NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll pending.

How about an actual post? Is that pending too? What about the Ottoman Empire do you want our opinions?

Just another empire that forced other cultures under its control. Couldn't adapt to changing realities so got its ass kicked repeatedly in minor wars with European countries and lost influence, was losing control of its economy to European merchants and finally picked the wrong side in WWI and ended up filled with Arab rebellions. It did last over 400 years though if I remeber correctly so it was a successful empire also.

My view: Ottoman empire>Serbia

Ottomans for me = Cruelty, Colonization, and "snobism"... if thats a good word for it...

actually i still think turks are snobby towards Arabs till this day... and it is true they see Arabs as Useless Barbarians that they dont need... while they have built there empire on there resources in egypt, Syria and Iraq

good medieval nation too bad the medieval age doesn’t last forever

good medieval nation too bad the medieval age doesn’t last forever

couldnt agree more...

bottom line cause i must sleep..
Ottomans dont deseve to be seen as heroes, since they have been treating Arabs worse then the british and french were... they were as bad as the israelis today...

plus i dont believe in an empire being named after one person...
and yes by that i mean saudi arabia as well...

Just another empire that forced other cultures under its control. Couldn't adapt to changing realities so got its ass kicked repeatedly in minor wars with European countries and lost influence, was losing control of its economy to European merchants and finally picked the wrong side in WWI and ended up filled with Arab rebellions. It did last over 400 years though if I remeber correctly so it was a successful empire also.

Closer to 600 years, I think?

Inheritor of 2 cultures...? _Kind of_, but they'd influenced the Byzantines to the points that the 'Greeks' were reflecting them! The Byzantine culture they inherited was one that was becoming more and more like theirs.

Fascinating lot though, worth studying.

Slow news day results in NationStates users debating over the past. More at 10.

Ottomans for me = Cruelty, Colonization, and "snobism"... if thats a good word for it...

actually i still think turks are snobby towards Arabs till this day... and it is true they see Arabs as Useless Barbarians that they dont need... while they have built there empire on there resources in egypt, Syria and Iraq

If I understand correctly, you do not respect the Ottoman notion that Sultans were Caliphs.

Without the Ottomans, we'd have no place to put up our tired feet and have to resort to scuffing our coffee tables.









Okay, that was hideously lame. Sorry.

Slow news day results in NationStates users debating over the past. More at 10.

Hey, if you're looking for "past events", you might wanna consider the 14,000 ID vs. Evolution threads. In my country, we've stopped debating ID in the early XXth century.

I like the early Ottomans, when they were still up and coming.

But after Vienna, they kinda started to fall apart, and by the late 19th century, they were just a relic.

They might've held on for a little longer than had been good for the region, but ultimately...my "view" is a fairly neutral one.

Well...without it's fall there would be no Israel!

Besides. All great nations must come to an end. I just wonder when America's demise will take place?

It did last over 400 years though if I remeber correctly so it was a successful empire also.

Lasted from 1299 to 1922, just FYI.

I like the early Ottomans, when they were still up and coming.

But after Vienna, they kinda started to fall apart, and by the late 19th century, they were just a relic.

They might've held on for a little longer than had been good for the region, but ultimately...my "view" is a fairly neutral one.

Hm. I like the post-XVIIIth century more, myself. On one hand, they were so cool and decadent. On the other, they stopped killing the rulers of my country when the Russians became a real threat and the Princes had started going over on that side (being very glad they were under tutelage from fellow Orthodox imperialists). The Turks really started taking care of the two principalities, but the Russians themselves presented a new challenge (they made a habit of invading the region twice a year).

bump

For me the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders and the lack of support for the last eastern Roman emperor from the west are among some of the greatest historical tragedies, the Ottomans and the Seljuk's before them showed no respect for the great civilisation that followed bar stealing what they thought they could use and allowing the rest to disappear, while i accept that the early Ottomans where dynamic i cannot accept that the Empire of Osman was anything more than a militaristic state that eventually oppressed christians and with the Devshirme began to marginalize even the turkish influence in the state (both government and the military were dominated by the christian slaves taken from villages and converted to Islam). Turkish rule was not just in the Balkans and in the middle east and it has left a legacy of hatred towards the turks. To be honest its a shame that the Greeks were defeated by Ataturk in the 20's leading to the re-establishment of turkish rule in Anatolia and signifying the end of the greek presence (especially around Constantinople, Symrna and Trabizond- the pontic greeks) which predates the turks by 2000 or so years (dunno if that is correct length of time to measure the greek presence in and around anatolia so forgive me if that figure is wrong).

They didn't like arabs very much, and at the end weren't very fond of the Armenians either.

