What are your opinions on this?
Posted by Empty-Pace-4228@reddit | AskBalkans | View on Reddit | 400 comments
Posted by Empty-Pace-4228@reddit | AskBalkans | View on Reddit | 400 comments
ConsequenceOutside38@reddit
This sub, and where this post was originally made, is mostly hosting people from Europe. Doesn't matter how much they say they are secular and liberal, they still carry the histroy baggage of their ancestry.
Makes it easy to glaze Rome and denounce Ottomans, pretty simple and natural. European identity is built upon Roman idealism.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Rome had lasted for 4 thousands years, de-facto defined the world centre & world standards around itself, and needed Biblical amount of travesty, cataclysms, and foreign invasions in order to get finally brought down to it's knees (fyi the old testament also revolved around Rome).
The Ottomans on the other hand had been the world centre for less than a century, lasted 500 years only due to Biritsh & French aid, and got universally remembered as the "Sick man of Europe" because of it.
At the end of the day glory speaks for itself and might makes right, if the Ottomans had something to be looked forwards for, they would have been admired for it.
PitonSaJupitera@reddit
Needless to mention that Roman Empire was fairly developed, Latin remained language of education elites more than a 1000 years after fall of Western Roman Empire.
Meanwhile Ottoman Empire became quite backwards compared to peer powers in the century or more before its disintegration.
taloschat@reddit
100% agree as a turkish person. winners write history and every winner is somewhat sympathetic towards romans however ottomans were not as gloryful as romans,russians,french etc so they are outcasted. 600 years of its time only first 300 years it was strong. You can verify it by simply contemprary sources like machiavelli. After 1800 it only existed because of foreign powers did wished so
fogleth@reddit
The first 300 years are the absolute worst Devshirme is a diabolical scheme that should be in all textbooks as a despicable enslaving system yet a user here plays the victim card and makes Balkan people racist.
taloschat@reddit
Devshirme was not large scale though. İt started after 1380 and probably mostly ended after 1570s. During that timeline number of qapıkulu(janissary+palaca cavalry) didnt exceed 10.000 units. When their number grew into 50-60 thosunds they were all muslim man joining it for salary or to not pay taxes. Janissaries were celibate until retirement this changed in early 1500s so their children also enlisted and most janissaries became craftsman or businessman to pay for their families.
Devshirme also quite similar to roman system of taking children of barbarian nobles and making them roman. Skanderbeg,vlad are smilar to arminius in a sense of starting rebellion after learning from enemy.
Considering slavery was normal for middle ages i dont find it disgusting. I mean it is way better than other slaves like plantation slaves or average villager life in most sense which is lime 90% population. İf you are clever you may became strongest man of the state. I heart many bosnian muslims were voluntarily enlisting their children for better future. Turkic people historically used as slave soldiers by islamic states since 9th century and established so many states.
fogleth@reddit
I see you are turk, bet you look Slavic too
ConsequenceOutside38@reddit
You accused Balkan people of being racist. Here you are spewin racist shit.
justasikko@reddit
4000 years?
SOHONEYSAME@reddit
what, lol.
BonferronoBonferroni@reddit
yeah, more like 2,000 years and that’s if you count byzantium
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
If they just say "Look guy, you're Asian Muslims. You're foreigners for us, our ancestors had fought for centuries. This narrative of individuality of the crime and no racism in no circumstance is something we made up for one another. We support ourselves because we are we. And you are not from us." I'd say "Fine man, that's normal, everybody will defend their lineage and put their history on prestige"
But the thing is, the West is trying to establish moral superiority.
European countries (except Germany occupied at the end of World War II) have acknowledged the genocides they committed in the past only to the extent that it would not create obstacles for them in public opinion. For example, genocides committed in Christian African countries were acknowledged, but for example, the UK did not acknowledge the genocides committed in India. Why? Because Christian African countries are weak and powerless, but India has an increasing lobbying power in Western countries and has become very active communities in the UK and Canada. Official recognition of these genocides would give them political leverage that could be used against the UK in the future. Therefore, in order to engage in virtue signalling, they acknowledge crimes committed against weak nations and “repent”, but genocides that would put them in a difficult position are denied, just like Turkey does. Just as the UK denies the Indian genocide, France has never fully acknowledged the crimes committed in Algeria.
However, despite this, when I talk to an English or French person, I do not discriminate against them because of this. In addition, China is currently committing genocide against Turkic Uyghurs, and Russia has annexed many Turkic republics and historically committed major genocides against Tatars. But if someone I talk to tells me they are Chinese or Russian, I do not make a face and stop talking to them.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
Says a lot about Turks that you're in the Balkan sub and yet whining about what a French or English person will say about you. Some things never change, do they? Even this internationalist framework of comparing who did the worst evil is incredibly lame. What are you, the fucking UN? If someone from the Balkans brings up a historical grievance it's for nationalist reasons, not because abstractly they scrolled through every historical event and incorrectly decided Turks are guilty of the worst crimes.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"it's for nationalist reasons, not because abstractly they scrolled through every historical event and incorrectly decided Turks are guilty of the worst crimes."
Cool, I'll answer with my previous comments. My point here was the claim of objectivity, not people's personal motives.
"I love Ottoman Empire because I'm Turkish, just like I like myself because I'm myself. And Europeans like their history because they are Europeans.
No reason for not to agree on this relativeness."
Volaer@reddit
I mean neither do we? I am talking to you right now, and even visited Turkey and talked to Turks without making a face.
I do not hate all Turks and neither do the overwhelming majority of Europeans.
Lazy-Relationship-34@reddit
The Armenian Genocide is but a small part of the totality of displcements and persecutions that occured under the Ottoman Empire. I have never seen people speak of how over 10'000 people, including thousands of Jews, were deported, starved, thieved and murdered during the Jaffa 1917 deportations. There is a whole Wikipedia section dedicated to the Late Ottoman persecutions.
In my opinion, several of the '+'s from the Ottomans do not have a comparable equivalent in the Romans and several '-'ses vice versa. We cannot make premonitions such as 'Latin conquest would have been much worse' without significant historical evidence, and even then it would be hard. For all we know, had the Ottomans not toppled the Eastern Roman Empire, the two churches, Western and Eastern, could have been unified.
Yes, the Ottoman Empire did bring innovations of the likes Western Europe did not have. See ethnic community courts (e.g., Jewish courts) under the millet (taxation) system or autonomy over civil, and family matters (all for a price!). However, I do not agree that the average Armenian was wealthier than the average Muslim Turk. Historical accounts coming from Armenians, Jews, Greeks and so on lament of the burden and humiliation that Jizya was.
I will end it with this. I personally find it counterproductive to attempt to convince people that your country mistreated others' less than others did. Leave guesses for fortune tellers. Focus on what your country did do well, but don't pile all its evils on its last decades. Ethnic or faith based violence precedes its last decades. by centuries.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
The attrocities that the Ottoman Empire did commit in whole 19th century was a decade job for UK in India or Africa. They never apologized for India. Yet, the same critics aren't directed at them.
Lazy-Relationship-34@reddit
L in the chat for the British, too. Who said they're now worthy of criticism and scorn? This post is about the Ottomans though, and, as I said, it's counterproductive to convince people that you murdered less than others. Focus on what you did innovate and encourage to flourish (e.g., Ladino culture).
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
L for the British Empire for what? Being the most civilizing great power that ever existed? But oh no, the plight of the Indians... I wonder, would you rather visit India as a white person today or during the height of British power?
We should be thankful that such a humane and progressive power as the British Empire ever existed.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I'm also thankful for the Ottoman Empire for the plundering of Balkan gypsy lands.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
I mean the Ottomans didn't really plunder the Balkans. The extractive power of the Ottoman empire was largely eastward, while the Balkan territories actually saw significant financial investment and high-effort because they were trying to create a permanent position for themselves there and to impress Westerners.
So your attempt to trigger me is quite ineffectual. You chose to treat Christians well and treated your fellow Muslims badly, and ended up in a world where you're despised by Europeans and seen as Muslim and brown, and despised by Easterners for being a bully and a wannabe white Westerner.
You made the wrong choice, and now you're reaping the rewards, trapped between a hostile Europe, a hostile Israel, a hostile Russia, a hostile Iran, a hostile Caucasus, and hostile Gulf states. If I were mean, I could say I live to see the future Easterners have in store for you.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"You chose to treat Christians well and treated your fellow Muslims badly"
Not really, it is more about geography, Muslims of Levant were quiet prosperous and prestigious. They were even called "Kavm-i Necib" which meant "Noble Nation". Levant and North Africans were quiet happy under the Ottoman rule. Turks also, even though were poor and their revolts were bloodly supressed, they weren't at least subject to blood tax.
"I mean the Ottomans didn't really plunder the Balkans."
That shows Ottomans treated Balkans better than UK (Which you exalted) treated Africa and India.
"You made the wrong choice, and now you're reaping the rewards, trapped between a hostile Europe, a hostile Israel, a hostile Russia, a hostile Iran, a hostile Caucasus, and hostile Gulf states"
This really wasn't a choice these countries hate us because we ruled them as an external power, despite the fact that we never treated them like UK and France treated their subjects. No matter what we were going to do something like that was going to happen.
That's why I saidwe had to do Balkans what Umayyads had done to their subjects.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
"Happy" doesn't really mean anything. Studies also find that people who live in slums from third world shitholes tend to be happier on average than wealthy people from first world countries. Same with those in dictatorships versus those in many democracies. So it's not a good indicator of anything.
Unless you trying to say that the Easterners were allowed to live in a hands-off approach for the most part, which would be true, but I don't think that contradicts what I said in my original post about the Turkish obsession with the Balkans. And I'm almost certain that if we count atrocities done by the Turks within Europe and outside of Europe almost all the bad stuff will be non-Europeans, despite the grievances of Balkaners.
As to the part about countries hating you for ruling them as an external power... what are you even talking about? Plenty of countries get ruled by an external power and don't end up hating them. Do Japanese hate Americans? Do Koreans? Do Germans? Even with current mismanagement of the empire under Trump, these guys are still yearning for America to come back to normal so they can go back to loving them.
And regardless I never made the argument that these countries HATE Turkey. Hate is a meaningless emotion. I said they are geopolitically hostile, which actually means something and is actually dangerous. And I don't even think this is based in historical grievances. I wasn't pointing out Turkey's mistreatment of its subjects during Ottoman times as the cause, I pointed out that Turks tend to make disastrous decisions again and again, many of which have led to the present moment. It's an administrative critique, not a moral one.
Your failure isn't that you committed atrocities, or did bad things, or whatever. No serious person cares about shit like that. It's that you have been megalosers for centuries. You have no aura. You are not inspirational or aspirational. Again, losing Azerbaijan to Israel is a major red flag that shows how deep the problem goes.
At the end of the day, you could've raped Balkaners day and night and if Turkey had been the center of world power today with infinite wealth and the best universities and the most vibrant culture, everyone from the Balkans would say, "Hey, I'm kinda Turkish too, we were under Ottoman control." Because that's how this stuff actually works.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Lol cool.
Don't worry about us we will be fine.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
The goal of my post was
To show that people who say "We hate Turks for X" etc are actually trying to justify their racism, they hate Turks because Turks are Asian Muslim colonizers. When European nations did the same thing, they applauded them and if Turkey was Christiand and "Christianized" Middle East, today those "Human right defenders" would be sucking Turkish d****k.
So the point of my post was to display hypocrisy and racism especially to my people
Lazy-Relationship-34@reddit
I mean, for what it's worth, Romanians complain about Magyarization under Christian Hungary, too, although these are not comparable. Here's the bottom line. The Islamization of the Levant, Maghreb, and the Balkans was a violent historical process. Are there people in society who view the conquest of the New World, for example, more favorably simply because it was Christians doing the ransacking and murdering? Yes, but that is not the mainstream majority despite over exposure of this opinion online. Both chapters of history were brutal and bloody. And when you compare us, Hungary, who was aligned with Latin Christendom, was more advanced than Wallachia and Moldavia in more ways than I can list, while the territories that stayed under Ottoman rule remained in some ways backward by comparison. The Ottoman Empire was a tributary giant that treated its conquered lands as sources of revenue. It did not invest in anything beyond its heartlands. And humans will be humans.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
You realize Romania was like third world tier at the time you're talking about, right? It was to the Ottomans what Mexico is to Americans. Our serfs were treated in ways that were almost as bad as Russian serfdom (much worse than slavery by most historical comparisons, by the way). So, really, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you genuinely implying, even for a second, that the average Romanian was at the level of the average Ottoman subject like a Greek or Bulgar?
As to your example, of course no one feels the same way about the New World. Christians and Muslims have been interacting for centuries. They're people of the Book. There are certain customs and traditions that go beyond abstract moralizing. If I capture some Incan woman I can do whatever I want to her (complaints from wimpy priests notwithstanding). If I capture a Muslim woman, I have to treat her with a certain degree of respect or I'd face judgment from my own people and possibly hell. So it's not at all insane that people would be angrier about, say, what Ottomans did to Christians than what Christians did to Aztecs and Incas in the Americas. It's a completely different framework. Muslims aren't allowed to treat Christians in ways they treat, say, Zoroastrians. And they know this too.
This is like saying it's crazy to call Crusaders cruel because if we read accounts of what Comanches did they're much worse. Which is obviously unfair because Comanches operated purely on a friend/foe distinction. It didn't matter if you were white or just another native. If you were an enemy, they were going to cut off your body parts, torture and humiliate you in the most inhumane ways imaginable. It was a way of life, not them stepping out of their moral system to commit unspeakable acts of inhumanity for material reasons.
By comparison, the New World was made up of people that we'd largely describe as savages. The fact that the one empire everyone knows happened to be the one raiding villages just to sacrifice people in mass rituals probably doesn't help.
And for the record, I'm actually a big fan of the Aztecs (they were insanely cool) and modern Mexico (they still have a flair for killing that's just to die for), I'm just trying to point out that you're pointing out a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.
