How do you perceive the Ottoman Empire?

[poiuytrewq0987]

I think the general consensus of Balkan peoples and nationalist Europeans is the Empire was overall an evil one that wiped out all tracts of European civilization in the Balkans.

The Ottoman Empire was well on its way to becoming a sort of a France of the region constituting an amalgamation of Balkano-Anatolian cultures, basically, combining the best of two worlds. Of course, without Arab regions the Empire had control of, as their culture is incompatible.

The Ottoman Empire was in essence ruled by Balkan peoples and Anatolians in its later years. It was broken up essentially by same people over religion because the Ottoman Empire was a Islamic Caliphate. If the Sultanate moderated itself to the idea of being a Caliphate and obliged itself to become a constitutional monarchy government with no state religion that represented the Balkan and Anatolian peoples then the empire might as well have lasted.

The emotions of Balkan peoples that drove Turkophobia in the name of Christendom essentially disjointed the natural development of Balkans returning us to the medieval age politicoborders. This very emotion is the primary and only cause of all wars in Balkans since the collapse of Empire's control in the region.

Some Western politicians in past even lamented their mistake of helping Balkan Christians break the control of Ottomans on region because they thought a great Balkan Christian empire would supersede Turkey in Europe but they got a fractured Balkan with endless ethnoreligious conflicts... the very thing they fought so hard to rid in Western Europe.

That is how I perceive the Ottoman Empire. It was only the beginning of a powerful Balkano-Anatolian state that would have dominated West-East trade routes and controlled all political happenings in the region. Many troubles from WW1 to this day could have been avoided if there was a powerful state to block out British and American and probably Nazi German influence. Not to mention we probably would be mostly in control of the oil trade in the Middle East given our historic and close ties with the Middle East. Us being the only state in the area with a military force worth speaking about helps too.

[Queen B]

Whole Greece was under Ottoman Empire and Ionian Islands were under Venetian empire.

Ionian island's economy bloomed, arts also blossomed and generally was a progressed place where locals did participate in the advance of the place, and ''rulers'' helped the place to move forward.
Ionians have good feelings towards Italians.

The rest of Greece had zero advance in arts, no economic advance, and locals were treated unfairly.

[Sultan Suleiman]

As a Hamzii I have quite a negative opinion of the Ottomans.

But from a neutral standpoint, it was just another empire.

[Sikeliot]

I picked option three.

[Damião de Góis]

I know little or nothing about the Ottoman Empire, and for that reason i have no opinion. It was just another empire.

Although, as i've said before they are the indirect responsibles for us starting our age of discoveries due to their block of the spice route to India.

[Lena]

Please, stay on topic and no trolling.

Thank you :)

[Lena]

lena why are you bullying me?

Dralos, please stay on topic if possible, all other issues or questions you might have, resolve in some other place or contact senior stuff members.

Thank you.

[Virtuous]

Ottoman is veryveryvery BADBOI

[Sultan Suleiman]

Holy shit, this Dušan fella changes his entire world view every few months :D

[poiuytrewq0987]

Holy shit, this Dušan fella changes his entire world view every few months :D

What? I have expressed my positive views of the Ottomans before on the forum. It is only I am talking about them once more.

[Christian552]

Number 3; the sick man of Europe and a cause for religious wars.

[rashka]

If the Ottomans never came the whole Balkan peninsula would have been slavicized. That could have been one of the good things. The slavic culture was pretty strong. Just to show how strong they were, they still maintained their language despite being under Ottoman rule for 500 years.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Number 3; the sick man of Europe and a cause for religious wars.

Nope..Europe was capable enough in starting their unique religious wars ..against Jews ,against protestants ,witchtrials ,inquistion ...

I am not a fan of Ottoman myself ..but that was really unfair..regarding the bloodbath in Europe at that age

[Incal]

Third option. Unlike other empires -which can contribute some good things-, Islamist dynasties only subjugate and plunder till they completely drain a place. I can't even think of a good thing left in the Balkans by the Ottomans.

[Onur]

The slavic culture was pretty strong. Just to show how strong they were, they still maintained their language despite being under Ottoman rule for 500 years.
It`s not because of your so-called "strong slavic culture".

If Turks would have wanted, they could destroy your slavic culture and orthodoxy as early as 1390s and expel the ones who resist to the north, Hapsburg territories.

If that would be realized by them, no one in the world would remember your so-called "strong slavic culture" in Balkans today, including you. Today, you would probably either be a catholic inside Hungary or a muslim Turkish.

[Osprey]

Bad.
But did one good thing in the First World War : Joined Germany

[Linet]

It`s not because of your so-called "strong slavic culture".

If Turks would have wanted, they could destroy your slavic culture and orthodoxy as early as 1390s and expel the ones who resist to the north, Hapsburg territories.

If that would be realized by them, no one in the world would remember your so-called "strong slavic culture" in Balkans today, including you. Today, you would probably either be a catholic inside Hungary or a muslim Turkish.

To say the truth, i ve no idea what Slavic culture is...:noidea:
..But if we mean Orthodoxy and the arts and architecture of it, then my lovely baby :baby2000: cutie pie Onur :eyes...no you wouldnt destroy everything :desert: even if you could .
You did it in the places you could = the entire Turkey today, to the rest of the Balkans you were letting the religion exist it in order to keep the populations in order and you were controlling them by keeping the head of the church like "hostages" that would say to the people "Do not revolt to our good masters"...and thats exactly what they were saying to te people.
So i suppose maybe you would have leveled everything to the ground :smash:, but your Sultans were cleverer than that :biggrin and thats why they succeeded to keep the empire up for so long....there is nothign more clever than to control the people throught their own leaders. who they trust :hail:....and the Orthodox people respected noone more than their priests :fpope:.

Also, why to destroy somethign you immitate? (see Saint Sophia and the mosques of Polis), yet still you destroyed the interior....:wink

[Pecheneg]

Number 3; the sick man of Europe and a cause for religious wars.

Actually, the Ottoman Empire was most powerful and strong man of europe in 16th-17th centuries. :thumb001:

Religious wars always been the part of european and near eastern history, you can't blame Ottomans for this.

[~Nik~]

It`s not because of your so-called "strong slavic culture".

If Turks would have wanted, they could destroy your slavic culture and orthodoxy as early as 1390s and expel the ones who resist to the north, Hapsburg territories.

If that would be realized by them, no one in the world would remember your so-called "strong slavic culture" in Balkans today, including you. Today, you would probably either be a catholic inside Hungary or a muslim Turkish.

It speaks volumes about the political-ethnic situation in the Balkans today.

But hey, to me the Vatican and Austria-Hungary have caused as much harm to the Balkan Slavs and slows the process of unification, which is later emerged as a communist solution unfortunately (and this was neither more nor less foreign agents in power), having nothing to do with the Slavs, and the expected result was that the Slavs become finally disgusted of an union that could help them to create an opposition today to the NATO for example.

[Anatolian Eagle]

Not very positive. I think the rulers downgraded Turkish national spirit, their morals and goals were much more based on Islamic ideology than traditional Turkish, they achieved almost nothing in name of the Turkish. They forcefully exiled Anatolian Turks, seperated them and conquered their lands. The rulers only thought about their safety and importance of their dynasty, maybe I can exclude some sultans here though. Their stance during Turkish War of Independence was the most shameful one. Basically their main mindset was always "There are no Turks, but Ottomans".

But I'm also against blaming everything on Ottomans. They weren't perfect, but not terrible empire either and we can't turn our back to our history. That's my view. I just believe Great Seljuk Empire and Seljuk Sultanate of Rum were much more better Turkish empires compared to Ottoman Empire.

[Kanuni]

To put it simple a continuation of long lasting religious conflict between Muslims and Christians trying to dominate eachother.

From Muslim Empires they were far better than Umayyads and worse than Abbasids.

[Pecheneg]

Not very positive. I think the rulers downgraded Turkish national spirit, their morals and goals were much more based on Islamic ideology than traditional Turkish, they achieved almost nothing in name of the Turkish. They forcefully exiled Anatolian Turks, seperated them and conquered their lands. The rulers only thought about their safety and importance of their dynasty, maybe I can exclude some sultans here though. Their stance during Turkish War of Independence was the most shameful one. Basically their main mindset was always "There are no Turks, but Ottomans".

But I'm also against blaming everything on Ottomans. They weren't perfect, but not terrible empire either and we can't turn our back to our history. That's my view. I just believe Great Seljuk Empire and Seljuk Sultanate of Rum were much more better Turkish empires compared to Ottoman Empire.
100% agreed.
Ottomans were brutal against rival Turkish clans of anatolia, they exiled karamanids and some other Turkish tribes to balkans, but it was quite normal in that era. I bet Karamanids would do the same to Ottomans, if Ottomans were conquered by them. :thumb001:

[Damião de Góis]

Third option. Unlike other empires -which can contribute some good things-, Islamist dynasties only subjugate and plunder till they completely drain a place. I can't even think of a good thing left in the Balkans by the Ottomans.

