Print Page | Close Window

The Sultan still in the house?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Discription: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2016
Printed Date: 22-Nov-2017 at 20:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Sultan still in the house?
Posted By: Infidel
Subject: The Sultan still in the house?
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2005 at 12:15

What do you think would be Turkey like today (if any different) if after the War of Independence (or one could say, Resistance), Atatürk hadn't ended the Osmanlî Sultanate?

Similarly to many monarchies that still exist, and flourish, in Europe (Spain, England, Holland, and so on), do you think that by keeping the Sultan and his family as the heads-of-state would it bring the country and the region a more harmonious and fair relationship with its past? I'm mentioning this, because I reckon that with the instauration of the Republic, there was an undarstandable need to cut off with the past. Only recently, a more serious approach has been made towards reconciliation with the Ottoman heritage. (So I've read. Correct me if I'm wrong)

So, would you concieve Turkey as a modern democratic state, secular, with its parliament, but with the dinastic family?

PS - So one could imagine something like the Sultan's heir being caught up smoking pot by some paparazzis and hitting the headlines on the morning tabloids!

Or perhaps not...



-------------
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?



Replies:
Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2005 at 03:52

They couldn't have been stating any ideas about politics.It would have been forbidden for them.

 



-------------


Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2005 at 11:51
Originally posted by Infidel

What do you think would be Turkey like today (if any different) if after the War of Independence (or one could say, Resistance), Atatürk hadn't ended the Osmanlî Sultanate?

Similarly to many monarchies that still exist, and flourish, in Europe (Spain, England, Holland, and so on), do you think that by keeping the Sultan and his family as the heads-of-state would it bring the country and the region a more harmonious and fair relationship with its past? I'm mentioning this, because I reckon that with the instauration of the Republic, there was an undarstandable need to cut off with the past. Only recently, a more serious approach has been made towards reconciliation with the Ottoman heritage. (So I've read. Correct me if I'm wrong)

So, would you concieve Turkey as a modern democratic state, secular, with its parliament, but with the dinastic family?

PS - So one could imagine something like the Sultan's heir being caught up smoking pot by some paparazzis and hitting the headlines on the morning tabloids!

Or perhaps not...

Pal,i would to say that i am very very happy that the ottoman sultanate ended.

Personally,i see Turkey better than Holland,England,and so on in terms of royal family stuff.

i mean these princes,quens,kings in the 21.century seem weird to me.

 

we didnt ingore our past for sure although some claims.In fact,the republic have gone far past...we have started to study the history turks before Islamic influence

P.S:No i cant imagine that!it would be more sansational than prince harry

By sending the dynastic family,i think the republic did guarantee its future reforms.

 



-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2005 at 22:33

where are the royal familly now?

in france? why they are not in turkey?

 

 



-------------


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 03:15

I do not want to have nobility titles in my country or a royal family. Ottoman royal family should be kicked out to establish the new country instead of a old-fasioned empire which was in fact may be the last empire. There was a political conflict between sultan and new republic and there was highly possible that sultan could make alliance with Britains which have lost their interests and prestige.

Originally posted by azimuth

where are the royal familly now?

in france? why they are not in turkey?

Some of them have lived in Egypt and France. They suffered heavily from poverty. Now there is a writer Kanize Murad in France and there is the oldest member who live in USA without a nationality. He was refusing to get any nationality but at the end Turkey wanted to give him a Turkish passeport. He is now Turkish citizen.

 

Ertugrul Osman and his wife Zeynep......



Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 15:29

Ertugrul would be the rightful descendant of the last sultan?



-------------
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?


Posted By: Artaxiad
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 21:06
That's what Wikipedia says.


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2005 at 03:51
Originally posted by Infidel

Ertugrul would be the rightful descendant of the last sultan?

I do not know.



Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2005 at 08:40

The sultanate family took the surname "Osmanoglu".Now they live in different countries and in Turkey.

The princes couldn't have entered to Turkey until 1975.It was forbidden.



-------------


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2005 at 12:29
Originally posted by Jagatai Khan

The sultanate family took the surname "Osmanoglu".Now they live in different countries and in Turkey.

The princes couldn't have entered to Turkey until 1975.It was forbidden.

so the surname Osmanoglu is new? what was the surname when they where in power?



-------------


Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2005 at 14:17
Originally posted by azimuth

Originally posted by Jagatai Khan

The sultanate family took the surname "Osmanoglu".Now they live in different countries and in Turkey.

