553 years ago...

The Italian city states themselves never sent any expeditions west but many of their sailors and captains went west. Columbus was certainly not the only Italian trying his luck as a sailor/explorer for hire.

As you pointed out the Italians were more than happy to keep selling all the "eastern" goods form the Egyptian markets but that obviously didn't stop others from trying their luck elsewhere.

The Byzantine Empire was still a power before 1204. They still commanded respect in the region and had the potential to recover as they had a century before. The Crusader sack of Constantinople and the break up and plundering of the Empire was more harmful to the region and more beneficial to the Turks than any of the battles the Turks had won since Manzikurt.
And yes it was definately best for the city to be absorbed into the Ottoman Empire.

Ottomans did revive decaying areas because they stopped damaging regions and places they harassed and attacked beforehand.

Eg. Anatolia's population growth was due to its unifications under the Ottomans...after the Ottomans stopped ravaging the region.

And ...?

Here's joining you in a moment of silence, Edyz. :shame:

Ajax

And....so that means that its not due to any Ottoman benevolence for the revival of several regions that were heavily devastated. Constantiinople would have recovered if given the chance like it did in the 9th century. Some fool will inevitably embark on some propaganda in portraying the Ottomans as some kind of benevolent regime.

And....so that means that its not due to any Ottoman benevolence for the revival of several regions that were heavily devastated. Constantiinople would have recovered if given the chance like it did in the 9th century. Some fool will inevitably embark on some propaganda in portraying the Ottomans as some kind of benevolent regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Constantiinople would have recovered if given the chance like it did in the 9th century.

---

And how can you be so sure of that? Constantinople was already surrounded by Ottoman territory, without any allies. There was no way it could have recovered unless it was by miraculously defeating the Ottoman armies in the field, or again begging for European aid (and we know how successful that would be, even if help did come). The city was lost already, there was no hope of recovery. It was only the admirable stubbornness of the defenders that prolonged the inevitable in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perplexed

And how can you be so sure of that? Constantinople was already surrounded by Ottoman territory, without any allies. There was no way it could have recovered unless it by miraculously defeating the Ottoman armies in the field, or again begging for European aid (and we know how successful that would be, even if help did come). The city was lost already, there was no hope of recovery. It was only the admirable stubbornness of the defenders that prolonged the inevitable in the end.

---

not only the begging for European aid

Johannes VI (or was it his successor, Joannes V?) tried it, and also tried another option:
a Balkan-coalition.

The Bulgars agreed, the Serbs too. Only the Russian didn't want to take part in it. The coalition failed, and was beaten several times... (if i remember well, the did win a battle, taking the Turkish sultan captured and murdered him, making the Byzantine suffering last longer for more than a century).
I wonder if the the coalition would succeed if the Russian did take part in it:inquisitive:

(but i doubt)


:idea2: Arch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archayon

not only the begging for European aid

Johannes VI (or was it his successor, Joannes V?) tried it, and also tried another option:
a Balkan-coalition.

The Bulgars agreed, the Serbs too. Only the Russian didn't want to take part in it. The coalition failed, and was beaten several times... (if i remember well, the did win a battle, taking the Turkish sultan captured and murdered him, making the Byzantine suffering last longer for more than a century).
I wonder if the the coalition would succeed if the Russian did take part in it:inquisitive:

(but i doubt)


:idea2: Arch

---

Yes, that was the Battle of Kosovo, where Sultan Murad I was killed by the Serbs and their allies. However, even though the Sultan died, Kosovo was a great Ottoman victory, and the Balkan coalition was crushed. Also, the dead Murad was succeeded by Bayezid I, who was even more successful in his conquests, so Constantinople was just as doomed.

It is amazing that the walls of Constantinople were breached only 3 times - once by the treachery of the Fourth Crusade, later by the reconquering of Constantinople, and finally in 1453 by Mehmed II.

Constnatinople by this time was but a shade of its former glory - the city was really a bunch of villages surrounded by the great walls. It was in decay and decline with no help from the internal strife and the bubonic plague which had severely depopulated the city.

The fall of Constantinople occurs in the same year the Hundred Years War ends - and it is one of the events many consider the end of the Middle Ages (along with cultural/religious change as well as the discovery of the new world). It truly created massive changes in world affairs:
First, it ushered in the era of the cannon for good - even the mightiest cities and once impregnable walls were no longer a match for cannons. It, symbolic if anything, signaled the final end of the old fuedal order and the ability for great castles/fortifications to rule over land.

