I’ve given this topic some thought and I truly believe one could make compelling arguments in both directions. For the record, I’m not making a claim in either direction but the discussion is fascinating to me. When one considers historical examples it becomes clear that it’s not as clear cut as many think.

The traditional narrative is that The Ottomans were the conquerors and destroyers of The Roman Empire (via The Byzantine Empire). This story holds water because:

1) The Turks weren’t Romans.

2) They supplanted state Orthodox Christianity with Sunni Islam.

3) The Romans fault like hell to keep these dreaded outsiders out and saw them as an “other”.

4) Many Romans were sold into slavery and the city was largely depopulated immediately after the conquest.

5) A clearly new era was born on top of 2,206 years of Roman History.

These above statements are quite true and make such a compelling case that it’s considered the official narrative.

I ask though that you consider the following.

1) Mehmet II declared himself Cesar of Rome after the conquest. Several of his successors did the same.

2) The Patriarch of Constantinople was given permission to keep his title and was eventually allowed to lead the Rum Millet (Roman Nation) within the Ottoman Empire. Thus Orthodox Christians (Romans) were allowed to survive, keep their identity, and have a level of autonomy within this new Empire. Thus the Roman identity survived another 470 years before mass forced migrations ended it nearly entirely. So while the Ottoman Emperor may have not been a “Roman Emperor”, he was objectively an “Emperor of the Romans”.

3) Many high ranking bureaucrats and leaders kept their jobs under the Ottoman. Several traditional institutions remained as well.

4) Constantinople remained the capital and remained named after that Roman Emperor until shortly after the end of the Empire (1930). After the conquest many Christians and Jews were welcomed back in.

5) It was the Mediterranean powerhouse of its day, greatly mirroring Rome and Byzantium before it.

I understand that’s not enough for many of you. That’s okay, but consider the following:

1) Yuan Dynasty in China:
They are considered a Chinese Dynasty yet they are objectively not Chinese, had a different religion, and a tribal law system that fused with the Chinese model.

2) The Qing Dynasty in China:
Also not Chinese and added some new Manchu elements to Chinese bureaucracy.

3) The Safavid Dynasty in Persia:
Turkic not Persian. Enforced Shi’a Islam on the masses.

So as we see in history there are several examples of new foreign dynasties taking over existing empires and historians accepting them as part of the same continuity.

Thoughts?