Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Byzantine Emperor
Arch Duke
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios
Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Charles V vs. Suleiman the Magnificent Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 18:26 |
At first I warned everyone against ethnic flamewars and historical anachronism. Now it seems that this thread has become a free-for-all and is not really accomplishing anything. It has run its course.
Edited by Byzantine Emperor - 18-Sep-2007 at 18:29
|
|
|
Beylerbeyi
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 14:15 |
This must be the worst counter-argument I've read in years. Is there an AE award for this?
In any case, this is the last reply from me.
Don't you see it? Even yourself knows him |
I also knows Paris Hilton, so she must be a genious.
Not the best literary work, the best novel indeed, or "book" like I said. Long work, lot of pages, single story, do you get it? |
So according to you 'novel = book'? Is this a peculiarity of the Spanish language or another manifestation of the nebulous nature of your cognitive facilities?
Narcissist fantasies? Sure, western art suck... gothic catedrals, Da Vinci, Bach and Dali included.... (tell me about biass ) |
Western art sucks? Gothic cathedrals? Are you sure you are sober?
Of course. Usually the best works transcend the frontiers and the mediocre works stay where they were born. |
So the thousand years of Chinese and Indian art is mediocre because westerners and some wannabe westerners in the third world never heard of them...
Religious? You are smoking hachich now. I would better say "phylosophical".... |
Taoism is a religion... Tao Te Ching, which is among my favourite texts, is a 2500 year old religous text.
How many Nahuatl and Mapuche poets can you mention?
Ignorance go both ways, fellow |
??? YOU are the one who claims that if someone is a genious you know them and if you never heard of them they are mediocre. I never claimed such a thing. I am sure those people have very talented poets which can rival the best Spain can offer.
I find it hard to believe that you are unable to follow your argument in two consecutive paragraphs. I really hope that you are high on somehing...
With respect to Chineses and Indians, I can hardly say Ni hao and Namashkar, and everytime I learn the meaning of a new Chinese character or Indian god I forget a hundred of others I learn before . |
I am not surprised at all about your learning difficulties but they are highly irrelevant. How many Chinese poets have you learned in school? How many books by Chinese poets can you find in a library or buy in your bookstore?
None. If you have 1 book from China, you have 10 from Europe and 100 from the US. And you claim that this difference is due to their respective talents...
Don Juan is not even an hero. It is a character or archetype Jung's style (sorry to mention a Westerner ). It doesn't matter if you know it or not. The only important thing is that you don't find a Don Juan sleeping with your woman... that's the main point |
It really gets worse and worse. I was assuming that Don Juan was first written about in the Charles V era, but it turns out that it was written in the 17th century according to wikipedia.
So you are basically claiming that Spain had a superior culture because an influential book was written in the next century... Pathetic.
Anyway, I think I have explained everything already but unfortunately failed to penetrate your thickly armoured skull. I won't reply to any more of your garbage because you do not deserve any replies other than the kind that gets people warnings.
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 12:43 |
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Don Juan is globally nobody. Nobodys know him outside of Spanish-speaking world. Even you refer to Don Giovanni opera by Mozart to prove his fame. Mozart also wrote operas about the Ottoman harem. So the haremguardin that operamust be a genious according to you... |
I'm not following the discussion one bit, but Don Juan is well-known in all of Europe at least. If you ask a Chinese he might very well say "huh?" though.
|
|
Majkes
Chieftain
Imperial Ambassador
Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 12:20 |
Originally posted by Mortaza
Pardon me but, How can a horny guy become main point of a discussion about cultural superiority?
|
It probably shows that XVIth century Spanish had many talents and practised many kinds of art.
|
|
Mortaza
Tsar
Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 11:04 |
Pardon me but, How can a horny guy become main point of a discussion about cultural superiority?
|
|
Leonardo
General
Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 10:31 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Don Juan is not even an hero. It is a character or archetype Jung's style (sorry to mention a Westerner ). It doesn't matter if you know it or not. The only important thing is that you don't find a Don Juan sleeping with your woman... that's the main point
Pinguin |
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 09:04 |
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
....