Second, it ushered in the new order - the Ottoman Turks were a power to be reckoned with and would not be stopped in Europe until the Battle of Vienna 200 years later and would not fall until after WWI.

Third, it ended the last link to Classical Antiquity with the final fall of the Roman Empire (though as others have pointed out, Russia claimed to be the Third Rome, and Mehemd II himself took the title Kayser-i-Rum (Caesar of Rome).

It also shifted power in Europe to the west that lasts to this day - no longer did the Orthodox church have its old power nor did the Eastern nations control the same strategic land.

Finally, it drove up prices of goods from the East and spurred the search for new trade routes to the East. With the discovery of the new world, the power of Western Europe would bring them to the top of civilization until the wars of the 20th century.

As for the LOTR references - though he claimed his stories weren't allegorical, they had many parallels and Minas Tirith has often been considered to be symbolic of Constantinople.

Perplexed, I said if given a "chance"....

Obviously, they didn't have much of a chance did they? sheesh........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

And....so that means that its not due to any Ottoman benevolence for the revival of several regions that were heavily devastated. Constantiinople would have recovered if given the chance like it did in the 9th century. Some fool will inevitably embark on some propaganda in portraying the Ottomans as some kind of benevolent regime.

---

Under the delapitated Roman regime? Come now. No, the only good chance for the City would have been to have passed under the benevolence of Ottoman rule, as opposed to the harshness of Catholic hate for the 'schismatic' Orthodox.

And this is exactly what happened. Greeks formed a very important part of the Ottoman administration for a very long time, and it is most apparent that in the absence of domestic power, the Sultan's turban was indeed a lot better than the Cardinal's mitre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Perplexed, I said if given a "chance"....

Obviously, they didn't have much of a chance did they? sheesh........

---

Um, if you put it that way, anything could happen if given a "chance"...

Fact is, the Eastern Roman Empire never had one; the fall of Constantinople was inevitable in retrospect...

Also, the Ottomans were probably the most 'benevolent' of all of Constantinople's enemies. Would the Orthodox Church be tolerated better by a Catholic conqueror? Nope.

And though the fall may be considered a day of mourning for some, it marked the rise of one of the most powerful, complex, and interesting (not to mention 'benevolent' when compared with their neighbors) empires...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Perplexed, I said if given a "chance"....

Obviously, they didn't have much of a chance did they? sheesh........

---

No, they didn't.

Pffft this benevolence is due to the Ottomans trying to foster hatred between Orthodox and Catholic Christians that existed beforehand. When the Ottomans restored the Orthodox Patriarchate, they made sure they choose an anti-unionist who had earlier opposed the fragile ecclesiastical union in place earlier.

I'm so sick of this "benevolent" argument about the Ottoman Empire, fact is, it is still an empire like all others. The arguments for them are the same as that of a colonial empire justifying their "benevolent" rule as well. Were the Ottomans as benevolent? What are devirsme? What about discouraging ethnic identity and subsuming it under religion under the millet system? And the codified fraticide of the Ottoman Turks? Sure, u could say to me what about the Jews who found refuge in the Ottoman Empire when expelled from Spain? Wow! They must be so benevolent from the deepest depths of their hearts!! I certainly would invite Jews too because of their commercial acumen and their tendency to study highly prized skills in medicine and such.

Mind you, I don't hate Ottomans. I just like the assumption that Ottomans were nice...even if taken in a relative sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Pffft this benevolence is due to the Ottomans trying to foster hatred between Orthodox and Catholic Christians that existed beforehand. When the Ottomans restored the Orthodox Patriarchate, they made sure they choose an anti-unionist who had earlier opposed the fragile ecclesiastical union in place earlier.

---

I'm pretty sure the 'benevolence' is more due on the fact that Islam acted as a neutral system in a superior position to the differing sects of Christianity; like a secular system today...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

I'm so sick of this "benevolent" argument about the Ottoman Empire, fact is, it is still an empire like all others.

