View Full Version : Ottomans - research


Yoda Power
Nov 29, 2006, 03:13 PM
In early January I'm doing a very important report on the Ottomans. Did I say it was VERY important?

Anyway I can't just write about the Ottomans, I have to choose a much more specific subject. So far I'm thinking about Ottomans relationship/dealings with Europe, but this can, and probably will, change before January.

I wish to use this thread as a source of information, both now, and when I write the report. Maybe I can ask some questions. However the most important thing at this point is to get some sources. I need links, good links, and maybe book suggestions. I can't accepts any statements without some valid source to back it up. I doubt my history teacher will accepts this forum alone as a valid source.

So if you have any good links, or articles regarding the Ottomans, please post them. Don't just go out and rant whatever you know about the Ottomans, all the basic knowledge I already know, so that's usually useless to me.

Thanks in advance.

Mirc
Nov 29, 2006, 04:09 PM
I'm here just to give some advice, as I do not know many good sites about the Ottomans.

I'm really not ranting whatever I know about the Ottomans, please don't judge this post until you read it at least partially.




I'd recommend being extremely careful when searching for information about Ottoman Empire on the net. The Internet is full of wrong information about them. Really. Some sites even say that they conquered Ethiopia (!) or Moldavia, while both were never conquered. Some say that Constantinopole fell in 1339. :crazyeyes:

And some sites contradict themselves, saying that "Cyprus was not conquered until mid 1600's", then saying "Dates of Conquest: Cyprus - 1571. Be very careful, because a lot of the info out there is wrong!

And most important, never trust maps! Unless their source is known to be good and trustworthy. Maps are probably the easiest way to spread wrong information, and you will see that maps from different sites contradict each other. You'll see a lot of territory as "conquered territory", while the Ottomans "suffered an embarrassing defeat" there. For example, you'll see Vienna as a border city in some maps.

And some sites will say Bulgarians were glad to be part of the Ottoman Empire and didn't impose any resistance because of that.

I even found on a site info like: "The Ottoman Empire didn't conquer Austria because they realized they had no use for their lands and conquering them will only bring trouble". Or "For some short periods of time, various kings of Poland were vassals to the Ottoman sultan, which was almost as they were conquered". I especially love the "almost conquered" expression used.

Try to verify all information you get. And try to only take info from trustworthy, verifiable sources.

Squonk
Nov 29, 2006, 05:48 PM
I agree with previous post. To clear something up: Moldavia was never an integral part of Ottoman Empire, though it was fief of it for most of its history and its southern part (Budziak) was conquered by Turks and incorporated in 1484 or so.
Turks never conquered Ethiopia, but indeed they tried and conquered some coastal parts of it (Eritrea, that is), and named it "Ethiopia"
Poland was never conquered or vassalised.
However, during the first free election of king in 1573, there were two main factions: pro-austrian and pro-french ones. Taking into account that Austrians were the main enemy of Turkey, and French their silent ally against it, Turks declared support for french candidate. The French won, mostly due to extravagant promises of bishop of Valence, Monluc, and of himself, so Turks claim it shows their influence over Poland...
In 1672, Turkey attacked Poland, took Podolia province and part of Ukraine, and a treaty of Buczacz was signed, according to which Poland was supposed to pay tribute. It should have been ratified by the parliament, but the parliament instead of signing the treaty sent a new army that defeated the Turks and while it failed to recapture Podolia, a new treaty was signed.
I can say much about polish-turkish relations, it used to be part of my interest. If You need literature, however, I may ask profesor Kolodziejczyk at seminary, he's a specialist in turkish history.

taillesskangaru
Nov 29, 2006, 06:11 PM
I'm a third of the way through Jason Goodwin's "Lords of the Horizon" and if you haven't read it yet I highly recommended that you do.

Kyriakos
Nov 29, 2006, 06:39 PM
Hm, does it have to be the ottomans or also the turkic tribes before them?

Afterall the ottomans were just one of the sultanates, which was created as a direct result of the relationship between the byzantine empire and the sultanate of Rum.
So if your paper can go before the creation of the ottoman sultanate a good topic might be one related to the sultanate of Iconion, and its creation; what purposes did it serve, and why was it helped by the byzantine empire. Generally the sultanate of Rum was seen by the byzantines as a block against the influx of more turkic tribes in the region. Before its creation the turks were semi-nomadic and not organised in states. They pillaged and ruled as petty- kings, overseing the societies which they had conquered. This caused an ever-existant demand for expansion as well, much like in the case of the mongol empire.
Another topic could be the reasons for a transformation of the ottoman empire, from an expansive one (up to the siege of Vienna) to a stabilised entity, with set borders, in the end of the austro-ottoman wars.
The topic can reach as far as the collapse of the empire, in the first world war, and as back as the creation of the sultanate of Iconion, with byzantine assistance ;)

Yoda Power
Nov 30, 2006, 05:38 AM
I'm here just to give some advice, as I do not know many good sites about the Ottomans.