Don Juan is globally nobody. Nobodys know him outside of Spanish-speaking world. Even you refer to Don Giovanni opera by Mozart to prove his fame. Mozart also wrote operas about the Ottoman harem. So the harem guard in that opera must be a genious according to you...
. |
Yes. Ottomans were curious criatures in those times, exhotics you know, like Don Giovanni himself.
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Besides, Don Quixote was voted not long ago as the best literary book ever written. Between the voters there were many muslim writers that I bet know more about literature that you, fellow. |
Don Quixote is important for western literature because it is considered the first true novel. As you know novel is a strictily western art form. Rest of the world started writing novels only after the colonial era.
. |
Don't you see it? Even yourself knows him
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Claiming that Don Quixote is 'voted the best literary book ever written' is just stinking garbage. Maybe some literary types voted it the best novel ever written,
. |
Not the best literary work, the best novel indeed, or "book" like I said. Long work, lot of pages, single story, do you get it?
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
but no sane person would claim what you wrote. If some lunatics really did that, it just shows nothing but the extent of the narcissistic fantasies the western art circles are masturbating to.
|
Narcissist fantasies? Sure, western art suck... gothic catedrals, Da Vinci, Bach and Dali included.... (tell me about biass )
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
And I bet there is not match for Mozart in the world... he was the fellow that addopted Don Juan for his Opera Don Giovanni, anyways. |
What the f**k is Mozart doing in XVI th century in Charles V's time? What are you smoking?
. |
Mozart? He was just a fellow that wrote music. Some biggots say he was pretty good at it.
I don't smoke hachich..
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
And the West also had recognized the value of the Arabian Nights, the Tao te King and the Kamasutra, among others "oriental" classics, so I believe your claim of Eurocentrism is not fair. |
For every book the 'Orientalists' studied there are thousand others that they didn't . Some of those books have become popular in the West due to a variety of reasons. They are by no means the only works of literary value that originate from Asia.
. |
Of course. Usually the best works transcend the frontiers and the mediocre works stay where they were born.
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Tao te Ching is not a literary work, it is a religious text. Kama Sutra is a manual about sexual relations. So your boasts about knowing Asian literature are visibly empty as your general rhetoric.
. |
Religious? You are smoking hachich now. I would better say "phylosophical"....
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
False, people is recognized because its importance to the world. And people like Kahyyam and Alhazen made such important contributions that nobody could forget them, no matter they were Muslims. |
These people you mention were famous only because they had some influence in the West for some reason or another. Of course they were talented, but there are thousands like them which the Westerners don't know about.
. |
Westerns really admire the outstanding figures of the past, like the one mentioned. Now, if those "ignored" deserve recognition, I am certain they will be known sooner or later.
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Yet you go claiming that you don't know about the rest because they are not talented. I find this western arrogance you are displaying, in one word, disgusting.
. |
Yes. Ethnocentrism is quite disgusting
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
How about naming me a few Chinese poets? Indian poets? You can't name even one... Even though these countries have literary traditions thousands of years old.
|
How many Nahuatl and Mapuche poets can you mention?
Ignorance go both ways, fellow
I won't ask you to know Spanish speaking poets or writers because they are usually well known by everybody.
With respect to Chineses and Indians, I can hardly say Ni hao and Namashkar, and everytime I learn the meaning of a new Chinese character or Indian god I forget a hundred of others I learn before .
The only solution is translation and, as you know, translation kill poetry.
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
So, according to you thousand of years nothing worthwile was written because you never heard of them. These countries are populated by retards, while everyone who wrote one famous book in some European country is a genious, a worthy contributor to 'universal human civilisation'...
|
I never say so.
