What if: Purge of non-Muslims happened in the Ottoman Empire?

[Sultan Suleiman]

I have been wondering in the last few months; How would have history played out had the Ottomans purged every single shred of Christianity from their Empire in response to expulsion of Muslims in Iberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista) in 15th century and then continue to apply that strategy to all the conquered lands?


http://www.allaboutturkey.com/img/ottoman-empire-1580.gif


Would the Ottomans be more stable without the fifth column back home on which they wasted so many resources pacifying and controlling? Or would the social, economic and political blow back be too much for the Empire to take?

For the second option take in mind that the Europe was pretty much politically shattered in that time and that the "mega conversions", judging by the speed of Shiiatization of Iran, far from impossible.

And most importantly; Had the Christians been given the simple choice between converting, dieing or leaving (like in Spain) and most of the remaining Orthodox and Catholic population had been converted to Islam would the Ottoman Empire and the institution of Caliphate survived to this day or would it fragment into many small ethnic Muslim states eventually or would it transform into a multi national federation of states something like a proposed idea of Imperial Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Federation) (just with an Islamic twist)?

[Partizan]

I think Ottomans would be more relaxed in this situation :thumbs I think, for replacing the population, Ottomans would accept Sunni Turkic refugees from Safavid Empire. However, if you'd say 16.th century, I would recommend settling Arabs to Europe instead. That was one of the things Ottomans had to do.

[Incel King]

Austria-Hungary failed although it was predominately Christian monarchy so I assume that it would happen with Ottoman Empire too. Kurds hate Turks and want to gain Independence from Turkey regardless of same religion.

[Rastko]

It would be self-kill.

There was a reason why they didn't convert everyone.

[Sultan Suleiman]

I think Ottomans would be more relaxed in this situation :thumbs I think, for replacing the population, Ottomans would accept Sunni Turkic refugees from Safavid Empire. However, if you'd say 16.th century, I would recommend settling Arabs to Europe instead. That was one of the things Ottomans had to do.

Doubt that any major ethnic transplantation would have been possible mate (because Arabs were barely 12 million strong before 19th century).

And we are talking just about the native population :)

[Sultan Suleiman]

Austria-Hungary failed although it was predominately Christian monarchy so I assume that it would happen with Ottoman Empire too. Kurds hate Turks and want to gain Independence from Turkey regardless of same religion.

A valid opinion.

Ottoman Empire in it's early stages was too ethno centrist to have survived another (western) block of Muslim ethnicities.

Earlier reform like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat) would have to take place if the Empire had any chances of surviving.

[Hoca]

This is always what I have been saying. Biggest mistake Otttomans made.

[Partizan]

Doubt that any major ethnic transplantation would have been possible mate (because Arabs were barely 12 million strong before 19th century).

And we are talking just about the native population :)

What I mean is... If Balkans would be deserted, someone needs to take place. I offered Arabs because for example Englishmen mostly sent Irish and Scottish people to their colonies, since nobody wants to endanger his kin. Arabs were one of the most problematic Muslim subjects of Ottoman empire, but their replacement would help Islamising newly conquered lands.


It would be self-kill.

There was a reason why they didn't convert everyone.


Mawali or mawālá (Arabic: موالي‎) is a term in Classical Arabic used to address non-Arab Muslims. The term gained prominence during the Umayyad Caliphate (c. 661-750 CE/41–132 AH), as many non-Arabs such as Persians, Turks and Kurds converted to Islam. The influx of non-Arab converts to Islam created a new difficulty in incorporating them into tribal Arab society.[1] The solution appeared to be the contract of wala', through which the non-Arab Muslims acquired an Arab patron. They continued to pay a similar tax that was required from the people of the book and were generally excluded from government and the military until the end of the Umayyad Caliphate.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawali

Ottomans also could do that, if you talk about Jizya.

[Onur]

And most importantly; Had the Christians been given the simple choice between converting, dieing or leaving (like in Spain) and most of the remaining Orthodox and Catholic population had been converted to Islam would the Ottoman Empire and the institution of Caliphate survived to this day or would it fragment into many small ethnic Muslim states eventually or would it transform into a multi national federation of states something like a proposed idea of Imperial Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Federation) (just with an Islamic twist)?
If Turks would offer same choices as Spanish did during the so-called reconquista, then it would probably end up with some kind of federation today, like the former USSR or today`s big Russian federation.

BUT, if Turks would do what Spanish did in central to south America, then whole Balkans would speak Turkish now and the former cultures of Balkanites would consists of few ruins and some stories from the distant past like Maya, Aztec in America. The Ottoman empire would probably still exist today due to proximity of Balkans to Istanbul/Anatolia. Most likely with a regime similar to the one proposed in Tanzimat reforms.

[Incal]

The Balkans would be like Africa.

[American_Hispanist]

wouldn't do any good. Araps betrayed Turks in WW1, and they were muslim. Kurds are doing the same shit right now, and they are muslims.

[Hoca]

If Turks would offer same choices as Spanish did during the so-called reconquista, then it would probably end up with some kind of federation, like USSR.

BUT, if Turks would do what Spanish did in central to south America, then whole Balkans would speak Turkish now and the former cultures of Balkanites would consists of ruins and some stories from the distant past like Maya, Aztec ruins in America. Probably Ottoman empire would still exist today due to proximity of Balkans to Istanbul/Anatolia.

Ottoman empire wouldn't necessary have to exist. It could also be just called Turkey.

[Hoca]

wouldn't do any good. Araps betrayed Turks in WW1, and they were muslim. Kurds are doing the same shit right now, and they are muslims.

Turks didn't pursue turkification program with Arabs and Kurds. That is the problem. If Turks pursued the same program colonizers did in America whole of Balkan would be Turkish.

[American_Hispanist]

Turks didn't pursue turkification program with Arabs and Kurds. That is the problem. If Turks pursued the same program colonizers did in America whole of Balkan would be Turkish.

but the people here in the new world still rebelled against their colonial masters.

[Hoca]

but the people here in the new world still rebelled against their colonial masters.
But what was the end result? Maybe if Americans acted naively like the Ottomans and gave cultural and relgious freedoms to Native Americans. America would be another Balkan.

[Onur]

The Balkans would be like Africa.
Spanish already did what we discussed here to you guys. How about your Peru or the rest of America? You guys are like Africa now?


Ottoman empire wouldn't necessary have to exist. It could also be just called Turkey.
Ottoman empire or Turkey, both was the same back then. We have a distinction today because of the foundation of modern Turkish republic in 1923 but there was no such a distinction back then. For example, the empire has been called as Turkey, not as Ottoman in 9 out 10 documents written by western Europeans or by the rest of the world. Also, Balkans has been called as "European Turkey" for centuries by the whole world.

[Gospodine]

How would they have physically and logistically accomplished this though?
You're talking about, at a minimum 3-5 million people, by the time of Suleiman I.

Christian converts made up a majority of their standing army; where would they source new recruits from?

Would have been rather disastrous, like the Romans purging Greek influence from their Empire.

[Virtuous]

We'd all have a nice Arab-Turkic-Islamic Europe, wouldn't we? What a pity :coffee:.

[American_Hispanist]

But what was the end result? Maybe if Americans acted naively like the Ottomans and gave cultural and relgious freedoms to Native Americans. America would be another Balkan.

no, it wouldn't be another balkans. it would be a different place, but i can't what if because we are living in the now.

[Sultan Suleiman]

What I mean is... If Balkans would be deserted, someone needs to take place. I offered Arabs because for example Englishmen mostly sent Irish and Scottish people to their colonies, since nobody wants to endanger his kin. Arabs were one of the most problematic Muslim subjects of Ottoman empire, but their replacement would help Islamising newly conquered lands.

The population of native converts wouldn't have fallen that drastically if we look at other examples of "convert or die" situations.

Muslims converted to Christianity in Andalusia in quite a short space of time, I doubt it would be any different in Balkans if the same policies would have been applied.

While as new lands were acquired I think the population of the Balkanian converts (after it re bounced from the "Inquisition") would be more preferable to fill the gap rather than Arabs (as it was IRL when Hungary was occupied).

[Partizan]

wouldn't do any good. Araps betrayed Turks in WW1, and they were muslim. Kurds are doing the same shit right now, and they are muslims.

Actually generalizing Arabs here is not right, I must say. Some bedouin tribes betrayed us but some others like Shammar tribe cooperated with us. Also Arabs and Berbers of Ma3reb were always with us in our Independence War. Those who came to Turkey under French corps changed their sides and betrayed French for the sake of us :bearhug:

No need to say who is the man with Atatürk, an Arab Sheikh!

http://arastiralim.net/ilk/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/1314.jpg

(A Libyan who helped Atatürk during independence war, for persuading devout people to join Turkish war of Independence. He even traveled to Syria and started some rebellions, that is one of the reasons why French signed Treaty of Ankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ankara_(1921)).)

Also in Italo-Turkish War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Turkish_War), Arabs sided with us against Italians...

Again picture of the same guy :cool:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Trablusgarp2.jpg

[Gospodine]

Balkans has been called as "European Turkey" for centuries by the whole world.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4jiwtOsdw1rwj4q9o1_500.gif

[Hoca]

How would they have physically and logistically accomplished this though?
You're talking about, at a minimum 3-5 million people, by the time of Suleiman I.

Christian converts made up a majority of their standing army; where would they source new recruits from?

Would have been rather disastrous, like the Romans purging Greek influence from their Empire.

What do you mean physically and logistically? Ottoman empire was the sole super power in that era other than some other Turkic dynasties. There wouldn't be a problem.

[Onur]

How would they have physically and logistically accomplished this though?

You're talking about, at a minimum 3-5 million people, by the time of Suleiman I
The numbers are irrelevant. Spanish massacred more than 5 million native people only in in the first year of their discovery of America. Same thing happened in Australia when the first white man stepped in there. They killed millions in less than a year.