The princes couldn't have entered to Turkey until 1975.It was forbidden.

so the surname Osmanoglu is new? what was the surname when they where in power?



I believe so......Osmanoglu = "Son of Osman"

Surnames were not required in the Ottoman Empire but were required for the new Turkish Republic, so I doubt they had a surname, but I could be wrong.


-------------


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2005 at 09:08
The Soyadý Kanunu (Surname Law) was launched in 1934 IIRC.

-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2005 at 11:33
I think the existance of a symbolic dynasty would be good. The family of dynasty was sent out of Turkey. Maybe they were guilty, but I think it would be better to keep them in the borderlands and not make ourselves disrespectable to world media. They deserved a better treatment and death in my opinion...

-------------


Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 13:47
Bump!

I just thought this was an interesting topic to be revived.

So who is the Head of the Imperial State now?


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 15:20

I think the existance of a symbolic dynasty would be good. The family of dynasty was sent out of Turkey. Maybe they were guilty, but I think it would be better to keep them in the borderlands and not make ourselves disrespectable to world media. They deserved a better treatment and death in my opinion...

They were not guilty, It was a political move to expel them.After that much year, I agree with you, Now they deserve better treatment.

But At that time, expelling them was a must, and be sure people respect that family much. That family served this country well, not perfect, but very good.

But I dont think we need a dynasty now. But I hope all of them will return their home.

 



Posted By: Hamoudeh
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 15:35

I don't see why monarchy plays a significant role in this discussion, how heavily problematic it may have been in it's latter era it was still a Sultanate if not a Khilafa; unlike for example the Malikiyya of Sa`udi Arabia. Would it have remained in tact, there might have been possibilities to reconstruct it to it's earlier forms. In any case, its abolishment hasn't done Muslims much good. No country that used to be ruled by the Usmanis is better of today; certainly not from a religious point of view, but not from most other angles either.



-------------
http://www.forumforfree.com/forums/home.php?mforum=ahadunahad">


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 15:45

In any case, its abolishment hasn't done Muslims much good.

Do you realy think, all muslim world would still accept ottoman caliph as caliph?

No country that used to be ruled by the Usmanis is better of today.

Half true. main problem was after colapse of ottomans, all countries(except Turkey) had a problem. They didnt know how to rule themself, after all at 600 years they were ruled by ottomans. That is the reason of bloody war, at older ottomans land. 

For Turkey, well we are still repeating ottomans mistakes.

But I think If ottomans lived until this day, It would be worse for those countries.

 



Posted By: Hamoudeh
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 16:32

They might not accept it, for Arabs it was very much an nationalist issue; and that may still be in the way. But anyone that is honest cannot deny that despite of the problems, the people of Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and so on were better off under Ottoman rule than what they have had for the past century. The problem was not as much that they couldn't rule themselves, rather what exactly it was they would have to rule themselves with. This of course on top of the colonialism that was consequential to the fall of the Ottomans. Self-rule was primarily an ideological problem, but before that the problem was colonialism. This goes for one part of the Arab world which is not better of, the other part faced extremism; not self-rule. Then there are the Balkans, where Communism eventually came to prevail. As for Turkey, I don't see how it is better off other than from a secularist and Kemalist perspective. They used to be an empire under the Ottomans that took leadership in culture and religion; after them they compromized their identity and constantly sought belonging to others. This is not advancement. If the Ottomans ruled today, even if it would be as bad as in the last era of their ruling, then US imperialism, Zionism, Arab nationalism, Kemalism, Salafism, Wahhabism and all the problems the post-Ottoman countries faced such would fall into an entirely different context and for a significant part might not have occured.



-------------
http://www.forumforfree.com/forums/home.php?mforum=ahadunahad">


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 17:05

Zionism, Arab nationalism, Kemalism, Salafism, Wahhabism and all the problems the post-Ottoman countries faced such would fall into an entirely different context and for a significant part might not have occured.

I am half-agree about this, It would be better for arabs If ottoman lived, but not for turks or balkains.

Even I have some big suspect about arabs. Do you prefer arabs and Turks kill each other? (Remember both arab nationalism and Turkish nationalism borned before ww1)

For Turkey. He created some internal conflicts, but he changed something very important also. After him,  Turkey power was increasing not decreasing. Now we are not a declining power.

