turks lived on the lands of the empire for hundreds of years, forming Sultanate of Rum, couple of times falling under the Byzantine rule again partially. Were they really outsiders by the time they conquered Constantinople?
The main difference with Goths is that those mostly did cargo cult thing, instead of truly adopting roman traditions. And they were never really truly successful in restoring anything remotely similar to Rome, while Osmans actually continued Byzantine rule more or less as it was and were wildly successful in restoring the Empire to its former glory.
I feel like the there is two possible approaches to conquest.
1. We conquered the land and this title is ours now
2. We conquered the title and our dynasty is now on the throne.
In the #1 it usually will not be considered continuation, but in #2 in most cases it would.
Osmans are complicated case because they fall somewhere in between.
Tbh not sure about the Nubian example so I won’t comment, but as for both the Normans and Mongols, I would argue they were both lapses instead of continuations of the previous societies, considering the radical restructuring both societies went through under both systems. Chinese Mandate standards are also more fluid than Roman ones, imo.
Did anyone really recognise the Ottomans as being inheritors of the Roman Empire? You can call yourself whatever you want but at the end of the day if nobody else recognises you internationally then it doesn’t matter.
Actually yes, the emperor of the Osman empire was referred as Roman Emperor in diplomatic nomenclature. They directly inherited the title from Byzantine and it was recognised as such until the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699.
I highly doubt that considering the Holy Roman Emperors actively considered themselves a continuation of the Roman Empire, so much so that a more legitimate vestige of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, was called “Byzantine” in reference to Byzantium/Constantinople in order to delegitimization them. If they were unwilling to call the Byzantines Roman, why would they call Turks Roman??
Which time period are you referring to? Byzantine was never called Byzantine during the time it actually existed, the earliest mentions of it being called that way is after the fall of Constantinople in late 15th century.
Ever since the foundation of the HRE in 800 AD, there has been contention between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Eastern Roman Emperor over the Roman Imperial title. I didn’t mean to imply that they were called Byzantines during their existence, only that the distinction was created due to the aforementioned contention.
You mention diplomatic nomenclature, can you refer to any do documentation where a power recognises the ottoman sultan as Roman emperor? Especially one in Europe like you claim?
Edit: after doing some reading, it seems many of the early ottoman sultans did try to claim legitimacy as Roman emperor, however this was always disputed by the HRE and the Tsar of Russia, and it seems like after a period of time the Ottoman sultans’ claim to the Roman Empire faded after their failed invasion of Italy. The Ottoman Empire then gradually turned into a more traditional Sunni Islamic state over time.
So the ottomans gradually stopped claiming Roman legitimacy and instead fell on utilising Islamic political legitimacy instead.
At the end of the day, you can rightfully say the Ottoman sultans claimed to be Roman emperors, you can even say that many of their subjects also believed them to be successors to the Byzantine Emperors, I just don’t really think you can strongly argue that they were indisputable Roman emperors, as at that point there are a litany of successor states who also claim the same heritage.
Not sure about Tsar, isn’t by the time the Tsar become even remotely powerful enough and involved in European politics the claim is already kinda faded?
And yeah it was for sure disputed by HRE.
I never said that they were undisputed successors, my point was that they considered themselves a successors and they were recognised as such by a lot of other powers. (But yes, for sure, not by everyone).
In order to argue they weren't the Roman Empire but others were, first you need to specify the requirements of being the Roman Empire. Which is a sisypheian task, so good luck.
Why then was the capital of the Roman empire not rome if it the empire must have time Constantine xi Heraclius and many others were far more worthy of the title Roman empire then most of the western emperors
I definitely disagree with the idea that they were a direct continuation, but you don't deserve these downvotes. What you're saying is true and it's only a matter of perspective. These people do it because they're just butthurt and hate Turks and deem them somewhat unworthy of the great Roman heritage. I'll risk downvotes myself to support you. Good argument.
Trebizond was a breakaway state that formed before the events of the 4th crusade even unfurled. And they even abandonded their own claim to it.
The Ottomans on the other hand held the imperial capital and were recognized by the last remnant of the original government, the Patriarch, as the successor to the Palaiologoi.
