
:''This article refers to the Turkish empire. For the furniture piece, see Ottoman (furniture)'' {| border=1 align=right cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=300 style="margin: 0.5em 0 1em 1em; background: #ffffff; border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;" |+Osmanlı İmparatorluğu
Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye |- | colspan=2 style="text-align: left; background: white;" | {| align=center | |- | style="text-align: center;" | Ottoman Coat of Arms |} |- | colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background: white;" |
''The Ottoman Empire at the height of its power'' |- | Motto | ''El Muzaffer Daima The Ever Victorious'' (as written in tugra) |- | Official language | Ottoman Turkish |- | Capital | Istanbul (Constantinople/Asitane/Konstantiniyye ) |- | Monarchs | Sultans of the Osmanli |- | Population | ''ca'' 40 million |- | Area | 6.3m km² (1902); 19.9m km² maximum extent (1595) |- | Rise of the Ottoman Empire | 1299 |- | Fall of the Ottoman Empire | October 29 1923 |- | Currency | Akce, Kurus, Lira |- | Flag | align=center |
The Ottoman Flag of the later Ottoman period |- | colspan=2 style="text-align: center;" | Part of the History of Turkey series |} The Ottoman Empire (Turkish language: ''Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'') was an imperial power that existed from 1299 to 1923 (634 years), one of the largest empires to rule the borders of the Mediterranean Sea. At the height of its power, it included Anatolia, the Middle East, part of North Africa, and south-eastern Europe. It was established by a tribe of Oghuz Turks in western Anatolia and ruled by the Osmanlı dynasty. In diplomatic circles it was often referred to as the ''Sublime Porte'' or simply as ''the Porte'', from the French language translation of the Ottoman language name Bâb-i-âlî "high gate", due to the greeting ceremony the sultan held for foreign ambassadors at the Palace Gate. This has also been interpreted as referring to the Empire's position as gateway between Europe and Asia. In its day, the Ottoman Empire was also commonly referred to as the ''Turkish Empire'' or ''Turkey'', though it should not be confused with the modern nation-state of that name. The Empire was founded by Osman I (in Arabic ''ʿUthmān'', hence the name ''Ottoman'' Empire). In the 16th century and 17th century, the Ottoman Empire was among the world's most powerful political entities and the countries of Europe felt threatened by its steady advance through the Balkan Peninsula. At its height, it comprised an area of over 1 E13 m²—though much of this was under indirect control of the central government(see ''Main article: State organization of the Ottoman Empire'') . From 1517 onwards, the Ottoman Sultan was also the Caliph, and the Ottoman Empire was from 1517 until 1922 (or 1924) synonymous with the Caliphate, the Islamic State. In 1453, after the Ottomans Fall of Constantinople Constantinople (modern Istanbul) from the Byzantine Empire, it became the Ottoman capital. Following World War I, during which most of its territories were captured by the Allies, Ottoman elites established modern Turkey during the Turkish War of Independence. ==History== ''Main article: History of the Ottoman Empire'' Mehmed_II">Image:mehmedii.jpg|thumb|150px|left|thumb|Mehmed II The Ottoman State originated as a ''Beylik'' within the Seljuk Turks in the 13th century. In 1299, Osman I declared independence of the ''Ottoman Principality''. Murad I was the first Ottoman to claim the title of sultan (king). With the capture of Constantinople in 1453, the state became a mighty empire with Mehmed II as its emperor. The Empire reached its apex under Suleiman I in the 16th century, when it stretched from the Persian Gulf in the east to Hungary in the northwest, and from Egypt in the south to the Caucasus in the north. The Empire was situated in the middle of East and West and interacted throughout its six-century history with both the Eastern culture and the Western Culture. During this period, the Empire vied with the emerging European colonialism in the Indian Ocean. Fleets with soldiers and arms were sent to support Muslim rulers in Kenya and Aceh and to defend the Ottoman slave and spice trade. In Aceh, the Ottomans built a fortress and supplied huge cannon. The the Netherlands Protestants were helped by the Ottomans against Catholic Spain. In the 17th century, the Ottomans were weakened both internally and externally by costly wars, especially against Persian Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia and Austria-Hungary. There was a long succession of sultans who were not as good as the generation of Mehmed II, Selim I and Suleyman I. The scientific advantage the Ottomans had over the other European countries also diminished. While the Ottomans were stagnating in a stalemate with their European and Asian neighbor countries, the European development went into overdrive. Eventually, after a defeat at the Battle of Vienna, in 1683, it was clear the Ottoman Empire was no longer the sole superpower in Europe. In 1699, for the first time in its history the Ottomans acknowledged that the Austrian empire could sign a treaty with the Ottomans on equal terms, and actually lost a large territory which had been in Ottoman possession for two centuries. Through a series of reforms, the empire continued to be one of the major political powers of Europe. The banking system was reformed and the guilds were replaced with modern factories. The Janissaries were disbanded, and a modern conscripted army was formed. Externally, the empire stopped going into conflicts alone, and started entering alliances like the other European countries. There was a series of alliances with countries such as France, Holland, Britain and Russia. A prime example of this was the Crimean war in which the English, French, Ottomans and others united against Russia. By the end of the 19th century the empire was weakened to a great extent. Economically, it had trouble paying the loans to the European banks. Militarily, it had trouble defending itself from foreign occupation (e.g. Egypt occupied by the French in 1798, Cyprus occupied by the British in 1876 etc.). Socially, the advent of nationalism and the yearning for democracy was making the population restless. This eventually led to a series of military coups and counter coups, resulting in a constitutional monarchy, in which the sultan had little to no power and the Ittihad ve Terakki party was ruling the empire. The nationalistic policies of the Ittihad and Terakki party resulted in the secession of the Balkans in the Balkan war of 1910-12. In a last-ditch effort to keep power in their hands by regaining at least some of the lost territories, the triumvirate led by Enver Pasha joined the Central Powers in World War I. The Ottoman Empire had some successes in the beginning years of the war. The Allies, including the newly formed ANZACs were defeated in Gallipoli, Iraq and the Balkans, and some territories were regained. However, the Ottomans were eventually defeated by the Allies in the Balkans, Thrace, Syria, Palestine and Iraq and its territories were colonized by the victors. In the Caucasus there was a stalemate between the Ottomans and the Russians. The Russians used their advanced guns and cannons and out-maneuvered the Ottomans using their Ottoman Armenian Population allies within the empire. The subsequent Armenian genocide is today viewed as genocide by most historians. Militarily the Ottomans made use of the mountainous terrain and the cold climate, launching a series of surprise attacks. The Russian forces retreated after the Communist revolution in Russia, resulting in Ottoman victory on this front. Mustafa Kemal Pasha, who had made his reputation earlier during the Gallipoli and Palestine campaigns, was offically sent from occupied Istanbul to take control of the victorius Caucasus army , and to disband it. This army was instrumental in winning the Turkish War of Independence (1918–1923), and the Turkey was founded on October 29, 1923 from the remnants of the fallen empire. ==State organization== ''Main article: State organization of the Ottoman Empire'' Ottoman state organization was based on a hierarchy with the sultan, who was usually the Caliph at the top and below him his viziers, other court officials, and military commanders. ==Culture== ''Main article: Culture of the Ottoman Empire'' During the medieval age, the Ottoman Turks had a high tolerance of alien cultures and religions, especially as compared to the Christian West. Early on the Turks drove the Byzantines from Anatolia and later pursued them into Europe. But, as the Ottomans moved further west the Turkic leaders themselves absorbed some of the culture of the conquered people. The alien culture was gradually added to the Turks' own, creating the characteristic Ottoman culture. After the capture of Constantinopole (later dubbed Istanbul) in 1453, most churches were left intact and only Hagia Sophia was turned into a mosque. The Ottoman court life in many aspects resembled ancient traditions of the Persian Empire Shahs, but had many Byzantine Empire and European influences. For centuries, the Ottoman Empire was the refuge of the Jews of Europe, who did not have the freedom of religion in Europe that the citizens of the Ottoman Empire did. ==Military== ''Main article: Military of the Ottoman Empire'' The Ottoman military was a complex system of recruiting and fief-holding. In the Ottoman army, light cavalry long formed the core and they were given fiefs called ''timar''s. Cavalry used bows and short swords and made use of nomad tactics similar to those of the Mongol Empire. The Ottoman army was once among the most advanced fighting forces in the world, being one of the first to employ muskets. The famous Janissary corps provided élite troops and bodyguards for the sultan. After the 17th century, however, the Ottomans could no longer produce a modern fighting force because of a lack of reforms, mainly because of the corrupted Janissaries. The abolition of the Janissary corps in 1826 was not enough, and in the war against Russia, the Ottoman Empire severely lacked modern weapons and technologies. “The beginnings of legal reform in the Middle East were initiated in the ottoman empire in the middle of the nineteenth century through the promulgation of commercial and penal codes such as the Ottoman Commercial code (1850) and the Ottoman Penal code (1858).” (Haddad, Y.Y., Byron H. and Ellison F., Eds.) ==Provinces== ''Main article: Provinces of the Ottoman Empire'' At the height of its power, the Ottoman Empire had 29 provinces plus three tributary principalities and Transsylvania, a kingdom which swore allegiance to the Porte. ==Sultans== ''Main article: Osmanli'' The sultan, also known as the Padishah, in Europe sometimes the Grand Turk, was the sole regent and government of the empire, at least officially. The dynasty is most often called the Osmanli or the House of Osman. The sultan enjoyed many titles such as Sovereign of the House of Osman, Sultan of Sultans, Khan of Khans, and from 1517 onwards, Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe, i.e. Caliph, which theoretically also gave him overlordship over other Muslim rulers around the world. For example, among the Mughal Emperors of India, only Aurangzeb had the Khutba read in his own name. Note that the first rulers never called themselves ''sultan'', but rather ''bey'' thereby acknowledging the sovereignety of the Selcuk sultanate and its successor the Ilkhanid sultanate. The sultan title was established by Murad I in 1383. See the article on State organisation of the Ottoman Empire for further information on the sultan and the structure of power. {| cellpadding=12 | valign=top | * Osman I (1281–1326; ''bey'') * Orhan