Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 1

Rulers
What happened in the 1600s ?

Clearly there were two emperors at the same time...

Mustafa I (1617-1623) Osman II (1618?-1622?) Murat IV (1623-1640?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBaker (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 September 2001 (UTC)


 * Sultan Mustafa first reigned between 1617-18 then he lost his throne to Osman II but Osman II sadly lost his life while he was trying to make a military reform(basically murdered by Janissaries). After this shock event, janissary leaders led Mustafa I to be the Sultan again. Mustafa I(Crazy Mustafa), because of his mental health, could reign for one more year(1622-23). Then Murat IV, the conqueror of Baghdad, picked up the throne when he was only 12 years old and reigned until his death in 1640. With respect, Deliogul 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Porte
Why was it called the Sublime Porte? Where does that term come from? Adam Bishop 04:49, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It derives from the gate at the entrance to the sultan's palace. --Wik 04:52, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Should go into an article, perhaps this one. --Jerzy 20:55, 2003 Oct 16 (UTC)

Fact Conflicts
In the section on Beyazid in Ottoman Empire, i've NPOVed the portion on nature of Murad's death and outcome of the battle of Nicopolis (AKA Nikopol, Bulgaria). I edited only that article, for the moment, since it is clearly in progress (and the contributor may be about to review transcriptions or wording for reconsideration) and since there are two articles at hand that contradict the battle part.

I am also adding this note to talk pages of Ottoman Empire, Beyazid I, and Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor.

If the Ottoman Empire contributor defends her/his version with sources, IMO others should also bring forward sources, and there should be discussion, in case the factual dispute is not resolved, about how to lessen the burden of NPOVing the various articles affected - e.g., could all three articles say "see Death of Murad and Battle of Nicopolis for controversial matters relevant to this section"? -- Jerzy 20:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article says that at the end of WWI "Italy and Greece were given much of Anatolia."


 * Rewrite of the rest of my hasty critique, in light of next paragraph of article, in progress.


 * More this week. --Jerzy 21:02, 2003 Oct 16 (UTC)

--Jerzy 20:55, 2003 Oct 16 (UTC)

Help with Bulgarian S
I need help with the Bulgarian S in names like Nis and Milos Kobilic... Does it work typing in ? in Word and pasting it? I've read all the stuff on the Special Character page and cannot find the HTML-code for an s with a circumflex (?) pointing down (like a v). This isn't really important but anyway - thanks in advance. --The Phoenix 19:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I dunno anything abt Bulgarian, but i know that in Czech a thing sort of like that is called a hacek,, pronounced HA-check (or i guess HA-czech. Hmm.). The C in hacek has one. That may help in your search. --Jerzy 21:16, 2003 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * Thanks --The Phoenix 14:27, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Large page
Well, the page has reached 32kb. Any suggestions? --The Phoenix 17:12, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I moved the reasons for declining to a new article. See Reasons for the Decline of the Ottoman Empire. WhisperToMe 06:38, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the article needs a more major reform. --The Phoenix 14:25, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved Text
I removed the below text form the article. It is more information than is needed for a genral overview article. If anyone wants to format it and give it its own article feel free. - SimonP 02:09, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Cem was the younger brother of Sultan Bayezid. When Mehmet the Conqueror had died, Bayezid was the governor of Sivas, Tokat and Amasya, Cem ruled the province of Karaman and Konya.

Karamani Mehmet Pasha the last grand vizier of Sultan Mehmet II sent two messengers to both of the shehzades just after the death of Sultan. But the messenger sent to Cem had been caught on the way by Sinan Pasha the Anatolia Deputy. Cem could have learnt his father's death four days later. The Yeniceris revolted and killed Karamani Mehmet Pasha as a result of this event. They enthroned Korkut the son of Bayezid as the regent (May,4 1481).

