In your sight .

What you think which one of these empire was more efficient in all direction(military.trade,commerce,scinces etc).

to all accept my best regards.

well i think

Military strength and power will be the Ummayads,

and Science will be at the 1st half of the Abbasids.

Ottomans.

BTW, where is the Mamelukes?

Abassid/Samanid, the scientific achievments within the borders of these two empires was immense.

Military Conquests: Ottomans, Ummayids

and where is mungals, builders of taj mahal.

Ottoman Empire

guys who wanted to vote for Empires which are not in the  poll why didnt you vote for "others"?

 I think in military power no one can match the Ottoman empire.

Abbasids in sciences and fruitfull.

i dont think so

there are the Umayyads and Timur's Empire were at some points stronger and more powerfull than the Ottoman ever been.

They conquered all the land east iran to chineese border too.

but they failed many time especialy in east against the turks and the major batlle of zanbil is an example .

Build empire is a thing and maintain it otherthing.Umayyad could not maintain their empire they lost it to Abbasids.

Igonre Afsharid empire, these are four Great Islamic Empires:

Ashtarkhanid Empire
One of the greatest Central Asian empires

Nadir shah overthrown this empire forever by two battles at Bukhara and Khiva.

Ottoman Empire
spanned three continents, Europe, Asia and Africa

Nadir shah defeated Ottomans at Baghavand and killed Osman Pasha.

Mughal Empire
covered almost the entire the Indian subcontinent.

Nadir Shah defeated the Mughals at Karnal and took Emperor Muhammad Shah prisoner.

Yarubid Empire
Known as the supreme power of the coastal regions of the Indian Ocean, included eastern Arabia and almost all eastern countries of Africa

Nadir shah defeated Yarubids in a great naval battle and captured their capital Muscat.

Of course Nadir Shah also conquered parts of Russia but Russian Empire was not an Islamic empire!

that was their "Only" militarical success !!

and the rest was by luck or what?

well that wasn't the militarly problem more than leadership problem, that Caliph Sulyman killed the Great generals who expanded the Caliphate to be the largest empire in the world, Caliph Sulyman was somehow afraid from the power Al Hajaj is gaining and the relation between him and the Generals ( Al Hajaj actully chose them for each task), so as soon as Al Hajaj died and Caliph Alwaleed died at the same year, those Generals were prisoned and killed because he thought that they are not loyal enough, i think the Caliph made the biggest mistak of the Umayyads.

Shah Ismail's army was seriously defeated at the Battle of Çaldiran in 1514, by Sultan Selim Khan the Grim. Still, all his successors, especially Shah Tahmasp continued fighting against the Ottomans. However, they were defeated in almost all the battles they fought. When Nadir Shah of the Avsar tribe established his own dynasty following the reign of Abbas III, the Safavid period came to an end.

The most powerful Islamic Empires ever were:

Ottoman Empire, Ummayad Caliphate, Timurid Empire, Great Seljuk Empire, Moghul Empire

Of course not, but I was comparing their success with the Ottomans'.

The largest borders of the Ottoman Empire:

Were all of those territories owned at once?  I know Ottomans were in my Kermanshah only twenty years and it is included as part of the Empire.

what about Oman?

first time i hear that Ottomans reached there and made it part of their empire ! it was under portugese occupation as far as i know

plus if you compare sizes  no islamic empire beats the size of Umayyads and later the Abbasides.

Oman remain under Ottoman ruled about 35 years then they lost it.I think  all Persian Gulf area especialy Arab  peninsula were not important for ottoman.

This hint say Nader shah empire is the gretest islamic empire, well  I can a gree with you in one thing this thing is Nader shah was one of greatest muslims military and political leader but his empire had s shortlife time.

I admire Nader shah and his ability and his empire but no one after him could macth him not in persian only but in whole islamic world.

Are you asking about the uprising? It was in april 1876 and is called the April uprising.

Why the uprising happened ?

How Bulgarian history consider Ottomans?

