Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 6

Old comments
Where is teh section about 1700's?? I do not see it. Where is the section about russo-turkish wars, which Turkey was actively loosing almost every time? Why is this not mentioned at all? Or it is not history of Turkey?99.231.59.7 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, 01 October, 2007.


 * Pavel, if it's missing and you have knowledge about it why don't YOU add it? That's the point of Wikipedia. But please remember NPOV.--Postmortemjapan 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not history of Turkey, it's the history of Ottoman Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.113.95 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Turkey is the successor of the Ottoman Empire. Of course if you say that the Ancien Régime belongs to the history of another country rather than that of France, it's ok. Also, is there, really, anybody that would say Ottomans won the 93 Harbi? Deliogul (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How the West Lost
Read weep and clap your hands kids. If the true history of Europe was told, we wouldn't have what's going on in the Middle East right now. Most people in the west barely heard of the Ottomans, and only in reference to recent history (world War 1), and only if they studied it at university.

History is told by those who won last.

The history of the East (China, India, and the Middle) east was neatly swept under the carpet so we could of the glory of the British Empire and Europeans.

i think the opposet happened.mostly byzantine influences in arabic world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

....Yes Billy that's there are Muslims in Europe reaching all the way into Russia, and why why Eastern Orthodox churches have look like Arabian Buildings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.134.183 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article status needs to be reviewed
I believe this article does not hold a good article status. (1) The content has no integrity. It is a patch work of non related concepts. The weight of content in each section is not balanced. The headings do not reflect the story. Such as the military section; instead of telling the military structure, section tell us the selected military activities which are already covered under the history section. Same content is repeated in different sections without the basic time line structure. (2) The article needs to obey the Summary style This article contains references to many articles that tells the issues in detail. The article instead of summarizing the main link, gives details that is not even in the main article. (3) The article turn into a violation to Content forking. The simple example is the military section. The same content has repeated with many different conclusions. (4) The article needs to be checked for Neutral point of view. The content became biased. Instead of telling the facts, the article tries to propagate a nationalistic view. These problems are just a small section. If these issues are not tackled by the authors, I 'm thinking of bringing a good review on this article. --Anglepush 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation: The article doesn't meet with the personal tastes of Anglepush, therefore it's a bad article.

To be honest, for instance, the new format of the Ottoman Navy article is a complete mess, might I add.

Note that the "Rise", "Stagnation" and "Fall" periods (of power) of the Ottoman Army and Navy were different. Whereas, you seem to classify these dates as the same in the Ottoman Navy article.

e.g. the Ottoman Navy has nothing to do with 1683 (Battle of Vienna).

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a competition. I'm pointing to some serious problems. Please check the link Content forking and Summary style before performing personal attacks. I'm sure you would recognize the existing problems pointed in these articles. There is always the option that the article can be take to an independent review. If you continue with personal attacks, instead of an improvement, that would be left as the only choice. Surely article will lose its status. --Anglepush 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just looking over this article I would have to agree with anglepush. The article lacks inline citations for most of the article, and the prose needs to be reviewed throughout. I would be willing to help on any effort to try and improve the article but I think that it needs a serious review, as such I am going to place the article up for review. Please feel free to disagree with me and state your case on the review page. I hope that at the very least this will expose the article to some outside scrutiny which will help to improve it. I hope this doesn't hurt any feelings but I honestly do not believe the article meets the guidelines for good article status. Timhud 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Apparently I'm not the only person to notice how problematic the article is. And apparently I'm not the only person to have been bullied about it. Miskin 13:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly believe, as Anglepush points out above, simply applying a little process to this article may be able to satisfy all parties. We really just need to better organize all the excellent information that is here. As it stands, the article is extremely long, as befits an empire which hung around for some time, but there's no reason this can't be broken up a bit to ease readability, and to be considerate of those with slower systems who may have trouble loading this page in a timely manner. As Flavius points out with regards to the navy, content forking is clearly an issue that is already getting away from us.

I would suggest we
 * Come up with an inventory of all the pages concerning this article which already exist
 * Compare the differences between content on those pages, and this page
 * Standardize the content on the forked pages to be in agreement with what is here (or if the forked page is in better shape, go with that)
 * Apply summary style to this article

I believe that this has been argued against previously because other empire pages are also very large. If nothing else, we can use this as the case study in cleaning up other such pages. Hiberniantears 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has been delisted. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once the article is brought up to standards it may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara  ♥Love  17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

GA TO DO LIST
Based on my review of the GA delisting debate found here I believe we can come up with some priority to do's in order to whip this article back into shape:

1: Review of the 47 inline citations for duplication 2: Expand the number of inline citations to provide a consistent level of cites through all sections of the article 3: Implement a consistent formatting style for references 4: Remove bolding where not required 5: Reorganization of images to remove the sandwhiched feel of the text; this could be through the removal of the sheer number of images (thus vastly reducing article size), or moving some to a gallery located near the end of the article

In order to do this, I think we have to set aside some of the strongly held opinions which led this article to its current state. There has been a strong sense of ownership displayed by numerous editors, and this has inevitably led to insults, head butting, and edit wars. Thusly, rather than changing content on any grand scale, lets simply try this "to do"list first. Once it is completed, then we can see where the article stands, and identify areas in need of some NPOV edits. Due to the contentious nature of debate elsewhere on this talk page, I think having everyone focus on some house cleaning might be a good idea to calm some tensions. Hiberniantears 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Images removed
I have removed a number of fine images from the article. This is an effort to preserve sections, and cut down on article size in sections that are already well illustrated, or where the article text is substantially descriptive to negate a need for an image. I suggest continuing to remove images. Flavius, as many of these are your images, and as all of them are great additions, please feel free to replace my subtractions with images you feel should remain. However, please try to be mindful removing other images in their place. Most of the removed images can probably be added to the main articles for each section if they are not already there. Hiberniantears 03:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Slavery
Where do we want this? Hiberniantears 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Robert Davis[27] between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and Ottoman Empire between the 16th and 19th centuries.[28] The most famous corsairs were the Ottoman Barbarossa ("Redbeard"), and his older brother Oruç, Turgut Reis (known as Dragut in the West), Kurtoğlu (known as Curtogoli in the West), Kemal Reis, Salih Reis and Koca Murat Reis. Many of the Barbary pirates, including Jan Janszoon and John Ward, were renegade Christians who had converted to Islam. For a long time, until the early 18th century Crimean Khanate maintained massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. In a process called "harvesting of the steppe" Crimean Tatars enslaved many Slavic peasants. The Crimean Khanate was undoubtedly one of the strongest powerof thes in Eastern Europe until the 18th century. It is estimatad that up to 75% of the Crimean population consisted of slaves or freedmen.[29]


 * This only shows the study of Robert Davis. We need more than that (basically various researchs). Deliogul 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening
Removed this, since it appears elsewhere in the article. Hiberniantears 02:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC) The golden age of the Ottoman Empire was during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th Century. This could be observed in many different fields, such as the architectural masterpieces of Koca Mimar Sinan Ağa, and the domination of the Mediterranean Sea by the Ottoman Navy, led by Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha. The Ottoman Empire reached its territorial peak in the 17th century. The empire was the only Islamic power to seriously challenge the rising power of Western Europe between the 15th and 19th centuries. It steadily declined during the 19th century and met its demise after its defeat in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. In the aftermath of the war, the Ottoman government collapsed and the empire's lands were partitioned.

Following the victory of the Turkish revolutionaries led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk at the Turkish War of Independence, the Ottoman Sultanate was formally abolished on November 1, 1922. Turkey was declared a republic on October 29, 1923.


 * In my opinion intro can be like a very brief summary of the content of the article, thus ıt may include, perhaps in a shorter form, some of the info above..Plus ıt provides valuable internal links to Suleiman and Sınan..--laertes d 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Suleiman is still mentioned in the body of the article, whilst Sinan is found in Ottoman architecture which is linked from this article. I'm not certain we need the Sinan link here, but its certainly no big deal one way or the other. However, as we have it structured, I think the architecture section is a good example of the summary style since it just gives a basic outline, and saving the detail for the actual architecture article. Hiberniantears 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

August 8 Revisions
I have made some substantial revisions to the article today, building on my last edit from a few days ago which was subsequently reverted. The article is now down to 94k, and includes fewer images, and less text. I think that if you give the article an objective read, you will see that I mostly reduced redundant text, or reworded individual sentences. I made some minor cleaning of POV, but even in those cases simply worded a given topic in a more neutral fashion.

That said, the article still includes many, many images. I think that most, if not all of the images I removed can be placed on the sub-articles linking off from this page if it is deemed neccesary to keep them. I gave the article a general copyedit, but focused mostly on removing redundant text. In a number of cases back to back paragraphs described exactly the same thing. I changed and added a few headers to better describe the information within as well. The overall article still needs a rigorous copyedit.

I would like to focus some attention on the military section near the end, as I think this can be streamlines. However, the information there is all pretty sound. I think rather than have a section for each branch, we can have a brief military structure overview which links to the individual articles on each branch. Hiberniantears 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

