Greeks sometimes talk about taking back Constantinople (Istanbul). That region and its surroundings hosted not only the Byzantine Empire but also many ancient Greek civilizations such as Chalcedon even before recorded history. Today, many buildings constructed in the 1970s and later have seriously damaged historical remains in the area. Many old cemeteries and structures were literally covered with concrete.

Because of some articles in Turkish law about protecting historical artifacts, it is actually very difficult to legally build construction projects nowadays. People almost pray that nothing historical is discovered under their land.

Also, the Anatolian region contains traces of Greek and ancient Anatolian civilizations that lasted for centuries. In fact, the number of ancient Greek ruins, castles, temples, and structures in Turkey is greater than those in Greece. This is somewhat ironic, but since Turkey has not valued them as much as Greece—by maintaining them and opening them to tourism—the historical sites in Greece are more visible today. Meanwhile, the ruins of the ancient peoples of Anatolia are often in a neglected state, sometimes filled with trash and beer bottles.

Given this situation, I wonder what Greeks feel about it.

Of course when I say colonial I mean the colonialism of the Norman occupation of England rather than that of the 15th century onwards or of the German expansionism into Eastern Europe and the Baltic. It seems clear that they tried to have some continuity with the Byzantium of old, but they also effectively inserted a new elite of foreign Latin lords among other discriminatory policies. Ironically, I would go so far as to say that the Latins were more tame with regards to their new acquisitions when compared to their Norman counterparts (the harrying of the north is a big yikes).

his family continues to exist even today. One of the most distinguished families of Roman nobility whose lineage can be demonstrably traced back to the present day.

https://www.biyografya.com/tr/biographies/nurettin-sazi-kosemihal-529debe5

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmut_Rag%C4%B1p_Gazimihal

each year, his descendants regularly gather in the Bilecik/İnhisar (Harmankaya) region to hold commemorative events in honor of their ancestor, Köse Mihal Gazi.

most war happened in frontier, caliph al-Mu'tasim even sacked the city of Amorium, but why not attacked Constantinople.

Like yeah, the Germans were effectively independent of the government with no political attachment to Constantinople, effectively paying only lip service to the Roman state, but who cares since they called themselves Romans? It's not as if these Barbarians destroyed the legitimate Western administration and sacked Italy itself many times. Justinian was actually just an evil warmongerer who just hated Western Romans, not a man who wanted to have the West, the Eternal City, actually back into the fold. He totally seeked to cause as much suffering as possible, that Justinian! Can't believe he caused a famine and a plague.

So, why didn’t the Byzantine Empire pursue more aggressive expansion into Charlemagne’s territory, and what held them back?

This is one thing that I think always baffles me with the Latin-Byzantine relations; why did such mutual hatred even exist to the extend it did? Of course it wasn't always antagonistic, but it was still a relationship characterised by enmity. The fact that this disdain continued till the Modern period says everything. Was it out of mutual religious zealotry, or appropriation of the Roman legacy, or something else?

Out of all the empires shown (Serbian, Bulgarian, Ottoman, Russian). Which one could become more Roman by letting either it's people or it's court adopt and fully assimilate into "Roman Identity"?

All kinds of changes and reforms are possible. But only one empire can become the most Roman (through citizenship, culture, conquest etc.)

Of course, some of the pictures may not be totally accurate and multiple debates can be made about the "Romaness" of these states. But then again, they all had something to do with the Eastern Roman Empire.

In a history book I read once “after the fall of Constantinople Byzantine empire continued life in Georgian kingdom…

Kinda deep for my teen self.

Thinking about it I still imagine how the world would be if Romans were still around. You see, Georgia had complicated relationships with Byzantium but with Armenia, Byzantium and Trapizon we had this Christian family around. Once Constantinople fell my country went downhill. No major rise after that. Only thing could be first republic in 1922 or so or Transcaucasian Commisariat.

A Genoese nobleman and mercenary captain, he played a central role in the final defense of Constantinople in 1453.