I'm really not ranting whatever I know about the Ottomans, please don't judge this post until you read it at least partially.




I'd recommend being extremely careful when searching for information about Ottoman Empire on the net. The Internet is full of wrong information about them. Really. Some sites even say that they conquered Ethiopia (!) or Moldavia, while both were never conquered. Some say that Constantinopole fell in 1339. :crazyeyes:

And some sites contradict themselves, saying that "Cyprus was not conquered until mid 1600's", then saying "Dates of Conquest: Cyprus - 1571. Be very careful, because a lot of the info out there is wrong!

And most important, never trust maps! Unless their source is known to be good and trustworthy. Maps are probably the easiest way to spread wrong information, and you will see that maps from different sites contradict each other. You'll see a lot of territory as "conquered territory", while the Ottomans "suffered an embarrassing defeat" there. For example, you'll see Vienna as a border city in some maps.

And some sites will say Bulgarians were glad to be part of the Ottoman Empire and didn't impose any resistance because of that.

I even found on a site info like: "The Ottoman Empire didn't conquer Austria because they realized they had no use for their lands and conquering them will only bring trouble". Or "For some short periods of time, various kings of Poland were vassals to the Ottoman sultan, which was almost as they were conquered". I especially love the "almost conquered" expression used.

Try to verify all information you get. And try to only take info from trustworthy, verifiable sources.Well ofcause I have to be very carefull, but stupid mistakes like those, seem pretty easy to recognize as mistakes. Afterall it's not like I don't know anything about the Ottomans, I just need to know more;). But thanks for the advice anyway :).

I agree with previous post. To clear something up: Moldavia was never an integral part of Ottoman Empire, though it was fief of it for most of its history and its southern part (Budziak) was conquered by Turks and incorporated in 1484 or so.
Turks never conquered Ethiopia, but indeed they tried and conquered some coastal parts of it (Eritrea, that is), and named it "Ethiopia"
Poland was never conquered or vassalised.
However, during the first free election of king in 1573, there were two main factions: pro-austrian and pro-french ones. Taking into account that Austrians were the main enemy of Turkey, and French their silent ally against it, Turks declared support for french candidate. The French won, mostly due to extravagant promises of bishop of Valence, Monluc, and of himself, so Turks claim it shows their influence over Poland...
In 1672, Turkey attacked Poland, took Podolia province and part of Ukraine, and a treaty of Buczacz was signed, according to which Poland was supposed to pay tribute. It should have been ratified by the parliament, but the parliament instead of signing the treaty sent a new army that defeated the Turks and while it failed to recapture Podolia, a new treaty was signed.
I can say much about polish-turkish relations, it used to be part of my interest. If You need literature, however, I may ask profesor Kolodziejczyk at seminary, he's a specialist in turkish history.Well Polish-Turkish relations could be included somehow, atleast if I choose to write about their dealings with Europe. I'm very interested in litterature.

I'm a third of the way through Jason Goodwin's "Lords of the Horizon" and if you haven't read it yet I highly recommended that you do.I'll look into that, thanks.

Hm, does it have to be the ottomans or also the turkic tribes before them?

Afterall the ottomans were just one of the sultanates, which was created as a direct result of the relationship between the byzantine empire and the sultanate of Rum.
So if your paper can go before the creation of the ottoman sultanate a good topic might be one related to the sultanate of Iconion, and its creation; what purposes did it serve, and why was it helped by the byzantine empire. Generally the sultanate of Rum was seen by the byzantines as a block against the influx of more turkic tribes in the region. Before its creation the turks were semi-nomadic and not organised in states. They pillaged and ruled as petty- kings, overseing the societies which they had conquered. This caused an ever-existant demand for expansion as well, much like in the case of the mongol empire.
Another topic could be the reasons for a transformation of the ottoman empire, from an expansive one (up to the siege of Vienna) to a stabilised entity, with set borders, in the end of the austro-ottoman wars.
The topic can reach as far as the collapse of the empire, in the first world war, and as back as the creation of the sultanate of Iconion, with byzantine assistance ;)Well the Ottomans only, it's too late to expand the subject now. That means in round number that my period of interest is 1300-1920. I'm probably going to focuse on the first years though, up to ~1550.

Verbose
Nov 30, 2006, 06:24 AM
Ottoman-European relationships looks interesting, if a tad BIG as a subject.

What you get will vary with perspective as well. In the Balkans and central Europe the Ottomans were a reality to be reckoned with even before the fall of Constantinopolis in 1453, but the fall of that city brought home their rise to power for western Europe as well.

This led the Ottomans into contact and conflict with the Hapsburg Empire in SE Europe. It also brought them into conflict with the Italian trading republis in the Med, the Venetian empire in particular, but also the Genuese and the Spanish inheriting the maritime empire in the western Med of Aragon.

