>>6137 >implying the ottoman empire wasn't a bunch of faggots >implying the ottoman empire didnt fundamentally set up the failure of islam in the modern era >implying the Abbasid aren't better nice try OIDF
>>6309 It was the "sick man of europe" way before WWI. To answer your question, it just couldn't keep with the times. There are many specific reasons why it went to shit, but my 'favorite' explanation is that the whole buereucracy/administration of the State became a "profit machine" for guys who wanted to make money. Read Ebu al-Haj's "birth of modern state" if you are interested. He keeps repeating himself, but the few points he make are good and on target. >>6515 I wouldn't say that was the case except for Kösem Sultan.
Don't Ottoboos find it weird that literally no one from people that were part of it has any affinity towards it? I mean, ask even Bosniaks and Muslim Albanians, most of them consider Ottomans to be occupiers. Even shitload of Turks don't see it as something great. It was relatively okay in 16th century, but as time went on it gradually became more and more chaotic. Just one example: during Ottoman rule, population of Balkans declined by 2/3rds.
>>6137 Civil war is always a bad thing, but the remedy to that situation shouldn't have been to basically remove the Sultan's sons from any position of governance, which is what the Ottomans did. The Sultans became creatures of the court with virtually no experience in administration.
Also Imperial over reach. The Ottomans were never capable of properly administering Hungary as evident by the numerous letters from the Pashas of Buda to the Habsburgs all but begging them to stop sending raiders into Hungary. Hungary was ruled from garrison towns and getting taxes from the locals was all but impossible because the Hungarians were more afraid of Habsburg raiders killing them for paying taxes to the Turks than they were afraid of the Ottomans.
>>6713 Fun fact: when Serbs rebelled in 1804, Sultan actually supported them because he didn't have any control over Serbia. In fact, Ottomans never micromanaged their empire. This is kinda important to understand because it explains enmity between Muslims and Christians that still exists in Balkans. It's not just religious, it's the fact Muslims in Balkans, Slavs and Albanians, were the ones who actually controlled Balkans. There was very few Turkish settlers in Balkans. But this can be confusing for outsider to understand because in past all Muslims were called ''Turks'', even though most of them in Balkans didn't speak Turkish. In fact, only elite of the elite spoke Turkish.
>>6851 when the Sultan claims it. There have been numerous times that Sultans have claimed to be Caliph. The Umayyad Sultan of Cordoba claimed it even though the Abbasid Caliphs ruled in Baghdad, the Almohads claimed Caliphate, Sokoto and Bornu both claimed it despite being west African States. The Hashemites claimed it when they sided with the British and rebeled against the Ottomans, and the Leader of ISIS claims it now.
>>6629 >Don't Ottoboos find it weird that literally no one from people that were part of it has any affinity towards it?
To be fair, almost every ex-Ottoman country today was formed as a 19th and 20th century nationalist revolt against them. You get that kind of hostility when you look at plenty of other ex-Imperial colonies that violently won their independence.
I believe Hungary is comparatively mild in its approach to the Ottomans, most likely because the Turks were pretty old hat by the time the country started having its own nationalist ambitions against Austrians and then everyone else around them.
>>8177 Like the blogger mentions, I don't think the religious establishment were the reason but instead the scribes. The guild in Paris tried the same thing and succeeded for decades until the king realized the advantage in propaganda and power printing gave the crown.
The reason religious books were not allowed was because that's how scribes made their livelihood by, religious texts being the most popular.
Just imagine what would have happened to the German printing industry in the 15th century if no one was allowed to print the Bible or any other religious text.
>>8177 holy shit thats really fucking sad you got the quran for gods sake youd think there would naturally be impetus for a muslim mirror to the gutenburg bible going on at the same time >scribe class i mean, were christian monks before gutenberg making mad dosh for their monasteries or something..
>>8443 >i mean, were christian monks before gutenberg making mad dosh for their monasteries or something.. Yes actually.
The Quran being one of the most popular printed books now is a pretty good indicator that it was theologically feasible to do. The problem was the typeset. Modern Standard Arabic is a pretty recent creation, and before it printing in Arabic was a surprisingly expensive and hard thing to do. With a Latin script you could get away with about 30 blocks total, each of which required a skilled craftsman to make. But with Arabic I think it not only doubles, but there's no easy way to pull off the dozens more combinations that each letter makes with another as they connect.
Modern digital technology made this much easier and cheaper.