If Turks would give a choice of converting or leaving, then already one million of them would accept islam in a year, the other one million of them would migrate to the north, to the catholic territories and they could have massacred the rest of the rebels. So, it could be mission accomplished in 2-3 years at max.


Gospodine, you could have search the google for 19-18th century maps of Ottoman empire drawn by French, German and British, instead of posting that weird picture.

[Partizan]

How would they have physically and logistically accomplished this though?
You're talking about, at a minimum 3-5 million people, by the time of Suleiman I.

Christian converts made up a majority of their standing army; where would they source new recruits from?

Would have been rather disastrous, like the Romans purging Greek influence from their Empire.

Nah, not really... Timariots and "akıncı"s were Turks, Kapıkulu(including Janissaries) made up around 2/7 of army, just that.


The population of native converts wouldn't have fallen that drastically if we look at other examples of "convert or die" situations.

Muslims converted to Christianity in Andalusia in quite a short space of time, I doubt it would be any different in Balkans if the same policies would have been applied.

While as new lands were acquired I think the population of the Balkanian converts (after it re bounced from the "Inquisition") would be more preferable to fill the gap rather than Arabs (as it was IRL when Hungary was occupied).

I see, you are right.

But I still think, placing non-Turkic Muslims to Balkans would be a better idea than settling my great-great-great(...)parents :p

[Sultan Suleiman]

How would they have physically and logistically accomplished this though?

Iran and Central Asia were depopulated by 70% (from 20 million people to mere 2-7 millions) under two decades.


You're talking about, at a minimum 3-5 million people, by the time of Suleiman I.

Seems about right.


Christian converts made up a majority of their standing army; where would they source new recruits from?

Partizan answered this.


Would have been rather disastrous, like the Romans purging Greek influence from their Empire.

There would be a two or three decade intelligentsia vacuum and economy would have suffered, to be sure, but benefits of having a mono religious stable empire for next centuries (before the rise of nationalism) kinda beat those temporary cons if you ask me.

[Lábaru]

Muslims converted to Christianity in Andalusia in quite a short space of time,

:confused::confused::confused:

[American_Hispanist]

Spanish massacred more than 5 million native people only in in the first year of their discovery of America.


Are you a dumbass who believes anti-Spanish propaganda or what?

[Sultan Suleiman]

:confused::confused::confused:

After the fall of Muslim cities the same option of converting, dieing (and leaving in some cases), most of the population opted for the first one.

[Gospodine]

What do you mean physically and logistically? Ottoman empire was the sole super power in that era. There wouldn't be a problem.

Yes there would be a problem.

The Ottoman Military at it's peak was 250,000 strong (and that was for a very brief period of time). How exactly are you going to exterminate 3-5 million from rugged, mountainous terrain (the Balkans and the Caucasus) where you'll be subject to insurgencies the kind the Montenegrins put up that resisted the Ottomans indefinitely?

There's no way the Ottomans could have "purged" the majority or anything close a majority of Christians in the 14th - 17th centuries from their territories.

Displaced/Expelled/Deported a good amount, maybe, but outright killed? No.

And, like I said, where would the future generations of Janissaries come from after that?

The Ottomans couldn't afford such a drastic decline in numbers after 1683.

[Sultan Suleiman]

Yes there would be a problem.

The Ottoman Military at it's peak was 250,000 strong (and that was for a very brief period of time). How exactly are you going to exterminate 3-5 million from rugged, mountainous terrain (the Balkans and the Caucasus) where you'll be subject to insurgencies the kind the Montenegrins put up that resisted the Ottomans indefinitely?

There's no way the Ottomans could have "purged" the majority or anything close a majority of Christians in the 14th - 17th centuries from their territories.

Displaced/Expelled/Deported a good amount, maybe, but outright killed? No.

And, like I said, where would the future generations of Janissaries come from after that?

The Ottomans couldn't afford such a drastic decline in numbers after 1683.

Already explained most of those questions above mate.

[Hoca]

Yes there would be a problem.

The Ottoman Military at it's peak was 250,000 strong (and that was for a very brief period of time). How exactly are you going to exterminate 3-5 million from rugged, mountainous terrain (the Balkans and the Caucasus) where you'll be subject to insurgencies the kind the Montenegrins put up that resisted the Ottomans indefinitely?

There's no way the Ottomans could have "purged" the majority or anything close a majority of Christians in the 14th - 17th centuries from their territories.

Displaced/Expelled/Deported a good amount, maybe, but outright killed? No.

And, like I said, where would the future generations of Janissaries come from after that?

The Ottomans couldn't afford such a drastic decline in numbers after 1683.

I don't think it would be a problem. Turkish janissary would easily cut through rebel resistance since they already conquered them and there was no organization or external party to help them such as Russia. As others have said. The job would be finished in one or two years and after that a golden age. But as the OP said, convert, die or go away like the Spanish used in America is not the only option. Turks could also used Turkficiation programs to teach the language to Balkan population and integrate them into the Ottoman identity. The Ottomans didn't do that anywhere they went , not in middle-east, not in Europe. But that is a subject for another topic.

[Partizan]

Yes there would be a problem.

The Ottoman Military at it's peak was 250,000 strong (and that was for a very brief period of time). How exactly are you going to exterminate 3-5 million from rugged, mountainous terrain (the Balkans and the Caucasus) where you'll be subject to insurgencies the kind the Montenegrins put up that resisted the Ottomans indefinitely?

There's no way the Ottomans could have "purged" the majority or anything close a majority of Christians in the 14th - 17th centuries from their territories.

Displaced/Expelled/Deported a good amount, maybe, but outright killed? No.

He is talking about that already. The rest would be Islamised.


And, like I said, where would the future generations of Janissaries come from after that?

2/7 of army could be replaced with other units, like Turkomans from Anatolia and Middle East or units from other Muslims(I know it is not a good example but in Medieval Total War, I reached till Britain with an army which is 1/4 made up from Bedouin Cavalry :p).



The Ottomans couldn't afford such a drastic decline in numbers after 1683.

Well, 1683 is too late, I agree.

[Insuperable]

I have been wondering in the last few months; How would have history played out had the Ottomans purged every single shred of Christianity from their Empire in response to expulsion of Muslims in Iberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista) in 15th century and then continue to apply that strategy to all the conquered lands?


http://www.allaboutturkey.com/img/ottoman-empire-1580.gif


Would the Ottomans be more stable without the fifth column back home on which they wasted so many resources pacifying and controlling? Or would the social, economic and political blow back be too much for the Empire to take?

For the second option take in mind that the Europe was pretty much politically shattered in that time and that the "mega conversions", judging by the speed of Shiiatization of Iran, far from impossible.

And most importantly; Had the Christians been given the simple choice between converting, dieing or leaving (like in Spain) and most of the remaining Orthodox and Catholic population had been converted to Islam would the Ottoman Empire and the institution of Caliphate survived to this day or would it fragment into many small ethnic Muslim states eventually or would it transform into a multi national federation of states something like a proposed idea of Imperial Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Federation) (just with an Islamic twist)?

Jebalo te više to Carstvo i jebli te Turci


I think Ottomans would be more relaxed in this situation :thumbs I think, for replacing the population, Ottomans would accept Sunni Turkic refugees from Safavid Empire. However, if you'd say 16.th century, I would recommend settling Arabs to Europe instead. That was one of the things Ottomans had to do.

Fuck off

[Incal]

Spanish already did what we discussed here to you guys. How about your Peru or the rest of America? You guys are like Africa now?


Are you really going to compare Western based Spanish culture with Islamic based Turkish culture? There's no point of comparison. A westernized country will always work better than an Islamized one.

[Onur]

This is always what I have been saying. Biggest mistake Otttomans made.
No, massacre of christians would be stupid thing to do. Their biggest mistake was to allow orthodox church to remain intact and control the christian population in the whole empire.

They were stupid to trust the Rums [later became Greeks] and allow them to continue with their authority and even prosper. This was something wasn't done even by the Latins when they occupied Constantinople. Turks would do the same thing and end the orthodox authority, kill all their leaders and rape the nuns like Latin Crusaders did to them.

If they would do that, then christianity in Balkans and Anatolia would reduce to something like a folklore tradition over the time and most of them would accept islam eventually. This would happen probably in a century. The hardcore christians would migrate to catholic countries and the rest would convert to islam in 2-3 generations by their own will.




The Ottomans couldn't afford such a drastic decline in numbers after 1683.
Why you go forward in time to 17th century? Serbian resistance was completely broke in 1360s and Bulgarian resistance was over by 1380s. The Byzantines was already reduced to a tiny state only consists of Constantinople back then. They could have do that in 1400s.

[Sultan Suleiman]

Are you really going to compare Western based Spanish culture with Islamic based Turkish culture? There's no point of comparison. A westernized country will always work better than an Islamized one.

You're nation isn't exactly the best example mate :)

[Minesweeper]

Backward Ottoman feudal system was the main reason why Empire got weak and backward. Christians(and others too) later only used their weakness to liberate themselves.

If Ottoman tried to eliminate the entire Christian population by force, that would trigger a massive Crusade which would be their end.

[Twistedmind]

Lol at thread. Ottomans were to busy to try whole scale genocide, and it would be doomed. Even in Anatolia, 1912 there was 20-25% Christians (lower are Turkish and higher Ecumenical Patriarchate's data)

[Sultan Suleiman]

No, massacre of christians would be stupid thing to do. Their biggest mistake was to allow orthodox church to remain intact and control the christian population in the whole empire.


Probably the biggest and THE fatal mistake which Ottomans ever did.

[Partizan]

Are you really going to compare Western based Spanish culture with Islamic based Turkish culture? There's no point of comparison. A westernized country will always work better than an Islamized one.