Fit-Medicine1583@reddit
Çok haklısın kardeşim. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu melekti demiyorsun zaten sadece yöneltilen nefrette adaletsizlik var diyorsun ama bu ikiyüzlülüler anlamıyor. O da sırf müslüman ülke olduğun için. Soykırım yapan milletlerden nefret etselerdi bu dünyada nefret etmeyecekleri birkaç ülke kalırdı sadece.
Lazy-Relationship-34@reddit
Also, from a sociological perspective, Romanians like to claim that our corruptibility began under the Ottomans. We'll usually cite words such as "bacșiș" (bahşiş) to get our point across. History may not even be that important when a specific image exists in a collective consciousness. Don't worrt, though. We have plenty more loanwords from Turkish that mean better things. Thanks.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"Romanians like to claim that our corruptibility began under the Ottomans"
bullshit.
Lazy-Relationship-34@reddit
It's just something we say, regardless of whether it is true or false.
puzzledpanther@reddit
Maybe if you didn't act like you were the victim all the time, you'd have time to interract with other people outside your usual information bubbles.
Anyone who has partly dabbled in reading history books, knows that the British Empire was by far the most brutal empire in history.
That doesn't make the Ottomans' balkan occupation and endless crap they did, any better though.
Hot-Stand7222@reddit
I love the people in this sub. They're anti-Ottoman simply because they're Balkan people. That's the only reason. They hate the empire that opened the way for them the most in history because even their state policies are based on it, lol. I really enjoy how they defend Rome, which has nothing to do with them, like legionaries. The fact that 95% of the people under the post have Bulgarian, Serbian, and Greek flair is another irony, lol.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
What do you mean Rome has nothing to do with them? Rome in the later centuries was a Balkan power, not an Italian power. Outside of Italians, most emperors were overwhelmingly of Balkan descent (though Romanized, obviously), and it's not close. Let's not even get into genetics and language.
As for the hate, well, I imagine it's more to do with Ottomans being Muslim and perceived as brown, so you are correct that it's irrational. But not gonna lie, a big part of it is also that the vast majority of Turks are larpy and that just comes across as pathetic to others. Despite all the power the Ottomans held for centuries, they still never had a real identity. A Turk is white and western and if he talks to someone from Germany, but he's Islamic and brown if he talks to a guy from Lebanon, and a based steppe chad and totally Asian and still remembers the ways of his ancestors if he talks to some Mongol. Today it's "We are the continuation of Rome," tomorrow it's "Yallah, we are the ones upholding the desires of the Prophet and keeping together the Islamic world!"
I actually like the Ottomans and Turkey a lot, but this fragmentation in self-perception has done a lot of damage. It's pathetic to do this even as an irrelevant country, but to do this as a great power? It's super lame and insecure. Like you can say other Balkaners do this too, but those ARE fragmented people with historical scars or relatively new countries. Turks just don't have an excuse. Like we're in 2026 and this is still happening.
Hot-Stand7222@reddit
I don't know who told you this, but nobody in Türkiye claims to be the continuation of Rome. Outside of Islamic circles, Turks mostly don't particularly like the Ottoman Empire (which I absolutely don't agree with). They generally prioritize Atatürk and the Republic, and say the Sultan exploited the people. I don't know who you spoke to, but the number of people in Türkiye who see themselves as heirs of Rome/Romans doesn't even reach 100. It's true that some people do this when they go to Europe, but generally, the reason is that the economic conditions in the country are very bad right now, and Turks who go there generally act like "good boys" to avoid being deported and returning to these bad conditions. And generally, this is unique to Europe. Believe me, even the most hardcore Islamist wouldn't say "We are also Arabs" in front of a Lebanese person. They would rather try to build a bridge through religious brotherhood.
As for the Balkan people's connection to Rome, origins aren't very important here because there was a very strong emphasis on Roman identity in Rome, and I don't think the average Roman emperor who ascended the throne in that era had much of a relationship with the Balkans. By that logic, you could easily turn the Ottoman Empire into a Balkan empire, just as you did with Rome. What I'm talking about here isn't genetic origin.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
I wasn't really referring to modern Turks only, it was a historical amalgam of the spirit of Turks. I don't think you'd deny that the early Ottomans absolutely saw themselves as the New Romans? Didn't Mehmet literally call himself Kayser-i Rum?
What I'm saying is that overall, the Turkish identity is much more fragmented and split than most people's. I don't think that's healthy. But I will concede to you that the average Turkish person just probably thinks of themselves as Turkish and is living their life and doesn't see anyone as familiar except fellow Turks or at most an Azeri. But you know I'm largely talking about intellectuals here, even pseuds like the ones you find on Reddit.
Also what you are saying about Rome is just factually incorrect. They not only had a relationship with the Balkans, they were born in the Balkans and ruled from the Balkans in almost every case. The equivalent would the Ottoman court moving to Egypt and ruling from there for several generations, with high-caste Egyptians completely giving up their identity and identifying exclusively as Ottoman. So you could never say the same for Ottomans, not even close.
They were not assimilationists. Fundamentally, the Porte didn't care if you didn't want to be Ottoman, if you didn't speak Turkish, or even if you rejected Islam. What they cared about is that you paid your taxes and didn't cause problems. A Christian Serb who despised Turks and wanted them dead and spit on the Qur'an but paid his taxes on time and had 0 chances of rebelling was more valuable than a devout Muslim who honored the Caliph but refused to pay his taxes because he thought they were too high.
Hot-Stand7222@reddit
II. Mehmed self-proclaimed title of "Kayser-i Rum" was purely a political maneuver. Considering that even the Russians called themselves Rome, this is certainly not a fantasy, is it? After all, he conquered the city that was the center of the Orthodox Church and inherited Rome's legacy. I don't understand your explanation of his claim to legitimacy as an identity crisis. A few people you see on Reddit are never enough to judge an entire nation. Every country has such types of people. And since Reddit users often post/comment using ragebait, it's even questionable whether they actually defend what you see.
Regarding your last point, as I said before, but I'll say it again: Rome based itself on citizenship, not any single nation. For me, it's equally wrong for Italians to claim Rome as their own. Because Rome encompassed many nations, and many of these nations had a say, for better or worse, in its governance, it could easily have been claimed by any European nation if desired. As I said, the issue here isn't genetics; the issue is the lack of a sense of national identity, especially among the Roman elite. This is the most important difference between the Ottomans and Rome. Because even during periods when the Ottomans distanced themselves most from Turkishness, they never denied their origins and always built a state tradition based on Turkish identity. This is also why today's Turks claim the Ottoman legacy. Because while Turkish was spoken in the Ottoman court, Latin was spoken in the Roman court. So, according to your logic, states like France, Spain, or Portugal, whose languages are based on Latin, deserve to claim Rome more.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
It doesn't matter if it's a political maneuver though. It is historical reality. In a different geopolitical world, where Turkey had infinite power, it could easily bring that back as a fact and use it to lay claim to various territories. Just because you think it's absurd doesn't erase the fact that in the right hands it can be weaponized. And I never said it was a fantasy. It's not about these things not being true. Again, my critique is that Turkish identity is largely unfinished and undefined.
And I disagree that a few people on Reddit aren't enough to judge a nation, because we are judging a specific slice of a nation to gain a general understanding of the whole. Realistically, you are not going to see a Frenchman be confused about his identity. No matter how much of a crazy schizo he is. He knows exactly what he is and what it means to be what he is. His divergences from another Frenchman will be in terms of outlook, but not on core identity. Two Turks born in the same city from the same class background might have completely different views on what it means to be Turkish. That's not normal and it's not desirable in any culture. I would fundamentally disagree that others have this issue. I think you're being dishonest if you deny that this is a Turkish issue, though not uniquely Turkish.
I mean I think what you're saying now differs from what you said before because I felt you were asking what does Rome have to do with the Balkans. You were making it sound like this was a periphery of the empire and that the influence was minimal, and I countered by explaining to you that it was most definitely not. Also, it's not that Rome based itself on citizenship, it's that it was assimilationist. A Roman wouldn't say you're a Roman just because you're a citizen if you don't speak Latin and refuse to pray to the gods. They'd fucking kill you, and they'd be right to do so. So saying it's based on citizenship is incorrect, citizenship was downstream of integration and assimilation.
You're not wrong with what you're saying about the Porte and the general attitude of the Sultans, but I consider those all faults. It was a wrong way of doing empire. The results speak for themselves.
Hot-Stand7222@reddit
I really don't understand what you mean by "Turkish identity" here. What exactly is that "determination" you see in a French person but not in a Turk? The average Turk sees himself as part of the Oghuz branch, descended from the Seljuks and later the Ottomans. Atatürk later grounded this in the concept of nationhood. In Türkiye, you rarely see a Turk deviate from this line, regardless of their ideology. Even those Turks who say "Saar we are Aryans" to the Westerners you mentioned don't deny their Turkish identity. Moreover, Anatolian Turks have a considerable genetic imprint of Anatolian civilizations. As I said, I don't know what kind of interpretation you saw that led you to this conclusion, but it's really strange that you're describing my own people to me based on a few Reddit comments and telling me I'm wrong.
You prove what I'm saying with what you said about Rome. Because when Rome assimilated, it didn't tell you to be Italian, Hellenic, Frankish, etc. It told you to be Roman. I hope you're not arguing that the concept of Roman identity is a national identity. Rome was perhaps the empire furthest removed from the concept of nationhood in history. Even Soviet Russia, which portrays itself as one of the greatest enemies of nationalism, couldn't detach itself from Russian reality. This is the reasoning behind my argument that it's wrong for Balkan nations to claim Rome as their own. Because, as you said, Rome was preoccupied with making its subjects Roman. Even though emperors proudly declared themselves Roman, how logical is it to impose Rome on the Balkans simply because they were of Balkan origin? Please, put your hand on your heart. What I'm saying isn't specifically that Balkan nations don't deserve to claim Rome as their own; it's that NO nation in the world deserves it right now.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
But I never said the Balkans should claim Rome as their own. I said there's a logical and historical foundation for why they claim it and its backed up by serious evidence, both genetic and cultural. This isn't to say that someone from the Balkans should say that they're Roman and that, I don't know, a Frenchman or whatever isn't. No one is claiming to be Roman. I just don't really know what you're trying to criticize anymore. I also don't see what this has to do with nationhood since that's a very late historical development.
Extremely high, because the Romanization was thorough and hit the bedrock. We're not talking about local officials groomed to positions of leadership, which would indeed be closer to what you're describing. There's obviously a huge difference between a Jew who is under Roman law, even if he speaks Latin, who isn't Romanized, and some Thracian who grew up speaking Latin and understands his identity as a fully Roman.
Maybe you just need to give more examples to make your point, because I don't really understand what you're getting at at all anymore. Are you saying it's not indigenuous?
Anyway to go back to the Turkish thing, no, I don't really think the description you gave of what Turks believe is really my experience with Turks I've spoken to online or encountered online in many places. I don't actually disagree with what you're describing as to what Turkish identity should be, my point is that you will see Turks who say Turkey should be an Islamic theocracy, or who deny their genetic makeup and pretend they're children of the steppe, or others who act like Islam was a total mistake and a stain on Turkish identity (similar to Persian Zoroastrian larping).
You can say that these are schizos and that they represent 0,1% of the population or whatever, and you're correct. My point is that these schizos are representative of something unresolved in the national psyche.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Ottomans transitioned into parliamentary democracy after 1876 Coup and allowed non-Muslim deputies from the Balkans to enter the parliament, all they got was separatist movement getting even more ardent.
Europe hates Turks because Turks are Turks. Even if 60% of Turkey was irreligious today, Turkey was an extremely democratic confederation like Swizerland with legal gay marriages and they apologized for the Ottoman past etc. They would still hate the Turks because Turks are Turks.
As Turks, we should act with this knowledge.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
To be fair, though, you kinda did it to yourselves. Turks saw a utility in bringing Islam home and making it theirs and using it as a weapon to dominate the Middle-East. You're not just an Islamic country, you made yourself THE Islamic country in the mental map of most Europeans. I discount Americans because many of them don't know history and might not even know Turkey was the center of Islamic power.
But anyway, what Ataturk did was never going to solve this and I think we can say in retrospect his decisions were naive and, frankly, stupid. Turkey was already seen as the ultimate Sunni state, and that wasn't something it was going to shake off. The smart thing to do was to take complete control of Sunni Islam and reform it to something modern, to defang it entirely. Instead Ataturk said, "lol FUCK Islam we're secular now" as if 99% of the country somehow represented his effete elite capital attitude.
The legacy is that Turks now have the worst of both worlds. Whatever any Muslim does, anywhere, most Europeans directly associate this with Turks mentally because that is our model of who Muslims are. And the lower you go in terms of education, the greater this effect is. I seriously doubt low-class Romanians, Serbs, etc. would even recognize there's a genetic difference between Turks and Saudis. To them you are all just MUSLIM, pejoratively. It's not a descriptor: it's a slur. Turk = Muslim = brown = bad. It's that simple.
But, because of what Ataturk did, Turks also have zero influence over other Sunnis, absolutely zero power to reshape or reform Islam. There is no caliph that can go out there and say the right things and score points for Islam politically and culturally, because Ataturk made sure no such person could ever exist ever again. Compare that to the Pope who, for all the criticism Catholism receives, typically manages to take the right position and to make Catholics look better by what he says.
I think the more time passes, the worse Ataturk will look.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"You're not just an Islamic country, you made yourself THE Islamic country in the mental map of most Europeans"
We're not an Islamic country since the reign of Abdulmejid and the opinions of other Muslims on us remained more or less the same. The Arab Revolt didn't have religious motives but instead it had a tribalistic goal.
Arab Revolt is mostly exaggerated by Turkish nationalist with 10% Central Asian dna looking Lebanese/Greek, larping as mongols and believe that they are different from other Middle Easterners, in order to justify their racism.