Started off strong and promising, but got lazy and unresponsive to the times when the princes started killing each other off with in-fighting like just about every other feudal society.

How about an actual post? Is that pending too? What about the Ottoman Empire do you want our opinions?
Does this make you feel better?

I voted Mix of Muslim and Byzantine.

They are a damn sight better than the Russians.


On another note:
Mmmmmmmmmmm Armenians.:fluffle:

The Ottoman Empire was one of the most barbaric ever. Their kings and noblemen were brought up to delight in the spectacle of suffering and torture.

For me the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders and the lack of support for the last eastern Roman emperor from the west are among some of the greatest historical tragedies, the Ottomans and the Seljuk's before them showed no respect for the great civilisation that followed bar stealing what they thought they could use and allowing the rest to disappear, while i accept that the early Ottomans where dynamic i cannot accept that the Empire of Osman was anything more than a militaristic state that eventually oppressed christians and with the Devshirme began to marginalize even the turkish influence in the state (both government and the military were dominated by the christian slaves taken from villages and converted to Islam). Turkish rule was not just in the Balkans and in the middle east and it has left a legacy of hatred towards the turks. To be honest its a shame that the Greeks were defeated by Ataturk in the 20's leading to the re-establishment of turkish rule in Anatolia and signifying the end of the greek presence (especially around Constantinople, Symrna and Trabizond- the pontic greeks) which predates the turks by 2000 or so years (dunno if that is correct length of time to measure the greek presence in and around anatolia so forgive me if that figure is wrong).
I agree with you here. It was hardly this peaceful empire that everyone thinks it to be. It is in fact responsible for multiple genocides.

Regarding the Crusaders, it is a tragedy indeed, yet the Byzantine Empire did much to alienate itself from its western brethren as well. A sad example of Europeans attacking Europeans.

The Ottoman Empire was one of the most barbaric ever. Their kings and noblemen were brought up to delight in the spectacle of suffering and torture.
The Sultan was barred from even learning foreign languages. He had to rely on translators to understand foreigners.

You should have made it a multiple-choice poll, because the first five options are all valid. :p

Really, an empire that lasted for so long can't be summed up simply, because it was many different things at different times.

I agree with you here. It was hardly this peaceful empire that everyone thinks it to be. It is in fact responsible for multiple genocides.

Regarding the Crusaders, it is a tragedy indeed, yet the Byzantine Empire did much to alienate itself from its western brethren as well. A sad example of Europeans attacking Europeans.

The last emperor, Constantine 14th ( ?i think?), went as far as recognising the Pope as head of the Greek church in order to secure western support against the turks, but to no avail...he died fighting turks on the city wall and to this day he is considered by the greek church a heretic, poor fellow...

The last emperor, Constantine 14th ( ?i think?), went as far as recognising the Pope as head of the Greek church in order to secure western support against the turks, but to no avail...he died fighting turks on the city wall and to this day he is considered by the greek church a heretic, poor fellow...
The problem is the Byzantine Empire's previous actions had caused such enmity between Western and Eastern Europe (in terms of religion, and as Churches dominated politics back then, they also determined how states would conduct themselves) that no matter that Constantine XIV did, he would fail in his efforts. The Schism was the result of mutual idiocy on both Catholic and Orthodox sides, and was a divider that Europe could have done without.

The problem is the Byzantine Empire's previous actions had caused such enmity between Western and Eastern Europe (in terms of religion, and as Churches dominated politics back then, they also determined how states would conduct themselves) that no matter that Constantine XIV did, he would fail in his efforts. The Schism was the result of mutual idiocy on both Catholic and Orthodox sides, and was a divider that Europe could have done without.

agreed, i remember reading on how much the 'filioque' (church bread given during mass) was a scandal for the greeks, can you believe it!! bread causing an international conflict!

agreed, i remember reading on how much the 'filioque' (church bread given during mass) was a scandal for the greeks, can you believe it!! bread causing an international conflict!
Indeed, and in the end the Schism was made final by the foolhardiness of the two key negotiators. Hopefully in time it will be undone, but it caused many European states to suffer under the Ottoman Empire and has needlessly divided European states ever since, much like the Reformation that took place afterwards.

If I understand correctly, you do not respect the Ottoman notion that Sultans were Caliphs.

yes you understand correctly... i see the Sultans and Caliohs of the Ottomans are the reason of why the arab world is suffering and is a developing nation

Indeed, and in the end the Schism was made final by the foolhardiness of the two key negotiators. Hopefully in time it will be undone, but it caused many European states to suffer under the Ottoman Empire and has needlessly divided European states ever since, much like the Reformation that took place afterwards.

yep seems like we europeans like to fight! especially each other..

yep seems like we europeans like to fight! especially each other..

fighting each other is a trait in all humans, arabs chinese, indians have all fuaghth each others...

fighting each other is a trait in all humans, arabs chinese, indians have all fuaghth each others...
Indeed. Its a form of evolution, in some ways, allowing societies to reshape themselves from time to time.