You are talking with today's mind. Geographic explores and the new golden flow from Americas to Europe(see Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano), endless purges of Jews(which caused them to create trade webs in great distances and do better trade, which also enriched England and Netherlands, see Jews and Modern Capitalism by Werner Sombart) and Renaissance changed a lot of things. Otherwise, till 17.th(or maybe even 18.th century), Oriental Culture were quite above Western ones.

While Al-Qordoba, Konya, Samarkand, Baghdad etc. were centers of trade and science, London and Paris were just like... Villages.

[Hoca]

Backward Ottoman feudal system was the main reason why Empire got weak and backward. Christians(and others too) later only used their weakness to liberate themselves.

If Ottoman tried to eliminate the entire Christian population by force, that would trigger a massive Crusade which would be their end.
If a crusade would be organized it would be organized after Constantinople(apple of the world) was taken by the Turks. xD

[Sultan Suleiman]

Lol at thread. Ottomans were to busy to try whole scale genocide, and it would be doomed. Even in Anatolia, 1912 there was 20-25% Christians (lower are Turkish and higher Ecumenical Patriarchate's data)

Hey it a WHAT IF; thread :D

Loved these kinds of threads since my days at Civfanatics xD

Next one would be what if the Persians withstood the original Islamic conquest?

[Gospodine]

Iran and Central Asia were depopulated by 70% (from 20 million people to mere 2-7 millions) under two decades.

Lol. Okay, first off which is it 2 mill or 7 mil because there is a massive difference between the two figures. Second, for Iran try a reduction of 2,500,000 to 250,000 when the Mongols arrived.

These figures you're quoting are balls-out retarded.

A better analogy for what would have happened if the Ottomans had tried to eradicate every last ounce of Christianity from their Empire, rather than the Mongols, would be the Caliphate invasion of Zoroastrian Persia/Central Asia (and they did pursue an aggressive Islamization policy).

First, millions of Zoroastrians fled to India to become Parsis; second, the resistance was fierce as fuck; major cities in Persia had to be re-taken and "re-converted" 4 times or more, and third the Arabs famously lamented that the Persians never needed them before but that they couldn't govern their provinces without the Persians for a single day (what I was saying about a loss of manpower and a loss of organization; how many of the Beys/Pashas were native Balkanians? Practically all of them. Who would run their Empire without all of these Christians?)

Also, there would be enclaves all over the place that would hold indefinitely or at least long enough to exhaust the Turks military so that they would be susceptible to other foreign powers.

The people of Tabaristan, the Deylamites and certain Central Asian fiefdoms held out for at least hundred years or more after the fall of most of Iran. The Arabs just couldn't stamp out Zoroastrian and TO THIS DAY Zoroastrianism is still practiced in Iran, India and Afghanistan.

Like I said... if the Ottomans seriously turned things into a Muslims Vs. Christians free-for-all, the resistance they would get would be insurmountable.

Talk of killing millions in the pre-industrial era shows a gross lack of knowledge regarding military history.

[Minesweeper]

If a crusade would be organized it would be organized after Constantinople(apple of the world) was taken by the Turks. xD

And your point is?

Not even Pope would watch systematical and total annihilation of Christians in Europe without reaction.

[Onur]

If Ottoman tried to eliminate the entire Christian population by force, that would trigger a massive Crusade which would be their end.
Turks already defeated 9 crusades here. They already organized several crusades regardless of what. The Ottoman empire was the most powerful entity back then. They could defeat 9 more crusades too. It wouldn't be a problem.

Ottoman empire`s army was disciplined, strong and fully organized. The crusaders was just few rapists and other criminals who joined the crusade to confess their sins, some useless children of peasants and under the command of their sissy leaders with heavy armor.



Probably the biggest and THE fatal mistake which Ottomans ever did.
Yes, who could have thought that right? Even Latins didn't trust them but Turks trusted them and handed over the authority :)



Like I said... if the Ottomans seriously turned things into a Muslims Vs. Christians free-for-all, the resistance they would get would be insurmountable.

What you talking about, what resistance? Ottoman empire could eradicate any resistance of Balkan peasants.

[Twistedmind]

Hey it a WHAT IF; thread :D

Loved these kinds of threads since my days at Civfanatics xD
I see. But, in that case, they would not be able to do so. There was to many nations to use such opportunity to attack Ottomans, and when you use army for whole scale purging, you dont have Army to defend you. There were som atrocties, but allways somewhat localised. For example, Levantine and Anataolian Christians were not suffering as consequence of Balkan rebellions, and vice versa.




Next one would be what if the Persians withstood the original Islamic conquest?
They would probably got Christianized, since only way to do so would be with help of Byzantines and Armenians.

[Hoca]

And your point is?

Not even Pope would watch systematical and total annihilation of Christians in Europe without reaction.

My point is Pope would do nothing because he can't.

And nobody is talking about total annihilation of Christians. Only few Christians would die in the process of Islamization.

I think this would be also better for the whole region. More developed, strong and united.

[TheMagnificent]

:confused::confused::confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morisco

[Partizan]

Backward Ottoman feudal system was the main reason why Empire got weak and backward. Christians(and others too) later only used their weakness to liberate themselves.

Actually I wouldn't call Tımar system backward, it did not allow feudal lords to be bigger and be rather troublesome(unlike in Western Europe which had many little states in a kingdom, or in Eastern Roman Empire, where had to deal with feudal lords as we call tekfurs), Tımar system was like attending a trustful man to a land so that he would train soldiers(Timariot) and continue the fertility of land.


If Ottoman tried to eliminate the entire Christian population by force, that would trigger a massive Crusade which would be their end.

We faced biggest Crusades just at start of our Beglik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S%C4%B1rp_S%C4%B1nd%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Varna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis

We coped with all, tbh. Until late 17.th century, Ottoman Empire was quite badass.

[Gospodine]

They would probably got Christianized, since only way to do so would be with help of Byzantines and Armenians.

Doubt it. They would have likely remained Zoroastrian to this day. Hell, under the ultra-nationalist Shah (who titled himself Shahanshah; "King of Kings" a title not used since the Sassanid Empire), Iran practically was Zoroastrian for a period of time in all but name.

[Minesweeper]

My point is Pope would do nothing because he can't.

And nobody is talking about total annihilation of Christians. Only few Christians would die in the process of Islamization.

I think this would be also better for the whole region. More developed, strong and united.

Islamize them and you have annihilated them. :rolleyes:

And last part of the post is not worth of commenting.

[Gospodine]

We faced biggest Crusades just at start of our Beglik.

We coped with all, tbh.

... with a far smaller population, far less territory, and you weren't trying to commit a Holocaust/Stalin-like deportation simultaneously.

[Twistedmind]

Doubt it. They would have likely remained Zoroastrian to this day. Hell, under the ultra-nationalist Shah (who titled himself Shahanshah; "King of Kings" a title not used since the Sassanid Empire), Iran practically was Zoroastrian for a period of time in all but name.

They were allready asking for marriage alliances with Byzantines. And such alliances were one of biggest factors in spreading of Christianity. For example, most of Europe got Christianized in simmilar scenarios.

[Hoca]

And last part of the post is not worth of commenting.

Compare Serbia to Turkey :)

Region would be 5 times more wealthy.

[Gospodine]

They were allready asking for marriage alliances with Byzantines. And such alliances were one of biggest factors in spreading of Christianity. For example, most of Europe got Christianized in simmilar scenarios.

That was nothing but a fake formality to smooth over an uneasy alliance.

The Byzantines and Persians never liked each other anyway until the threat of Arab expansion made them realise they will both go the way of the Dodo unless they cooperate; even then, they failed to take action early enough.

A lot of people fail to realise just how strongly pre-Islamic elements have survived into modern-day Iran.

[Incal]

You're nation isn't exactly the best example mate :)

Not the best example and even so if we compare it with other nations like Pakistan, Egypt, etc it is doing way better. Now if we count the top players (US, Oz, Brazil, etc) you'll see that territories settled by Euros/Western/Christians fared way better than territories that were Islamized.

[Twistedmind]

That was nothing but a fake formality to smooth over an uneasy alliance.

The Byzantines and Persians never liked each other anyway until the threat of Arab expansion made them realise they will both go the way of the Dodo unless they cooperate; even then, they failed to take action early enough.

You think Franks and Anglo Saxons or Rus' princes and Byzantines liked each other. There was full scale war between Kievan Rus and Byzantine Empire for few decades before conversion.

[Partizan]

... with a far smaller population, far less territory, and you weren't trying to commit a Holocaust/Stalin-like deportation simultaneously.

If you take Battle of Nicopolis as an example, Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Genoa, Kingdom of Venice and Knights Hospitaller were against us. What could be worse?

[Twistedmind]

If you take Battle of Nicopolis as an example, Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Genoa, Kingdom of Venice and Knights Hospitaller were against us. What could be worse?

What would happened if French were not giving Ottoman fleet shalter during winter, and chosed to cooperate with Habsburgs. Battle of Nicopolis was not really something where France was involved, rather some knights on individual basis.
Ottomans were of course among leading powers of world, but not stronger than entire Europe taken together.

[Hoca]

Not the best example and even so if we compare it with other nations like Pakistan, Egypt, etc it is doing way better. Now if we count the top players (US, Oz, Brazil, etc) you'll see that territories settled by Euros/Western/Christians fared way better than territories that were Islamized.

Balkan is only a mess because we left.

Turkey should form a pact with Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and other pro-Turkish countries. Those other countries will succumb under our influence and Balkan will surpass shitty Peru 50 folds

[Sultan Suleiman]

They would probably got Christianized, since only way to do so would be with help of Byzantines and Armenians.

I doubt it, "The undying Light of Aryans" would have survived the Muslims if it was devastated by a decade long war.

Lux Invicta, I think it was called by Romans.