I am not supporter of all Ataturk did, but I think He made more more good thing  than bad thing.

For balkains, well None of them want us, It would be  bloody hell.

 



Posted By: Hamoudeh
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 17:54

Whether one fully agrees with him or rather thinks he did more good than bad, it is sufficiently sympathetic of Kemalism and as such I can imagine how Turkey would be considered better off. For all those who don't, I can't. Aside of that religous factor, how exactly is a nation that lead a large part of the Muslim world better of as a country that seeks to belong to those who reject it? As for the Balkans, I was referring to the Muslims there. As for Arabs, no I don't like Arabs and Turks killing eachother; this nationalism on both sides emerged at the end of the Ottoman ruling, it could have been solved and if it wouldn't have been solved it was still better than all the massacres we have seen between numerous peoples in the post-Ottoman countries of the last century. In Syria alone there was colonialism, there was a civil war, there were wars with Zionism and even with all that there was still time to almost be at war with Turkey only a few years ago and who knows what's ahead with all those threats from the US and Israel. If we would go by all the Muslim countries under Ottoman rule, all have known more conflicts in a century than in the 500 years under Ottoman rule. Economically hardly any of them progressed either; save for an exception here and there.



-------------
http://www.forumforfree.com/forums/home.php?mforum=ahadunahad">


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 04:11

Aside of that religous factor, how exactly is a nation that lead a large part of the Muslim world better of as a country that seeks to belong to those who reject it?

Not  excatly true, sure our elits and goverment(Even Erdogan aim is not EU  but  he need it) want  to be European, but  this  is not true for people.(I think what we want is  economical and political benefit from  EU, we dont interest much with their culture. Most of our people wont care  If he called European or not, except elits.)

Just think  about Turkey rejection of USA soldier for attacking Iraq. That decision  is mainly emotional, It harmed my country benefit.

well It looks like you are right. Decline of  ottomans  harmed muslim  much.

 



Posted By: OSMANLI
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2005 at 07:53

I think to answer the question of 'If the Sultan was still in the house' we must look at the trends for the Ottoman court at the time of the end of their dynasty.

The Ottoman Sultans were already feeling and in many ways implementing westernisation into the Ottoman empire. So if this trend was to continue, i would have presumed that the Ottoman Empire of 2005 may have been much like modern day Lebanon. Westernisation with a more of an Middle Eastern and Islamic influence then today. Palestine for sure would not be in its current mess as would the ME as a whole.

However the leadership may have been like the one of Syria. The Sultan for sure would have used the Caliphate as a shield, every time he came under attack for his decisions. As their faith in Islam was already in decline.



-------------


Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 13:22
This is becoming a really interesting discussion!  Hamoudeh and OSMANLI - the points you've raised are thought-provoking.

My impression is, Had the Ottoman Empire survived into the 21st Century, the role of the Imperial House wouldn't have differed from that of the British Royal Family; a symbolic presence only good for tourism.  But I may be wrong.

Did any of the scattered descendants of the Ottoman rulers write their memoirs, apart from Kenize Mourad?



Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 09:13
Originally posted by Mira

Did any of the scattered descendants of the Ottoman rulers write their memoirs, apart from Kenize Mourad?



Seems like nobody knows the answer!

Well, yes .. And a biography of the Imperial Head of the State is being written, too.


Posted By: bodrum
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 16:36
I can't realise that we have always someones who prefer to go back to Ottoman Empire time. That was the Empire of a family and not the empire of a nation. All other empires are called with the names of their nations. But the empire of istanbul was only a monarchie. I am not a member of this family. I am a Turkish citizen. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THIS FAMILY, OK?


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 17:42

They're being given back citizenship and the right to return today as they are no longer a pollitical threat.

The Royal Family in England are a great tourist attraction.
 
Turkey should bring back the Ottoman Family, let the
 work as some sort of good-will ambassadors and  cultrual conoisseiurs, its a big money-maker, countries with figure-head monarchies make big bucks just by havin them as a figure-head.
 
 


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 19:23
Bulldog, even you bring them back dont expect there will be another Mehmed the conquerer, Suleiman the magnificent or II Abdulhamid. A short information to you if you dont mind, many of them dont even know how to speak Turkish, simply they lost their Turkish herritage. Today they only have the "name" of it and nothing else from the past...

And some respected members of Ottoman family do not even want to speak about Ottoman empire because it damages todays Turkey's regime and what was been done 83 years ago.