But getting in conflict with one set of European states also means picking up a bunch of friends, as in the enemy of my enemy.

Consequently His Most Catholic Majesty the King of France, François I, in the 1540's made the unheard move of allying himself with the Sultan. And since the French problem of being hemmed in by Imperial lands (Spain to the south, Austria to the east) didn't go away, France and the Ottomans spent the following centuries on more or less friendly terms.

Come the 17th c. the Swedish sudden bid for Prostestant great power status led it into conflict with the Habsburgs alongside the French and the Ottomans, so suddenly there was this triangulation of powers all trying to have a go at the Holy Roman Empire.
The Swedish-Ottoman alliance was then given a new lease of life with the rise of Russia as a common enemy in the 18th century, with France as a traditional ally and bankroller.

Yoda Power
Nov 30, 2006, 09:01 AM
So maybe French-Ottoman relations would be better? My teacher is french, so I would like to avoid teaching him French history, as he probably has a much better understanding than I have of it.

mrtn
Nov 30, 2006, 09:07 AM
Sounds interesting. You might want to look into the influence of the Sephardic Jews on the Ottoman Empire, after they got thrown out of Spain in 1492, a lot of them moved to Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantion/Thatdamncity.

Azkonus
Nov 30, 2006, 09:30 AM
Sounds interesting. You might want to look into the influence of the Sephardic Jews on the Ottoman Empire, after they got thrown out of Spain in 1492, a lot of them moved to Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantion/Thatdamncity.

That's right, but later Selanik/Salonica/Thessaloniki became main Ottoman Jewish city.

Yoda Power
Nov 30, 2006, 09:56 AM
Sounds interesting. You might want to look into the influence of the Sephardic Jews on the Ottoman Empire, after they got thrown out of Spain in 1492, a lot of them moved to Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantion/Thatdamncity.That was actually a pretty good suggestion too. I'm going to see about that :)

BEHIND_THE_MASK
Nov 30, 2006, 08:29 PM
If u write about ottoman relationsions then i suggest u write about German-Ottoman Relations.

They were rather close I believe... Good allies...

Verbose
Dec 01, 2006, 04:24 AM
If u write about ottoman relationsions then i suggest u write about German-Ottoman Relations.

They were rather close I believe... Good allies...
That would be later, the 19th c.

Verbose
Dec 01, 2006, 04:30 AM
So maybe French-Ottoman relations would be better? My teacher is french, so I would like to avoid teaching him French history, as he probably has a much better understanding than I have of it.
I'd think looking at a larger picture might be useful.

You can't look at Otto-French things without bringing in the Habsburgs anyway.

Personally what I find interesting is how integrated in general western European politics the Ottomans in fact were for a long time.

The interconnectedness was huge. The Spanish conquest of the New World bringing in huge amounts of precious metals didn't just cause rampant inflation in Spain (making Spain powerful but the king of Spain famously and incomprehensibly always broke), it practically killed the Ottomans as well. And at the time no one could figure out the mechanism why this was happening.

jeriko one
Dec 01, 2006, 04:48 AM
I must say beware Turkish sites. They are not historically correct and contains a lot of Jingo. However if you find anything byu Halil Inalcik, Ilber Ortayli, Murat Bardakci or Emre Kongar go for it. They are quite objective.

As a subject, I suggest you take a more specific subject. Something like "Vlad Dracul and the Ottoman Empire", " Malta Trials after WWI ", "Barbary Pirates and the Ottoman Empire" etc.

knigh+
Dec 02, 2006, 09:41 PM
Another interesting one might be the symbiotic relationship between early Ottomans and Byzantines. Ottomans often used help from some Byzantine castles/towns to fight other Byzantines or Turkish principalities. Osman's son got married to the daughter of the Byzantine governor of one of such ally towns. I think that governor was even given Gazi title, which is the Turkish equivalent of knighthood.

In the transition from nomadic life to settled civilization, they totally relied on Byzantine regulations, institutions, and clerks.

Later, the first lands and castles Ottomans gained in Europe were given as a gift from the Byzantines.

You can have a nice ending to the story with Mehmed's proclamation of himself being the new Ceasar (which was one of the titles of Byzantine Emperors as the head of Eastern Roman Empire) upon entering Constantinopolis.

knigh+
Dec 02, 2006, 10:12 PM
Other interesting but not well known events are the civil wars. These are interregnum (1402-1413) and conflict between Beyazid II and Cem (Jem,Djem) Sultan (1481+). The story of Cem Sultan has lots of European relations in it as well.

Also check this thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252131&page=1&pp=25

It is not in civfanatics, but it is in the forums of the game with most historical accuracy. It is a 20+ page thread with some dispute clutter, but if you quickly browse through it, you can easily see Tunch Khan's posts of encyclopedic size and format. He accumulated so much knowledge in that thread, that at some point the moderators posted thanks for his contribution to the next version of the game. He uses the same name in civfanatics, so I suppose you could find him here, send him a PM and ask his advice.