[Insuperable]

Balkan is only a mess because we left.

Turkey should form a pact with Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and other pro-Turkish countries. Those other countries will succumb under our influence and Balkan will surpass shitty Peru 50 folds

Balkans is a mess because you came there. LoL, how different we think.
As many have said while people were experiencing Renaissance we had Central Asian shit at our doorstep and war after a war.

Even if Balkans is a mess beacause you left I bet we all would still agree that you go the further away you could.

[Hoca]

Hahaha :D Croatians would have invented space ships by now

[Sultan Suleiman]

Hahaha :D Croatians would have invented space ships by now


Why do you bother responding to little Miss Butthurt over there mate?

[Insuperable]

Hahaha :D Croatians would have invented space ships by now

What are you babbling anyway?


Why do you bother responding to little Miss Butthurt over there mate?

Look at Albos and Bosnians. They have the biggest influence from the Ottomans and yet the most backwards nations in Europe. I have no reason to be butthurt debilu.

[Insuperable]

Compare Serbia to Turkey :)

Region would be 5 times more wealthy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

Yes, please do compare.

[Twistedmind]

Hahaha :D Croatians would have invented space ships by now

Ottoman conquest of Balkans took 219 years. ;) Not really impressive.

[Incal]

Balkan is only a mess because we left.

Balkan is a mess because they've been "civilized" by:

1) ottoman islam, and

2) (eurasian) soviet communism

I'm actually amazed they could have survived those 2 mortal blows, one after another.




Turkey should form a pact with Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and other pro-Turkish countries. Those other countries will succumb under our influence and Balkan will surpass shitty Peru 50 folds

On that I totally agree. On the second part not tho. The New World has a way more promising future than the Balkans or the Middle East in part because we are more dynamic and not as conservative and fanatic. We have richer and vaster lands too.

[Sultan Suleiman]

Look at Albos and Bosnians. They have the biggest influence from the Ottomans and yet the most backwards nations in Europe. I have no reason to be butthurt debilu.

Backwards? :D

That coming from a man whose people have whoredout their entire economy to Germans to prove how "advanced and superior" they are. :rolleyes:

I will see how long that "progress" will last when Njemci pull the chain and call in all of that credit bro :thumb001:

[Insuperable]

Backwards? :D

That coming from a man whose people have whoredout their entire economy to Germans to prove how "advanced and superior" they are. :rolleyes:

I will see how long that "progress" will last when Njemci pull the chain and call in all of that credit bro :thumb001:

Again you with the same crap:picard1:

Whatever we did at least we are not the last crap of Europe.;)

[Energia]

I feel like they could not have afforded something like that.

Imagine a day without the infidels...
who would have paid the jizya?
who would have plowed the land?
and fought as janissaries?
and populated the sultans' harem?
and did peculiar business minorities like Jews and Christians used to do?

[Wadaad]

Their Jizya revenues would have dwindled to zero...it would usher collapse of the Ottoman bureaucracy within a century of your hypothetical scenario.

[Hoca]

Their Jizya revenues would have dwindled to zero...it would usher collapse of the Ottoman bureaucracy within a century of your hypothetical scenario.
I'm sure they would find another tax or another income. Muslims would be taxed too.

[Partizan]

I feel like they could not have afforded something like that.

Imagine a day without the infidels...
who would have paid the jizya?


Their Jizya revenues would have dwindled to zero...it would usher collapse of the Ottoman bureaucracy within a century of your hypothetical scenario.

I already answered it here:


Mawali or mawālá (Arabic: موالي‎) is a term in Classical Arabic used to address non-Arab Muslims. The term gained prominence during the Umayyad Caliphate (c. 661-750 CE/41–132 AH), as many non-Arabs such as Persians, Turks and Kurds converted to Islam. The influx of non-Arab converts to Islam created a new difficulty in incorporating them into tribal Arab society.[1] The solution appeared to be the contract of wala', through which the non-Arab Muslims acquired an Arab patron. They continued to pay a similar tax that was required from the people of the book and were generally excluded from government and the military until the end of the Umayyad Caliphate.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawali

Ottomans also could do that, if you talk about Jizya.

About forced conversion thing.



who would have plowed the land?

Did British colonists died from hunger after they decimated entire Native American population in North America? I think no :rolleyes:


and fought as janissaries?

Do you think that, Jannisarries were sole unit of Ottomans?


Nah, not really... Timariots and "akıncı"s were Turks, Kapıkulu(including Janissaries) made up around 2/7 of army, just that.


2/7 of army could be replaced with other units, like Turkomans from Anatolia and Middle East or units from other Muslims(I know it is not a good example but in Medieval Total War, I reached till Britain with an army which is 1/4 made up from Bedouin Cavalry :p).


and populated the sultans' harem?

:picard1: Yeah, every problem is over and our dear Sultans will complain about their sexual problems... Typical Eurocentrist and Orientalist ignorance. But if a Sultan would get so horny for a Slavic chick, he could ask for Crimean Khan to raid Ukraine and Russia to bring some concubines. If he would get horny for some Med one, could ask for Barbary pirates to take some Italian, Greek or even Western European ones. So, it is not a big deal.


and did peculiar business minorities like Jews and Christians used to do?

Example? BTW Jews came after 1492 also there was no peculiar job which Balkan Slavs have done. The jobs which Greek and Armenians do could also be done by Turkish artizans. In Kayseri, there are even funny stories about how a Turkish tradesman palms his Armenian neighbor off. You know, you have to be talented at trading for palming someone off :cool:

[Energia]

Did British colonists died from hunger after they decimated entire Native American population in North America? I think no :rolleyes:

I thought natives of up there were hunter gatherers...:rolleyes:

moreover since the Europeans, starting with Anglos, are superior beings, they needed none to make a whole continent flourish :)

[Wadaad]

I thought natives of up there were hunter gatherers...:rolleyes:

moreover since the Europeans, starting with Anglos, are superior beings, they needed none to make a whole continent flourish :)

Many were infact agriculturalists, alot of our common place vegetable produce were first cultivated by Natives...since you didnt know this you certainly arent superior :p

[Partizan]

I thought natives of up there were hunter gatherers...:rolleyes:

Population of Britain:


England in 1600 had 4.2 million; by 1650, 5.5 million. As of 1700, it was down to 5.2 million (the really big growth didn't start until after 1750).
Scotland, 1 million in 1600, 1 million in 1650, 1.2 million in 1700.
Ireland, 1 million in 1600, 1.5 million in 1650, 2 million in 1700.

http://1632.org/1632tech/faqs/eur_pop.html

So, whole Britain must be 6.2-8.4 million people in the colonization era. However, all numbers estimated about pre-colonization Northern America are above 10 million(50 million is the most accepted today, there are even claims about 100 million). However, Brits choose to kill those people instead of making them slaves. They preferred Africans instead. Like that, Ottomans could find another population to fill place of Christians. Why we are discussing that anyway, in such a circumstance, most of them would just convert to Islam.


moreover since the Europeans, starting with Anglos, are superior beings, they needed none to make a whole continent flourish :)

You wish. They had a lot of Jews in start of colonization(again, Jews and the Modern Capitalism ,Werner Sombart) who helped them to keep trade alive(we can say, soul of the US is the Jewish soul. I am not an anti-Semite and I hate anti-Semitic conspiracy theories but it is the truth) , plus they had African muscles while building the States.

[Hurrem sultana]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

Yes, please do compare.

you would not eat sarma or baklava today :D

[CrystalMaiden]

That was a nice way to start a feces blizzard :D

So when can we see more of these "What if?" threads?

[morski]

However, Brits choose to kill those people instead of making them slaves. They preferred Africans instead.

Upon contact the overwhelming majority of the natives in the Americas died of Old World diseases they lacked immunity to.:rolleyes:

[Hoca]

Upon contact the overwhelming majority of the natives in the Americas died of Old World diseases they lacked immunity to.:rolleyes:

That is lie created by Europeans. The Britis intentionally gave infected blankets and other things to spread disease and to exterminate them. They killed all their lifestock and source of food. There is no doubt there was a program to exterminate them.

Even presidents were involved until recently:
http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-deciding-the-fate-of-300-indians-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-minnesotas-great-sioux-uprising.htm

[morski]

That is lie created by Europeans. The Britis intentionally gave infected blankets and other things to spread disease and to exterminate them. They killed all their lifestock and source of food. There is no doubt there was a program to exterminate them.

Even presidents were involved until recently:
http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-deciding-the-fate-of-300-indians-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-minnesotas-great-sioux-uprising.htm


Abraham Lincoln: Deciding the Fate of 300 Indians Convicted of War Crimes in Minnesota's Great Sioux Uprising

[Onur]

There are several letters of Latins asking for blankets from hospitals which previously belonged to the sick people infected with contagious diseases. They requested blankets from Europe because they said that it was too costly for them to massacre them by using bullets and too tiresome with swords. They transported 1000s of diseased blankets to America with cargo ships and delivered to the natives in exchange of gold.

These original letters still exists in state archives.

[morski]

There are several letters of Latins asking for blankets from hospitals which previously belonged to the sick people infected with contagious diseases. They requested blankets from Europe because they said that it was too costly for them to massacre them by using bullets and too tiresome with swords. They transported 1000s of diseased blankets to America with cargo ships and delivered to the natives in exchange of gold.

These original letters still exists in state archives.