lead
"Turkish-ruled" is the one thing that the Ottoman Empire was definitely not. Anyone with basic knowledge on the topic should be aware of the existence of Greek ruling classes such as the Phanariotes, but also Jewish and Armenian societies who played a major role in the empire's economic, political and military sectors. The Ottomans liked to give high privileges to all the ethnies of the empire so that they have less of a reason to feel under a foreign rule. One thing the Ottoman Empire was without any compromises was Islamic. This term characterises it best. Miskin 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to this. Reference to the empire as Turkish Empire is common enough to leave at the top. Also, considering the multi ethnic and religious make up of the empire, I believe "dynastic" is a better description than "Islamic imperial" state. I've left the paragraph on the ethnic makeup, but I believe such things can be expanded in the section on society. --A.Garnet 11:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Phanariotes were not a "ruling class", they were Istanbulite Greeks who were only appointed to certain specific posts such as the Dragoman (Chief Customs Officer of a port city), or the Voivoda (Prince/Governor) of Wallachia and Moldavia, which were semi-autonomous principalities under Ottoman rule. They were also frequently appointed as Ambassadors to foreign (European) countries due to their fluency in foreign (European) languages. However, they were lower in rank than the Pashas, Beys, Beylerbeyi, Viziers and Grand Viziers, never mind the Sultan and the members of his family. Flavius Belisarius 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Phanariotes were a mere example, though they were not always natives to Constantinople (their founding family was from Chios). There's also the Rumeliotes and the Kocabasides, Greek ruling classes in Rumelia and Morea. There are also many notable Armenian, Albanian, Serbian and Jewish communities. All those non-muslim societies played a leading role in many sectors of the empire such as commerce, diplomacy, foreign policy, military (mainly navy, but also infantry) and administration. In fact there were tasks that the muslims did not accept to assume to themselves (for religious-cultural reasons). See for more information specialised sources such as D. Quataert's "the Ottoman Empire", M. Glenny's "The Balkans" or Eric Hobsbawm's "The Age of Empires". You'll find out that the information you removed is a mainstream view which the article lacks at the present moment. Miskin 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept the edits made by A. Garnet but I see no improvement in Flavius' wholesale reverts which removed sourced content. I made an effort to improve the lead by adding some credible material which is actually informative on the nature of the Ottoman state. Flavius removed it and replaced it with useless information which puts excessive accent on the empire's geographical size. This is not a very encyclopaedic practice, especially when the content at hand is repeated in several different articles. Flavius: Why did you revert my edits? Do you question the validity of the edits? Do you have any counter-sources to present? Thanks. Miskin 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"A Turkish empire but the term "Turkish" doesn't refer especially to the race/ethnicity". This is what we need to express. "Turkish ruled" does not reflect the reality even if all Sultans were from Kayı tribe and there were countless numbers of Turkish originated Viziers in the ruling elite. Deliogul 09:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote from D. Quataert, "The Ottoman Empire": By "Turks" these frightened mothers meant a more complex reality - the fighting forces, who may or may not have been ethnically Turkish, of the multi-ethnic, multi-religious Ottoman Empire. Thus, a word here about the terms "Turks" and "Ottomans" seems in order. West, central and east Europeans referred to the "Turkish Empire" and to the "Turks" when discussing the state lead by the Ottoman dynasty. This was as true in the fourteenth as in the the twentieth century. The appellation "Turk" has some basis since the Ottoman family was ethnically Turkish in its origins, as were some of its supporters and subjects. But, as we shall see, the dynasty immediately lost this "Turkish" quality through intermarriages with many different ethnicities. As for a "Turkish Empire", state power relied on a similarly heterogeneous mix of peoples. The Ottoman Empire succeeded because it incorporated the energies of the vastly varied peoples it encountered, quickly transcending its roots in the Turkish nomadic migrations from central Asia into Middle East. Whatever ethnic meaning the "Turk" may have held soon was lost and the term came to mean "Muslim". To turn Turk meant converting to Islam. Throughout this work, the term Ottoman is preferred since it conjures up more accurate images of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious enterprise that relied on inclusion for its success.

I think this answers the above remarks. Compare a mainstream scholarly view with what the article currently implies, i.e. that the Ottoman Empire was a Turkish nationalist which enslaved dozens of nations and conquered three continents. This maybe a nice patriotic fairy tale for someone who wants to overemphasise the geographical size and political might of the Ottoman Empire, but it has no place in a scientific source. It is clearly stated above that the Ottoman Empire succeeded because it was not what the article implies (a Turkish nationalist state), but because state power relied on a mix of peoples. I tried to improve the article by providing some useful and credible material but I was reverted. I have long accepted that some articles/topics in wikipedia will never improve unless there's a radical policy change. This article serves as a fine example. Miskin 10:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are correct, then why did people call it the "Turkish Empire" or "Turkey" instead of the "Islamic Empire" for centuries?

Why is the language called "Ottoman Turkish"?

Why are the Ottomans called the "Turks" and not "Muslims" in thousands of texts?

The answer is obvious, but perhaps not so obvious for emotional/prejudiced minds.

If it's O.K. to assert that the "multiethnic" Byzantine Empire was in essence a "Greek" empire, then it should also be O.K. to mention the essential Turkishness of the Ottoman Empire. Why do you think that the Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs and Armenians of today use many Turkish words in their langauges?

As for the "Christian minorities in high posts like the Dragoman (Chief Customs Officer)": They were always inferior compared to Muslim Turks under the law. The word of a Muslim Turkish witness always weighed heavier than the word of a Christian or Jew in the court, no matter how high his position was (including the Voivoda of Wallachia).

As for the "Devşirme" (Convert) Viziers of Christian origin: Their genetic origins (DNA) didn't matter much, as they were taken as babies and raised as Muslim soldiers or officials speaking the Ottoman Turkish language. Your "brain" matters more than your DNA in determining your national and religious identity. Yes, in terms of DNA, they were Serbian/Greek/Hungarian/etc. But in terms of brain, mentality, religion, ideology and language, they were Muslims speaking Ottoman Turkish. And language, by the way, is the #1 ingredient which defines a nation. Flavius Belisarius 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The last sentence in your post shows that your logic is anachronistic and that it is based on modern nationalist concepts, alien to the subject at hand. I answered you with a source and I expect you to do the same. I could have answered your POV with another POV but this would only commence a vicious circle. If you care to ameliorate the article you should (a) avoid removing sourced content that you simply don't agree with and (b) start making assertions and edits that abide by WP:ATT. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought. But as I said, I don't expect this article to get better any time soon. The "good article" label is just a red herring, another demonstration of wikipedia's exploitable nature. Miskin 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, how do you explain the Turkish surnames of the Armenians? They are not Arabic/Muslim surnames, they are plain "Turkish" surnames, like Zilciyan (Zildjian, i.e. Cymbalmakerson or Bellmakerson), Kazancıyan (Kazanjian, i.e. Potmakerson), Deveciyan (Devedjian, i.e. Camelsellerson), Odacıyan (Odadjian, i.e. Roomkeeperson), Bayrakdaryan (Bayrakdarian, i.e. Standardbearerson), Pamukçuyan (Pamboukjian, i.e. Cottonsellerson), Terziyan (Terzian, i.e. Tailorson), Kavukçuyan (Kavoukjian, i.e. Hatmakerson), etc?

Or Greek surnames which are pure Turkish like Kazancıakis (Kazantzakis) or Kazancıoğlu (Kazanjoglou) or Kazancıdis (Kazantzidis) which all mean "Potmakerson"; or Karamanlı (Karamanlis, i.e. From Karaman), Çarık (Tsarouchis, i.e. Shoe), Yemeniciakis (Yemendzakis, i.e. Scarfsellerson), Kuyumcu (Koujioumtzis, i.e. Jeweller), Yeniçeri (Genitsaris, i.e. Janissary), Çolak (Tsiolakoudi, i.e. Armless), Paçacıoğlu (Patsatzoglou, i.e. Trousercuffmakerson), Kasap (Chasapis, i.e. Butcher), etc?

is the same like the greek word democracy(δημοκρατια)has survived in the whole world and mostly thousands in latin and latinised languages. but this does not mean that the whole world is greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Or why do Bosnians say "Ramazan Bayram Mübarek Olsun" (completely in Turkish) instead of the Arabic form "Eid Mubarak", if the Ottoman culture was plain "Muslim" without any Turkish character, as you are trying to imply? Flavius Belisarius 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how all of the above is relevant, and if someone does then please explain it to the rest of us only if it comes with a citation. Prior to Kemal's purification attempts, the Turkish language had an enormous amount of loan words from Arabic and Persian, this doesn't mean that the Ottoman Empire was Arabic. I never implied anything about what Ottoman culture was or was not, I just pasted a text from a leading scholar on the topic (Cambridge University Press) and used it to make some constructive contributions, which of course you reverted. If you want to accuse someone for implying stuff that you don't like then accuse mainstream scholarship. The only topic of interest is your unorthodox editing behaviour, the way you use such poor and uncited argumentation in order to remove attributable material and POV-check tags. Have you ever read WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:OWN? Miskin 09:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, I, as a Turk, probably know Ottoman history, identity and character much better than you can or ever will (because I am a part of it). Both of my paternal great-grandfathers were Ottoman generals, who also served as generals in the early Turkish Republic. One of them got married in Prijepolje (Ottoman Empire, today in Serbia) while in duty, and a few years later my grandfather was born in Yemen (Ottoman Empire) during WWI. The language which they spoke was practically the same with the language which I speak today. Anyone who denies the essential Turkish character of the Ottoman Empire clearly doesn't know much about the subject. Honestly speaking, I doubt that the Cambridge professor you mentioned can understand Ottoman Turkish better than I do. Flavius Belisarius 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I wasn't planning to insist with this at first but seeing that almost all policies have been violated, I suppose the topic deserves at least to be listed under WP:RFC. Miskin 10:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you can - I'll be there to correct the errors if I see any, including resources, of course. Flavius Belisarius 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What if we replace "Turkish ruled" state with "Turkish dynastic state"? --A.Garnet 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A.Garnet, thank you for your good will in resolving the "question", but I really don't understand what's behind this "complex" in the first place. Flavius Belisarius 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Flavious relax, you'll encounter more people like Miskin here in WP, take it easy, just play cool. --Gokhan 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by more people like me? People who cite published sources rather than their personal family experiences? Miskin 10:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, here's my final message regarding the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnVK03cjQ_U

Flavius Belisarius 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:
 * I, as a Turk, probably know Ottoman history, identity and character much better than you can or ever will (because I am a part of it)....

This is fallacious in at least two ways. First of all, there is no particular reason to believe that someone with personal experience of something understands it better than outside observers, which is one reason that Wikipedia has a no original research policy. Secondly, many non-Turks have participated as much in Ottoman history as many Turks: my own great-grandfathers, for example, were born in Ottoman Crete.

Re:
 * ...my paternal great-grandfathers were Ottoman generals.... The language which they spoke was practically the same with the language which I speak today....

