Jerusalem and what should be done with it?

"Clearly you aren't looking. Lets start with the role of the Ayia Sofia and end with food and coffee. The only difference is the religion of the state!"

Actually the Ottomans didn't claim the Caliphate till the 19th century, there is no proof whatosever that Selim I officially took the title caliph or behaved as one, the caliphate was cancelled and ressurected later.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Sorry Wladyslaw, the crusades ended 700 years ago and it was they who invaded the country and were eventually defeated. The only rightful heir to the Levant was the old Byzantine empire which means that the current republic of Turkey, the heir of the Ottoman empire, is the rightful owner of the levant countries because the Sultan was the Empror of rome and Byzantium!

problem with this line of logic is that the modern state of Turkey doesn't recognize the Head Church or the Head Patriarch in the true religious authority, while there is little 'Ottoman' in the new ethnic-nationalist built state.  we can all claim our little bit of that....

...so this ....

Originally posted by Al Jassas As for Ottomans being the newst Roman dynasty, well, it was just a joke mixed with reality. The Sultan did have the title Caesar and the Russians accepted that in the official documents, before Cathrine the great. The was no official claim nor a declaration by the russians and all in all Russia as it existed had nothing in common with Byzantium while the Ottoman institutions are largely based on the Byzantine model. The Church acknowledged Muhammad II's title and for me that is enough because the main orthodox church is in Constantinople not Moscow.

other line of argument is irrelevant. Hi Holiness is only the head preist for the few Greek (Roman) survivors as far as they are concerned.

The sultan was never the new emperor, since he was not continuing the same civilization or the same political entity. That makes as much sense as the Mayor of Athens to also be its Bey. He created something different from the left overs of Rome. Despite what the Russians or the captive Patriarch will say. The sultan was the death of Rome and I have little time for the Russian claims either.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim The ottomans really did continue the Byzantine Empire in many respects, especially in secular and cultural respects. Russia's claim to being the 3rd Rome is purely religious idealism. They only claimed that because they were the only powerful independent orthodox state at the time. The ottomans on the other hand ruled the same people, the same land, in a similar manner, fought the same enemies. Prayed in the same buildings, payed their taxes to the same place etc etc

To be Romeo  'Roman' was to belong to that millet under subjugation, they had no full rights as a citizens. For that you must be Muslim which counters the ingrained othordox-ness of being Roman (at that time of change). what the Ottomans did, is keep the bits that were useful to them.

The Greek language, Church and Roman identity was not front and center to the offical  identity anymore.  It was superseded. Everything else; the food, music and other stuff is regional. You can convert and change in many other ways (inc identity) but still remain the same on the basics.



Edited by Leonidas - 02-Aug-2008 at 15:30

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Akolouthos Furthermore, your reasoning, if followed consistently to the present, would lead us to conclude that the modern nation-state of Israel is the proper "heir" to Jerusalem and the immediate surrounding area. Rather depends on what you mean by the 'modern nation-state' of Israel. That only owes its legitimacy to the UN grant, which only awarded part of Jerusalem to Israel.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Leonidas    It seems that people here took my mockery quite seriously so again. Mr Wladyslaw wrote nonsense so I returned on him with a similar nonsensical reply but it seems people here took it beyond what it meant.   As for Ottomans not being a continuation of the Byzantines, well were the Byzantines a continuation of the Romans in the first place for your initial argument to be correct? no, the byzantines were a totally new empire in many things but none the less it retained certain institution under different names, same can be said for the Ottomans who also retained certain Byzantine institution and made them distinctively Ottoman.   Al-Jassas