By creating an account, you agree to our terms of service.
That empire was great! And still it's culture, traditions and other attributes live and develop
The Ottoman Empire was exactly what its name states: it was an empire. An “empire” is an extensive group of countries or peoples who are controlled by a supreme authority. In order to create an empire, Turkish (Ottoman) armies invaded, conquered, and colonized foreign lands. As imperialists, the Ottomans were extremely powerful and successful, in that they were able to invade, conquer, colonize, and occupy extensive areas of Asia, Africa, and Europe, and rule over the native peoples for a period of many hundreds of years.
İmperialism is the wrong word.The aim of the Ottoman Empire Where have cruelty,where if something goes wrong there to bring peace of mind..You Know,Empire, governed by the rules of Islam.The goal is peace and prosperity.
I know of the Ottoman empire although I'm no expert on it. I would say that unless the countries incorporated into the empire democractically voted for the sovereignty to be removed from them and given to the empire then I don't know how you can say it wasn't imperalism.
Sinan, let me translate your second post into straightforward English: You are against nations which attack, conquer, and occuply foreign lands, and you consider that imperialism; but if the attacking, conquering, and occupying nation is Islamic, it's not imperialism, and the conquest of non-Islamic peoples is fine with you.
The Ottomans attempted to bring as much territory as possible into the Islamic fold. The non-Muslims living in these areas were then absorbed into the Empire as protected subjects.Much like previous Muslim Empires, the Ottomans showed great toleration and acceptance of non-Muslim communities in their empire. This is based on existing Muslim laws regarding the status of non-Muslims. They are protected, given religious freedoms, and free from persecution according to the Shariah. One of the first precedents of this was the Treaty of Umar (I don't remember exactly), in which he guaranteed the Christians of Jerusalem total religious freedom and safety Under this system, each religious group was organized into a millet. Millet comes from the Arabic word for “nation”, indicating that the Ottomans considered themselves the protectors of multiple nations. Each religious group was considered its own millet, with multiple millets existing in the empire. For example, all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire were considered as constituting a millet, while all Jews constituted another millet. The millet system was a unique and creative solution to running a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire. The rights and freedoms it gave to religious minorities were far ahead of their time. While Europe struggled with religious persecution into the 1900s, the Ottomans created a harmonious and stable religious pluralistic system that guaranteed religious freedom for hundreds of years.
Anyone who has actually studied the Ottoman Empire to any depth further than its Wikipedia page would know it was far more tolerant of Christianity than contemporary European nations were even of rival Christian sects (to say nothing of Judaism or Islam). Obviously there were instances of persecution as there are under any institution or government that lasts for centuries and spans multiple continents. But as a whole, it was much better to have lived as a minority in the Ottoman Empire than say, early modern France, England or Germany.
The Ottoman relationship with its subjects, as a whole, was closer to the Roman model than the British or French one. Like the Romans, they were not that interested in forcing their culture or ideology on their subjects, so long as they received their tribute. And like the Romans, many of their subjects voluntarily (not by force) adopted the culture of their rulers to receive the benefits of being percieved as part of the dominant culture.
Thanks to some recent comments, I now understand that it is permissible to invade, conquer, and occupy other people's lands if you will show tolerance to the conquered people after you conquer them. And according to Siman, it is ok to do so if the attacking nation believes its religion is superior, and that the foreign people ought to be brought within the Islamic fold. And we apparently don't even have to be concerned about the many lives that were lost in the battles between the invading Ottomans and those defending their land at the time of the invasions. Now that I understand that the showing of "tolerance" towards a conquered people after an invasion is the only important consideration, and the very fact of invading and conquering a foreign land has no importance. Indeed, one commenter went directly to effusive praise of the Ottomans' tolerance without even mentioning the fact or morality of the invasions and conquests. Wow! I never would have learned such wisdom on the Wikipedia page.
While it's obviously good when there's religious tolerance it also makes logical sense it you want to run a sucessful empire. Read Machavelli's The Prince to find out why. So were they acting tolerant because they genuinely respected others believes or because it was the easiest way to run the empire? While it's nice to think the former I'm not sure. Of course it's good for those living there that they were better protected than in other countries at that time. I'm sure there were benefits but like all empires it's about taking sovereignty from a group whether they agree and do it peacefully or whether they resist.
@lingurarum The British empire wasn't interested in forcing its culture or ideology onto other cultures. Only those born in Britain can ever be British, don't you know? :P The French however were. The British just wanted to take from those countries with as little interaction from the population whereas the French were interested in expanding France by spreading their culture so that they would have populations all over that thought of themselves as French. If you look for a map of the EU you will see that the existing territories under French rule are regarded as French as Normandy whereas that's not the case with the UK's territories in other parts. They're under British soveriegnty but they're not another part of the UK.
Does that make the British empire morally superior to the French? No. They both thought they were superior and had no respect for the lands they were invading otherwise why would they invade? I'm sorry I don't believe you can invade in the name of peace and respect. The British model was less effort as they were just creating systems like done in previous were they created systems of reward for the chiefs and leaders in these countries to come into line.
The Ottoman empire was the country which army was beaten in 1570, 1700, 1774, 1791, 1812, 1829, 1878 years. And we are also waiting for armenian people to answer the question :DD