I (1326–1359; ''bey'') * Murad I (1359–1389; Sultan from 1383) * Beyazid I (1389–1402) * ''Ottoman Interregnum'' (1402–1413) * Mehmed I (1413–1421) * Murad II (1421–1444) (1445–1451) * Mehmed II (the Conqueror) (1444–1445, 1451–1481) * Beyazid II (1481–1512) * Selim I (1512–1520; Caliph from 1517) * Suleiman the Magnificent (the Magnificent) (1520–1566) * Selim II (1566–1574) * Murad III (1574–1595) * Mehmed III (1595–1603) * Ahmed I (1603–1617) * Mustafa I (1617–1618) * Osman II (1618–1622) * Mustafa I (1622–1623) * Murad IV (1623–1640) | valign=top | * Ibrahim I (1640–1648) * Mehmed IV (1648–1687) * Suleiman II (1687–1691) * Ahmed II (1691–1695) * Mustafa II (1695–1703) * Ahmed III (1703–1730) * Mahmud I (1730–1754) * Osman III (1754–1757) * Mustafa III (1757–1774) * Abd-ul-Hamid I (1774–1789) * Selim III (1789–1807) * Mustafa IV (1807–1808) * Mahmud II (1808–1839) * Abd-ul-Mejid (1839–1861) * Abd-ul-Aziz (1861–1876) * Murad V (1876) * Abd-ul-Hamid II (1876–1909) * Mehmed V (Reşad) (1909–1918) * Mehmed VI (Vahideddin) (1918–1922) |} ''Note'': Although Abdul Mejid II was chosen as Caliph in 1922, he was not a sultan, as the National Assembly had abolished the sultanate. The caliphate was abolished in turn in 1924. ==External links== *[http://www.osmanli700.gen.tr/english/engindex.html Ottoman Web Site] - Site with a lot of information on the Ottomans *[http://www.osmanlimedeniyeti.com Everything About Ottoman Empire] - Everything about the history and culture of Ottoman Empire (in Turkish) *[http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Turkey/turkey.htm Royal Ark: Turkey] - Extensive site with a lot of detailed information *[http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM World Civilizations: The Ottomans] - Comprehensive site that covers much about the state and government *[http://www.theottomans.org The Ottomans] - Good site that covers various aspects of the Ottoman Empire in detail ==See also== *History of the Balkans ==References== * Barbara Jelavich, ''History of the Balkans, 18th century and 19th century Centuries'', Cambridge University Press, 1983. ISBN 0521252490. See "Balkan Christians under Ottoman Rule", pages 39-126. * Colin Imber, ''The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: The Structure of Power'', 2002. ISBN 0333613864. * Gülru Necipo ''Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the 15th century and 16th century Centuries'', 1991. ISBN 0262140500. * [http://www.islamicarchitecture.org/dynasties/ottomans.html Ottomans - Turkish dynasty.] Ottoman Empire Turkic peoples bs:Osmansko Carstvo
:''Older entries have been moved to Talk:Ottoman Empire/archive.'' ---- ==Murad or Murat?== Murad is the name of five Ottoman sultans, but three of them are spelled with a t instead of a d. Using both is inconsequent. Murad ''or'' Murat? Definitely not both. –User:The Phoenix 09:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) Correct Turkish spelling is Murat. User:Aknxy 01:08, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC) Yes, and the correct Turkish spelling of Beyazid is Beyazit, Mehmed is Mehmet, Suleiman is Süleyman, Ahmed is Ahmet, Abdul Hamid is Abd ül-Hamid, Abd-ul-Mejid is Abd ül-Mecid, and Abd-ul-Aziz is Abd ül-Aziz. The question is: Shall we keep the English transcription of the Turkish names (and change Murat into Murad) or change all the names to the Turkish spelling? –User:The Phoenix 08:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) If we look at Julius Caesar for example, the English spelling is Julius wheras the Latin spelling is Iulius. The English article uses the English spelling so I would say go with the English transcription. User:Davidzuccaro 10:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) Murad is arabic name, Murat is turkish name. I think we have to care about the difference. --User:80.137.61.188 01:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)Romulus All the history books I've ever read have listed them as Murad, with a D. I'd suggest, given ''this'' Wikipedia is in neither Arabic nor Turkish, the difference is less important. — User:OwenBlacker 19:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC) Since the names are Arabic,and when written in old Turkish alphabet they are spelled the arabic way; Murad with D and not with T, there is no point in changing them now. Remember Turks were not the only population ruled by these people and the rest of their empire was calling them the way their names were writen!--User:66.137.208.204 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) The change of soft consonants (ie d, b) at the end of the words is disputed subject in Turkish. In anataloian Turkish there is no change at all. They pronounce the soft consonants properly. They also retain the hard "k" and nasal "n". The hardening of the consonants such as kitab->kitap or Mehmed -> Mehmet and drop of hard "k" and nasal "n" is from balkan origin. In selanik and other parts of Balkans there are such changes because of Greek and Slavic influence... Which one should be accepted as correct??? The majority of Turkish dialects are similiar to anatolian accent, not to the Balkan Turkish. However, unfortunately in the fledgling Turkish Republic, almost all linguists were from originally Balkan area and especially Selanik. And majority of rulers and politicians were also from Balkan origin (as today) and some of them with a native language other than Turkish. Their poor accent and wrong pronounciation was fixed as official accent and correct spelling of Turkish with a bias, in the new Turkish variant of Latin alphabet. So the correct pronunction is Murad and Mehmed. Alhtough such changes, as the hardening of consonatnts and drop of hard "k" and nasal "n" definitely are detrimental to the spirit of the language and it contributes to severing Turkish of Turkey from the entire Turkic language groups, you are free to follow the old mistake. ==Flags== other than above The ottoman flag has never been red. the flag shown is the flag of turkey and ottomans has never used that flag --User:Cash 13:36, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC) Red flag is the flag of Anatolian Turks, flag of both Ottoman and Turkey. There are videos that people celebrating the sultan's arrive in istanbul with red flags in their hands. Another theory is, there are some historians that say the "crescent and star" was viewed first and adopted as a flag at a night when Constantinapolis was sieged at April 1453 --User:JohnEmerald 13:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) That about Constantinople is really just a legend. The crescent and star is much older than that, dating from the ancient Turkic people of Central Asia, the forefathers of the Ottomans. As for the colours, red was the traditional colour of war (symbolizing blood and rage) while green is the sacred colour of Islam. Probably, the red flag was used by the military while the green was used on religious occations. Of course, flags weren't used in the western fashion until the 19th century. —User:The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) =="Turkish" state== I'm no expert on the subject, but I can't help feeling that describing the empire as a Turkish state doesn't really do justice to the other ethnic groups involved, especially the Arabs, who must have outnumbered Turks for most of the empire's history. I must admit I'm not sure what a better description would be. User:Grant65User talk: Grant65 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC) How about a multinational state? Just counting its successor states suggests various populations co-habiting. Successor states like: *Albania. *Algeria. *Bosnia and Herzegovina. *Bulgaria. *Cyprus. *Egypt. *Greece. *Hungary (partly). *Iraq. *Israel/Palestine. *Jordan. *Lebanon. *Libya. *Republic of Macedonia. *Moldova. *Oman. *Qatar. *Romania. *Serbia and Montenegro. *Sudan (partly). *Syria. *Tunisia. *Turkey. *Yemen. User:Dimadick ::The territory of the Ottoman State is now divided between these states, yes. But "successor state", at least in my mind, has the meaning of which state replaced it geopolitically, taking on the role, relationships, etc. For example, while the Soviet Union broke up into a bunch of states, the seat on the Security Council and suchlike went to Russia. ::Having said that, I would vote for capturing both aspects—territory as well as geopolitical successor. ::As for being Turkish or not, the state was controlled, dominated and run by Turks, no? The Arabs, for example, saw it as Turkish rule. Take the British empire as an example; it was definitely multiethnic at it's peak. But it was a British entity.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer | User talk:IFaqeer 19:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) :: I think the reason why the british empire failed so quickly was because it could not make the step from multiethnic to multiculturalism, the ottomans had done this, they were not just multi ethnic but also multicultural and I think the Romans had done it as well.--User:Kahraman 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: Looking at that first sentence again, I think the problem is trying to describe something from history in terms that were created for today's structures. It was not a state; it was an empire. And in a lot of places, the rule was very indirect.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer | User talk:IFaqeer 19:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) I think its wrong to see the Osmanli empire as a nation state with a particular ethnicity, eg Turkish. The main legitimacy of the empire and the reason why people stayed loyal to it was not it being Turkish or being Arab. The Turks stayed with it because it was ruled by a Han, the Arabs because it was the sultan, the Muslims because the dynasty claimed the caliphate, the christians because the Osmanli were the emperor of constantinople, and the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, the protectors of orthodox christianity from the latins and the pope. Once these ties were weakened by the advent of nationalism and many other ideologies, the empire ceased to exist, and every ethnicity was taking care of itself. Turkish nationalism actually only started in the 1920's and 30's with the masses with Ataturk--User:Kahraman 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) :The Ottoman Empire was, exactly like Kahraman has pointed out, never a nation. It was built up on loyalty to the local lords and to the sultan. It was never (at least not until the advent of the Young Turks) associated with the Turkish people. Turks were the ignorant muslim villagers and farmers of Anatolia. The state was always referred to as Ottoman if it was named at all. The common denomination was something like the "well-protected realms". I don't know why the Europeans started to call it Turkey. It would also be wrong to call the Empire multinational, since there were not really such a thing as nationality among any of the peoples under the sultan's command until the 19th century. Rebellions before that were mostly due to religious issues or power-hungry local lords rather than nationalism. —User:The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: I do not know if it is true, but again on a history program on TRT, I heard that the Europeans used to call Mameluke ruled Egypt and Syria The state of Turks or Turkey. Of course , Selim I took Egypt and Syria in the beginning of the 16th century, so the Europeans started to call the Ottomans Turkey--User:Kahraman 12:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC). :::That sounds logical. At least we know that Baibars was a Turk and I assume that the early Mameluks considered themselves as heirs to the Seljuk Turks in order to increase their legitimacy.