Prince Bayezid arrived Istanbul on 21st May 1481 and was declared Sultan. Cem on the other hand arrived Inegol on 27th May 1481 with his 4000 soldiers. Sultan Bayezid sent an army led by Ayas Pasha on Cem. On 28th May 1481 Cem had defeated Bayezid's army and he declared himself Sultan of Anatolia and made his capital Bursa. He proposed division of the empire, with ayezid ruling only Europe. Bayezid rejected the proposal, of course, defending the continued unity of the Ottoman State. He marched through Bursa and the decisive battle between the two took place near Yenisehir. Cem lost the battle and took refuge in the Mameluke State with his family. He went to Cairo.

In Cairo Cem has received a letter from his brother. In this letter, Beyazid offered Cem one million akces(Ottoman money) in order to dissuade from the throne. Cem rejected this offer and came to his homeland. On 27th May 1482 he besieged Konya. The Ottoman Army commanded by Sultan Bayezid went to Konya, Cem ended the siege and withdrew to Ankara. He was intending to go to Cairo again but all the ways had been kept by Bayezid. Meanwhile, Pierre d'Aubusson one of the Knights of Rhodes invited Cem to Rhodes.

On 29th June 1482 Cem went to Rhodes. He was planning to leave the island in a short time, and he made an agreement with the knights about his departure. But, the knights had deceived him and they did not permit him to depart from the island. Cem began to live a prisoner's life in Rhodes. Eventually, this was very unfortunate for Cem himself and for the Ottoman Empire.

Afterwards, Cem was sent to France. Sultan Bayezid sent a messenger to France and requested Cem to be kept there.

Pope Innocent VIII intended to organise a new crusade using Cem. But, he could not had been successful as the other European countries rejected. He offered Cem to convert to Christianity. Cem of course rejected this offer. Afterwards, the Pope had taken more than 40.000 gold annual, from Bayezid for Cem's expenses. The Ottoman Empire had stopped the campaigns as the Pope threatening them with Cem's liberation.

After all these events, Cem Sultan had died in February 25, 1495. Sultan Bayezid declared national mourning for three days. He also tried to take Cem's body from the Pope, but, four years later after Cem's death his body was brought to the Ottoman lands. He was buried in Bursa.

Sultan Djem Osman, the younger son of Sultan Mehmed III, though elder son born during the reign of his father, took the reins of the Empire. His eldest brother and heir were furious and left his governing province for the Empire's capital to inherit what he had assumed his rightful legacy. Battle took place, brother against brother, though Djem failed to secure his believed rights of the Ottoman Empire. Djem fled first to Egypt, under the protection of the Sultan of Egypt, then to Rhodes Islands. The orders of St John were Masters of the Isles and had hoped to gain help to resecure his claim age. Djem stay on the Rhodes Islands was interesting as his union with an Italian Noblewomen produced several descendants. After several years, Djem found that he was no closer then when he arrived, so upon an invitation to the Papal States and the grace and favour of Pope Alexander VI Borgia which started Djem and his descendants their pretension of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. The Pope had acknowledged Djem's sons as Princes of Royal and Imperial blood, with the title of 'Prince de Sayd' in 1492. Sultan Djem's invitation to Rome was the start of his European tour to gain support for his 'Christian' conversation of the Ottoman Empire from the European powers such as France, Holy Roman Empire, Spain and the Italian States and Kingdoms. During his tour he gain many acknowledgements and honours though support for a 'Crusade' was lacking and uninteresting to the European Powers. Further note: Sultan Djem was recognized by the following as 'H.I.H, Prince and Sultan Djem Sayd of the Ottoman Empire. - Knight of St John in Rhodes Island, 1482 by Pierre d'Aubusson and the successive Grand Masters of St John in Rhodes Island; - Pope Alexander VI Borgia-Acknowledged Djem's eldest son as Prince de Sang; - Pope Innocent VIII Cybo- Acknowledged Djem as Prince of Ottoman Empire; - King Charles VIII of France-Acknowledged Djem with the titles of Prince de Sang in France and his descendants in 1484; - Duca Ercole I of Ferrara, and Reggio, Acknowledged and Created Djem a Noble of Ferrera and Reggio; - The Doge of Genoa, acknowledged Djem as Prince de Sang, Patrician of Genoa. The Doge Doria, later offered his grand-daughter to Djem's son in marriage; - Duca Lodovico Sforza of Milian acknowledged Djem and offered one of his illegitimate daughters in Marriage; - Duca Alfonso II d'Este of Modena, acknowledged Djem ; - King Ferrante I of Naples, acknowledged Djem as a Royal cousin and provided the title of Viscount to Djem's son; - King Ferrante II of Naples, reacknowledged Djem; - Duca Carlo I di Savoie, acknowledged Djem; - Duca Carlo II di Savoie ; - King Ferdinand II of Sicily, acknowledged as King of Aragon, Spain and of Sicily. - Grand Duke Lorenzo I de Medici of Tuscany - Conte Guidone Ubaldo I of Urbino - Doge Marco Barbarigo of Venice - Doge Giovanni Mocenigo of Venice - Emperor Frederick III of the Holy Roman Empire acknowledged Djem as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and granted Djem and his descendants Hereditary Knighthood of the Holy Roman Empire. Recognised Djem as Prince de Sang. Also offered Djem a Duchy in the Balkans. - King John II of Portugal - Queen Isabella I of Castile and Leon, Queen of Spain - Queen Catalina de Albert of Navarre - King Fernando II of Aragon, King of Spain. - King Hans of Denmark - Grand Master Martin von Wetzhausen of the Teutonic Order - Duke Magnus II of Mecklenburg - Duke Wilhelm IV of Juliers - Landgraves Wilhelm I of Hesse - Duke Johann II of Cleves - Duke Albert IV of Bavaria