Arab Revolt started in 1916 with 30,000 rebels and ended up with 60,000 rebels. All of them were from Hejaz. Only tribe that command the revolt was Hashemites. Besides, most of them were tribes that will do anything to survive or bedouins wanna make some money. At that time Ottoman Army had more Arab soldiers than rebels.
Even though Cemal Pasha hanged a group of Syrians during WW1 with the suspicion of a revolt, no revolt took place there. If we exclude Hejaz, other Arab territories mostly remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire. Libya and Algeria was taken away from the Ottoman Empire by colonization. Libyans sided with us against the Italians and Senusi Family was very pro-Turkish. King Idris himself is a friend of Atatürk.
The smart thing to do was to take complete control of Sunni Islam and reform it to something modern, to defang it entirely. Instead Ataturk said, "lol FUCK Islam we're secular now" as if 99% of the country somehow represented his effete elite capital attitude.
All the punishments of Hudud, which means those who were supposed to be applied such as amputation for slavery etc. Were abolished by Sultan Abdulmejid and North Africa, Iraq and Levant remained loyal to the empire.
"Whatever any Muslim does, anywhere, most Europeans directly associate this with Turks mentally because that is our model of who Muslims are"
I live in Western Europe for 7 years and published my article on Anti-Turkism in West Europe in Turkish subreddits and I can confidently say no, in Europe, Islam is associated with the Arabs and Turks are seen something like Arabs. But linguistically it is associated with Arabness not Turkness and the fact that Turks are seen as Arabs doesnt't change it
low-class Romanians, Serbs, etc. would even recognize there's a genetic difference between Turks and Saudis. To them you are all just MUSLIM, pejoratively. It's not a descriptor: it's a slur. Turk = Muslim = brown = bad. It's that simple.
Not my problem.
But, because of what Ataturk did, Turks also have zero influence over other Sunnis, absolutely zero power to reshape or reform Islam.
Both Gamal Abdelnasser and Anwar Sadat took their names from the 3 racist, secular Ottoman Pashas. The rhetoric of the Gamal Abdelnasser who claimed that Secularism is Halal is directly a copy from Atatürk. Muslims in Southeast Asia, especially Muhammed Ali Jinnah and Emanullah Khan of Afghanistan were Atatürk's greaters admirers at that time. And today, if we exclude Kurds, some Bangladeshis and Gulf Arabs, 90% Sunni Muslims still see Turkey as a leading power.
I think the more time passes, the worse Ataturk will look.
On the contrary, Atatürk was seen negatively among Northern Africa, but with the process of Secularization that took place in Northern Africa he is perceived more positively. More secular the further generations become, more positively his reputation will get. Morocco overthrew their Islamist party by elections, Egypt and Sudan also have a mostly secular youth.
Hot-Stand7222@reddit
Abicim tamamen kuyruk acısı. Bunlara bizim verdiğimiz imkanı veren hiç kimse yok hala ağlıyorlar. Tarihlerindeki en büyük olay da 4-5 devlet birden birleşip bizi yenmek ha. O yüzden bunlara kalkıp bir şey açıklama zahmetine girişme. Dediğim gibi flairlerine bak zaten kuyruk acısını çok net anlarsın
SwimmingAttention133@reddit
you see, the dates and the religion make all the difference. You are comparing 117 ad to 1683 ad
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Still doesn't change the fact that Ottoman Empire could have Islamize all Balkans but didn't do it.
SwimmingAttention133@reddit
Sure but if the non believers are paying you more why would you make them believers ?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Yes, this way of thinking bringing it to collapse and nobody in Balkans is greatful for it in the first place.
BarskiPatzow@reddit
Grateful for what?
CommunicationTop8777@reddit
For civilizing you.
BarskiPatzow@reddit
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, good one.
CommunicationTop8777@reddit
Sorry, it's just history.
BarskiPatzow@reddit
Sure, just like Peter Pan.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
What I mean is. We intentionally didn't do Balkans what Umayyads did to Iberia, and those we let be at that time became our enemies. If we did what Umayyads did, Ottoman Empire wouldn't collapse, or at least in this manner.
Green_Money_7688@reddit
hahahha so you are saying just because Ottomans were gentle we even got our freedom. And if they were crueler we wouldn't. I mean apart from being an opinion fit for an 8-year old its just not true. When the Ottoman empire was at the height of its power and more administratevely capable after every single revolt a more 'gentle' approach to the rayah was implemented because it worked it would calm revolts. Once they lost control of the jannissaries, once the economic and administrative power of thr empire started fading that is when it started collapsing especially because of the cruelties of the rogue elements in the 19th century like the janissaries and those cruelties were a great motivator for people to revolt not the opposite.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
That's why I said we had to apply the policies of Umayyads on Balkans as soon as we captured the region.
Green_Money_7688@reddit
you don't know English well enough obviously. I just explained the opposite. Because the Ottomans were 'gentle' that is why they were able to rule and control such vast territories for so long. When it all started falling apart it was because of uncontrolled cruelties by the janissaries, because of corruption and loss of control for Istanbul. Your idea is idiotic and not how history or societies function
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Arabs with a much lower population against big and more civilized nations, managed to do all what they have done. We should have be like them.
Green_Money_7688@reddit
correction then, you and your idea are idiotic
maniiiicc@reddit
They didn't do it because of the kindness of their hearts buddy
wantmywings@reddit
Because we fucking hate the Ottomans.
CommunicationTop8777@reddit
"We"?
Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians hate them because it's their basic nation-building myth, which is understandable.
But Albanians hate Ottomans because they are ashamed of being cucks of every empire from the time of Adam to today.
So it's not really the same, you can't say "we".
Figliodelfiordisale@reddit
A poorly treated theme in history is the situation of the Arbëreshë.
After the Ottoman conquest many Albanians Left Albania to immigrate to Italy and avoid Muslim rule. The Kingdom of Naples had a policy of helping them to migrate. The former princely house of Albania continued its existence as dukes in Italy and fostered Albanian immigration.
This migration was numerically extremely significant, as much as a quarter l of the Albanian population in the span of two centuries left Albania for Italy.
Still this day after five hundred years of living among Italians there are one hundred thousand speakers of italo-Albanian
wantmywings@reddit
No, I absolutely can because my family was Catholic and lived under their oppressive bullshit for years. I can also say “we” because plenty of Albanians rose up constantly throughout the duration of the Ottoman Empire to revolt.
So I can say “we” and you can kiss my ass.
juju515@reddit
Based
also Turks == Ottomans
campkoocout@reddit
Why would anyone be grateful that Turks exist let alone that they tried to do some “nation building” in our regions?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
At least mention that we could do what Umayyads do in Levant, Iran and Northern Africa but we didn't.
CataVlad21@reddit
If ottomans could, they would. They were defeated plenty of times in many places, stop acting like they were that omnipotent!
Also, including yourself in the matter is kinda delulu. You're just a citizen of the succesor state, not a member of that empire!
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Ottomans had barracks in every single region of Balkans, they could simply force people in every village to repeat the Shahadah and massacre those who didn't obey. But they didn't because they paid jizyah (tax) for being non Muslims. That's why their took the children to be Muslims but didn't touch the locals as long as they don't revolt.
I know, but the thing is those who are anti-Ottoman are just Anti-Turkish but they hide their real opinions for not being obvious with their racism, it isn't political, it is 21st century racism as it is.
Chicken_Nuggy_@reddit
No, you are wrong on this one. True balakns don't hide their racism for ottomans or Turks. We just fucking hate you regardless. And most of the time there's no real reason, I know people that hate y'all just for the fuck of it
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I know that too. My problem is with the people who constantly search for a reason to justify theirselves.
They say "Oh we hate them because they are undemocratic because they didn't apologize for Armenian Genocide etc" even if Turkey was as democratic as Switzerland and apologized for the Armenian Genocid, nothing would change.
So let's just stop wasting the energy of each other and keep a moral masturbation.
I wrote this article and posted on Turkey subreddit, to enlighten people about the racism against the Turks. You can translate it with chatgpt or somethin if you want. I want to wake my nation up, I do this for them, not for myself.
WasiX23@reddit
Hopefully we don't asked the Armenians about that.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Did we Islamize whole Armenian nation like Umayyad did to Persia?
WasiX23@reddit
Wiping out 60-80% of the Armenias who lived in the empire.....
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I know it's literally on the meme
OnlyZac@reddit
Wow thanks
cobrachicken26@reddit
They didn't pay more though, what they paid in Jizya was roughly equivalent to what Muslims paid in Zakat.
TurkmenTT@reddit
You are absolutely right ottoman should have steal all non believers money and wealth like Latin did before.
Ok-Computer-5415@reddit
Umayyad empire both forcefully converted and taken taxes. Ottomans had better tech it would be much easier
Chicken_Nuggy_@reddit
Have read most of this comment section and came back just to say, what? So you expect us Balkans to not hate you because it could be worse? Like yea, you may have completely fucked any and all development in the most prominent parts of Europe(speaking for very early ottoman-balkan history), but at least it wasn't worse. Similar to "yea you may have utterly crippled the shit out of me and left me in complete misery, struggling to choose if I want to keep on living or just kill myself, but at least you didn't kill me directly!". Much sense you make
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Not exactly, but the ones we did spare became our most ardent enemies. So if we did what Umayyads did to Iberia to Balkans, that'd be better for us.
Chicken_Nuggy_@reddit
Yeah sure. So ottomans really were stupid AF? Or self destructing? You make a good argument in the fact that most people hate some civilizations for doing some things but don't hate other ones that did the same or worse. I agree. I myself find the mongol empire very interesting. But picking what context you give and generally thinking "we were better, so it's fine" although you did same with less intensity, is really stupid. Also, modern Turks, or at least the nationalists( which is natural, the same shit goes on in every country) and the government are pretty shitty themselves. So there are arguments to hate on Turks still, the problem is generalisation that every Turk is the same. Exactly as you do when you say that Europeans are racists. Ha, would you look at that🤔
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"modern Turks, or at least the nationalists( which is natural, the same shit goes on in every country) and the government are pretty shitty themselves"
"So there are arguments to hate on Turks still, the problem is generalisation that every Turk is the same"
You just said that tha hate is regardless, so no point on that explanation, the inverse situation would change nothing. Even if Turks today were like Swiss, your emotions would remain the same.
"although you did same with less intensity"
We had barracks in every single region of the Balkans, we could visit every single village, put overseers there, force people to repeat the Shahadah to become Muslims and suppress those who resist. Hajjaj e Zaleem, an Arab governor literally cut the tongues of subjects who didn't speak Arabic. We could do these too, or we could just apply the UK-France treatment on Africa collect every single healthy person from Balkans and used them as workers (Devshirme was used to collect children to educate them being slave soldiers, UK-France took every single person from that region to be used as workers, liberty was 0).
If we had done all these, that'd be better for us.
"So ottomans really were stupid AF? Or self destructing?"
They sacrificed tomorrow for today. They didn't do what other successful empires do. It is now history, as Turks, we move on. Today the old days aren't really a topic in our day to day life.
Chicken_Nuggy_@reddit
There you go again. "Yea, we did a lot of horrible things, more than worthy for almost the whole world to hate, but you should be grateful and don't hate, because if we were smarter we could have made it worse". What do you want Balkans to do? Thank you?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Of course not, I just said in my previous commentaries
"Not exactly, but the ones we did spare became our most ardent enemies. So if we did what Umayyads did to Iberia to Balkans, that'd be better for us."
It was the fault of the Ottomans to not applying the same policies on you as Umayyads had done to their subjects. They created this situation by sacrificing tomorrow for the sake of taking more taxes.
But anyways, it is history. Too late for all that.
Chicken_Nuggy_@reddit
Well, it's the same with every empire. They get too greedy and get a kick in the balls, or a lot. And it is history. But that doesn't give any justification that Balkans shouldn't hate Turks. And most young normal(not nationalist) people don't really hate Turks that much because of the ottomans. But as I said already, there are other reasons to hate turkey as a country, not its younger populace tho
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I don't accuse people for hating somebody, it is free will.
I just don't respect people who say "Racism is bad, people are accountable for their own actions, not their ancestors'" etc then say "We're justified to hate Turks" those just don't go together. It makes you a hypocrite.
You ever heard about the Revival Process that took place from 1985 to 1989 in Bulgaria. Many Turks were put in Belene Camp for refusing to use their Bulgarian name given by the state and use their real Turkish name instead, many people got executed for nothing. 2 of my relatives were killed and their corpses were thrown into a pithole around a pig farm in Northern Bulgaria.
My mother's aunt, literally visited the headquarters of Bulgarian Communist Party in Sofia and begged to Todor Zhivkov for pardon and she got beaten up by the bodyguards in front of her children. They sent her, her husband's bloody prisoner uniform. After her husband got executed she committed suicide, by explosing her head with a rifle. Her brain was exposed, spread everywhere in that room and my mother had to see it when she was 6. My mother's uncle was acquitted in 1990s.
Today's politicians including Rumen Radev and Boyko Borisov who ruled country for a long time were all members of this regime, Boyko Borisov was literally the bodyguard of Zhivkov. Today, Zhivkov's posters are put in many Bulgarian villages, he was acquitted after he died, and he was put in house imprisonment, he gave interviews to TV and displayed as a hero.
I know you have 0 empathy with these people just because they are Turkish. You're a Balkaner and a European. You can't expect from a cat to bark or a mouse to fly, it is in your nature. This is your own mind and I'm in no position to intervene. But still, tbh, I don't hate Bulgarians, when I meet a Bulgarian I don't tell them "Uhuhhu genocide genocide it is justified that I hate yu uhuhuhu monster rrr we're justified rrr monsters". Idk many factors can play a role.
Long story short, hate who you want but don't expect me to respect you when you say "I'm not racist, racism is bad" then say "It is justified that I'm racist towards a population of 100 millions today because of their identity" as you stated here "True balakns don't hide their racism for ottomans or Turks. We just fucking hate you regardless. And most of the time there's no real reason, I know people that hate y'all just for the fuck of it" those are just inconsistent and I don't respect inconsistent people. When I see for example a person that says "Men and women are equal, no to sexism!" then the same person says "Man are trash!" this disgusts me. Not his/her opinions etc, not his/her hate towards a group but his/her hypocrisy disgusts me.
