Ottoman Empire thread?
Ottoman Empire thread.
Its influence on the Balkans and the Middle East are very interesting to me and I would like to know more about them as a whole.
>Arabs ruling over both turks, greeks and immigrating arabs at the exact same time
>non-muslims getting better education faster because they don't have to learn 3 languages and mysticism ontop of basic education
>despite ruling constantinople the demograph hardly changed with greeks running the shops and the Ottomans constantly have to make reforms to stop revolts
>later result to genociding the armenians
Doomed to fucking fail
Former colony here. We've always been backwards, but being under Ottoman rule for 500 years or so while Europe was flourishing in the Renaissance really fucked us over.
I'm not sure if that was the king of input you were looking for, but even though the Empire may be a good thing in the eyes of Turks today, they were like a Midas whose touched turn things into shit everywhere else.
No empire is destined to fail. It's important to remember that it lasted a really long time. Their putting off of the inevitable modernization is what got to them.
The region was better off under Bulgarian or Byzantine rule, even with the wars that came with it. The Ottomans weren't any better either, there were constant rebellions on the Balkans.
A great deal of the Balkan rebellions were in the 1800s and early 1900s when ethnic nationalism was running rampant among everyone in the Empire. These were also during a time when people referred to the Ottomans as "the Sick Man" of Europe as a reflection of its decline. If you were an Albanian nationalist for example, would you attack when your enemy is weak or when they are strong wnough to expand upon what they own in Europe?
I think we (even though Macedonains didn't really exist at the time, l'm referring to Bulgarians on the territory of modern Macedonia) were just stupid, then. There were a bunch of bloody rebellions and revolts in the 1600-1700s as well, and they were as unsuccessful as those in the late 1800s. As weak as they were, we were weaker, but that didn't stop us from throwing lives away again and again.
>don't have to learn 3 languages
Most of the dragomans (Ottoman interpreters) were ethnic Greeks, m80. The Ottomans were kinda backwards when it came to learning in general. And since when was Europe not polyglot?
The Ottoman Empire was an unproductive uninventive shithole that left nothing but destruction and backwardness behind wherever it went and nobody misses or enjoys its influence in any domain of life. Even the Spaniards can appreciate the Umayyads.
The ottoman empire SUCKED.
I may be biased, but they halted any progress we had. We had just freed ourselves from the Byzantine empire in the 1200s - we were fucking amazing back then.
But then, in the 1300s - the three sons of the previous king each decided to split the country, each taking a part for himself.
And then the ottomans came and just fucked our shit up.
>helped save Constantinople and Europe from the arabs
Why couldn't the Balkan people and Constantinople put their differences behind and defend against the muslimes again?
>But then, in the 1300s - the three sons of the previous king each decided to split the country, each taking a part for himself.
Ottomans split into 4 + mutliple beyliks in 1404 but they recovered and conquered the balkans, it's all an achievement.
>>We were already done in in the 1390s, though.
could have easily fought and taken back the land as the ottoman army was destroyed and remaining forces were split into very small factions, it was by will that your people would have remained with the Ottomans after that.
>Called their kingdom "Rum"
>native to a place so far away
>were relatively shit to the local Armenians and Greeks
>made Serbian sound only distantly like a Slavic language
But muh Janissaries!
Am I the only one that dislikes the Ottomans? How do you justify hundreds of years of occupation by a people who were nomads only decades earlier? How do you justify dicking around with names (Anatolia to Turkey, Constantinople to Istanbul)? How do you justify the forceful conversion of the "people of the book"?
>How do you justify hundreds of years of occupation by a people who were nomads only decades earlier?
isn't this something that's just amazing?A bunch of horse nomads from a nobody clan became so powerful they ruled vast amounts of land that is now over 35 different countries. Also it looks like you're being very subjective here and are emotional about this topic. Also you got your history mixed up, the Seljuks called themselves the sultanate of Rum, the Ottomans considered themselves Roman once they conquered Constantinople.
They invaded Serbia and had a deep cultural influence on it, effectively changing its language (which is usually the most notable cultural influence). Without the Ottoman empire, you might have been able to learn Ukrainian as a catch all language that's mutually intelligible from northern Russia to Slovenia.
Instead, Slavic languages are quite diverse with Serbia having odd Turkic and Arabic loan words. Very, very messy.
The Greeks built Anatolia? The people who lived there for thous>>57872 (You)
>>made Serbian sound only distantly like a Slavic language
what did you mean by that?ands of years were a mix of Armenian and Greek people, with a few Thracians in the centre.
What fucking right do Turks have to claim that region?
Please learn to 4chan culture.