Yoda Power
Dec 04, 2006, 02:55 PM
I talked with my teacher today. He said I should find a period to focus on. He also thought that a subject concerning diplomatic relations was interesting, but he said I probably need more sources.

#1 Person
Dec 06, 2006, 08:03 PM
For this sort of research it is REALLY important and good to use text sources, as there are lots of books about it in any sort of reasonably sized library or online university site.

useless
Jan 04, 2007, 12:42 PM
if i was you id start around 1299–1683 since thats when the ottoman empire REALLY expanded
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/OttomanEmpireIn1683.png as this map shows ( they mainly took over former byzantine land (i.e constantinople and anatolia) i hope this helps.

Yoda Power
Jan 10, 2007, 09:15 AM
Ok now I got my (almost) final questions from my teacher:

1) Account for the history of the Ottoman Empire 1453-1683.
2) Analyse the factors that contributed to the expansion in the given period.
3) Discuss the importance of the european presence*, that can be traced in the Ottoman Empire.

*culture, etc.

useless
Jan 11, 2007, 11:20 AM
for the second question: one factor that contributed to the expansion in the given period, would be religious.

Verbose
Jan 12, 2007, 03:30 AM
Well, here's short historical rant on how I figure the Ottomans:

They were famous for the consistent, yet colourful, way in which they ran their empire based on slaves, i.e. slaves at the top of the social pyramid, not at the bottom.

Here's this gang of thugs riding out of central Asia, with leaders who know that their base of power is a bunch of roughnecks on horses. So they proceed to best all similar competitors (Seljuks and whatnot) and set themselves up as rulers based on this original premise.

But then they construct this very elaborate hierarchichal administration where all the civil funtionaries and all the troops are slaves, the personal property of the Sultan, to be disposed of as he sees fit, being given "the silk rope" when they mess up. (They had the Mameluks in Egypt to use as a model, except there the slaves had started appointing their rulers as well.)

This ensured the dynasty, as the system allowed no free men to have a shot at power, i.e. the descendants of the original bunch of roughneck supporters. And all the while the dynastic internal politics were conducted in a kind of social Darwinian fashion, the last heir standing over the broken bodies of his brothers in the harem being the new Sultan.

The European impact then comes from the fact that these slaves running the empire, while converts to Islam, were almost all by origin Greek, or Armenian, or Albanian, or Slav or Jewish, etc. What they were not was members of the free Muslim population cultivating the land in Anatolia, i.e. the Turks, "Turk" in fact being a very good insult to fling at an Ottoman.

knigh+
Jan 12, 2007, 11:31 PM
1) Account for the history of the Ottoman Empire 1453-1683.

Turkish historians take 1453-1579 as the "rising" era, and 1579-1699 as the "stalled" era


2) Analyse the factors that contributed to the expansion in the given period.


a) The only proper army of the time in Europe and Middle East. (proper= organized, structured, with uniforms, etc.)
b) Because they could

3) Discuss the importance of the european presence*, that can be traced in the Ottoman Empire.

Inextricable from the very beginning.

Azkonus
Jan 13, 2007, 05:45 AM
Ok, full of disinformation here, let me correct some of them.

They were famous for the consistent, yet colourful, way in which they ran their empire based on slaves, i.e. slaves at the top of the social pyramid, not at the bottom.

"Slaves" at the top can not be slaves, can they?


Here's this gang of thugs riding out of central Asia, with leaders who know that their base of power is a bunch of roughnecks on horses. So they proceed to best all similar competitors (Seljuks and whatnot) and set themselves up as rulers based on this original premise.

Turks (Seljuks which later turned into Ottomans) came from Central Asia to Persia then to Anatolia. But when they came they just wanted a new place. Eastern Rome attacked them first while they had no intention to fight.

Eastern Rome had Turks in their army too, that's why they changed sides in Manzikert. (Basically Turks were migrating there before 1071)


But then they construct this very elaborate hierarchichal administration where all the civil funtionaries and all the troops are slaves, the personal property of the Sultan, to be disposed of as he sees fit, being given "the silk rope" when they mess up. (They had the Mameluks in Egypt to use as a model, except there the slaves had started appointing their rulers as well.).

Only Ottomans had these system not Turks in general. For example Karamans were much pro-Turkic than Ottomans. But wise men around Osman told him to establish a rule based on religion. They told him capture christians and if they are somewhat strong, handsome (or beautiful for girls), smart take them and use in your service. But don't ever try to convert everyone into Turkish. This is the basis of rapid expansion. He didn't make everyone Turk, unlike 'fool' westerners who try to assimilate their subjects.



This ensured the dynasty, as the system allowed no free men to have a shot at power, i.e. the descendants of the original bunch of roughneck supporters. And all the while the dynastic internal politics were conducted in a kind of social Darwinian fashion, the last heir standing over the broken bodies of his brothers in the harem being the new Sultan.