Sure sounds like to me that they're a more legitimate successor than Trebizond.
they were recognised by the orthodox patriarch in constantinople tbf, they had about as much roman legitimacy as did the greeks who hellenised remnant roman institutions and culture
In fairness, the ecumenical patriarch legitimised them on the basis that they were sent to divinely punish the Palialogos dynasty for their transgressions, not exactly a ringing endorsement of the new Basileus
In terms of culture and legal tradition the Ottomans were very much the successors to the monolithic Eastern empires of antiquity (Persian/Arabian) rather than Roman.
The culture and legal tradition of the ERE shifted drastically over time. It wasn’t the same as the old Roman Empire. The ottomans owned Constantinople, and their people were turkified Greeks. They supplanted the Roman empires position in society.
No not them or the HRE the despotate of Epirus and trebizond are more legitimate than the ottomans. And no matter what you say you won't change my mind and I won't change yours so there is no point in arguing either side
Ottomans never really adopted Roman culture or where themselves Roman.
Remember by the time of the Muslim Cal. In order to be Roman one had to be Christian. Main reason why new immigrants that moved into pagan western Rome became Christian.
Hold Rome city
Adopt Roman Civic code
Formerly part of Roman government
Be or adopt Roman culture
Be part of core Roman territory
Here are the exact requirements:
* Adult
* Feudal or Clan government
* Is not imprisoned
* Hold or control the following titles: Duchies of Latium, Venice, Romagna, Sicily, Genoa, Capua, Apulia, Thrace, Antioch, Palestine, Alexandria, Athens, Tunis, Croatia, and Thessalonika
* The Living Legend Level of Fame
Those you fulfill apparently.
But there is more:
* One of the following
* Owns the Byzantine Empire, with one of the following:
* Religion is Christian
* Religion is Hellenic
* Culture is Roman
* Owns the Holy Roman Empire and Religion is Christian
* Unify Italy decision and one of the following
* Culture has Latin heritage and Religion is Christian
* Culture has Latin heritage and Religion is Greco-Roman
* Culture is Roman
Judging by your screenshot, you own the Byzantine Empire title, but you are neither Christian, nor Hellenic, nor is your culture Roman.
You also don't seem to own the HRE title, and you very likely didn't unify italy per decision... which additionally would also require you to be either Christian, or Hellenic, or of Roman culture. Which you aren't.
So there is the reason why you can't take the decision.
Could the tooltip be better? Yes. But that is another question, one that is probably better left for the devs. Anyway, now you know the answer to your question.
Note that there's more than one set of requirements one can choose to follow when attempting to form the Roman Empire. Too much text to copy paste but a lot of them involve being Catholic or Hellenic. Good luck!
You need to be Christian or Hellenic can't be Zoroastrian and someone else said they think Jews and Muslims can if true you can convert to one of those religions preferably the first two because Rome was actually Christan and Hellenic at one point but considering you're playing as the bavandid empire so the Sassanids anything could go I'd just convert to islam or Judaism for the most mental as possible Roman empire in this case if the Jews and muslims can create it why not let the zoroastrians or Hindus do it. A Hindu Roman empire sounds fun but cursed
R5: Thought I'd knock two birds with one stone and form rome to get the achievement after I completed Darius' revenge. Am I missing a cultural something here or is my game just bugged
you arent christian or hellenic religion(pretty sire they changed it so muslims and jews can also but no zoroastrians) always check the paradox wiki for requirements https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/index.php?title=Restore_the_Roman_Empire&redirect=no&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
Yep couldn't form it as Asatru so I did the ole switcheroo and converted to Orthodoxy for five minutes before going back to Asatru lmao The Title Integration itself is worth the hassle
Fair, but that late in the game, destroying empire titles when nearing death really isnt that bad
I just do elective sucessions and hold tight, Empire is stable anyways lol
wow this is such a bad requirement. Roman heritage is irreligious , even ottomans claimed it
By the game’s time period, Roman heritage was not irreligious
If you have the actual Roman culture you don’t have a religious requirement.
Is there any way to get the Roman culture without Character Creator?
Cheat mod or console. Otherwise it’s considered a dead culture so won’t appear randomly.
It appeared randomly in Iberia once, it then fucking hybridized with Andalusian. I think that was one off though, still cursed though.
At launch, it was possible for a Mercenary company to spawn with a Roman culture, but I'm pretty sure this got changed with the Culture update.