In respons to iFaqeer, yes, I agree that the British Empire was British and run by Brits, but the Ottoman Empire was not run (at least far from exclusively) by Turks. Nevertheless, the Ottoman Empire was both empire ''and'' state, although not a state as in a "nation state" and furthermore with few similiarities to a modern, centralized state. By the way, multiethnical is a much better term than multinational. —User:The Phoenix 20:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Language?== What language did the Ottomans speak? I can't seem to find this information anywhere... User:Pie4all88 01:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Turkish. Though it would have evolved over the centuries. See Turkic languages and Turkish language.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer | User talk:IFaqeer 03:26, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) :In fact it was Ottoman Turkish. This language was used at the court and was the official language of the state used in official documents etc. But of course people spoek local languages outside the court.--User:Leandros 22:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) Actually they spoke different languages in different circumstances. I heard this from the history program on TRT by Ilber Ortayli: One of the revlotionary changes Fatih Mehmed II did was change the standard language of the empire from a combination of persian, turkish and arabic to just arabic, like a standard language. Mehmed himself was of course multilingual, spoke and wrote about 7 languages, so no big problem for him. But the standardisation brought stability and prosperity, and this enabled him to go on his conquests. I think someone else later changed it to Ottoman Turkish, though I don't know who, maybe in the 16th century ?--User:Kahraman 21:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Ottoman Turkish is more correct that just Turkish anyway. Comparing Turkish to Ottoman Turkish is a bit like comparing modern English with Old English or Swedish with Old Norse. There were far more to Atatürk's language reforms than just changing the alphabet. —User:The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) : Many of Atatürk's language reforms were actually anulled by the governments after his death. People could not understand most of the new words anyway. Actually, I think Ottoman Turkish of the 19th to 20th century is quite understandable to most educated Turks, as long as it's transliterated to the new Latin alphabet. Personally, I haven't had much trouble anyways. After some time, your vocabulary increases and you don't have to look in the dictionary :-) It is of course easy to understand Ottoman Turkish of the 19th to 20th century compared to that of the 15th century, especially when it is a classical poem. I have trouble understanding most current rap lyrics of the 20th century, as a consequence understanding a complex poem from the 15th or 16th century is very difficult. :-)--User:Kahraman 12:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC). :Interesting. I had no idea that some reforms were reverted after Atatürk's death, though I did know that a lot of rather strange words were introduced during his reign. Besides, if I put my mind to it I could actually understand Old Norse. That is, in its written form of course, never spoken. —User:The Phoenix 20:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Reschid Pasha== Picked up a reference to Reschid Pasha in David Urquhart article. Would be good to have an article, or at least an agreed Wiki-spelling. User:Cutler 13:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) ==About the name== The name of this empire in Turkish; ''Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'', contains the word ''İmparatorluğu''. Is it a loan from Latin? User:Meursault2004 14:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::it is. just like in english emperor. But I think it came to Turkish language via the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which actually spoke greek :-) :::İmparator is based on the Latin word, the -luğu suffix adds the "place" meaning. Basically it translates to Empire. The word itself is Turkish, it came to Turkish from Latin. User:MonsterOfTheLake 02:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) My God! Of course it was not officialy "Osmanlı imparatorluğu" but it was "Devlet-i Aliye-yi Osmaniye" literally "The sublime state of Ottomans". Why should they call themselves an "Empire"? It can be discussed through hours maybe days if it was an Empire in the sense of Roman Empire or British Empire. Because they never forced the subjects to learn or speak Turkish. When they retreated from the north Africa, none of the people there spoke any Turkish, on the contray Turkish language became largely involved with Arabic. Ottomans did not change their culture but they adopted their customs. For example they adopted "Fez" which was north african dress. So because Ottoman state included many sub-states it was called "an empire" by the westerners. This was, as many others, a description with western understanding and not indigenous. == Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye == And what is ''Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye''? Is it Turkish or Ottoman Turkish? I think that is osmanli turkcesi, or ottoman turkish. modern turkish would have stated "buyuk osmanli devleti" or "yuce osmanli devleti" , in english the great ottoman state--User:Kahraman 12:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) AFAIK the Arabic script was used in the Empire, so it wouldn't be wrong to write its Ottoman Turkish name in that script as well. If anyone can write it, please add it. == 12 million sq. km.?== The value for the area of the empire is wrong. Te table says 12 million (bigger than canada), looking at the map it's probably 1,955,000, maybe something more. :User:Snowdog 22:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) There are 3 problems with the area of the Ottoman Empire: 1. Half of the maps in the world has a distorting image. (ie Marcator projection, search this)That's why Canada looks bigger on the map than it actually is. -Marcator projection has been one of the propaganda methods for norhern countries to seem bigger and more powerfull. Homework: Compare the size of Britain with Turkey-republic. They look about the same on marcator projection map which is the most used map projection in the world. However Turkey covers 3 times larger area than Britain 2. Some of the sub-states or sattelite states are not included to the mainland by some writers. 3. Every country, not only Ottman Empire has 2 different figures as area, if not more. This arouses from the method of measurement. Should we include the areas of the non-planar geographical formations; hills, mountains etc or should we take only their base areas?? This leads to two different numbers as area of countries... Therefore 12 million sq km is most probably the maximum possible area. But the error value cannot be more that 10%. So what would change for you if it was 11 million sq km? :It's fairly straightforward to add up in Europe and Asia Minor. But where in the Arabian or Sahara deserts is the border? It was probably never well-defined, and that can make a difference of 2-4m km2. Still not 12m total, though. Any good sources out there? --User:Macrakis 23:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: considering varaway places like atjeh in indonesia and kenya in africa considered themselves part of the ottoman empire, I think the figure, which excludes these countries, is actually a bit conservative.--User:Kahraman 10:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Kenya and Aceh were never part of the Ottoman Empire, even if they were/are part of the Dar-ul-Islam. It's not the same thing. Did the Ottomans collect taxes from Aceh? --User:Macrakis 12:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::They sent contingents there, they built castles, which are still present today. their descendants still have Turkish names. check out the atjeh flag, it' s the exact same flag as the turkish flag. in atjeh in some mosques on friday prayers they still claim allegiance to sultan selim II, the one who rescued them from portuguese invasion. funny how history works. in history books i have read selim the second was considered thw worst ottoman rules, who brought the downfall of the empire. it seems he also conquered one of the main islands of indonesia in between his many parties and hunting trips. ps. the ottomans rarely collected taxes from any of the countries they possessed. especially if it was faraway. that was up to the local government/prince/sultan/ king or whatever. only exception: anodolu and rumeli provinces, these the ottomans governed themselves --User:Kahraman 22:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) There is interesting history here, but I don't think it justifies calling these areas part of the Ottoman Empire. Can you cite accepted reference sources which would support your figure of 12m km^2? --User:Macrakis 14:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::if you want to learn more just google it. (in turkish prefereably) eg http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:X-D_8W-HFGAJ:www.sabah.com.tr/2004/12/31/gnd104.html+aceh+osmanli&hl=en--User:Kahraman 18:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::This is a magazine article about Aceh and the connections to the Ottoman empire. I don't see anything about the area of the Ottoman empire. --User:Macrakis 02:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::according to http://www.enfal.de/pad8.htm , the maximum size of the empire was over 19 million km2 --User:Kahraman 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Hmm yes, I have never heard this before. This seems rather far fetched to me. I suspect this is somthing of a Turkih nationalistic sentiment. It reminds me of the claims made by some Indian authors that regions of Indonesia was part of India. Some even claims that Singapore was an Indian outpost as it still bears a Sanskrit name. The truth is, Singapore was founded by a Malay King (King Parameswara) as he thought he saw a lion (''singha'') in this town which was called "Tumasik" at that time. User:Meursault2004 14:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: nationalistic? the Turkish nationalists hate the ottoman empire, because it was degrading to the turks, ottomans themselves of mixed ethnicity, and giving many powers to the arabs, greek and the armenians etc. Turkish nationalists are different. Ataturk was a nationalist, and he abolished the ottoman empire. this is also why many Turks have no idea to how far the ottoman empire reached, they do not want to have anything to do with it. only recently with the the diminishing forces of nationalism after the Turkish earthquake of 1999, economic collaps of 2001, and with the advent of the EU membership people started to get more interested in the ottomans, the eu being an ottoman-like federation.