I'm not sure what bearing the relationship of Ottoman and modern Turkish has on the question of ethnic identification under the Ottoman Empire, but this, too, is a problematic statement. I don't know how your great-grandfathers spoke in 1920, but presumably you don't either. Every serious scholar of Turkish acknowledges that Turkish today has changed radically from Ottoman Turkish. Mustafa Kemal's famous 1927 speech Nutuk had to be translated into "modern language" by the 1960's, and again (!) in the 1980's. (Geoffrey Lewis, The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success, pp. 2-4) --Macrakis 21:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can clearly understand the original Nutuk by Atatürk, just like I can clearly understand his speech in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA5gaURc2jc

Flavius Belisarius 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and many Greeks can understand the Koine New Testament. That doesn't mean that the language hasn't changed. --Macrakis 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The language didn't change, only a few words were "modernized" (Turkicized) - but even the "old" words are completely understandable to the average Turk. For instance, when my grandmother says "tayyare", I know that it's "airplane", even though the more common modern Turkish word for airplane today is "uçak" (which derives from the Turkish verb "uçmak", i.e. "to fly"). Or when my grandfather says "bahtiyar oldum", I know it means he's "happy", even though the common modern word today for happiness is "mutlu" instead of "bahtiyar". You can make millions of other similar examples... Flavius Belisarius 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are describing language change; old words and constructions don't disappear from one day to the next, though I understand the Persian izafet is pretty much gone except in idioms/compounds like aksıseda; and how many Turks today do you think know the correct Ottoman plural of galat-ı meşhur? Anyway, as I said before, the relationship of late Ottoman Turkish to Modern Turkish isn't the issue here.

Anyway, the original issue was whether it makes sense to call the Ottoman Empire "a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Turkish-ruled state". This seems to me wrong in a variety of ways. First of all, the state itself (as opposed to its subjects) was not "multi-religious"; it was clearly and unequivocally a Muslim state: the legal system was based on Sharia law, Muslims had special privileges and duties, the Sultan often claimed to be the Caliph, etc. The population, of course, included large numbers of non-Muslims: Christians of various varieties and Jews, and even non-Peoples of the Book (largely as slaves). Their relationship with the state was as zimmis, a status defined by Sharia law. "Ethnic" is probably not an appropriate word to describe the different linguistic and religious groups within the Empire, since group definition was quite different from what we think of nowadays as "ethnic". Finally, I am not sure the "Turkish-ruled" is a useful term. For one thing, I don't think the Ottoman elite considered itself "Turkish" until the end of the 19th century. Wouldn't it be clearer to simply say that the origins of the ruling dynasty were Turkish and the language of administration was Ottoman Turkish?

That leaves us with something like:


 * The Ottoman Empire was a Muslim state governing a variety of linguistic and religious groups. The ruling Ottoman dynasty had Turkish origins and the language of administration was Ottoman Turkish.

Thoughts? --Macrakis 22:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's "generally" correct, but the "essence" is "watered". Let's be realistic: All former Ottoman nations, apart from the Turks, describe the date of independence of their state as "liberation from the Turks"; whereas Turkey proudly considers itself as a "successor state" of the Ottoman Empire. This is for a reason. If the Ottoman Empire was a state "shared by many nations", then why are the Armenians pointing their fingers only to the present-day Republic of Turkey for the alleged Armenian Genocide which happened during the Ottoman Empire? Why do only the Turks feel any sympathy for their Ottoman past? Why do even the Muslim Arabs blame the Turks for their backwardness (apart from the Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, etc?) Why do Greeks say "YAHOO" about 21 March 1821 if they were so happy of their Ottoman identity? Why do they consider that date as "liberation from the Turkish yoke"? Let's be realistic. The Byzantine Empire was as multiethnic as the Ottoman Empire, but it was essentially a Greek state, just like the Ottoman Empire was essentially a Turkish state. Which is the reason why its contemporaries called it the "Turkish Empire" (Imperium Turcicum) or "Turkey" (Turchia). Flavius Belisarius 23:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not terribly relevant that modern Turkey is the legal successor state of the Ottoman Empire, or even that modern Turks are proud of their Ottoman past. What is relevant is how the Ottomans saw themselves:
 * Even in the age of nationalism, after the French Revolution, the Ottomans resisted the emergence of a Turkish sense of national identity paralleling national awakening among the Christian minorities. The ordinary Turks did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks, Muslims or Ottomans? ... As Bernard Lewis expressed it:
 * in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages.
 * &mdash;Ozay Mehmet, Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery Routledge 1990, p. 115f
 * Think, too, of the actual usage of the word "Turk" to mean simply "Muslim". Consider, for example, the so-called "Turcocretans", who were almost entirely local converts to Islam, and almost entirely Greek-speaking. --Macrakis 23:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the Byzantines never called themselves "Greek". They defined themselves as "Roman" (Romaios/Romiosini). That's why the Muslims called them "Rum" (Roman). But they were, essentially, "Greeks", just like the Ottoman Turks were essentially "Turks". Despite the fact that neither of them (Byzantines and Ottomans) directly used these specific names (Greek and Turk, respectively). Flavius Belisarius 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are similarities in the two cases. And indeed, the "Greek" nature of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire is less obvious than you might think. Of course the Byzantines spoke Greek, and wrote archaicizing Attic Greek just as the Ottomans spoke Turkish, and wrote, well, they wrote an interesting amalgam of Turkish, Persian, and Arabic. But the modern conception of continuity from ancient Greece to the present was essentially invented by the 19th-century nationalist historian Paparrigopoulos. Precisely as you say, the Byzantines did not call themselves Hellenes (a word reserved for pagans) until very late, just as the Ottomans did not call themselves Turks (a word reserved for peasants and nomads). Plethon, who tried to revive the link to ancient philosophy, had his writings burned as heretical. Why? Because the Eastern Roman Empire saw itself first as Christian, not Greek, just as the Ottoman Empire saw itself first as Muslim, not Turkish. --Macrakis 03:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

the byzantine empire were firstly christian,secondly greek and then whatever just the ottoman firstly muslim then turkish and then whatever.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.4 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a good parallel between the two Empires, though I don't agree that the connection with ancient Greece was invented - Constantinople was originally an ancient Greek colony and until its fall in 1453 it was decorated by both Christian and pagan culture (such statues of Olympian Gods and figures from Greek mythology). All studies in literature and philosophy were essentially the same as that of Hellenistic Alexandria and Athens, and the bulk of the Empire was geographically located on the areas of ancient Greek colonisation. Most importantly, the Empire was since the time of Justinian viewed in the eyes of the non-Byzantines as nothing but a corrupted continuation of ancient Greece (and even 'Rum' came to mean also 'ancient Greece' in Arabic). However it's wrong to refer to Byzantium as if it were always an ethnic Greek state, as it is wrong and anachronistic to refer to the Holy Roman Empire as an ethnic German state. It's true that Byzantium was founded on an ancient Greek city and fell consciously as a Christian Greek state, but for the most part of its history it was first Orthodox Christian and then Greek, just as the Ottoman Empire was first Islamic. In both cases (Ottomans and Byzantines), the foreigners called them "Turks" and "Greeks" respectively, and their empires "Turkey" and "Greece", but this should not allow anachronistic implications about those two states. Yes there was Turkish nationalism in the late Ottoman Empire, and yes there was Greek nationalism in the middle-late Byzantine Empire, but none of them were ethnic states, they were religious imperial powers. However, unlike Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire was not founded on Turkish-speaking lands nor did it ever reduce itself to an ethnically homogeneous population. Also, unlike Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire had never preserved a "classical Turkic" culture, for Islam was the only Turkish culture. The most important thing here is Quataert's statement: As for a "Turkish Empire", state power relied on a similarly heterogeneous mix of peoples. The Ottoman Empire succeeded because it incorporated the energies of the vastly varied peoples it encountered The article is implying the opposite of the above statement. It anachronistically applies Kemalist nationalist thought on a Islamic Imperial state. The irony is that if what Belisarius suggests had been true, the Ottoman Empire would have never become as great as it did. This is what Quataert states at the beginning of his book. Miskin 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Let's be realistic: All former Ottoman nations, apart from the Turks, describe the date of independence of their state as "liberation from the Turks"; whereas Turkey proudly considers itself as a "successor state" of the Ottoman Empire." As usually, you overestimate your knowledge on the topic, and you couldn't be more wrong. The Battle of Navarino was essentially the event which instigated the French colonisation of Magreb. Today Algerian and Tunisian historiography views this "break-up" from the Ottoman Empire as a national destruction. As for the Successor states of the Ottoman Empire, those were essentially all nation-states that were created upon the former's dissolution. The claim that "I know Ottoman history better than you ever will because I'm a Turk" is simply laughable, let alone against the spirit of wikipedia and NPOV. One thing that should be made clear is that Wikipedia considers editors' personal family experiences as irrelevant, and I won't be responding to such "evidence". As far as WP:ATT is concerned, this is largely a waste of time. The unintelligibility between modern and Ottoman Turkish is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand. To make the long story short, I don't disagree that the Ottomans were essentially Turks, as well as the direct ancestors of modern Turks, but I certainly refuse to accept that the Ottoman Empire was a Turkish version of 3rd Reich, in which a sole ethnicity "commanded and conquered" other nations and peoples. As Quataert says, "The Ottoman Empire succeeded because it incorporated the energies of the vastly varied peoples it encountered". I think this should no longer be neglected by the Turkish editors in the article. Miskin 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Miskin, perhaps you should check these historic maps of the Ottoman Empire, titled "Turkey", "Turkish Empire" or the "Imperium Turcicum". Perhaps you will finally realize that "Turkishness" was not invented by Atatürk, who lived centuries or decades after the maps I have listed below were drawn (you can click on them and see for yourself).


 * The Ottoman Empire was also referred to as Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, c.1369 ) in numerous historic texts, treaties and maps                  , but scholars today prefer to use the name Ottoman Empire in order to differentiate it from the Republic of Turkey which succeeded the Ottoman State in 1923.


 * Another alternative historic name was the Turkish Empire, or Imperium Turcicum in Latin.

Flavius Belisarius 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that the Ottoman Empire was called "Turkey" in foreign languages doesn't prove by any means that there was any sort of Turkish nationalism prior to the 20th century and Kemal Ataturk, nor does it justify the unbalanced and pathetic state of the article. Me and Macrakis have made a valid point to you and backed it up with credible sources. Other editors have complained about how "bad" the article is but you have bullied them all. Before you make further reverts and remove any tags I'm linking WP:OWN for the second time. Now I'm really going to take this to WP:DR, not because I especially care about the subject at hand, but because I can't sit and watch wikipedia's policies get ridiculed in such manner. Miskin 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Miskin for this issue. If you want to be the Sultan-ı İklim-i Rüm (Sultan of the Roman lands), you must give up some of the nationalism and form a collective outcome with the people from the conquered lands. Deliogul 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Miskin is right to say that the integrity and the vitality of the Ottoman Empire (consisting of various ethnicities and religions) is due to ignoring all kinds of ethnicity and ruling the community of Ottoman empire by recognizing differences in the view point of religions such as calling the community as muslim and non-muslim. The applications of policies in Ottoman Empire are carried out according to religions. However, this fact can not be used as a proof for the statement that Turkish identity does have the same amount of influence on Ottoman Empire in all aspects as other ethnicities that lived in Ottomans' territory and contributed to Ottoman Empire. In conclusion, denying the effect of Turkish identity (can be considered as 'special' situation with respect to other cultures and nations)on all stages of the history of Ottoman Empire results totally true but truncated historical information about Ottoman Empire. Thanks and calm down please. [butoprak] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.232.10 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I quote from Caroline Finkel's Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire:


 * 'By 1923 the population of what remained of the Ottoman Empire- the Republic of Turkey- was about 13 million, of which 98 per cent were Muslim; before the First World War it had been 80 per cent Muslim.