---

And yet it was you who first bought Ottoman 'benevolence' up. I reread the thread, and could find no instance of someone bringing Ottoman 'benevolence' until you wrote: "Some fool will inevitably embark on some propaganda in portraying the Ottomans as some kind of benevolent regime."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

The arguments for them are the same as that of a colonial empire justifying their "benevolent" rule as well.

---

Yes. Also remember that some colonial empires were more 'benevolent' than others. The Ottomans, when compared to their contemporaries, were easily more 'benevolent'. If you would compare them to a modern nation, of course they would come up short. If you even compare them to their Arab predecessors, they would come up short. But if you compare them to their contemporaries, are they second to none...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Were the Ottomans as benevolent?

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

What are devirsme?

---

A very questionable system yes, though it can't be seen as all black and white. These slaves were received the best education, best training, and highest positions in the government. It is telling that Muslim women tried to pose as Christians themselves...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

What about discouraging ethnic identity and subsuming it under religion under the millet system?

---

This is the paradigm on which Islam is built. Race and ethnicity take a backseat to religion. This is also how most people in Europe thought until the beginning on nationalism and the modern age. People would identify themselves with their religion rather than their nation.

Also, seeing as how the millet system allowed minorities to somewhat function autonomously under their own law, that would be considered quite 'benevolent' in comparison to their contemporaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

And the codified fraticide of the Ottoman Turks?

---

I fail to see how internal struggles of succession and power play into 'benevolence'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Sure, u could say to me what about the Jews who found refuge in the Ottoman Empire when expelled from Spain? Wow! They must be so benevolent from the deepest depths of their hearts!! I certainly would invite Jews too because of their commercial acumen and their tendency to study highly prized skills in medicine and such.

---

Pointing this out merely strengthens the already solid argument that the Ottomans were more 'benevolent' than their contemporaries. I certainly don't doubt that the Ottomans saw benefit for their own empire by inviting the Jews in, much like the Christian nations saw benefit from having Jews in their borders for money lending. But the Ottomans surely were less jealous of the Jews success than the other European nations, as seen by the many expulsions whenever the general feeling was that the Jews became too powerful and rich. Even Voltaire, who delights pointing out religious intolerance, either is not very self-aware or just a hypocrite in his description of the Jew in Candide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Mind you, I don't hate Ottomans. I just like the assumption that Ottomans were nice...even if taken in a relative sense.

---

If taken in the relative sense, it's clearly apparent that the Ottomans were more benevolent than their contemporaries...

I second the words of Reenk Roink, and wish to add a couple of points.

On the sephardim: if they were so beneificial -- then why did the Spanish and Portuguese force them to assimilate, or alternatively kill them or exile them? You see, regardless of the fact that their coming did benefit the Ottomans themselves -- they were allowed to come and maintain their own ways, and they thrived. Spanish is still the language of Bulgarian Jews, for instance. This is the defining difference between a deeply Catholic state, like Spain, and a (deeply) Muslim state like the Ottoman one: the very existence of tolerance benefited the state more than trying to destroy minorities.

And on the devshirme: please. This system was an evolved and consequently more institutionalized form of the mamluk system of past ages in Muslim states. The system was so beneficial to oneself, and the slavery system so much more 'enlightened' (as far as that term is applicable upon slavery) than the European form, that thousands of Oghuz Turks, Circassians and whatnot else voluntarily gave themselves up to become a slave warrior and get an attempt to better one's lot in society. Later one could easily buy himself free and pursue a much better life than he could ever have hoped for in, for instance, Central Asia as a simple tribesman.

The same went for the devshirme. It was cruel, yes -- to the family. To the one taken it meant an extreme rise in the semi-feudal status society that was the Ottoman Empire.

I've read sometimes Muslim peasant families would arrange it with their Christian neighbours (and bribe the appropriate officials if need be) to have their sons taken in under the devshirme. Recall that many aspects of the Islamic version of slavery were quite "benevolent" - although that obviously doesn't go for the poor saps sent to the mines and galleys, but then that was the norm everywhere and had little to do with the devshirme which was for the recruitement of adminstrators and elite soldiers.