Upon his return to Rome, he settled his family outside Rome. His eldest son had married a daughter of a Genoese diplomat in Rome. Djem's son, the Principe de Sayd moved to the Neapolitan capital of Naples. Djem was dead, poisoned by the Borgia household, though some suspect that it could have been the Pope or his sister. But this has been unproven, but sources have stated that Djem's brother, the Sultan had paid off the Pope to kill Djem 'off'. The Knights of St John fought and lost Rhodes Islands then moved to the Neapolitan Kingdom waiting for a defence to retake their lost island. But under the Spanish succession, Malta, seem to be the likely place where the Knights could move. Malta was a fief under the Spanish Neapolitan kingdom and was given as a token to the Knights. The family of Sayd has established in Malta by this stage, with the younger branch of the 1st Prince de Sayd. Initially the Younger branch established at Birgu, and then moved to Santi, and Zebbug. Another family in Malta were of Arabic origin whom were scattered throughout Malta, a small family, which only a branch succeeds today. The descendants of Djem arrived in two stages. The elder branch moved from Naples to Sicily and the younger branch moved to Malta about the 1500's. The elder branch was claimants to the throne of Ottoman Empire and intermarried with Sicilian families. In the mid 17th century, the head of the Imperial House moved to Malta and lived at Mdina as grace and favour of the Grand Masters. Though the elder line died out during the late 17th century, though in Sicily, an illegitimate heir took upon his pretensions to his claimant. The importance of having such Imperial family living in Malta was considered as a safe haven, but also as bait to the Ottoman Turks. Within several years of the Princely family settlement in Malta, the Grand Siege of Malta had begun. The Ottoman Empire knew the threats of the pretentsive family and what it meant to an Empire that was strong and mighty. All enemies to an Empire were needed to be exhausted. The Grand Master knew of what fate lay ahead, though through determination and strength from the Maltese, Knights and the European powers to over power the Turks once and for. Success was achieved eventually and the Turks left to never be heard of again. Upon the succession of the Grand Siege of Malta, the imperial family lost favour and respect. There was no further need of them and slowly and eventually moved into civilian life. The elder line died out at the end of the 17th century, with succession and acknowledgement by the Grand Master of Malta, of Salvatore Sayd, as the Prince de Sayd e Bibino Magno with rights as 'His Highness', instead of 'His Imperial Highness'. The younger branch who settled at the beginning of the 16th century became successful and their descendants widespread throughout the islands. The elder branch that carried the Sicilian title of Barony and Princely di Bibino Magno was succeeded by marriage to Salvatore Sayd. Principi Salvatore Sayd had lived in Zebbug and at Santi in Malta. The family continued at each generation with styles of their titles, but led a peaceful life as landowners of properties throughout Malta. Upon Napoleon's overthrow of the Knights in Malta and the burning of 'Letters Patents' of many noble families and executions of many whom led coups against the French. Principi Giovanni Maria Sayd, led a revolt against the French with many of the educated and members of the leading families of Malta were caught and all lined up to be executed by the firing squad of 1799. Principi Giovanni Maria Sayd's descendants, since the execution have lived almost recluse non-public life and under the British, never bothered to obtain recognition for their inheritance. Fortunately, the elder line kept key documentation and data, which survived, to the present family. Today, acknowledgement has been plenty some and their aim to continue its heritage for successive generations to come and also to inform other families' member of such history it has. The late Head of the family was the second son of Principi Francesco Saverio Sayd. The elder son had acknowledged and accepted his rights to his younger brother, with only succession to the Maltese Barony of Baccari. Further more inheritance of monies was agreed upon before moving to Australia prior to World War Two.