>>8707 Their presence in Asia Minor and the Levant isn't all that well understood compared to their history in Iraq and Iran, so they're about as popular as any other Middle Eastern state that Europeans barely interacted with if ever.
>>8636 >>8443 >>8398 Also they had low literacy rates patially because Ottoman Turkish writing used significant amou ts of Persian & Arabic and the writing sytem didn't suit the Turkish parts of the language very well. Basically reforms similar to what Ataturk implemented were necessary to help Turkish eeading and writing, although they could have been done by just adding more characters to the arabic/persian script to represent vowels.
Being beaten by the tiny nation of Portugal on their own home ocean count as great?
Avoiding direct confrontation with western European armies count as great? The main reason they never conquered Austria is because they had to wait each time for Austria's armies to be deep in France to try anything on Vienna.
And their most iconic technical accomplishment, the mega canon that took down Byzantium, was actually hungarian.
>>6629 Tbh senpai, you cant really use the fact that people on balkans didn't like the ottoman empire as a basis that nobody liked the ottoman empire, people on balkans don't even like other people on balkans no matter how similar.
general bureaucratic decay from hundreds of years of technological stagnation stemming from regional superiority that disinsentivized technological growth and scientific advances. Then encroaching european interests didn't help as well. It was really the Russians who helped seal the Ottoman fate though through man successive wars that continually drained resources until WWI started and it all fell apart.
We literally colonized your 'Empire' at the end. Like we did the people who used bamboo sticks. If it hadn't been put on life support by the french it would have been out in the 18th century split between Austria and Russia.
>>17631 >> If it hadn't been put on life support by the french it would have been out in the 18th century split between Austria and Russia what are you talking about the french were Ottoman enemies after 1801
It is a combination of islamic influence and weak rulers.
Before late 1600s the successors to the throne were often assigned to important government positions around the empire, but this caused conflicts for succession every time a ruler died between the princes where the fittest heir would survive and rule the empire. Over time (perhaps due to its very violent nature) this system shifted to a "cage system" where the heirs would be locked up under house arrest and weren't allowed to leave the palace. This left the new generation of ottoman rulers weak and slightly mad, of course this caused a power-gap in the empire and caused many rebellions among the military, higher class and provinces far away from istanbul.
One of the other problems was stagnation due to the spread of islamic practices. In the early eras of the turkic nations in anatolia and middle-east were freshly changing from a tengrist to an islamic, this left them open to adopting new ideas and improving their technology far quicker than other arabic/persian nations. even in the early eras of ottoman empire this increased adaptability made them stronger against their foes in the thracia, balkans, black sea and middle-east. As time passed however the adaptation of arabic islam and the idea of superiority made the empire stagnate and become weak against the quickly modernizing western nations.
Overall they were alright i guess, you can tell by how butthurt greeks, armenians, serbians and iranians still are to this day. Look up older turkic empires though, old turkic mythology was pretty based.
>>12799 Caucasian is a shitty term because it stems from outdated assumptions on the origin of non-Black humans. Caucasian comes from the idea that the original proto-Whites were from Central Asia and the original Whites are from the Caucuses. All scientists follow the migration pattern of the Out-of-Africa theory, just differing on whether it happened with humans or pre-humans. It only has any value in leftist circles to weaken the idea of a White, European race.
>>22783 >Overall they were alright i guess, you can tell by how butthurt greeks, armenians, serbians and iranians still are to this day
How is this any different than the "Every one but Jews are the problem" meme? I mean sure it's kind of lame to be butthurt in this day and age, but a lot of these people had valid criticisms of the Ottomans.
>>27834 well people are still fuming at the rebel faction 100 years after the collapse of the empire, i mean on the bloodthirsty empires scale ottomans were pretty mid-tier but somehow according to neighboring countries today turks are the root of all evil
See, you don't know anything about history because you're likely a nationalistic turk teenager. The Revolution episode was a short one in which France antagonised every single one of it's allies due the fall of the Bourbon diplomatic network. Including Spain and Austria.
Read Vergennes's life. Read anything on the diplomacy of the Victorian era. Read about the Crimean war. It's time you teens learn about how France and England kept you on diplomatic and technical life support.
>>31920 mongols only fucked the Arab caliphates up The Turks were trying to pick up where the Arabs left off While it is true Mongols really destroyed a lot of Muslim cities, they ironically were involved in spreading Islam in a lot of other places, like China, Russia, Ukraine and ofcourse the Mughal Empire of India etc The Mongol hordes later became Muslim, which is a pretty funny twist in history I fucking love /hist/ so much
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.