Reasons for the decline of the Native American populations are variously theorized to be epidemic diseases, conflicts with Europeans, and conflicts among warring tribes. Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives.[59][60] After first contacts with Europeans and Africans, some believe that the death of 90 to 95% of the native population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases.[61] Half the native population of Hispaniola in 1518 was killed by smallpox.[62] Within a few years smallpox killed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European disease weakening them further.[63] Smallpox was only the first epidemic. Typhus (probably) in 1546, influenza and smallpox together in 1558, smallpox again in 1589, diphtheria in 1614, measles in 1618—all ravaged the remains of Inca culture. Smallpox had killed millions of native inhabitants of Mexico.[64][65] Unintentionally introduced at Veracruz with the arrival of Pánfilo de Narváez on April 23, 1520, smallpox ravaged Mexico in the 1520s,[66] possibly killing over 150,000 in Tenochtitlan alone (the heartland of the Aztec Empire), and aided in the victory of Hernán Cortés over the Aztec empire at Tenochtitlan (present-day Mexico City) in 1521.[67]

Over the centuries, the Europeans had developed high degrees of immunity to these diseases, while the indigenous Americans had no such immunity.[68] Europeans had been ravaged in their own turn by such diseases as bubonic plague and Asian flu that moved west from Asia to Europe. In addition, when they went to some territories, such as Africa and Asia, they were more vulnerable to malaria.


The repeated outbreaks of influenza, measles and smallpox probably resulted in a decline of between one-half and two-thirds of the Aboriginal population of eastern North America during the first 100 years of European contact.[69] In 1617–1619, smallpox reportedly killed 90% of the Massachusetts Bay Colony Native American residents.[70] In 1633, in Plymouth, the Native Americans there were exposed to smallpox because of contact with Europeans. As it had done elsewhere, the virus wiped out entire population groups of Native Americans.[71] It reached Lake Ontario in 1636, and the lands of the Iroquois by 1679.[72][73] During the 1770s, smallpox killed at least 30% of the West Coast Native Americans.[74] Smallpox epidemics in 1780–1782 and 1837–1838 brought devastation and drastic population depletion among the Plains Indians.[75][76] In 1832, the federal government of the United States established a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans (The Indian Vaccination Act of 1832).[77][78]

Of course, every single soul of this multitude were personally issued with an infected blanket.:rolleyes:

[RussiaPrussia]

they wouldnt have an empire as half their population would be lost, it would also mean christians would fight to the death. There is only one example in history where some dicator tried and we saw how he ended.

[Hayalet]

I don't think it could have worked, but not for the reasons mentioned so far:


Jizya wasn't of central importance to the Ottoman treasury. Apparently, it made up 8% of the total budget along with ispençe.



After the 17th century, Janissaries were mostly selected among Muslim Turkish volunteers. They performed the same as before. (On the other hand, Western armies started to perform much better.)

[Hoca]

Nobody is talking about extermination but trukification program, just like the Americans used against native Americans to make them Christian.

The turks didn't push their subjects to become muslim at all. If they took different approach, a more "european" approach if you will, things would be in our favor a lot.

[Onur]

Nobody is talking about extermination but trukification program, just like the Americans used against native Americans to make them Christian.

The turks didn't push their subjects to become muslim at all. If they took different approach, a more "european" approach if you will, things would be in our favor a lot.
As i said before, there was no need for any "turkification or islamization" program because we ruled in these places for 350-550 years. This is a veeeryy long time.

All they needed to do was to abolish orthodox churches and kill all the high clergy in whole Balkans and Istanbul. There was no need to deal with the ordinary people at all. If they would do that, i am 100% sure that the hardcore christians would leave and orthodoxy would reduce to some kind of folklore element in two generations and by the 4th generation, most would choose islam by their own will. By 19th century, no one even would remember orthodoxy in Balkans and Anatolia but it would only be remembered by the scholars who reads history.


Latins did much worse to orthodoxs in 13th century, it`s quite unbelievable why Turks didn't do the same but instead, they probably thought like they can get orthodoxs by their side and fight against Papacy. This trick worked for some time but the trigger turned to the Turks afterwards. They were stupid to trust the Rums, later known as Greeks.

[SILNI]

As i said before, there was no need for any "turkification or islamization" program because we ruled in these places for 350-550 years. This is a veeeryy long time.

All they needed to do was to abolish orthodox churches and kill all the high clergy in whole Balkans and Istanbul. There was no need to deal with the ordinary people at all. If they would do that, i am 100% sure that the hardcore christians would leave and orthodoxy would reduce to some kind of folklore element in two generations and by the 4th generation, most would choose islam by their own will. By 19th century, no one even would remember orthodoxy in Balkans and Anatolia but it would only be remembered by the scholars who reads history.


Latins did much worse to orthodoxs in 13th century, it`s quite unbelievable why Turks didn't do the same but instead, they probably thought like they can get orthodoxs by their side and fight against Papacy. This trick worked for some time but the trigger turned to the Turks afterwards. They were stupid to trust the Rums, later known as Greeks.

You tried same program with Kurds , and as we can see they still exist.
My family fought against turks for generations and I am still christian same as my grand/grand/grand father was.

[Hoca]

And at the end, they all have a big mouth.

[Partizan]

You tried same program with Kurds , and as we can see they still exist.

Did we? Maybe just between 1925-1953. And the Turkification process got slowed after Atatürk's death. If Atatürk would live as much as Stalin, today there would be nothing called as Kurd in Turkey...

Türkler için:

ImSgKE7k-Xk

[Hoca]

We didn't imply islamificaiton of Turkification towards Serbs, Albanians and Bulgarians.

[SILNI]

Did we? Maybe just between 1925-1953. And the Turkification process got slowed after Atatürk's death. If Atatürk would live as much as Stalin, today there would be nothing called as Kurd in Turkey...

Maybe , you know better situation in Turkey than me , but what we can see via tv & newspapers is that there is a big repression of kurds in turkey even though theirs population is somewhere between 20 - 25 millions?

Plus they have territorial autonomy in north Iraq now ...

[Partizan]

Maybe , you know better situation in Turkey than me , but what we can see via tv & newspapers is that there is a big repression of kurds in turkey even though theirs population is somewhere between 20 - 25 millions?

Plus they have territorial autonomy in north Iraq now ...

Repression? Actually I must say our government is doing everything for Kurds, allowing them language courses and lessons(but even Kurds don't prefer to choose it) for example. We even allow PKK's political wing, BDP in Assembly :picard1: Their population is at most 12 million and a significant amount of them are Turkified, feel themselves Turkish more than anything else. Not even all non-Turkified ones are for independence. If all of them would be for independence, now BDP would gain 100% votes from all South-Eastern provinces. However, a large amount of Kurds(More than half) vote to ruling party due to their conservatism.

P.S: If you are defending Kurds, I must say that to you Kurds in Iraq and Turkey are just Middle Eastern versions of Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia. I mean political situation.

[SILNI]

P.S: If you are defending Kurds, I must say that to you Kurds in Iraq and Turkey are just Middle Eastern versions of Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia. I mean political situation.
I am not defending them , I am just curious what is going on out there.
They are the biggest nation on the planet without a country.
I had always wonder is it because they are weak or just because of bad history luck.

[Hoca]

I am not defending them , I am just curious what is going on out there.
They are the biggest nation on the planet without a country.
I had always wonder is it because they are weak or just because of bad history luck.

No, it is actually Iranian Turks that are biggest minority in the region. They 30 million.

[Partizan]

I am not defending them , I am just curious what is going on out there.
They are the biggest nation on the planet without a country.
I had always wonder is it because they are weak or just because of bad history luck.

It is a long story, if you ask me :) I can say, they are not a nation, not even an ethnicity, they lack lingual and cultural unity also despite the pseudo-scientific claims since 19.th century for creating a history to Kurds, I can say they have no traces in the history either.

However, since 19.th century, they are favorite tool of both imperialist states(Russia, France, Britain, the US...) in the Middle East, that is why they are represented as victims mostly.

[denz]

The numbers are irrelevant. Spanish massacred more than 5 million native people only in in the first year of their discovery of America.

I dont think this is true. Most of the natives had died due to biological effects which called "european disease"


the European diseases spread plague after deadly plague across the land. In a period of 130 years, something like 95 percent of all Native Americans died of disease. That number is far greater than experts (until recently) had ever suspected

[Leliana]

And most importantly; Had the Christians been given the simple choice between converting, dieing or leaving (like in Spain) and most of the remaining Orthodox and Catholic population had been converted to Islam...
Approval of invasion and turkification of European territory; approval of potential genocide on European people and European cultures Nr.1


What I mean is... If Balkans would be deserted, someone needs to take place. I offered Arabs because for example Englishmen mostly sent Irish and Scottish people to their colonies, since nobody wants to endanger his kin. Arabs were one of the most problematic Muslim subjects of Ottoman empire, but their replacement would help Islamising newly conquered lands.
Approval of invasion and turkification of European territory; approval of potential genocide on European people and European cultures Nr.2


If Turks would give a choice of converting or leaving, then already one million of them would accept islam in a year, the other one million of them would migrate to the north, to the catholic territories and they could have massacred the rest of the rebels. So, it could be mission accomplished in 2-3 years at max.
Approval of invasion and turkification of European territory; approval of potential genocide on European people and European cultures Nr.3

I don't think it would be a problem. Turkish janissary would easily cut through rebel resistance since they already conquered them and there was no organization or external party to help them such as Russia. As others have said. The job would be finished in one or two years and after that a golden age. But as the OP said, convert, die or go away like the Spanish used in America is not the only option. Turks could also used Turkficiation programs to teach the language to Balkan population and integrate them into the Ottoman identity.
Approval of invasion and turkification of European territory; approval of potential genocide on European people and European cultures Nr.4

Turks would do the same thing and end the orthodox authority, kill all their leaders and rape the nuns like Latin Crusaders did to them.

If they would do that, then christianity in Balkans and Anatolia would reduce to something like a folklore tradition over the time and most of them would accept islam eventually. This would happen probably in a century. The hardcore christians would migrate to catholic countries and the rest would convert to islam in 2-3 generations by their own will.
Approval of invasion and turkification of European territory; approval of potential genocide on European people and European cultures Nr.5

The Turks and their friends are showing their true, ugly and abominable face again! :stop00010: Look at them, here speak the so called 'moderate' Turks about European lands, European people and European culture. All of them should be banned for hardcore anti-European views on a board for European culture.