As you said before, if you really dont know, please dont claim wrong things. Ottoman arts, especially calligraphy are famous all over the world. Ottoman military band was the first of its kind, influenced with Roman. Ottoman music was far improved from its age's regulars. Ottoman architecture contributed lots of techniques into Europe. And you know Turkish hamam right?

All ancient Islamic-Middle Eastern history and philospohy knowledge was synthesized by Ottomans. Ottoman poetry and literature was very famous also. Ottomans was a total civilization of their own.

Also, coffee and yoghurt are contributed to our common cultural wealth by Ottomans...

In terms of science, have a look at this:

http://www.muslimheritage.com/features/default.cfm?ArticleID=436 - http://www.muslimheritage.com/features/default.cfm?ArticleID =436

OK, perhaps I was wrong. But I don't know what is hamam. I know diuner, kebap, harem. And another thing- Bulgarians were eating yoghurt long before the Ottomans.

All great in their own way. However. all had their bad points, and that's why (sadly)-they didn't last..

Yes, Bulgars had yoghurt, and they were originally Turkic. Yoghurt is a food of nomad, and when Ottomans were becoming famous throughout the European societies, their traditions, culture, food etc. were all becoming famous and known by the Europeans. Since Ottoman dynasty was originally the Kayi clan of Oguz, they had protected some of their past nomadic traditions, including yoghurt. And the Europeans learned yoghurt from Ottomans, not from Bulgarians.

"Hamam" is the thing you know as Turkish bath, also famous all over the world.

in Arabic Haman is the Bath room.

Wasnt it "Hela"?

Hamam is the continuation of Roman and Greek baths. Ottomans learned & adopted them from the Byzantines.

Hamam, like the Roman bath, has three rooms: the grand, steamy hot room (caldarium) for steam-soaking and massage; the warm room (tepidarium) for washing with soap and water; and the cool room for resting after the bath.

http://www.melitour.com/turkbath1.htm -  

It means nothing. We don't have this word in our language. It is English, not Bulgarian. The Bulgarian word for yogurt is kiselo mliako. 

And another thing. It's not known for sure what was the origin of the proto-bulgarians. Even if they were of Turkic origin we must add that Turkic and Turkish are two totaly different things, they just sound similar. The proto-bulgarians came from Central Asia, the Ottomans - from the Arabian peninsula. The Bulgarians formed a nation 700 years before the Ottomans. We have nothig in common. The Ottomans may have been the ones that popularized yogurt, but we were the ones that discovered it. Yogurt is produced with the help of a bacteria called Lactobacilus Bulgaricus.

Hahahahahah, just funny how he describes Ottomans... Man ask to youre landmate gianni for help, just learn youre history better.

Originally posted by the Bulgarian What don't you like about my description of the Ottomans??? The proto-bulgarians came from Central Asia, the Ottomans - from the Arabian peninsula. The Bulgarians formed a nation 700 years before the Ottomans. We have nothig in common. The Ottomans may have been the ones that popularized yogurt, but we were the ones that discovered it. Yogurt is produced with the help of a bacteria called Lactobacilus Bulgaricus.

Where did the ancestors of Ottomans came from do you think? Yoghurt whas invented by Volga bulgars ancestors of bulgarians today. Volga bulgars where a Turkic tribe like Turkmens (rulers of Ottoman empire) and like many other Turkic tribes.

1- Turkic and Turkish are different things yes, Turkish- Turks of Turkey, Turkic, rest of the Turks. But both are referred as "Turk"s. So "Turkish" and "Turkic" doesnt just sound similar, they are the very same terms with classificational differences...

2- "Bulgar"s were definately a Turkic tribe, just like Avars, Onogur (Hungar)s etc. And they had the common nomadic Turkic cultural elements with all other Turks.

3- I dont know where you get Ottomans coming from Arabia. Osman Begh's father, Ertughrul Begh was a Turkmen Begh from Khorasan, and his father, Gunduz Alp Begh was directly coming from Central Asia. They were part of the Western Turks, a tribal union of "Oguz", and its "Kayi" clan.