 * Official Ottoman and Turkish census figures illustrate the dramatic decline between 1900 and 1927 in the numbers of non-Muslims in major cities. The most striking statistic is that for Erzurum... the non-Muslim population decreased from 32 per cent to .1 per cent. In Trabzon... non-Muslims had declined from 43 per cent to 1 per cent. The non-Muslim population of Izmir fell from 62 per cent to 14 per cent between 1900 and 1927.'


 * You cannot say that with those kinds of numbers, Turkey could be the same as the Ottoman Empire- the population figures don't bear that out. The former Empire was so multicultural in its makeup that declaring that somehow by emphasizing this it is truncated historical information just doesn't make sense. A history of the Ottoman Empire cannot exist without delving into every facet of it. That is the true nature of the past in Anatolia and Thrace. Monsieurdl 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The ratio of non-Muslims was "1 in every 5" during the late Ottoman period. Today, it is something like "1 in every 500". Losing the highly populated Balkans, CUP's eastern policies, population exchanges and the Istanbul Pogrom, all caused Turkey to lose its multicultural basis. So, the imperial ambition to create a world empire and to integrate all people into the Ottoman notion is the politics of the past. Today, we have a totally different story. Deliogul 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true- but he was trying to say that this domination like we have had since the mid-1920's was as it was before, which was totally incorrect. Anatolia had been that way for 2,000 years, regardless of who ruled over it. It all doesn't matter now, as he's banned indefinitely, but his points just weren't matching the history. Monsieurdl 12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of you are applying post-18th century ideas like nationalism and ethnicism to the Ottoman Empire, which during its rule promoted none of these idealisms and in fact greatly suffered from them. Yet, user Miskin has the false belief -he holds on to this belief for 2 years now- nonMuslims had any kind of integrity within the Ottoman ruling class. NonMuslims were second class citizens. I am looking forward to anyone refuting this, that would be eye-opening information for me too. Despite of the wealth they garnered under the Ottoman flag, nonMuslims didn't have the same rights as Muslims until late years which showed little progress under Western dictation. And those Balkan and Anatolian Muslims, those who made the skeleton of the Ottoman Empire, are the ancestors of modern day Turks of Turkey. So if we will examine the Ottoman Empire from our 21th century perspective, we can say the Ottoman Empire was Turkish ruled. I believe Turkey has more connections with Ottoman Empire than modern Greece has with Byzantine Empire... I am looking forward to anyone refuting that last comment as well.-- Doktor Gonzo 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

^^You guys have a nice discussion going on here, but you're straying from the main topic a bit, I think. Miskin said that the Ottoman Empire was "Islamic". Let me clarify something for you, Flavius Belisarius. Islam is a religion. Religions are not defined nor constrained by languages. It is true that the Ottoman Empire was based in Turkey, and that the language spoken was near modern-day-Turkish, but that is, once again, a language. I believe that you could call the empire both "Turkish" and "Islamic" because it consists largely of BOTH elements. --Youknowme786 (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading all the above comments, it seems quite clear that believing that Turks are in any way associated with the Ottoman empire is a fabrication, a fantasy, a delusion. Congratulations to all of you.  Wiki-thought prevails again.JGC1010 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WE KNOW YOU HATE US BUT...

-I am turk.I know that we are(ottomans)turk.They are real turks.They are coming from Kayı tribe.

-Turk means brave people and warrior people.Turk means that in our turkish.

-You say ottomans are not turk.They are turk.Yes,an example some armenians have turkish seunames or some turks have other ethnic groups's surname like Lazs,Arabs...Because,Ottoman empire had a system named that:DEVŞİRME...İn this system some children take in their towns and we educuate them all like Sokollu Mehmed Pasha... -BRİTİSHES PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH.Ottoman empire's first politic was people could do their religion.I and my country know you(britishes,greeks,frenches...)dont like us because of wars but please think that:İf ottomans dont permit greeks,armenians and Jewish people to do their religion there will be a caos.Please you can hate us but you must thank us because when we get Greece or bulgaria we could spoke turkish in bulgaria.Bulgars and greeks can talk turkish now and turkish is a more popular language.But we permit you.We have a proverb that: Feed the bird and it kills you.We always won wars against you and you hate us.I agree it is so bad feeling...:)

-Ottomans wanted to conquewr all the world but they can only conquer to:Baltic sea,atlantic ocean,Sudan,to Iran.What can we do god makes us like warriors.But unfortunately god makes you like good diplomaticians and politicians to conquer countrys by capturing their rules and economys like now.You are doing us(turkey).Our President Erdoğan wants do an islamic empire.But we are not religionus.We are muslims but we dont like islamic revolution.Because we are turk we cant live under a other flag.We want independent.Please look:

-Turkish independence war -Mustafa Kemal Atatürk -Turks Military History -Turks History -Republic of Turkey

BESLE KARGAYI OYSUN GÖZÜNÜ.

A TURK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.205.50 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

FLAG
Flag is wrong.. This flag is Turkey's flag.. Ottoman flag is different


 * Actually the late flag of the Ottoman Empire is the same with the flag of Turkey. We have problems about which flag of the empire we have to use in the article. Please go to the archives if you want to see the details. Deliogul 11:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)



The current flag of Turkey was also the first official Ottoman national flag, adopted with the Tanzimat reforms in 1844.

Before 1844 there was no Ottoman "national flag". Every Ottoman institution had its own flag.

The supposed "Ottoman flag" which appeared previously was actually the "Ottoman Navy Flag" and was used between 1793 and 1844. It was never used as a "national flag".

Turkish flags in Istanbul, 1920 (Ottoman period):

http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/kararkoy02.jpg

http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/tepebasi.jpg

Turkish flags in Istanbul, 1927 (Turkish Republic period):

http://www.azizistanbul.com/eskifoto05/bahcekapieminonu1927.jpg

http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/Portals/Istanbul/eskiimg/esk02.jpg

Flavius Belisarius 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a few articles where various historical flags are used (i.e. Austro-Hungarian Empire, which used a naval ensign, I believe). However, Flavius seems to have his flags down. Either way, when dealing with older states that preceed our modern nation state era, I think this is a relatively minor issue. As noted, there were myriad flags used for different purposes throughout the Ottoman period. I say let Flav's flag stand. Hiberniantears 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think that we must use a simple red flag because it is the general object which the Turkish people used for centuries as the closest thing to a flag. Ottomans carried it until the reforms too. On the other hand, we can use the official one (so called the Tanzimat flag). Deliogul 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the late ottoman flag was roughly identical to the present day turkish flag, I'm not really in favor of using the Turkish flag in the article, since the proportions are set later on and there are some critical differences (Thickness of the crescent, position of the star etc...) So based on the historical pictures above, and another one I found, I made an alternative one that you can see on the right. Hope that satisfies everybody. Critizations and suggestions are welcome. Kerem Özcan 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we can give your flag a try. Deliogul 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now second look, it kinda looks ugly :) I'll make a better version and then we'll do so. Kerem Özcan 07:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These flags are completely identical to the present-day Turkish flag, including the position of the star and the thickness of the crescent. Even in the Ottoman coat of arms, the position of the star was the same with the Turkish flag of today. French/German/British-made postcards (such as this WWI era German postcard) and posters of that period are not extremely reliable sources in terms of determining the shape of the Ottoman/Turkish flag, as they were often flawed and made by people who were unaware of the correct positioning of the star, or the thickness of the crescent. The best available resource is the book "The Ottoman Steam Navy (1828-1923)" by Bernd Langensiepen & Ahmet Güleryüz, which has dozens of photos of Ottoman warships carrying the present-day Turkish flag (completely identical). You can find the English edition of this book at Amazon.com or a Barnes & Noble bookstore in New York (I bought mine from there) or the Turkish edition from the bookstores on İstiklal Avenue in Beyoğlu. 151.37.188.46 09:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually your arguement about postcards not being reliable is right. But I still think that it'd be an overstatement to say that the flags were identical, since the proportions of present day Turkish flag were not standartized until 1936. I just noticed Image:Jihad 1914.jpg (right) is one of the better examples on this subject. It's a late ottoman flag, used for an official purpose. And indeed the position of the star looks alike with the present-day Turkish flag while the thickness of the crescent differs minimally. Under these circumstances we can just leave it as it is in the article, or I can make another flag just nominally different, just to show that it didn't have standarts before.

Opinions?

Regards; Kerem Özcan 13:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think let's leave it as it is, since there were also flags with a thin crescent, exactly the same with the present-day flag. It was totally "arbitrary", until the Turkish Flag Law made the thin crescent a standard in 1936, in the 13th year of the Turkish Republic, only 2 years before Atatürk died. 151.44.155.125 13:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Practically all Ottoman warship photos in the book The Ottoman Steam Navy (1828-1923) have the thin crescent flag by the way (the current Turkish flag). Obviously the Ottoman Navy commanders favoured the thin crescent. 151.44.155.125 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I just noticed that the alternative flag I made a while ago has replaced the Turkish flag that was in the article. Regarding a 1914 image I made another alternative (On the right). I am OK with the usage of any, including the 8 pointed flag and the present day turkish flag. Opinions? Kerem Özcan (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Iranian state?
Hi,

I just wanted to ask editors familiar with Ottoman history to take a look at List of Iranian states and empires. The article claims that Ottoman Empire was an Iranian state and to justify this cites some sources that only mention some cultural borrowings from Persians. But the same arguement can be made about Arabs, etc since the Empire was a multicultural state. But I seriuosly doubt that anybody (whether Ottomans or their neighbors) ever called them an Iranian state.Heja Helweda 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is totally rubbish. Logic will save us... Deliogul 21:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't bother. Wikipedia is full of Persian chauvinists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.36.14 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Persian culture was influential on Ottoman Empire, both in fine arts and administration. It was indeed influential on the entire Islamic "world" and beyond.  The status of Persian was comparable to Latin in the Christendom in the field of literature. However these facts do not legitimaze calling the Ottoman Empire as an Iranian state.  Persia was ruled by Turkic dynasties for a period of time.  Does that legitimaze us calling it a Turkish state?