I think that they were one of the best medieval cultures, but they just got too ambitious and stagnant, though you have got to hand it to them, where would modern male fantasy's be without the idea of the Ottoman harem.

I think that they were one of the best medieval cultures, but they just got too ambitious and stagnant, though you have got to hand it to them, where would modern male fantasy's be without the idea of the Ottoman harem.

i think you will find that the Harem is actually a arab concept (or perhaps Persian), the turks were were originally nomadic tribesmen that absorbed cultural aspects of the people they conquered not the other way round.

"barbarity and cruelty" sounds about right. They treat their women like dirt, lots of brutality by the police and in the jail, muslim is probably the most fanatic religion (suicide assassins etc.)... 'nuff said. :mad:

"barbarity and cruelty" sounds about right. They treat their women like dirt, lots of brutality by the police and in the jail, muslim is probably the most fanatic religion (suicide assassins etc.)... 'nuff said. :mad:

Do you even know what we're talking about? Who the Ottomans were?

Another thing that bothers me about the ottomans (is'nt Osmanli the correct erm?!?) is the fact that they have not left a lasting cultural legacy in either Europe or the Middle east to my knowledge, not in the same way that the early islamic caliphate, Byzantine empire or british empire has, or am i wrong on this?

Another thing that bothers me about the ottomans (is'nt Osmanli the correct erm?!?) is the fact that they have not left a lasting cultural legacy in either Europe or the Middle east to my knowledge, not in the same way that the early islamic caliphate, Byzantine empire or british empire has, or am i wrong on this?

I don't know enough of their history, but the existence of white muslims in the Balkans to the present day seems pretty important, culturally and internationally (WW1, Balkan wars in 1990s...). The fact that Turkey represents an experiment in secular~islamic country seems fairly vital. Uh... the shape and power of countries in the former ottoman lands stems from them, that's relevant...

Behind rough stuff like that, I'm not that qualified to give an answer, I guess!

Elgesh']Do you even know what we're talking about? Who the Ottomans were?
Who they *were* and who they *are* are two completely different things.

Who they *were* and who they *are* are two completely different things.

... yeah... that's completely my point...

Turkey is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire. They're not the Ottomans. The Ottomans can't be 'are' because they no longer exist! :D

Elgesh']I don't know enough of their history, but the existence of white muslims in the Balkans to the present day seems pretty important, culturally and internationally (WW1, Balkan wars in 1990s...). The fact that Turkey represents an experiment in secular~islamic country seems fairly vital. Uh... the shape and power of countries in the former ottoman lands stems from them, that's relevant...

Behind rough stuff like that, I'm not that qualified to give an answer, I guess!

good point about Bosnia, however the experiment in secularism has been at the cost of the minorites in turkey, most obviously the Kurds but also the Lazi and Hemsinli. As for former Ottoman lands the majority of these in the middle east had the borders drawn up by the UK and France not Turkey while in Europe the borders of the balkans were drawn by the merging states as they beat back turkish rule in the late 1800's.

I like the Turks, they are a great nation. And the only official secular muslim country.

They're too good to be in the EU anyways.

Plus it's only inevitable before the Turks take over Europe through demographics. ;)

I like the Turks, they are a great nation. And the only official secular muslim country.

They're too good to be in the EU anyways.

Plus it's only inevitable before the Turks take over Europe through demographics. ;)

only if they are let in otherwise it will be the africans that take over europe demographically speaking. As for calling them a great nation ask a kurd or an armenian what they think.

only if they are let in otherwise it will be the africans that take over europe demographically speaking. As for calling them a great nation ask a kurd or an armenian what they think.

True, but speaking as a Jew i have nothing but good things to say about them.

Every nation has it's enemies and allies...and in this day and age, neutrals are hard to find sometimes.

Without the Ottomans, we'd have no place to put up our tired feet and have to resort to scuffing our coffee tables.









Okay, that was hideously lame. Sorry.

I rather enjoyed it. :)

True, but speaking as a Jew i have nothing but good things to say about them.

Every nation has it's enemies and allies...and in this day and age, neutrals are hard to find sometimes.

Yeah the ottomans were very good in taking the sephardic exiles from spain and portugal but they were horrendous towards christians, so i suppose it dependes on point of view.