All empires subjugated and plunder.

[Anatolian Eagle]

100% agreed.
Ottomans were brutal against rival Turkish clans of anatolia, they exiled karamanids and some other Turkish tribes to balkans, but it was quite normal in that era. I bet Karamanids would do the same to Ottomans, if Ottomans were conquered by them. :thumb001:

Karamanids embraced Turkish traditions more than Ottomans, they were quite strongest dynasty but Ottomans used wise tactics to get them down. I see Karamanids as true remnants of Seljuk Turkish dynasty and I much more would prefer them than Ottomans. I personally admire Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey.

[Pecheneg]

Karamanids embraced Turkish traditions more than Ottomans
true.
" from that day forward, in the council, in the dervish lodge, in the court, in the assembly, in the square, no language but Turkish should be spoken! "
-karamanoğlu mehmet beg-

Before him, the Seljuk elite in Anatolia used Persian in literature and Arabic in government and science. The Turks however could not understand these languages.

[Onur]

Turk1071, i also dislike Ottoman empire especially for their actions during the last decades of it and causing the death of millions of Turkish people in Arabian deserts and Balkans. Check this;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44779

But you are doing some fundamental mistakes and you are judging the Ottoman empire by today`s standards;



I think the rulers downgraded Turkish national spirit
Nope. They just didn't emphasize on Turkishness but everyone was perfectly aware of the importance of it. For example, when the first ever parliament was formed, non-Turks requested to speak in languages other than Turkish but they refused and said that this is a Turkish empire and if anyone wanna participate the administration of it, they he should speak Turkish.


their morals and goals were much more based on Islamic ideology than traditional Turkish, they achieved almost nothing in name of the Turkish
Because when you rule upon millions of km2 territories in 3 different continents, you have to find an element which can keep all these different people united. The religion is the best answer for that. So, their so-called islamic ideology was in fact pure politics just as it was in all the empire like Romans, Hapsburgs etc for christianity. These were just fairytale to keep people united as much as possible and send them to kill themselves in the name of their religions. Otherwise no one can convince ordinary folk for anything in an empire.

I mean Ottoman empire said "die in the name of Allah", Hapsburgs, Romans said "die in the name of Jesus". Was it really for Allah or Jesus? Nope, this is just politics.


They forcefully exiled Anatolian Turks, seperated them and conquered their lands. The rulers only thought about their safety and importance of their dynasty, maybe I can exclude some sultans here though.
As Peçenek said, this is quite normal. Anyone would like to eliminate his possible rivals. If karamanids would prevail instead, then they would exile Ottoman beylik in Bursa.


Their stance during Turkish War of Independence was the most shameful one.
I agree to that. They even deserved to be executed just like French and Russian revolutionists did to their monarchy families. Ataturk was quite soft against them by ordering them to go exile. He could have execute them all because of high treason to the state and exile 1000s of their supporters inside Turkey. This would be quite fair considering that French revolutionists executed 1000s monarchists including the royal family for months in 1789. They washed away whole Paris with their bloods. Our revolution was quite soft comparing to French and Russian one.


Basically their main mindset was always "There are no Turks, but Ottomans".
Nope, they didn't say such a thing. They just gave emphasis on Ottomanism to keep Albanians, Macedonians inside the empire. It was a futile attempt and they failed. No one believed Ottomanism, even Turks didn't either.

[Incal]

All empires subjugated and plunder.

That was my point, they brought bad things but they also contributed some positive things.

[Anatolian Eagle]

Turk1071, i also dislike Ottoman empire especially for their actions during the last decades of it and causing the death of millions of Turkish people in Arabian deserts and Balkans. Check this;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44779

I checked it. Thanks.


But you are doing some fundamental mistakes and you are judging the Ottoman empire by today`s standards;



Nope. They just didn't emphasize on Turkishness but everyone was perfectly aware of the importance of it. For example, when the first ever parliament was formed, non-Turks requested to speak in languages other than Turkish but they refused and said that this is a Turkish empire and if anyone wanna participate the administration of it, they he should speak Turkish.

I don't think they ever said something like "This is Turkish empire" nor they were aware of "Turkishness". At least not most of them. As I said, it was Ottoman Empire, and they barely cared about Turkishness or Turkish people... Take a look at Ottoman Turkish. Does it look more Arabic or Turkish to you Onur? Not to mention how they looked down Alevi Turkmens.


Because when you rule upon millions of km2 territories in 3 different continents, you have to find an element which can keep all these different people united. The religion is the best answer for that. So, their so-called islamic ideology was in fact pure politics just as it was in all the empire like Romans, Hapsburgs etc for christianity. These were just fairytale to keep people united as much as possible and send them to kill themselves in the name of their religions. Otherwise no one can convince ordinary folk for anything in an empire.

True, but I can show many Turkic empires who ruled millions of km²s with showing true form of Turkic values and tradition and without discrimination. And I think you also are aware of those Turkic empires. They lasted pretty long.


I mean Ottoman empire said "die in the name of Allah", Hapsburgs, Romans said "die in the name of Jesus". Was it really for Allah or Jesus? Nope, this is just politics.

Totally agreed.


As Peçenek said, this is quite normal. Anyone would like to eliminate his possible rivals. If karamanids would prevail instead, then they would exile Ottoman beylik in Bursa.

True. I stated my reason why I would favour Karamanids instead though :rolleyes:


I agree to that. They even deserved to be executed just like French and Russian revolutionists did to their monarchy families. Ataturk was quite soft against them by ordering them to go exile. He could have execute them all because of high treason to the state and exile 1000s of their supporters inside Turkey. This would be quite fair considering that French revolutionists executed 1000s monarchists including the royal family for months in 1789. They washed away whole Paris with their bloods. Our revolution was quite soft comparing to French and Russian one.

Well, I think exiling them was probably alright. :coffee:


Nope, they didn't say such a thing. They just gave emphasis on Ottomanism to keep Albanians, Macedonians inside the empire. It was a futile attempt and they failed. No one believed Ottomanism, even Turks didn't either.

I didn't say they said such a thing, I said that was their mindset... And it was pretty much their mindset. Ottomanism was the main reason the Ottoman dynasty opposed Turkish national revival.

[Gospodine]

It's been said before but I'll say it again.

It was the Islamic successor to the Roman Empire. Mehmed II even declared himself Kayser-i Rum, at one point.
Ibrahim Pasha also called the Ottoman Empire the successor to Rome.

The upper-crust of the Osman dynasty became less and less Turkic at the height of the empire's power and onwards, they took more Greek, Albanian, Caucasian and Balkan wives, viziers, Janissaries, Pashas, Beys, and commanders than Anatolian/Turkic ones.

Basically what they achieved was super-imposing an Islamic name and styling onto the Byzantine Empire, which in turn superimposed a Greek name and styling onto the East Roman Empire (I'm talking before they dropped Latin as official lingo) which in turn superimposed a Roman name and styling on the Paleo-Balkan and Greek people.

The Ottomans were a new spin on an already long-existing cultural continuum from the Balkans to the borders of Iran with it's nucleus in Constantinople and the Aegean sea, that had been existing since the Perso-Greek wars and the Seleucid Empire which was essentially the first to fuse "East and West" into a contiguous form.

The principle reasons the Ottomans left a bad taste with the Balkan peoples are:


Devshirme
Partial conversion (some was forcible, the majority was amicable). This really only became an issue post-WW2 in Albania, Bosnia and Bulgaria.
The questionable policies and irredentist sentiment of the Young Turks in the twilight age of the Empire. (The Young Turks themselves I'm not at all sure about their ethnic composition and overall motivation. There is some evidence to suggest infiltration by crypto-Judaisism and outside Western influence, much like the Bolshevik revolution in Russian.)
The state of Europe after the 1900's in general. The entire world was slowly polarizing itself into two opposing spheres: Western (Capitalist) and Eastern (Socialist) and both sides of the spectrum attempted to rewrite history to point blame at certain elements of nationalism, religious fervor, multiculturalism and imperialism for the perceived decline of their society. Many Eastern European and Balkan communist/socialist movements (taking heavy influence from the Russians who already had a long-standing grudge with Turks) placed a heavy emphasis on demonizing past Turkish influence.

[Linet]

The Ottomans were a new spin on an already long-existing cultural continuum from the Balkans to the borders of Iran with it's nucleus in Constantinople and the Aegean sea, that had been existing since the Perso-Greek wars and the Seleucid Empire which was essentially the first to fuse "East and West" into a contiguous form.

So Greeks again were behind everything :lol00002:

[Gospodine]

Not really... the Persians (who in turn took heavy influence from the Assyrians) laid the foundation for an Anatolian super-state with the Median Empire circa 600BC.

Before that there was no centrally-ruled state that governed that much land in the Fertile Crescent and Anatolia.
They were a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, monarchy that sourced the best and brightest from the regions many disparate powers (Assyria, Armenian, Elamites, Phrygians, Canaan, Egyptians, etc.) to staff and defend their frontiers, much like the Ottomans did.