 * Unfortunately history is a dialogue between the past and the present, a narrative instead of a science. Therefore we cannot resist its constructing according to present national points of view; but to be neutral given this constraint the best option is to respect present lines of nationhood. Evren Güldoğan 08:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever, we are at the same side. We can't call people who listen to the music of USA as Americans. Therefore, we can't call an empire "Persian" because it was dominated by Persian literature etc. Deliogul 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Slavery
Removed the paragraph:

''Rural slavery was largely a Caucasian phenomenon, carried to Anatolia and Rumelia after the Circassian migration in 1864. Conflicts emerged within the immigrant community and the Ottoman Establishment, at times, intervened on the side of the slaves''

This is strictly revisionist history. Prime Example; Shaka the leader of the Zulu nation had over Fifteen Hundred personal Slaves. Two Hundred of which he put to death as a show of Mourning when his mother died. There are numerous Historical facts that are agreed upon many scholars that Slavery was a phenomena of many different races.

Martinj63 02:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Caucasian" and "Caucasoid" (i.e. white race) are two different things. Caucasia is the name of the geographic region located to the northeast of the Anatolian peninsula, in present-day Georgia; where the Circassians used to live (in a bit north/northwest of present-day Georgia). In the U.S., the term "Caucasian" is often used to describe the "Caucasoid (white/European) race", which is wrong and misleading. It's a bit like the difference between "Mongol" and "Mongoloid". Flavius Belisarius 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Still the paragraph is biased as there are numerous cultures that have and some cases still practice slavery today.

Martinj63 20:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence should probably be rephrased. It is talking about the roots of rural slavery in Ottomans. I doubt that Zulu's had any significant effect on slavery in Ottoman Empire. DenizTC 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Jsifre
I am removing the following section from the article which was added by the above named editor, and rolling the article back to it's previous version. I don't think the text below is wrong, but I would like to see it worked into the existing text, which has been here for some time, and seems to have been fairly established. This represents the lead to the Society section.Hiberniantears 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC) '''Although it can be said that the legacy of Arab rule was the religion of Islam, for the Turkish their claim to a legacy belongs to the formation of the Ottoman Empire. We see the Ottoman Empire being described as a bureaucratic state, holding different regions within a single administrative and fiscal system (Hourani 207). In fact the Ottoman Empire would last for six hundred years (1299-1923) and would encompass what is modern day Turkey, the Balkans and all of the Arab speaking nation states. Thus the Ottoman Empire would be home to a extremely diverse population ranging from the muslim majority to the minority population, specifically Christians and Jews who were referred to as the People of the Book.'''


 * Its language is a bit confusing. Deliogul 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject
I've proposed the creation of an Ottoman Empire WikiProject. The nomination can be found here. --Hemlock Martinis 06:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note, there is a Ottoman military history task force as part of WP:Military history. --A.Garnet 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And possibly they are not working very good because couple of days ago, I found out that there is not an article about the Battle of Otlukbeli. One of the most important battles that was fought by Ottomans in the East! I think an Ottoman task force or a Wikiproject is needed. Deliogul 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds great. I voiced my support on the proposal. Hiberniantears 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We can create a seperate project for the Ottoman Empire and that military task force can be transferred under the new project's command or we can create an Ottoman Empire task force under the project of former countries, a move which would led us to the unification the new Ottoman Empire task force and that military task force. By the way, I still think that we need an all new project for Ottomans. Deliogul 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GA
The article is not GA anymore, right? What is the last situation? DenizTC 10:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ottoman empire was Islamic
The Ottoman empire was an Islamic empire, not a "multi ethnic empire". This is not even in question in the historical and academic world. Even in Wikipedia article on Islams like here and here, the Ottoman empire is featured front and center as Islamic. Thus the intro should clearly state that fact.--CltFn 12:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are trying to say here. The rulers of the Ottoman Empire were, indeed, Muslim, and Islam was the dominant religion of the Empire. However, the composition of the Empire itself was multi-religious, and multi-ethnic. The line in the article is not meant to diminish the Islamic character of the government, but rather to point out that there was more to the Ottoman Empire than just the Sultan. I would hold the role played by Phanariotes in Ottoman government as a prime example of this diversity. As for the overall religious diversity, this is esspecially true in the European areas of the Empire, where only Albania is predominantly Islamic today. While there was a considerable level of population exchange as the Empire wound down, South Eastern Europe was never predominantly Islamic, although many areas were more Islamic than they are today. As far as the multi-ethnic component is concerned; You had a Turkish led government, yes, but the Empire as a whole was always culturally diverse, albeit to different degrees throughout history depending on what territories were controlled; Turks, Arabs, Berbers, Armenians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, some Italians, maybe a Persian here and there, and perhaps even the occaisonal German. The list goes on. While this was before the rise of the modern conception of national identities, the cultures still existed, and thus comprise the ethnic, or cultural diversity of the Ottomans. I view this concept in the same manner that I approach Roman Empire related topics. Within the Roman Empire you had a Roman, or at least Greco-Roman character, but you still had a diversity of cultures and religions; Italians, Egyptians, Arabs, Armenians, Greeks, Dacians, Gauls, etc. Since the two Empire's consisted of much of the same territory, and -indeed- capital cities, I think the multi-ethnic, multi-religious concept is on pretty safe ground. Hiberniantears 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, so lets find a way of stating what you have just explained in one sentence in the intro. Something along the lines that the Ottoman empire was an Islamic polity which ruled over territories comprised of multi ethnic populations.--CltFn 13:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can work with that. How does this sound:
 * ...was an Islamic Turkish dominated state which ruled over a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire which, at the height of its power (16th – 17th centuries), spanned three continents, controlling much of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa...
 * If this works for you, feel free to insert it in the article. Hiberniantears 13:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this discussion has been made before, you can look through the archives for it. The consensus was made so that since every Millet in the empire had their own rules according to their religion, the definition "islamic" didn't seem appropriate.
 * I understand your points though, since the sultans were also the caliphs, plus the protectors of islam, and muslims were superior to non-muslims in the "muslim vs. non-muslim" cases
 * Still the definition "Islamic Turkish dominated" sounds a little bit... I don't know. Maybe we can come up with something better. To begin with ,(as far as I know) the ethnic Turks were not the majority in the empire, and people were ultimately divided by religion more than anything else.
 * What about something like "Turkish ruled, muslim dominated, multi-ethnic and multi religious...". :/ Maybe it sounds a bit too complex for the first sentence. Regards, Kerem Özcan 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking a wider view of this, do we even need to establish the ethnic and religious identity of the Empire in the opening paragraph? The Roman Empire opens as such:
 * The Roman Empire is the name given to both the imperial domain developed by the city-state of Rome and also the corresponding phase of that civilization, characterized by an autocratic form of government.

We could just use a variant of this, specific to the Ottoman Empire centered on the Sultan in Istanbul. Any thoughts? This way we create a fairly vanilla opening for an article which does experience a fair amount of ethnic/religious based edit-wars. I realize this is contrary to what I said previously, but maybe a more bland, straightforward opening is the way to go. Perhaps:
 * The Ottoman Empire''' is the name given to both the imperial domain developed by the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul and also the corresponding phase of that civilization, characterized by a Millet-based, autocratic form of government. Hiberniantears 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. I think we would make a great mistake if we call the empire simply "Islamic" because it would not be fair to the Millet system, non-religious legal codes in the empire and Tanzimat Reforms. This issue has been discussed for many times here but this time we must conclude it without any confusion. Deliogul 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, we must add that, for a short period of time, the Ottoman Empire was a constitutional monarchy. I guess the sentence that will follow the intro must mention it. Deliogul 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A few comments about the state of the article
It is obvious to me why Ottoman Empire has lost its GA status, and I'm sure with a few changes it will be restored. This is what I saw:


 * Too few references. Whole paragraphs with no references, and some passages are well written, which is very odd considering when I compose paragraphs I immediately look for the ref to add it. I added citation needed tags.
 * There are a LOT of POV problems in the World War I section and forward- it reads like a finger wagging propagandist newspaper poorly written. We should strive to avoid controversy by trimming it down and letting the reference to other main articles stand.
 * Too many references in the second half- If you are using 2,3,4 or more references in a sentence, then that is bad form (except in rare circumstances). I have seen it far too often.
 * Too many sections after the Republic of Turkey! By individually breaking down every single section of Ottoman rule, life, etc. it bogs down the rest of the article. If anything should be trimmed, it is that. Less headers and more summations should do the trick. Why have State organisation of the Ottoman Empire at all? The section in this article is just as long as the whole article itself! That's not good... that illustrates perfectly what I mean.

Please visit Scotland in the High Middle Ages and see why that article is featured content! It has clear and concise paragraphs, beefy references done well, and has a primary and secondary source section which is necessary when so many references are included.

I hope others see what I am talking about. Happy editing! Monsieurdl 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

should we paste a new nice map?
Hi, what do you think about this new Map of the greatest extension of the empire between 1566-1683:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ottoman_Empire_16-17th_century.jpg

thx. :) lynxxx 217.184.138.211 20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the image itself, but the labels for the cities leaves a lot to be desired- they aren't even English city names (Kiew is especially odd). I would also like to see in a map divisions of empires at the height of its power, or at least some more beef to it. Monsieurdl 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thx for your response. Maybe I'll make it in english. The problem is, the safavid-territories was conquered by the ottomans just for few decades and before recaptured there was a pause, and in the same time Podolia and Crete wasn't conquered. Or Yemen, or Iraq, and so on. I decided, it's better to show in a map not a point of time, than a period of time with greatest expansion (1566-1683).