The European impact then comes from the fact that these slaves running the empire, while converts to Islam, were almost all by origin Greek, or Armenian, or Albanian, or Slav or Jewish, etc. What they were not was members of the free Muslim population cultivating the land in Anatolia, i.e. the Turks, "Turk" in fact being a very good insult to fling at an Ottoman.


Wrong, in Ottoman times if you were asked Who are you?

Your Answer will be either -I am Turk. (which means you are a muslim)

Or -I am (your origin for example: Serb; which means you are not a muslim)

Therfore if you are someone valuable you are a Turk. (no matter where your origins are.) Let's say Verbose is very talented and we decided to take you away from your family, and you became a muslim. At that moment you are a Turk. So when you are asked what is your religion you answer proudly I am a Turk. And your sister will say -I am French Catholic.

Azkonus
Jan 13, 2007, 05:54 AM
BTW, Yoda Power.

In your scenario of ToB, you named Ottomans as Turks (like not an Ottoman cavalary but a Turkish cavalary) in a game where Karamans, Aydinoglu, Dulkadirs and other Beyliks present. This is basically wrong. I hope you know this.

Yoda Power
Jan 15, 2007, 02:19 AM
Azkonus: Thanks for the corrections. I have a lot of trouble with 2) (see earlier post), so if you have anything please add. I've only written about 10 pages so far!

About ToB: The Turkish Pikeman/Cavalry/Swordsman is available to all the muslim states, that's why they are called "Turkish" and not "Ottoman". BTW I know the Hafsids did not deploy Turks, but that is a minor fault I think.

knigh+
Jan 15, 2007, 02:34 AM
Azkonus: Thanks for the corrections. I have a lot of trouble with 2) (see earlier post), so if you have anything please add. I've only written about 10 pages so far!

You can write about the Jenissary institution and Devshirme system. It created soldiers with no loyalty other than the sultan, and they were grown (brainwashed?) to be fearless. This gave a big edge to the organized army of Ottomans, which went into battle with military bands and such niceties, over the "bunch of medieval warriors" type armies of Balkans.

Also some talk about Privateers. Privateers did not help as much as they did to Ottomans to any other country of that time, not even Britain. That's why many famous Ottoman grand admirals were ex-pirates.

And thirdly, as I said before, "because they could", meaning that they had an amount of resources no other country in the region had, due to size, so they could fund massive military campaigns.

About ToB: The Turkish Pikeman/Cavalry/Swordsman is available to all the muslim states, that's why they are called "Turkish" and not "Ottoman". BTW I know the Hafsids did not deploy Turks, but that is a minor fault I think.

I think his point was because the other principalities were Turks too, naming Ottomans as Turks may not be right.

Yoda Power
Jan 15, 2007, 02:47 AM
You can write about the Jenissary institution and Devshirme system. It created soldiers with no loyalty other than the sultan, and they were grown (brainwashed?) to be fearless. This gave a big edge to the organized army of Ottomans, which went into battle with military bands and such niceties, over the "bunch of medieval warriors" type armies of Balkans.

Also some talk about Privateers. Privateers did not help as much as they did to Ottomans to any other country of that time, not even Britain. That's why many famous Ottoman grand admirals were ex-pirates.

And thirdly, as I said before, "because they could", meaning that they had an amount of resources no other country in the region had, due to size, so they could fund massive military campaigns.I written quite a lot about the jannisaries already. I've also talked a bit about the naval aspect, but without anymore detail I can't really get and good arguments. And the point is mainly to explain how they did become so big. Ironicly when they had expanded all over the world they were actually weakend militarily.
I think his point was because the other principalities were Turks too, naming Ottomans as Turks may not be right. I don't see what the problem is with assigning a turkish soldier to all the turkish states. :confused:

knigh+
Jan 15, 2007, 02:59 AM
I written quite a lot about the jannisaries already. I've also talked a bit about the naval aspect, but without anymore detail I can't really get and good arguments. And the point is mainly to explain how they did become so big. Ironicly when they had expanded all over the world they were actually weakend militarily.

Sipahi institution gave means to secure new conquests, by placing "native" troop manpower to new lands.

And with religious freedom they did not get tied down converting/oppressing/killing (the norm of that era) the new citizens from every conquest.

Just guessing here, since you have been investigating the subject, you might know more than I do.


I don't see what the problem is with assigning a turkish soldier to all the turkish states. :confused:

I haven't played your mod, so I'm not sure. From his post I understood that the name of the Ottoman civ is Turks. If that is not so, then I don't know what his point was.

Yoda Power
Jan 15, 2007, 03:05 AM
Sipahi institution gave means to secure new conquests, by placing "native" troop manpower to new lands.

And with religious freedom they did not get tied down converting/oppressing/killing (the norm of that era) the new citizens from every conquest.