The Ottomans were superb at outsourcing expertise, manpower and innovative to regions renowned for certain industries/crafts and had no real ethnic/religious aversion to recruiting many minorities to help them.

[Sultan Suleiman]

Not really... the Persians (who in turn took heavy influence from the Assyrians) laid the foundation for an Anatolian super-state with the Median Empire circa 600BC.

Before that there was no centrally-ruled state that governed that much land in the Fertile Crescent and Anatolia.
They were a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, monarchy that sourced the best and brightest from the regions many disparate powers (Assyria, Armenian, Elamites, Phrygians, Canaan, Egyptians, etc.) to staff and defend their frontiers, much like the Ottomans did.

Gubiš vrijeme na nju.

[Gospodine]

Ma gubim vrijeme ionako na ovaj forum, mozda ce ona slusat novalija? :rolleyes:

[Linet]

Not really... the Persians (who in turn took heavy influence from the Assyrians) laid the foundation for an Anatolian super-state with the Median Empire circa 600BC.

Before that there was no centrally-ruled state that governed that much land in the Fertile Crescent and Anatolia.
They were a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, monarchy that sourced the best and brightest from the regions many disparate powers (Assyria, Armenian, Elamites, Phrygians, Canaan, Egyptians, etc.) to staff and defend their frontiers, much like the Ottomans did.

The Ottomans were superb at outsourcing expertise, manpower and innovative to regions renowned for certain industries/crafts and had no real ethnic/religious aversion to recruiting many minorities to help them.

Nope, Balkans were not part of the Persian empire but ok...i know how you mean it :wink

[Gospodine]

Nope, Balkans were not part of the Persian empire but ok...i know how you mean it :wink

I never said that.
But actually the Achaemenids held parts of Greece for a while:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/images/empire.gif

Not to mention various Iranic tribes would later make their home in Eastern Europe and Thrace like the Sarmatians and Alani, but that's another a story.

The Persians predate everyone of note in Anatolia and basically started off this "Anatolian-Southern Balkan" seat of power that everyone else hijacked in the coming centuries.

Before that it was in the Fertile Crescent and Levant that the most powerful states ruled from (the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Elamites, Sumerians) but the center of gravity shifted north as more and more intruders from Central Asia, the Black Sea region and Northern Europe forced the peoples along Mediterranean longitudinal axis to create greater buffers against these "barbarians".

[Ayazid]

Not very positive. I think the rulers downgraded Turkish national spirit, their morals and goals were much more based on Islamic ideology than traditional Turkish, they achieved almost nothing in name of the Turkish.

You are projecting modern nationalist ideas into a completely different age. There was nothing like "Turkish national spirit" in the Middle Ages. The Ottomans rose from a provincial Turkmen clan to a big cosmopolitan Muslim dynasty, ruling over culturally and ethnically very diverse lands. Given these circumstances and the period of time, it's just logical that they were not keen on emphasizing their ethnic Turkish roots in the name of some abstract "Turkishness".


But I'm also against blaming everything on Ottomans. They weren't perfect, but not terrible empire either and we can't turn our back to our history. That's my view. I just believe Great Seljuk Empire and Seljuk Sultanate of Rum were much more better Turkish empires compared to Ottoman Empire.

In what sense they were better (from a nationalist point of view)? They were actually quite Persianized. Number of their rulers even had ancient Iranian names (like Kaykavus).

[Ayazid]

Karamanids embraced Turkish traditions more than Ottomans, they were quite strongest dynasty but Ottomans used wise tactics to get them down. I see Karamanids as true remnants of Seljuk Turkish dynasty and I much more would prefer them than Ottomans. I personally admire Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey.

The Karamanids were a provincial dynasty. Had their realm become a big empire, they would have most probably lost their provincial Turkmen character, just like the Ottomans or Safavids.

[Anatolian Eagle]

You are projecting modern nationalist ideas into a completely different age. There was nothing like "Turkish national spirit" in the Middle Ages. The Ottomans rose from a provincial Turkmen clan to a big cosmopolitan Muslim dynasty, ruling over culturally and ethnically very diverse lands. Given these circumstances and the period of time, it's just logical that they were not keen on emphasizing their ethnic Turkish roots in the name of some abstract "Turkishness".



In what sense they were better (from a nationalist point of view)? They were actually quite Persianized. Number of their rulers even had ancient Iranian names (like Kaykavus).

My God, aren't you that dude from Historum? I'm not going to repeat my words since I argued same thing back in Historum with you. Here you found me once again in totally irrelevant forum and you're giving me the same propaganda as your first post here? :picard1:

I doubt you're a Slav but an Arab.

[Ayazid]

My God, aren't you that dude from Historum? I'm not going to repeat my words since I argued same thing back in Historum with you. Here you found me once again in totally irrelevant forum and you're giving me the same propaganda as your first post here? :picard1:

I doubt you're a Slav but an Arab.

Anatolian1994? :D You were only trying to convince me that Turks were converted to Islam forcibly by Arabs, which is not true (it's easy to prove that).

Could you tell me what propaganda my post contains? Anatolian Seljuks were quite Persianized and did use Persian as their court language. The Ottomans were originally a Turkmen clan, but became a cosmopolitan Muslim dynasty in the course of time.

I am Czech and Czech is mother tongue. :rolleyes:

[Graus]

Used to be a force to be reckoned with and died as an utter joke.

[Anatolian Eagle]

Anatolian1994? :D You were only trying to convince me that Turks were converted to Islam forcibly by Arabs, which is not true (it's easy to prove that).

Haha yes. :thumb001: As far as I know GalataTurk also agreed with me back there. The case might be not the same with Seljuk Turks specifically but it's an undeniable fact that Arabs did the same thing over Turks what they have done Iran back when they were expanding the caliphate.

Seriously man do you really join these forums just to convince Turks to otherwise?


Could you tell me what propaganda my post contains? Anatolian Seljuks were quite Persianized and did use Persian as their court language. The Ottomans were originally a Turkmen clan, but became a cosmopolitan Muslim dynasty in the course of time

It was more likely Turco-Persian, however they were not assimiliated into Persians as you see. Due to Islam they unfortunataley got influenced by Persian and Arabic lingustically but considerable number of sultans also had Turkic names since they were recent just converts to Islam, such as Alp Arslan, Kilij Arslan etc. and kept Turkic characteristics more. Ottomans were much more Islam-ifluenced, which distanced themselves from their Turkic charasteristics in many regards. Karamanids held it more than Ottomans since they banned Arabic and Persian in favour of Turkish itself.


I am Czech and Czech is mother tongue. :rolleyes:

Your name doesn't sound Czech to begin with :rolleyes:

[Arbërori]

Mostly negative, but indifferent at the same time.

[StonyArabia]

Used to be a force to be reckoned with and died as an utter joke.

All empires have the same fate, the exception to this was the British empire. The Portuguese could not even subdue the Socotrans and they were utterly humiliated as well in Oman and only controlled Qatar and Bahrain which often gave them slaves which they relocated to the Azores. After their brief colonization and slave raid, they would never set foot again in the Middle East. The Portuguese empire died pretty much as a joke, so did the Spanish, and ect.

[Ayazid]

Haha yes. :thumb001: As far as I know GalataTurk also agreed with me back there. The case might be not the same with Seljuk Turks specifically but it's an undeniable fact that Arabs did the same thing over Turks what they have done Iran when they back when they were expanding the caliphate.

Seriously man do you really join these forums just to convince Turks to otherwise?

GalataTurk is not exactly an expert on the early history of Central Asia? :p It's an undeniable fact that the Arabs clashed with some Turkish tribes and fought with them for dominance over Transoxania and its Iranian peoples. That's all.

I admit that Turkish history is cool and the debates about it are always fun. Maybe I am Turk and don't know it. :D


It was more likely Turco-Persian, however they were not assimiliated into Persians as you see. Due to Islam they unfortunataley got influenced by Persian and Arabic lingustically but considerable number of sultans also had Turkic names since they were recent just converts to Islam, such as Alp Arslan, Kilij Arslan etc. and kept Turkic characteristics more. Ottomans were much more Islam-ifluenced, which distanced themselves from their Turkic charasteristics in many regards. Karamanids held it more than Ottomans since they banned Arabic and Persian in favour of Turkish itself.

I didn't say that they were assimilated by Persians, but Persianized, e.g., heavily influenced by Persian culture and favouring it. I am also not sure why you consider the Arabo-Persian influence to be unfortunate? Every Turkic sedentary people is influenced by Arabs and Persians, from Turks to Uyghurs. Uzbek has actually absorbed so many Iranian influences that it partially lost the Altaic vocal harmony. Real tragedy. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't say that Islam-influenced is the right word. They were definitely more cosmopolitan, but as I said, had the Karamanids or any other Turkmen Anatolian dynasty built such a big empire as the Ottomans, they would have become just as cosmopolitan.