>What fucking right do Turks have to claim that region?
right of conquest, they earned it through blood. lots and lots of blood on all sides. Before the Greeks and others conquered it it belonged to other Anatolian civilisations like the Hittites, no one else had any more "right" to conquer those lands. I don't see the problem with Turks conquering the lands, it's how anyone got lands.
>Please learn to 4chan culture.
Let's not have shitty shitposting. Also look at the rules it tells you not to do this shit.
What right does anyone have to claim any region? There is, always has been, only one right, and that is power and ability. The region is theirs because they were able to take it. Same way that the Americas now belong to Westerners because they were able to take them.
I don't think that only Turks are to blame here... Languages just evolve and very related ones often end up being quite different even without incorporating foreign vocabulary...
And Ukrainian isn't intelligible even to Poles and has lots of Turkic, Arabic and Persian words too (like the infamous "maidan" for example)
I'm not Greek though and I didn't really report it :^)
Ottomans are not the Sultanate of Rum, Ottomans were hardly even Turkish. They were a principality given autonomy by the sultanate, most of their army came from arabs fleeing the Mongols, with the Ottomans expanding at the expense of the Greeks. They would later conquer the turks but they themselves were not turkish themselves.
>What right does anyone have to claim any region?
If they improve the land and create more life on it, either through livestock, agriculture or increased trade to increase human populations. If you build it, it is yours.
Tell me, what were Turkic people renowned for building? Their main economic input was raiding silk road traders.
>Languages just evolve
They do not, at least not without outside influences. The Basque culture, which is notably impervious to outside influences, has remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years.
>And Ukrainian isn't intelligible even to Poles and has lots of Turkic
Poles are crypto-Germanics with Slavic culture, I was more thinking the "Russian" cultures. Byelorussian, real Russian and Ukrainian all have some very interesting similarities, likely stemming from Ukrainian.
Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian? Not so much, but it wouldn't be like that if the Turks didn't invade.
>The Basque culture, which is notably impervious to outside influences, has remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years.
isolation causes that, similar happened with Georgian for example
>They do not, at least not without outside influences
They do though just at a slower pace...
>The Basque culture, which is notably impervious to outside influences, has remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years
But Basque has lots of loanwords from the neighboring languages too
>Poles are crypto-Germanics with Slavic culture
Still Ukrainian has undergone a serious Polish influence and has many loanwords from it
>Byelorussian, real Russian and Ukrainian all have some very interesting similarities, likely stemming from Ukrainian
>stemming from Ukrainian
You meant stemming from Old East Slavic, right?
I'm not Serbian either, you might be confusing me with another poster
Yes, and the only obvious and inarguable changes to language and culture usually come from DIRECT influence from another language or culture, whether as mundane as trade (which is my hypothesis on the similarity between Tocharian and Irish) to direct rulership, in which being ruled by someone for enough generations gives the impression from the subjugated of a form of "high class culture," which can cause people to emulate their oppressors.
My point stands, a culture in isolation has only extremely small changes in language and culture, especially if literacy is not part of their culture (since direct education becomes more important in those cultures).
>But Basque has lots of loanwords from the neighboring languages too
>Still Ukrainian has undergone a serious Polish influence and has many loanwords from it
Loan words are almost impossible to prevent.
If you, your people and your culture simply don't have X and someone offers you X, but call it Y, you literally have no other choice but to call it Y because you have no other word for it. This is the effect of trade on languages, again, it needs direct contact with another civilisation.
>You meant stemming from Old East Slavic, right?
Basically the language that was spread every time one of the small, eastern European kingdoms bubble up and start creating empires. I was told (by a Ukrainian, no less) that Ukrainian is the closest modern equivalent to this language.
perhaps, wien was one of the major factors why ottomans never advanced into europe
if they had kept their technological superiority from 1400s and if the later sultans weren't so keked they could have invaded europe and made an islamic roman empire
>technological superiority from 1400
You know the bombards they used to take Constantinople were made by a "Dacian" guy from the Kingdom of Hungary, right? He actually went to the Basileius first but Constantine XI was too piss-poor to afford his high-class giant cannons so he sold them to the Turks instead. It was already well-established technology in Europe and he simply built on existing designs used by the Hungarians. The Ottomans were not really technologically superior. They were just really rich having conquered the Roman Empire and could afford the best shit from all over Europe and the Middle East.
Well yeah, but Basques aren't really that impervious, just because they retained their non-IE language doesn't mean they weren't affected culturally by other peoples
>I was told (by a Ukrainian, no less) that Ukrainian is the closest modern equivalent to this language.