Just guessing here, since you have been investigating the subject, you might know more than I do.Yeah I really already done those subjects. I think I might need to write some more about the Jihad against the christians though, and holy warfare as a moral weapon to convince subjects for support.
I haven't played your mod, so I'm not sure. From his post I understood that the name of the Ottoman civ is Turks. If that is not so, then I don't know what his point was. They aren't called Turks, but Ottomans.

Verbose
Jan 15, 2007, 07:01 AM
Ok, full of disinformation here, let me correct some of them.
Really?:scan:
"Slaves" at the top can not be slaves, can they?
If they're bought and sold as the private property of the ruler (and killed at his will), but staff the imperial civil and military administration, sure they can.
Turks (Seljuks which later turned into Ottomans) came from Central Asia to Persia then to Anatolia. But when they came they just wanted a new place. Eastern Rome attacked them first while they had no intention to fight.

Eastern Rome had Turks in their army too, that's why they changed sides in Manzikert. (Basically Turks were migrating there before 1071)
Every horse nomad chieftain turning up with his retinue of warriors would know where his power ultimately derived from. I see nothing to fault this here?

Except if you're taking umbrage at the levity of the tone?

Only I fail to see how Osman and his progeny eventually besting all comers, establishing the Ottoman empire, was the outcome of an ardent desire for peace and the unintended result of endless wars of self-defense. It stretches credulity a bit, I think.;)
Only Ottomans had these system not Turks in general. For example Karamans were much pro-Turkic than Ottomans. But wise men around Osman told him to establish a rule based on religion. They told him capture christians and if they are somewhat strong, handsome (or beautiful for girls), smart take them and use in your service. But don't ever try to convert everyone into Turkish. This is the basis of rapid expansion. He didn't make everyone Turk, unlike 'fool' westerners who try to assimilate their subjects.
I was talking about the Ottomans. What else would I be talking about?
Wrong, in Ottoman times if you were asked Who are you?

Your Answer will be either -I am Turk. (which means you are a muslim)

Or -I am (your origin for example: Serb; which means you are not a muslim)

Therfore if you are someone valuable you are a Turk. (no matter where your origins are.) Let's say Verbose is very talented and we decided to take you away from your family, and you became a muslim. At that moment you are a Turk. So when you are asked what is your religion you answer proudly I am a Turk. And your sister will say -I am French Catholic.
Could be.
Interpretation of how this worked seems to be divided.:goodjob:

Azkonus
Jan 15, 2007, 02:29 PM
Really?:scan:

If they're bought and sold as the private property of the ruler (and killed at his will), but staff the imperial civil and military administration, sure they can.

Let's see. Ottoman Architect "Koca" Sinan, was an Armenian and converted to Islam and became a Turk. (Basically by your definition a slave). Well, we know that he even arque with Sultans themselves , often having fun with them. By your logic he should be beheaded much before however let me repeat if you had talent in Ottoman Empire you had the utmost respect.


Every horse nomad chieftain turning up with his retinue of warriors would know where his power ultimately derived from. I see nothing to fault this here?

Except if you're taking umbrage at the levity of the tone?

Only I fail to see how Osman and his progeny eventually besting all comers, establishing the Ottoman empire, was the outcome of an ardent desire for peace and the unintended result of endless wars of self-defense. It stretches credulity a bit, I think.;).

See, this is where you confuse. When we say Turks we mean Kayi clan of Oghuz Turks which migrated to Persia and Anatolia probably from todays Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

So, there were Turkish people who migrated to Anatolia before 1000A.D but it was the Alp Arslan, (was the second sultan of the dynasty of Seljuk Turks, and great-grandson of Seljuk, the founder of the dynasty), who brought a lot of Turks with him.

He was defensive but Emperor Romanos IV decided to attack and lost at Manzikert.

Ottomans were the ones who are pure attackers which formed much latter when the Mongols invaded Anatolia in the 1260s and divided it into small emirates called the Anatolian beyliks.



I was talking about the Ottomans. What else would I be talking about?

You have to make it clear. Osman's state covers the period 1299-1922; and he didn't beam himself up to Anatolia from Central Asia. :p


Could be.
Interpretation of how this worked seems to be divided.:goodjob:

Look at the Turkish people today. We are the real melting pot of the world. I am in US now, and there was this woman working in the international affairs she said to me "-You know what, I am working here for 25 years and I can pretty much tell who came from where by looking to their features only with Turks I can not. We have people who were Serbs, Bosniaks, Romanians but calling themselves Turk, so we have lots of Slavs (pale white featured people), we have people from Sudan (black featured people), we have people from Syria, Arabia, North Africa (arabic features), we have people from Caucasia, Georgia, Azerbaijan (caucasian features), we have people from Checenia (Russian features) this goes on....but everyone of them called themselves Turk because they are Muslim. Because this is how Osman established his state based on religion.

knigh+
Jan 15, 2007, 02:40 PM
See, this is where you confuse. When we say Turks we mean Kayi section of Oghuz Tribe which migrated to Persia and Anatolia probably from todays Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.