The Map belongs (with few corrections) to: Harry W. Hazard, Atlas of Islamic History, Princeton 1954. and is in some definitve books of orientalistic in germany

bye, lynxxx 217.184.138.211 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean, are we going to use this one or the present one? I think having two different maps that tell the same thing is useless. Maybe you can prepare a "who gets where?" map about the territorial losses of the Ottoman Empire. We already have a "who conquered where?" map. Deliogul 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This article drips with Political Correctness.
"...also known as the Turkish Empire or Turkey by its contemporaries, see the other names of the Ottoman State), was a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Turkish-ruled state....As such, the Ottomans regarded themselves as the heirs to both Roman and Islamic traditions, and hence rulers of a "Universal Empire" through this "unification of cultures".[1]"

How cute, a mutli-ethnic, multi-religious, Unification of cultures Utopia lead by the glorious Muslim masters in Contantinople.

Do the Chinese, British, Roman, French empires get such glowing Politically Correct reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.248.211 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This was the way it was in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, and it is so very obvious. This is a fact that does not need a "glowing Politically Correct" review as you say. Trying to stir up trouble is bound to fail here, for we have many editors from diverse cultural backgrounds who can provide endless sources to refute your claim. If you wish to back up your sarcasm, then provide some legitimate sources saying that it was not mult-ethnic or multi-religious during the bulk of the Ottoman Empire. We all await your proof. Monsieurdl 13:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Even in the late times of the empire "one in every five" was non-Muslim. This is an incredible number for today's understanding. When you add the imperial (Seljuq and Roman tradition) and religious claims (Caliphate) of the empire, you end up with what is written in the introduction. Deliogul 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After studying the edits that this anonymous person has made, it appears that he has posted several politically charged statements from a extreme conservative POV. I don't think they will be back, but I did note in the user talk page that this sort of discussion is not allowed. I'm not worried about it, personally. Monsieurdl 04:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong flag
Er is een verkeerde vlag in het artikel geplaats. De vlag van de Ottomanen had een meerpuntige ster met een maansikkel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.185.43 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think my german is sufficient to understand, that you're saying this flag is wrong, and the correct flag has more points, probably like this one. That was initially in the article, however as you can find in the above discussions, that flag belongs to ottoman navy. Current flag also has problems, and since I am the one who made it I'll take the responsiblity to re-make it, and your input here is appriciated. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Talk:Ottoman flag is a better spot for the discussion. The article on the Ottoman flag shows various versions. The flag did not remain the same through history; in particular, it was changed in 1844. --Lambiam 11:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * German? My friend, Hollandaca konusabiliyormusun değil? Mallerd (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you wanted to ask Hollandaca konuşamıyor musun?.  --Lambiam 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Mallerd (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No Byzantine successors
Lets have consistency here people. The Ottoman Sultanate conquered Byzantium. It did not succeed it. Otherwise, the claims of the Republic of Venice, Imperial Russia, Vatican City, Holy Roman Empire etc would have to be included - not to mention other successors in terms of spiritual and religious matters such as the Balkans who adhere to Orthodox Christianity. A concensus was reached with this matter. Tourskin (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Was the WikiProject Turkey in some way informed that there was even a discussion going on? It is definitely the case that Mehmed the Conqueror and his successors, by assuming the title Kayser-i-Rûm, considered themselves Caesar of the Roman Empire, and the Ottoman state to be the continuation of the Roman Empire. See Caesar (title). This view may not have been shared in the West, but it is more than just a "claim". As they say, possession is nine points of the law. You might as well say that the England of William the Conqueror is not the successor of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England ruled over by Harold Godwinson because, after all, the Normans conquered it.


 * In terms of spiritual and religious matters concerning the many inhabitants in the Ottoman territories who adhered to Orthodox Christianity, doesn't it mean something that Mehmed, acting in his capacity as Kayser-i-Rûm, reinstated the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and designated the Patriarch as the spiritual leader of all the Orthodox Christians in the Empire? See Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. --Lambiam 11:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I say is not as relevant as the fact that a concensus was made. The thing is, ok possession is 9/10ths of the law, but the following claimed possession:


 * Imperial Russia
 * Serbia
 * Romania
 * Empire of Trebizond
 * Despotate of Morea
 * Republic of Venice
 * Vatican city (Papal states)
 * Croatia
 * Bulgaria

All the above have a spiritual and a territorial claim above. Granted that Russia's conquest of the Crimea gives it limited claim.

And lets not forget the wretched Holy Roman Empire. Nothing seperates the Ottoman Sultanate from these listed powers - they all had a part in Byzantium's downfall, especially Venice, which conquered vast amounts of Roman and Greek land, and they all have a spiritual link. What do you say, do we play favorites or have double standards and include all of them or none? Nip it at the bud and get rid of these pretenders. The Link between Rome and Byzantium is tenuous at best, with so many Armenian and Macedonian usurpers. What link do you think a Turkic tribe originating from Central Asia has with an empire of antiquity that is not already shared by so many others? Tourskin (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By classifying the Ottoman Empire as a "pretender", you are begging the question. (Using labels like these ridiculous claims also does not strengthen the argument.)
 * You reverted my revert without discussing it first (see BOLD for a more proper approach to content disputes), but you left this text in the article:
 * "The Ottoman Empire was in many respects an Islamic successor to earlier Mediterranean empires &mdash; namely the Roman and Byzantine empires."
 * Unless you also remove that text (I hope not!) in the name of "consensus", your edit has been a hollow act.
 * The Empire of Trebizond can (in my opinion) indeed legitimately be called a successor state of the Byzantine Empire, and I see that it is mentioned as such in the article. Do you want to "nip that in the bud" too (in which it has been since the article was created on May 13, 2004 – some bud, eh) in the name of Holy Consensus? Well, I now hereby solemnly revoke that consensus. I mean, consensus can change, it is not immutable, and the decision that no state dare to be considered a successor state to the Byzantine Empire in any Wikipedia article was made by a small group also on behalf of WikiProjects that did not even know there was a discussion going on. Or was such a decision made? When I read the discussion on Talk:Byzantine Empire, I only see a consensus not to list successor states in that article, with as a major argument that it it is impossible to draw the line. Well, I've got news for you: here on the Ottoman Empire page we are not seriously plagued by that problem. There are only very few states that can be considered predecessor states of the Ottoman Empire, so that argument does not apply here, and I don't see why an unhappy decision made for the Byzantine Empire page should be applied here. --Lambiam 02:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok first of all, chill. Take a deep breath. Theres no need to mock me. Just explain to me that a concensus is revokable. Ok fine, I did not know that.


 * The Empire of Trebizond, the Empire of Nicaea and the Despotate of Morea, Epirus and other splinter kingdoms are in a totally different class. They were all always part of the Empire until the sack of 1204 split the empire. Therefore you have effectively several direct successors of Byzantium. Destroying an empire does not result in succession, because the Empire is gone. Trebizond is totally different, as are all the other greek seperate states as they can in theory trace their Greek emperors back to the Komnenoi or other Byzantine adminstrators. They were a part of the Empire. The Ottomans are not - they were Turkic ghazis who conquered land, occasionally intermarrying with the Palaiologoi family.


 * It is true - the Ottomans replaced the Byzantine Empire as the mediterranean power. Having the flag there makes it seem like Ottoman -> Byzantium was only a regime change in the same empire. A rather ridiculous suggestion given the different circumstances - the Ottomans were Islamic, more aggressive and dynamic, much larger and far more powerful (power projecting).


 * This is my argument, of you don't still agree, I'll take my leave from here . Tourskin (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I don't agree, but I'm not the only editor here; where are all the others? In any case, this is how I see it. Just like the 1066 conquest of England replaced the people at the top but left most of the substructure intact, the conquest of the Roman Empire did not erase it. That has been the Western Christian propaganda, but with all the changes there was actually a lot of continuity. It was not just Orhan I marrying Theodora; after that, up to and including Mehmed II, all Ottoman sultans, except Mehmed I, had Greek Orthodox mothers (although Mehmed II's mother was ethnically Serbian). Ottoman culture, already before the conquest of Constantinople, was not only influenced by the Persian culture of the Seljuk, but also deeply by the Byzantine culture (and of course Persian and Greek culture had been mutually influential for many centuries). Zaganos, Mehmed II's tutor, confidant and best friend, was an ethnic Greek who instilled in the future conqueror a deep respect for Greek culture (but less so for the machinations of the Byzantine court). The conquest of Constantinople only sealed a process that had been going on for a long time: the absorption of the Roman Empire by the Ottomans. --Lambiam 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All good arguments - except that the Normans did not actually keep too much of old England - they introduced a more efficient and centralized goverment and feudal system, but thats off to a tangent. Well... heres two things for you to consider my friend...


 * ... 1) It doesn't seem to make sense for any country to succeed two different countries. So either we get rid of the Byzantine flag or the Seljuk one - and only a uneducated peasant will say that the Seljuk one has less connections to the foundation of the house of Osman. Something does not come from two things, generally speaking - the exceptions being unions.


 * ... 2) Can something really succeed another thing, that was created at the same time? Look at this; Trebizond succeeded the Byzantine Empire upon its 1204 dissolution, Norman England succeeded Saxon England (granted that the Duchy of Normandy was there before hand but the Duchy is different from the Kingdom), the Byzantines succeeded the destroyed Ancient Roman Empire... you see the pattern? Generally speaking, the predecessor is destroyed at the same time that the successor is born. Not the case with the House of Osman, which was born in 1299 - a time when the Byzantine Empire was still very viable and alive. A successor is born at the time of the death of the predecessor - that is the cornerstone of my argument.