Chicken_Nuggy_@reddit
Followed by a true comment of mine saying I am racist (although I do think it's bad) on Turks. Lol. Good going! But I do agree with you on sexism, while it is true that women are still oppressed in a lot of countries/environments, asking for double standards then trying to come on top really is disgusting. Not just the hypocrisy. This way they keep on recreating the hate in men for women, and vice versa
Critical_Parking_671@reddit
You couldn't do it as you were leaching taxes from them... Get out of here.
Ottoman empire was backwards and decrepit.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Arabs Islamized Iran and Iberia with less population and took their taxes at the same time.
Critical_Parking_671@reddit
People went from living in stone and marble houses of byzantium to mudhuts.
When the Christian had a poor harvest and the head of the household couldn't afford to pay the taxes, you'd imprison them causing the rest of the family to starve to death.
90% of these taxes when to constaninople to pay for fat mehmet with his enslaved sex slaves. Unlike European cities that reinvested.
Look at towns in south Italy Vs Greece. Embarrassing.
The most hilarious fact is that the ottomans didn't found a single city.
That tells you all you need to know
THELEADERPLAYER@reddit
Holy shit the Turkophobia is so blatant that it's sounding like satire.
Yes, the other guy is saying that the Ottomans could have converted the Balkans and still collect their taxes. Can you not read?
As opposed to progressive empires who didn’t collect taxes. Fucking lmao.
What? Like this sentence doesn’t even make any sense. Nobody in the Balkans converted except the Bosnians. Even then, what does that have to do with the current population? I'm sorry I'm struggling to take this seriously at this point.
Evidently, the Ottomans didn’t run out of Christians lmao. Enlaslaving the Sudanese? Are you confusing the Turks with the Europeans? The influence of the Ottoman Empire in Sudan never went beyond the local sultan paying lip service to the emperor.
You have absolutely no idea what the medieval times were like in Europe don’t you? Sure everyone was living lavishly in marble palaces with gold decorated walls and silver cutlery, until the Ottomans came and forced everyone to live in mudhuts. Poverty is actually a Turkish invention.
That sounds terribly counterproductive for an empire that loved it's taxes so much don’t you think? Who do you tax after everyone is dead? The trees?
Oh the European civilization, famously without it's aristocracy and feudalism. The Turks don’t want you to know this but the Europeans actually went to the moon in the medieval ages by inventing capitalism in the 1300s.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Cool, so this is development. That means when a developped nation does cruelties, it isn't worth mentionning. This argument also gives us a potential legitimacy, if one day we become a prosperous nation like Greco-Romans, that means we can invade your country and do what Romans did and we'd be cool?
Critical_Parking_671@reddit
When it came to Hellenism, people wanted to be greek like you want to be western. It was progression. It was civilisation.
I cannot begin to understand how the ottomans didn't found a single city. It's actually shocking. Alexander the great alone founded 12+.
That is the ultimate evidence of the difference in mindset of ottomans vs Romans
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I said cool! So if one day Turkey becomes civilized like Hellens that means we can invade your country and do what Romans did and we'd be cool?
Critical_Parking_671@reddit
If you're more civilised than the nation you invade and lead to collective progression. So be it.
Strabo, plutarch, Galen..... Roman era Greeks who were peak human.
But rather the ottomans made their territories backwards......
If turkey comes and gives us flying cars, live to 200 years. Etc . Let's do it.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
It is so cool to have neighbors who are okay to get colonized and receive Roman treatment as long as their colonizers are developped nations. Might use that one day.
Sea-Warning-8526@reddit
Thats the thing, they tried with force AND couldnt do it. Because the state structure is too weak for anything else than killing people.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
They didn't. Blood Tax was done for taking the Muslims to the capital, not Islamizing the locals.
Jayres12@reddit
Then we'd all just be like Bosnians lol
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Arab Revolt is mostly exaggerated by Turkish nationalist with 10% Central Asian dna looking Lebanese/Greek, larping as mongols and believe that they are different from other Middle Easterners, in order to justify their racism.
Arab Revolt started in 1916 with 30,000 rebels, all of them were from Hejaz. Only tribe that command the revolt was Hashemites. Besides, most of them were tribes that will do anything to survive or bedouins wanna make some money.
Even though Cemal Pasha hanged a group of Syrians during WW1 with the suspicion of a revolt, no revolt took place there. If we exclude Hejaz, other Arab territories mostly remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire. Libya and Algeria was taken away from the Ottoman Empire by colonization. Libyans sided with us against the Italians and Senusi Family was very pro-Turkish. King Idris himself is a friend of Atatürk.
khmelnitsk@reddit
Not all
RedEggBurns@reddit
What exactly does 1683 ad change when even western europe was not as tolerant of other religions (especially judaism) as the ottoman empire?
fogleth@reddit
One despicable word Devshirme. Don't try to sugar coat a disgusting rule.
RedEggBurns@reddit
I am not defending devshirme. But what was the alternative in Europe? Feel free to tell us, since my comment is also a comparsion.
fogleth@reddit
You are damn sure sugar coating it, we are referring to a map that is a direct result of the ottoman rule and this is just one freaking example. Nothing can wash the Devshirme and the oppression my ancestors lived in. Even in 1930 video of Skopje 20 years after the Pusto Tursko you can see how devasted Skopje looked. Nothing build no meaningful infrastructre NOTHING. Go to Novi Sad or Subotica or any bigger city in Croatia and Slovenia to see Austro Hungarian rule. People had the right to create to be cultured to think in their own language. EVERYTHING the Ottoman failed and never intended to do. So yeah fuck the Ottomans very much.
kureysalp@reddit
Yeah boo-hoo they made you left your peasent village and got you quality education and got place in the palace.
RedEggBurns@reddit
I already told you that I am not sugar coating it. All I am saying is that the Ottoman Empire was more tolerant than western Europe, which is objectively true, because even though Devshirme existed, you were still free to practice your religion.
Meanwhile, as I already mentioned, in Europe there was a 90% chance you would be executed for being anything but a Christian. You would also be executed if you were the wrong denomination of Christian or held heretical beliefs. That is in the year 1400 to 1700. So stop telling me about Austria-Hungary or 1930, or whatever. We are not talking about the modern world.
But if you wanna talk about it I am open to it as well. Skopje was behind Novi Sad and Subotica because the Ottoman Empire was behind in industrialization. Every part of the Ottoman Empire except maybe Istanbul was, and Skopje was still in a better spot than Anatolia.
Also, its funny that you think that Austria-Hungaryconsistently allowed full cultural and linguistic freedom... because that is not the case.
Maybe start being objective instead of nationalistic.
Active-Radish2813@reddit
It was on par with or better than the other powers of Europe at the same time.
Ottoman Hungary had a thriving Protestant population - Austrian Hungary become mono-religious.
There is no Balkan or Middle Eastern parallel to the European Wars of Religion.
fogleth@reddit
Devshirme.
Active-Radish2813@reddit
Religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire had a higher chance of their sons taken to be slave soldiers and a considerably lower chance of annihilation and forced conversion.
This is all bad, but it's silly to ignore, deny, or diminish either of these facts, or to evaluate any historical entity by anything but the standards of its day.
Glad_Seat_6287@reddit
Most of critique of Ottoman empire comes from what they did in 19-20th centuries too. I dont think anyone really criticized them for things which happened before that.
zaarius@reddit
Ottotards everywhere.
All and every empires were and are evil things built on tears and suffering of people. And Rome wasn't exception. But people love Roman Empire for its contributions to the progress and development of human civilization and not it misdeeds.
The Ottoman Empire for most of its history was the most backward power in Europe. Their biggest and the best legacy is turkish cuisine. And it is well received and respected everywhere.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"The Ottoman Empire for most of its history was the most backward power in Europe"
If the Ottoman Empire treated the Balkans the same way UK treated African Colonies and India, it wouldn't collapse same way. It was way more human then France and UK.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
The only reason they didn't do that was because they couldn't. The situations are completely different. How the fuck can you even compare the two?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Umayyads did Islamize and Arabize regions that were more civilized and populated than Balkan nations by force with a population lower than the Ottoman Turks. Ottoman Empire had to done the same thing but they sacrificed tomorrow to take some taxes.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
What does that have to do with you comparing the Balkans to India and African colonies? One is oldschool imperialism, the other is colonization, they work in different ways.
zaarius@reddit
I am pretty sure that slavery in the Ottoman Empire started earlier and lasted longer. So, in this case we can see it as their significant contribution to the development of slavery in Europe.
Who, when and where was the worst is very debatable. And again it's misdeed not a contribution.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
One must be very irrational to believe that X empire is more evil than Y because it done slavery longer while Y Empire colonized a subcontinent and eradicated a very big proportion of it's population and has most of it's treasure from the resources that he plundered from Africa
ZestycloseHat4990@reddit
1)The whole premise is cherry picked and false. 2)I've never seen italians online claiming some stuff didn't happened
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Even if all the Turks accepted the Armenian and Assyrian genocides and the state officially apologized, public opinion on Turks in Europe wouldn't change a bit.
juju515@reddit
Based Europe
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
And this comment will be upvoted, the same people will lecture us about how bad racism is.
This is why we Turks shoul bare in mind, everything is interest, there is no morality or consistancy in diplomacy.
PotentialBass3073@reddit
oh nooo poor turks enduring racism wah wah wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
Overgeneralizing "the others" (aka non Turks, "THE west", "Europe") about how bad "they" are in lecturing "you Turks" about racism is as bad as generalizing that all Turks are chauvinistic assholes, that, as a matter of fact, I know that it it isn't true (and that's something I really appreciate about Turkey)
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I wrote "public opinion on Turks in Europe wouldn't change a bit" guy said "Based Europe" which means Europeans are right, even though Turks be exactly how they want them to be, they still deserve hate.
And I wrote "the same people will lecture us about how bad racism is" meaning him (who replied with a "lol") and those who upvote comments like that would also say racism is bad that the same time.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
And the moderation deleted the comment of Similar-Speech2371 while letting the comment who said Europe is based for being racist towards Turkish people in any circumstances.
Peak European civilization, racism was bad right guys? Every person was accountable for their actions right?
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
Yeah, fuck him and the rest of the trolls, that's what I mean
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
If you're a non-racist European, my respect and best wishes to you bro!
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
I'm a southern European/Mediterranean, that includes for me Turks as well, we have definitely more in common than with Scandinavians, therefore I always jump up talking about this abstract "Europe" or "THE West": they are existing entities to some degrees in some contexts, can't deny it, but abstract and definitely not monoliths in other context, and differences and nuances get sadly too often ignored in a lot of discourses. Peace out arkadaşım
juju515@reddit
lol
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
Not so sure about that
BoratSagdieev@reddit
Yea cuz west europe is just racist. But turkey shouldnt accept those genocides to suck up to westerners thatd bs. It should be done for them and towards armenians and assyrians
RoastMary@reddit
Turkey cant just accept any genocide claims because genocide comes with a big payment to the victims. Also the ethnic cleansing of armenians needs to go through a comission to be accepted as a genocide per UN. And I dont think it will be. There were almost no central authority on the ethnic cleansing of armenians unlike in the genocides happened in germany or rwanda.
The real problem is people neglecting the fact that it was how a nationstate was built in the 19th century. Every single country that came out in these regions made a bunch of ethnic cleansings in their territories. It happened in 1880s in the levant. It happened in 1900s in the balkans. It also happened in 1910s in the caucassus.
The most ethnically cleansed populations at the end of the ottoman empire is turks and serbians. Anyone doubting that can just search how many turks and serbs were living in the balkans before 1900 and after 1980. And neither is and should be considered genocides because they are ethnic cleansings with the target of creating a homogenous nationstate rather than a centralized plot to kill as much of a certain population who cant really defend themselves. They are terrible and should be talked about, yes. But they are not genocides per UN definition.
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
Depends depends depends, I'm from Italy and I can assure u there's a general whitewashing in the colonial past of Italy for example, or during the WWII, because bad bad Germans and italiani brava gente. After all, how could pizza and gelato makers commit war crimes? Nevertheless I do agree the whole premise is cherry picking here, like as if everything's black and white (only good/only bad) anyways
Jayres12@reddit
JacobFerret@reddit
What were the literacy rates in the whole empire? This is not about the way they treated the minorities, it is about how the Ottoman Empire was a failing state that failed to innovate because of many reasons
When the republic was founded (103 years ago today actually), the literacy rate was below 10% in men and negligible in woman in Turkey
SnooLentils726@reddit
While this map might resemble the Ottoman-Austro-Hungarian border, we can't simply attribute the high illiteracy rate in Yugoslavia to the Ottomans. The Ottomans lost Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1878, and the rest in 1912. During this period, millions of native Muslims were either massacred or forced to migrate to safer areas. The Balkans were devastated by World War I, and Serbia lost over 60% of its male population. Considering that women were just beginning to gain their rights at that time, this was a major blow to literacy. The Ottomans used the Arabic alphabet, but since Yugoslavia used both Latin and Cyrillic alphabets, those who could read and write in the Arabic alphabet were not considered literate. I could give a few more pieces of evidence, but I think I've made my point.
tipoftheiceberg1234@reddit
Oh my god I hate this argument so much because of how bad and self contradictory it is.
A very small amount of MUSLIM people knew how to read Arabic. Most of them didn’t know how to read anything and the ones who did knew Latin first, then Cyrillic and then Arabic. And of those who read Arabic it was mostly used for the Quran. Bosniaks (Muslims) were not mailing each other back and forth using arabica.
So why are central Serbia and Macedonia equally as illiterate as Bosnia if Cyrillic was counted towards literacy while Arabia wasn’t? It’s because they were equally illiterate. Piss off with this fucking revisionist propaganda history that emerged from a comment on Reddit made 8 years ago. Like fuck off with the bullshit holy shit
notBornIn_eighties@reddit
You can always add more "buts". I'll ignore your personal opinion on what people were able to read/reading.