I think it is high time to say some words...
The Ottoman tolerance to the Christians should not be exaggerated at all. XVIth century is the period of the religious colisions. In Western Europe the Reformation, which was the result of the religious and the social problems of the society, increased the hatred between different religous groups. That's why in the Western Europe occured terrible events that had not happened after so called Dark ages. Yes, the Europeans were suffuring from civil and religious wars... Yes, unlike some (not all) Christian countries the Ottomans did not massacred the different one like Chrstians. Why? First because they needed money for the wars and second massacring the Christians would let to many problems- Balkan peninsula and parts of Minor Asia were Christian. However the word ' benevolence' is absolutely out of place here. The 'tolerance' of the sultan ended with sparing the life of his lucrative raia ( or 'flock' just like flock of sheeps). But Bulgarian Rhodopes ( a mountain in Bulgaria) still remember how 'merciful' was the sultan. In the beginning of XVI th century and in 1645 Bulgarians there were forced to choose between the death and Islam. Is this a benevolence? And the trace of this is left forever- nowadays in the Rhodopes there are many Bulgarian Muslims ( ethnic Bulgarians) who are part of the Bulgarian nation. Nothing bad they are Muslims but it's important how they were converted to the religion with the scimitar. Adn we, the Bulgarians , will never forget the horror of 1876 when hundreds of Bulgarian families were killed. More for the Ottoman 'tolerance'... In 1513 40 000 shiites were massacred just because they were shiites ( paralel with Western Europe). Is this a tolerance? And lt's do not talk about the genocide of the Greeks and Armenians ( Don't forget about the Armenians )... Is this a tolerance? No Ottoman government was not benevolent. The topic should not be discussed. It is not historical accurate. The Ottomans were not the fanatics ready to kill any infidel but they were not 'benevolent'. For the sake of the souls of these who died because of the 'tolerance' of the sultan do not use that word. And it is for good the Ottoman empire no longer exists- the Turkish people who like any other nation deserved to be respected destroyed that anachronism, that shame.
Hope everything stays the past (although the turkish govrnment still has much work to do in order to improve the situation in Turkey ( economy, policy...)).
Back.. Yes, there were few individual cases of 'voluntary' converting but even then they were not so voluntary. Is it a volunary to choose the Islam to the famine ( you know your family will starve to death and if you are a muslim you will receive food as a benvolence of the masters). And what about the law? Christians there were totally disciminated!
About Janissaries... Yes, they were cruel but Ottomans paid for this. Jst like the ghulams and mamelukes ( other kind of slave-warriors) Janissaries want more power .Ask Ahmed III and Selim III... But this was really cruel- to have your own child as your enemy!
Back on the topic ( after all we talk about Constamtinople not how 'tolerant' ( :no: ) was the Ottoman empire). The conquest Constantinople has two sides, and both of them are right. As a Christian I think it is a tragedy- the Byzantines lost the city they founded. Many Christians were enslaved or killed. There were nothing between the Ottomans and Central Europe. And if constantinople was not conquered now it would be a Christian capital. But the Turks have their right- the history is not a charity company, the Ottomans were stronger and the city became their. And after all everybody would like to have this Great city, Miklagard, Constantinople, Tzarigrad, Istanbul... Anyway this is the history. There is no a universal truth.
But I think you all will agree in the fall of Constantinople there was something romantic because this was a glorious end of a great empire...

Forced conversions, eh? Hasn't that been disproved before? Although I myself at the moment lack the sources to be able to disprove it. I highly doubt, however, that a state relying on the millet tax would prefer to forcibly convert its Christian subjects.

History must not be discussed with any trace of hindsight. That is what I see in the posts decrying the Ottoman state as just as cruel -- if not more cruel -- than its contemporaries.

This is not the case. The Ottoman system rested on the relative isolation and lack of integration between the different cultural groups within their empire. It is this fact which elevates the Ottoman system above those, mostly Christian ones that preferred to assimilate and destroy the minorities living amongst them. For that time, for the time of the Ottoman Empire's existence, it was simply a better place to live than any of its main contenders. It does not matter if that was intended or not -- it is just a fact. That is all that matters.

Now, many of those claiming that the Ottoman empire was no better than its contemporaries (which in some cases is true) hail from the Balkans, and have thus come under the influence of the teaching that the taking away of independence of the Balkan peoples was an evil and thusly that the Ottoman advance was a bad thing. Fair enough.