3- According to the historical existance, the first Oguz leader, referred as "Oguz Khagan" was the very same person with Mao Dun, the Hunnic leader at 200 B.C. So long before Bulgars, there lived the proto-Oguz-Onok.

4- Bulgars came to the region before Ottomans, so it's natural that they introduced yoghurt before us to their neighbors. Yoghurt is a common Turkic word, from Mongolia to Hungary. And it was definately a nomadic Turkic invention, made by horse milk.

Originally posted by Oguzoglu ...1- Turkic and Turkish are different things yes, Turkish- Turks of Turkey, Turkic, rest of the Turks. But both are referred as "Turk"s. So "Turkish" and "Turkic" doesnt just sound similar, they are the very same terms with classificational differences... 2- "Bulgar"s were definately a Turkic tribe, just like Avars, Onogur (Hungar)s etc. And they had the common nomadic Turkic cultural elements with all other Turks...

Now do you get what I mean, Kenaney?

Bulgarians arent Turkic, but Bulgars were. You speak a Slavic language, but ancestoral Bulgars have spoken a very similar language to Kazakh, Kyrgiz etc.

erci, i dont think he says these because he wants to provoke, he is a logical and sensible debater, but he is heavily misinformed about this issue. and I'm explaining the truth.

I am realy curious, do bulgarians  have any cultural relation with ancient bulgars? I mean It looks like relation is just the name of  country.

You are right Oguzoglu. I was misinformed about where the Ottomans came from and I didn't want to provoke you. But why did you react like that? Do Turks think its insulting if someone says they came from Arabia?

And I am very well informed about the Bulgars.

To erci I will say that Bulgarians haven't preserved anything of the Bulgars's culture. They were completely assimilated by the Slavs, both in phisycal and cultural aspect. They only gave the name of the country and the people and left a few toponyms.

its not insulting if someone says that turk came from Arabia, its just False statment and shows big lack of knowledge about turks.

Ottomans were Turks and they cam from central Asia 100s of years before they establish the Ottoman Empire.

I think so to. That's why I asked why did they feel insulted when I wrote that the Turks came from Arabia.

Do Turks think its insulting if someone says they came from Arabia?

It is something  like to say, Arabs comes from middle asia,  I am sure not much arab like from this and It has nothing against arabs, so dont try to show it such as this. 

Of course no, why would we get offended? Why would it be insulting? Middle East is home to world's ancient civilizations.

We werent offended we just wanted to explain the reality. No reason for being offended. But in west, the general opinion and view about all Muslims is that they are all Arabs, and they always try to generalize us that way. That's why this issue is oftenly misunderstood.

Regards, Oguzoglu

Ottoman Empire 1144 results:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-8628750-5526406 - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-862 8750-5526406

Umayyads just 43:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-8628750-5526406 - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-862 8750-5526406

You even dare to compare the Umayyad military force with Ottoman Warfare Machines, the artillery power.

Tell me where did Umayyad conquer? Tell me, were there any mothers who frightened their kids, Arabs are coming?  Italians frightened their kids , Mama li Turchi, Mom, Turks are coming...

Yes moms, Turks are coming.

Sorry, but we came, we saw, we conquered. We do not compete, we dominate. We came, dominated. Case closed...

We did not conquer no mens lands like Brits, Umayyads, French, Spaniards. If you have guts, make conquests like Romans, Ottomans, Mongols, Seljuks, 1st Reich etc...

what are you talking about? Ummayad conquered more than the Ottomans and they had a  very powerfull army.

ottomans conqueres small bits and peces while Ummayads conquered larger areas and they for their short lived empire affected all the lands they conquered.

Umayyads conquered only Spain, west Africa and eastern Iran. The  skeleton was conquered by rightly guided Caliphs.