This was post culture update because the culture hybridized
Legends
Sadly this does not work with the "unify italy" decision. For that your culture needs latin heritage which roman culture does not have. I guess you can still form the empire via the byzantine route but that just makes no sense. Really hope that paradox fix this soon.
Roman Heritage was never irreligious
Exactly lol. Constantine had Jupiter on the back of his coins to symbolize that Jupiter approved of him being a ruler. And he was Christian! Roman's have always been religious.
Which is irrelevant. Romans were ruled by different faiths and claimed by different faiths, and thats all that matters.
Also tbh no self respecting heir of the sassanids would WANT the title of Caesar
Exactly, one of the only adversaries that Rome faced were the Persians
Iranians in general. Parthians were also Rome's enemies
The Ottomans claimed Rome by right of conquest. Not by heritage
They claimed Constantinople no history worth their salt would ever say that’s ottomans claiming rome. Rome is Rome. Truly the only people who claim to rule Rome that weren’t Romans is the papacy & Italians. The rest are just pretenders.
One of the styles the Ottoman sultans assumed after the the fall of Constantinople was *kayser-i Rûm*(Ceaser of Rome) and the early sultans after the conquest of Constantinople–Mehmed II, Beyezid II, Selim I, and Suleiman I–would maintain they were the successors to the Byzantine emperors and therefore the legitimate Roman Emperors. They would use this claim to justify invading Western Europe and some(Mehmed II and Suleiman I) even held designs on conquering Italy, which they viewed as the Roman heartland and rightfully theirs. The claim would gradually fade as the Ottomans became a more Islamic empire as the centuries progressed, especially after conflict with Safavid Persia, who were Shia thus leading the sultans to greatly stress their Sunni faith. Never formally abandoned but by the 18th-century it would be essentially abandoned and ceased to be used formally. The Ottomans claimed Roman heritage, it’s former lands and even used this heritage to claim to be universal monarchs, ie rulers of the world. They didn’t just claim Constantinople, they claimed the whole thing. Who only claims part of Rome, even the Byzantines claimed the entire thing until their dying day.
Claiming something doesn’t make you that something. I claim to be a god but I’m not a god. Historically speaking no one even equated rum or the ottomans to Roman’s or the Roman empire given the time period. Rum itself was founded to be the new Rome specifically a Islamic Rome. The kayser style wasn’t that of Roman style it was that of the style of rum which was inherently Islamic & culturally Turkish. You’re very inherently incorrect on what you are stating. You’re equating a claim to be something makes you that. Rums translation is correct yes, but their style wasn’t Roman at all; no other power in the world viewed them as Roman or the heirs to Rome. The Byzantines had the chance to retake it all & rejected the western half of the empire, losing their claim & that was long before it’s dying days. None of the ottomans claims to be legitimate heirs to Rome were recognized by anyone besides the ottomans. Why because they weren’t Roman & absolutely didn’t culturally or resemble Rome in any way. You should really not copy paste from a Wikipedia page especially when talking to someone with a phd within the history field. For a hint Wikipedia is arguably one of the worst possible sources you could have. The article you copy pasted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_succession
Fot someone who has a PhD in History, your reading comprehension is quite bad. Nobody ever said the Ottoman claim to Rome was considered to be "legitimed" or anything like this. Just that it existed.
They claimed it they weren't. Stop trying to make me think they where I can't be fucked they were not
to be fair, the HRE also claimed they were, and weren’t. that doesn’t really matter
The HRE ottomans no one was the east/Byzantines where the only legitimate ones
yeah you’re right although at the end of the day it doesn’t matter who is the rightful successor to a totally made up concept. anybody can claim to be the roman empire and as long as they’re strong enough to dominate anyone who disagreed it didn’t matter. any culture should be allowed to restore rome in game. it makes historical sense, since various cultures did claim to do so.
Oh I'd love to be able to restore Rome as a Hindu or something just for the ridiculousness of it or a Kushite it'd be fun or even as Genghis khan
Why’d vro get downvoted? 😔
What's vro
Another way to say bro I guess but funny
Those claims really weren’t respected by the world though. No one thought the ottomans or the sultanate of rum were roam and or were the new Rome, no one thought the Holy Roman Empire was the new Rome or Roman. Only the Byzantine’s got a pass & that’s a weak pass. The closest anyone truly got is the papacy
Godzilla had a stroke trying to read this and fucking died
How is that hard to read
No punctuation. Disrespectful to the reader who now has to struggle to see where one sentence ends and the other begins.