Your name doesn't sound Czech to begin with :rolleyes:

That's a bad argument man. :picard2: Relax, we can have a conversation in Czech if you wish. :tongue

[Anatolian Eagle]

GalataTurk is not exactly an expert on the early history of Central Asia? :p It's an undeniable fact that the Arabs clashed with some Turkish tribes and fought with them for dominance over Transoxania and its Iranian peoples. That's all.

I admit that Turkish history is cool and the debates about it are always fun. Maybe I am Turk and don't know it. :D

Ha that was more than just "some clashes". Also how do you even know that he's ignorant of his own history at all? :rolleyes: There are many battles took place such as Battle of the Defile, Battle of the Baggage, and other Umayyad-Turgesh wars. I'm excluding Khazar-Arab wars though. Qutaiba ibn Muslim and other commanders massacred bunch of Turks over there when they first arrived and conquered. I already have shown you that.

I just hate the storyline that some wants us to believe Arabs just came to Central Asia and told Turks: "Hey Turks, look, we have a new religion for you. Pls abandon your faith that you held for centuries and submit to ours." and that Turks reply: "Oh Arabs, how very kind of you came to fight and conquer our lands and now you're gently offering us your religion. Ok thx for new religion it seems cool I'll submit it now thx very much bros!"


I didn't say that they were assimilated by Persians, but Persianized, e.g., heavily influenced by Persian culture and favouring it. I am also not sure why you consider the Arabo-Persian influence to be unfortunate? Every Turkic sedentary people is influenced by Arabs and Persians, from Turks to Uyghurs. Uzbek has actually absorbed so many Iranian influences that it partially lost the Altaic vocal harmony. Real tragedy. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't say that Islam-influenced is the right word. They were definitely more cosmopolitan, but as I said, had the Karamanids or any other Turkmen Anatolian dynasty built such a big empire as the Ottomans, they would have become just as cosmopolitan.

They still kept Turkic traditions more than the Ottomans. Even Alevism which dates back to Seljuk Turks is a religion that combines Islam with Turkic traditions such as Tengriism and shamanism is something more Turkic than Sunni Islam itself which was promoted by Ottomans. The Perso-Arabic influence comes from due to conversion to Islam but as I said they still kept many Turkic elements within themselves than Ottomans did.

I still tend to believe Karamanids would rule an empire similiar as say Khazars, Göktürks etc. Or for example take a look at Arabic caliphates, they Arabized considerable region, just like Northern Africa.

And finally, us Anatolian Turks for example replaced many foreign loanwords from our language, reformed alphabet from Arabic to something more fitting to Turkish one. And I wish the same for other Turkic peoples, they should reform and purify their languages as much as they can. Imagine Arabs writing in Old Turkic alphabet and borrowed shitloads of Turkic loanwords into their language and not considering it to be "unfortunate" for their language :rolleyes:

However aslong as they don't stay assimiliated they're still fine despite the heavy influence, but obviously it's still unfortunate.


That's a bad argument man. :picard2: Relax, we can have a conversation in Czech if you wish. :tongue

That's not same thing. With such a username, avatar and opinions you can't convince anyone else you're purely Czech. That has nothing to me but that's how it works at least in this forum. Holding Czech citizenship, speaking the language and being born there doesn't make you Czech, ask anyone else :thumb001: If you're of Arabic origin everyone else here will consider you and Arab, not Czech nor Slav ;)

[Ayazid]

Ha that was more than just "some clashes". Also how do you even know that he's ignorant of his own history at all? :rolleyes: There are many battles took place such as Battle of the Defile, Battle of the Baggage, and other Umayyad-Turgesh wars. I'm excluding Khazar-Arab wars though. Qutaiba ibn Muslim and other commanders massacred bunch of Turks over there when they first arrived and conquered. I already have shown you that.

Well, I have read some of his other posts on other topics. :rolleyes:

Yes, clashes, skirmishes and battles (:thumb001:) took place, but mostly among the Arabs and the indigenous Iranian inhabitants of that region (Sogdians, Ferghanans, Bukharans and Khorazmians). The Turks (mainly the Turgesh) intervened because it was their sphere of influence, but the sedentary population itself was largely Iranian in origin. As for the Turks who were massacred those were warriors, just as the "massacred" Arabs, not women and children.


I just hate the storyline that some wants us to believe Arabs just came to Central Asia and told Turks: "Hey Turks, look, we have a new religion for you. Pls abandon your faith that you held for centuries and submit to ours." and that Turks reply: "Oh Arabs, how very kind of you came to fight and conquer our lands and now you're gently offering us your religion. Ok thx for new religion it seems cool I'll submit it now thx very much bros!"

You have missed one important fact: The Turks who fought with Arabs were not Oghuz. The Oghuz Turks already existed as a separate Turkic ethnicity and roamed in the north of the current Kazakhstan. They converted (rather for political reasons) during the 10th century as they were increasingly in contact with (Iranian) Muslims and migrating into the Muslim territory.


They still kept Turkic traditions more than the Ottomans. Even Alevism which dates back to Seljuk Turks is a religion that combines Islam with Turkic traditions such as Tengriism and shamanism is something more Turkic than Sunni Islam itself which was promoted by Ottomans. The Perso-Arabic influence comes from due to conversion to Islam but as I said they still kept many Turkic elements within themselves than Ottomans did.

I still tend to believe Karamanids would rule an empire similiar as say Khazars, Göktürks etc. Or for example take a look at Arabic caliphates, they Arabized considerable region, just like Northern Africa.

Why do you think that the Ottomans during the time when they annexed other Anatolian beyliks (14-15th century) were less Turkish in culture then them? The Sunni Islam was dominant in all Anatolian cities, not just in the Ottoman realm. The Ottomans were only different in that they progressively lost the character of a Anatolian provincial dynasty and became more cosmopolitan. Safavids, their main adversaries during the 16th-17th centuries, were also a Turkmen dynasty (and Kizilbash alevis), but they gradually became Persianized and adopted the mainstream Shia Islam. The same happened with Timurids and Mughals in Central Asia and India.

As for the Karamanids, I don't see any similarity between them and Khazars or Göktürks. I am not sure what you mean with this point. It's true that one of their rulers issued a decret in which he promoted use of Turkish in place of Arabic and Persian as a spoken language, but that doesn't mean that their culture was particularly more Turkish and that they were early Turkish nationalists. That would be a pretty bold claim.


And finally, us Anatolian Turks for example replaced many foreign loanwords from our language, reformed alphabet from Arabic to something more fitting to Turkish one. And I wish the same for other Turkic peoples, they should reform and purify their languages as much as they can. Imagine Arabs writing in Old Turkic alphabet and borrowed shitloads of Turkic loanwords into their language and not considering it to be "unfortunate" for their language :rolleyes:

However aslong as they don't stay assimiliated they're still fine despite the heavy influence, but obviously it's still unfortunate.

Well, the Turkish language reform probably made standard Turkish rather more difficult understand for other Turks with all those neologisms. I don't know if other Turks understand, e.g., öğretmen better than the Arab muallim, which they still use. :p

Anyway, I don't know about Arabs, but Uzbeks don't seem to have any problem with Arab and Persian words in their language, neither Uyghurs nor Azeris or other Turkic peoples. There is nothing bad about having loanwords, English is full of them and native speakers don't seem to have any problem with them either. Analogically, Japanese is full of Chinese words and yet, they don't feel any need to purge their language artificially and make it more "pure".

I am also not sure why you consider Arab influence to be such a misfortune for other Turkic peoples. I think that you should be rather worried because of their russification (Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Chuvash etc.). :rolleyes:


That's not same thing. With such a username, avatar and opinions you can't convince anyone else you're purely Czech. That has nothing to me but that's how it works at least in this forum. Holding Czech citizenship, speaking the language and being born there doesn't make you Czech, ask anyone else :thumb001: If you're of Arabic origin everyone else here will consider you and Arab, not Czech nor Slav ;)

If I am a pure Czech, Arab (which I am not) or Martian is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about history, dude :picard1:

[Pecheneg]

pro-arab Czech(!) member jumps to a thread about Ottoman Turks a few minutes after he joins forum.

[Ayazid]

pro-arab Czech(!) member jumps to a thread about Ottoman Turks a few minutes after he joins forum.

Pro-Arab? I was afraid that you would say pro-Kurdish. :D

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Like we so much needed another pro Islamic slav here ..

[Anusiya]

The way I see it, things were about to happen. Byzantium was already in its first millenium of existence, a lot of useless power games with the East and the West, the populations were dwindling, the army reserves were not enough, corruption reigned and so it was inevitable that something else would emerge. And it was a matter of time to find out. It turned out it was the Turks. Could have been much worse, ie the Mongols, so the Turks proved useful if anything. As for the rest, of the story, well, it was an empire, which means it had its ups and downs. The Turks brought some stabillity, some social reforms in its subjects but did not do enough to allign itself with Europe's pace of progress. After the French Revolution and the Russian venture in the Crymean, the clock started ticking. And Codrington's cannons ripped nicely in the end, didn't they?:D

[Anatolian Eagle]

Well, I have read some of his other posts on other topics. :rolleyes:

Yes, clashes, skirmishes and battles (:thumb001:) took place, but mostly among the Arabs and the indigenous Iranian inhabitants of that region (Sogdians, Ferghanans, Bukharans and Khorazmians). The Turks (mainly the Turgesh) intervened because it was their sphere of influence, but the sedentary population itself was largely Iranian in origin. As for the Turks who were massacred those were warriors, just as the "massacred" Arabs, not women and children.