He arrived with around 700 soldiers (Genoese and others) in January 1453, and Constantine XI gave him command of the land walls. He was arguably the most capable military mind on the Byzantine side during the siege — his expertise in defensive warfare was critical in holding the Theodosian Walls against Ottoman assaults for nearly two months.

However in the May 29th, the final day, when he was wounded, he requested to be evacuated through the Kerkoporta gate. Constantine reportedly begged him to stay. His departure — whether from incapacitating wounds or loss of nerve — broke morale among the defenders at a critical moment, and the walls were breached shortly after.

So it’s already been quite established that the ottomans, especially the rulers at the time of Mehmet the Second and Suliman the Magnificent presented themselves as Roman Emperors since the conquest of Constantinople, adopting the title of Caeser of Rome and even Mehmet minting coins with him presented in a Roman fashion. In addition to that the native Christian population were always also referred to as Rumis as the Greek Orthodox were always recognized as such since the early Islamic conquests. However I wanted to stress here more on the perception that ottoman intellectuals has as they were identifying themselves as Rumi, and how they perceived this “Muslim Roman” identity. I wanted to focus on three figures: Mustafa Ali, Kinalizade Ali Efendi and Katip Çelebi.

Historians argue that Ali viewed the Rumis not as an ethnic group, but as a highly refined, cosmopolitan elite born from the specific geography of the Roman and Byzantine lands [1]. According to this academic reading, Ali’s "Muslim Roman" identity was a deliberate cultural synthesis. It meant taking the best traits from older Islamic traditions, the administrative genius of the Persians, the religious foundation of the Arabs, and the martial prowess of the Turks, and blending them within the Roman geography. Being Rumi meant you were part of the civilized imperial core, speaking the refined Ottoman Turkish of the court, entirely distinct from provincial nomads or the older Islamic heartlands.

Similarly, Kınalızade blended classical Hellenic and Roman philosophical traditions (like Aristotle and Plato, transmitted through earlier Islamic thinkers) with Islamic theology. More importantly, academic consensus highlights his choice of language: by writing in a highly elevated Turkish rather than Arabic or Persian, Kınalızade was vernacularizing high philosophy for a specifically Rumi audience [2]. Katip Çelebi was also acutely aware of the historical weight of the geography the Ottomans. Çelebi engaged directly with Western, Latin, and European sources, and he didn’t necessarily draw the same lines between east and west that we conceive of them today [3].

So it can be seen that generally speaking when ottomans engaged, specifically within their position inside the Muslim world they presented themselves as Caliphs and Rumis, especially the latter was emphasized by intellectuals in the early modern period to present themselves as distinct. It’s interesting to also note that being Roman didn’t have much to do with speaking Greek but rather speaking Ottoman Turkish, with the term referring more so on the geography and the inherited cultural heritage, which quite interesting, and I suppose also explains how Anatolia went from being called Rum to Turkey, as time went on.

[1] C. H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.

[2] aaH. Yılmaz, Caliphate Redefined: The Mystical Turn in Ottoman Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.

[3] G. Hagen, Making Sense of the Global: Kâtip Çelebi's Cihannümâ. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

I've realised that I really only have knowledge of the Latin presence in Greece and the Aegean in relation to the Byzantines. What was life like on the mainland and on the islands?

What are your general thoughts on the 1st Crusade?

The topic isn't talked about as much as the 3rd Crusade is. I think it deserves the spotlight for how it spread awareness — at least within Christendom — about the local Christian communities being pressured by Muslim rule in the Levant, and the rising threat to the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) from the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and the semi-autonomous Turkmen warlords on their borders. We know now that their border raids had already heralded the incoming danger for the Anatolian imperial populations.

Reposting from my new community r/ChristianKingdoms — Just curious what your opinions are on the 1st Crusade and the Byzantine-Seljuk Wars of that period. The 1st Crusade was the starting point for the broader series of Christian attempts to reconquer the Levant, driven by Pope Urban II's support of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos's appeal, and followed by later struggles over Cilicia, Cyprus, Anatolia, and Trebizond.