Yet I ask you: what was the alternative? After the death of Dushan there was no Orthodox state left that could face off the Ottomans. Thusly there was but one alternative: other Christian states. Yet these were Catholic ones, and they despised the strange and 'schismatic' Orthodox faithful. What would they have done with Serbians, Bulgarians and Greeks? Left them to be -- or start a vicious campaign against 'heretics' and 'schismatics' to bring them 'back' into the fold of the 'one true Church'? If anything the Ottomans preserved the national and cultural identity of the Balkan peoples, more so than any Catholic state would have dared to ever do.

Of course one can find anecdotes upon anecdotes of atrocity by the Ottoman Empire.

Doing this completely disregards the long running practice of the Ottoman Empire's toleration of others.

Like it has been mentioned beforehand, comparing the Ottoman Empire to modern day Western nations is certainly going to be in the favor of the latter. Even comparing the Ottoman Empire to the previous Arab-Islamic empires is going to show that the Ottomans were less 'benevolent' than their predecessors (if the Ummayads were able to conquer Constantinople in 717, one could be certain that their would be minimal bloodshed of civilians as not only was it the norm of the early conquests of Islam to be magnanimous to the conquered civilian population, but also due to the fact that the Caliph at this time, Umar II was the most benevolent of the Ummayad dynasty).

But what still remains, is the fact that both in theory and in practice, the Ottomans had a much more tolerant and 'benevolent' regime than any of its contemporaries.

Once again, nobody in this thread started off claiming that the Ottomans were 'benevolent', but rather, charges against the Ottomans were made which were inaccurate and responded to.

Although there were exceptions, Muslim realms in general tended to be highly tolerant of assorted minorities and religion-wise at least the "peoples of the book", namely Chrsitians and JJews of any persuasion. Which pretty much by default makes them pretty damn "benevolent" at least in comparision to just about all Christian realms, which could barely stomach Jews and usually not at all other versions of Christianity nevermind now Islam. Not that Shi'ites and Sunnis were on exactly good terms, mind you.

The exact (and often rather pragmatic) motivations behind this "benevolence" are fairly irrelevant. Particularly from the perspective of the subject minorities, who understandably tended to be pretty happy about being largely left to their own devices so long as they paid their dues and doubly so if they had fled into Ottoman or other Muslim territories from less tolerant regions.

Nqaturally enough the Ottomans were no less ruthless and brutal in war as any of their contemporaries - and upon occasion perhaps even more so, although just about anyone would be hard pressed to match the often seemingly wanton massacres of Tamerlane - but at least their armies tended to be disciplined and well supplied enough to only rape, loot and destroy on enemy territory...

Both the Ottomans and many of their subjects got bitten by the nationalism bug around the early 1800s which went a long way towards doing away with much of the tolerance pretty fast. The general torpid decreptitude of the Ottoman state by that point did not help one bit, as it left them incapable of little other reaction to such stirrings than violence and the moribundness of their military led them to delegate much of the actual fighting to local irregular forces with results sadly quite predictable from similarly brutal internecine conflicts of recent times.

As for the fall of Constantinopole, it was really just letting the practically extinct East Roman state out of its misery and ridding the Ottomans of a potentially troublesome internal frontier. By that point the Ottomans had been pretty well established on European soil for quite a while already (as well as launching campaigns of conquest deep into the Balkans), and what was left of Byzantium was Constantinopole with its immediate surroundings and the autonomous Despotate of Morea, which actually outlived Constantinopole by a few decades or so and can thus be considered the final lingering remnant of ancient Rome if one wants to be literal about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

As for the fall of Constantinopole, it was really just letting the practically extinct East Roman state out of its misery and ridding the Ottomans of a potentially troublesome internal frontier. By that point the Ottomans had been pretty well established on European soil for quite a while already (as well as launching campaigns of conquest deep into the Balkans), and what was left of Byzantium was Constantinopole with its immediate surroundings and the autonomous Despotate of Morea, which actually outlived Constantinopole by a few decades or so and can thus be considered the final lingering remnant of ancient Rome if one wants to be literal about it

---

Despotate of the Morea fell in 1460. Amazingly, the central 'empire' based at Constantinople did send troops to help the Despotate sometimes, but not the other way around...I can't find any information on the 'last battle' or siege of this section of the once mighty Byzantine Empire though.

Let's do not go off the topic. There is a new thread ' the Ottoman empire and the Christians'. Let's move the irrelevant discussion there.