 * Respectfully, Tourskin (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your remarks about the Normans not actually keeping too much of old England only strengthen my argument, since the "Norman" Kingdom of England is not even viewed as a successor to the "Anglo-Saxon" Kingdom of England, but simply as its continuation.
 * As to the possibility of a country succeeding several other countries, consider this. The template Infobox Former Country has parameters for up to twelve predecessors, named p1 through p12. Apart from obvious cases like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland succeeding both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland, there are many cases similar to the situation here. For an example of a former country that has no fewer than eight predecessors listed, see Nazi Germany. Does the successor need to be born in the hour of death of its predecessor(s)? Most of the listed predecessors of the Nazi Germany were gobbled up years after 1934, when the Third Reich was already well entrenched; for example the Anschluss of Austria took place in 1938. I see no fundamental difference between the Ottoman Empire annexing the pitiful still independent remains of the Byzantine Empire, and Germany annexing, for example, the Free City of Danzig. You are, of course, free to argue that naming Nazi Germany as the successor of the Freie Stadt Danzig is wrong because the successor did not arise from the ashes of the predecessor, but hopefully you will at least agree that naming the Ottoman Empire as the successor of the Byzantine Empire is consistent with what is done in similar situations in other articles.
 * By the way, the Byzantine Empire was not the "successor" of the Roman Empire, it was the Roman Empire, in unbroken continuity. --Lambiam 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Byz empire was a continuity in practice - although not recognized by historians for the most part - i mean i agree with u but many, especially earlier pro-western historians do not, calling it Greek Empire, etc. add in byz as a predecessor if u wishTourskin (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case in successors states we shall have Greece,Bulgaria,Serbia...etc.Don't you see Lambiam the travesty; As Tourskin said Byzantine Empire wasn't incorporated rather destroyed so there isn't a succession. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You raise two issues. As to successor states of the Ottoman Empire, it would not be entirely unreasonable to list these. After all, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan are all listed as successor states of the Soviet Union in the infobox in that article. Also, for example, the British Mandate of Mesopotamia has the Ottoman Empire given as its sole predecessor state. Likewise, the French Mandate of Syria is presented as having the Ottoman Empire as one of its predecessor states and Hatay State as a successor. I don't see the travesty in any of this.
 * As to the main issue at hand, the Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Seljuks, for the last part under the leadership of Osmans. What is the essential difference with the conquest of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of England by the Normans? You agree with Tourskin that the Byzantine Empire was destroyed, but that is begging the question. In what sense was it more "destroyed" than the Kingdom of Harold Godwinson was by the Normans? --Lambiam 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I have changed my stance on this one, to a more neutarl point of view:


 * Plus side: Ottoman Empire incorporated alot from Byzantium, but not too much. After all, theres only so much a Greek Christian state and an Islamic Turkish state can have in common.
 * Negative side: If we do include the Ottomans, we'll have to add in Georgia, Russia, etc as the successors too, but I guess that is the articles problem... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

they are not the succesors of teh byzantines or romans..thats just stupid....shouldnt the british be the succesors of the romans then as well? NO BECAUSE NOONE REPLACED THEM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.135 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's see, what writes the experts?

"The Ottomans, in 1453, had destroyed the second Rome, Byzantium, that had endured for one thousand years, from the fourth through the fifteenth centuries. Through this act, the Ottoman state changed in status from regional power to world empire. As destroyer, the Ottoman Empire in some ways also was the inheritor of the Roman heritage in its eastern Byzantine form. Indeed, Sultan Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople, explicitly laid down the claim that hewas a caesar, a latter-day emperor, and his sixteenth-century successor, S¨uleyman the Magnificent, sought Rome as the capstone of his career. Moreover, the Ottoman rulers, having conquered the second Rome, for the next four hundred-plus years honored its Roman founder in the name of the capital city. Until the end of the empire, the city’s name – the city of Constantine – Konstantiniyye/ Constantinople – remained in the Ottomans’ official correspondence, their coins, and on their postage stamps, after these came into use in the nineteenth century. In some respects, the Ottomans followed certain Byzantine administrative models. Like the Byzantines, the Ottomans practiced a kind of caesaro-papism, the system in which the state controlled the clergy. In the Ottoman judiciary the courts were run by judges, members of the religious class, the ulema. The Ottoman sultans appointed these judges and thus, like their Byzantine imperial predecessors, exercised a direct control over members of the religious establishment. In addition, to give another example of Byzantine–Ottoman continuities, Byzantine forms of land tenure carried over into the Ottoman era. While the Ottomans forged their own unique synthesis and were no mere imitators of their predecessors, their debt to the Byzantines was real. Other powerful influences shaped the Ottoman polity besides the Byzantine. As we shall see, the Ottoman Empire emerged out of the anarchy surrounding the Turkish nomadic movements into the Middle East after 1000 CE, population movements triggered by uncertain causes in their central Asiatic homelands. It was the last great Turco-Islamic state, following those of the Seljuks and of Tamerlane, born of the migration of the Turkish peoples out of central Asia westward into the Middle East and the Balkans (see chapter 2). The shamanist beliefs of those nomads remained deeply embedded in the spiritual practices andworld view of the Ottoman dynasty. Similarly, pre-Islamic Turkish usages remained important in Ottoman administrative circles, despite the later influx of administrative and legal practices from the Islamic world of Iran and the eastern Mediterranean. Ultimately, the Ottoman system should be seen as a highly effective blend of influences deriving from Byzantium, the Turkish nomads, and the Balkan states, as well as the Islamic world."

Quotet from: DONALD QUATAERT: The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922 Second Edition. Binghamton University, State University of New York 2005. p. 4. Greetz, lynxxx --78.54.221.42 (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude this discussion died a long time ago with the concensus that they were the successors.Tourskin (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, thx. And what about the "map discussion"? bye, lynxxx --78.48.230.113 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * However, inclusion of a reference to the Byzantine empire as a predecessor keeps being removed, and I'm tired of re-adding it only to see it removed again the next day. --Lambiam 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ceded?
The section headed "Stagnation and reform" starts with this sentence:


 * During the stagnation period many territories ceded, to Austria in the Balkans.

What does this mean? Were these territories ceded to Austria, or did they secede to Austria? "Cede" is usually a transitive verb. Who did the ceding? rowley (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that it was the Ottomans who stagnated, the article means that the Ottomans gave territory to their Austrian opponents.Tourskin (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be "was ceded", and for comprehensibility "in the Balkans" should immediately follow "territories". --Lambiam 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * were or was? I added in a were, I thought plural warrants a "were" - it was a lot of territories that were given up? Tourskin (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed "many territories" to "much territory". --Lambiam 14:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture edit war
For unclear reasons, a slow edit war is going on over which of two rather similar paintings should be used to illustrate the entry of Mehmet the Conqueror in Constantinople. Please argue your choice here on the talk page, so that we may hope to reach a consensus on this choice of paramount importance, instead of continuing to practice unmotivated undos. --Lambiam 10:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the One on the left. Its seems more realistic. The one on the right is too bright and the soldiers look like they are posing too much. These seem like stupid reasons, because its a stupid choice between two similar pictures, as already said. Tourskin (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as I know, the original version belongs to Benjamin-Constant. Also, he is one of my favorite painters so I support his work instead of the Zonaro's work. Take care, Deliogul (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither of these silly romantico-orientalist paintings done 450 years or so after the event belongs in an encyclopedic article about the Ottoman Empire. --Macrakis (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Fausto Zonaro was officially appointed to the position of Painter of the Ottoman Court by Sultan Abdulhamid II, so it would seem he has some title to belonging in this article. --Lambiam 07:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Romance is in the soul of the nation-states of our time. I mean Vercingetorix heavily defeated against Julius Caesar but he is depicted as an epic hero in France's national identity, Obilic just faked Murad Hüdavendigar and stabbed him but he is a saint according to the Orthodox Church. I assume we all know that none of the Ottoman Sultans would do such an unsafe thing like marching into a newly conquered city which was still swimming in bloodshed and anarchy. Deliogul (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am for visual and historic reasons supporting the picture on the left. I think it has already won this "war", but I am not sure. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * .Well, one Seljuk Turk Sultan did ride into a city filled with bloodshed and anarchy and he died No he didn't Tourskin (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

How is it just faked? It was quite an achievement, if not, I'd like to see you try. Mallerd (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

the map
i think the map doesn't show the "full" wideness of the empire at its peak. the empire also spanned to saudi arabia, and it included whole morocco, algeria, libya, egypt, yemen, oman, united arab emirates, kuwait, iraq, syria, and some parts of iran. the map here doesn't show all of them. it only shows the territories when the empire was in decline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrenos (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We have to accept that there was nothing to "rule over" in inner Arabian Peninsula. Also, the parts of Iran which were ruled by the Ottoman Empire had changed dramatically during the years. I also think it is necessary to add the reality that Ottomans ruled, mainly via local intermediaries, only the seasides of a considerable portion of the North Africa. Their influence on Morocco is also debatable. I think the current map is an objective work. Deliogul (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "When the empire was in decline" - That is sooo wrong. First of all, 1683 was not a declining year. It was approaching a decisive moment, whereby victory or defeat against Vienna in 1683 would be incrediably decisive. Secondly, the above middle eastern territories have already been included, although they have been accurately portrayed as conquests that occured in certain time periods through, as User:Deliogul said, intermdiates or "vassals", whose vassalship on some occassions was nominal. You must understand that the Ottoman Empire, like many empires, did not actually ever have control of all conquered countries at one point in time - they never had the greater part of Austria and Mesopotamia at the same time. How can you anyway, when your capital is 1000 miles from the fronts and the two war fronts are 2,000 miles apart!!


 * If you wanna see the empire's territories when she was in decline, take at look at this: Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

Tourskin (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've updated the Map of greatest extension of the ottoman empire. Look at here at the post above: Talk%3AOttoman_Empire It show the really ruled territories beetween ~ 1585-1603. It based upon scientific (e.g. turkish) maps, new maps, not this pupblic-domain 19th century-maps (see examples in the german discussion-site). The annexion of western iranian land is greater, than die annexion of crete and podolia in 1672. Look in this german discussion for further details: HERE Now we have also an acurate squarekilometer: 1595: ~ 4.650.000 qkm If anybody wants, I can replace the german citynames with english names in my map. bye, lynxxx --78.54.221.42 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Curtis
the section begining "==Growth (1453–1683)==" ends with the statement "Curtis loves little men" it doesn't appear in the edit this page section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.221.153 (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No such text can be found in the present or any recent revisions. --Lambiam 08:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Dear colleagues, I have uploaded a new SVG version of coat of arms of the Ottoman Empire. It would be great if you could change from the old rasterized version to the new one. Any comments welcome in Wikipedia Commons. See image here: Image:Osmanli-nisani.svg --78.84.111.131 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an administrator please change the Ottoman flag in the Ottoman Empire Template?
This was the real Ottoman flag of 1844-1922, as proven by the links (photos) in its description page:



The flag below (currently in the Ottoman Empire template) is both inaccurate and so ugly that an Ottoman sultan would probably behead a tailor who would sew such a horrid thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Country_data_Ottoman_Empire



151.57.202.37 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some more versions of the Ottoman flag hanging around. Based on the available evidence (see below), I do not really see why one version is dramatically more accurate than any other version. --Lambiam 10:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Available evidence