If you look across Europe in the early 20th century, literacy rates were far from uniform. Russia, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and much of the Hungarian half of Austria-Hungary had relatively low literacy rates compared with the more literate parts of northwestern and central Europe. In much of Europe, literacy rose sharply during the 19th century, whereas the Ottoman Empire, despite some late reforms, did not keep pace with that broader trend.
I'm not here to argue for either side, but reducing complex historical contexts to a single map or angry rants does not constitute an honest argument.
Divisive_Ass@reddit
You know what is funny? The most tresured thing that bosnian muslim can have is ancestor recorded in C. Chruch archive as convert.
SnooLentils726@reddit
What are you trying to say?
fogleth@reddit
There are only converted Muslims. The natives where not native. It was forced assimilation and a disgusting and horrible Dervishme system. You can shove your point directly in the rectum.
Successful-Weight-44@reddit
Perfect slap 👍 into face for a biased question to OP.
Beautiful_Limit_2719@reddit
Sapienti sat
AlbanianCatholic@reddit
Good response.
PotentialBass3073@reddit
Did you forget to mention that they are 1000 years apart? This is such an unfair and stupid comparison. The last genocide the Ottomans committed was in 1917 (just 100 years ago). Can Turkish people ever talk about anything else other than Greece and their stupid empire?? This sub is filled to the brim with angry Turks
NoItem5389@reddit
When all your former imperial states view you negatively, obviously your empire wasn’t as glamorous as you think it is..
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Only non former Imperial states view us negatively
ArkHystory99@reddit
I think albanians don't have a good opinion of the Ottoman Empire, and rightfully so.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
They are not majority muslim.
Most North Africans, Palestinians and Syrians hold positive opinions on Turkey.
Heavy-Literature-298@reddit
Bro, Turkey and Ottoman Empire ain't the same thing. It's like saying The First Bulgarian Empire and modern-day Republic of Bulgaria are the same thing.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Most North Africans, Palestinians and Syrians hold positive opinions on Turkey and the Ottoman Empire*
Bro, Turkey and Ottoman Empire ain't the same thing. It's like saying The First Bulgarian Empire and modern-day Republic of Bulgaria are the same thing
Technically you are right. But those who claim to be Anti-Ottoman are just Anti-Turkish and they use it as an excuse to hide their racism.
funfacts_82@reddit
Mulsim former Imperial states are shitholes almost exclusively if they dont have access to oil. There is really no comparison between Romans and Ottomans. Even if we agree that both committed atrocities the romans are far, far, far more civilized and for more net positive for human civilization. Thats not even debatable.
Haferflocke2020@reddit
And what does this tell you?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
If we made Balkans Muslim like Umayyads have done to Iberia, Ottomans probably wouldn't collapse or wouldn't be that much hated.
Haferflocke2020@reddit
Bosniaks turned to Islam and even them kicked you out!
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"Ottomans probably wouldn't collapse or wouldn't be that much hated"
This is what I said. Maybe the Empire could still collapse, but wouldn't be much hated.
And yes, you kicked us out then got ethnically cleansed by Serbs. Many Turks went to Bosnia in busses to join the Bosinan resistance. Also joined in the Coalition that liberated Bosnia from Serb oppression.
Same was done in Kosovo
WasiX23@reddit
You mean like Morocco and Spain are best friends after the years of muslim oppression?
The big difference is, that the Umayyadas mostly oppressed their own people and didn't went into foreign cultures like the christian Europe.
NoItem5389@reddit
No Arabs hate Turks lol
Glad_Seat_6287@reddit
Rome collapsed a long time ago. Some of us have great grandparents or even grandparents that are born into newly formed states after collapse of Ottoman empire. So of course for people like this, the wounds are still fresh about things that happened. But in 1,000 years it will probably not be as important.
Figliodelfiordisale@reddit
Historical records shows that people in the Roman -barbaric kingdoms generally liked the Roman empire
RoxLOLZ@reddit
Dont ask them about the Blood Tax (Devshirme)
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Devshirme was practiced for 3 centuries though, when Murad III allowed Turks to become janissaries, devshirmes became a minority. When Ahmed III wanted to restore Devshirme System he got almost ousted by the palace bureaucrats.
Heavy-Literature-298@reddit
Oh, ONLY three HUNDRED years! C'mon bro!! And that was far from the only atrocity commited by the Ottomans (not saying the Romans or many others weren't cruel, but defending blood tax is just insane)
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I don't defend blood tax at all. What I'm saying is Ottoman Empire didn't treat Balkans like UK treated Africa and India.
spallettioutista@reddit
Romans was very cruel against the other italic peoples, in Venosa (Basilicata) they captured all male inhabitants, cut head to all of them and taked one head up a spar every miles on the road to Rome
Hot-Stand7222@reddit
As someone who studied Roman history for three years, I can say that no empire in history has ever reached the level of Roman cruelty.
spallettioutista@reddit
My "tier list" of most cruel empires in history: 1) aztech, 2) Belgium, 3) Rome, 4) mongolians, 5) Japan, 6) nazi Germany, 7) UK, 8) ottomans, 9) Spain, 10) France
Hot-Stand7222@reddit
How can Spain and France be behind the Ottoman Empire on this list? lol
Vtmasquerade@reddit
Being butthurt and Turkofobia.
Fun_Law_6148@reddit
“turkophobia”
Inimenevist@reddit
How can you just sum it up to Turkophobia?
Vtmasquerade@reddit
Native people lived under Turkish control = speaking their own language, still have their own culture, free to practiced their own religion, they had their own representative leaders in the parliament, they could own property and land, do business freely.
Native people lived under Spain and France control = assimilated, killed, pillaged, native languages died, Christianized, religious figures didn’t consider them human. Can’t own shit.
Ottoman is worse than these 2 for some reason?
Nutriaphaganax@reddit
The Spanish literally made the grammar of the indigenous languages, and they were very extended until the independence. Also, religious figures did consider them human, that's why they wanted to convert them in the first place. If they hadn't been considered humans, they wouldn't have been converted
xlrcab@reddit
That's not the defense you think it is, mate
micahhurley@reddit
Yes it is? Bartolomeo de las Casas, Hidalgo? The Jesuits? You out of touch if you aren't aware of these being some of the first people that devoted their lives to human rights, moron.
Inimenevist@reddit
I never disputed your claim about the rankings. Just how you set the reason as Turkophobia
Nutriaphaganax@reddit
I know that I'm biased, but the Spanish empire didn't do a genocide against indigenous people. There was slavery, and there were massacres, specially in the Antilles in the first decades of the conquest, but the empire intention was never to kill and they tried to grant rights to the indigenous people. It's unfair to put it among the most cruel empires when it was one of the few that viewed indigenous people as citizens
RedEggBurns@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/americas/article/why-indigenous-slavery-continued-in-spanish-america-after-the-new-laws-of-1542/3189EAB5FBC018DBE89AE97B07AFC5D7
Dense-Corner-1962@reddit
Not mentioning ruzzia is just wild💀💀
Userkiller3814@reddit
The mongol empire, hunnic empire, timurid empire. Any slaver state in and exploiting africa. Japanese empire during ww2. Quite a few actually.
Userkiller3814@reddit
The mongol empire, the hunnic empire? Quite a lot of empires actually.
mrdimeguy@reddit
I think some later colonial empires might have been more cruel, though I personally think the Aztecs were more cruel overall
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
Were they? Veneti got totally assimilated without even fighting, they got a pretty peaceful transition into being incorporated into the Roman empire. Can't say the same for Celtic tribes in other parts of northern Italy. I think it just depends
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Yes but this hars understanding of governance made Rome, Rome.
I don't comment European history memes about genocides while only 1 massacre committed in the British Raj in a decade was at least x1,5-2 of the Armenian Genocide.
adude995@reddit
Then vote for a harsher government to make Ottoman great again, maybe it works.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Ottoman Empire is history. As a Turk, I see the Ottomans the same way how an Italian sees Rome. It cannot be restored no matter what
Fiery_Flamingo@reddit
Wikipedia - Atrocities in the Congo Free State
spallettioutista@reddit
If i start to talk about brits and other anglos they ban me from reddit ahahah
Familiar-Weather5196@reddit
Might be biased, but that's probably because the Greco-Roman legacy is levels of magnitude above that of the Ottomans, there's not even a comparison to be made (Ottoman legacy might even be weaker than Arab/Persian legacy; heck, even the Ottomans styled themselves as Romans, Sultan of Run and all that, and used Arab and Persian in their courts and laws). Then, the Ottoman Empire dissolved last century, the Roman Empire 6 centuries ago. To conclude: this is all very childish I have to say, both committed atrocities, glazing either is stupid.
Old-Pudding6950@reddit
Is it though? We can recognize the atrocities they committed while also glazing what good they did for humanity which took inspiration or built on them afterwards. Those aren’t mutually exclusive things
Tbf, even the Romans would agree! Look what Cicero had to say when Caesar was invading Gallia (modern France/Switzerland/Belgium/Netherlands/West Germany)
He said Caesar was committing actions “against humanity”
Mind you, this was in the context of a war, in ancient times (which were quite violent), from one of Rome’s most important politicians. Can you imagine a modern state starting a war and then spontaneously condemning itself for “crimes against humanity”? Yeah, me neither. And we have 2000 years of laws and philosophy of rights dividing us from Caesar times. Moreover: they didn’t know anything about these populations, it was way harder to be emphatic than it is for us today.
.
This clearly shows that while earlier society tended to be more violent (and we can’t quite judge them in a modern moral lense, although we shouldn’t be glazing that), they were also able to harvest surprisingly modern intellectuals for their time. This is an example of something we can admire and glaze on
Familiar-Weather5196@reddit
I agree, but by "glaze" I mean completely ignoring the bad both Empires brought upon humankind. That's part of why I said "this is all very childish", because Romans and the Ottomans weren't all genocidal freaks, there were artists, intellectuals, philosophers etc... No country, let alone Empire, is a monolith in way of thinking.
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
The difference is the Romans created civilization and identity that could be exported and was. It was, in many ways, universalist, at a time when no such thing was required. You could be born in, say, modern Romania, or modern Spain, or modern northern Italy, or modern North Africa, and become as much a Roman as any guy living on the Palatine. And you were accepted as such. It was a long and grueling process, but it's where the Romans arrived. There was a genuine pride the superiority of the Roman way, and a belief that any man, given the right predisposition, could pick up this way of life and join this culture and become better as well.
Even the British, as much as they believed in the British way and civilizing others, still held a distance from their subjects. Like, what were the odds that you could be an Indian, no matter how much you absorbed of the culture, but rise high enough to marry into the royal family, or to command the highest positions in parliament? Exactly zero.
By comparison, the Ottomans were even worse and extremely parochial. And in their case it's unforgivable because they literally considered themselves the center of a univeralist religion. Sunni Islam commands you to be a part of the ummah and to treat every Muslim as your equal, and even to treat Christians and Jews with the utmost respect. But Ottomans were extremely elitist. Your proximity to the Sublime Porte and your wealth defined your position. Sure, you could rise out of Egypt or Bulgaria or something with extreme difficulty, but that's kinda like saying you can get out of the hood and become a nuclear physicist versus doing it out of a safe and prosperous suburb.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I love Ottoman Empire because I'm Turkish, just like I like myself because I'm myself.
No reason for not to agree on this relativeness,
Familiar-Weather5196@reddit
So, this post is just ragebait? I mean, we knew, but you just admitted it yourself
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
No.
My point is, the West is trying to establish moral superiority.
European countries (except Germany occupied at the end of World War II) have acknowledged the genocides they committed in the past only to the extent that it would not create obstacles for them in public opinion. For example, genocides committed in Christian African countries were acknowledged, but for example, the UK did not acknowledge the genocides committed in India. Why? Because Christian African countries are weak and powerless, but India has an increasing lobbying power in Western countries and has become very active communities in the UK and Canada. Official recognition of these genocides would give them political leverage that could be used against the UK in the future. Therefore, in order to engage in virtue signalling, they acknowledge crimes committed against weak nations and “repent”, but genocides that would put them in a difficult position are denied, just like Turkey does. Just as the UK denies the Indian genocide, France has never fully acknowledged the crimes committed in Algeria.
If they simply would agree on the fact that we are flesh and blood, nobody is superior than the other and they like ourselves because they are theirselves. That'd be cool!
Familiar-Weather5196@reddit
That's what you think/feel, may be some weird complex hidden in there somewhere. There's nationalists in Turkey, as there are in Western Countries, surprise, surprise. The genocides commited by the colonial powers have nothing to do with the Romans. This just shows that this post is just blatant "westerners bad/hypocrites, turks actually good", which makes sense, but at least admit it.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
First of all, I don't defent the attrocities that were committed by any state including the Ottoman Empire! I'm trying to show the hyprocrisy.
WasiX23@reddit
Easy question:
What happend on 24.04.1915?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Official decree that started the Armenian Genocide was given?
WasiX23@reddit
There is until today no official acceptance of this event in Turkish literature and also your government denies the acceptance of it.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Yes I know, and I never said it was a good thing.
My point here is te Europeans claim "We hate Turks because they did this and that" etc but the reality is European countries (except Germany occupied at the end of World War II) have acknowledged the genocides they committed in the past only to the extent that it would not create obstacles for them in public opinion. For example, genocides committed in Christian African countries were acknowledged, but for example, the UK did not acknowledge the genocides committed in India. Why? Because Christian African countries are weak and powerless, but India has an increasing lobbying power in Western countries and has become very active communities in the UK and Canada.
Official recognition of these genocides would give them political leverage that could be used against the UK in the future. Therefore, in order to engage in virtue signalling, they acknowledge crimes committed against weak nations and “repent”, but genocides that would put them in a difficult position are denied, just like Turkey does. Just as the UK denies the Indian genocide, France has never fully acknowledged the crimes committed in Algeria.