Anyway, Umayyads conquered the lands from just 3 big powers, Visigoths, Romans, Sassanids.

Count the Ottoman Rivals.

BTW, read Mohac , and see Ottoman Fire power. No doubt Ottoman military was a military colossus, destroying Euro Armies.

How mush Umayyads advanced to the hearts of Europe, the Christiran world?

Did Europeans frightened each other by saying "Turks are Coming" or "Arabs are coming" ?

Tell us Azimuth.

Ummayad wiped more than half of than half of the Christan empire which existed that time.

Ottomans rivals are tiny and small tribes which Ummayad fought and destroyed similar rivals in their conquests.

i think the Persians and the Carthage guys for sure were frightened and said Arabs are comming

not to mention whats now spain and portogal and France wonder what they said

Well, Isn't this half of the Islamic World today? Let us not forget that without Umayyads opening the door from Spain and their conquest in Asia and Afrýca, how can Abbasids and later Seljuks and Ottoman move further? It is all built on each others. It's not like Ottomans jumped to conquere Byzantine from the borders of Uzbekistan.  How about a comparison of how big the Ummayed empire was and the Ottoman empire?

Actually to correct, Sassanids were completely conquered before the Umayyads. Ummayed fough Byzantine, and conquered Visigoths and the Sind river (As yourself mentioned already). Now how many big powers Ottoman conquered? Byzantine and who else?

I don't see the point? Is it the number of rivals? Big Rivals? If ottoman fought Europe, Ummyads fought Europe and expelled the Roman Byzantine from North Africa forever. Spread Islam permentantely in Persia and East of the Sindus River.

If the question is who advanced to the heart of Europe, then Ottomans were the only Islamic force to go reach that far from that side. Do not forget that Spain was Muslim for 8 centuries and what you called earlier (useless desert) made one of the highest Islamic Civilization the world would have witnessed. In fact, I don't have to quote Europeans who would attribute European renaissance to Muslim Spain (noticed I didn't say Arab Spain, because It is Muslim and not Arab, Arabs were worthless before Islam as much as Türks before Islam and Seljuks and Ottomans).  Arab Moorish Army of Spain (called Arab by French) advanced to only 70 kilometer to Paris and withdrew after 3 days battle.

Yes, When Muslim Arab-Berber armies reached heart of Europe to France and at the battle Tour (did I spell that right?) That was as deep as reaching Vienna too in size and kilometer depth. From that day till 1400's AD Arab Armies (mistakingly called by Eurpeans though  Muslim army had barely half of its force as Arab), Christian Europe was all scared for that Moorish Army! ( I hate this term haha), no wonder till now you have slogans like "mata la moriscas" kill the moors. Empires replaces each others. Ottomans rose Islam flag again to the heart of Europe from the other side and they are the new threat now.  Unfortunately, each empires go through a phase of rise and decline.  By the 18th century, Ottoman declined and were called the "sick man".  Did you listen to the Turkish song of the damned by the Irish Pogues?

In the Era of Umayyads, The wars against Christians were mainly on tye eastern soil. Ottoman Empire brought the wars to the European lands.

IN OTHER WORDS. WE SECURED YOUR *. LOL

Just kiddin, but I would understand the cultural impact comparisons, but you can not compare the military might of Ottomans. And I would not compare the Umayyad army even with the Abbasid army (Because Abbasid hired Turkic mercenaries).  

Eastern Persia (Tocharistan, Soghdia, Khurasan) was conquered by Umayyads.

mind your language Hulagu

mata la moriscas: kill the Moors

Mama Li Turchi is more fightening.

THEY WERE NOT TRYING TO KILL US, THEY WERE FRIGHTENED BY US.

C'mon guys, you can not compare Turkic achievements of Islam with the Arabs. Even Bernard Lewis accepts this. When Turks embraced Islam, they took the leadership and brought the wars into the herat of Europe not a forgotten corner like Iberia.