Under Construction
I'll place the above information of Cem into a seperate article about him. Then I thought of making some big changes on this entry (splitting it into different pages etc.) so it'll be UNDER CONSTRUCTION for some time. If anyone has got any opinions or points of view, post them on this talk page, please. --The Phoenix 15:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Because of this, I'd be happy if you'd all post any changes to the Ottoman Empire entry here on this talk page. I hope I will be able to spend som time with this project and I hope it will go fast and easy. A Temp-file has been created so that the page hopefully wont be too chaotic.


 * You may want to replace your warning with the standard &#8212; Jor (Darkelf) 18:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think I'll be working on it for more than three hours (it has already been three days). Most of the editing will be done on the temp file, though. --The Phoenix 15:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The construction work is finished. The Temp-file should be deleted. The article also need a good, free map. --The Phoenix 17:33, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Concerning a map
I'm searching for the map found at the French Empire ottoman, but in English instead. Clearly, the text in French has been added. --The Phoenix 18:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * How about this version? &mdash;Bkell 22:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I'm looking for, though I made a search at Google today and found the map. It seems I forgot to check on Google yesterday before writing this entry. Sorry for this! &mdash;The Phoenix 07:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Clearing this talk page
This talk page is somewhat overcrowded. I suggest either deleting parts of it (such as the biographies of the two Cems) or moving it to an archive. –The Phoenix 18:18, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Murad or Murat?
Murad is the name of five Ottoman sultans, but three of them are spelled with a t instead of a d. Using both is inconsequent. Murad or Murat? Definitely not both. –The Phoenix 09:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Correct Turkish spelling is Murat. Aknxy 01:08, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and the correct Turkish spelling of Beyazid is Beyazit, Mehmed is Mehmet, Suleiman is Süleyman, Ahmed is Ahmet, Abdul Hamid is Abd ül-Hamid, Abd-ul-Mejid is Abd ül-Mecid, and Abd-ul-Aziz is Abd ül-Aziz. The question is: Shall we keep the English transcription of the Turkish names (and change Murat into Murad) or change all the names to the Turkish spelling? –The Phoenix 08:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If we look at Julius Caesar for example, the English spelling is Julius wheras the Latin spelling is Iulius. The English article uses the English spelling so I would say go with the English transcription. davidzuccaro 10:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Murad is arabic name, Murat is turkish name. I think we have to care about the difference. --80.137.61.188 01:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)Romulus

All the history books I've ever read have listed them as Murad, with a D. I'd suggest, given this Wikipedia is in neither Arabic nor Turkish, the difference is less important. &mdash; OwenBlacker 19:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Since the names are Arabic,and when written in old Turkish alphabet they are spelled the arabic way; Murad with D and not with T, there is no point in changing them now. Remember Turks were not the only population ruled by these people and the rest of their empire was calling them the way their names were writen!--66.137.208.204 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The change of soft consonants (ie d, b) at the end of the words is disputed subject in Turkish. In anataloian Turkish there is no change at all. They pronounce the soft consonants properly. They also retain the hard "k" and nasal "n". The hardening of the consonants such as kitab->kitap or Mehmed -> Mehmet and drop of hard "k" and nasal "n" is from balkan origin. In selanik and other parts of Balkans there are such changes because of Greek and Slavic influence... Which one should be accepted as correct??? The majority of Turkish dialects are similiar to anatolian accent, not to the Balkan Turkish.