--User:Kahraman 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Agreed, it is certainly not Turkish Republican nationalist sentiment. Maybe nostalgia for the sultanate? Whatever it is, both 12m and 19m km^2 are implausible, and the enfal.de site is hardly a recognized reference source. It seems to me that there is overwhelming agreement on this Talk page that 2m km^2 is a more reasonable figure, and I think that's what we should use until someone comes up with some solid evidence for a larger figure. --User:Macrakis 23:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::: it could be nostalgia, but I do not think you can nostalgia from 2 million to 19 million without at least some evidence. In all the sources I can find on the net the figure of 19.9 million km 2 at a maximum keeps getting up. It might include the Polish protectorate and the the territories of the crimean khanate as well as the short term rule of most of present Iran, but I am alas no historian, so I do not know for sure. Do you have any sources to back your claims mackrakis? --User:Kahraman 00:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Is it possible that this is just some kind of a typo? There might be too much zero in the 19 million figures. If this is the case, then I would consider the problem as being solved. User:Meursault2004 09:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::I have not been able to find good figures for the area of the empire at its greatest extent. In ''La Grande Encyclopedie'' (Berthelot, 1902), the direct possessions are listed as 2.8m, and the vassal states (including "Arabie--regions non directement soumises", 2.3m) as 3.5m, giving 6.3m . To get to the largest extent, we need to add areas in Europe and the Caucasus which the empire had lost, namely Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Crimea, etc. My best estimate is that that gives 8m or so km^2. Still not 12m, but much closer than I'd thought. Those 8m km^2 include vast areas of uninhabited desert in Africa and Arabia, much of which was not effectively governed by the empire, but then we attribute vast areas of the uninhabited frozen Arctic to Canada and Russia.... I am open to evidence for better numbers, but in the meantime I will update the article. --User:Macrakis 16:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::I agree with you on the 19th century area. However, about max extent I disagree. I would take the numbers provided by the Turkish encyclopedia of the ottoman history (1) over your best estimate by any day of the week, since those guys are scolars and actually have a degree in this stuff, while we here are amateurs. So I added the 19 + km2 to the article. ref 1. Turkish encyclopedia of the ottoman history , mirror http://www.enfal.de/pad8.htm http://www.osmanli.org.tr/osmanlisultanlari2.php?bolum=5&id=221 --User:Kahraman 21:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC) == Needs more == This article needs much more contribution and info, especially its history which if i have time i'll try to add to (theres 700 years of history in 3 paragraphs at the moment!). --User:E.A 23:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Absence of discussion of internal disintegration == I think the biggest shortcoming of this article is that there is no discussion of the increasing internal weakness of the Ottoman Empire. By the later centuries of of their reign, the Ottomans no longer exerted more than titular sovereignity over much of their territory, which was in fact often in a state of anarchy or under the control of local strongmen who paid little more than lip-service to the authority of the Sultan. Rectifying this omission would help to explain the Ottomans' decline from greatest power in Western Europe and Asia (circa 1550) to pawn of the various European powers (circa 1850). I would also reiterate a point made by others -- to wit, that the Ottoman Empire was not really a Turkish empire so much as an empire ruled by a dynasty that happened to be Turkish. The Turks did not really particularly benefit from the empire -- if anything, its functionaries, officials, and so on tended to be Greeks, Armenians, and Jews, while of course its elite troops were involuntarily converted converted Balkan Christians. Indeed, the rise of Turkish nationalism was one of the forces that helped speed the collapse of the empire, since an empire that was explicitly Turkish necessarily excluded members of other races. == Europe's development in one sentence??? == : While the Ottomans were stagnating in a stalemate with their European and Asian neighbor countries, the European development went into overdrive, buoyed by the economic advantages of large scale colonialism and slave trade. It seems to me chucpe to abbreviate development of Europe into one (and IMHO biased) sentence. Especially connecting success of the Europe in XVIIth century to slavery is "novel" idea, which would surprise economic historians. I have at least removed mentioning of slavery. == Unprotected == No notice given, and it was 10 days ago - unprotecting, regardless of actual reason. --User:Golbez 04:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Byzantine Empire Caliphate Former monarchies Former monarchies History of Bosnia and Herzegovina History of Bulgaria History of Croatia History of Greece History of Hungary History of Turkey History of Turkey Jewish Islam topics Romanian history Serbian history Turkic peoples Vojvodina History of Albania
Joy wrote: ''added histories of european countries that were under the OE for centuries'' Aris Katsaris: ''Uh, I really don't think most of these categs belong here. We aren't adding Category:Germany to all the nations that were ever conquered by the Germans.'' We aren't, but that's different because the German conquest usually didn't have the same profound effects the Ottoman conquest had. Also, OE is an extinct state so the category is purely historical. It also would be pointless to add links to histories of those states per each individual article in the OE category. --User:Joy 21:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) : I really don't believe your categorization scheme is at all consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. The Ottoman Empire is really NOT a subset of the history of Albania or the history of Greece -- it's instead an *overlapping* set. That's why we have only "History of Ottoman Greece" in this category, and "History of Ottoman Albania" and "History of Ottoman Egypt" -- and so forth. : Other examples -- we don't list :Category:European Union under the categories of the histories of all its member states regardless of how important the European Union is to them -- and that's because the EU's history is an *overlapping* set with each of these nations.... We don't list :Category:Roman Empire under the category of :Category:Greek history or :Category:Israeli history regardless of how importantly Rome affected Greece or ancient Israel. : Please reconsider -- it'd be good if we reached an agreement over this instead of revert-warring about it or having to go to a poll. And truly I don't see your idea of listing the categories of empires under the categories of all the nations they ever conquered fit. It'd be like listing :Category:United States under :Category:Utah instead of vice versa. Bigger groups are supposedly further up the tree -- you've made it in reverse. :User:Aris Katsaris 22:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::You've not replied further to my post... I don't know if that means you simply didn't bother to reply, or were partly convinced... Either way I'm changing it back, since I really don't see it fitting with Wikipedia's categorization scheme concerning old empires. If you're still disagreeing, let's make a poll about this or generally ask for third opinions.User:Aris Katsaris 23:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::: I've not replied simply because I haven't seen it up to this moment.D'oh :) --User:Joy 10:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::: Oh, I see now, you replied shortly afterwards. I missed it somehow... too large a watchlist, I guess. --User:Joy
:: I understand that it can seem inconsistent, but look at the practical effect.
:: If we put it in history of * cats, then the OE cat appears in the list of subcats at each of those, which is fine. There's a nuisance of having those history cats appear at the end of the OE cat, but that is minor (note that I don't use those by and large outdated skins which list categories on top -- that's a real flop, the categories cannot be superimposed over the article content, they merely add to it).
:: If we don't put it in history of * cats, we have to make separate categories for "History of * in the OE" and place each of those OE-related articles in those categories, too. Or make categories for each of the OE-related articles, and then make those cats subcats to both OE and the "History of * in the OE".
:: Such immense amount of duplication would be more damaging to the grand scheme of things than an occasional raised eyebrow upon looking at the bottom of the OE category.
:: Furthermore, I don't think those other analogies are relevant. These sets overlap but in general the concept OE's existence, given that it's gone, is a subset of the concept of the national/country histories. But that's really semantic nitpicking that I'm not particularly bothered with -- the final functionality, as described above, is what matters. --User:Joy 10:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::: Uh, I don't see why you are talking about making further subcats about "History of * in the OE". An article about an event that involved only e.g. Ottoman Greece and the Ottoman Empire, would be in only two category "Greek history" and "Ottoman Empire". We'd not be creating a new category, we'd be simply placing an existing article under two existing categories. I see no duplication here.