Don't we label the entire Oghuz Tribe as Turks (which is divided into 24 clans)? Only Ottomans were Kayi clan. Seljuk Turks were Kinik clan. And I think at least some of the Anatolian Beyliks were of different clans.

Azkonus
Jan 15, 2007, 03:13 PM
Don't we label the entire Oghuz Tribe as Turks (which is divided into 24 clans)? Only Ottomans were Kayi clan. Seljuk Turks were Kinik clan. And I think at least some of the Anatolian Beyliks were of different clans.

You are right. I will correct it. By the way why don't you show Yoda Power the topics in EU3 you and Tunch contributing. I think you guys do a great job there.:goodjob:

Azkonus
Jan 15, 2007, 03:36 PM
...
2) Analyse the factors that contributed to the expansion in the given period.
...

About TOB; when I was playing with Ottomans iirc (Turkish Pikeman vs Karaman Pikeman) which sounded odd to me.

About 2) Basically Osman was wise enough to see weakness of Byzantines and exploited their poor defense. Meanwhile other "bey"s were fighting with each other and applying Turkish tactics to Turks which was basically stupid. Attacking a foreigner was morally more acceptable then killing fellow Turks.

You should study Karamans which were much stronger at the start. Everybody was betting they would unite the Turks under one banner.
But their weakness was they were pro-Turkic and geostrategically in a bad position. (bad start location in Civ terms LOL :lol: )

On the other hand Ottomans for example gained knowledge, money, soldiers...etc from Byzantines and Balkans.

To sum up

1) Perfect starting location of Osman's little state next to weak Byzantines.
2) Turkish military tactics is more useful against foreigners than to other Turks
3) Morally what Ottomans try to accomplish (expansion to foreign lands bringing Islam to them) is more meaningful than what Karamans try to accomplish (bringing Turks under one banner by fighting other Turkish Beyliks)

knigh+
Jan 15, 2007, 04:24 PM
You are right. I will correct it. By the way why don't you show Yoda Power the topics in EU3 you and Tunch contributing. I think you guys do a great job there.:goodjob:

You mean post #17 of the thread we are in :)


Also check this thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252131&page=1&pp=25

It is not in civfanatics, but it is in the forums of the game with most historical accuracy. It is a 20+ page thread with some dispute clutter, but if you quickly browse through it, you can easily see Tunch Khan's posts of encyclopedic size and format. He accumulated so much knowledge in that thread, that at some point the moderators posted thanks for his contribution to the next version of the game.


Thanks but Tunch really deserves the credit for that, I might have contributed 1% or so.

Kyriakos
Jan 15, 2007, 05:03 PM
He was defensive but Emperor Romanos IV decided to attack and lost at Manzikert.



This is entirely incorrect. Or to be precise, it is only correct in the part of it that is insignificant, ie it is correct that the first seljuk soldiers which came to the edge of the byzantine empire (entering it due to the fact that they were retreating from a campaign in arabic lands, and wanted to avoid further conflict on their way back to Persia) asked for permission to pass peacefully from the Byz Empire. A local overlord in that part of the empire decided to deny them permission, most probably because he wanted to take for himself the loot the seljuks had taken from the pillaging campaign. This was the cause of the first ever Byzantine-seljuk conflict, however the byzantine guard in that part of the empire ruled by that lord was not used to fight against an army mostly made of light cavalry archers, and so was defeated.
This is argued to have been critical as much as it would have been probable that the seljuk armies would not have had sought to engage in war against the empire themselves, since their own plan was to unite some more arabic kingdoms under their banner (ussual tactic for nomadic lords).
The battle of Matzikert has little to do with it though, and you were also entirely wrong to claim that "turks" (do you mean the Pechenegs? they were not in contact with the seljuks) being used as merceneries in the byz army had anything to do with defeat there. The battle of Matzikert was lost due to the byzantine army splitting in half, with the weaker half betraying Romanos Diogenes, something quite obvious moreover later on since upon his return to Constantinople Diogenes was thrown to a cell due to the plots of some nobles.

Also worth to note that Diogenes had signed a stable peace with Arslan, which peace was declared null and void due to this turn of events.

Yoda Power
Jan 16, 2007, 01:49 AM
ToB: No such thing as a Karaman Pikeman in the game. Turkish Pikeman to all the turks. :p

I already looked a bit at that thread, it was nice.

Thanks for thr info on Karamans, I didn't knew that. I'll try and dig some more up about their history.

Also I am sort of ready to do 3), so if anyone has any thoughts on that, please tell!

:)

knigh+
Jan 18, 2007, 08:07 AM
Also I am sort of ready to do 3), so if anyone has any thoughts on that, please tell!