I rather enjoyed it. :)

High praise from you, sir! Thank you!

Ottomans for me = Cruelty, Colonization, and "snobism"... if thats a good word for it...

actually i still think turks are snobby towards Arabs till this day... and it is true they see Arabs as Useless Barbarians that they dont need... while they have built there empire on there resources in egypt, Syria and Iraq

Yeah... as if Arabs don't look down on Turks, Persians, Afghans, Malaysians, Europeans, etc. Need I go on? Everyone practices ethnocentricism, not just the Turks.

Elgesh']I don't know enough of their history, but the existence of white muslims in the Balkans to the present day seems pretty important, culturally and internationally (WW1, Balkan wars in 1990s...). The fact that Turkey represents an experiment in secular~islamic country seems fairly vital. Uh... the shape and power of countries in the former ottoman lands stems from them, that's relevant...

Behind rough stuff like that, I'm not that qualified to give an answer, I guess!
Trust me, they left a very bitter taste in the mouths of many of the Balkan states. Bulgaria in particular detests the legacy left behind by the Ottoman Empire, and to this day the country has massive problems with Turks living within it. Indeed they did leave a legacy behind, but it was hardly notable. That is not to say that the Byzantine Empire was any more loved by the Balkan states, yet the religion it formed and the Cyrillic alphabet were all products of it that spread throughout Eastern Europe. Although modern (and ancient) Greece is very much Western Europe, in medieval times it was the cultural epicentre of Eastern Europe and in time came to be respected by the Eastern Europeans. The Ottoman Empire was not well received, and to this day few have any real liking for it, other than the Turks themselves. Russia and Austria still dislike Turkey, albeit not because it oppressed them but rather because it was a rival empire.

Trust me, they left a very bitter taste in the mouths of many of the Balkan states. Bulgaria in particular detests the legacy left behind by the Ottoman Empire, and to this day the country has massive problems with Turks living within it. Indeed they did leave a legacy behind, but it was hardly notable. That is not to say that the Byzantine Empire was any more loved by the Balkan states, yet the religion it formed and the Cyrillic alphabet were all products of it that spread throughout Eastern Europe. Although modern (and ancient) Greece is very much Western Europe, in medieval times it was the cultural epicentre of Eastern Europe and in time came to be respected by the Eastern Europeans. The Ottoman Empire was not well received, and to this day few have any real liking for it, other than the Turks themselves. Russia and Austria still dislike Turkey, albeit not because it oppressed them but rather because it was a rival empire.
Oh, I'm not trying to say what was positive and what was negative - in modern terms - about the Ottoman, only that thet did indeed _have_ a lasting influence. I'm not familiar enough with the history to say owt else :)

Wasn't mr. Vlad (the Impaler) an Ottomanian?

Elgesh']Oh, I'm not trying to say what was positive and what was negative - in modern terms - about the Ottoman, only that thet did indeed _have_ a lasting influence. I'm not familiar enough with the history to say owt else :)
I realised that. ;) I thought I would just stress the fact that their legacy was not one to brag of, even though I do have a liking towards imperialism. I had to study the historical period in school, something I hated back then. I am glad I did though because it gives much insight into how Europe operated in the middle ages, and of the relations between the Arabs, Turks and Europeans of the age. Many conveniently forget how early the attacks by East on West occured, and are ready to blame the Crusaders for initating the conflicts, something which is simply not true.

Wasn't mr. Vlad an Ottomanian?
Vlad the Impaler? Nah, I doubt it. I know little of him, but I am pretty sure he was some brand of Eastern European.

Wasn't mr. Vlad (the Impaler) an Ottomanian?

Vlad Tepes, ruler of Wallachia, 15th C., fought the Ottomans, unimaginably cruel, changed religion from orthodox to christianity, died in battle/assassinated in battle in attempt to retake Wallachia after he was deposed.

Elgesh']Vlad Tepes, ruler of Wallachia, 15th C., fought the Ottomans, unimaginably cruel, changed religion from orthodox to christianity, died in battle/assassinated in battle in attempt to retake Wallachia after he was deposed.
From Orthodox Christianity to Christianity? :p

From Orthodox Christianity to Christianity? :p
lol! sorry, brainslip! I _meant_ catholicism! They both start with 'c', surely you see the bind I was in!

Elgesh']lol! sorry, brainslip! I _meant_ catholicism!
The two denominations are much closer than they would have themselves think. Most of their disagreements are material and rather shallow. Oh well, that's religion for you. :rolleyes: I do wonder why he changed denominations though...with his track record you'd think he'd deify himself.