I'm pretty sure the 'benevolence' is more due on the fact that Islam acted as a neutral system in a superior position to the differing sects of Christianity; like a secular system today...

It was hardly neutral. They deliberated went out of their to place a high profile anti-unionist as a Patriarch. There is no secular system in the Ottoman Empire, you forget, Islam is the state and the church/mosque.

And yet it was you who first bought Ottoman 'benevolence' up. I reread the thread, and could find no instance of someone bringing Ottoman 'benevolence' until you wrote: "Some fool will inevitably embark on some propaganda in portraying the Ottomans as some kind of benevolent regime."

“Benevolence” is an expression of the sentiment of people‘s view of the Ottoman Empire. Just cause no one said “benevolence” doesn’t mean that it was not expressed as such.

Yes. Also remember that some colonial empires were more 'benevolent' than others. The Ottomans, when compared to their contemporaries, were easily more 'benevolent'. If you would compare them to a modern nation, of course they would come up short. If you even compare them to their Arab predecessors, they would come up short. But if you compare them to their contemporaries, are they second to none...

The Ottomans were in the same timeline as the French and British were they not? Were the Brits and French worse than the Ottomans? Of course, I understand what Anachronism is.

These slaves were received the best education, best training, and highest positions in the government. It is telling that Muslim women tried to pose as Christians themselves...

And that’s ok then? I suppose occupying someone’s country and giving them roads, an education system and technology makes it ok? Its a humiliation for the minorities, of course, Muslims have no qualms in trying to get their children enrolled as Janissaries, they don’t have to FACE the pain of losing their religion do they?

This is the paradigm on which Islam is built. Race and ethnicity take a backseat to religion. This is also how most people in Europe thought until the beginning on nationalism and the modern age. People would identify themselves with their religion rather than their nation.

Also, seeing as how the millet system allowed minorities to somewhat function autonomously under their own law, that would be considered quite 'benevolent' in comparison to their contemporaries.

It makes it easier to control and discriminate. The Patriarch of Istanbul was appointed over all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Is that good? No, not really because it made it easier to cripple the Orthodox Hierarchy which was centralised and under close supervision of the Sultans wasn’t it? Several Patriarchs were executed under the Sultans.


Pointing this out merely strengthens the already solid argument that the Ottomans were more 'benevolent' than their contemporaries. I certainly don't doubt that the Ottomans saw benefit for their own empire by inviting the Jews in, much like the Christian nations saw benefit from having Jews in their borders for money lending. But the Ottomans surely were less jealous of the Jews success than the other European nations, as seen by the many expulsions whenever the general feeling was that the Jews became too powerful and rich. Even Voltaire, who delights pointing out religious intolerance, either is not very self-aware or just a hypocrite in his description of the Jew in Candide.

It does not strengthen any argument. It illustrates pragmatism only. The Byzantines gave refuge to Khurramite and Banu Habib refugees persecuted by the Abbasids, does it means the Byzantines were benevolent? No…they were…pragmatic. It does not make them benevolent.

If taken in the relative sense, it's clearly apparent that the Ottomans were more benevolent than their contemporaries...

It is a superficial relativism. The margin is small. It is not significant.

Funny though, the foundations of human rights, equality, etc, etc were developed by colonialists contemporary with the “benevolent” Ottomans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

It was hardly neutral. They deliberated went out of their to place a high profile anti-unionist as a Patriarch. There is no secular system in the Ottoman Empire, you forget, Islam is the state and the church/mosque.

---

You also have misinterpreted my statement comparing how the Ottoman state was like a secular state. Of course Islam was the main law. It has superiority over the other religions. This is comparable to a secular system, which is superior over all religions. Islam is different and neutral to the differing strands of Christianity, Catholic rule would not be...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

“Benevolence” is an expression of the sentiment of people‘s view of the Ottoman Empire. Just cause no one said “benevolence” doesn’t mean that it was not expressed as such.

---

Please bring examples...

Not the examples that the fall of Constantinople was better under the Ottomans, as they revived it mind you, that is another topic altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

The Ottomans were in the same timeline as the French and British were they not? Were the Brits and French worse than the Ottomans? Of course, I understand what Anachronism is.