-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 01:09
A figure head monarch would have hardly made any difference. 

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 08:42
Exactly Vivek, I can't believe some people are still touchy over this subject.

The Ottoman's who were extradited didn't have a bad word said aginst "AtaTurk", they were full supporters of what their general had achieved and accepted that the Ottoman Sultanate had made mistakes.

Today, they pose absolutely no threat and have no intentions of being one, they could be a figure-head, a great money-spinner guys common its a tourist attraction.    

-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Attila2
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 23:23

Well guys and gals,if Turkey had brought back the monarch,it would be a funny entertainment for tourists,sooooo funny yet soooo disgracing,for the tourists would be seing a half-shaved "kavuk" and "kaftan" wearing guy with a hell load of girls from his harem,making love on thier flying carpets LOL

 
aahhh,lets forget that silly joke...(BTW the Ottomans have NEVER BEEN TURKISH!,the ottomans discriminated the muslims other than turks positively,while always disgracing Turks,calling us "Türk-i biidrak" -it is arabic,meaning stupid turks-and for me, they deserved what they faced.)


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 01:45
Originally posted by Attila2

"Türk-i biidrak" -it is arabic,meaning stupid turks-and for me, they deserved what they faced.)
I have no clue what is turki biidrak in Arabic. Are you sure it is Arabic?


-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 15:02
Atilla2
Well guys and gals,if Turkey had brought back the monarch,it would be a funny entertainment for tourists,sooooo funny yet soooo disgracing,for the tourists would be seing a half-shaved "kavuk" and "kaftan" wearing guy with a hell load of girls from his harem,making love on thier flying carpets LOL
 
Why disgracing? people who visit Turkey want to see its culture, its dress and clothes styles, its famous carpets, the Palace's, the Kaftans, the Orient spices, wealth and style.
 
They don't visit to see, some lost people tripping over themselves willing to do anything to be accepted as "Western", trying to hide away anything remotely Turkic-Islamic etc etc
 
People don't want to see something they can see in their own country in the West, what's the point of travelling to Turkey if you are ashamed and try to hide everything on offer.
 
Why do to Istanbul? hmmm let's think,
 
Shopping! the Grand Bazaar, Egyption Bazaar, Metalworkers Bazaar, Turkish Carpet sellers, Jewellers, HandiCrafts, everything can be found and bartered over etc etc
 
 
Religous sites! Blue Mosque, Aya Sofya, Suleymaniye, St.Irene, Yeni-Mosque, RustemPasha, Bayazit Mosque, Fatih Mosque, Eyup Mosque and area resting place of Ebu-Esari and many religous artifacts, Ahrida Synagogue (opened for Al-Andaluscian Jews), Hemdat Synagogue, Monastries in the nearby Islands and so on.............
 
Historic Sites! Topkapi Palace, Galata Tower, KizKulesi(Maiden's tower) Bayazid Tower, Underground Cisterns, the Old City Walls and Towers, the grand fountains, Kiosks, Ottoman houses, Konaks, Yali's on the Bosphoros, TURKISH BATHS! etc etc etc
 
The FOOD! Fresh Fish from the Marmara Sea, trying to eat like Sultans, Turkish Delight, Turkish Coffee and everything else that makes Turkish Cuisine among the Top 3 in the world.
 
The Culture! From music, to bellydancing, to Tea-houses, to Coffee-houses, to Folk Music nights, Mehter Bands in the Blue Mosque Square, Whirling Dervisher nights, Boutique hotels in the historic quarters, hospitallity, bartering, some of that Spice of the Orient.
 
etc etc etc
 
These are the ATTRACTIONS of Istanbul, they're not disgracefull they're beutiful.
 
Atilla
aahhh,lets forget that silly joke...(BTW the Ottomans have NEVER BEEN TURKISH!,the ottomans discriminated the muslims other than turks positively,while always disgracing Turks,calling us "Türk-i biidrak" -it is arabic,meaning stupid turks-and for me, they deserved what they faced.)
 
There is alot of interest in Turkey regarding their Ottoman forefathers, unfortunately some sad people are petrified of this and have began a campaign of claiming Ottomans wern't TurksLOL
 
Yes they were Turks, as we all know from the Kayi branch of the Oghuz. They kept a paternal line all the way through, it was father that determined your nation among that culture. Some think Hurrem Sultan wife of Suleyman was "Russian" but she was a Kipchak Turk.
 