The battles took between Arabs and Turgesh, Göktürks, Soghdians and other local Transoxian allies. It was something more than sphere of ifluence, rather it was fighting against invaders, obviously. Battle, clash, war these of course aren't "massacres" but they indeed massacred Turk population, some of them are known as Talkan Massacre and Curcan Massacre.


You have missed one important fact: The Turks who fought with Arabs were not Oghuz. The Oghuz Turks already existed as a separate Turkic ethnicity and roamed in the north of the current Kazakhstan. They converted (rather for political reasons) during the 10th century as they were increasingly in contact with (Iranian) Muslims and migrating into the Muslim territory.

Bro that's why I said "not neccesarily Seljuk Turks". They most like were still part of Göktürk Empire during the Arab invasion and remained Tengriists and converted later back when Seljuk Turks seperated from Oghuz Yabgu State due to religious reasons (Islam), however Islam came into domination and popularity after the Arab invasion, not via missionary as you're trying to depict.


Why do you think that the Ottomans during the time when they annexed other Anatolian beyliks (14-15th century) were less Turkish in culture then them? The Sunni Islam was dominant in all Anatolian cities, not just in the Ottoman realm. The Ottomans were only different in that they progressively lost the character of a Anatolian provincial dynasty and became more cosmopolitan. Safavids, their main adversaries during the 16th-17th centuries, were also a Turkmen dynasty (and Kizilbash alevis), but they gradually became Persianized and adopted the mainstream Shia Islam. The same happened with Timurids and Mughals in Central Asia and India.

As for the Karamanids, I don't see any similarity between them and Khazars or Göktürks. I am not sure what you mean with this point. It's true that one of their rulers issued a decret in which he promoted use of Turkish in place of Arabic and Persian as a spoken language, but that doesn't mean that their culture was particularly more Turkish and that they were early Turkish nationalists. That would be a pretty bold claim.

I'm not saying Ottomans were less Turkish than every beyliks. I just gave Karamanids as an example how they banned Persian and Arabic from offical languages as true sign of Turkishness. This way by keeping idientity they could rule the land similiar way Turkic empires like Göktürks, Khazars could without foreign influence and with their own traditions. The Ottomans did certainly otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Turkism#Within_the_Ottoman_Empire) by looking their fellow Turkmen countrymen. I'm not really neccesarily speaking about nationalism but if you want to bring nationalism into discussion, Ottomans also unwelcomed any kind of nationalism including Turkish nationalism, what they did to Turkish National Movement in aftermath of WWI is pretty much a proof.

Btw I don't hate Ottomans, they achieved legendary things like conquest of Constantinople, I just believe they've done many mistakes and I dislike the overwhelming emphasis over them, since we've established a completely different state with different ideologies and route.


Well, the Turkish language reform probably made standard Turkish rather more difficult understand for other Turks with all those neologisms. I don't if other Turks understand, e.g., öğretmen better than the Arab muallim, which they still use. :p

Anyway, I don't know about Arabs, but Uzbeks don't seem to have any problem with Arab and Persian words in their language, neither Uyghurs nor Azeris or other Turkic peoples. There is nothing bad about having loanwords, English is full of them and native speakers don't seem to have any problem with them either. Analogically, Japanese is full of Chinese words and yet, they don't feel any need to purge their language artificially and make it more "pure".

I am also not sure why you consider Arab influence to be such a misfortune for other Turkic peoples. I think that you should be rather worried because of their russification (Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Chuvash etc.). :rolleyes:

Trust me, öğretmen is way more popular than muallim today. I'm sure they don't mind it, but in my honest opinion any nation should. Why use something foreign, when you have your own equilavent for it? It's just called protecting the language. At least we feel this way, unlike you.

Who says, I only consider Arab influence unfortunate? :rolleyes: I also consider Russification over them unfortunate however at least they have their own autonomy over there, which is a good sign for them at least.


If I am a pure Czech, Arab (which I am not) or Martian is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about history, dude :picard1:

Well, since you joined this forum, these things are very important here. Just sayin' :D

[Pecheneg]

Pro-Arab? I was afraid that you would say pro-Kurdish. :D

You are Ayazidas from youtube and known for trolling almost every video about Turkic peoples. Surprisingly, your channel is not available now.. :bored:

[Lathander]

Good sides of Ottoman for me:
-My homeland of course
-Having a giant and long lasted empire in my history

Bad sides for me
-Ottoman rulers didn't followed the changes in the west till their last two decades.They didn't care for scientific advancements enough.
-They left islamists behind.
-They treated turkmens very bad.


The fall of the empire was a disaster.With the rise of nationalism,ethnic conflicts tokk place in every corner of the empire's old lands.But it would have took place anyway,it happened after the ottomans anyway.

[Anusiya]

Good sides of Ottoman for me:
-My homeland of course
-Having a giant and long lasted empire in my history

Bad sides for me
-Ottoman rulers didn't followed the changes in the west till their last two decades.They didn't care for scientific advancements enough.
-They left islamists behind.
-They treated turkmens very bad.


The fall of the empire was a disaster.With the rise of nationalism,ethnic conflicts tokk place in every corner of the empire's old lands.But it would have took place anyway,it happened after the ottomans anyway.

I think nationalism was a good movement irrespective of how badly it was implemented in some areas.

[Kemalisté]

There is no way for me to have positive views toward Ottoman Empire because of their persecution of Alevi people. But greeks and balkanic peoples complaining about them is just silly, because they were the most prileveged citizens in the Empire. Average Anatolian Turks suffered more, they were left in darkness and poverty. There are no any significant Ottoman architectures in Anatolia (mostly left from Seljuks), but they used to mostly focus on the development and improvement of Balkans (Rumelia).

Plus, Anatolian Turks were not allowed in the palace, thus had no saying in the administration, while the sons of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians etc. were specially trained for important roles in the palace. Not to mention that any of the Sultans preferred an average Anatolian woman to be their wives, but all of their wives were either Slavic, Greek, Russian or Ukrainian.

So, I don't see those people talking like that here. They can't have suffered more than we Anatolians did under Ottoman Empire. It was a Slavophile/Arabophile/Persianophile empire, not Turkish. I'm sure people don't know the name '' Turk '' was even prohibited in a period.

On the other hand, the only period I appreciate in the Empire was the rise of Young Turks and nationalistic/revolutionary ideologies in the Empire. And not to forget Janissaries, it mostly consisted of Alevis/Shia bektashis who were always a problem for the Empire (we even managed to overthrow the huge Sultan lol, I wonder what empire in the history experienced something like that, I think Janissaries were the first group to execute a real modern military coup in the world)

[Ayazid]

The battles took between Arabs and Turgesh, Göktürks, Soghdians and other local Transoxian allies. It was something more than sphere of ifluence, rather it was fighting against invaders, obviously. Battle, clash, war these of course aren't "massacres" but they indeed massacred Turk population, some of them are known as Talkan Massacre and Curcan Massacre.

Ok man. If you are so hell-bent on claiming that there was a sedentary Turkish population in Transoxania in that time and that they were massacred by Arabs and can provide any evidence, we can open a new thread and I will prove there that it's simply not true. Let's not derail this one with such super-interesting off-topic discussions. ;)


Bro that's why I said "not neccesarily Seljuk Turks". They most like were still part of Göktürk Empire during the Arab invasion and remained Tengriists and converted later back when Seljuk Turks seperated from Oghuz Yabgu State due to religious reasons (Islam), however Islam came into domination and popularity after the Arab invasion, not via missionary as you're trying to depict.

I am not trying to depict that Islam came to Central Asia peacefully. However, Turks converted to Islam also due to missionary work of Iranian derwishes, since they were a nomadic population and were not conquered by the Arabs.


I'm not saying Ottomans were less Turkish than every beyliks. I just gave Karamanids as an example how they banned Persian and Arabic from offical languages as true sign of Turkishness. This way by keeping idientity they could rule the land similiar way Turkic empires like Göktürks, Khazars could without foreign influence and with their own traditions. The Ottomans did certainly otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Turkism#Within_the_Ottoman_Empire) by looking their fellow Turkmen countrymen. I'm not really neccesarily speaking about nationalism but if you want to bring nationalism into discussion, Ottomans also unwelcomed any kind of nationalism including Turkish nationalism, what they did to Turkish National Movement in aftermath of WWI is pretty much a proof.

But the Ottomans did use Turkish as their official language. Sure, it was full of Arab and Persian words and constructions, but I doubt that they were not present massively in Karamanid Turkish too. I still don't see any convinving evidence that these were some early Turkish nationalists and that they wouldn't have followed the path of the Ottomans and the Safavids.