Here are some:

Early Ottomans incorporated burocratic/administrative/financial system of the Byzantines while passing from nomadic civ to settled civ.

Early Ottomans often allied with Byzantine governors for fights against other Byzantine governors. One such governor was even given the title of Gazi (holy warrior of islam) after his conversion.

Osman got his son Orhan marry a Byzantine princess. (And afterwards, a lot of Ottoman queens were from the Balkans)

As they conquered lands in Europe, as they left the cultures intact, they probably were unavoidably influenced by the cultures that became inside the Empire.

Mehmed the conqueror was the first to have an oil painting of himself (How can he not have his portrait painted while European kings have theirs?). Before him it was considered un-islamic. After him all sultans had portraits.

France was the first (except Byzantium) European power to ally with Ottomans (1535 or 1553, I don't remember).

CosmoKing
Feb 03, 2007, 04:02 PM
I dont know if it is too late, but I can tell you a lot about the Ottoman presence in Europe as I am from one of the places in Europe they conquered: Bosnia&Herzegovina

I must first outline that although the Ottomans left cultures intact, they had a big influence and tried to somewhat change them. In a lot of countries they conquered, lives of a lot of ordinary people, especially among Non-Muslims, became very poor. Although officially tolerant of other religions, they still tried to subjugate them, especially Roman Catholicism, as it was the state religion of the Austrians, the main enemy of the Ottomans. For example, they banned church bells from ringing and in 1462, over 50% of the population was Roman Catholic, and all the King's also Roman Catholic. Today there are 16% of Catholics in Bosnia&Herzegovina and just 10% of those practice their religion. Francisian Monasteries also suffered hardship, and on a few occasions were ordered to be razed.

This is a very famous translation of a Bosnian poem that highlights people's suffering:


Three Hajduks
by Jovan Jovanovic-Zmaj

In a middle of a stormy night,
Feruz-Pasha jumped out of his sleep
The lantern rattled, like it reads
The horrors of his dreams, on a pale face.
Feruz-Pasha asks his wife:
“Where are the keys to the dungeons?...
For three years they’ve been rotting away,
Damn Hajduks!
But still I have no peace
They come to haunt me in my dreams.”
“Aga, don’t go down in the dark
We shall send a servant tomorrow
To bury their bones!”
“Ha, ha, ha, my wife!
I wasn’t scared of them when they were alive
While they were horrible
I’m not going to be scared now
Like dead dogs!
I have to go and see them,
How they lay on a rotten bed
And ask them why they are calling me
What they want from me!”
He took a lantern – the wind blows
Pasha’s pale face
Rusty handle creaks
As he descends into the dungeon.
It is icy cold down there
Scorpios cannot breathe
And cold adders cannot live.
Three skeletons sit there
Three skeletons that used to be hajduks.
Are they sitting or
Is Pasha imagining it.
In front of them
On a stone
Like a table
Three pitchers

The first hajduk speaks:
“Here, Pasha, pitcher full of blood!
I used to have a wife.
She was left all alone
But not alone…. Sword in her hand
She screamed: Where are you, wolves?
Came to your castle,
She was shot
Bullet through her heart-
Here is a pitcher of her blood!”

Wonderful wine, full glass
Salute me, Feruz-Pasha!”
He steps closer
He drinks the wine. Screams.
Pasha screams
And the bones
Laughed ….. God forbid!

The second hajduk speaks:
“When I ended up in this grave
My Mother asked you
How much for the slave?
And you said: three sacks!
Poor old mother
Worked day and night
Haven’t eaten or slept
Until blood and sweat run
And she gave you three sacks of gold.
When she gave you all the gold
You laughed: Oh, that’s only for food
Your son was a hero
He eats stone now!
That’s what killed her.
This pitcher is full of wine,
Her sweat and blood!



Wonderful wine, full glass
Salute me, Feruz-Pasha!”
He steps closer
He drinks the wine. Screams.
Pasha screams
And the bones
Laughed ….. God forbid!

The third hajduk speaks:
When I ended up in this darkness
I had a son, young and weak
He wanted a gun
Too heavy for his little arms
He cried and cried
He could not become one of us
He cried. Hungry and thirsty.
His father is rotting away
He cried and died!
Here is a pitcher, full of tears!

Wonderful wine, full glass
Salute me, Feruz-Pasha!”
He steps closer
He drinks the wine. Screams.
Pasha screams
Dead Pasha fell on a floor
Next to Hajduks
And those bones
Laughed…. God Forbid!


Wikipidia: In Balkan folkloric tradition, the hajduk (hajduci or haiduci in the plural) is a romanticised hero figure who steals from, and leads his fighters into battle against, the Ottoman oppressors. In reality, the hajduci of the 18th and 19th centuries were guerilla fighters cum bandits who preyed not only on Ottomans but also on local merchants and travellers. However, the hajduci did follow a moral code which forbade robbing of the poor and motiveless murder.


Hope this helped :)