We fought wiped the Holy Hungarian Kingdom, Serbian Kingdom, Roman Empire and we fought against the titans of Austurian Monarchy, Poland and Lithuanian confederation, Russia, Germans, etc...

At the end, that sick man defeated the combined forces of France, Britain, Greece and Italy...

If you have that much of a valor, please do take care of less than 10 million Israelites with 300 million arabs.

Do you maen 10 million Israeli with 1 billion Muslims. Unlesss if you are not Muslim, then it is something else.

Yes, the sick man defeated all these powers that you meantioned, but when it was not sick.

Go to the book of John Sabini, Armies in the Sand, where a punch of bediouns who call themselves unitarians chased the Turkish Army sent by Mehmet Ali Pasha after instructed by constantinpole in 1812 AD, from Medina to Yunbu sea port, a whole day trip and killed 4000 of them with only 600 castualty (Page 92 if you are interested, battle of Jadeed Boghaz)

Also, in the same campaign, the mighty Turkish Army run again from Taraba to Tayif, a 27 day trip because they believed an Arab tribe who a woman ruled them called Ghaliyah possess a magical power .  By the way, while the poor turkish soldiers were dying in their ships running away from bediouns as they left their food, water, and supplies, the commander in cheif Zaim Oglou was washing his hand in fresh water(page 129).

Do you see why can a punch of bedioun were able to conquer from the Sindus river to France border, and still win against an army of canons and  artillaries.

Sorry to bring these dark times for the ottomans. I love the Ottoman empire and that is why i have a turkish name, but the truth is if you start taking argument personally and considering it a challenge of Arab and Turks and "you cannot compare turks acheivment to Islam", then it is a personal ethnic level argument rather than objective.

While empires like Abbasids, and the Ummayed of Andalucia produced so many scientific discoveries that till today you will trace them, from the invention of 0 to the astronomy science, algebra, chemistry (coming fom the arabic word Al Kemia') and geometry, Unfortunately, Ottoman empires acheivement are mainly militarly too. You can barely remember any scientific achievment. I guess that is natural for most turks to be just focused with wars. No wonder the Abbasid, Mamluks and later empires used their military services.

HulaguHan

Ottomans Capital was closer to those part of europe they conquered how far was Istanbul from Austria? and how far was Damascus from south of france?

and about "serve" Islam, well Ottoman mostly Conquered other muslim's lands so this cant be count as Islam serving, while Ummayad Conquered non Muslim lands way more than the Ottomans and the muslim converted areas were much much larger than the Ottomans.

Go to the book of John Sabini, Armies in the Sand, where a punch of bediouns who call themselves unitarians chased the Turkish Army sent by Mehmet Ali Pasha after instructed by constantinpole in 1812 AD, from Medina to Yunbu sea port, a whole day trip and killed 4000 of them with only 600 castualty (Page 92 if you are interested)

Mehmet Ali Pasha' s Army is anything but an Arabic Army. Infact he was an Albanian origined Ottoman Viceroy who was ambitious to get the Ottoman Throne.

Ottomans conquer Muslim lands of Northern Africa just to maintain logistical bases for the Naval operations of Mediterranean sea. Most of our military campaigns were in the hearts of Europe. Austira, Germany, HUngary, Balkans, etc...

I am sorry but please do not compare the amount of lands conquered, in that case, Seljuks and Timurids also beat Ottomans. However, Ottomans conquered harder lands, lands of Europeans.

As I said, Kill the Moors is one thing, Mom Turks are coming is another. One encourages men to fight against Moors. The other just warns to escape...

Originally posted by HulaguHan Mehmet Ali Pasha' s Army is anything but an Arabic Army. Infact he was an Albanian origined Ottoman Viceroy who was ambitious to get the Ottoman Throne.

No, go back and double check. Mehmet Ali Pasha's army is mainly Albanians and turks (According to one of his soldiers Giovani Finati, a guard stationed in the Citadel of Cairo)

Second, so because they are originally Albanians, their defeat is rejected? Didn't they speak Turkish? Tell me then the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire who achieved most of the Ottoman victories where what? Uzbek?. Also Albanians, Greeks, and other christian kids who were convert.