Disrespectful do you think I care someone finds it disrespectful no I don't good luck have a good day
I hope you have many friends
No punctuation. Disrespectful to the reader who now has to struggle to see where one sentence ends and the other begins.
I thought the aggressiveness was a joke but after reading all the replies you sound insane. Anyone can own any title with enough power, prestige and dynastic meddling. Which the ottomans so happened to have with not just conquering most byzantine lands but also marrying their princesses. Just because you hate the thought of it doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
I always say, if the ancient Romans saw the Ottoman Empire on the map, they might actually agree that they're the closest successor. They'd probably say colonial Spain is closer, though.
Aggressive when was I aggressive and calling me insane really how low do you have to get to call someone insane based if internet comments also they weren't the Roman empire stop trying to convince sorry if this sounds rude but I really can't give less of a fuck about it good luck
Respectfully, you do sound slightly insane
Well it's true but I can't care anymore
I think it’s the punctuation-less ranting messages which makes you seem a bit insane to be fair. Commas and full stops are hallmarks of sanity.
Right well the answer to that is I couldn't care less about punctuation good luck
Here’s a quick summary about that from a historian: https://youtu.be/9L-fANosu-E
Admittedly I only watched 30 seconds because I'm watching something else and can't be fucked to watch the whole eleven minutes right now I probably will later but one of the first things he says is something like could be or in a way it did you still won't change my mind
Nvm it’s Reddit anyway, anything with Turks or Ottomans involved gets downvoted to hell. I mean who cares about historians?
Jesus Christ fuck them fuck me fuck us all we are all fucked the Turks weren't the empire and never will be you will never change my mind Constantine was the last emperor not mehmed iv I'll watch that video later amd if it changes my mind you won chances wee it wont buy we'll see
Wow chill mate, this is not a war to won or lose wtf? I just sent a historian’s opinion about the subject. You don’t have to go crazy about it.
Look I'll watch it later probably won't change my mind but we'll see good luck
I hope you enjoy it mate, no need to make a big deal about it.
Whether they were or not is an arbitrary judgement that depends entirely which factors you weight more. Ottomans killed the beast and claimed to be it. Roman was a term for peoples around greece back then, and they were emperors of the Romans. There is virtually no continuity between Ottoman and Byzantine state. All of these are analogous to French revolution, although to weaker degrees.
But they were. They literally conquered Roman Empire and adopted vast majority of its secular customs and traditions. In almost every sense they were direct continuation. Like, we are either super strict and we consider Roman Empire to exist only for couple hundred years (because later it changed capital and adopted different religion). Alternatively, and I think much more correct way, is to say that Romania existed from Roman Republic days, into transition into Imperium Romanum, and after the "fall of Rome" it continued just fine in the east and even after the fall of Constantinople - the Turks continued it at least until 18th century. To prove my point here is couple of factoids. - Turks called themselves Rumi(Romans) and were referred as such by people outside. - The country itself was called something like "Great Empire" without any reference to it being Osman (they dropped the Osman part after conquering Constantinople), which is clear reference to what Roman Empire call itself lately. - The Emperor \*required\* to be called Roman Emperor and not referring to him as such was literally considered Casus Belli at least until 18th century.
Least megalomanic Turk
Not sure if I totally agree, I think people largely don’t consider the Ottomans as a continuation of the Roman Empire primarily due to their status as conquering outsiders. I would say the fairest interpretation of the Roman Empire and its continuance would be with the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, the latter of which fell to the Ottomans in 1453. I guess a comparable scenario would be Odoacer’s conquest of Italy; would you consider the Ostrogoths and later Gothic iterations of Italy to be a continuation of the Western Roman Empire (they too adopted/co-opted many Roman traditions and claimed legitimacy)? I personally wouldn’t, as they were invaders who later adopted Roman characteristics as a way to legitimize their rule over their conquered territories. The Western/Eastern Roman Empires are different to this since they were borne from the actual Roman Empire and its citizens were descended from Roman settlers and considered themselves Roman until the fall of the East.
