Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 1

message: What happened in the 1600s ?
Clearly there were two emperors at the same time...
Mustafa I (1617-1623)
Osman II (1618?-1622?)
Murat IV (1623-1640?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBaker (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 September 2001 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rulers 

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

message: I'll place the above information of Cem into a seperate article about him. Then I thought of making some big changes on this entry (splitting it into different pages etc.) so it'll be UNDER CONSTRUCTION for some time. If anyone has got any opinions or points of view, post them on this talk page, please. --The Phoenix 15:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to replace your warning with the standard  — Jor (Darkelf) 18:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I think I'll be working on it for more than three hours (it has already been three days). Most of the editing will be done on the temp file, though. --The Phoenix 15:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The construction work is finished. The Temp-file should be deleted. The article also need a good, free map. --The Phoenix 17:33, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Construction 

message: I'm searching for the map found at the French Empire ottoman, but in English instead. Clearly, the text in French has been added. --The Phoenix 18:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this version? —Bkell 22:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I'm looking for, though I made a search at Google today and found the map. It seems I forgot to check on Google yesterday before writing this entry. Sorry for this! —The Phoenix 07:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning a map 

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

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

message: other than above The ottoman flag has never been red. the flag shown is the flag of turkey and ottomans has never used that flag --CaSH 13:36, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
Red flag is the flag of Anatolian Turks, flag of both Ottoman and Turkey. There are videos that people celebrating the sultan's arrive in istanbul with red flags in their hands. Another theory is, there are some historians that say the "crescent and star" was viewed first and adopted as a flag at a night when Constantinapolis was sieged at April 1453 --JohnEmerald 13:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: I'm no expert on the subject, but I can't help feeling that describing the empire as a Turkish state doesn't really do justice to the other ethnic groups involved, especially the Arabs, who must have outnumbered Turks for most of the empire's history. I must admit I'm not sure what a better description would be. Grant65 (Talk) 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
How about a multinational state? Just counting its successor states suggests various populations co-habiting. Successor states like:
*Albania.
*Algeria.
*Bosnia and Herzegovina.
*Bulgaria.
*Cyprus.
*Egypt.
*Greece.
*Hungary (partly).
*Iraq.
*Israel/Palestine.
*Jordan.
*Lebanon.
*Libya.
*Republic of Macedonia.
*Moldova.
*Oman.
*Qatar.
*Romania.
*Serbia and Montenegro.
*Sudan (partly).
*Syria.
*Tunisia.
*Turkey.
*Yemen.
User:Dimadick
::The territory of the Ottoman State is now divided between these states, yes. But "successor state", at least in my mind, has the meaning of which state replaced it geopolitically, taking on the role, relationships, etc. For example, while the Soviet Union broke up into a bunch of states, the seat on the Security Council and suchlike went to Russia.
::Having said that, I would vote for capturing both aspects—territory as well as geopolitical successor.
::As for being Turkish or not, the state was controlled, dominated and run by Turks, no? The Arabs, for example, saw it as Turkish rule. Take the British empire as an example; it was definitely multiethnic at it's peak. But it was a British entity.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
:: I think the reason why the british empire failed so quickly was because it could not make the step from multiethnic to multiculturalism, the ottomans had done this, they were not just multi ethnic but also multicultural and I think the Romans had done it as well.--Kahraman 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at that first sentence again, I think the problem is trying to describe something from history in terms that were created for today's structures. It was not a state; it was an empire. And in a lot of places, the rule was very indirect.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I think its wrong to see the Osmanli empire as a nation state with a particular ethnicity, eg Turkish. The main legitimacy of the empire and the reason why people stayed loyal to it was not it being Turkish or being Arab. The Turks stayed with it because it was ruled by a Han, the Arabs because it was the sultan, the Muslims because the dynasty claimed the caliphate, the christians because the Osmanli  were the emperor of constantinople, and the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, the protectors of orthodox christianity from the latins and the pope. Once these ties were weakened by the advent of nationalism and many other ideologies, the empire ceased to exist, and every ethnicity was taking care of itself. Turkish nationalism actually only started in the 1920's and 30's with the masses with Ataturk--Kahraman 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The Ottoman Empire was, exactly like Kahraman has pointed out, never a nation. It was built up on loyalty to the local lords and to the sultan. It was never (at least not until the advent of the Young Turks) associated with the Turkish people. Turks were the ignorant muslim villagers and farmers of Anatolia. The state was always referred to as Ottoman if it was named at all. The common denomination was something like the "well-protected realms". I don't know why the Europeans started to call it Turkey. It would also be wrong to call the Empire multinational, since there were not really such a thing as nationality among any of the peoples under the sultan's command until the 19th century. Rebellions before that were mostly due to religious issues or power-hungry local lords rather than nationalism. —The Phoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not know if it is true, but again on a history program on TRT, I heard that the Europeans  used to call Mameluke ruled Egypt and Syria The state of Turks or Turkey. Of course , Selim I took Egypt and Syria in the beginning of the 16th century, so the Europeans started to call the Ottomans Turkey--Kahraman 12:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds logical. At least we know that Baibars was a Turk and I assume that the early Mameluks considered themselves as heirs to the Seljuk Turks in order to increase their legitimacy. In respons to iFaqeer, yes, I agree that the British Empire was British and run by Brits, but the Ottoman Empire was not run (at least far from exclusively) by Turks. Nevertheless, the Ottoman Empire was both empire and state, although not a state as in a "nation state" and furthermore with few similiarities to a modern, centralized state. By the way, multiethnical is a much better term than multinational. —The Phoenix 20:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turkish" state