Maybe you are right

The Ottomans resurrected the Roman Empire after it had collapsed and brought into the age of Islam. Also the ethnicities who ran the Ottoman empire were the same byzantine people who ran the Roman Empire. The main thing that changed was the introduction of Ottoman Royalty. That's a far cry from European Colonialism which was more of a business enterprise than anything else.

@@AliSidTex While the Ottomans did conquer Byzantine territory, including Constantinople, this does not equate to "resurrecting" the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire, in both its Western and Eastern (Byzantine) forms, was rooted in Latin and Greek cultural, legal, and religious traditions-deeply tied to Christianity. In contrast, the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic caliphate with a distinct legal, social, and cultural framework influenced by Turkic, Arab, and Persian traditions, not Roman or Greek. Simply ruling over former Byzantine territories does not make the Ottomans successors to the Roman legacy. Claiming that the ethnicities running the Ottoman Empire were the same as those running the Roman Empire is an oversimplification. While it’s true that some Byzantine administrators and populations were absorbed into the Ottoman system, the Ottoman ruling class was dominated by the Ottoman Turks and other ethnic groups, not native Byzantines. Furthermore, governance and societal structures under the Ottomans were vastly different, focusing on Islamic law (Sharia) and the millet system, which gave non-Muslim subjects limited autonomy but placed them in a subordinate position compared to Muslims. As for European colonialism, while it did have commercial interests, it was also about political control, resource extraction, and exploitation-so dismissing it as purely a business enterprise underplays its destructive impact on indigenous cultures. But comparing the Ottomans to the Roman Empire is misplaced; the Ottomans were a powerful empire in their own right, but their identity and mission were distinct from the Graeco-Roman world. Just as the British Empire didn't become "Zulu" simply because it conquered Zulu lands, the Ottomans didn't become "Roman" by conquering Roman territories. The Ottomans may have inherited Byzantine lands, but they were a fundamentally different empire with different goals, values, and identity.

Which to this day means Turkey is the modern Roman Empire then? Bs, it’s two different entities where one defeated the other. The Last Roman Empire went down with his great and old empire, sword in hand. A different language, different rulers with different culture, different religion and different history. The small remnants and pieces of the empire need to be mopped up as well. They didn’t accept the new pretender. There already was one in the Holy Roman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was not The Roman Empire. Just because you rule the ashes doesnt make you into the tree.

@@mikaelgrande6968 No, Turkey has nothing to do with Rome other than being its heir. Türkiye is not Rome. But then why do we consider the Eastern Roman Empire as Rome? Didn't the Trojans, who were destroyed by the Greeks, establish Rome? When Mehmed II the Conqueror conquered Istanbul, he said: I took revenge on Hector(Trojan King). According to your thesis, Byzantium is not Rome either. Ab Urbe Candita

The transition from paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire was a transformation within the same cultural and civilizational framework, rooted in Roman law, politics, and identity. The shift to Christianity didn't erase Roman values but integrated them into a new religious paradigm. In contrast, the Ottoman Empire represented a break from the Graeco-Roman world, rooted in an Islamic framework with Turkic, Arab, and Persian influences. While it’s true that the Ottomans intermarried with Byzantine dynasties and some former Byzantine officials like Grand Vizier Messih Pasha converted to Islam, these individual ties do not make the Ottoman Empire a legitimate heir to Rome. The empire's culture, legal system (based on Islamic Sharia), and governance were fundamentally different from that of Rome or Byzantium. Declaring oneself "Caesar," as Mehmed II or Suleiman did, does not make an empire Roman in essence. Their military campaigns aimed at conquering the West, including Rome, were about expanding the Ottoman Islamic state, not reviving Roman civilization. Rome’s transformation from Latin to Greek was an organic evolution within its own empire, while the Ottoman Empire, despite occupying former Byzantine territories, built a new Islamic identity. The notion of "Third Rome" may be claimed by various powers, including Russia, but the Ottoman Empire's identity and legacy were distinctly non-Roman. The Ottomans had nothing to do with Graeko-Roman heritage.

@@giotis_pantel Was the culture of burning witches among the cultures of Rome? Christianity destroyed Roman civilization. But we will not discuss which religion is correct here. As a Turk, I say that if we had not adopted the Roman style of government, it would not have been possible to have a huge power that lasted for 6 centuries. It would last at most 200 years. They governed the state the way they learned from the Romans. and the law has nothing to do with Islamic sharia. Yes, some rules regarding Islam were applied among Muslims, but historians say that the Ottoman Empire was not governed by sharia. Different practices were applied to non-Muslims. privileges were even granted. Even though we are at odds with Armenians and Jews now, we were great friends hundreds of years ago. Arabs were used as slaves or simply collected taxes. Just like Rome did. You can say these things in terms of culture, but just as Latin Rome became Greek, Greek-Rome became Turkic.

@@giotis_pantel Was the culture of burning witches among the cultures of Rome? Christianity destroyed Roman civilization. But we will not discuss which religion is correct here. As a Turk, I say that if we had not adopted the Roman style of government, it would not have been possible to have a huge power that lasted for 6 centuries. It would last at most 200 years. They governed the state the way they learned from the Romans. and the law has nothing to do with Islamic sharia. Yes, some rules regarding Islam were applied among Muslims, but historians say that the Ottoman Empire was not governed by sharia. Different practices were applied to non-Muslims. privileges were even granted. Even though we are at odds with Armenians and Jews now, we were great friends hundreds of years ago. Arabs were used as slaves or simply collected taxes. Just like Rome did. You can say these things in terms of culture, but just as Latin Rome became Greek, Greek-Rome became Turkic.

Yoooo Bøý

@@hiddensign I don’t speak roach

Rome fell when Julius "I ran and Hid from Cornelius Sulla" Ceasar destroyed the Republic.

@@highlandergunn9240 On the contrary, perhaps ... the assassination of Caesar initiated the fall of Rome, the republic needed reform, an improvement in religion and a stronger focus on the common people and loyalty to the state and its leader. In addition, a Caesar might even have been able to defeat Germania or provide the right impulses. All factors that later initiated the downfall of Rome, a weak religion was defeated by this Jewishly toxic ideology, which no longer propagated the state as the sacred. A republic in which everyone fights for power and the empire only ever flourished when it had a strong dictator, the system needed reform. And turning away from Germania was a big mistake that also ushered in the downfall.

Yeah it will be covered in next part

Exactly

You got it

Thanks ✌️

Centre for High Energy Physics

very good

Sorry not available

Thank you 👍

yes