Are you blind to not see it? Are you an ignorant to not speak up against their malicious thoughts?

That's the spirit of hate, invasion and barbary just like it's inherent in their Turkish steppe genes. Nothing has ever changed, they still lust for conquest at all costs, at the prize of complete eradication of native Balkan cultures and people. They only regret their own break down of their own Empire, not the hundreds of thousands of killed, massacred and raped corpses and people they tramped down.

What cowards you are that I'm almost the only one who objects their nauseating fantasies! :mad:


Turks already defeated 9 crusades here. They already organized several crusades regardless of what. The Ottoman empire was the most powerful entity back then. They could defeat 9 more crusades too. It wouldn't be a problem.

There was no organized 'crusade' against the Ottoman Empire after Konstantinopel. The first real new 'crusade' with united forces was the 'Holy League' of 1683 who liberated Vienna from your reeking Ottoman breath and cleaned the Balkan from your presence in the subsequent time. They wiped the floor with your people, and hadn't the Brits switched sides centuries later, even Konstantinopel could have been released from Turkish occupation.

[Hayalet]

Approval of invasion and turkification of European territory; approval of potential genocide on European people and European cultures
All of those posts are hypothetical and about the past. If you want to see a person who is calling for fresh new invasions every now and then, you should look into a mirror. :)

[Hoca]

Leliana, we are only talking about hypotetical situation where Turks would act like Europeans in America

[Partizan]

Ow dear you're back :joy

Actually Altay answered you enough, so... I no need to answer your paranoid accusations.


There was no organized 'crusade' against the Ottoman Empire after Konstantinopel. The first real new 'crusade' with united forces was the 'Holy League' of 1683 who liberated Vienna from your reeking Ottoman breath and cleaned the Balkan from your presence in the subsequent time. They wiped the floor with your people, and hadn't the Brits switched sides centuries later, even Konstantinopel could have been released from Turkish occupation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis


Holy Roman Empire
Kingdom of France
Kingdom of Hungary
Wallachia
Knights Hospitaller
Republic of Venice
Republic of Genoa
Second Bulgarian Empire

Not a crusade? :eyes

[Leliana]

All of those posts are hypothetical and about the past. If you want to see a person who is calling for fresh new invasions every now and then, you should look into a mirror. :)
You better offer your 'explanation' on a random Turkish Basar because I won't buy your cheap excuses! One has just to read behind the lines to see all your foam at the mouth when you talk about the fall of the Ottoman Empire and your feverish dreams of an Ottoman Empire that should have turkified and islamisized all of the Balkans with force, by teaching them the Turkish language and let them forget about their own roots, by killing the Christians or giving them the perverse choice of whether to 'convert to Islam or die'.

This thread is full of Turkish wishful thinking and regret of a past that led to the fall of the Ottoman Empire on European soil. :picard2: Spare me your pathetic excuses, in this thread many Turks have shown their real nature and have given upright and proud Europeans enough reason to dislike and oppose them. Sadly there aren't many upright Europeans remaining!?! :( Too many are probably afraid to open their mouth and confront you bunch of adversaries to our wonderful continent.

[American_Hispanist]

We have an angry German girl here, who is angry she cant talk about Turks in real life, lol.

[Leliana]

Uhm, you expect me to take someone with the nick 'Mexican_Abdullah' serious? :picard2: Turks are disliked a lot in real life, it's the most hated immigrant group in Germany and Austria. But people don't tell it openly to the cameras because of the politically correct patrols. In secret, 60-70% would love to see the Turks go forever or have their butts kicked over to Anatolia.

[American_Hispanist]

And I proved my point without even trying, lol. our German blonde friend admitted she is too afraid to talk shit in real life, lol. you anti-Turks are so predictable, it's starting to bore me.

[StonyArabia]

Mexican_Abdullah I totally agree man.

[Dandelion]

Are you a dumbass who believes anti-Spanish propaganda or what?

The old Black Legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend), basically the result of creating propaganda using Spanish autocricism. It's quite similar to some Muslims using Western self-criticism ignoring their own atrocities in the past.
Truth in history is often hard to find, one has to remember this.

[Leliana]

And I proved my point without even trying, lol. our German blonde friend admitted she is too afraid to talk shit in real life, lol. you anti-Turks are so predictable, it's starting to bore me.
'lol' here, 'lol' there: Stop writing like a dork of small means, I'm organized in a local group of believing and traditional Catholics, I'm organized in another local group who fights and demonstrates against the dangers of Islam and I support parties who speak out against mass immigration and Turks/Muslims. A single individual can't do more than that without crossing some lines of fine ethics and the law.

Why don't you back off from debates about Europe and get involved in one of your local Mexican gunfights? :rolleyes:

[StonyArabia]

^ Mexicans are in a way part of Europe, they have good amount of paternal European ancestry. They have a right to discover that aspect of their roots.

[Dandelion]

People also forget that around the 17th century the Ottoman Empire was growing increasingly unstable. Armed forces for instance would often rob and terrorise their own population in order to get paid, causing some unhappiness of the population. It's not an all powerful empire and I doubt any of us would have been able to run it more properly.

[StonyArabia]

If Turks are evil for having an empire, the Western Europeans were more so, and this especially true of the British and Germans, who destroyed and humiliated non-Europeans in brutal means and form.

So don't act like your shit does not stink.

eX5T68TQIo

[Dandelion]

So don't act like your shit does not stink.

Where do I seem to do that? I don't get such reactions of animosity out of blue. I'm just saying that the Ottoman Empire was probably bound to collapse, as empires often do after they top (which they all do eventually).
An empire generally goes through the following phases: rise, stagnation, fall.

I don't see any ethnicity as evil. Ethnicities aren't collectives. Admittedly, I do find people with nostalgia a bit dubious though.

[Leliana]

^ Mexicans are in a way part of Europe, they have good amount of paternal European ancestry. They have a right to discover that aspect of their roots.
I don't need lecture about Europe from an Circassian Arab who sits in Canada and boasts about his backward homelands day by day. :picard2: Most Mexicans and Latinos are very mixed with native blood and if they have a right to do something, then to rebuild the temples of the Maya and Aztecs. But they are busy killing themselves in cartel- and mafia gunfights instead.

[StonyArabia]

Where do I seem to do that? I don't get such reactions of animosity out of blue.

I am talking in general not toward you. Some people keep whining why the non-Europeans dislike us or seem to have animosity toward them. If Turks were evil, then the people who are critiquing the Turks have no moral ground to stand. Especially since their empires have done, and even justified the subjugation of non-European people in harsh means, and Germany was one of these, and Britain was also known to what it has done throughout the non-European parts in it's empire.

[Hoca]

Leliana got probably dumped by her Turkish boyfriend. That would explain her animosity :D

[Dandelion]

I am talking in general not toward you. Some people keep whining why the non-Europeans dislike us or seem to have animosity toward them. If Turks were evil, then the people who are critiquing the Turks have no moral ground to stand. Especially since their empires have done, and even justified the subjugation of non-European people in harsh means, and Germany was one of these, and Britain the others.

I think anyone should be able to criticise anyone. Also, I also think ethnicities cannot be seen as collectives responsible for past events, especially not individuals born after it ended. One can only look for the truth and try to be honest about it.

[StonyArabia]

I think anyone should be able to criticise anyone. Also, I also think ethnicities cannot be seen as collectives responsible for past events, especially not individuals born after it ended. One can only look for the truth and try to be honest about it.

I could not agree more to be honest. This why I think it's stupid to dwell on the da bad Turks or whatever. However when you are not looking at what your own people did, and why they are disliked by various other groups due to past events, then you only will appear to be foolish and hypocrite.

[Queen B]

Balkan is only a mess because we left.

:picard1: That's the funniest comment in the whole thread.

[American_Hispanist]

'lol' here, 'lol' there: Stop writing like a dork of small means, I'm organized in a local group of believing and traditional Catholics, I'm organized in another local group who fights and demonstrates against the dangers of Islam and I support parties who speak out against mass immigration and Turks/Muslims. A single individual can't do mt that without crossing some lines of fine ethics and the law.

Why don't you back off from debates about Europe and get involved in one of your local Mexican gunfights? :rolleyes:

thats what you anti-Turks always say, that you guys arent alone, and all sorts of shit, but never true. And only a small minority of Mexicans are in cartel shit. way to go on stereotyping Nazi. thats what you anti-Turks always resort to, stereotyping. You anti-Turks can never use reasoning and always go to lowly insults. Just accept the fact that you are a keyboard warrior who will never do anything in real life. you are too afraid to do anything and resort to ranting from the safety of your computer.

[American_Hispanist]

I don't need lecture about Europe from an Circassian Arab who sits in Canada and boasts about his backward homelands day by day. :picard2: Most Mexicans and Latinos are very mixed with native blood and if they have a right to do something, then to rebuild the temples of the Maya and Aztecs. But they are busy killing themselves in cartel- and mafia gunfights instead.

You clearly don't know Mexico. :picard2:

[Leliana]

you are too afraid to do anything and resort to ranting from the safety of your computer.
Says the one with almost 1000 internet posts in less than a month in one single forum alone, not talking about the other fora you're likely to frequent. :lmao

I know what I do in my real life, and it's more than you'll ever do. Europe is important to me and Islam is our largest threat, world history since the days of Mohammed proves it day by day.

[American_Hispanist]

Says the one with almost 1000 internet posts in less than a month in one single fom alone, not talking about the other fora you're likely to frequent. :lmao

I know what I do in my real life, and it's more than you'll ever do. Europe is important to me and Islam is our largest threat, world history since the days of Mohammed proves it day by day.