Ottomans transitioned into parliamentary democracy after 1876 Coup and allowed non-Muslim deputies from the Balkans to enter the parliament, all they got was separatist movement getting even more ardent.
Europe hates Turks because Turks are Turks. Even if 60% of Turkey was irreligious today, Turkey was an extremely democratic confederation like Swizerland with legal gay marriages and they apologized for the Ottoman past etc. They would still hate the Turks because Turks are Turks.
As Turks, we should act with this knowledge.
KassAmano6@reddit
The average European probably doesn't know what Armenia and genocide are. And I'm saying this as an Armenian. Why do you think they hate Turks?) maybe that's why thousands of Europeans go to Turkey on vacation?)
Familiar-Weather5196@reddit
If you can't agree that hypocrisy exists on both sides, then you're not in good faith
TheCharalampos@reddit
That's such a wild way of existing. No thoughts, only vibes.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Weird to hear from a guy who is proud of Byzantine Empire who had emperors with titles such As Bulgarian Slayer and didn't even allow Armenians to enter the capital.
TheCharalampos@reddit
Who is this guy you're talking about? If its me indicate what I said that makes me someone who is proud of the byzantine empire yada yada yada.
Dude it's not football. It's not modern politics. History is endlessly complicated, choosing a "side" and saying it's superior without ever looking at it critically is just silly.
SOHONEYSAME@reddit
damn.
Ottomans "hated" u, lol.
Turkey was "invented" in 1923, that's the history u should care for, before that u were second-class citizens in the Empire.
sneakyjedi123@reddit
Comparing empires that were almost 2000 years apart lol
ApprehensiveGain2771@reddit
Turks are the boogeyman as always. Same with the west. Western powers enslaved , killed , genocide millions of people in south america, south asia and africa, their wealth and prosperity comes from their atrocities.. But hey let's blame to Turks for everything :)
puzzledpanther@reddit
Do you really want to make the "WAAAAAAHHHH BUT THEY GENOCIDED MORE THAN US" argument?
FuelTheRadiance@reddit
You're in the Balkans subreddit talking to other Balkaners. Why the hell would a Greek or a Bulgar or a Serb care in the slightest about Africa and South Asia? It's also about results. Sure the Western powers genocided people. They also brought us to modernity, the Enlightenment, capitalism and completely secular societies. Now, is it fair to say that all Westerners did this? Like, would France have eventually taken us to the same place if Britain enver existed? Probably not. But it is what it is.
But I don't think you can honestly make the argument that if Turks just held onto power a little longer we've had ended up in the same place. The problem is not that Turks did bad things, but that they did bad things and don't have much to show for it. It's mostly cultural stuff, cuisine, loanwords, etc.
In other words, Ottomans don't have aura. I think if the empire just collapsed in the 18th or early 19th century we'd remember it much more favorably. Now when people think of the Ottomans it's like when you see a pic of a celebrity past their prime attached with "YOU WON'T BELIEVE HOW X LOOKS TODAY!"
Successful-Weight-44@reddit
Balkans part where there was Ottoman rule still, in years 2026, are culturalky more Backwards the the rest. A fact. I am from Macedonia and see in so many aspects of today's life historical burden from Ottoman times and am sorry we we're not closer to Slovenia for example.
We, people of Balkans, hate the Ottoman rule and are Happy there was Roman rule here. Yes. Ottomans sucks and we're retarded with their culture and world Outlook, price that we are still paying today.
Not only you will not find understanding here, you will notice in all the other comments that you are being ridiculed already.
funfacts_82@reddit
truth pilled
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"are culturaly more backwards then the rest"
Happy to hear that!
thatMrGecko@reddit
both suck obviously. but ottomans are a thousand years closer to us, and the impact of the shit they pulled is felt a lot more compared to the romans.
Dragunav@reddit
Romans was very open with having slaves.
The states of the Ottoman Empire refuses to admit that the Armenian genocide ever took place.
RepulsiveForce6288@reddit
Yeah comparing empires that are 1500 years apart makes absolute sense.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
European states didn't even give religions other than Christianity a right to exist humanly even in 17th century.
RepulsiveForce6288@reddit
Proving that the Ottomans weren't European
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I know, this is the problem. Genocide, attrocities etc are the words to justify. Turks are disliked because they are Asian Muslims. Any European nation who did worse would be very much respected in Europe.
European countries (except Germany occupied at the end of World War II) have acknowledged the genocides they committed in the past only to the extent that it would not create obstacles for them in public opinion. For example, genocides committed in Christian African countries were acknowledged, but for example, the UK did not acknowledge the genocides committed in India. Why? Because Christian African countries are weak and powerless, but India has an increasing lobbying power in Western countries and has become very active communities in the UK and Canada. Official recognition of these genocides would give them political leverage that could be used against the UK in the future. Therefore, in order to engage in virtue signalling, they acknowledge crimes committed against weak nations and “repent”, but genocides that would put them in a difficult position are denied, just like Turkey does. Just as the UK denies the Indian genocide, France has never fully acknowledged the crimes committed in Algeria.
RepulsiveForce6288@reddit
I agree on the topic that Turkey isn't Europe
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
The rest is also true, if not, you can elaborate.
RepulsiveForce6288@reddit
I know that Turks like to see themselves as successors to Ottomans, but they are not. Imagine Italians claiming to be Romans lolz. This stuff is in the past and will never return. I would like to have my Döner with extra tomatoes btw.
0a_boy0@reddit
Turks are not successors of ottomans? I smell butthurt balkaner here
RepulsiveForce6288@reddit
Not from balkan bro, I am good. You can live in the past and take credit for something you never did and call it patriotism or face the fact that it has been a while since the Ottoman empire and Turkey is nothing like it
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"European countries (except Germany occupied at the end of World War II) have acknowledged the genocides they committed in the past only to the extent that it would not create obstacles for them in public opinion. For example, genocides committed in Christian African countries were acknowledged, but for example, the UK did not acknowledge the genocides committed in India. Why? Because Christian African countries are weak and powerless, but India has an increasing lobbying power in Western countries and has become very active communities in the UK and Canada.
Official recognition of these genocides would give them political leverage that could be used against the UK in the future. Therefore, in order to engage in virtue signalling, they acknowledge crimes committed against weak nations and “repent”, but genocides that would put them in a difficult position are denied, just like Turkey does. Just as the UK denies the Indian genocide, France has never fully acknowledged the crimes committed in Algeria."
I meant this part when I told you to elaborate.
fogleth@reddit
Ottoman Turks where a disgusting nation.
miffebarbez@reddit
Did the moghuls officially recognized their genocides/attrocities in India (with help of Ottoman empire)? Or is this just a one way view of Europe bad, Asian muslims good?
CommunicationTop8777@reddit
It's comparing the same empire at different time periods. What's wrong with that?
Al_Bundy95@reddit
One is base of western civilisation, other is not. In Schiller you are learning how ancient greeks and romans are base of western culture, while at some point otomans entered as aggressor (and destroyer of byzantine empire) and later came Ataturk and his genocides. Ancient nations will be always romantised, while modern turks are known and hated for Europeans. It's bery strange question since answer is obvious.
FallenNemesis77@reddit
Very non biased turk OP lol
casual_philosopher02@reddit
Bro is in the comments saying we were grateful enough of the ottomans....
FoxNapoleon@reddit
Grateful for what? My country alone faced 500 years of oppression from the Ottomans. And when my people tried to revolt to regain their freedom, they burned down over 200 villages as punishment. OP is just putting his history on pedestal.
casual_philosopher02@reddit
And after he put it on a pedestal he wonders why no one else did. As if the ottomans were great investors and science contributors for the west to admire!!
FoxNapoleon@reddit
And he also wonders why people from countries that were oppressed by the Ottomans dislike them and disagree with his opinions.
casual_philosopher02@reddit
And when actual arguments are given just cry racism against Turks!😂
FoxNapoleon@reddit
Exactly! I don't understand why he is even making a comparison between Rome and the Ottoman Empire to begin with. He cherry picked a lot of things, especially on the Ottoman side. He doesn't mention the Blood Tax for example where the Ottomans take children away from their families to turn them into Janissaries.
0a_boy0@reddit
They had the chance to be the soldiers in the world’s strongest army back then. You ungrateful bitch😜
FoxNapoleon@reddit
Why be grateful for having our children kidnapped, converted to Islam forcibly and turned into the Sultan's personal guard and elite army? I will not deny that the Janissaries were some of the most elite soldiers back then, but I will not be grateful for having my people be a part of a child levy army. It's true that some joined willingly to receive high positions but the vast majority were Christian Boys primarily from the Balkans that were taken by force. Easy for you to say when your people weren't on the receiving right and was forbidden to join for the first two centuries or so and then we're given a free choice, unlike the vast majority.
Defiant_Being_9222@reddit
They didn't have a choice. It was kidnapping, plain and simple.
knispler@reddit
Imperialism only works when the majority of people are oppressed. So neither was a good empire, because such a thing doesn’t exist. Only difference is that one is a more recent example and has more influence on current global politics.
Its_just_Zhivko@reddit
The ottomans(disgrace to the human history) took bulgarian children and separeted families when they won the siege of Tarnovo.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
You say that the British Empire and French who had done the massacres that the Ottomans did in a century in a decade is also a disgrace to humanity? If yes, you're consistent, I respect your opinion.
NOTE: British Empire never apologized for the Indian Genocide.
Its_just_Zhivko@reddit
I know this and the British, French, Soviets and all other big countries did really bad massacres too. All of those people who said "kill them" are the disgrece
Izmirli9364@reddit
Harboured.Good word.
TheDash301@reddit
My opinion is why your country STILL hasnt recognized the Genocide it comited? Clearly being reminded of it irks you if you made it a keystone part of the meme. Doing the classic "the ottoman empire was actually extremely benevolent and tolerant empire" thing, pretending that when your empire finally started to crumble you didn't go looking for minorities to scapegoat and blame for it all like the Armenians and Kurds.
Also getting upset at people admiring an ancient empire that defined most european civilization despite your civilization admiring it and trying to emulate them as a bizzare islamic turkish version is ironic.
devoker35@reddit
What bothers me is that balkan nations ignore Ottomans were shit to every nation including Turks except a very few privileged. Turks in central anatolia were still living in dark age even in the beginning of 20th century.
VisibleReport5008@reddit
Rome empire is very old though. This would make more sense if we compared it with europe's colonies.
LivingAnkylos@reddit
Belgium in the last 200 years alone did worse crimes than ottoman empire .
MirusTheVirus@reddit
This has a lot of selective picking. One example: Ottomans abducted kids from balkan lands and converted them to specislized muslim soldiers. There are stories of families intentionally amputating and otherwise injuring their children so they wouldn't abduct them. Not very good.
But hey, those were the times. Same with Rome.
devoker35@reddit
There are also stories of muslim families trying to get their children selected as devshirme because of the privileges they receive later in their lives.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Devshirme was practiced for 3 centuries though, when Murad III allowed Turks to become janissaries, devshirmes became a minority. When Ahmed III wanted to restore Devshirme System he got almost ousted by the palace bureaucrats.
Mutilating slaves was practiced by Europeans in Africa during 19th century.
ilijadwa@reddit
Devshirme wasn’t the only type of ottoman slavery though it was just one example of it…
WasiX23@reddit
Big difference here:
France in the 19th century brought peace, progress and democratic ideals to the European countries.
On the other hand the ottomans brought poverty, oppression and cruelty to the opressed places.
The little french men definitely did much cruel things like in algeria, but in summary the influence of the french reign in europe to that time brought many positive results for the people in europe. Otherwise the ottomans left nothing than, nothing to build on.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Ottomans transitioned into parliamentary democracy after 1876 Coup and allowed non-Muslim deputies from the Balkans to enter the parliament, all they got was separatist movement getting even more ardent.
BigSimp_for_FHerbert@reddit
It’s impressive how you don’t seem to understand that it is all about perspective. To a Congolese Belgians are monsters, to your average European they are just a cute little country with great chocolate and waffles.
It’s all about how the ottomans interacted with the people of Europe. If the ottomans oppressed them historically, while the French, for however evil and savage they could have been in Africa, were a positive influence, then clearly the descendants of those people are going to hold negative perceptions of the Ottoman Empire, and a positive perception of France. It’s totally understandable honestly.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I also could understand if the same people didn't lecture me about racism and claimed if Turkiye was "democratic" it could have been integrated to Europe. If you say that you're not racist but in the same way you type on comments "Lol it's based that Europe hates Turks" to my commentary who says "Europe would still hate Turkey even if it was as democratic as Switzerland" implying that it is OK to discriminate and hate Turks in any circumstance.
BigSimp_for_FHerbert@reddit
But then this conversation should be about racism and not the perception of the Ottoman Empire in ex-colonies. Because obviously the Ottoman Empire is going to have a negative perception in the Balkans.
Majmunovic_Zdravolju@reddit
c'mon bro wtf ffs omg lol
Pretend-Technician64@reddit
OMG, comments are full of angry balkanese nationalists and I'm so fuckin down for it...
Nice rage bait OP, keep'em comin!
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Where u from homie? R u Turkish or Arab?
Pretend-Technician64@reddit
Do I have any other options?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Latin American??
Come on man don't make me so curious!
Pretend-Technician64@reddit
Nah man, I'm from a country who still exports holy fire to these balkanese weirdos...
Btw, fuck bibi.
Yahoo_For_Neden@reddit
Literally everything listed on the left slide IS BASED because Romans were European. All of the stuff on the right is cringe and blupilled because the Turks were M*slim. Next question.
AlbanianCatholic@reddit
Wrote this at another post saying the exact same thing.
Here's a copy-paste of it:
I'll just note that at least during Rome, the Balkans was an integral part of the "developed world", under the Ottomans, it was backwater. Territories that were under Rome were at least the center of social, technological and human development, while under the Ottomans, we were left in the middle ages until the 20th century, at which point Europe was an entire ocean ahead of us.