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Every country has local heroes. We are talking in here of figure that transcend locality and are known worldwide. |
Sorry to hurt your feelings, but Don Juan is strictily a local hero by your criterion. Paris Hilton, however, is known worldwide, so she must be a great genious... |
Don Juan is not even an hero. It is a character or archetype Jung's style (sorry to mention a Westerner ). It doesn't matter if you know it or not. The only important thing is that you don't find a Don Juan sleeping with your woman... that's the main point
Pinguin
Edited by pinguin - 18-Sep-2007 at 09:04
|
|
Beylerbeyi
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 06:52 |
By the way, if they don't know Don Giovanni (Don Juan Tenorio) it is quite sad... ...they have missed the fun part of art history . |
Don Juan is globally nobody. Nobodys know him outside of Spanish-speaking world. Even you refer to Don Giovanni opera by Mozart to prove his fame. Mozart also wrote operas about the Ottoman harem. So the harem guard in that opera must be a genious according to you...
Besides, Don Quixote was voted not long ago as the best literary book ever written. Between the voters there were many muslim writers that I bet know more about literature that you, fellow. |
Don Quixote is important for western literature because it is considered the first true novel. As you know novel is a strictily western art form. Rest of the world started writing novels only after the colonial era.
Claiming that Don Quixote is 'voted the best literary book ever written' is just stinking garbage. Maybe some literary types voted it the best novel ever written, but no sane person would claim what you wrote. If some lunatics really did that, it just shows nothing but the extent of the narcissistic fantasies the western art circles are masturbating to.
And I bet there is not match for Mozart in the world... he was the fellow that addopted Don Juan for his Opera Don Giovanni, anyways. |
What the f**k is Mozart doing in XVI th century in Charles V's time? What are you smoking?
And the West also had recognized the value of the Arabian Nights, the Tao te King and the Kamasutra, among others "oriental" classics, so I believe your claim of Eurocentrism is not fair. |
For every book the 'Orientalists' studied there are thousand others that they didn't . Some of those books have become popular in the West due to a variety of reasons. They are by no means the only works of literary value that originate from Asia.
Tao te Ching is not a literary work, it is a religious text. Kama Sutra is a manual about sexual relations. So your boasts about knowing Asian literature are visibly empty as your general rhetoric.
False, people is recognized because its importance to the world. And people like Kahyyam and Alhazen made such important contributions that nobody could forget them, no matter they were Muslims. |
These people you mention were famous only because they had some influence in the West for some reason or another. Of course they were talented, but there are thousands like them which the Westerners don't know about.
Yet you go claiming that you don't know about the rest because they are not talented. I find this western arrogance you are displaying, in one word, disgusting.
How about naming me a few Chinese poets? Indian poets? You can't name even one... Even though these countries have literary traditions thousands of years old.
So, according to you thousand of years nothing worthwile was written because you never heard of them. These countries are populated by retards, while everyone who wrote one famous book in some European country is a genious, a worthy contributor to 'universal human civilisation'...
Every country has local heroes. We are talking in here of figure that transcend locality and are known worldwide. |
Sorry to hurt your feelings, but Don Juan is strictily a local hero by your criterion. Paris Hilton, however, is known worldwide, so she must be a great genious...
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 00:59 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Agree. In fact, Spaniards usually suspected Charles V was more worried about Northern Europe than about Spain itself... There is the sensation that Spain was a cow milked in the benefit of a dinasty didn't work in the benefit of Spain itself at all.
During the government of Charles V and Phillip II, they destroyed methodically the manufacturing industry in Spain, and most of the revenues from the Americas were "magically" shipped outside Spain.
Curiously enough, while the ruling classes of Spain were enjoying the river of money arriving, the common people were suffering hunger, and many were escaping to the Americas.
Weird,
Pinguin
|
That's because Spain was a cash crop in taxation terms, the Spanish realm that is Castile, and Aragon were taxed more than any other crown possesion.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 21:14 |
Agree. In fact, Spaniards usually suspected Charles V was more worried about Northern Europe than about Spain itself... There is the sensation that Spain was a cow milked in the benefit of a dinasty didn't work in the benefit of Spain itself at all.