Well of course he would want you to believe that
to be fair, prior to the division of East Slavic lands between Moscow and the Commonwealth that language had two major dialect zones, one (the Northern) being based in the Novgorod principality and the other one (the Southern) in the area from Niznhiy Novgorod to almost the Western borders modern day Ukraine.
Modern Russian is basically a mix of both dialects with Old Church Slavonic influence and some Turkic vocabulary while Ukrainian is the Southen dialect with Polish influence and some "Islamic" vcabulary
So the closeness of modern languages to that old language depends on the dialect you are comparing them with.
A lot of the descendants of people conquered by the Turks don't even know that they were ever more than recently-settled nomads. There's no excuse, but if I was a Greek or Serb or Armenian or whatever I'd be pretty butthurt too.
What I'm more surprised than anything was the Ottomans attacking and conquering areas of Saudi Arabia, with one of the sultans claiming the Arabs to be heretics. Like kek, the Ottomans were one of the Islamic Caliphates.
There were a lot of Islamic caliphates. It was basically the Islamic equivalent of everyone calling themselves Emperor or some variation of Caesar out of an attempt to be Rome's successor.
They set out to be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural empire. They were aiming to be an Islamic Eastern Rome but they failed in all 4 areas ultimately for various reasons, the most important two being their once lucrative trade business becoming irrelevant and corruption that comes with it.
Ottomans were hardly Turkish, they put religious communities before notions like ethnicity or even nation, this is also one of the reasons they failed ultimately, like Austria-Hungary, a multi-national empire wasn't feasible after French revolution. They were more like America, just found by a Turkish branch but ultimately became completely unrelated.
Sultane of Rum, Seljuks, had nothing to do with Mongolians, they even fought them, Seljuks used to own most of the areas Mongols attacked.
The genocide is much later, it is not a reason for their failure, it is more of a result.
Also it is way more than 3 languages, Ottomans hardly told people to learn a different language, so what happened was Greek kept speaking Greek, Serbians kept speaking Serbian, Armenians kept speaking Armenian, even Turks kept speaking Old Anatolian Turkish close to Seljuk language, On top of all of this they had to learn Ottoman Turkish as the lingua franca of the empire (ironically called the Language of Turks), Arabic for Islamic education and Persian for literature. A greek from Istanbul or any of the bigger cities had to learn 5 languages just to function.
It was called Sultane of Rum because Anatolia was called Rum.
Sauds were always crazy in how they wanted Islam, even Ottomans didn't want that sort of crazy religion. Also being the caliph meant influence and the control over Muslims, they didn't want to seperate the Imperial and religious authority. They didn't want to seperate authority so much, Janissaries were originally meant to be a counter-balance to Spahis, the landed Turkish soldiers that controlled tax and fiefs.
Daily reminder of the effects of the Ottomen administration even 70 years after the Berlin conference.
this video explains it pretty well, it's something that rotted and collapsed from the inside from corruption really. also it's the fault of not modernising and colonising, the sultans didn't bother colonising they assumed it was unnecessary and they missed out on greatness.
They doomed themselves.
During the 1400s they had a complete monopoly over goods coming from asia and partly Africa, which could not be found anywhere else in the known world.
They wouldn't let european merchants go buy what they needed directly, but instead they would sell them for an insane price markup.
The fall started when Dias found another way to reach India via circumnavigation of Africa, but the killing blow was inflicted by the discovery of America.
Being stuck in the now useless mediterranean they began a slow death due to their economy gradually becoming worse and worse.
Had they not marked up the prices so much europeans might have never found the need to find another routes and they wouldn't have fallen.
>Poles are crypto-Germanics with Slavic culture
So being influenced by a regionally neutral thing like Western culture makes you "Germanic" even though you're genetically the most Slavic country in Europe?Are you trying to saying that Western culture,which is a direct ascendant of the late Roman Empire is a Germanic construct?
That's because the Turks never plowed through the balkans, they expanded on every side frequently, they also had a specific time to fight, attempting to limit it to just the summers and always assembling at Constantinople to start marching to other places, this was of course a huge flaw which made it very hard to go as far as Vienna in time.
Yes,and they couldn't plow through the Balkans because there where countries that have resisted them from the very beginning.The Balkan countries weren't a joke,especially for the Ottomans and the Byzantines before them.
I think it's something successful Turks did, they took land but bit by bit instead of at once, think about great leaders who have done that like alexander the great etc, the empire just collapses into pieces after such a thing like every time.
A lot of instability on the Balkans was because of the Ottomans.
