Charles V vs. Suleiman the Magnificent

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Prove it. Spain's Golden Century was going on and, as far as I know, that period has a lot more importance to the development of human culture that the Ottoman arts of the time. Don Juan and Don Quixote were not Ottomans, after all.   It is impossible to compare traditions of art and say this one is superior. I only wrote Ottomans were culturally superior because some upstarts here dared to write that they were inferior barbarians.   Back to you, your mention of 'human culture' is an imperialist euphemism for 'Western culture'. Because the West conquered the world thanks to the industrial revolution later (not because of Spanish achievements) we are told that European art forms are universal human achievements of genius, while the non-European achievements don't even exist.   You should know that Ottoman, Safavi, Mughal, Chinese, etc arts and cultural achievements were not inferior to those of the West. If you never heard of Sinan the Great architect, or Baki the poet that's your ignorance. If these people lived in Europe, today we'd be learning how great unmatched geniouses they were.   If you don't know of other cultures and art forms, you should at least have the decency to shut up rather than claiming you invented 'human culture'.

Edited by Ikki - 17-Sep-2007 at 10:48

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi   By contrast, I'll tell you of an event in the Ottoman Empire. There was a muslim religious learned man who claimed that Jesus was superior prophet to Muhammad. Suleyman thought that he was a dangerous heretic, wanted to get him killed. So he faced a court, which asked the opinion of religious experts. The experts decided that the man was not guilty!    Now imagine this happening in Spain. The King Charles V wants to kill a religious scholar who believes Muhammad is superior to Jesus. Inquisition tries the man and finds him not guilty... It is more likely that the Martians land in Madrid than this.   To make a long story short, Ottomans under Suleyman were far more tolerant than the Habsburgs.

Of course Ottoman were superior in armies.They have the best artillery for instance and large organized armies that threatened the invasion of all Western Europe.

Originally posted by The Hidden Face Very good point, Evrenos. Also a side note: Suleyman's real alias was "the  Lawgiver", he was called "the Magnificent" only in the west . One should think about it. "Magnificent".

Edited by Leonardo - 17-Sep-2007 at 12:35

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi   About the often abused word "tolerance", you commit the "sin" of anachronism if you apply the modern view of "tolerance" to the past. Nowadays in our global politically correct society "tolerance" is better than "intolerance" but for people living in the past "truth" was far more important than "tolerance" ...   My point is that the Ottomans at the time were more tolerant than the Habsburgs. And I prefer tolerant cultures.

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.

Well in terms of power we need to know:

Edited by Ikki - 17-Sep-2007 at 14:57

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

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.

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.