Also Ottoman state wasn't solely "Turk", there were many ethnics, they were also given positions of power and regional rule.
 
After Timur's victory which was due to the Turkmen tribes the Ottomans drastically changed their policy and realised that the Turk tribes were a back-bone of the state and treated them well.


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 15:20
I have no clue what is turki biidrak in Arabic. Are you sure it is Arabic?
 
 
haha it is not arabic.  Infact It is ottomanish, ottomans sometimes called turks as turki biidrak.(Turk who understand nothing.)
 
Of course these turks were alevis. That is why he is saying, Ottomans were not Turks.
 
By the way, Infact we have still some Turki biidraks.
 
Infact I heard, some ottoman diplomats were realy angry when europeans called them as Turks, but They generally accepted themself as Turk.
 
 
 


Posted By: Attila2
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 19:45
Originally posted by Bulldog

Atilla2
Well guys and gals,if Turkey had brought back the monarch,it would be a funny entertainment for tourists,sooooo funny yet soooo disgracing,for the tourists would be seing a half-shaved "kavuk" and "kaftan" wearing guy with a hell load of girls from his harem,making love on thier flying carpets LOL
 
Why disgracing? people who visit Turkey want to see its culture, its dress and clothes styles, its famous carpets, the Palace's, the Kaftans, the Orient spices, wealth and style.
 
They don't visit to see, some lost people tripping over themselves willing to do anything to be accepted as "Western", trying to hide away anything remotely Turkic-Islamic etc etc
 
People don't want to see something they can see in their own country in the West, what's the point of travelling to Turkey if you are ashamed and try to hide everything on offer.
 
Why do to Istanbul? hmmm let's think,
 
Shopping! the Grand Bazaar, Egyption Bazaar, Metalworkers Bazaar, Turkish Carpet sellers, Jewellers, HandiCrafts, everything can be found and bartered over etc etc
 
 
Religous sites! Blue Mosque, Aya Sofya, Suleymaniye, St.Irene, Yeni-Mosque, RustemPasha, Bayazit Mosque, Fatih Mosque, Eyup Mosque and area resting place of Ebu-Esari and many religous artifacts, Ahrida Synagogue (opened for Al-Andaluscian Jews), Hemdat Synagogue, Monastries in the nearby Islands and so on.............
 
Historic Sites! Topkapi Palace, Galata Tower, KizKulesi(Maiden's tower) Bayazid Tower, Underground Cisterns, the Old City Walls and Towers, the grand fountains, Kiosks, Ottoman houses, Konaks, Yali's on the Bosphoros, TURKISH BATHS! etc etc etc
 
The FOOD! Fresh Fish from the Marmara Sea, trying to eat like Sultans, Turkish Delight, Turkish Coffee and everything else that makes Turkish Cuisine among the Top 3 in the world.
 
The Culture! From music, to bellydancing, to Tea-houses, to Coffee-houses, to Folk Music nights, Mehter Bands in the Blue Mosque Square, Whirling Dervisher nights, Boutique hotels in the historic quarters, hospitallity, bartering, some of that Spice of the Orient.
 
etc etc etc
 
These are the ATTRACTIONS of Istanbul, they're not disgracefull they're beutiful.
 
Atilla
aahhh,lets forget that silly joke...(BTW the Ottomans have NEVER BEEN TURKISH!,the ottomans discriminated the muslims other than turks positively,while always disgracing Turks,calling us "Türk-i biidrak" -it is arabic,meaning stupid turks-and for me, they deserved what they faced.)
 
There is alot of interest in Turkey regarding their Ottoman forefathers, unfortunately some sad people are petrified of this and have began a campaign of claiming Ottomans wern't TurksLOL
 
Yes they were Turks, as we all know from the Kayi branch of the Oghuz. They kept a paternal line all the way through, it was father that determined your nation among that culture. Some think Hurrem Sultan wife of Suleyman was "Russian" but she was a Kipchak Turk.
 
Also Ottoman state wasn't solely "Turk", there were many ethnics, they were also given positions of power and regional rule.
 