How about this, I will give you this point just for the sake of the argument. If as you say that Mehmet Ali Pasha was nothing but an Arabic Army, then that Arabic Army defeated the Turks and seized Palestine and Syria in 1831 and was within a few days march of Constantinople, before Russia intervented to save the Ottomans!  

It didn't Finish yet, Sultan Mahmud II of the Ottoman resumed the war but was defeated by Ibrahim son of Mehmet Ali at Konya. Again, Egyptions armies neared constantinpole and were turned back by European intervention (British Navy blockading the Nile Delta Coast).

The argument still the same, Turkish army was running. Damn, I laughed so much this time 

They tried to unite all Muslims like the caliphates did before, wasnt it the best serving?

And they conquered lots of non-Muslim lands, even Anatolia wasnt mostly Islamic before the Turks.

Yes, but they conquered the weakest links. Sassanid Empire was very weak after its endless wars with Eastern Roman Empire and Gokturks. Central Asia was lacking of any political union, it was shared btw Turkic and Sogdians. North Africa was a ghost region of Berberi nomads, their civilization was ruined by Romans. Endulus was also lacking of any political union, just like it was until the Spanish Civil War.

About the Ottomans, yes, the Byzanthine Empire was weak, but Turks were the ones weakened it from the Seljuk times. Balkans were lacking of political union, but they were always able to form allied crusader armies under the rule of Popes. Habsburgs were the strongest power in Europe and they were defeated by Ottomans several times. Safavids were the second largest Islamic empire and Ottoman army have reached until Tehran. French Empire was recreated by the help of Suleyman Khan.

No doubt the Ummayads were a great Islamic Empire, maybe with greater servings for Islam than the Ottomans, but no doubt that Ottoman Empire was a greater empire in every term. Ottoman Empire wasnt just an Islamic Empire, but the inheritor of an empire of thousands of years, Rome.

Ali Pasha' s army was not arabic. He used his garrisons. It can be considered as a civil war.

He was not arab, and his ambition was not arabic dominance over Ottoman Empire.

He wanted Ottoman Empire to be his Empire. The Euro allies intervened and did not let a more dynamic and ambitious ruler to take the Constantinople.

Probably, Kavalali Mehmet Ali Pasha would reconquer Greece. But again, Ottoman Empire, as a whole was weakening. Greeks and other Balkanians would gain their independence what ever happens.

You arabic guys try to own everything in this world I think. Next time, try making Albanians to be Arabic.

And BTW, a descendant of Kavalali Mehmet Ali Pasha is my friend. He looks anything but an Arab.

Originally posted by HulaguHan Mehmet Ali Pasha' s Army is anything but an Arabic Army. Infact he was an Albanian origined Ottoman Viceroy who was ambitious to get the Ottoman Throne.

So, what is his army will be called? Albanians? cuz that is also most of the jenissaries troops.

@ Cok Gec

When Caesar rebelled against Rome and crossed Rubicon, his army was also called Romans.

Marcus Antonius' army was also called Roman, but they were garrisoned in Egypt.

Mehmet Ali Pasha, rebelled against the empire, he governed his province bu himself, not as a Viceroy.

He then marched to Constantinople. His whole ambition was that.

He was about to win it, but lost.

I am sure you also consider Mamelukes as an Arabic state too.

well mehmet ali pasha's army was egyptians under Turkish and Albanian generals. not that egyptians doesn't mean All arabs.

about memluks i know that they were from different races but majority was turkish ,but dont know really what was the official language of their empire?

was it turkish or arabic?

you still confuses stuff.....Read my question again. Don't tell me Mehmet Ali is an Ablanian or a hindu, just answer the question. His army is what? An Arab army or a Turk Army?