:::: That works for events. What do you do about common concepts? And there's really a lot of them (or at least a potential for them). --User:Joy 20:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::: This isn't so much about raised eyebrows... it's partly about systemizing the way we categorize old empires -- about not letting a reader get *lost*, by letting him investigate the immediate superset or subsets -- and also about the possibility of future automatic searches. You're considering only the immediate links but I'm thinking about the whole tree structure: eventually there may be a system that will let us say: "Bring us everything that's a descendant of the Greek history category" We'd not want an article about Ottoman *Egypt* to come up -- as it would with your system...
::: On the other hand with my system, a person would see the "Ottoman Greece" article in "History of Greece", and then through there he'd be able to move *up* the tree to go to "Ottoman Empire". The links are still there, but each relates to the immediate related article.
::: How about a compromise? We only put Ottoman Empire in the category of those histories that don't have an equivalent "Ottoman *" or "History of Ottoman *" article? That means it'd not be placed in the categories of Albania or Greece for example, since in those cases the Ottoman Empire as a whole is still only two clicks away.
User:Aris Katsaris 18:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::: That would seem to work, too. --User:Joy 20:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
#Redirect Ottoman Empire
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Ottoman_Empire:
Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman_empire
Ottoman_Empire/archive
Ottoman_Empire/Temp
Ottoman_Empire_admirals
Ottoman Empire
:''This article refers to the Turkish empire. For the furniture piece, see Ottoman (furniture)'' {| border=1 align=right cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=300 style="margin: 0.5em 0 1em 1em; background: #ffffff; border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;" |+Osmanlı İmparatorluğu
Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye |- | colspan=2 style="text-align: left; background: white;" | {| align=center | |- | style="text-align: center;" | Ottoman Coat of Arms |} |- | colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background: white;" |
''The Ottoman Empire at the height of its power'' |- | Motto | ''El Muzaffer Daima The Ever Victorious'' (as written in tugra) |- | Official language | Ottoman Turkish |- | Capital | Istanbul (Constantinople/Asitane/Konstantiniyye ) |- | Monarchs | Sultans of the Osmanli |- | Population | ''ca'' 40 million |- | Area | 6.3m km² (1902); 19.9m km² maximum extent (1595) |- | Rise of the Ottoman Empire | 1299 |- | Fall of the Ottoman Empire | October 29 1923 |- | Currency | Akce, Kurus, Lira |- | Flag | align=center |
The Ottoman Flag of the later Ottoman period |- | colspan=2 style="text-align: center;" | Part of the History of Turkey series |} The Ottoman Empire (Turkish language: ''Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'') was an imperial power that existed from 1299 to 1923 (634 years), one of the largest empires to rule the borders of the Mediterranean Sea. At the height of its power, it included Anatolia, the Middle East, part of North Africa, and south-eastern Europe. It was established by a tribe of Oghuz Turks in western Anatolia and ruled by the Osmanlı dynasty. In diplomatic circles it was often referred to as the ''Sublime Porte'' or simply as ''the Porte'', from the French language translation of the Ottoman language name Bâb-i-âlî "high gate", due to the greeting ceremony the sultan held for foreign ambassadors at the Palace Gate. This has also been interpreted as referring to the Empire's position as gateway between Europe and Asia. In its day, the Ottoman Empire was also commonly referred to as the ''Turkish Empire'' or ''Turkey'', though it should not be confused with the modern nation-state of that name. The Empire was founded by Osman I (in Arabic ''ʿUthmān'', hence the name ''Ottoman'' Empire). In the 16th century and 17th century, the Ottoman Empire was among the world's most powerful political entities and the countries of Europe felt threatened by its steady advance through the Balkan Peninsula. At its height, it comprised an area of over 1 E13 m²—though much of this was under indirect control of the central government(see ''Main article: State organization of the Ottoman Empire'') . From 1517 onwards, the Ottoman Sultan was also the Caliph, and the Ottoman Empire was from 1517 until 1922 (or 1924) synonymous with the Caliphate, the Islamic State. In 1453, after the Ottomans Fall of Constantinople Constantinople (modern Istanbul) from the Byzantine Empire, it became the Ottoman capital. Following World War I, during which most of its territories were captured by the Allies, Ottoman elites established modern Turkey during the Turkish War of Independence. ==History== ''Main article: History of the Ottoman Empire'' Mehmed_II">Image:mehmedii.jpg|thumb|150px|left|thumb|Mehmed II The Ottoman State originated as a ''Beylik'' within the Seljuk Turks in the 13th century. In 1299, Osman I declared independence of the ''Ottoman Principality''. Murad I was the first Ottoman to claim the title of sultan (king). With the capture of Constantinople in 1453, the state became a mighty empire with Mehmed II as its emperor. The Empire reached its apex under Suleiman I in the 16th century, when it stretched from the Persian Gulf in the east to Hungary in the northwest, and from Egypt in the south to the Caucasus in the north. The Empire was situated in the middle of East and West and interacted throughout its six-century history with both the Eastern culture and the Western Culture. During this period, the Empire vied with the emerging European colonialism in the Indian Ocean. Fleets with soldiers and arms were sent to support Muslim rulers in Kenya and Aceh and to defend the Ottoman slave and spice trade. In Aceh, the Ottomans built a fortress and supplied huge cannon. The the Netherlands Protestants were helped by the Ottomans against Catholic Spain. In the 17th century, the Ottomans were weakened both internally and externally by costly wars, especially against Persian Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia and Austria-Hungary. There was a long succession of sultans who were not as good as the generation of Mehmed II, Selim I and Suleyman I. The scientific advantage the Ottomans had over the other European countries also diminished. While the Ottomans were stagnating in a stalemate with their European and Asian neighbor countries, the European development went into overdrive. Eventually, after a defeat at the Battle of Vienna, in 1683, it was clear the Ottoman Empire was no longer the sole superpower in Europe. In 1699, for the first time in its history the Ottomans acknowledged that the Austrian empire could sign a treaty with the Ottomans on equal terms, and actually lost a large territory which had been in Ottoman possession for two centuries. Through a series of reforms, the empire continued to be one of the major political powers of Europe. The banking system was reformed and the guilds were replaced with modern factories. The Janissaries were disbanded, and a modern conscripted army was formed. Externally, the empire stopped going into conflicts alone, and started entering alliances like the other European countries. There was a series of alliances with countries such as France, Holland, Britain and Russia. A prime example of this was the Crimean war in which the English, French, Ottomans and others united against Russia. By the end of the 19th century the empire was weakened to a great extent. Economically, it had trouble paying the loans to the European banks. Militarily, it had trouble defending itself from foreign occupation (e.g. Egypt occupied by the French in 1798, Cyprus occupied by the British in 1876 etc.). Socially, the advent of nationalism and the yearning for democracy was making the population restless. This eventually led to a series of military coups and counter coups, resulting in a constitutional monarchy, in which the sultan had little to no power and the Ittihad ve Terakki party was ruling the empire. The nationalistic policies of the Ittihad and Terakki party resulted in the secession of the Balkans in the Balkan war of 1910-12. In a last-ditch effort to keep power in their hands by regaining at least some of the lost territories, the triumvirate led by Enver Pasha joined the Central Powers in World War I. The Ottoman Empire had some successes in the beginning years of the war. The Allies, including the newly formed ANZACs were defeated in Gallipoli, Iraq and the Balkans, and some territories were regained. However, the Ottomans were eventually defeated by the Allies in the Balkans, Thrace, Syria, Palestine and Iraq and its territories were colonized by the victors. In the Caucasus there was a stalemate between the Ottomans and the Russians. The Russians used their advanced guns and cannons and out-maneuvered the Ottomans using their Ottoman Armenian Population allies within the empire. The subsequent Armenian genocide is today viewed as genocide by most historians. Militarily the Ottomans made use of the mountainous terrain and the cold climate, launching a series of surprise attacks. The Russian forces retreated after the Communist revolution in Russia, resulting in Ottoman victory on this front. Mustafa Kemal Pasha, who had made his reputation earlier during the Gallipoli and Palestine campaigns, was offically sent from occupied Istanbul to take control of the victorius Caucasus army , and to disband it. This army was instrumental in winning the Turkish War of Independence (1918–1923), and the Turkey was founded on October 29, 1923 from the remnants of the fallen empire. ==State organization== ''Main article: State organization of the Ottoman Empire'' Ottoman state organization was based on a hierarchy with the sultan, who was usually the Caliph at the top and below him his viziers, other court officials, and military commanders. ==Culture== ''Main article: Culture of the Ottoman Empire'' During the medieval age, the Ottoman Turks had a high tolerance of alien cultures and religions, especially as compared to the Christian West. Early on the Turks drove the Byzantines from Anatolia and later pursued them into Europe. But, as the Ottomans moved further west the Turkic leaders themselves absorbed some of the culture of the conquered people. The alien culture was gradually added to the Turks' own, creating the characteristic Ottoman culture. After the capture of Constantinopole (later dubbed Istanbul) in 1453, most churches were left intact and only Hagia Sophia was turned into a mosque. The Ottoman court life in many aspects resembled ancient traditions of the Persian Empire Shahs, but had many Byzantine Empire and European influences. For centuries, the Ottoman Empire was the refuge of the Jews of Europe, who did not have the freedom of religion in Europe that the citizens of the Ottoman Empire did. ==Military== ''Main article: Military of the Ottoman Empire'' The Ottoman military was a