A bunch of idiots who had their asses handed to them by every respectable country in Europe and got annihalated at Lepanto by Spain's mighty Navy! Seriously though, I dont think they ever did anything right, they had the best location, at the cruz of three worlds and trade routed, but they were just an unimpressive, languishing gang of brutes.

The two denominations are much closer than they would have themselves think. Most of their disagreements are material and rather shallow. Oh well, that's religion for you. :rolleyes: I do wonder why he changed denominations though...with his track record you'd think he'd deify himself.

He changed religion to win favour with the Hungarian king (who was Catholic), again as part of a bid to regain Wallachia following his deposition and imprisonment...by the king of Hungary! :p

Elgesh']He changed religion to win favour with the Hungarian king (who was Catholic), again as part of a bid to regain Wallachia following his deposition and imprisonment...by the king of Hungary! :p
Ouch...Speaking of Hungary, the Countess Bathory of Hungary was even nastier than her cousin Vlad. She supposeldy tore apart and consumed the blood of 600 maidens within a time span of 7 years :eek: They had to seal her in a "tomb" of stone in the end, because she was too powerful politically to die (her husband was the absolute ruler of Hungary).

A bunch of idiots who had their asses handed to them by every respectable country in Europe and got annihalated at Lepanto by Spain's mighty Navy! Seriously though, I dont think they ever did anything right, they had the best location, at the cruz of three worlds and trade routed, but they were just an unimpressive, languishing gang of brutes.

O...K... You piece your history together from the back of sugar packets or what? :p

Economics aren't my thing... and I only know a little Ottoman history. But while the Ottomans stagnated horribly late on in thier history - survived too long, perhaps - right up to the last quarter of the 17th century they were an eminently respectable state, capable of marching through central Europe, winning as they went, and besieging Vienna with was ws still the most sophisticated military entrenchment of the day.

Lepanto was a one-off naval defeat on the Ottomans by the Papal League in the 16th C., a large international force of meditarrainian countries. The Ottoman navy was back to strength in the next 2 years - the Papal League collapsed, as it hadn't changed a thing with its bloody, Phyrric victory. Venice, part of the League, sued for peace against the Ottomans the same year.

As regards trade, the Ottomans did well out of it! How else able to replace a whole fleet in a couple of years! But as time went on, ocean going galleons, especially Spanish/Portuguese, and Dutch/English, took the most profitable tradedirect from their sources, not a long series of caravans. You can argue, I think, that as trade declined, so did the Ottoman state - economic weakening led to military and cultural stagnation.

The Ottomans were around, as a more informed post-er said earlier, from the late 13th to the earlier 20th C. - I don't think your sweeping generalisations and casual insults about them as a whole for this period are justified.

First Constantinople, then Vienna...they just didn't learn, did they? :rolleyes:

First Constantinople, then Vienna...they just didn't learn, did they? :rolleyes:
buh? :p how d'you mean?

Elgesh']buh? :p how d'you mean?
Meh to leave our empires alone :p First the Byzantine one, then the Austrian one? Well, now we are getting our own back...:D No more Ottoman Empire, just Turkey trying to get into the EU desperately. :)

Meh to leave our empires alone :p First the Byzantine one, then the Austrian one? Well, now we are getting our own back...:D No more Ottoman Empire, just Turkey trying to get into the EU desperately. :)
Ah - humour.








:p

Sorry, poor joke! Seriously, you've got to remember that was part of the deal, then as now - states attempt to gain power at the expense of others. Even if they're Ottoman! Blast them, and you blast the empires they fought, because they were doing exactly the same thing at the time!

Elgesh']Ah - humour.



:p

Sorry, poor joke! Seriously, you've got to remember that was part of the deal, then as now - states attempt to gain power at the expense of others. Even if they're Ottoman! Blast them, and you blast the empires they fought, because they were doing exactly the same thing at the time!
Well it wasn't exactly a joke, and yes I do remember this, but being European I'd prefer our empires to come out on top :p Oh glorious day when the EU finally integrates fully.

... being European...Oh glorious day when the EU finally integrates fully.
boo, hiss!:p :D Wretched hour when real countries sign away their souls to paper men with snounts in the trough!

Oh well, getting off topic... maybe in another thread, hey? There'll be an "EU cool/not-cool?" thread in the new year/over the holidays, I'm sure :)

Elgesh']boo, hiss!:p :D Wretched hour when real countries sign away their souls to paper men with snounts in the trough!

Oh well, getting off topic... maybe in another thread, hey? There'll be an "EU cool/not-cool?" thread in the new year/over the holidays, I'm sure :)
Its been discussed a lot already :p But yeah, I'm pretty sure another thread will pop up to handle it. So yeah, back to the Ottoman Empire. Any other contribution? :p