Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Abdul Hamid II a success or failure?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711 		  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Abdul Hamid II a success or failure?
    Posted: 09-May-2008 at 07:41
Ok, well not so much religious fanatic but devoted to the cause of Islam i guess.
 
How can you follow a pan-islamic propoganda politics without becoming a religious guy. is his character made his politics, or his politics created his character is unknown. Maybe both, but this absolute does not make him religious freak. Also, It is known, He did not tolerate more religious people like Mehmet Akif too.(It is interesting Mehmet Akif is more pan-islamist than Abdulhamit 2 himself.)
 
Also, He had non-muslim friends and people active at his palace.
  
Yes, it is understandable that his censorship was neccessary but what about the extent of the Armenian Massacres?
 
Aslanlar was not talking about armenian genocide. It is another issue happened at Abdulhamit 2 times.
 
It is a little unknown, How much Abdulhamit effected that hmmmm killings also lets not forget, Armenians tried to assasinate Abdulhamit 2. (And I should also add, numbers you took from armenian sources maybe a little wrong.)
 
Also, Abdulhamit was not a cruel character even he is power hungry. He did not killed his enemies(adversaries.). He generally exiled them.
 
He was responsible for the assasination of several prominant Arab intellectuals.
 
And I am curious about this. can you explain much about this with names.
 
@Kafka. I wasn't skeptical of his Armenian descent, i find it very interesting.
 
His mother may become cherkes too. Infact, I find it more probable.
 
Infact, It is not much interesting. Abdulhamit was not anti-armenian or anti any ethnic. His aim was to hold his counrty as whole. He fight against all type of people because of his ideas.
 
That is his main enemies are Turkish nationalists and that is also why, other nationalist are supported coup against Abdulhamit 2.
 
It is ironic armenians and greeks nationalists supported ittihatists against Abdulhamit 2.
 
 
Hmmm. well, maybe we can say, He was a little pro-kurdish. If I am not wrong, Kurds called Abdulhamit as father of kurds. He gained kurdish loyalty so much, Their loyalty to ottoman even surpassed Abdulhamit 2 himself or somehow even ottoman empire itself.
 
I think, his adversaries already talk about him with  fine words after they suffered much and see result of their own work.
 
“ Tarihler adını andığı zaman,

Sana hak verecek hey Koca Sultan,
Bizdik utanmadan iftira atan,
Asrın en siyasi Padişahına
- Rıza Tevfik

 ”

 

“ Padişahım gelmemişken yada biz,

İşte geldik senden istimdada biz,
Öldürürler başlasak feryada biz,
Hasret olduk eski istibdada biz
- Süleyman Nazif

 
I also remember, at the poet of Asım, Mehmet Akif said, "Hani nerde eski istibdat, arada bul şimdi."  words are not same but meanings are.
 
 
  
Infact, He had even his fingerprint at TC. Builders of TC(include Ataturk.) took their education from schools which abdulhamit built.
 
 


Edited by Mortaza - 09-May-2008 at 07:57
Back to Top
aslanlar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124 		  Quote aslanlar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2008 at 14:06

What do you suggest are the no. dead Mortaza for the hamidian massacres? Also, i am aware there was an assassination attempt on his life, but what year was it?

Thanks for the information Mortaza :).

In regards to Europe's impression of him, could it be said the image of the 'bloody sultan' was created after Britain had finally decided to let the Empire fall and that the critical view of the Sultan and the massacres were used to create anti-ottoman support?
"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini
Back to Top
aslanlar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124 		  Quote aslanlar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2008 at 14:59

Would anybody else like to give their 'two cents worth'?
"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2008 at 18:20

Hello to you all

About the assasination story, well these are allegations and there is no solid evidence of them being accurate except maybe for one incident involving Abdul-Rahman Al-Kawakibi who was very opposed the Turkish ruleand called for the Arabization of the caliphate as well as democracy and parliamentry rule.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200 		  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2008 at 00:36
Originally posted by kafkas

It's not true that there wasn't any resentment against Armenians until 1890, there actually was a lot. Maybe western, balkan, and middle eastern Muslims didn't care, but for Muslims living in the Caucasus it was an absolute nightmare. You should read on "muhajirism" which refers to the mass exodus of millions of Circassian, Abkhaz, Ossetian, Ingush, Chechen, Lezgin, Karapapak, Karachay, Chvneburni, Laz, Ubykh, Adjarian, and Tatar people from the Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire. And that's just the Caucasus, I'm not even mentioning the Crimea. Armenians being Orthodox were very pro-Russian and participated with Russians in these policies, so the anti-Armenian sentiment on the eastern Anatolian front which took in a lot of these refugees was really high. Entire ethnic groups were not only deported but killed off in their native lands. The Ubykh language and people for example as a result of these policies are extinct. So I don't think AHII could have controlled a lot of the fighting there unless he was ready to have a lot of his own troops killed in the cross-fire, like I said that region at the time was hell. Most Western sources aren't concerned with people getting killed unless it's their own kind, so there's much more info on this topic in Turkic and Caucasian languages.


Did you just blame the Tsarist oppression of the Caucasian Muslims on Armenians just because Armenian are Christians? Armenian inhabited regions were not adjacent to those of the Muslim Caucasian peoples.

By the way, the much hated (by Turkish nationalists) Armenian Revolutionary Federation (the Dashnaks) were founded in Tbilisi, Georgia, 1892 to fight off Russian rule.

Christian support for the Young Turks was expected as they promised "equality" to all persons, and after 1896 it is not surprising that Armenians supported them. Moreover, the genocidal turn of the Young Turks led by the CUP in 1914 could not really have been foreseen during the reformation period (perhaps Adana  was a warning)

Also, where have you heard that the Bloody Sultan was part Armenian?

PS: I read that the victims of the Hamidian Massacres numbered 200,000...
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914 		  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 20:44
Originally posted by aslanlar


On the one hand, the Ottoman empire went through a period of improvement under him, and even gained some territory in the 30 day war against Greece in 1897.
 
 
A small correction. Empire won the war, but ironically lost some territory. 
 
Originally posted by aslanlar


On the other, he was a religious fanatic and desperate to console power. He supressed any nationalist movement
 
There is no real proof that he was a "fanatic". For pursuing Pan-Islamic policies, it is merely a part of politics, a different attempt to save the empire after "Ottomanism" failed. Suppression of nationalist movements was also a natural part of the same struggle.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.