Of course independence is better than both, but when comparing these two, one built, the other destroyed.
CaptainTurko@reddit
Can you back your claim? What was the difference between Anatolia and Balkans during Ottoman Empire? Balkans were usually more advanced. I don't know where this claim comes from. And what do you mean by developed world? Most of its history, Ottomans were more devoped than Europe until the decline period.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
So when a developped nations do cruelties, it is different.
So massacres committed in Iraq by US in 2003 is justifies because US is the center of social, technological and human development while in Iraq, people were left in the middle ages!! /s
Bad Iraq! Bad Iraq! :((
Pretend-Technician64@reddit
Exactly, this.
5cozi@reddit
Damn pal you have a serious iq deficit
AlbanianCatholic@reddit
Interesting straw man.
The point remains; what was under Roman rule developed, what was under Ottoman rule is backwards.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
This arguments gives us a potential legitimacy, if one day we become a prosperous nation like Switzerland, that means we can invade Albania and do what Romans did and we'd be cool?
AlbanianCatholic@reddit
Yet another straw man.
Either tackle this rationally or don't bother me.
VoelaH@reddit
he does tackle the situation rationally. You don't know definitions, this is not a strawman argument it is a reduction argument.
Your main chain of logic rests on the premise that a nation, even though not fully, may be relatively more justified in its committed attrocities by the merit of its development. The comments take this argument to its logical extreme giving examples of more developed nations invading a less developed ones, showing that your claim doesn't hold up for other examples. This highlights the incorrect logic used to argue against the Ottoman - Roman comparison. This is called reduction. It is perfectly logical and shows that your argument has holes in its formation.
RedEggBurns@reddit
Bruh. The Ottoman Empire invested more money into the balkans than they did into anatolia. In fact the major administrative, trade, and urban centers were in Edirne, Sarajevo, and Thessaloniki.
The Balkans were also among the most economically productive regions in the 18th–19th centuries. All of empire back then was more or less backwater, because they did not industrialize at the same pace as Western Europe
LibertyChecked28@reddit
The Ottomans invested those money into themselves with luxurious mansions and $h!t ton of fortification, not with the goal to uplift or develop the Balkans into something admirable.
RedEggBurns@reddit
No, rich the and the nobles invested into themselves. If they invested it into the ottomans, they would have invested it into Anatolia. If you think I am lying, look up whether the nobles considered it an insult to be called a turk or not.
micahhurley@reddit
The ottomans stole everything.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
I am telling you that the Ottomans utilized those funds for the well being the Ottomans, not necessary "investing" it into anything of value.
In another comment of mine I already tackled how O.E had isolated all other Muslim entices whom ware supposed to be the bulk of the Ottoman citizens with personal interest for upholding the Ottoman goals.
RedEggBurns@reddit
So, we move completely from the topic of the main comment to another topic. Talk about switching the goal post.
darth4nyan@reddit
Balkans, as in the area of Istanbul?
0a_boy0@reddit
We shouldnt have given freedom of religion and culture to them. They didn’t deserve it
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
We didn't apply the Umayyad policy on them, therefore we prepared our most ardent enemies of today with our own hands.
0a_boy0@reddit
We should have done.
babybabayyy@reddit
Outside of Turks, literally everyone either doesn't like them or doesn't give a fuck about them. Happy that its going to stay that way...
Hot-Stand7222@reddit
Okay
Chicken_Nuggy_@reddit
Oh, so we are not talking about the horrors all crusaders did to the whole of Byzantine empire in the guise of "helping them", when in reality they found just the right opportunity to essentially passively help the ottomans conquer Byzantine and later Constantinople, or the fact that almost every country north of Byzantine did everything they could to not help, since they were basically planted by the pope and were allys to the franks ( also planted by the pope, quite literally)?
babybabayyy@reddit
Nice to see you having fun playing with your Wojacks!
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
That's true, and it is only connected about the fact that Turks are Turks. Even if all the Turks accepted the Armenian and Assyrian genocides and the state officially apologized, they were irreligious and extremely democratic, public opinion on Turks in Europe wouldn't change a bit.
The same people will lecture us about how bad racism is. This is why we Turks shoul bare in mind, everything is interest, there is no morality or consistancy in diplomacy.
Mysterious-Put1459@reddit
Keep going, boss. You're making my day so much better seeing you cry in the comments
Mysterious-Put1459@reddit
casual_philosopher02@reddit
I'm glad I'm not the only one screenshoting meltdowns that people delete then posting them
Team pettiness unite
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
How you think I should répond people who insult me?
Not particularly this guy but 2 people here in comments said to me it is based to bé racist with Turks because they are Turk, even though if they are not nationaist etc. Doesn't seem somebody takes screenshots of this. Plus moderation deleted a commentary from an italian guy who said racism against Turks is wrong. I dont see any reactions for that.
It doesn't take your attention when a group of people are called inferior and being racist towards them is okay but it does take your attention when I delete my comment to prevent breaking subreddit rules?
casual_philosopher02@reddit
You had no reason to respond like that to the Bulgarian bro. I went through the comments a bit and mainly saw you not grasping the concept that we have no reason to like the ottomans.
Also if the comment was deleted how tf am I supposed to see it? I'm Andromache not Pythia, I comment on what I see. And what I see is someone that can't stand the fact that western civilization doesn't put their culture on a pedestal
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I had, because he insulted me.
casual_philosopher02@reddit
He said you're crying in the comments which was very true
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I was responding people who insult my people in a manner that every healthy human being would have in a similar situation
casual_philosopher02@reddit
The way you're responding to constructive criticism and opposing opinions doesn't show a healthy mindset
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
There were no constructive crtiticism and comments jusitfy racism against Turks didn't take even the 1% of attention here neither from yo neither from other users or mods.
Hell the mods deleted the comment by the italian guy who shows solidarity to Turks against the racism. Still between hundreds of commentaries nobody said something like "anti-ottomanism shouldnt jusitfy racism" etc. To me it's normal because I know Europe is racist but the problem is the guys who said it is okay to be racist against people only and only because they are Turkish and got upvotes claim to be non-racist and see theirselves in the position of judging others
casual_philosopher02@reddit
The op comment literally just said no one in the west really cares about the ottomans. Because the ottomans offered nothing profound in any sector, they have no reason to pedestalise ottoman culture.
What you are saying makes 0 sense, you're making up some fake Turkish racism to try and justify your nonsensical sentiment. I have seen you lash out against non racist comments in here
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I'm talking about the Bulgarian guy that you defended, not the OP. I'm not making anything up.
What are your opinions on this? : r/AskBalkans It happened right there. In fact, it is very often here on every social media. In the cases of Turkophobia, reports to Reddit are rarely taken serious by the mods of european subs.
casual_philosopher02@reddit
So what's the racism of the Bulgarian that had you lashing out exactly?? You're making no sense once again
Also after you yourself over generalise you deserve to get the same response. So yes you're still crying and are racist by putting all of "the others" in the same bag
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I don't wanna get banned.
Mysterious-Put1459@reddit
She must've been a make-a-wish volunteer. Poor woman
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I'm a Turk from Ruse and lived there for a while, provinces like Yambol are known for Turkish drivers to satisfy your needs area, even some restaurant workers do p***titution while being married theirselves.
Mine wasn't like that though. It was somebody from school.
Mysterious-Put1459@reddit
I don't want to ruin the joke by explaining what make-a-wish volunteer is, you can google it. Definitely not a paid escort on the side of the road, though lmao.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I know, well that wasnt the case for me.
It isnt the case for most too. In provinces near border, married Bulgarian women who work in restaurants slept with Turkish drivers for like 50 euros.
It became less common today.
Mysterious-Put1459@reddit
Sir, this is a Wendy's
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Lol
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
You're a clean b*stard. You never hide that you're racist against Turks because they are Turks and you'll be like this even Turkey was a "civilized" country like Switzerland. I have no issue with people like you because you never intend to hide your face, I address to those who give lectures to others while being racist theirselves.
BigSimp_for_FHerbert@reddit
The issue here is that you are posting this in a Balkan sub, obviously people are not going to be fond of the Ottoman Empire because it was seen as an oppressive foreign empire. This isn’t to say that the ottomans were particularly evil as far as empires go, but depending on the region and history things will differ a lot.
It’s like asking (in a Chinese sub) why Chinese people hate Japan while westerners and many other people from other continents glaze the Japanese endlessly.
The reason is that history is inherently biased. Rome is viewed as a European empire that hit its peak so long ago that nobody alive today can still have any personal grudge against it. We tend to remember the things that remain from that civilization, and due to the fact that during the renaissance and enlightenment westerners handpicked all the best things from classical civilizations to “preserve” and put on a pedestal, it’s obvious why the general perception is overwhelmingly positive.
There isn’t a Gaulish identity, or an Etruscan identity left in modern Europe to be “offended” and hold personal (and frankly justifiable) grudges against the Latins. All that is left is to admire the things that the romans gave us, such as western legal tradition, knowledge, art, architecture, vocabulary, public administration, engineering and so on.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I completely understood your point, so please understand mine :)
I wanted to make visible people's hypocrisy and they actually hate the Turkish people because they are Turkish and Ottoman Empire is just a mask to disguise their racism. They hate Turks, not the Ottoman Empire. There are people saying it is based to hate Turks in any circumstances and editing their comments who say "Everbody except theirselves hate Turks" change it to "Everbody except theirselves hate the Ottomans". You can simply just see it in the commentaries.
I do it visible so that foreigners and to my people so they can also wake up.
BigSimp_for_FHerbert@reddit
I don’t want to justify any hate against any ethnicity based on history.
People however will hold grudges towards the Ottoman Empire, because it’s a relatively recent empire. Turkey is the cultural and arguably the political successor of the ottoman imperial core/homeland so if the ottomans are still highly controversial in their ex holdings, then it makes sense that people may also hold grudges against the modern state of Turkey.
It’s not necessarily logical or right, but personal grudges rarely are.
babybabayyy@reddit
I edited my comment just because "them" was not descriptive of what I was wanting to say. I didnt want "them" to come off as me saying "nobody likes Turks" when I wanted to specify I was talking about the Ottomans.
The edit was made within 10 seconds of me posting. You are very silly and overtly paranoid.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
If you hate the Ottomans but not Turkish nation, maybe you're one of the few non racist Europeans
Aggravating-War7610@reddit
I’m American and the ottomans are my favorite empire
Any_Security_8846@reddit
Bosnians do, until they come to Bosnia like their Arabian buds lol
micahhurley@reddit
Massive L meme.
Used_Tale9203@reddit
Rome brought civilisation, the Ottomans ruined civilisation.
bTwentyTwo@reddit
I have no feelings towards either of them, both were big empires (that at some point in time engulfed the place where i'm from and live in) that again, at some point in history rose & fell. History happened, and for good or for worse we can not change that. The point is in the current events that are happening, and how we can go forward as a society in general.
presolol@reddit
least biased turk
Das_Lloss@reddit
You know, the turks atleast recognizing that they genocided Armenians and other people groups could help alittel bit and maybe then some positive things that the ottomans did (like taking in the victims of the genocides that the russians did) could be recognized. But you also have to remember that the ancestors of the people on this sub were ravaged, terrorized and subjugated by the ottomans.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Ottomans transitioned into parliamentary democracy after 1876 Coup and allowed non-Muslim deputies from the Balkans to enter the parliament, all they got was separatist movement getting even more ardent.
Europe hates Turks because Turks are Turks. Even if 60% of Turkey was irreligious today, Turkey was an extremely democratic confederation like Swizerland with legal gay marriages and they apologized for the Ottoman past etc. They would still hate the Turks because Turks are Turks.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
You mean taking in the Circassians: ethnos who's sole culture had been exclusively specialised all around slavery and raiding in the same proportions to how the Italians are all about food and various types of Artisanship- Just so they can act as irregular armies of slavers and raiders serving the role of "population control against the Raya " by carrying out a monthly ethnic pogroms against the Bulgarian population for no ulteriour reason than recreational purposes and "owning the Christians".
Yea, you might be far better off b!tching about "the tragedy of loosing Nambia" than this one.
Any_Security_8846@reddit
Both sucked, ottomans was just more recent lol
Self-Bitter@reddit
Modern law, engineering and politics trace back to Romans thats why. The Ottomans were a strong empire but not a historical entity that created something noteworthy.
HighestBlack@reddit
We don't even seem to remember that not so very long ago we were under soviet rule and that pretty much fucked us over more than what the Turks did for 600 years. Look at the Balkans today, it's a corrupt shit hole. And then look at Turkey. And then the Grikland. Like mf don't even talk about it them mfs is in so much debt that even Socrates would wonder if he really wasn't turk all along.
zwuuhhw@reddit
Ottomans were based
mrdimeguy@reddit
I think It' a silly meme that cherry picks facts. All empire have made great accomplishments, and have committed great brutalities
FthisFthatFall@reddit
All the Ottoman haters need to answer some questions? Which would be better for you? Greeks with no power to sustain the stability in the area? Catholic Pope and Italy, which propably slaughter balkans, Greeks and anatolia? Or Spaniards and brits, which were too eager to enslave population, except greeks?
Lazy-Relationship-34@reddit
Few_Concentrate_6708@reddit
based alert
TheCharalampos@reddit
Nationalism is stupid. Nationalism for empires that don't exist triply so. Just engage with history properly instead of having the equivelant of a favorite football team.
Lazy-Relationship-34@reddit
Agreed.
KocaOsman316@reddit
I am Turkish, what do you think my opinion is?
rattlecanner@reddit
people in this sub are obsessed with turkey..
Emotional_Charge_961@reddit
Non-Turkish scholars and analysts often approach the subject through their own paradigms. In traditional Turkish historiography, however, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) has generally not been portrayed as an extremist organization. Instead, its members are typically described as young, inexperienced, and romantic nationalists. Their policies toward Armenians are often framed not as genocide, but as a necessary policy of deportation aimed at preventing the eastern regions of the empire from falling under imperialist powers—primarily Russia, but also France and Britain.