It is because of Ottomans that Serbs migrated northwards into Vojvodina, which set the seed for WW1, and left big parts of Kosovo empty, which was then inhabited by Albanian muslims who served as auxiliaries in Ottoman armies, and this set the seed for Kosovo war and other shitfest that happens today. Similarly, modern Bosniak identity is based on their religion, Islam, which was brought by Ottomans. In fact, before WW2, most people referred to the Bosniaks as "Turks", despite them being Slavs who didn't know a word of Turkish.
Also, Balkan poverty is in large part due to the empire. We missed Renaissance and Enlightenment, so in 19th century we had a society of 15th century. Seriously, mid 19th century we still had guilds! Not to mention that being ruled by foreign power for so long created a certain anti-authority attitude in the people, which made passing of any reforms an uphill battle.
Fuck the Ottoman empire, also fuck the French for allying with them.
They just wouldn't call it an empire, it would probably be the Turkish Federation, where it is a union of republics (just ballparking here, but let's say Erdogan starts with invading Syria, then if Morsi didn't get ousted, probably forming a union with Egypt)
His role as """""Sultan""""" would still be called President, and it would be more of a ceremonial title "like the Queen" (Erdogan's own words). The federation would still have a PM, who is actually in charge of the government, and each republic would also have their own PM.
It was succesful in europe and it was muslim this combination causes people to erupt basically besides till like 1700 the common people had it pretty good under the ottomans and even when they were invading the byzantines the greeks preferred ottoman rule because of less taxes that is also how asia minor became turkified so quickly.
I guess so ,maybe someone from the balkan could say more about it but during their rise and golden age the balkan peoples were treated pretty well most government officials were from there so they could integrate into society while greeks,armenians and jews controlled most of the empire's trade.
I don't think the Saudis would be chill with that, nor Israel, Iran or a good part of the actual Egyptian populace. Syrian populace might agree somewhat just to get out of that hellhole of civil war now.
Does this board have spoilers? Let's find out
[spoiler]Tfw no dismantlement of Turkey/Syria/Iraq into Constantinople Free State, Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiastan post-IS,along with Greater Armenia. After 5-10 years, Shiastan gets a referendum whether they want to be annexed into Iran[/spoiler]
because ottoman empire lasted for a very long time up until the 20th century and hence there is recent memory. people are also butthurt about the british empire for the same reason (although it didn't last a fraction of ottoman empire's time)
no one who lived it is still alive and all the children of the people who did live it are most likely dead too but this website has young people who passionately hate the Ottomans.
Their impact on the world?
None. The Ottoman Empire was a regional power in a relatively backward area. Western Europe was the booming region where everything happened during the Ottoman Empire.
bernard lewis or some other historian said that due to armenians' diaspora influence in the west, particularly France, (and their knowledge of languages), it was much easier to create anti-ottoman literature and spread it. Turks don't really have diasporas, and we don't know any turks who can speak english (except for Dr. Oz) so their perspectives are not even taken into account when discussing Ottoman history.
It's a shame. That's why Bernard Lewis learned arabic/turkish/persian. Otherwise, you won't understand anything about the region.
Here's the most infamous one but i'm sure there's more.
Unfortunately, many non-historians don't know that a lot of the history we know about the ottoman empire (particularly its later periods) is done not out of interest or a desire for knowledge, but out of enmity or of feelings of revenge and rewriting history.
of course. even phrases like "nobody remembers armenians", linking the armenian genocide to holocaust, are actually made up with very dodgy sources.
but that's hitler, and everyone takes that seriously. but think about how it's much easier to falsify about some guy named Talaat Pasha
he isn't an authority on the subject as his writing is often politically motivated. and i don't mean that he alone is like that. many historians in the area on both the turkish and armenian sides are only parroting instead of investigating.
The best source on the subject is Bernard Lewis. He isn't a turk or an armenian so that makes him more reliable than 90% of historians on the subject.
Well, since the establishment of Israel shows that historical irredentism is still valid, Greece rightfully owns Constantinople and the Anatolian coast, similar to how Germany owns Prussia/Silesia, and Russia owns Ukraine/Belarus.
A number of reasons, both internal and external created the decline and eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Among them:
>Jizye religious tax and sumptuary laws creating second-class citizens out of Ottoman Christians and Jews
>Janissaries and Sipahi corps stagnating into a hereditary aristocracy
>Great Powers intervening in Empire affairs and invading North Africa; concessions to Europe
>Losing three consecutive wars with Russia, granting them a treaty to intervene in Balkan affairs as the "protector of Orthodox Christendom"
>Failure to manage nationalist and irredentist movements in the Balkans
>He isn't a turk or an armenian so that makes him more reliable than 90% of historians on the subject.
Except for Bernard Lewis is also a Jew. Who comments on the accuracy of genocide. Top kek as they say.