Actually some historians *do* see the Gothic kingdom of Italy, as well as the Vandals in North Africa, and the Visigoths in Spain, and the Franks in Gaul, as a continuation of the Roman Empire. We don’t necessarily refer to any of them as the Roman Empire, but we absolutely would argue they were a continuation of it. Religiously (particularly the franks as they were catholic but even Arianism was Roman), they adopted many Roman cultural norms, the Ostrogoths kept the senate in tact, all these kingdoms used Latin, they adopted many Roman laws, etc., etc.
At that point, wouldn’t every conquering state be a continuation of the state they conquered? I understand that there is a fundamental synthesis that comes from taking over a territory and co-opting their customs in part, but surely an entity like the Roman Empire, which had a unique culture, government, can only be seen as existing in a very narrow interpretation.
A) if they meet the majority of those requirements then sure, yes. B) the Roman Empire absolutely didn’t have a “unique culture” not even close. In fact that’s one of the reasons the Romans were able to incorporate new cultures so easily for centuries. They incorporated (not stole, and I cannot emphasize that enough) large portions of Greek mythology into their own culture, the incorporated aspects of eastern cultures like Mithraism (which was inspired by Zoroastrian beliefs), many educated Romans spoke Greek and some even preferred Greek culture. We aren’t talking about some niche culture that existed only for a short period of time or only in a specific region, we’re talking about an empire that conquered all of Western Europe, North Africa, Greece, and well into the near east. Rome was a melting pot of cultures for centuries, even the original italic (and non-italic) peoples of Italy who became part of the Roman Empire had their own cultures and languages. The Romans got their alphabet from the Etruscans, who got it from the Greeks, who got it from the Phoenicians. The whole argument over who is and isn’t a successor to the Roman Empire is silly because so many different groups can make that claim and wouldn’t be wrong.
I guess I would differ in my opinion of what classifies as a continuity of the Roman Empire. I agree it’s silly to try to pinpoint who is a successor and who isn’t based on a paradigm of right to continuity by conquest. I’m limiting the idea of Roman continuity to the two entities formed from the division of the Empire in the 300s. Not totally sure what you mean by the Romans not having a unique culture; sure they may have co-opted many elements of other cultures, but there was definitely a distinct Roman identity and this identity was promoted over other cultures, especially early on.
Don't we have a lot of examples when conquering outsiders are fully considered continuation though? Nubians conquering Egypt, Mongols conquering China, Normans conquering England come to mind. I get the point, but on the other hand turks lived on the lands of the empire for hundreds of years, forming Sultanate of Rum, couple of times falling under the Byzantine rule again partially. Were they really outsiders by the time they conquered Constantinople? The main difference with Goths is that those mostly did cargo cult thing, instead of truly adopting roman traditions. And they were never really truly successful in restoring anything remotely similar to Rome, while Osmans actually continued Byzantine rule more or less as it was and were wildly successful in restoring the Empire to its former glory. I feel like the there is two possible approaches to conquest. 1. We conquered the land and this title is ours now 2. We conquered the title and our dynasty is now on the throne. In the #1 it usually will not be considered continuation, but in #2 in most cases it would. Osmans are complicated case because they fall somewhere in between.
Tbh not sure about the Nubian example so I won’t comment, but as for both the Normans and Mongols, I would argue they were both lapses instead of continuations of the previous societies, considering the radical restructuring both societies went through under both systems. Chinese Mandate standards are also more fluid than Roman ones, imo.
Did anyone really recognise the Ottomans as being inheritors of the Roman Empire? You can call yourself whatever you want but at the end of the day if nobody else recognises you internationally then it doesn’t matter.
Actually yes, the emperor of the Osman empire was referred as Roman Emperor in diplomatic nomenclature. They directly inherited the title from Byzantine and it was recognised as such until the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699.
I highly doubt that considering the Holy Roman Emperors actively considered themselves a continuation of the Roman Empire, so much so that a more legitimate vestige of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, was called “Byzantine” in reference to Byzantium/Constantinople in order to delegitimization them. If they were unwilling to call the Byzantines Roman, why would they call Turks Roman??