Btw I don't hate Ottomans, they achieved legendary things like conquest of Constantinople, I just believe they've done many mistakes and I dislike the overwhelming emphasis over them, since we've established a completely different state with different ideologies and route.

Well, the Turkish culture was shaped during the Ottoman epoch, so the emphasis is rather logical. 500 years is not a short period of time.


Trust me, öğretmen is way more popular than muallim today. I'm sure they don't mind it, but in my honest opinion any nation should. Why use something foreign, when you have your own equilavent for it? It's just called protecting the language. At least we feel this way, unlike you.

Sure, öğretmen is more popular. The only problem is that other Turkic peoples won't understand it. :D Anyway, I already gave examples of widely spoken languages, which contain tons of loanwords and their speakers are just fine with them. This is a completely subjective thing.


Who says, I only consider Arab influence unfortunate? :rolleyes: I also consider Russification over them unfortunate however at least they have their own autonomy over there, which is a good sign for them at least.

To put it simply: Turkic languages spoken in Russia might be gone by the end of this century. Concentrate on that point and forget Arabic and Persian. ;)


Well, since you joined this forum, these things are very important here. Just sayin' :D

Man, I really dont care. :D

[Kemalisté]

I still don't see any convinving evidence that these were some early Turkish nationalists and that they wouldn't have followed the path of the Ottomans and the Safavids.

Just came across a wrong point here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karamano%C4%9Flu_Mehmet_Bey

[Onur]

There is no way for me to have positive views toward Ottoman Empire because of their persecution of Alevi people. But greeks and balkanic peoples complaining about them is just silly, because they were the most prileveged citizens in the Empire. Average Anatolian Turks suffered more, they were left in darkness and poverty. There are no any significant Ottoman architectures in Anatolia (mostly left from Seljuks), but they used to mostly focus on the development and improvement of Balkans (Rumelia)
Anatolia was always neglected during the whole Ottoman era [except few western Anatolian cities] as you said. Well, it was always better than middle-eastern deserts but worse than Balkans or few western Anatolian cities.

It`s because Ottoman empire was a Balkan empire, not an Anatolian one unlike Seljuks. Salonika, Istanbul and Izmir was the 3 main centers of it and rest of the important cities was in the Balkans again. It lost the Balkans in 1912 and the empire was no more after 7 years of that.


It was a Slavophile/Arabophile/Persianophile empire, not Turkish. I'm sure people don't know the name '' Turk '' was even prohibited in a period.
You are grossly exaggerating things here.

Ottoman elite tried to preserve the empire by creating a mythical "Ottomanism idea". It was just a futile attempt and it failed. Thats why anti-Young Turks groups was in favor of the term "Ottomanism" instead of "Turkism". This was just an argument of a brief period anyway, just few years before the destruction of the empire.

[Anusiya]

I have listened to alevi music - it's great! , I don't know why they give credit to Van Halen for inventing tapping. :D

[Kemalisté]

Anatolia was always neglected during the whole Ottoman era [except few western Anatolian cities] as you said. Well, it was always better than middle-eastern deserts but worse than Balkans or few western Anatolian cities.

It`s because Ottoman empire was a Balkan empire, not an Anatolian one unlike Seljuks. Salonika, Istanbul and Izmir was the 3 main centers of it and rest of the important cities was in the Balkans again. It lost the Balkans in 1912 and the empire was no more after 7 years of that.


You are grossly exaggerating things here.

Izmir ? think again. Skopje, Sofia, Edirne etc. come before that. And no I don't exaggarate anything, fetishism toward Arab, Persian and Balkan cultures inside the palace was obvious. And I think you have no knowledge about the prohibition of the word Turk, you can search for this, it's a historical fact.

[Anatolian Eagle]

Ok man. If you are so hell-bent on claiming that there was a sedentary Turkish population in Transoxania in that time and that they were massacred by Arabs and can provide any evidence, we can open a new thread and I will prove there that it's simply not true. Let's not derail this one with such super-interesting off-topic discussions. ;)

Sure, I have source in Turkish which focuses solely on this however it's really long and will take shitloads of time to translate at all. I might do it sometime when I have very free time.


I am not trying to depict that Islam came to Central Asia peacefully. However, Turks converted to Islam also due to missionary work of Iranian derwishes, since they were a nomadic population and were not conquered by the Arabs.

They conquered a great part of the area so that they even managed to reach the Chinese border. They were pushed off by the Turgesh Turks several times but they still managed to conquer.


But the Ottomans did use Turkish as their official language. Sure, it was full of Arab and Persian words and constructions, but I doubt that they were not present massively in Karamanid Turkish too. I still don't see any convinving evidence that these were some early Turkish nationalists and that they wouldn't have followed the path of the Ottomans and the Safavids.

It's not just about language. Well, my belief about Karamanids would be my own conception but I just happen to believe they'd make better state.


Well, the Turkish culture was shaped during the Ottoman epoch, so the emphasis is rather logical. 500 years is not a short period of time.

It will of course leave such influence after 500 years, however I wasn't talking about that. Turkey is just happen to be something completely different than Ottoman Empire from the beginning in many cases.


Sure, öğretmen is more popular. The only problem is that other Turkic peoples won't understand it. :D Anyway, I already gave examples of widely spoken languages, which contain tons of loanwords and their speakers are just fine with them. This is a completely subjective thing.

And I told you why they should purify their languages :bored:


To put it simply: Turkic languages spoken in Russia might be gone by the end of this century. Concentrate on that point and forget Arabic and Persian. ;)

Don't be so sure, they will never disappear, trust me ;)


Man, I really dont care. :D

Okay, you will see what I mean if you'll stay here for good, just don't tell me that I didn't warn you :thumb001:

[Pecheneg]

Arabic countries have this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic
common language of arabic-speaking countries


I think Turkic-speaking countries also should form MST > Modern Standard Turkic.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

pro-arab Czech(!) member jumps to a thread about Ottoman Turks a few minutes after he joins forum.

Are we weirdo magnet or something ...:bored:

[Partizan]

An empire which started,raised and finished.And which was way more tolerant compared to other empires in this age...

I proud with many parts of it however...

I'm child of Atatürk's republic.I can't dislike Ottomans,they are part of my history as well.I can criticise it in many ways but I'm acknowledged,since French Revolution there is no place for multicultural/multinational empires...Nationalism and Republicanism are modern and reasonable concepts,there is no need for nostalgy.

[Ayazid]

Sure, I have source in Turkish which focuses solely on this however it's really long and will take shitloads of time to translate at all. I might do it sometime when I have very free time.

I just hope that your Turkish sources are not books of a certain guy named Erdoğan Aydın. He has a very clear agenda, as far as I know. I recommend you to use only books written by professional historians. ;)

The Turkish conversion thread is on its way. :D


They conquered a great part of the area so that they even managed to reach the Chinese border. They were pushed off by the Turgesh Turks several times but they still managed to conquer.

Turgesh Turks were definitely not your ancestors (let alone the Khazars). As I said, there is not evidence about massacres of Turkish civilian population by Arabs, since the area was largely Iranian. I suppose that your Turkish sources showing the opposite must be some recent discoveries. :D


It's not just about language. Well, my belief about Karamanids would be my own conception but I just happen to believe they'd make better state.

In what other regard were the Karamanids more "pro-Turkish" than the Ottomans?


It will of course leave such influence after 500 years, however I wasn't talking about that. Turkey is just happen to be something completely different than Ottoman Empire from the beginning in many cases.

Sure, many things have changed (like everywhere in the world)


And I told you why they should purify their languages :bored:

And what would they gain from it, except the fact that they wouldn't understand older texts written in their language anymore?



Don't be so sure, they will never disappear, trust me ;)

I trust you absolutely. :D Maybe they will not, but they are in danger and the number of their native speakers might diminish a lot. That's quite likely to happen. These talks about de-arabization of Turkic cultures stem from the post-Ottoman Turkish kulturkampf between secularists and religious conservatives, but they have no relation whatsoever with the real situation in other Turkic countries.


Okay, you will see what I mean if you'll stay here for good, just don't tell me that I didn't warn you :thumb001:

OMG. Relax, dude. :D

[Ayazid]

Are we weirdo magnet or something ...:bored:

You funny people. :picard1: :D

[Ayazid]

Arabic countries have this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic
common language of arabic-speaking countries


I think Turkic-speaking countries also should form MST > Modern Standard Turkic.

That's a nice idea, but I doubt that it will be ever realized. The Standard Arabic is based on the language of the Qur'an and other Islamic literature (which is in turn based on the language of pre-Islamic Arab poetry).

I don't think that an artificially created pan-Turkic language, without any literary tradition and prestige, would have any chances to be widely adopted.

[Ayazid]

Just came across a wrong point here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karamano%C4%9Flu_Mehmet_Bey

Yes, one of the Karamanid rulers during the 13th century issued a decret promoting the use of Turkish as a spoken language instead of Persian. That's an interesting fact but I don't see any reason why should be that dynasty considered to be some early Turkish nationalists. More evidence is definitely needed.

