Although the West often had problems seeing the Roman-Byzantine connection, the Turks and Arabs had no problem referring to the Emperors in Constantinople as Romans. Sometimes, "foolish Romans" but Romans nonetheless.
The Ottoman Sultan referred to himself as the heir of the Caesars and even the Khans (!). The second is a big of a stretch but the Byzantine/Roman reference in clear. The Grand Vizier, the Sultan's right hand man, seems awful similar to the Byzantine megas domesticas. The Byzantine horse archer seems to represent the Ottoman version too thought that might be a chicken and egg argument.
The Ottoman Turks were a cultural mishmash from the beginning. Their religion, Islam, was borrowed from the Arabs. A lot of their organization, military, bureaucratic, and administrative, is a copy from the Byzantines. Even their capital was the old Byzantine one.
The Turks were originally pastoral nomadic barbarians. Lord Kinross, in The Ottoman Centuries, describes such cultures, such as the Turks.Manchus. or Mongols, as "ephemeral". Looking at the Mongols, you can see their absorption into China as evidence. The Mongols conquer China in 1216 and two generations later, the capital is in Bejing and everyone is speaking Chinese. The same applies to the Manchus (or Ming, if you prefer) who conquered China in 1644 and were technically in power until 1912. Only by 1912, the country is referred to as "China" because Manchuria is 95% Chinese and Manchu is essentially an extinct language.
If a couple of things had gone differently, ie no Fourth Crusade, it is possible that the Turks could have been incorporated into the Byzantine Empire and who knows. The Byzantine Empire, which is really the Roman Empire, might still be around today.
I wonder whose side they would have taken in both World Wars?
No comments:
Post a Comment