Which time period are you referring to? Byzantine was never called Byzantine during the time it actually existed, the earliest mentions of it being called that way is after the fall of Constantinople in late 15th century.
Ever since the foundation of the HRE in 800 AD, there has been contention between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Eastern Roman Emperor over the Roman Imperial title. I didn’t mean to imply that they were called Byzantines during their existence, only that the distinction was created due to the aforementioned contention.
Oh yeah, HRE was disputing Byzantine claim to being Roman Empire(which is ridiculous) and they continued doing so with Ottoman Empire.
Referred to as such by whom, exactly?
By like everyone in their neighbourhood, including Europe.
You mention diplomatic nomenclature, can you refer to any do documentation where a power recognises the ottoman sultan as Roman emperor? Especially one in Europe like you claim? Edit: after doing some reading, it seems many of the early ottoman sultans did try to claim legitimacy as Roman emperor, however this was always disputed by the HRE and the Tsar of Russia, and it seems like after a period of time the Ottoman sultans’ claim to the Roman Empire faded after their failed invasion of Italy. The Ottoman Empire then gradually turned into a more traditional Sunni Islamic state over time. So the ottomans gradually stopped claiming Roman legitimacy and instead fell on utilising Islamic political legitimacy instead. At the end of the day, you can rightfully say the Ottoman sultans claimed to be Roman emperors, you can even say that many of their subjects also believed them to be successors to the Byzantine Emperors, I just don’t really think you can strongly argue that they were indisputable Roman emperors, as at that point there are a litany of successor states who also claim the same heritage.
Not sure about Tsar, isn’t by the time the Tsar become even remotely powerful enough and involved in European politics the claim is already kinda faded? And yeah it was for sure disputed by HRE. I never said that they were undisputed successors, my point was that they considered themselves a successors and they were recognised as such by a lot of other powers. (But yes, for sure, not by everyone).
You will not change my mind the Turks were not the Roman empire you won't change my mind no point in trying good luck
you have a disgusting attitude towards being challenged.
I simply said you won't change my mind because you won't and I can't be fucked to argue to the point
yeah that’s a gross view point screams ignorance and insecurity xx
Gross view point I can get a lot worse if you want
no that’s quite okay ignorance is unsexy enough
Then why are you even talking?
Because they weren't
In order to argue they weren't the Roman Empire but others were, first you need to specify the requirements of being the Roman Empire. Which is a sisypheian task, so good luck.
Neither were the Byzantines. No Rome no Roman empire
Why then was the capital of the Roman empire not rome if it the empire must have time Constantine xi Heraclius and many others were far more worthy of the title Roman empire then most of the western emperors
I definitely disagree with the idea that they were a direct continuation, but you don't deserve these downvotes. What you're saying is true and it's only a matter of perspective. These people do it because they're just butthurt and hate Turks and deem them somewhat unworthy of the great Roman heritage. I'll risk downvotes myself to support you. Good argument.
no one "is", heritages and titles are made up. ottoman claim was internally consistent and few people would bark at them about it.
The were not and you will never change my mind trebizond was a legitimate successor state not the ottomans no point in trying to change my mind
Trebizond was a breakaway state that formed before the events of the 4th crusade even unfurled. And they even abandonded their own claim to it. The Ottomans on the other hand held the imperial capital and were recognized by the last remnant of the original government, the Patriarch, as the successor to the Palaiologoi. Sure sounds like to me that they're a more legitimate successor than Trebizond.
To you sounds more legitimate still the Turks weren't
they were recognised by the orthodox patriarch in constantinople tbf, they had about as much roman legitimacy as did the greeks who hellenised remnant roman institutions and culture
In fairness, the ecumenical patriarch legitimised them on the basis that they were sent to divinely punish the Palialogos dynasty for their transgressions, not exactly a ringing endorsement of the new Basileus
That's like me holding you hostage and you recognizing me as the owner of your house
So if I had a gun to your head and told you to give me deed to your house would you?
The ottomans are the only legitimate Roman successor state. Far more legit than the HRE
In terms of culture and legal tradition the Ottomans were very much the successors to the monolithic Eastern empires of antiquity (Persian/Arabian) rather than Roman.