 * http://www.massfiles.com/BLOG/TREN/orient_express.jpg (19th-century poster for the Orient express – not authoritive)
 * http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/9415/anuh0010921ga5.jpg (postcard from 1908, commemorating the restoration of the 1876 constitution by the Young Turks, also displaying the green flag of the Ottoman Caliphate)
 * Image:Young Turk Revolution - Flayer for the constitution.png (another one, more crudely executed)
 * http://www.turquie-memoire.com/jihad.jpg (photo from 1914, showing the proclamation of jihad)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ottoman_Navy_at_the_Golden_Horn.jpg (German postcard drawing from 1914 – not authoritive)
 * http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/kararkoy02.jpg (postcard photo from 1920 – artificially coloured in that epoch)
 * http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/tepebasi.jpg (postcard photo from 1920 – artificially coloured in that epoch)


 * Photos are more trustable than postcards (postcards were mostly crafted by foreigners like Frenchmen and Germans who had no idea (or care) on how the star should be rotated in front of the crescent). The only authentic "photo" (indisputable fact) listed above is the declaration of Jihad in 1914, which clearly shows that the star was rotated in front of the crescent exactly like in the present-day Turkish flag. 151.57.204.247 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Two more photos are listed below:

Photo from 1908 (the gathering at Sultanahmet Square during the Young Turk Revolution):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Constantinople_settings_and_traits_%281926%29-_public_demonstration.png

Photo from 1918 (protests at Sultanahmet Square against the occupation of Istanbul by the Allies):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/SultanahmetMitingi.jpg

151.57.204.247 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this photo from 1914 is by far the best evidence in hand:

http://www.turquie-memoire.com/jihad.jpg

151.57.204.247 (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Osmanian Empire??
The opening paragraph says "The Ottoman Empire, also called the Osmanic Empire or Osmanian Empire...." The names "Osmanic" and "Osmanian" are rare and obsolete, and were never as common as other the obsolete terms "Turkish Empire" and "Turkey". So what are they doing at the top of the article? --Macrakis (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it will suffice to mention them in Names of the Ottoman Empire, which would require expanding its scope somewhat beyond the truly historical. --Lambiam 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it be called "Osmanian"? I bet %90 of the people who are aware of the empire don't even know Osman I. Actually, it is sad because his life, which is now a combination of reality and myth, is very similar to the lifes of other popular rulers of his kind. People generally know Fatih, Kanuni, Yavuz and, if you are interested in 19th century politics, Abdülhamit II. Therefore, somebody giving such an alternative name to the empire is not really possible. Deliogul (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

NOT CONSTANTINOPLE
SINCE 145388.233.195.35 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the wiki-page, Istanbul[], With the Turkish Postal Service Law of March 28, 1930, the Turkish authorities officially requested foreigners to adopt Istanbul as the sole name also in their own languages. Therefore, any reference to Istanbul before 1930, should be referred to as Constantinople, to be historically correct. Kansas Bear (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet another nationalist. I am a neutral editor (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Kansas Bear, its correct! --Erkan Umut 18:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The last time I saw this "since 1453" thing was at the infamous international football match between my beloved Fenerbahçe SK and Panathinaikos. Everybody would remember that it didn't help Fener to win the game and we were eliminated by the Greeks. Therefore, please stop posting such nonsense as it doesn't help us reaching anything in Wikipedia either. Deliogul (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you are not addressing me? Tourskin (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would I? Deliogul (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Error with the flag
The flag shown in the article is not the official flag of the Ottoman emipre! Actually, it's the flag of the current Turkish republic.

This is the Ottoman flag

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Ottoman_Flag.svg/800px-Ottoman_Flag.svg.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.247 (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mallerd (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WWI
Can someone tell me why the Ottomans chose the side of Germany and Austria in WWI? I saw in the Suleiman the Magnificent article that there was a rivalry between Austria and the Ottoman empire even in the 20th century. Besides, the Ottoman empire was somewhat rescued by France and England in the dawn of the Crimean war. Mallerd (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind Mallerd (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire in the New World?
Is there any information at all that the Ottoman Empire may have tried to colonize the Americas, perhaps Brazil, Colombia, the Caribbean, those regions? It's pretty much certain they didn't have much any influence in there for very long, but being the powerhouse of Asia that they were, wouldn't they have tried to follow the Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, French, English into the Americas? the only mention in this article is that Ottoman ships were spotted off the coast of North America in 1660 or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndarielHalo (talk • contribs) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AndarielHalo (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Europeans went on to find new places because the classic trade sources/routes were somehow under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Ottomans fought against Portugal in order to gain access to the wealth of India but they didn't seriously try to colonize Africa, America etc. Generally, the countries bordering the Atlantic Ocean benefited from the trend of overseas imperialism. Deliogul (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It was impossible for the Ottomans to colonize the Americas because they would have to travel tens of thousands of miles to get to the pacific ocean and then to california, whilst the Atlantic route was militarily impossible considering that the Spanish and Portuguese would have had a tight grip on the pillars of hercules. Come on dude, the very idea is not possible considering the fact that the New world is as far away from Contanstantinople as any place could be.


 * Come on dude, the very idea was if they tried. Read the question. Mallerd (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you being stupid or rude? I just explained how such a "try" would have been out of the question to implement. The Ottoman Empire was the most powerful country in the world perhaps, but even the Ottoman Sultans knew that they could not go that far, and the reason being is because in the east the portuguese blocked them past india and in the west the pillars of hercules were inassailable. Tourskin (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying would be bold, of course. You imply that difficulties exclude any attempts of trying to reach America. That is not true. Mallerd (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I imply that even the mighty Ottomans saw that there were easy things to do which were of greater importance. Tourskin (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you were, but I can't see that explanation anywhere in your initial comment which was mostly explaining by the hand of strategical difficulties. Mallerd (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As is related in our article, Morocco and the lands of North Africa beyond the Strait of Gibraltar were captured by Salih Reis in 1553, thus extending Ottoman territory into the Atlantic Ocean. The subsequent capture of the Atlantic islands of Lanzarote, Madeira, and Lundy, and the raids on Sussex, Plymouth, Devon, Hartland Point, Cornwall and other counties of western England, the Shetland Islands, the Faroe Islands, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, and Sweden, show that the Ottoman navy could operate in the Atlantic Ocean; the Pillars of Hercules were perhaps not so unassailable as suggested. --Lambiam 08:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are making the mistake of equating North African Barbary Pirates with Ottoman troops. Come on Lambiam, you know that is not what was implied; we're not talking about Arab pirates who were very loosely vassals of the Ottomans. No Ottoman ship went past the Pillars of Hercules, and the Arab raiders, if they did get past them would have found simply using ports on the Atlantic side of Morrocco a better call andone I imagined they would have used. The Barbary pirates would not have gone past the straits every time to go on a mere raid on some poorly defended European coast and I seriously doubt that the Ottomans, with Venic in control of Cyprus (till 1571), Crete (till c.1630) and attacking other Islands along the Adriaic would have ever gone past the straits - the closest time that the Ottomans ever did have a chance was during the Moorish uprising in Spain, but Selim the sot choose to conquer Cyprus instead of taking advantage. Tourskin (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out the Salih Reis article; although he was Turkish, he never attacked the straits of Gibraltar, the article says he conquered territory in Morrocco beyond the straits and used those ports for raiding, thus confirming my earlier point. Tourskin (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I concede I was wrong in the belief that it was merely Barbary pirates who did some Channel raiding and not Ottomans. Tourskin (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the animated gif map
It appears to be a POV creation which does not match historical reality. I have removed it for that reason. Serious inaccuracies include, showing Cyprus as part of the Ottoman Empire throughout the 19th century and in 1913, showing what is now Azerbaijan as part of the Ottman empire in the 19th century, showing the Igdir plain as part of the Ottoman empire throughout the 19th century and in 1913, showing the Russian province of Kars as part of the Ottoman empire from the 1880s and in 1913, showing a completely fabricated territory as "Ottoman empire" for 1922 (most of central Turkey was in the hands of Turkish nationalist forces at that time and not in the control of the Ottoman Sultan based in Constantinople). Meowy 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I didn't read this post before re-adding the image. I'll have to defer to your knowledge of this subject until I can learn more about it. -- Rising Sun Wiki  20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a place i can find accurate maps of the Ottoman Empire from the 19th century on? i would like to create the animated gif map with the correct information -- Rafaelherrejon (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)fie

Lepanto
The massively expensive and risky expedition that led to the battle of Lepanto in 1571 was no mere "revenge attack" - Europe was petrified by the constant Islamic advance and though earlier weatern historians were quite wrong to announce that the empire began its decline with this battle (it takes much more than a battle to send an empire down), it should be noted that it did check its naval power in the Mediterranean despite the huge construction effort. Many factors played a part in the calculations of all the parties involved but that this was an important milestone in history is indisputable. Too often the focus is upon commercial aspects but as the players of the time knew, mercantile wealth and naval dominance lays the foundation for invasion. 02:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

succeeding countries
Some edits ago I added numerous succeeding countries. But now they've been reverted back to just Turkey as the only one. My question is was it wrong to add these countries? I know that the French Union does state every country that it split up into as succeeding countries. Sorry though if it's a dumb question but I am quite new. ZDoom (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be another case of Turkish nationalism at work here, but the Ottoman Empire truly belonged to the Turks. The states that formed out the Empire; Palestine, Iraq etc did not really succeed the Ottoman realm. The Republic of Turkey did. Besides, I don't think any country is proud to have been part of the Ottoman Empire other than Turkey, because countries are not usually proud of being subjects or conquered by others!!Tourskin (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess we discussed it a year ago folks. Deliogul (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Legally speaking (per international law), it is Turkey which succeeded the Ottoman Empire.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me add that a Union is different from an Empire in that in an Empire, there is a de jure dominant country/nation, Turkey in this case, where else in a Union, there is no de jure dominant nation, because it is a union, a collection of states of which neither can claim that they solely own the union. The Turks, however, could claim to hold the Empire, and they effectively did. Tourskin (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But as per the article on Austria-Hungary (an empire as well), we don't consider the successors as just Austria and Hungary. Legally, the Ottoman Empire was succeeded by Turkey alone, but it held vast areas of non-Turkish lands which are not accounted for. I realize that it is difficult to list all the territories that broke away from the Ottoman Empire over time, but somewhere in the article there should be a list of the territories and states that broke away from the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps the successor states section could have Turkey as well as the territories that broke away at the end of World War I.--R-41 (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The legal successor state and the countries which now control its former territories are two very different things. Both are worth mentioning, but shouldn't be mixed up with one another. --Macrakis (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Tourskin (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)