That said, the CUP has been criticized for other actions. Old-fashioned Turkish historians argue that its leadership made serious strategic mistakes, most notably by entering World War I, which accelerated the already impending collapse of the Ottoman Empire. However, a large portion of traditional Turkish historiography has tended to acquit the CUP of wrongdoing in its policies toward minorities. The idea that ethnic minorities had legitimate grounds to revolt against the Ottoman state has generally remained outside the framework of classical Turkish historical narratives.
On the other hand, labeling CUP leaders—Enver, Talat, and Cemal Pashas—as “extremists” or “war criminals” can be considered anachronistic. Both their allies, such as Germany and Austria-Hungary, and their adversaries did not typically characterize them in those terms at the time; rather, they were regarded as legitimate political actors.
makedonskipatriot@reddit
I absolutely hate Romans.
BoratSagdieev@reddit
Are western history nerds biased towards rome and against the ottoman empire? Absolutely But comparing atrocities happening almost 2k years ago to things happening to our grandparents just makes no sense
Latter_Finding8548@reddit
It is just a meme, but a meme with a point. It also talks about wars of reformation over small differences in belief and mass casualty, expulsion and slaughter of Jewish people, while Otto’s are chilling with multi religious populace and government. Not to mention colonialism, forced conversions, witch hunts, so and so on.
IchibeHyosu99@reddit
Your grandpa isnt 110
Street-Bluebird-5233@reddit
It was anything but peaceful towards other religions. The janissary system, the taxes, the massacres, they did absolutely everything in their power to convert people to other religion. Balkans were basically their Gaza for 500 years, if not worse. If you bear any suspicion about this statement then ask any balkan country what is their no1 hated country. All of them will say turkey. But Greece, France and Spain bear no hate for the Roman empire, they even want to recreate it.
If you are still skeptical look at the ethnic map of turkey 100 years ago. I wonder what happened to those freely opinioned and religion practicing people.
If YOU ARE STILL SKEPTICAL try to find any any standing ottoman buildings in the balakns which they left for future generations and maintained it. Oh right there is none because they didn't think we deserved a better treatment than slaves
Imagine gaza+slavery in southern US during the 1800s that was basically the ottoman empire, empire built on blood and ruins of others. Their greatest historical building isn't even theirs it's a Greek church which they converted to mosque. It's not a healthy mindset especially in this day and age to boast about it
Catman_192@reddit
Look every country had a light and dark side during history. Sure living conditions were probably better for non-Turks in Ottoman empire than non-Romans in Roman empire. Ottoman Empire was also nicer than most of the empires during that time, especially colonial ones. But calling Ottoman Empire innocent and saying that extremists destroyed Ottoman empire is far from truth. Ottoman empire also used to enslave people, while there was a partial religious freedom, christians still needed to pay extra taxes for being christians, which made a life harsher for non-muslims. They also had janissary military group, where they would literally kidnapp kids who were around 15 years old (mostly non-Turks) and were be assimilated to Turks, converted to muslims and would fight for Ottoman empire. Also during 19th and early 20th century they made a harsher rules for non-Turks which caused multiple uprisings (this wasn't the only reason, but definetely largely contributed) and also commited war crimes, usually after failed attempts. So yeah, Ottoman empire wasn't that harsh as other ones, but it was far from innocent.
BlackLionCat@reddit
this doesn't happen, it's a matter of a misaligned perspective
rydolf_shabe@reddit
no empire exists without its wrongs, just rome left a better legacy than the ottomans. plus they are very different on all aspects to be compared like this.
Infamous_Dish_4348@reddit
Ancient Rome had infinite aura. Who cares about the human rights violations when you got drip
Fun-Disaster9796@reddit
Baal vs Moloch
qCallisto@reddit
Can this degenerate braindead shit move back to 4Chan?
Literally every other post here is some garbage nowadays.
Kraliyetdeviquepro@reddit
Valla kral pek anlamadim ama herkese cevabini vermissin helal
Active-Radish2813@reddit
Rome wasn't a prototype for integralist multiculturalism or blood and soil nationalism, but it was nearer to the former than the latter.
fire021@reddit
Evil ass empire vs evil ass empire
Current_Mongoose_844@reddit
The Judean kingdom was destroyed, not the civilisation. We're still here
Ujemegaz@reddit
Think of tourists when they see Roman ruins and buildings. They are usually impressed. Can't say the same for the Ottomans. Name one Ottoman wonder in Syria for instance or anywhere. Roman, there are plenty.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
False. But that shows developped nations can do cruelties while the others cannot, we can insult non-developped nations who did colonization but we brag when they are ours and developped.
With that mentality, you can also justify the 2003 Iraq War.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Romans did try to assimilate & civilize most of the ''Barbarians' they came across tho, Greeks & Iberians are the living example that everyone could eventually become a respectable representative of the Roman Empire who's own interests aligned with the Roman ones- This is something that cannot be said for the Ottomans where even the other Muslims like the Arabs, Kurds, and Persians had been heavily alienated & treated like shit.
volcano156@reddit
Lmao
Ujemegaz@reddit
False?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Yes, false, it is true that the Ottoman Empire didn't construct anything in North Africa and Southern part of the Arabian peninsula because those places were mostly deserts and they didn't have enough technology to do constructions in the deserts. Even the most Gulf cities that we see todays didn't have buildings like that until 1950s. They did construction in Balkans but it was mostly Islamic sites and bridges.
Just because Egypts and Carthagians succeded to the construction with human workers on sand and 45 degrees of weather, it doesn't mean every nation could have done that.
In Levant however, Ottomans did really many things. Suleiman I himself rehabilitated the Wailing Wall. Abdulhamid II constructed railways to both Iraq and Syria. He also opened schools in the region.
Ujemegaz@reddit
Only justifications 🤣 when Albania became indipendent, had only 5km of asphalt and no railway.
BarskiPatzow@reddit
Compare positive legacies of both too.
Simple_Rock1184@reddit
Truly based if that word means anything anymore.
Equivalent-Rip-1029@reddit
This comparison is nonsense cuz both are the same thing.
ThingCandid9553@reddit
Comparing the Ottoman Empire to the Roman Empire is like comparing a turd to a Lamborghini.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
More likely comparing your mom with Alexis Texas, of course your mom is more talented!
ThingCandid9553@reddit
I’m just stating facts. Not my fault the Ottoman Empire was 💩.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I also do. Not my fault your mommy is more experienced.
Darijan_Trst@reddit
Isn't the one on the right Eastern Roman Empire.
LarsMatijn@reddit
Heyy the Dutch Republic also took in Sephardic Jews. Some attribute this as one of the causes of our Golden Century as a lot of Jewish intelligentia and money settled in Amsterdam.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
That's so cool man!
CormundCrowlover@reddit
Sorry bro but it's the truth, us Turks always forgot to mention the genocide the Armenians coommitted against not just the Ottoman Turks but also in Azerbaijan.
No-Bat9459@reddit
You Muslim, you bad.
Th3Dark0ccult@reddit
Both empires are glazed by the west - Rome is glorified by Western Europe, Ottoman empire is really liked by americans for some reason.
As a balkaner I presonally don't give a shit about the Roman Empire, and the other- well, my flair should tell you what my opinion is already.
the_TIGEEER@reddit
This dosen't even mention HOW.. MANNY.. TIMES.. .. The Romans exterminated entire cities or villages just to make a point to other cities or to get revange on to provke someone else into attacking them so they had an excuse to invade the someone else (What Julius Caesar did is beyond evil).
Vajdugaa@reddit
You expect people to be fond of foreign empire, same people that are descendants of medieval people who had their own states, kings that got conquered by that empire?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
If they just say "Look man, you're Asian Muslims. You're foreigners for us, our ancestors had fought for centuries. This narrative of individuality of the crime and no racism in no circumstance is something we made up for one another. We support ourselves because we are we. And you are not from us." I'd say "Fine man, that's normal, everybody will defend their lineage and put their history on prestige"
But the thing is, the West is trying to establish moral superiority.
European countries (except Germany occupied at the end of World War II) have acknowledged the genocides they committed in the past only to the extent that it would not create obstacles for them in public opinion. For example, genocides committed in Christian African countries were acknowledged, but for example, the UK did not acknowledge the genocides committed in India. Why? Because Christian African countries are weak and powerless, but India has an increasing lobbying power in Western countries and has become very active communities in the UK and Canada. Official recognition of these genocides would give them political leverage that could be used against the UK in the future. Therefore, in order to engage in virtue signalling, they acknowledge crimes committed against weak nations and “repent”, but genocides that would put them in a difficult position are denied, just like Turkey does. Just as the UK denies the Indian genocide, France has never fully acknowledged the crimes committed in Algeria.
Vajdugaa@reddit
Buddy this is Balkans not West, but the answer is very easy, they have double standards and are more powerful. You think America will ever be sorry for what happened to native Indians?
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
Eh? Armenian genocide has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire anyways, it's a product of the Turkish Republic afterwards
Citaku357@reddit
The Armenian genocide happened during the ottoman rule of the region
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Atatürk appointed an Armenian to be the head of Turkish Language Society and put Armenian MPs to the national assembly.
That would be like H*tler appointing Jewish bureacrats and statesmen.
Plus, no, Armenian Genocide was done by Ittihadist junta.
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
The famous Turkish language society propagating fantalinguistics like Güneş Dil Teorisi (the Sun Language Theory, all languages in the world have derived from Turkish)? The Armenian genocide was a product of the Turkish state creation, one country - one language - one people nationalistic mentality, it isn't the first ethnic cleansing + genocide happening in the name of nation building as it isn't the last, to some degrees Italy been there, Greece been there, half of Europe been there. The more ethnic patch worked a country, the higher the danger of something like this happening during the 20th century. Atatürk and the Republic have the whole responsibility in their hands
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"Turkish state creation, one country - one language - one people"
That's true but it still doesn't change the fact that it started with the Ottomans and was mostly done when Atatürk came to the scene.
Similar-Speech2371@reddit
Alright, there I agree with you, obviously it was 1915-17 and the Republic was founded 1922-23, the two political entities nevertheless are not clean cut and their history is interlaced, common leading thread is the rise of ethnic Turkish nationalism on the background of the collapsing Ottoman Empire, the slow death and the collapse already started almost 100 years before with the Greek war of independence and the final blow were the Balkan war + WWI (that collapsed basically every empire still standing in Europe, Austria-Hungary, the German and the Russian)
Radusili@reddit
Tf I hate both lol
Checky_3rd@reddit
my opinion is that you taken 2 situations out of context and manipulated it to your favor. The Romans did horrible things, every state did, but the glory the Romans brought overshadowed their dark side. Why do you think we all think about the Romans even to this date? We don't think about the Ottomans like we think about the Romans.
Overall, the Ottoman Empire was, is and will be viewed as not as great as the Roman one for many reasons.
Critical_Parking_671@reddit
Byzantine empire almost stopped slavery by 7th century as it was as unchristian. They were monogamous.
Turks were trading in sex slaves into the 20th century. It is probably 2nd most slave ridden empire after the Transatlantic slave trade. When the ottomans went for Sudanese slaves. They had 2 to 3x the death rate of British slaves sent to the Americas.
Having to compare Turks with an empire 2000 years older is the most hilarious cope
VisibleReport5008@reddit
Where that stat even comes from?
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
Byzantine Empire doesn't make the whole Europe.
If the Ottoman Empire treated Balkans like British treated India and African colonies, it wouldn't collapse.
Volaer@reddit
Free Greeks were granted Roman citizenship by Hadrian the philhellene in the beginning of the 2nd century and I am not sure in what sense did Romans destroy Britonic civilisation.
Certain Ottoman Greeks (not “average”) were comparatively much wealthier than most Turks because of their education and trade connections as well as shipping later on (thats how you get the Onassis family). This occured despite the indescribable damage that the Ottomans did to the Greek nation making what was in still in the middle ages considered a synonym for education and refinement into more or less a vernacular culture (a few magnates and Phanariotes none-withstanding).
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
"were comparatively much wealthier than most Turks because of their education and trade connections as well as shipping later on "
Doesn't that show the Ottoman Empire allowed them to keep their wealth and flourish?
Volaer@reddit
I mean, Greeks were still obligated to pay the Jizya tax so the Ottoman state profited from their wealth.
I would not describe the existence Greeks had in the Ottoman empire as flourishing. They were a tolerated minority group at the mercy of the sultan which per Islamic doctrine allowed certain rights for those who submitted (life, religion…) but also prevented them from actual flourishing. In fact, the Ottoman “child collecting” was even contrary to classical Islamic practices so it could be argued that the Ottomans were worse in their treatment of Christians than the Abbasids.
St_Ascalon@reddit
Most history enthusiasts are nationalist and right leaning on internet. What do you expect.
In the Western sociology, Romans has been the subject of centuries of propaganda and big part of popular culture. Even the Ottomans were big fans of Roman Empire.
Most European might find Vikings cool, but they'd see Mongol horsemen as barbarians.
Anyway, this meme is ridiculous because using Roman Empire doesn't make sense due it belongs to diffrent time. Everything before the 17th century is a joke, in my opinion.. Similar empires of the time would be a better comparison, like the Russian Empire or France.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
The Cumans, Mongolians, and Kipchaks ware all badass warriors tho.
St_Ascalon@reddit
Flair checks out
SOHONEYSAME@reddit
both r shit.
Empty-Pace-4228@reddit (OP)
I wish Ottoman Empire really was like how it's told in Balkan history books, it could have survived...
TechnicianTimely2879@reddit
You’re crazy for wanting people to be murdered. I am happy we don’t have a fat 90% ukranian guy leading us because his blood is precious. And so are 90% of people in Turkey. Idiot.
alpidzonka@reddit
Westoids gonna westoid. Not a very strong opinion
eleutheromaniann@reddit
very normal.everyone tends to praise their own ancestors and belittle others.