complex system of recruiting and fief-holding. In the Ottoman army, light cavalry long formed the core and they were given fiefs called ''timar''s. Cavalry used bows and short swords and made use of nomad tactics similar to those of the Mongol Empire. The Ottoman army was once among the most advanced fighting forces in the world, being one of the first to employ muskets. The famous Janissary corps provided élite troops and bodyguards for the sultan. After the 17th century, however, the Ottomans could no longer produce a modern fighting force because of a lack of reforms, mainly because of the corrupted Janissaries. The abolition of the Janissary corps in 1826 was not enough, and in the war against Russia, the Ottoman Empire severely lacked modern weapons and technologies. “The beginnings of legal reform in the Middle East were initiated in the ottoman empire in the middle of the nineteenth century through the promulgation of commercial and penal codes such as the Ottoman Commercial code (1850) and the Ottoman Penal code (1858).” (Haddad, Y.Y., Byron H. and Ellison F., Eds.) ==Provinces== ''Main article: Provinces of the Ottoman Empire'' At the height of its power, the Ottoman Empire had 29 provinces plus three tributary principalities and Transsylvania, a kingdom which swore allegiance to the Porte. ==Sultans== ''Main article: Osmanli'' The sultan, also known as the Padishah, in Europe sometimes the Grand Turk, was the sole regent and government of the empire, at least officially. The dynasty is most often called the Osmanli or the House of Osman. The sultan enjoyed many titles such as Sovereign of the House of Osman, Sultan of Sultans, Khan of Khans, and from 1517 onwards, Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe, i.e. Caliph, which theoretically also gave him overlordship over other Muslim rulers around the world. For example, among the Mughal Emperors of India, only Aurangzeb had the Khutba read in his own name. Note that the first rulers never called themselves ''sultan'', but rather ''bey'' thereby acknowledging the sovereignety of the Selcuk sultanate and its successor the Ilkhanid sultanate. The sultan title was established by Murad I in 1383. See the article on State organisation of the Ottoman Empire for further information on the sultan and the structure of power. {| cellpadding=12 | valign=top | * Osman I (1281–1326; ''bey'') * Orhan I (1326–1359; ''bey'') * Murad I (1359–1389; Sultan from 1383) * Beyazid I (1389–1402) * ''Ottoman Interregnum'' (1402–1413) * Mehmed I (1413–1421) * Murad II (1421–1444) (1445–1451) * Mehmed II (the Conqueror) (1444–1445, 1451–1481) * Beyazid II (1481–1512) * Selim I (1512–1520; Caliph from 1517) * Suleiman the Magnificent (the Magnificent) (1520–1566) * Selim II (1566–1574) * Murad III (1574–1595) * Mehmed III (1595–1603) * Ahmed I (1603–1617) * Mustafa I (1617–1618) * Osman II (1618–1622) * Mustafa I (1622–1623) * Murad IV (1623–1640) | valign=top | * Ibrahim I (1640–1648) * Mehmed IV (1648–1687) * Suleiman II (1687–1691) * Ahmed II (1691–1695) * Mustafa II (1695–1703) * Ahmed III (1703–1730) * Mahmud I (1730–1754) * Osman III (1754–1757) * Mustafa III (1757–1774) * Abd-ul-Hamid I (1774–1789) * Selim III (1789–1807) * Mustafa IV (1807–1808) * Mahmud II (1808–1839) * Abd-ul-Mejid (1839–1861) * Abd-ul-Aziz (1861–1876) * Murad V (1876) * Abd-ul-Hamid II (1876–1909) * Mehmed V (Reşad) (1909–1918) * Mehmed VI (Vahideddin) (1918–1922) |} ''Note'': Although Abdul Mejid II was chosen as Caliph in 1922, he was not a sultan, as the National Assembly had abolished the sultanate. The caliphate was abolished in turn in 1924. ==External links== *[http://www.osmanli700.gen.tr/english/engindex.html Ottoman Web Site] - Site with a lot of information on the Ottomans *[http://www.osmanlimedeniyeti.com Everything About Ottoman Empire] - Everything about the history and culture of Ottoman Empire (in Turkish) *[http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Turkey/turkey.htm Royal Ark: Turkey] - Extensive site with a lot of detailed information *[http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM World Civilizations: The Ottomans] - Comprehensive site that covers much about the state and government *[http://www.theottomans.org The Ottomans] - Good site that covers various aspects of the Ottoman Empire in detail ==See also== *History of the Balkans ==References== * Barbara Jelavich, ''History of the Balkans, 18th century and 19th century Centuries'', Cambridge University Press, 1983. ISBN 0521252490. See "Balkan Christians under Ottoman Rule", pages 39-126. * Colin Imber, ''The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: The Structure of Power'', 2002. ISBN 0333613864. * Gülru Necipo ''Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the 15th century and 16th century Centuries'', 1991. ISBN 0262140500. * [http://www.islamicarchitecture.org/dynasties/ottomans.html Ottomans - Turkish dynasty.] Ottoman Empire Turkic peoples bs:Osmansko Carstvo
Ottoman Empire
:''Older entries have been moved to Talk:Ottoman Empire/archive.'' ---- ==Murad or Murat?== Murad is the name of five Ottoman sultans, but three of them are spelled with a t instead of a d. Using both is inconsequent. Murad ''or'' Murat? Definitely not both. –User:The Phoenix 09:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) Correct Turkish spelling is Murat. User:Aknxy 01:08, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC) Yes, and the correct Turkish spelling of Beyazid is Beyazit, Mehmed is Mehmet, Suleiman is Süleyman, Ahmed is Ahmet, Abdul Hamid is Abd ül-Hamid, Abd-ul-Mejid is Abd ül-Mecid, and Abd-ul-Aziz is Abd ül-Aziz. The question is: Shall we keep the English transcription of the Turkish names (and change Murat into Murad) or change all the names to the Turkish spelling? –User:The Phoenix 08:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) If we look at Julius Caesar for example, the English spelling is Julius wheras the Latin spelling is Iulius. The English article uses the English spelling so I would say go with the English transcription. User:Davidzuccaro 10:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) Murad is arabic name, Murat is turkish name. I think we have to care about the difference. --User:80.137.61.188 01:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)Romulus All the history books I've ever read have listed them as Murad, with a D. I'd suggest, given ''this'' Wikipedia is in neither Arabic nor Turkish, the difference is less important. — User:OwenBlacker 19:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC) Since the names are Arabic,and when written in old Turkish alphabet they are spelled the arabic way; Murad with D and not with T, there is no point in changing them now. Remember Turks were not the only population ruled by these people and the rest of their empire was calling them the way their names were writen!--User:66.137.208.204 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) The change of soft consonants (ie d, b) at the end of the words is disputed subject in Turkish. In anataloian Turkish there is no change at all. They pronounce the soft consonants properly. They also retain the hard "k" and nasal "n". The hardening of the consonants such as kitab->kitap or Mehmed -> Mehmet and drop of hard "k" and nasal "n" is from balkan origin. In selanik and other parts of Balkans there are such changes because of Greek and Slavic influence... Which one should be accepted as correct??? The majority of Turkish dialects are similiar to anatolian accent, not to the Balkan Turkish. However, unfortunately in the fledgling Turkish Republic, almost all linguists were from originally Balkan area and especially Selanik. And majority of rulers and politicians were also from Balkan origin (as today) and some of them with a native language other than Turkish. Their poor accent and wrong pronounciation was fixed as official accent and correct spelling of Turkish with a bias, in the new Turkish variant of Latin alphabet. So the correct pronunction is Murad and Mehmed. Alhtough such changes, as the hardening of consonatnts and drop of hard "k" and nasal "n" definitely are detrimental to the spirit of the language and it contributes to severing Turkish of Turkey from the entire Turkic language groups, you are free to follow the old mistake. ==Flags== other than above The ottoman flag has never been red. the flag shown is the flag of turkey and ottomans has never used that flag --User:Cash 13:36, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC) Red flag is the flag of Anatolian Turks, flag of both Ottoman and Turkey. There are videos that people celebrating the sultan's arrive in istanbul with red flags in their hands. Another theory is, there are some historians that say the "crescent and star" was viewed first and adopted as a flag at a night when Constantinapolis was sieged at April 1453 --User:JohnEmerald 13:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) That about Constantinople is really just a legend. The crescent and star is much older than that, dating from the ancient Turkic people of Central Asia, the forefathers of the Ottomans. As for the colours, red was the traditional colour of war (symbolizing blood and rage) while green is the sacred colour of Islam. Probably, the red flag was used by the military while the green was used on religious occations. Of course, flags weren't used in the western fashion until the 19th century. —User:The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) =="Turkish" state== I'm no expert on the subject, but I can't help feeling that describing the empire as a Turkish state doesn't really do justice to the other ethnic groups involved, especially the Arabs, who must have outnumbered Turks for most of the empire's history. I must admit I'm not sure what a better description would be. User:Grant65User talk: Grant65 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC) How about a multinational state? Just counting its successor states suggests various populations co-habiting. Successor states like: *Albania. *Algeria. *Bosnia and Herzegovina. *Bulgaria. *Cyprus. *Egypt. *Greece. *Hungary (partly). *Iraq. *Israel/Palestine. *Jordan. *Lebanon. *Libya. *Republic of Macedonia. *Moldova. *Oman. *Qatar. *Romania. *Serbia and Montenegro. *Sudan (partly). *Syria. *Tunisia. *Turkey. *Yemen. User:Dimadick ::The territory of the Ottoman State is now divided between these states, yes. But "successor state", at least in my mind, has the meaning of which state replaced it geopolitically, taking on the role, relationships, etc. For example, while the Soviet Union broke up into a bunch of states, the seat on the Security Council and suchlike went to Russia. ::Having said that, I would vote for capturing both aspects—territory as well as geopolitical successor. ::As for being Turkish or not, the state was controlled, dominated and run by Turks, no? The Arabs, for example, saw it as Turkish rule. Take the British empire as an example; it was definitely multiethnic at it's peak. But it was a British entity.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer | User talk:IFaqeer 19:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) :: I think the reason why the british empire failed so quickly was because it could not make the step from multiethnic to multiculturalism, the ottomans had done this, they were not just multi ethnic but also multicultural and I think the Romans had done it as well.