Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Topic: "Countries" were neither colonized nor colonizer? Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 04:34 |
Originally posted by Bulldog
Well Ottomans andPersianswere not necessarily colonisers however, the Greeks? Romans? Byzantines? surely you can't be serious, there are countless Greek colonies and as for Russia you surely must be joking. |
Can you give some examples?
|
|
Mortaza
Tsar
Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 07:00 |
|
|
bg_turk
Sultan
Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 07:55 |
Originally posted by barish
It didn't used to exist until hmm... the age of colonization.
|
It surely existed in antiquity. Greek colonies existed in North Africa, Crimea, Souterh Italy, etc...
It is done for free basic materials and cheap labour force.
|
Slavery was very common in antiquity. Barbarians from the colonized territories were taken as slaves. It wasnt simply a cheap labor force, it was for free.
|
|
bg_turk
Sultan
Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 08:07 |
Originally posted by barish
The people who were conquered by Ottomans were not second class citizens.
|
On the contrary, Christians were considered second class subjects in the Ottoman empire. The justice system was heavily titled towards the Muslims, and Christians could hardly ever win cases in courts against Muslims. Also Christians had to pay heavier taxes than Muslims. The Empire never encouraged equality between its subjects, instead it invented this "millet" system of seggregation. By not encouraging integration of the ordinary Christians into the structures of the Empire, the Empire chose to keep them isolated in these different millet units. The reforms in the Empire that was to finally bring equality between the Christians and Muslims in 1876(?) achieved too little too late for the empire was already beginning to disintegrate.
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 08:24 |
Originally posted by bg_turk
On the contrary, Christians were considered second class subjects in the Ottoman empire. The justice system was heavily titled towards the Muslims, and Christians could hardly ever win cases in courts against Muslims. Also Christians had to pay heavier taxes than Muslims. The Empire never encouraged equality between its subjects, instead it invented this "millet" system of seggregation. By not encouraging integration of the ordinary Christians into the structures of the Empire, the Empire chose to keep them isolated in these different millet units.
The reforms in the Empire that was to finally bring equality between the Christians and Muslims in 1876(?) achieved too little too late for the empire was already beginning to disintegrate.
|
Very astute observations. Though discriminatory policies differ in practice and scope, sadly enough they have been a part of every major power at one time or another.
-Akolouthos
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 03:01 |
Originally posted by bg_turk
On the contrary, Christians were considered second class subjects in the Ottoman empire. The justice system was heavily titled towards the Muslims, and Christians could hardly ever win cases in courts against Muslims. Also Christians had to pay heavier taxes than Muslims. The Empire never encouraged equality between its subjects, instead it invented this "millet" system of seggregation. By not encouraging integration of the ordinary Christians into the structures of the Empire, the Empire chose to keep them isolated in these different millet units.The reforms in the Empire that was to finally bring equality between the Christians and Muslims in 1876(?) achieved too little too late for the empire was already beginning to disintegrate. |
Those are just formalities.
In Istanbul most rich merchants, landowners were either Rum or Jew, while Turks were just farmers or soldiers.
That's definitely different from the British Empire, right?
Plus only distinction was made through religion.
If the conquered person was a muslim, he was considered as an ordinary Ottoman citizen.
Edited by barish - 23-Jun-2006 at 03:04
|
|
Mortaza
Tsar
Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 04:29 |
I am sure not all of non-muslims were merchants, and I am sure not all muslims were peasant.
Compare muslims peasents, with non-muslim peasents. I agree with bg, Christians were considered second class subjects in the Ottoman empire.
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 05:23 |
Originally posted by Mortaza
I agree with bg, Christians were considered second class subjects in the Ottoman empire. |
Officially? Yes. Unofficially? I don't think so.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 05:26 |
Originally posted by barish
In Istanbul most rich merchants, landowners were either Rum or Jew, while Turks were just farmers or soldiers.
That's definitely different from the British Empire, right?
|
Not so different from the situation in India, where the rich landowners and merchants were mostly Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs/Parsees. Most of the army was also not British, no?
Edited by gcle2003 - 23-Jun-2006 at 05:27
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 05:44 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Not so different from the situation in India, where the rich landowners and merchantsweremostly Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs/Parsees. Most of the army was also not British, no? |
I see, and how about London?