During the government of Charles V and Phillip II, they destroyed methodically the manufacturing industry in Spain, and most of the revenues from the Americas were "magically" shipped outside Spain.
Curiously enough, while the ruling classes of Spain were enjoying the river of money arriving, the common people were suffering hunger, and many were escaping to the Americas.
Weird,
Pinguin
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 21:04 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Charles V helped to build the Spanish Empire. The conquestadors reported directly to him. Just a single country like Mexico had more territory than most Ottoman conquests on Europe. |
Territory yes, however Charles inherited his possessions as well, he helped to organize as much as possible that is true as well.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 20:49 |
Charles V helped to build the Spanish Empire. The conquestadors reported directly to him. Just a single country like Mexico had more territory than most Ottoman conquests on Europe.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 20:27 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Just compare the size of the Spanish Empire (in red) with the Ottoman. We are talking about different things. Suleiman was building an empire in microscopic Europe. Charles V was building a global empire.
There is no comparison possible.
|
Charles V did not build an empire, he inherited it as individual head of all the different kingdoms, and principalities he was head of state off. Suleiman added substantially to his inheritance, and was in charge of a unified Empire, something Charles was not off, as can be seen under his successors who had to divert funds from one realm to spend on another, and were curbed severely in some instances by the aristocracies of each individual kingdom. In the respect of land, and titles it is clear that Charles V had the bigger, and in terms of gold and silver bullion the richer Empire of the two. In terms of acquisitions it was Suleiman, and as well in terms of a cohesive state it was Suleiman as he had one Empire, instead of an amalgam of hereditary kingdoms and principalities.
|
|
Leonardo
General
Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 17:16 |
Originally posted by DayI
Originally posted by Leonardo
... and this confirms how tolerant, fair and open-minded were the Ottomans living that time
|
and that shows how.... nevermind otherwise i'll get a warning message to actually compliments that I have write down to you.
I get the impression of yours and some of your fella's posts that they say "hey kids, common look Turks try to glorify themselfs against the west -lets have a laugh and fun out there"
If this was so simple, you would say again "mamma il turchi"... that's one thing you probably will know.
|
Learn from yuor fellow Hidden Face to take it with humor as it was intended to
Originally posted by DayI
When the man who's your avatar is right now, was doing his projects under cellars of churche's in deep secrets, in fear of getting found and killed by the monks because he was gay, when he and his works was ignored by the west, he and his works where allready heard and respected in the Ottoman empire.
Also he got an invitation of Ottoman sultan beyazid to come to Istanbul. oh before i forget, one of his projects was building a bridge to Istanbul...
now under this you can write your
|
Sorry but you are wrong. The "man in my avatar" was recognized as a genius by his countrymen and nobody tried to kill him for his supposed "gayness" and about the bridge in Constantinople you are wrong too, he never got an invitation but he first wrote to the Sultan in order to offer his services as a military engineer. AFAIK the Sultan never answered.
|
|
DayI
Sultan
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 15:24 |
Originally posted by Leonardo
... and this confirms how tolerant, fair and open-minded were the Ottomans living that time
|
and that shows how.... nevermind otherwise i'll get a warning message to actually compliments that I have write down to you. I get the impression of yours and some of your fella's posts that they say "hey kids, common look Turks try to glorify themselfs against the west -lets have a laugh and fun out there" If this was so simple, you would say again "mamma il turchi"... that's one thing you probably will know. When the man who's your avatar is right now, was doing his projects under cellars of churche's in deep secrets, in fear of getting found and killed by the monks because he was gay, when he and his works was ignored by the west, he and his works where allready heard and respected in the Ottoman empire. Also he got an invitation of Ottoman sultan beyazid to come to Istanbul. oh before i forget, one of his projects was building a bridge to Istanbul... now under this you can write your
|
|
|
Evrenosgazi
Consul
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 14:44 |
We are all accepting that there is a decline in ottoman power after the 17 th century.