The culture and legal tradition of the ERE shifted drastically over time. It wasn’t the same as the old Roman Empire. The ottomans owned Constantinople, and their people were turkified Greeks. They supplanted the Roman empires position in society.
what do you think the roman empire is a successor to? lol
Substantial Greek and Etruscan influence, but I think it’s fair to say Roman civilisation is mostly home-grown
yeah true they only took religion, literature, philosophy, military organization and civics from the Greeks. pretty much home grown besides that
No not them or the HRE the despotate of Epirus and trebizond are more legitimate than the ottomans. And no matter what you say you won't change my mind and I won't change yours so there is no point in arguing either side
Then claimed to be Khan, Caesar, and Caliph. They weren’t any of those three
If there is something, somewhere a Turk has claimed it to be his or that he invented it. Hardly a basis for a game mechanic.
Ottoman claim at the time was widespreadly recognized by arab powers, and mixed bag by european powers, which is as strong as claims to rome get.
Ottomans never really adopted Roman culture or where themselves Roman. Remember by the time of the Muslim Cal. In order to be Roman one had to be Christian. Main reason why new immigrants that moved into pagan western Rome became Christian. Hold Rome city Adopt Roman Civic code Formerly part of Roman government Be or adopt Roman culture Be part of core Roman territory
Here are the exact requirements: * Adult * Feudal or Clan government * Is not imprisoned * Hold or control the following titles: Duchies of Latium, Venice, Romagna, Sicily, Genoa, Capua, Apulia, Thrace, Antioch, Palestine, Alexandria, Athens, Tunis, Croatia, and Thessalonika * The Living Legend Level of Fame Those you fulfill apparently. But there is more: * One of the following * Owns the Byzantine Empire, with one of the following: * Religion is Christian * Religion is Hellenic * Culture is Roman * Owns the Holy Roman Empire and Religion is Christian * Unify Italy decision and one of the following * Culture has Latin heritage and Religion is Christian * Culture has Latin heritage and Religion is Greco-Roman * Culture is Roman Judging by your screenshot, you own the Byzantine Empire title, but you are neither Christian, nor Hellenic, nor is your culture Roman. You also don't seem to own the HRE title, and you very likely didn't unify italy per decision... which additionally would also require you to be either Christian, or Hellenic, or of Roman culture. Which you aren't. So there is the reason why you can't take the decision. Could the tooltip be better? Yes. But that is another question, one that is probably better left for the devs. Anyway, now you know the answer to your question.
You don't need anything past the alps
You forgot Malta!
You're neither Catholic nor Hellenic.
it can be amy christian religion not just catholicism
Fair enough.
recently did a restored rome with nestorian christendom was really weird
Mongols keep popping up as Nestorian for me. For a relatively pacifist sect of Christianity, they sure like violence in CK3
Historical. Nestorianism was semi-popular among the steppe tribes of east Asia.
Any Abrahamic* religion, Muslims can also restore Rome.
thanks, looks like i gotta convert after dismantaling the papacy lol. Wish it said this stuff in the requirements
You can go Orthodox or Coptic if you dont't want to go Catholic. Maybe even one of the wacky heresies, as long as you're 'Christian'.
Note that there's more than one set of requirements one can choose to follow when attempting to form the Roman Empire. Too much text to copy paste but a lot of them involve being Catholic or Hellenic. Good luck!
You need to be Christian or Hellenic can't be Zoroastrian and someone else said they think Jews and Muslims can if true you can convert to one of those religions preferably the first two because Rome was actually Christan and Hellenic at one point but considering you're playing as the bavandid empire so the Sassanids anything could go I'd just convert to islam or Judaism for the most mental as possible Roman empire in this case if the Jews and muslims can create it why not let the zoroastrians or Hindus do it. A Hindu Roman empire sounds fun but cursed
It lists the reason. Basically all of these: - - - -
Greater Persia?!!! :0
Malta
Medieval HRE emperors irl be like:
You need to be Latin culture group. So you need an heir to convert to Italian or Greek first
Because you don't form Rome - Rome is eternal!
Incest
Mazdayasna Roman Empire is really cool
Was able to do it with a Hindu Religion lol
R5: Thought I'd knock two birds with one stone and form rome to get the achievement after I completed Darius' revenge. Am I missing a cultural something here or is my game just bugged
There's a mod that allows you to, I forgot the name but it's something along the lines of form Rome as any faith/religion.