That would be a more appropriate comparison.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 13:49 |
Originally posted by barish
Originally posted by gcle2003
Not so different from the situation in India, where the rich landowners and merchants were mostly Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs/Parsees. Most of the army was also not British, no? | I see, and how about London?
That would be a more appropriate comparison. |
You mean London as an example of Anglo-Saxon colonisation of Britain? to be honest I don't know enough about the period.
The same goes for London as an example of Roman colonisation of Britain. With regard to the Norman colonisation of Britain, I think most rich Saxon merchants and property holders kept their possessions. The Normans weren't terribly into trade.
And of course there were quite a few foreign merchants happily plying their business in London at the time, notably from Flanders.
Much the same is again true of Beijing after Mongol and Manchu colonisation, no?
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 20:44 |
No, you misunderstood.
Istanbul was the capital of Ottoman Empire. Trade was under the control of the "collonized" people.
And I ask; were there any foreign people who had any type of power in the capital city of British Empire?
Edited by barish - 23-Jun-2006 at 20:45
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 06:10 |
Originally posted by barish
No, you misunderstood.
Istanbul was the capital of Ottoman Empire. Trade was under the control of the "collonized" people.
And I ask; were there any foreign people who had any type of power in the capital city of British Empire?
|
But the people who you are pointing out had economic power in Istanbul were not foreign. They were native. They therefore compare directly with Saxons under Norman rule, and so on.
There were plenty of foreign people (i.e. with origins outside England) who achieved power in London: the Duke of Wellington and Disraeli are obvious examples that stand out in the political field: the Rothschilds stand out in the economic field.
How many foreign-origin powerful people in Istanbul compare with those?
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 08:24 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
But the people who you are pointing out had economic power in Istanbul were not foreign. They were native. |
Not all of them.
Originally posted by gcle2003
How many foreign-origin powerful people in Istanbul compare with those? |
Countless. There were generals, bureaucrats, merchants, religious leaders...
Racially, even emperors were not Turkic.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 09:39 |
Originally posted by barish
Originally posted by gcle2003
How many foreign-origin powerful people in Istanbul compare with those? | Countless. There were generals, bureaucrats, merchants, religious leaders...
|
Where did they come from?
Racially, even emperors were not Turkic. |
That's new to me, but I wouldn't claim to know. I always assumed the Ottoman Emperors were Ottomans. Why did they call themselves Ottomans? Or didn't they - is it just what foreigners called them?
How much of, say, Edward VII's heritage do you think was English or British?
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 12:32 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Where did they come from? |
From the conquered provinces of the empire.
Some of them may have been natives of Istanbul as you said though.
Originally posted by gcle2003
That's new to me, but I wouldn't claim to know. I always assumed the Ottoman Emperors were Ottomans. Why did they call themselves Ottomans? Or didn't they - is it just what foreigners called them? |
"Ottoman" comes from Osman, the founder of the empire.
It was the name of the ruling family, which became a religious identity later on.
Originally posted by gcle2003
How much of, say, Edward VII's heritage do you think was English or British? |
I am not sure. He may not be pure blood English.
But when compared to Ottoman rulers, I don't think he is that "mixed".
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jun-2006 at 06:49 |
Originally posted by barish
Originally posted by gcle2003
How much of, say, Edward VII's heritage do you think was English or British? | I am not sure. He may not be pure blood English.
But when compared to Ottoman rulers, I don't think he is that mixed. [/QUOTE
If you take his sixty-two ancestors up to his great-great-great-grandparents only three were born in Britain. |
If you take his sixty-two ancestors up to his great-great-great-grandparents only three were born in Britain.
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jun-2006 at 14:04 |
Well, that may be so, but this situation is rather irrelevant, isn't it?
I mean since Britain didn't conquer his homeland, it doesn't matter if he is of German origin or something like that.
|
|
AFG-PaShTuN
Samurai
Joined: 03-Sep-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 07:35 |
Afghanistan, never a colony, nor colonized any country.
|
|
|
shayan
Samurai
Joined: 03-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 17:36 |
Wasn't Bahrein like a colony of Iran? and isn't Abu musa still a colony?
|
Iran parast
|
|