--User:Kahraman 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: Looking at that first sentence again, I think the problem is trying to describe something from history in terms that were created for today's structures. It was not a state; it was an empire. And in a lot of places, the rule was very indirect.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer | User talk:IFaqeer 19:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) I think its wrong to see the Osmanli empire as a nation state with a particular ethnicity, eg Turkish. The main legitimacy of the empire and the reason why people stayed loyal to it was not it being Turkish or being Arab. The Turks stayed with it because it was ruled by a Han, the Arabs because it was the sultan, the Muslims because the dynasty claimed the caliphate, the christians because the Osmanli were the emperor of constantinople, and the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, the protectors of orthodox christianity from the latins and the pope. Once these ties were weakened by the advent of nationalism and many other ideologies, the empire ceased to exist, and every ethnicity was taking care of itself. Turkish nationalism actually only started in the 1920's and 30's with the masses with Ataturk--User:Kahraman 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) :The Ottoman Empire was, exactly like Kahraman has pointed out, never a nation. It was built up on loyalty to the local lords and to the sultan. It was never (at least not until the advent of the Young Turks) associated with the Turkish people. Turks were the ignorant muslim villagers and farmers of Anatolia. The state was always referred to as Ottoman if it was named at all. The common denomination was something like the "well-protected realms". I don't know why the Europeans started to call it Turkey. It would also be wrong to call the Empire multinational, since there were not really such a thing as nationality among any of the peoples under the sultan's command until the 19th century. Rebellions before that were mostly due to religious issues or power-hungry local lords rather than nationalism. —User:The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: I do not know if it is true, but again on a history program on TRT, I heard that the Europeans used to call Mameluke ruled Egypt and Syria The state of Turks or Turkey. Of course , Selim I took Egypt and Syria in the beginning of the 16th century, so the Europeans started to call the Ottomans Turkey--User:Kahraman 12:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC). :::That sounds logical. At least we know that Baibars was a Turk and I assume that the early Mameluks considered themselves as heirs to the Seljuk Turks in order to increase their legitimacy.
In respons to iFaqeer, yes, I agree that the British Empire was British and run by Brits, but the Ottoman Empire was not run (at least far from exclusively) by Turks. Nevertheless, the Ottoman Empire was both empire ''and'' state, although not a state as in a "nation state" and furthermore with few similiarities to a modern, centralized state. By the way, multiethnical is a much better term than multinational. —User:The Phoenix 20:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Language?== What language did the Ottomans speak? I can't seem to find this information anywhere... User:Pie4all88 01:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Turkish. Though it would have evolved over the centuries. See Turkic languages and Turkish language.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer | User talk:IFaqeer 03:26, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) :In fact it was Ottoman Turkish. This language was used at the court and was the official language of the state used in official documents etc. But of course people spoek local languages outside the court.--User:Leandros 22:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) Actually they spoke different languages in different circumstances. I heard this from the history program on TRT by Ilber Ortayli: One of the revlotionary changes Fatih Mehmed II did was change the standard language of the empire from a combination of persian, turkish and arabic to just arabic, like a standard language. Mehmed himself was of course multilingual, spoke and wrote about 7 languages, so no big problem for him. But the standardisation brought stability and prosperity, and this enabled him to go on his conquests. I think someone else later changed it to Ottoman Turkish, though I don't know who, maybe in the 16th century ?--User:Kahraman 21:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Ottoman Turkish is more correct that just Turkish anyway. Comparing Turkish to Ottoman Turkish is a bit like comparing modern English with Old English or Swedish with Old Norse. There were far more to Atatürk's language reforms than just changing the alphabet. —User:The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) : Many of Atatürk's language reforms were actually anulled by the governments after his death. People could not understand most of the new words anyway. Actually, I think Ottoman Turkish of the 19th to 20th century is quite understandable to most educated Turks, as long as it's transliterated to the new Latin alphabet. Personally, I haven't had much trouble anyways. After some time, your vocabulary increases and you don't have to look in the dictionary :-) It is of course easy to understand Ottoman Turkish of the 19th to 20th century compared to that of the 15th century, especially when it is a classical poem. I have trouble understanding most current rap lyrics of the 20th century, as a consequence understanding a complex poem from the 15th or 16th century is very difficult. :-)--User:Kahraman 12:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC). :Interesting. I had no idea that some reforms were reverted after Atatürk's death, though I did know that a lot of rather strange words were introduced during his reign. Besides, if I put my mind to it I could actually understand Old Norse. That is, in its written form of course, never spoken. —User:The Phoenix 20:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Reschid Pasha== Picked up a reference to Reschid Pasha in David Urquhart article. Would be good to have an article, or at least an agreed Wiki-spelling. User:Cutler 13:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) ==About the name== The name of this empire in Turkish; ''Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'', contains the word ''İmparatorluğu''. Is it a loan from Latin? User:Meursault2004 14:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::it is. just like in english emperor. But I think it came to Turkish language via the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which actually spoke greek :-) :::İmparator is based on the Latin word, the -luğu suffix adds the "place" meaning. Basically it translates to Empire. The word itself is Turkish, it came to Turkish from Latin. User:MonsterOfTheLake 02:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) My God! Of course it was not officialy "Osmanlı imparatorluğu" but it was "Devlet-i Aliye-yi Osmaniye" literally "The sublime state of Ottomans". Why should they call themselves an "Empire"? It can be discussed through hours maybe days if it was an Empire in the sense of Roman Empire or British Empire. Because they never forced the subjects to learn or speak Turkish. When they retreated from the north Africa, none of the people there spoke any Turkish, on the contray Turkish language became largely involved with Arabic. Ottomans did not change their culture but they adopted their customs. For example they adopted "Fez" which was north african dress. So because Ottoman state included many sub-states it was called "an empire" by the westerners. This was, as many others, a description with western understanding and not indigenous. == Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye == And what is ''Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye''? Is it Turkish or Ottoman Turkish? I think that is osmanli turkcesi, or ottoman turkish. modern turkish would have stated "buyuk osmanli devleti" or "yuce osmanli devleti" , in english the great ottoman state--User:Kahraman 12:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) AFAIK the Arabic script was used in the Empire, so it wouldn't be wrong to write its Ottoman Turkish name in that script as well. If anyone can write it, please add it. == 12 million sq. km.?== The value for the area of the empire is wrong. Te table says 12 million (bigger than canada), looking at the map it's probably 1,955,000, maybe something more. :User:Snowdog 22:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) There are 3 problems with the area of the Ottoman Empire: 1. Half of the maps in the world has a distorting image. (ie Marcator projection, search this)That's why Canada looks bigger on the map than it actually is. -Marcator projection has been one of the propaganda methods for norhern countries to seem bigger and more powerfull. Homework: Compare the size of Britain with Turkey-republic. They look about the same on marcator projection map which is the most used map projection in the world. However Turkey covers 3 times larger area than Britain 2. Some of the sub-states or sattelite states are not included to the mainland by some writers. 3. Every country, not only Ottman Empire has 2 different figures as area, if not more. This arouses from the method of measurement. Should we include the areas of the non-planar geographical formations; hills, mountains etc or should we take only their base areas?? This leads to two different numbers as area of countries... Therefore 12 million sq km is most probably the maximum possible area. But the error value cannot be more that 10%. So what would change for you if it was 11 million sq km? :It's fairly straightforward to add up in Europe and Asia Minor. But where in the Arabian or Sahara deserts is the border? It was probably never well-defined, and that can make a difference of 2-4m km2. Still not 12m total, though. Any good sources out there? --User:Macrakis 23:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: considering varaway places like atjeh in indonesia and kenya in africa considered themselves part of the ottoman empire, I think the figure, which excludes these countries, is actually a bit conservative.