It's called having a smartphone and being bored in classes. and lol, you think you are a crusader, lol. if you are a crusader, then im Thor, lol.

[Leliana]

and lol...lol...lol.
I reduced your posts to the interesting components.

[American_Hispanist]

I reduced your posts to the interesting components.

:bored:

[kabeiros]

The only reason that this abomination called Ottoman empire lasted for 5 centuries is because the Turks didn't try to convert all the Christians by force, if they have done such a stupid mistake there wouldn't be an Ottoman empire at all, just dead Turco-Mongols burried in the Balkans.

[legolasbozo]

The only reason that this abomination called Ottoman empire lasted for 5 centuries is because the Turks didn't try to convert all the Christians by force, if they have done such a stupid mistake there wouldn't be an Ottoman empire at all, just dead Turco-Mongols burried in the Balkans.

But don't you think that it is kinda weird, because many person on this forum talk about cruelty of ottoman turks, and you are talking about "if they would try to convert, they would buried alive" i mean if ottomans has undefinable cruelty and balkans has that power to suppress the ottomans, what prevent them to reacted like that?

because i get a conclusion, whether ottomans weren't so lunatic as they told, or balkans are just weak to react.

[Hoca]

The only reason that this abomination called Ottoman empire lasted for 5 centuries is because the Turks didn't try to convert all the Christians by force, if they have done such a stupid mistake there wouldn't be an Ottoman empire at all, just dead Turco-Mongols burried in the Balkans.

Who is going to defeat the Turco-mongols and bury them? The Spartans backed up by 300? :D

Until 18th century Turks were the sole super-power. We could have done everything we wish with you and that is the truth, as much as it is inconvenient for you.

[kabeiros]

But don't you think that it is kinda weird, because many person on this forum talk about cruelty of ottoman turks, and you are talking about "if they would try to convert, they would buried alive" i mean if ottomans has undefinable cruelty and balkans has that power to suppress the ottomans, what prevent them to reacted like that? You ask what prevented them from reacting like that, well the fact that despite being second class citizens in the empire they were left alone to keep their religion and culture. If the Ottomans have tried to forcefully Islamify and Turkify everyone there woulb be much stronger resistance, especially from proud people like Balkanites. The Ottoman emperors were wise enough to not try such a stupid policy, it would have been their doom. The conversion to Islam of large populations in Anatolia and a few in the Balkans was already enough for them.

[Partizan]

You ask what prevented them from reacting like that, well the fact that despite being second class citizens in the empire they were left alone to keep their religion and culture. If the Ottomans have tried to forcefully Islamify and Turkify everyone there woulb be much stronger resistance, especially from proud people like Balkanites. The Ottoman emperors were wise enough to not try such a stupid policy, it would have been their doom. The conversion to Islam of large populations in Anatolia and a few in the Balkans was already enough for them.

Actually it is about nature of us, Turks. Despite we got mixed by the ages, the steppic soul is always core of us. Since the private property thing and greediness was foreign to us, we did not think about converting Balkanites by force.

Look at Umayyad empire, they converted the area between Morocco and Transoxiana by force, so what? It is because of the feudal and slaver nature of Bedouins. But for us, Balkanites being loyal citizens was enough. If Ottomans would predict the future, things would be different now...

[Gospodine]

:picard1: That's the funniest comment in the whole thread.

There have been a lot of stupid comments made in this thread but I wouldn't call that one of them.

When a centralized government, particularly an absolute monarchy, fractures and a power vacuum results, it's historically almost always disastrous.

Why do you think the period after the collapse of Western Rome is called "The Dark Ages"?
(Funny how I never seen anyone arguing that finally those poor Iberians, Gauls, Celts, Illyrians, Dacians, Goths and others were liberated from oppressive Roman rule and rightfully given a chance at self-determination like they deserved?)

It doesn't matter if that centralized government is benevolent or malignant; the subjects of it are still dependent on it for their very survival and after several generations become habitually accustomed to a routine of the familiar.

Democracy/Socialism/Fascism/Nationalism can't simply be switched on like a light, so that suddenly everyone from peasant to priest knows their role to play for the greater good.

I mean the Balkans was literally in a state of war (in some region or another) from 1821 to 1918. A period of 97 years. Millions of combined casualties.

What progress was gained in that time? Real economic, political or social change? In all those arenas things were much worse than before.

The endless military exhaustion, betrayed allegiances, and paranoia set the stage for the Nazis to steamroll the Balkans and claim a combined 1.5 million casualties.

Is that a measure of success? Millions of lives, decades of in-fighting and bloodshed for some barely-functional independent states that once again fell prey to successive waves of imperialistic foreign influence, be it German, Soviet, American or Western European?
To the die-hard keyboard warriors and armchair generals who have a serious disconnect with society and show a lack of empathy for life in general, it may be, but for the average person, when presented with two pieces of statistics, they would choose the lesser of two evils.

To me pieces of cloth are not worth the sanctity of sanity and the gift of life but then again I am not a nationalist; so it's hard for me to relate with these views.

Realistically though, the Balkans continues to suffer at the hands of other, successive foreign powers who continue to meddle in their affairs, with disastrous consequences (i.e. the Yugoslav Wars) so to say that "magically", we have achieved light years of progress since we shed the Ottoman yoke is ludicrous.

It's still a bunch of Feudal fiefdoms who are well and truly harbouring an 18th century mentality and are the butt of Europe's many, many jokes.
Much as I hate to say that, it's indisputable and it's a deserved reputation.

[Partizan]

When a centralized government, particularly an absolute monarchy, fractures and a power vacuum results, it's historically almost always disastrous.

It doesn't matter if that that centralized government is benevolent or malignant; the subjects of it are still dependent on it for their very survival and after several generations become habitually accustomed to a routine of the familiar.


Despite Ottoman Empire is one of my favorites in the history, I must agree with that. The transition from an imperial monarchy to nation states is always painful.

One of my favorites from Atatürk:


Egemenlik ve saltanat hiç kimse tarafından hiç kimseye, ilim icabıdır diye; görüşme ile, münakaşa ile verilmez. Egemenlik, saltanat kuvvetle, kudretle ve zorla alınır. Osmanoğulları, zorla Türk milleti'nin egemenlik ve saltanatına el koymuşlardı; bu musallat olmalarını altı asırdan beri devam ettirmişlerdi. Şimdi de, Türk Milleti bu mütecavizlerin hadlerini ihtar ederek, egemenlik ve saltanatını, isyan ederek kendi eline açıkça almış bulunuyor. Bu bir olupbittidir. Söz konusu olan; millete saltanatını, egemenliğini bırakacak mıyız, bırakmayacak mıyız? Meselesi değildir. Mesele zaten olupbitti haline gelmiş bir hakikati ifadeden ibarettir. Bu, mutlaka olacaktır. Burada toplananlar, Meclis ve herkes meseleyi tabiî görürse, fikrimce uygun olur. Aksi takdirde, yine gerçek gerektiği şekilde ifade olunacaktır. Fakat ihtimal bazı kafalar kesilecektir. (1922)

Sovereignty and reign cannot be given to someone, with the reason of being requirement of wisdom. Sovereignty can be only taken by force. House of Osman seized Turkish nation's reign for six centuries; and they were going on about that for six centuries. Now, Turkish nation gave a lesson to those aggressors and has just taken the power to their hands, with a rebellion. It is a fait accompli. The matter is not, "will we give the reign, the sovereignty to nation, or not?", matter. It is already a fait accompli, it is the truth. It will definitely happen. If the people who congregated here, the assembly and everybody will see it as a natural case, it will happen. Otherwise, the truth will be stated again. Albeit, perhaps some heads will be chopped.

Well, despite I know that such a severe speech was due to first days of revolution(since in Atatürk era school books Classical Ottoman era was glorified), the point is, every kind of monarchy is robbery. It is stealing people's sovereignty.

[American_Hispanist]

There have been a lot of stupid comments made in this thread but I wouldn't call that one of them.

When a centralized government, particularly an absolute monarchy, fractures and a power vacuum results, it's historically almost always disastrous.

Why do you think the period after the collapse of Western Rome is called "The Dark Ages"?
(Funny how I never seen anyone arguing that finally those poor Iberians, Gauls, Celts, Illyrians, Dacians, Goths and others were liberated from oppressive Roman rule and rightfully given a chance at self-determination like they deserved?)

It doesn't matter if that centralized government is benevolent or malignant; the subjects of it are still dependent on it for their very survival and after several generations become habitually accustomed to a routine of the familiar.

Democracy/Socialism/Fascism/Nationalism can't simply be switched on like a light, so that suddenly everyone from peasant to priest knows their role to play for the greater good.

I mean the Balkans was literally in a state of war (in some region or another) from 1821 to 1918. A period of 97 years. Millions of combined casualties.

What progress was gained in that time? Real economic, political or social change? In all those arenas things were much worse than before.

The endless military exhaustion, betrayed allegiances, and paranoia set the stage for the Nazis to steamroll the Balkans and claim a combined 1.5 million casualties.

Is that a measure of success? Millions of lives, decades of in-fighting and bloodshed for some barely-functional independent states that once again fell prey to successive waves of imperialistic foreign influence, be it German, Soviet, American or Western European?
To the die-hard keyboard warriors and armchair generals who have a serious disconnect with society and show a lack of empathy for life in general, it may be, but for the average person, when presented with two pieces of statistics, they would choose the lesser of two evils.

To me pieces of cloth are not worth the sanctity of sanity and the gift of life but then again I am not a nationalist; so it's hard for me to relate with these views.

Realistically though, the Balkans continues to suffer at the hands of other, successive foreign powers who continue to meddle in their affairs, with disastrous consequences (i.e. the Yugoslav Wars) so to say that "magically", we have achieved light years of progress since we shed the Ottoman yoke is ludicrous.