After Timur's victory which was due to the Turkmen tribes the Ottomans drastically changed their policy and realised that the Turk tribes were a back-bone of the state and treated them well.
 
the ottomans began to insult the turks after Yavuz Sultan Selim's death.
oh BTW,I am not trying to hide anything,but trying to recover the things which Ottomans hide,like turkic identity you got what I mean? Wink Oh and I never try to imply smth like westernisation.Ottmans may have tried to westernise the Turks,I really dont care.They still buried our identity.Actually I am against westernisation or easternisation.I am a Turk,and I want to live like a Turk,and who opresses me because of this,I,naturally,hate them.


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 12:43
Atilla
the ottomans began to insult the turks after Yavuz Sultan Selim's death.
oh BTW,I am not trying to hide anything,but trying to recover the things which Ottomans hide,like turkic identity you got what I mean? Oh and I never try to imply smth like westernisation.Ottmans may have tried to westernise the Turks,I really dont care.They still buried our identity.Actually I am against westernisation or easternisation.I am a Turk,and I want to live like a Turk,and who opresses me because of this,I,naturally,hate them.


Really, you should study Ottoman history in more detail.

So you claim Suleyman the Magnificent insulted Turks, the guy who earned Turks respect from all over and even the Europeans so impressed by him created the term, "GRAND TURK". Sultan Ahmed I patron of the SultanAhmed Mosque-Blue Mosque a world famous architectural building. Genc Osman who promoted Turkic culture, Murat IV.....

Ottomans spread the Turkish language to three continants, created a great world civillisation, had a very advanced Justic system etc etc

Where do you get these weird ideas from, Ottomans elevated the status of Turks, look at the architectural treasures, the grand culture, cuisine, music, ideals of morals etc etc all which are accepted as Turkish today are also thanks to the Ottomans.

You may personally not like them, that's your views but there is no need to lie about them or downplay their achievements.

-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Attila2
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 13:43
I am not lying about anything,if you think I am,just look at the ottoman clothes and music,and tell me if you can see any turkic elements.
oh btw,Ottomans spread OTTOMAN language(which is a mixture of arabic-persian vocabulary and grammar on turkish word order),not Turkish.
 
And tell me whether ottomans called themselves turk or not


Posted By: Attila2
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 13:48
oh btw,dont forget the ottoman massacres on YORUK turkmens(because they insisted to continue their nomadic life and Turkoman language)


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 14:02
It is interesting, ottomans enlarged land of Turks(They are not nationalist.)
 
But nationalist turks(racist Turks) did not anything except lost most of empire land.
 
Also that killing turk part is stupidy, I am sure every turkish leaders killed other turks. So Ottomans did their job too.
 
It is easy for ottomans, accept or die.
 


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 15:21
Atilla
I am not lying about anything,if you think I am,just look at the ottoman clothes and music,and tell me if you can see any turkic elements.
oh btw,Ottomans spread OTTOMAN language(which is a mixture of arabic-persian vocabulary and grammar on turkish word order),not Turkish.


Clothes - Entari's and Kaftans of Central Asia, especially the short sleethed ones, Kalpaks (Hat), Sariks (Headdresses), Kusak, Uc Eteks (Turkmen Skirt type), Bashliks, Yeldiri, Uckur (Belts, Sashes) and so on. They introduced these Turkic clothings into the middle east, Balkans and North Africa.

Read this



Photo Credit: Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul Photo

Out of Turkey: Sultans of Bling
Imperial Silks Put On a Dazzling Show at Sackler

By Blake Gopnik
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page N01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801549.html?sub=AR





Kaftan
Turkey, 17th century
Silk satin with inlaid appliqué design
166 cm
Istanbul, Topkapi Palace Museum




Short-sleeved kaftan
Turkey, 16th–17th century
Silk and taffeta
139 x 109 cm
Istanbul, Topkapi Palace Museum




Short-sleeved kaftan
Turkey, 16th century
Brocaded silk with gilt-metal and silk thread
140.5 x 110.5 cm
Istanbul, Topkapi Palace Museum

http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/current/StyleStatus.htm

The Three Crescent Moons are the "Cintemati" style, originating in Turkistan-Central Asia, a Timurid style.

The Ottomans bought the Tulip motive with them from its and the Turks homeland Central Asia and used it heavily in many clothings and other arts.

Read this aswell

Textiles cut a dash on the world’s catwalks

Turkish fashions are winning credibility, says Suna Erdem

BROCADE made in the Ottoman Empire was so prized that popes in the 16th century had their robes made out of the fabric created by the “infidel” Muslims.
       The colourful silks, cottons and wool cloth woven by the Turks were given such importance in the Ottoman court that they were registered as belonging to the Treasury......

http://e-paper.timesonline.co.uk/turkey/13008/articles/artikel_TMSP_1GX_20050321_8_14.html



Regarding Music.