Mamelukes spoke Arabic, so they are Arab for sure. You know that concept of language barrier rather than an ethnicity. Many Albanians writers are considered to be turks. Now tha is another story. Just answer the above question

In fact his army a mix of Arab,Turk,Alban(Arnaoot).

In his earlier reign he was in the service of Sultan (Arabia campaign,Greek revolution and Sudanese campaign)after that he rebeled against Sultan because of a promise from Sultan to him to ,ake him governor of Syria but after the defeat at Navarino the Sultan refused and Mehmet marched toward Istanbol.

Yeah, that is true. Mehmet Ali used to bring soldiers from abroad mostly Albanians, greek, other turks, georgian, and even european such as the author of the biography of his army i mentioned earlier.

This is a normal tactic used by the Ottomans in developing their jenessary army which is purely consisted of slave boys convert to Islam and given privilage to guarantee their loyality to the Sultan. Ottoman used the jenessary troops heavily since the establish of the Ottoman sultenate up to the mid of 1800's.  Jenessary troops were the decisive factor of winning a batle or losing it.

Now, the question is that you have to make up your mind, are turks who speak turkish or turks are those who are ethnically turks. Most Turks will agree especially that turkish is a language boundry rather than an ethnicity. This important because if you insist that Turks are ethnically turks and that is why Mamlukes are supposed to be turks despite they spoke Arabic, then Ottoman army was winning on Jenessaries who are not turks for sure by ethnicity.

Well I just want him to be consistent Ahmed..

You cannot say Mehmet Ali army losing in Hijaz is not a turkish army because they were not all turks, while telling us stories of Ottoman conquest using the same soldiers and janessaries as being Turks!

And you cannot say Mamlukes are Turks because they are ethnically turks thought they spoke Arabic, but tell us again about the Turkish Janessaries where they are not ethnically Turks, they just spoke Turkish.

Agree,If he will say not Turk the military achievments will go a way to the slave,balkanian Janissaires whom in fact no origion Turk.

Janissaries being Turks, mameluks being arabs, violets being blue isnt our point here. We arent compaing if Turks are more benefical for Islam or arabs. We are comparing Ottoman Empire, as a whole empire not as its founder nation, with the Ummayad Caliphate.

Mameluks werent Turks or arabs, they were Mamelukes. Ottomans werent Turks, Albanians or Yemenis, they were Ottomans. National identities for multiethnical empires are fabricated.

Finally the voice of reason

I have no point here rather than cornering him in his own words..go back to previous posts.

Sorry, this is out of topic, but how do you say your singature?

"Ku është shpata, është feja"

Is the ë  pronounciation is different to the e? is the J here pronounced like "Ye" as in Serajivo?

Which Empire was "better"?

It seems Most getting their History lessons from Hollywood movies and "story" books.. Lets make a general comparison of Empires:

The one that is called "barbarian" Ottoman Empire, and "Civilized" western "Empires"..
Let's see these "barbarians!" ruled half of the world for 600 years , but not one Christian Country population have been forced to convert to Islam, yet The "civilized" nations invaded latin America, Africa, Asia, they all have been (nicely) converted to Christianity. I havent read any "exterminated" population under this "Barbarians", yet I have read the extermiantion of Indigenous people all over the world by "civilized" nations. No other Country, remaining 600 years under Turkish domination, speaks Turkish but their own language, yet wherever the "civilized" nations conquered , or dominated, they have spoken the language of conquerers ...Either English, Spanish, or French..
People from all religions lived peacefully together under this "Barbarian" empire.; Like Jews, Muslims & Christians in Middle east, especially in Phalestine, Similiarly in Bulgaria,and  North Africa.
"Civilized" results of  The "Civilized" empires'  exterminate, convert ,divide & conquer policy has been the bloodiest of all, still today.

They were some strange "barbarians"this Ottoman Empire I should say..
They kept all the Arab nations together for centuries with an "Arab pride", Then came the "Lawrence of Arabia" era, and divided and conquered ..any pride?, Then came the John Negroponte era first  latin America and then Iraq,soon Lebnan, Syria (rest already inthe hands),,divide and conquer...any pride?
People who do not study and draw lessons from history, will be facing the same consequences of past history...A self deceptive pride...