However, unfortunately in the fledgling Turkish Republic, almost all linguists were from originally Balkan area and especially Selanik. And majority of rulers and politicians were also from Balkan origin (as today) and some of them with a native language other than Turkish. Their poor accent and wrong pronounciation was fixed as official accent and correct spelling of Turkish with a bias, in the new Turkish variant of Latin alphabet. So the correct pronunction is Murad and Mehmed. Alhtough such changes, as the hardening of consonatnts and drop of hard "k" and nasal "n" definitely are detrimental to the spirit of the language and it contributes to severing Turkish of Turkey from the entire Turkic language groups, you are free to follow the old mistake.

"In anataloian Turkish there is no change at all. They pronounce the soft consonants properly. They also retain the hard "k" and nasal "n". The hardening of the consonants such as..." This is not true. "The change of soft consonants (ie d, b) at the end of the words is disputed subject in Turkish." I have never heard of such a dispute, either. The author himself is biassed.

Flags
other than above The ottoman flag has never been red. the flag shown is the flag of turkey and ottomans has never used that flag --CaSH 13:36, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Red flag is the flag of Anatolian Turks, flag of both Ottoman and Turkey. There are videos that people celebrating the sultan's arrive in istanbul with red flags in their hands. Another theory is, there are some historians that say the "crescent and star" was viewed first and adopted as a flag at a night when Constantinapolis was sieged at April 1453 --JohnEmerald 13:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That about Constantinople is really just a legend. The crescent and star is much older than that, dating from the ancient Turkic people of Central Asia, the forefathers of the Ottomans. As for the colours, red was the traditional colour of war (symbolizing blood and rage) while green is the sacred colour of Islam. Probably, the red flag was used by the military while the green was used on religious occations. Of course, flags weren't used in the western fashion until the 19th century. &mdash;The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Turkish" state
I'm no expert on the subject, but I can't help feeling that describing the empire as a Turkish state doesn't really do justice to the other ethnic groups involved, especially the Arabs, who must have outnumbered Turks for most of the empire's history. I must admit I'm not sure what a better description would be. Grant65 (Talk) 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

How about a multinational state? Just counting its successor states suggests various populations co-habiting. Successor states like:


 * Albania.
 * Algeria.
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina.
 * Bulgaria.
 * Cyprus.
 * Egypt.
 * Greece.
 * Hungary (partly).
 * Iraq.
 * Israel/Palestine.
 * Jordan.
 * Lebanon.
 * Libya.
 * Republic of Macedonia.
 * Moldova.
 * Oman.
 * Qatar.
 * Romania.
 * Serbia and Montenegro.
 * Sudan (partly).
 * Syria.
 * Tunisia.
 * Turkey.
 * Yemen.

User:Dimadick


 * The territory of the Ottoman State is now divided between these states, yes. But "successor state", at least in my mind, has the meaning of which state replaced it geopolitically, taking on the role, relationships, etc. For example, while the Soviet Union broke up into a bunch of states, the seat on the Security Council and suchlike went to Russia.


 * Having said that, I would vote for capturing both aspects&mdash;territory as well as geopolitical successor.