Athanasios, ottomans werent angels but not demons like you say.
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 14:43 |
Well in terms of power we need to know:
Quantity:
1. Population
2. Territorial size
3. Army and navy size
4. Size of the economy and richness abalaivle for the state-king.
Cuality:
1. Level of state's efficiency
2. Quality of armed forces
3. Development level of economy
4. Capacity of projecting power
Well, so many things and of course for concrete dates, a comparation for the hole XVI century can be very different than for only few years, the post say Charles V vs Suleyman:
Charles reign: 1516-1556
Suleyman: 1520-1566
So we can use different dates but i think that the perfect one is the date of the Charles's abdication: 1556 or near years.
Edited by Ikki - 17-Sep-2007 at 14:57
|
|
Athanasios
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 14:37 |
Mortaza:By the way, There is not Turkish method of impalement
Until 19 century Ottomans developed such techniques so that the
victim could feel the pain during all the process. This was managed by
inserting the pale in a way so none of the vital parts of the body(
intestine,stomach, lungs etc.) would be hurt (placing the victim on the ground, streching his legs and striking
skilfully the pale with a hammer and checking the
direction of it into the body) Do you call this
advanced surgery?
The fact is that Ottoman empire had a complete
stagnation since 16century, both in military and political practices.
It was a really powerful(in medieval standards) empire during the age
of discoveries , enlightenment and industrial era...
Edited by Athanasios - 17-Sep-2007 at 14:38
|
|
|
The Hidden Face
Chieftain
Ustad-i Azam
Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1379
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 13:34 |
Originally posted by Leonardo
... and this confirms how biased, intolerant, turks-hater were the Europeans living that time
... and this confirms how tolerant, fair and open-minded were the Ottomans living that time
|
Hehe. Good points there as well. However these things are little bit off topic. I want to focus only on Charles and Suleyman and their powers. Though cultural toleration or open mindedness of Westerners and the Ottomans are also interesting subject and must be examined but in this thread it's getting confusing. But anyway, If you want a serious answer to that, I would say that we could easily find the writings/nicknames which directly insult as well as caricaturise the Ottomans in the west ("sick man" comes to mind for instance) and we could also see that there are Ottoman writings which glorify the western achievements/western statesmen. And vice versa. But important point is that these names show the relation between sides. Peter was psycho because he was abnormal to the Ottomans.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 12:56 |
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
...
I never claimmed that. I just said everybody knows Don Juan (Mozart knew it and called Don Giovanni) and Don Quixote. I bet you also know them |
Everybody knows them because the West colonised the world. Not because they are geniouses unmatched in Asia.
|
I don't agree.
By the way, if they don't know Don Giovanni (Don Juan Tenorio) it is quite sad... ...they have missed the fun part of art history . Besides, Don Quixote was voted not long ago as the best literary book ever written. Between the voters there were many muslim writers that I bet know more about literature that you, fellow.
And I bet there is not match for Mozart in the world... he was the fellow that addopted Don Juan for his Opera Don Giovanni, anyways.
And the West also had recognized the value of the Arabian Nights, the Tao te King and the Kamasutra, among others "oriental" classics, so I believe your claim of Eurocentrism is not fair.
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
...
I know about Omar Kahyyam, Al Kwarismi, Alhazen and many other outstanding Muslims intellectuals. If I don't know about Baki or Sinan is simply because they are not the most famous figures in the sphere of the Muslim achievements... I am afraid. And that is not my fault. It is just a matter of more promotion. |
Who is famous and who is not, is also determined by the West. It tells absolutely nothing about their achievements.
|
False, people is recognized because its importance to the world. And people like Kahyyam and Alhazen made such important contributions that nobody could forget them, no matter they were Muslims.
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
...
In Turkey everyone knows Sinan and nobody knows Don Juan.
|
Every country has local heroes. We are talking in here of figure that transcend locality and are known worldwide.
|
|