 """""""are turks who speak Turkish or Turks are those who are ethnically turks. Most Turks will agree especially that turkish is a language boundry rather than an ethnicity. """""""

This is an example of how  much you know about history..Turkish is not a language boundry it is an ethnic boundry..Turks spoke Turkish 7000 years ago, still speak Turkish with inevitable variations and influences. Language they speak mostly taken the name of the tribes later nations/minorities (like Uygurs in western China), like Azeri, Kirgiz, Turkmen, etc yet still it is Turkish .. Language boundry you are talking about is, if it is Uralic or  Altaic base language..here is an  example of variations of Turkish language, which was later called Turkic by the same "civilized" Empires in order to use the same divide and conquer policy, trying to give the impression that it is language boundries.. Oguz and Ogur tribes come from Asena tribe who spoke Turkish,

So now I don't know about history? . Im afraid that me -the ignorant- will correct your turkish information

First, you cannot say they spoke Turkish. In English language, Turkish is the language of Turkey only and other languages are called Turkic to distinguish them.

And yeah! Turkish is a language boundary if you like it or not, because if Turkish is the language of Turkey, and Turkey has no one uniformed race, then it is a clear language connection and not ethnic. Com'on! what is the similarities between Mehmet of Istanbul and Mehmet of Uyghur in their face look? Anyhow, I know you will repeat to me the same argument "but some Uyghurs are blonde..bla bla" Yeah Yeah, they are called mixed Uyghur.

Whatever, let me just save my time and your time, Just go read that all in Wikipedia. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks

well jenisaries were not Turkish, but the system growt them was turkic. Ottomans were not complately at Turkish empire. So memluks were not too.

But you cannot call ottomans as albanian, or arabic empire. do you?

memluks were same, we call It as a turkic empire, because their ruler was Turks. We know who is their people.

Langauge has not much job at here. Langauge was changing in time, so should we call ottomans a little ethnic than Turkey turks, because of arabic or persian words?

Mehmet of Istanbul and Mehmet of Uyghur in their face look?

Well you can find a lot different Mehmet in Turkey too, point?

Who are you talking to? No one here called Ottomans as Albanian. Go back to previous posts. The analysis is simple. Choose what is the turkish tie between you from Turkey and an Uyghur in East China, Ethnic? Language? or both? After you answer we will see what is the topic even.

Wasn't my point. My point was clear already as yourself used it correctly. Say Turkish language for turkey, but say Turkic for other turkic languages. Don't confuse the termonology. That is all. Do I have to teach you my Turkish friend what you call your language correctly in English?

Really? there is Mehmet too in Istanbul? . I know dude. The question was even cut from its half, but anyhow, read the sentance again. It says "in their face look".  Sorry, wasn't my theory that what ties a Turkish person from Istanbul with a Turkic person in Uyghur land is only the language. Not the ethnicity.

Afterall, think about it. It will be almost like saying the Portuguese race!!, There is no Portuguese race, there is Europeans in Portugal, and a mix of European, Mestizo, Africans, American Indians...etc in Brazil. Portuguese is a language bound not an ethnic one.

     VS 

Damn! Look up there. they must be of the same ethnicity .  That is an Uyghur and that is Mehmet II. If you don't agree that they are of different race, talk to the Turkish Royal Academy of the government in London under the people section to change that too on their website: http://www.turks.org.uk/index.php - http://www.turks.org.uk/index.php  

Cok Gec,

I recommend this book to you. It has very interesting information about ethnical identity of The Ottomans.

http://www.ideefixe.com/kitap/tanim.asp?sid=IJO5ZZ5OO66I6LOUM000 - http://www.ideefixe.com/kitap/tanim.asp?sid=IJO5ZZ5OO66I6LOU M000