[Su]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/124/268/13056787991.jpg

[Quorra]

Germanics live and let live. Wogs need to interact(read: use)

[Ayazid]

Bad sides for me
-Ottoman rulers didn't followed the changes in the west till their last two decades..

More like for the last century of their existence.


-They left islamists behind.

There are islamists in Turkey, because most Turks are Muslims. Nothing to do with the Ottomans. You could say just as well that the Turkmen Safavids in Iran left the shia theocratic Islamic republic.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

You funny people. :picard1: :D

Yes a Proislamic Czech thinks I m funny
You should be interested in your own nation but you are obsessed with Turks also sound very pro islamic ..

its not rocket science to detect a weirdo...

[Ayazid]

Yes a Proislamic Czech thinks I m funny
You should be interested in your own nation but you are obsessed with Turks also sound very pro islamic ..

its not rocket science to detect a weirdo...

I am not interested in this sort of talks. Really.

If you have anything to say regarding the topic of this thread, feel free to share it with us. :thumb001:

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

I am not interested in this sort of talks. Really.

If you have anything to say regarding the topic of this thread, feel free to share it with us. :thumb001:

It was your answer only ,I m not interested in talking with you

[Pallantides]

I think Ottoman is a pretty cool guy, eh ruled over 4.03 Million sq. miles of land and doesnt afraid of anything.

[Ayazid]

It was your answer only ,I m not interested in talking with you

I think that it would be really better (and definitely more interesting) to stay on topic. :)

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

I think that it would be really better (and definitely more interesting) to stay on topic. :)

it would be better if you no more reply me,thank you..

[Ayazid]

it would be better if you no more reply me,thank you..


:picard1:

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

:picard1:

why do you faceplam..we should facepalm here
You don't only betray your nation,you also annoy us too..
what a human waste you are !!
stay away from me pls Slav Mankurt..You are in my ignore list..
no more replies.:mad:

[Arthas]

How do you perceive the Ottoman Empire?

All things considered, the greatest empire of all time.

They pwned the Balkans which was pretty badass.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Bump

[Böri]

All Turks can find elements to appreciate in Ottoman history as it's very long and 600 years. The last 350 years are stalemate and chaos the survival was thanks to infights in Europe like Lutherian civil wars or Napoleon wars. The golden age can be appreciated, 1300-1550. This time the Anatolian Turks (Balkan Turks like from Edirne or Gümülcine also Oghuz Turcoman tribes descent in origin like Anatolian Turks) rule alone the empire, Vienna besieged in 1529, Budapest taken in 1541. Later the Balkan ethnics who converted to Islam started to share power with Turks and this ended the growth and imperial growth (Rum devshirme Pargalı İbrahim, Serbian devshirme Mehmet Sokollu and others). Then what you call Balkano-Anatolian cultural synthesis really appeared but not for good just for bad.

[RandoBloom]

Since you are bumping I will quote all the starting points bit by bit:


I think the general consensus of Balkan peoples and nationalist Europeans is the Empire was overall an evil one that wiped out all tracts of European civilization in the Balkans.

"European civilization" didnt exist in the Balkans. You could walk from Venice to Constantinople without seeing anything comparable to the European culture, architecture and science of the time. More comparable to the dark ages than western courts.


The Ottoman Empire was well on its way to becoming a sort of a France of the region constituting an amalgamation of Balkano-Anatolian cultures, basically, combining the best of two worlds. Of course, without Arab regions the Empire had control of, as their culture is incompatible.

Another no. Ottoman empire was a hellenophile Turkic Islamic empire. As such it disefranchised everyone. Non-Helenophile Turkic muslims disliked it because they saw Ottomans as Turks who abbandoned their heritage. Christians saw them as heatens and non Turkic muslims still saw them as distant strangers, with primary loyalty lying to the local region.


The Ottoman Empire was in essence ruled by Balkan peoples and Anatolians in its later years. It was broken up essentially by same people over religion because the Ottoman Empire was a Islamic Caliphate. If the Sultanate moderated itself to the idea of being a Caliphate and obliged itself to become a constitutional monarchy government with no state religion that represented the Balkan and Anatolian peoples then the empire might as well have lasted.

There is nothing Ottomans could have done, appart from becoming Christians that could appease the Christians. Life of Serfs in Ottoman empire was far better than life of Serfs in Russia. Religion plays higher influence than you could ever believe.


The emotions of Balkan peoples that drove Turkophobia in the name of Christendom essentially disjointed the natural development of Balkans returning us to the medieval age politicoborders. This very emotion is the primary and only cause of all wars in Balkans since the collapse of Empire's control in the region.

The sentiment could be understood. But to connect Turkophonia with Christendom is idiotic. And only possible in Balkans. The true problem is that all those christian ideals and anti turkism fall in the water and show for empty words when christians hold another christians land.

Although in some cases it went too far, like in Serbia, where entire national history is falsified, not only for Serbs, but all neighboring nations in order to suit Serb interests.


Some Western politicians in past even lamented their mistake of helping Balkan Christians break the control of Ottomans on region because they thought a great Balkan Christian empire would supersede Turkey in Europe but they got a fractured Balkan with endless ethnoreligious conflicts... the very thing they fought so hard to rid in Western Europe.

They didnt get rid of that in Western Europe. West European nations with multiple ethnic groups can be counted using fingers.


That is how I perceive the Ottoman Empire. It was only the beginning of a powerful Balkano-Anatolian state that would have dominated West-East trade routes and controlled all political happenings in the region. Many troubles from WW1 to this day could have been avoided if there was a powerful state to block out British and American and probably Nazi German influence. Not to mention we probably would be mostly in control of the oil trade in the Middle East given our historic and close ties with the Middle East. Us being the only state in the area with a military force worth speaking about helps too.

Nope, nope nope and nope on all counts. No matter who you put in charge, they would further the agenda of their own people. Give Serbia all of Balkans, and Romania as a bonus, the first thing they will do is try to Serbianize everyone. You can also replace Serbs with any other Balkan ethnicity.

Multi ethnic military forces dont work and cant work. Yugoslavia in 1941 is a prime example of that. Serbs disefranchised everyone in the kingdom, and while having a sizeable army on paper, it was a piece of shit, since no one wanted it.

[Ryujin]

Ottoman Empire is a part of our history and no one can deny this, which also applies to its all other subjects. But I don't miss it. It's good that it's dead now, and we have our secular republic.

[Minesweeper]

Except baklava and some other sweets and dishes, I can't think of anything good that Ottoman Empire left us.

Edit: Some nice buldings survived.

[StonyArabia]

Positive in the beginning as they protected the Middle East from European colonization, terrible in the latter days of the empire, and this where they began to oppress the Arabs and other Mideast groups which eventually started the Arab revolt, although not many Arab tribes wanted to participate in it. Also the Ottomans often had loyal Shia Arabs to them especially in Iraq which fought with them against the British. In Bahrain the Shia Arabs allied with them against the Portuguese. Thus the Ottomans in the Arab eyes were seen as positive mostly and guardians of the Middle East in the beginning but it was only when it was in decay problems occurred with it's Arab subjects. However they are not like the Mamlukes who are seen as heroes and very positive, and it's most likely due to the Mamlukes adopting Arab culture, well the Ottomans were a Persianate and had little Arab influence.

[Kamal900]

I see them as heroes since they protected the middle east and North Africa from outsiders like what the Mamluki army did, but i see the Young Turks movement as racist and oppressive ideology that many people suffered by their hands. Sultan Abdul Hamed is a hero in our hearts, and he will not be forgotten. At the same time, i curse King Faisal and his British backed army in helping destroy the empire which paved the way to British, Zionist and French influence into the region.

[StonyArabia]

I see them as heroes since they protected the middle east and North Africa from outsiders like what the Mamluki army did, but i see the Young Turks movement as racist and oppressive ideology that many people suffered by their hands. Sultan Abdul Hamed is a hero in our hearts, and he will not be forgotten. At the same time, i curse King Faisal and his British backed army in helping destroy the empire which paved the way to British, Zionist and French influence into the region.

Indeed, the Young Turk movement, which had power in the latter day of the empire, was actually oppressive to the Arabs and other groups in the empire, but before the Ottomans like I have said were good because they protected us from European incursions like the British, Portuguese, French and others. I have great respect for the the first part of the dynasty/empire but not for the latter since their power whined and it was not them who had the power. They the Ottomans actually have kept the European colonizers at bay and slowed down their colonization. So I agree. After they dissolved the European colonizers began to play with the Middle East and North Africa like it's their play things. The French who did atrocities to the Algerians, the British who did atrocities in Iraq in fact testing chemical weapons on the people, the Italians who had concentration camps in Libya just to name examples. However great heroes have risen like Sir Jon in Iraq from the Al-Shalan tribe, Omar Al-Mukhtar in Libya and Abd Al-Qadr in Algeria. These are great men that will be remembered. Sadly the British took Palestine and disregarded the native indigenous population of Palestine, and this should not be forgotten either, the Ottomans actually protected Palestine till the end. Hence why we have respect toward them.