 * As for being Turkish or not, the state was controlled, dominated and run by Turks, no? The Arabs, for example, saw it as Turkish rule. Take the British empire as an example; it was definitely multiethnic at it's peak. But it was a British entity. &mdash;iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the reason why the british empire failed so quickly was because it could not make the step from multiethnic to multiculturalism, the ottomans had done this, they were not just multi ethnic but also multicultural and I think the Romans had done it as well.--Kahraman 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Looking at that first sentence again, I think the problem is trying to describe something from history in terms that were created for today's structures. It was not a state; it was an empire. And in a lot of places, the rule was very indirect. &mdash;iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think its wrong to see the Osmanli empire as a nation state with a particular ethnicity, eg Turkish. The main legitimacy of the empire and the reason why people stayed loyal to it was not it being Turkish or being Arab. The Turks stayed with it because it was ruled by a Han, the Arabs because it was the sultan, the Muslims because the dynasty claimed the caliphate, the christians because the Osmanli were the emperor of constantinople, and the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, the protectors of orthodox christianity from the latins and the pope. Once these ties were weakened by the advent of nationalism and many other ideologies, the empire ceased to exist, and every ethnicity was taking care of itself. Turkish nationalism actually only started in the 1920's and 30's with the masses with Ataturk--Kahraman 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The Ottoman Empire was, exactly like Kahraman has pointed out, never a nation. It was built up on loyalty to the local lords and to the sultan. It was never (at least not until the advent of the Young Turks) associated with the Turkish people. Turks were the ignorant muslim villagers and farmers of Anatolia. The state was always referred to as Ottoman if it was named at all. The common denomination was something like the "well-protected realms". I don't know why the Europeans started to call it Turkey. It would also be wrong to call the Empire multinational, since there were not really such a thing as nationality among any of the peoples under the sultan's command until the 19th century. Rebellions before that were mostly due to religious issues or power-hungry local lords rather than nationalism. &mdash;The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not know if it is true, but again on a history program on TRT, I heard that the Europeans used to call Mameluke ruled Egypt and Syria The state of Turks or Turkey. Of course, Selim I took Egypt and Syria in the beginning of the 16th century, so the Europeans started to call the Ottomans Turkey--Kahraman 12:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC).


 * That sounds logical. At least we know that Baibars was a Turk and I assume that the early Mameluks considered themselves as heirs to the Seljuk Turks in order to increase their legitimacy. In respons to iFaqeer, yes, I agree that the British Empire was British and run by Brits, but the Ottoman Empire was not run (at least far from exclusively) by Turks. Nevertheless, the Ottoman Empire was both empire and state, although not a state as in a "nation state" and furthermore with few similiarities to a modern, centralized state. By the way, multiethnical is a much better term than multinational. &mdash;The Phoenix 20:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Language?
What language did the Ottomans speak? I can't seem to find this information anywhere... pie4all88 01:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Turkish. Though it would have evolved over the centuries. See Turkic languages and Turkish language. &mdash;iFaqeer | Talk to me! 03:26, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * In fact it was Ottoman Turkish. This language was used at the court and was the official language of the state used in official documents etc. But of course people spoek local languages outside the court.--leandros 22:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually they spoke different languages in different circumstances. I heard this from the history program on TRT by Ilber Ortayli: One of the revlotionary changes Fatih Mehmed II did was change the standard language of the empire from a combination of persian, turkish and arabic to just arabic, like a standard language. Mehmed himself was of course multilingual, spoke and wrote about 7 languages, so no big problem for him. But the standardisation brought stability and prosperity, and this enabled him to go on his conquests. I think someone else later changed it to Ottoman Turkish, though I don't know who, maybe in the 16th century ?--Kahraman 21:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ottoman Turkish is more correct that just Turkish anyway. Comparing Turkish to Ottoman Turkish is a bit like comparing modern English with Old English or Swedish with Old Norse. There were far more to Atatürk's language reforms than just changing the alphabet. &mdash;The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Many of Atatürk's language reforms were actually anulled by the governments after his death. People could not understand most of the new words anyway. Actually, I think Ottoman Turkish of the 19th to 20th century is quite understandable to most educated Turks, as long as it's transliterated to the new Latin alphabet. Personally, I haven't had much trouble anyways. After some time, your vocabulary increases and you don't have to look in the dictionary :-) It is of course easy to understand  Ottoman Turkish of the 19th to 20th century compared to that of the 15th century, especially when it is a classical poem. I have trouble understanding most current rap lyrics of the 20th century, as a consequence understanding a complex poem from the 15th or 16th century is very difficult. :-)--Kahraman 12:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC).


 * Interesting. I had no idea that some reforms were reverted after Atatürk's death, though I did know that a lot of rather strange words were introduced during his reign. Besides, if I put my mind to it I could actually understand Old Norse. That is, in its written form of course, never spoken. &mdash;The Phoenix 20:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)