---

Check the records of Colonial Britain and France...:wink:

Also remember that the Ottoman Empire had many reforms by the 19th century. It wasn't the same one that we see in the 15th century, which was still 'benevolent' when compared to the other nations of Europe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

And that’s ok then? I suppose occupying someone’s country and giving them roads, an education system and technology makes it ok? Its a humiliation for the minorities, of course, Muslims have no qualms in trying to get their children enrolled as Janissaries, they don’t have to FACE the pain of losing their religion do they?

---

I like how you selectively remove my initial statement and then try to make it seem as I somehow condoned it. Others have already compared the Ottoman slave system to other nations, please read their arguments, as I will not rehash them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

It makes it easier to control and discriminate. The Patriarch of Istanbul was appointed over all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Is that good? No, not really because it made it easier to cripple the Orthodox Hierarchy which was centralised and under close supervision of the Sultans wasn’t it? Several Patriarchs were executed under the Sultans.

---

As I’ve stated, the Islamic paradigm groups by religion, not by race or ethinicity. This would have played a role in it too. You choose to cast the worst possible light on the Ottoman Empire's motives; I choose a balanced point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

It does not strengthen any argument. It illustrates pragmatism only. The Byzantines gave refuge to Khurramite and Banu Habib refugees persecuted by the Abbasids, does it means the Byzantines were benevolent? No…they were…pragmatic. It does not make them benevolent.

---

Well, if you are adamant of portraying the Ottoman' Empire's motives behind their toleration of religious minorities as dark as possible, we cannot see eye to eye.

So according to your view, Christian nations' hatred of Jews outweighed their pragmatism?

You see, in these eyes, toleration of a reviled minority group in times when persecution was the status quo is unique. I consider it benevolent treatment. The Jews had a lot more to gain from their staying in Ottoman borders than the Ottomans...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

It is a superficial relativism. The margin is small. It is not significant.

---

The margin is wider than you think...

There are few instances in medieval times of Christians conquering Muslim lands, but a common thread shared in these rare events is the massacre of Muslims.

There are many instances in the same time frame of Muslims conquering Christian lands. A frequently recurring theme is the toleration showed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Funny though, the foundations of human rights, equality, etc, etc were developed by colonialists contemporary with the “benevolent” Ottomans.

---

It is amazing how we start off in 1453 and are now in the 19th century. Well then, those colonial powers that were just beginning to develop the foundations of human rights were certainly unaware that they must extend to the people that they colonized?

Quote:

---

You also have misinterpreted my statement comparing how the Ottoman state was like a secular state. Of course Islam was the main law. It has superiority over the other religions. This is comparable to a secular system, which is superior over all religions. Islam is different and neutral to the differing strands of Christianity, Catholic rule would not be...

---

Poorly worded at best. A secular state is not a belief system, it's a framework that is neutral and tolerates no direct influence from clergy (indirect influence is possible via democracy, if present)

I haven't read all the posts here, but I haven't noticed anyone mentioning how different branches of Islam were treated. Am I correct in believing that the officially sanctioned version was Sunni Islam? How did they treat Shiites and other Islamic minorities?

Probably not very well, although I doubt if they went out of their way to massacre everyone in the conquered regions during all those wars with Persia. It's somewhat curious how the major religions seem to always have had a far easier time tolerating each other than their own alternative readings...

Although, granted, after about a century of continuous bloodletting which eventually reached pretty awesome proportions in the Thirty Years' War the Catholics and Protestants largely stopped regarding grapeshot as a valid theological argument against each other (to quote Englund). Instead each concentrated on their own "internal" heretics. :dizzy2:

Well, there's a basis in the Sha'ria for that actually- apostacy is punishable by death. Not saying that this constitutes a correct interpretation, but some Islamist nutters (the late Al-Zarqawi, not Bin Laden though) think that believers who believe in the Quran, but not the correct interpretation have left the one true faith.

A (rather uneducated) theory I have is that the main historical reason for the animosity between Sunnis and Shiites stem from the fact that traditionally most Shiites were of Iranian (Persian, but also Kurdic) ethnicity, people with a distinct cultural identity. Turks were more fond of Arabian culture anyway.

Well, it started all political anyway. True to form they had no trouble at all piling up grudges against one another after that (although I understand the Shi'ites, making up something like 10% of all Muslims, sort of have more legit ones).

I'd imagine some of the more kooky and extreme sects that sprang up over the centuries were able to unite them in righteous fury, though.