[denz]

I see them as heroes since they protected the middle east and North Africa from outsiders like what the Mamluki army did, but i see the Young Turks movement as racist and oppressive ideology that many people suffered by their hands. Sultan Abdul Hamed is a hero in our hearts, and he will not be forgotten.

Young Turk movement started as a reaction of other nationalist movements in Arab Peninsula and Balkan region.


At the same time, i curse King Faisal and his British backed army in helping destroy the empire which paved the way to British, Zionist and French influence into the region.

Appreciated, do respect all who stand in dignity to protect their lands from enemies with Turks. Those martyrs were real heroes and rest in peace ...

[Kabul]

Terrible. It reduced the societies of all Balkan countries to foreigner-dependent peasant states. For example, in Bulgaria today there is no trace of boyars or the independent and noble society present before the invasion, and there isn 't anything "byzantine" left in Greece. The Ottomans were a curse, and brought genocide and atrocities wherever they went.

[camcioglu]

Very bad, evil, backward and ruined christianity in Turkey

[OnceLord]

Positive in the beginning as they protected the Middle East from European colonization,


Because the Middle East is doing just great without Europeans, right?



Also the Ottomans often had loyal Shia Arabs to them especially in Iraq which fought with them against the British.


LoL, Ottomans were Sunnis. They had no incentive for supporting the other side especially when that other side was run by Shite Savafids.

Not everyone can change ethnic colours as readily as you, O Shapeshifter of Arabia!



Thus the Ottomans in the Arab eyes were seen as positive mostly and guardians of the Middle East in the beginning but it was only when it was in decay problems occurred with it's Arab subjects. However they are not like the Mamlukes who are seen as heroes and very positive, and it's most likely due to the Mamlukes adopting Arab culture, well the Ottomans were a Persianate and had little Arab influence.

Let me get this straight; Arabian influence is positive and Persian influence is negative..... in a Turkish empire based in Anatolia?

As if the weird romanticist 'let Abdullah slip Arabian love through your loins' get up on your profile isn't enough, this post fully confirms the only lens you can see things through is some weird third worlder sectarian tunnel vision.

And people wonder why/how my distant kin ran rings around this eternally fractured region -- isn't hard! :thumb001:

[Gooding]

My people were/ are a bit northwest of that area, so I have no really personal feelings about it. I'm sure that opinions vary among the Turks and Balkan peoples about the Turkish legacy in that region.

[Mortimer]

other: neither more nor less evil then other similar empires

[poiuytrewq0987]

Since you are bumping I will quote all the starting points bit by bit:

I didn't expect anyone to respond to my original post here. It's fairly old and I, as a young person, have an ever-changing perspective of things. :P


"European civilization" didnt exist in the Balkans. You could walk from Venice to Constantinople without seeing anything comparable to the European culture, architecture and science of the time. More comparable to the dark ages than western courts.

I was obviously using a generalized term when I said European civilization. What I meant by that was the Occident-Orthodox fusion of sorts in Constantinople. The city was very cosmopolitan, and had mosques long before the conquest of the city by the Turks. It was liberal by Western Roman standards, which was at the time very alike to Saudi Arabia today.

With that out of the way. I was talking about the civilization that existed in the Balkans before the Turkish conquest. There are little traces of it today not because the Balkans was underdeveloped but because the Turks destroyed a lot of it and replaced them with Ottoman stuff. A lot of Ottoman stuff... which got destroyed, by the way, by the Balkan peoples themselves. So, in a way, the Balkans experienced total destruction twice.


Another no. Ottoman empire was a hellenophile Turkic Islamic empire. As such it disefranchised everyone. Non-Helenophile Turkic muslims disliked it because they saw Ottomans as Turks who abbandoned their heritage. Christians saw them as heatens and non Turkic muslims still saw them as distant strangers, with primary loyalty lying to the local region.

The Turks were Philhellenes? That's news to me. The Ottoman ruling class loved everything Persian and they incorporated a lot of it including the written language of the Ottoman Turks. It was straight-up evolution and continuation of the Ottoman state that began in Sogut, and ended by Kemal Ataturk in Ankara. In a way, Ataturk was a reaction to all things Ottomanism who, like you said, rejected their nomadic origins for a more imperial one.


There is nothing Ottomans could have done, appart from becoming Christians that could appease the Christians. Life of Serfs in Ottoman empire was far better than life of Serfs in Russia. Religion plays higher influence than you could ever believe.

The Balkan Christians were quite docile, actually, who happened by a national awakening when they experienced repeated abuses by the late-period Janissaries and corrupt Beys. The Serbs, for example, only started their revolution when they amassed an army of 20,000 after working with the Ottoman government authorities to crack down on corrupt Janissaries. Then one clever ruler, one we know as Black George, saw an opportunity to become king.


The sentiment could be understood. But to connect Turkophonia with Christendom is idiotic. And only possible in Balkans. The true problem is that all those christian ideals and anti turkism fall in the water and show for empty words when christians hold another christians land.


I agree, the Christians were already docile and satisfied with the Ottoman State. It fell apart when the Ottoman State failed to provide basic government services and let corrupt Beys run free and abuse their Christian subjects.


Although in some cases it went too far, like in Serbia, where entire national history is falsified, not only for Serbs, but all neighboring nations in order to suit Serb interests.


Well, I wouldn't know about that. Every country has a bit of romanticism but I do believe that the Balkan nations have it the worst.



They didnt get rid of that in Western Europe. West European nations with multiple ethnic groups can be counted using fingers.

The ethnoreligious conflicts largely ended in Western Europe with the 30 Years War. In the Balkans, however, ethnoreligious wars continued, well into the 2000s with the Muslim Albanian insurrection in FYROM being the latest example.


Nope, nope nope and nope on all counts. No matter who you put in charge, they would further the agenda of their own people. Give Serbia all of Balkans, and Romania as a bonus, the first thing they will do is try to Serbianize everyone. You can also replace Serbs with any other Balkan ethnicity.


Which is why, ironically, the Ottoman State was somewhat positive in this regard. They didn't care who their subjects were, as long they followed the law and supported the State. They brought stability to a region long ravaged by civil wars and conflict.


Multi ethnic military forces dont work and cant work. Yugoslavia in 1941 is a prime example of that. Serbs disefranchised everyone in the kingdom, and while having a sizeable army on paper, it was a piece of shit, since no one wanted it.

Yes, I agree, in regard to monarchist Yugoslavia. When Hitler invaded Yugoslavia, almost all Croat and Slovene defected to the German forces leaving the Serbs to fight them alone. Communist Yugoslavia, however, had a military that was formidable when Tito was still alive. A lot more loyal too. It was even still during the breakup and when Slovenia declared independence. Its leaders, the JNA, however were led by Serbs who had more interest in using the JNA to redraw Yugoslavia to create a greater Serbia than preserve the integrity of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia failed not because it was multiethnic but because it was largely controlled by nationalist Serbs after the death of Tito.

[Infinite]

1

Why do you feel Ottoman now? Weren'T you greek?

[Renekton]

The first one.

[Hithaeglir]

Didn't leave anything superior in terms of arts, architecture, social structure thus leaning more towards the third answer. The Venetians were probably cunts as well but at least the architecture they left back is much appreciated :)

[Bender1999]

Last one. Represents the Turkish history: Downfall of Köktürks, migration of Oghuz tribes, formation of big Oghuz empires, Battle of Malazgirt, Anatolian Beyliks. From last one the Ottomans showed big power and during the centuries, from Göktürks to Ottomans, Anatolian-Turkish civilization was emerged. I am proud of them and it is an important, burned in part of Turks, irrelevant how many deny it or instrumentalize them for their own politics.


Lol to them who voted for first one

[kundur]

People who miss the Ottoman era are Kurds, Bosnians and Albanians.
Those people were autonomous until 19th century. They had self-rule in their own regions. Those Muslims were entitled to collect in their region the tax which Muslims levy from non Muslims, called Djizia. In addition, they were receiving financial handouts and military support from the Ottoman central authority.
Turks had to work, pay standard Muslim taxes and die for those Muslims at war times. Good old days.

Not to mention that until the 19th century, the Ottoman lingua franca was Arabic language.
Mehmed II was funnily translating old Greek scripts, not to Turkish, but to Arabic so that his people understand.

Nowadays, for the last 5 years, ever since Feto Gulen ideology has been hit, it looks like Turks turned more into a Turkic nationalism and dropped Ottoman Islamism. Which is also normal. Every normal human would work and live for himself in the first place, not so that some Kurds or Lazes get an autonomous state or some Albanians and Bosnians enjoy life from Turkish tax payers.

Ottoman contribution to Turks is Istanbul and Thrace. With Northern Cyprus. That is still valuable. The Turks are happy to collect what Ottomans left behind in a valuable and positive sense (like rights upon Libya and Cyprus), yet even Turks don't want an Ottoman social construct in reality from what I see.