--User:Kahraman 10:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Kenya and Aceh were never part of the Ottoman Empire, even if they were/are part of the Dar-ul-Islam. It's not the same thing. Did the Ottomans collect taxes from Aceh? --User:Macrakis 12:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::They sent contingents there, they built castles, which are still present today. their descendants still have Turkish names. check out the atjeh flag, it' s the exact same flag as the turkish flag. in atjeh in some mosques on friday prayers they still claim allegiance to sultan selim II, the one who rescued them from portuguese invasion. funny how history works. in history books i have read selim the second was considered thw worst ottoman rules, who brought the downfall of the empire. it seems he also conquered one of the main islands of indonesia in between his many parties and hunting trips. ps. the ottomans rarely collected taxes from any of the countries they possessed. especially if it was faraway. that was up to the local government/prince/sultan/ king or whatever. only exception: anodolu and rumeli provinces, these the ottomans governed themselves --User:Kahraman 22:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) There is interesting history here, but I don't think it justifies calling these areas part of the Ottoman Empire. Can you cite accepted reference sources which would support your figure of 12m km^2? --User:Macrakis 14:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::if you want to learn more just google it. (in turkish prefereably) eg http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:X-D_8W-HFGAJ:www.sabah.com.tr/2004/12/31/gnd104.html+aceh+osmanli&hl=en--User:Kahraman 18:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::This is a magazine article about Aceh and the connections to the Ottoman empire. I don't see anything about the area of the Ottoman empire. --User:Macrakis 02:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::according to http://www.enfal.de/pad8.htm , the maximum size of the empire was over 19 million km2 --User:Kahraman 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Hmm yes, I have never heard this before. This seems rather far fetched to me. I suspect this is somthing of a Turkih nationalistic sentiment. It reminds me of the claims made by some Indian authors that regions of Indonesia was part of India. Some even claims that Singapore was an Indian outpost as it still bears a Sanskrit name. The truth is, Singapore was founded by a Malay King (King Parameswara) as he thought he saw a lion (''singha'') in this town which was called "Tumasik" at that time. User:Meursault2004 14:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: nationalistic? the Turkish nationalists hate the ottoman empire, because it was degrading to the turks, ottomans themselves of mixed ethnicity, and giving many powers to the arabs, greek and the armenians etc. Turkish nationalists are different. Ataturk was a nationalist, and he abolished the ottoman empire. this is also why many Turks have no idea to how far the ottoman empire reached, they do not want to have anything to do with it. only recently with the the diminishing forces of nationalism after the Turkish earthquake of 1999, economic collaps of 2001, and with the advent of the EU membership people started to get more interested in the ottomans, the eu being an ottoman-like federation.--User:Kahraman 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Agreed, it is certainly not Turkish Republican nationalist sentiment. Maybe nostalgia for the sultanate? Whatever it is, both 12m and 19m km^2 are implausible, and the enfal.de site is hardly a recognized reference source. It seems to me that there is overwhelming agreement on this Talk page that 2m km^2 is a more reasonable figure, and I think that's what we should use until someone comes up with some solid evidence for a larger figure. --User:Macrakis 23:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::: it could be nostalgia, but I do not think you can nostalgia from 2 million to 19 million without at least some evidence. In all the sources I can find on the net the figure of 19.9 million km 2 at a maximum keeps getting up. It might include the Polish protectorate and the the territories of the crimean khanate as well as the short term rule of most of present Iran, but I am alas no historian, so I do not know for sure. Do you have any sources to back your claims mackrakis? --User:Kahraman 00:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Is it possible that this is just some kind of a typo? There might be too much zero in the 19 million figures. If this is the case, then I would consider the problem as being solved. User:Meursault2004 09:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::I have not been able to find good figures for the area of the empire at its greatest extent. In ''La Grande Encyclopedie'' (Berthelot, 1902), the direct possessions are listed as 2.8m, and the vassal states (including "Arabie--regions non directement soumises", 2.3m) as 3.5m, giving 6.3m . To get to the largest extent, we need to add areas in Europe and the Caucasus which the empire had lost, namely Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Crimea, etc. My best estimate is that that gives 8m or so km^2. Still not 12m, but much closer than I'd thought. Those 8m km^2 include vast areas of uninhabited desert in Africa and Arabia, much of which was not effectively governed by the empire, but then we attribute vast areas of the uninhabited frozen Arctic to Canada and Russia.... I am open to evidence for better numbers, but in the meantime I will update the article. --User:Macrakis 16:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::I agree with you on the 19th century area. However, about max extent I disagree. I would take the numbers provided by the Turkish encyclopedia of the ottoman history (1) over your best estimate by any day of the week, since those guys are scolars and actually have a degree in this stuff, while we here are amateurs. So I added the 19 + km2 to the article. ref 1. Turkish encyclopedia of the ottoman history , mirror http://www.enfal.de/pad8.htm http://www.osmanli.org.tr/osmanlisultanlari2.php?bolum=5&id=221 --User:Kahraman 21:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC) == Needs more == This article needs much more contribution and info, especially its history which if i have time i'll try to add to (theres 700 years of history in 3 paragraphs at the moment!). --User:E.A 23:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Absence of discussion of internal disintegration == I think the biggest shortcoming of this article is that there is no discussion of the increasing internal weakness of the Ottoman Empire. By the later centuries of of their reign, the Ottomans no longer exerted more than titular sovereignity over much of their territory, which was in fact often in a state of anarchy or under the control of local strongmen who paid little more than lip-service to the authority of the Sultan. Rectifying this omission would help to explain the Ottomans' decline from greatest power in Western Europe and Asia (circa 1550) to pawn of the various European powers (circa 1850). I would also reiterate a point made by others -- to wit, that the Ottoman Empire was not really a Turkish empire so much as an empire ruled by a dynasty that happened to be Turkish. The Turks did not really particularly benefit from the empire -- if anything, its functionaries, officials, and so on tended to be Greeks, Armenians, and Jews, while of course its elite troops were involuntarily converted converted Balkan Christians. Indeed, the rise of Turkish nationalism was one of the forces that helped speed the collapse of the empire, since an empire that was explicitly Turkish necessarily excluded members of other races. == Europe's development in one sentence??? == : While the Ottomans were stagnating in a stalemate with their European and Asian neighbor countries, the European development went into overdrive, buoyed by the economic advantages of large scale colonialism and slave trade. It seems to me chucpe to abbreviate development of Europe into one (and IMHO biased) sentence. Especially connecting success of the Europe in XVIIth century to slavery is "novel" idea, which would surprise economic historians. I have at least removed mentioning of slavery. == Unprotected == No notice given, and it was 10 days ago - unprotecting, regardless of actual reason. --User:Golbez 04:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ottoman Empire
Byzantine Empire Caliphate Former monarchies Former monarchies History of Bosnia and Herzegovina History of Bulgaria History of Croatia History of Greece History of Hungary History of Turkey History of Turkey Jewish Islam topics Romanian history Serbian history Turkic peoples Vojvodina History of Albania
Ottoman Empire
Joy wrote: ''added histories of european countries that were under the OE for centuries'' Aris Katsaris: ''Uh, I really don't think most of these categs belong here. We aren't adding Category:Germany to all the nations that were ever conquered by the Germans.'' We aren't, but that's different because the German conquest usually didn't have the same profound effects the Ottoman conquest had. Also, OE is an extinct state so the category is purely historical. It also would be pointless to add links to histories of those states per each individual article in the OE category. --User:Joy 21:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) : I really don't believe your categorization scheme is at all consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. The Ottoman Empire is really NOT a subset of the history of Albania or the history of Greece -- it's instead an *overlapping* set. That's why we have only "History of Ottoman Greece" in this category, and "History of Ottoman Albania" and "History of Ottoman Egypt" -- and so forth. : Other examples -- we don't list :Category:European Union under the categories of the histories of all its member states regardless of how important the European Union is to them -- and that's because the EU's history is an *overlapping* set with each of these nations.... We don't list :Category:Roman Empire under the category of :Category:Greek history or :Category:Israeli history regardless of how importantly Rome affected Greece or ancient Israel. : Please reconsider -- it'd be good if we reached an agreement over this instead of revert-warring about it or having to go to a poll. And truly I don't see your idea of listing the categories of empires under the categories of all the nations they ever conquered fit. It'd be like listing :Category:United States under :Category:Utah instead of vice versa. Bigger groups are supposedly further up the tree -- you've made it in reverse. :User:Aris Katsaris 22:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::You've not replied further to my post... I don't know if that means you simply didn't bother to reply, or were partly convinced... Either way I'm changing it back, since I really don't see it fitting with Wikipedia's categorization scheme concerning old empires. If you're still disagreeing, let's make a poll about this or generally ask for third opinions.User:Aris Katsaris 23:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::: I've not replied simply because I haven't seen it up to this moment.
Ottoman empire
#Redirect Ottoman Empire
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
O
OA | OB | OC | OD | OE | OF | OG | OH | OI | OJ | OK | OL | OM | ON | OP | OR | OS | OT | OU | OW | OX | OY | OZ |Words begining with Ottoman_Empire:
Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman_empire
Ottoman_Empire/archive
Ottoman_Empire/Temp
Ottoman_Empire_admirals
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