The Mehter Marsi bands were an age old Turkic millitary tradition. They influenced Europe and great composers like Mozart, who wrote the Turkish March and used Turkish influences in a few of his works aswell as Beethoven's Sympthany 9. Turks influence introduced Symbols, Bass Drum and Bells into the sympthany orchastre.

The Baglama's, Cogur, Tambura, Cumbus, Davul, Kos, Cevgen were introduced from Central Asia and are now used in many areas and regions.

Folklore, Dances and musical culture such as Ciftetelli, Zeybek, Bar, Turkmen Oyunlari, Sufi-Mevlana, Alevi Sema etc etc etc have also influenced the surrounding region.

Ottoman official state language was Turkish, the language of the court developed its own unique style. This is the same of all courts, they purposely make their spoken language have differences from the public. This is the same in England, the "Queens English" and all other similar situations.

Today you cannot read Chaucer just by picking it up and looking at it, you need to study it to understand it but its still ENGLISH LANGUAGE! Not Latin, or French or anything else, its English and a part of the evolution into modern English.

Ottoman Turkish is Turkish and the evolution to modern Turkish. Fuzuli, Bak'i, Nedim literature for example is very popular, as is Karacaoglan, Pir Sultan Abdal, Koroglu, their language was Turkish so please stop trying to create an alterior reality.

You cannot claim Ottomans didn't contribute to Turkic people, culture, history and society. There are many clear Turkic elements in their clothes, music and culture and they spread this far and wide.

They contributed tremendously to Turkic culture and spreading it to a vast geographical area.

In addition, they also adopted culture's from the other nations of the Empire, fused and changed them and introduced them as Ottoman. There is nothing wrong with OTHER PEOPLES CULTURES! and adopting the good points of other peole's cultures does not mean disrespecting your own, it instead widens and make your culture richer.


And tell me whether ottomans called themselves turk or not

Ottomans traced descendancy to "Oghuz Khan"    

Mortaza
It is interesting, ottomans enlarged land of Turks(They are not nationalist.)

But nationalist turks(racist Turks) did not anything except lost most of empire land.


I see the point your making but don't totally agree for the following reason.

Ottomans were nationlist, they were patriots for their state and worked to try benefit all the people, the land and keep the state running well.

This in my eyes is a Nationalist, somebody who loves their country, their land and all the people in the land (not just their own ethnicity).

Somebody who is an ignorant biggot, has to hate and degrade other nations in order to make themselves feel superior, who doesn't love and try to help all the people in their land is not a Nationalist this person is a RACIST hiding under the banner of Patriotism.
    



P.S Atilla, the SariKecelli in Southern Turkey today around the Toros Mountains are from the Ottoman Kayi branch, they live Nomadic Semi-Nomadic lifestyle today
     

-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 16:30
Nationals is not equal to patriot. This is totally wrong and lie.
 
Infact This is a tool nationalist use. If I have not agree with him, then I am not patriot ext ext.
 
 
and Ottomans were far from nationalist. They treated Turks as they treated greeks.
 
Most probably that is reason why more turks were died under ottoman hands than greeks.(Turks were rebelled more, specially at anatolia.)
 
 


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 17:43
Unfortunately the word "Nationalist" has developed connotation of being linked to "racism".
 
What you describe is a Nationalist/Patriotic act, Greeks were a part of the Ottoman State, the nation, so were all the other peoples living under the Ottoman nation.
 
Supporting only one ethnicity in a nation/state is RACISM, as you don't care about the whole country, just about a select part of it you feel is superior to the others.
 
The two are completely different.
 
Patriotism is just another word for Nationalism, Nationalism like all things in its extreme form is destructive, also when Racism is mixed into Nationalism it gets filthy.
 
However, loving your country, all the people in your country, your culture, being at ease with your identity and wanting to benefit your country is not a bad trait at all.


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Attila2
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 17:48
For example,I am a Turk,I want my culture to be protected and I want to live the culture of my ancestors.I,of course,hate the ones who are dynamiting my culture and country.But I love EVERYONE in my country(considering they are nt harming my country),from any ethnicity and language,and I want their culture to be protected.I am a nationalist. And thats what a nationalist should be,IMO.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com