It's still a bunch of Feudal fiefdoms who are well and truly harbouring an 18th century mentality and are the butt of Europe's many, many jokes.
Much as I hate to say that, it's indisputable and it's a deserved reputation.

I 100% support your comment.

[morski]

I mean the Balkans was literally in a state of war (in some region or another) from 1821 to 1918. A period of 97 years. Millions of combined casualties.

What progress was gained in that time? Real economic, political or social change? In all those arenas things were much worse than before.


Bulgarians in Bulgaria were in a much better situation in the early 1900s compared to pre 1878 in all fields - human rights, education, science, technological progress, democracy, you name it.

[randomguy1235]

wouldn't do any good. Araps betrayed Turks in WW1, and they were muslim. Kurds are doing the same shit right now, and they are muslims.

Your assertion is oversimplified. Only a group of Arabs betrayed the Ottomans. Most Arabs remained loyal to Ottoman rule and continued to serve in the Armed Forces

[Chuck Norris]

Actually it is about nature of us, Turks. Despite we got mixed by the ages, the steppic soul is always core of us. Since the private property thing and greediness was foreign to us, we did not think about converting Balkanites by force.

Look at Umayyad empire, they converted the area between Morocco and Transoxiana by force, so what? It is because of the feudal and slaver nature of Bedouins. But for us, Balkanites being loyal citizens was enough. If Ottomans would predict the future, things would be different now...

The Ottoman Empire was built on the back of its Christian population. Also, if you like the Asian Steppes why don't you move back? The way you write "despite we got by the ages..."...the only way you got mixed is that someone came knocking on the door of some Christian family asking them for double the taxes. They couldn't pay so they took the children or they forced them to convert to Islam. I don't under the Turkish psychology. You don't look Asian, what are you clinging on to? When you talk about the Ottoman Empire you do realize that it largely consists of someone conquering your ancestor right? You do realize that?

[Hoca]

^Chuck Noris

You are in no position to lecture us

[Hayalet]

The Ottoman Empire was built on the back of its Christian population.
No, it wasn't.


someone came knocking on the door of some Christian family asking them for double the taxes
It wasn't double the usual amount and the extra part bought them exemption from military service.


They couldn't pay so they took the children or they forced them to convert to Islam.
Where did you get that? Devşirme practice had nothing to do with whether taxes were paid or not. It wasn't intended as a punishment, nor was it even perceived negatively at the time. In medieval Europe, there was almost an Indian-like caste system; whereas in the Ottoman Empire, a conquered peasant could become something akin to a prime minister. This mobility between social classes is one of the reasons of the Ottoman longevity.

[Chuck Norris]

No, it wasn't.


It wasn't double the usual amount and the extra part bought them exemption from military service.


Where did you get that? Devşirme practice had nothing to do with whether taxes were paid or not. It wasn't intended as a punishment, nor was it even perceived negatively at the time. In medieval Europe, there was almost an Indian-like caste system; whereas in the Ottoman Empire, a conquered peasant could become something akin to a prime minister. This mobility between social classes is one of the reasons of the Ottoman longevity.

:picard1:

You are delusional.

How about we just pretend that the tax collectors and the villagers held each others hand and sang folk songs?

[Chuck Norris]

^Chuck Noris

You are in no position to lecture us

Hoca, this is not Republic of Turkey, there is no Article 301 online.

[Hoca]

Hoca, this is not Republic of Turkey, there is no Article 301 online.

No, because you have native American blood on your hand. The only people who exterminated a whole race.

[Žołnir]

Purge of non-Muslims happened in the Ottoman Empire? Reply to Thread

The European part would be extreamly depopulated. Ottomans would lose lots of financial and military power (yes indeed altho some of you might not believe). The fleeing Christians would join neibourgh Christian realms most likely they would wage re-conquering war. In the end, resoult; Ottomans would lose lots of land.

[Partizan]

The Ottoman Empire was built on the back of its Christian population.

I refuted retarded Eurocentrist claims as "Ottoman Empire could not take Jizya anymore, they would lose their Jannisarries etc. etc." in earlier pages already. Nice try, al-Ermeni.


Also, if you like the Asian Steppes why don't you move back?

The same reason with why a Mestizo can't leave Mexico. Though we have been in Anatolia for at least a millennium. Not to forget that there are theories about even ancient folks of Anatolia being akin to Ural-Altaic people.


The way you write "despite we got by the ages..."...the only way you got mixed is that someone came knocking on the door of some Christian family asking them for double the taxes. They couldn't pay so they took the children or they forced them to convert to Islam.

:picard1:

1.When Seljuk Empire and Oghuz Tribes came to Anatolia, they were overwhelmingly Caucasoid.
2.DNA shows, Turks are still close to Turkmens to an extent.
3.Even Turks from Western Turkey are not that "South-East European", DNA shows again.

Do you want me to post charts?

An introduction, though:


Oh BTW,if we compare some Balkan genetic markers to Anatolian genetic markers, we may answer the question of "how much of the Turkish genetic pool is made up by janissaries and paedomazomas".while Greek and Albanian populations carrying considerable j2b-M241* haplogroup: Greeks=%8.7, Albanians=%14.5, Turkish people were only at %1.Another interesting Haplogroup is I-M170*: while Turks carrying %5 I-M170* haplogroup, Albanians were at %21.7 and Greeks were at %9.8. Considering these two haplogroups were also found neighboring countries (I-M170* only north), we can easily say that Turkish people were not made up by the grandsons of janissaries and paedomazomas. There is a exception of course, which is Crete, but this very close connection between Anatolia was connected to neolithic expansion(8000 B.C).


I don't under the Turkish psychology. You don't look Asian, what are you clinging on to?

Neither early Turks were that Asian looking :rolleyes:


The Cumans were called Folban and Vallani/Valwe by Germans, Kun (Qoun) by the Hungarians, and Polovtsy/Polovec (from Old East Slavic "половъ" — yellow) by the Russians — all meaning "blond". It is difficult to know which group historians were referring to when they used the name Kipchak, as they could refer to the Cumans only, the Kipchaks only, or to both together. The two nations joined and lived together (and possibly exchanged weaponry, culture and fused languages). This confederation and their living together may have made it difficult for historians to write exclusively about either nation. Some of the clans of the Cuman-Kipchaks were the Terteroba, Burdjogli, Toksoba, Etioba/Ietioba, Kay, Itogli, Kochoba (meaning Ram Clan), Urosoba, El'Borili, Kangarogli, Andjogli, Durut, Djartan, Karabirkli, Kotan/Hotan, Kulabaogli, Olelric, Altunopa and the Olberli.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuman_people


In his book An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, Peter Golden claims that the Chinese T'and-shu chronicle describes the Khazars, generally, as "...tall, with red-hair, ruddy-faced and blue-eyed. Black hair is considered a bad omen." 13

http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/library/khazars.html


According to recent historical findings, Kyrgyz history dates back to 201 B.C. The early Kyrgyz lived in the upper Yenisey River valley, central Siberia. The discovery of the Pazyryk and Tashtyk cultures show them as a blend of Turkic nomadic tribes. Chinese and Muslim sources of the 7th-12th centuries A.D. describe the Kyrgyz as red-haired, in addition, blond-haired with a fair complexion and green or blue eyes.

http://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/rssa/kyrgyzstan.html

And still Y-DNA haplogroups like R1a, J2, R1b are dominant among Central Asian Turks. Which also supports my theory about first Turkic people being Caucasoid. Probably lots of things changed after Mongol Invasion(after overwhelmingly Caucasoid Oghuzes came to Anatolia). There must be previous mixtures as well, however Oghuzes, Western Kipchaks etc. were located in rather Western areas for centuries, so they were probably mostly Caucasoid since start.

[Chuck Norris]

I refuted retarded Eurocentrist claims as "Ottoman Empire could not take Jizya anymore, they would lose their Jannisarries etc. etc." in earlier pages already. Nice try, al-Ermeni.



The same reason with why a Mestizo can't leave Mexico. Though we have been in Anatolia for at least a millennium. Not to forget that there are theories about even ancient folks of Anatolia being akin to Ural-Altaic people.



:picard1:

1.When Seljuk Empire and Oghuz Tribes came to Anatolia, they were overwhelmingly Caucasoid.
2.DNA shows, Turks are still close to Turkmens to an extent.
3.Even Turks from Western Turkey are not that "South-East European", DNA shows again.

Do you want me to post charts?

An introduction, though:





Neither early Turks were that Asian looking :rolleyes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuman_people



http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/library/khazars.html



http://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/rssa/kyrgyzstan.html

And still Y-DNA haplogroups like R1a, J2, R1b are dominant among Central Asian Turks. Which also supports my theory about first Turkic people being Caucasoid. Probably lots of things changed after Mongol Invasion(after overwhelmingly Caucasoid Oghuzes came to Anatolia). There must be previous mixtures as well, however Oghuzes, Western Kipchaks etc. were located in rather Western areas for centuries, so they were probably mostly Caucasoid since start.

A bunch of bull shit. Again, the Turkish Superman Theory. And comparing Mexicans to Turks, that is a new one. Modern Turkish society (1) fails to accept the role of Christians within Empire, and (2) constructs a Turkish identity that is clearly based on a lie. Turkish society has psychological issues with accepting their ancestry. Even buildings that have been built by Christians omit mentioning the names of builders or the people that lived there. This is the same in Azerbaijan with regards to their minorities. Clearly, it is hard for a Turk to accept the truth.

[Partizan]

A bunch of bull shit. Again, the Turkish Superman Theory. And comparing Mexicans to Turks, that is a new one. Modern Turkish society (1) fails to accept the role of Christians, and (2) constructs a Turkish identity that is clearly based on a lie.

Refute my claims or shut up, al-Ermeni.