Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Jul 25, 2009 8:05:45 GMT -5
The Ottomans were predominantly Turkish and a short while later, Turkish and Greek. The Greeks joining the Ottomans took part in the fall of the Byzantines. What's that?
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Jul 25, 2009 8:13:18 GMT -5
You could say they were "Turkish" and Greek
but I think the proper one for them was OTTOMAN because thats where it ended up! Under the Ottoman sphere
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Jul 25, 2009 8:14:24 GMT -5
oh
I did not go to wiki only
Ive read many book in libraries,bookshops,google book,articles among them.
Btw,wiki is good too.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Jul 25, 2009 8:23:21 GMT -5
Patrinos.. The Ottomans started as Turks, defied the Byzantine tax laws whilst in Anatolia, The Greek villages nearby started joining up to the Ottomans as they couldn't afford to pay the high taxes and were now very poor. The Ottomans at that stage didn't enforce taxes and were just a group of people, living a warring nomadic lifestyle.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Jul 25, 2009 12:36:42 GMT -5
Well, you are right on that..the people in the anatolian inland were never fully hellenised and were called by the byzantine writeres as "mixovarvaroi", followers of different heresies...in contrast with the shore's populations that were around major cities and kept their identity firmer...
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Jul 25, 2009 15:50:47 GMT -5
You guys should read this:
In: Bureaucrat and intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: the historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600) Fleischer, Cornell H., 1950-. Princeton University Press, c1986. Princeton studies on the Near East
In general, Ali frequently expresses a profound dislike for Albanians. For example, in the MEVA'ID (pp. 65-68), in the course of a discussion of the insults suffered by the learned at the hands of the ignorant, Ali identifies Lutfi Pasa, who at least had pretensions to learning, and Sinan Pasa as particular offenders, and remarks pointedly on their common Albanian origin. For other examples of this ethnic bias see KA, Suleyman/Sadrazamlar, "Ayas Pa~a," "Lutfi Pasa," Faith 4225, 318b. On the Ottoman view of Albanians, see Bedriye Atsiz, "Das Albanerbild der Turken nach osmanischen Chroniken des 15.-16. Jahrhunderts," Munchner Zeitschriftfiir Balkankunde I (1978): 15-25.
In discussing Sinan Pasa, Ali constantly refers to his ethnic identity, saying, for example, that only Albanians mourned his death. He also cites several instances of an Albanian group solidarity operative within the Ottoman military establishment and exploited by Sinan Pasa (KA, Murad/Third Vezirate of Sinan Pasa, Nur 3409, 399b; Mehmed/Fourth Vezirate of Sinan Pasa, Halet Efendi 598, 430b). Ali also says that during his third term in office Sinan brought about the dismissal of the yeniceri agasi Mehmed Aga because the latter was a Bosnian, and then replaced him with a fellow Albanian, Yemisci Hasan Aga (KA, Nur 3409, 408b). While these statements may be somewhat exaggerated, an extension of Ali's hatred for Sinan Pasa, they provide some evidence to support the general thesis propounded by Metin Kunt in "Ethnic-Regional (Cins) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Establishment," IJMES 5 (1974): 233-39. Kunt suggests that ethnic solidarity amongst devsirme recruits who reached positions of power within the Ottoman establishment led, in the seventeenth century, to a rivalry between "western" Albanians and Bosnians on the one hand, and "eastern" Georgians and Circassians on the other, from which the former emerged as the dominant faction. The evidence that Ali provides, and his general tendency to praise Bosnians (see, for example, his praise of Damad Ibrahim Pasa, KA, Halet Efendi 598, 439b-440a), while execrating Albanians, indicates that in the sixteenth century at least the two major "western" factions were pitted against each other, and that Sinan Pasa utilized Albanian solidarity to dismantle the Bosnian ascendancy established by Sokollu Mehmed Pasa and his family. Such ethnic considerations, of course, should not be viewed as constituting more than one of many factors (kinship, education and training, intisab, etc.) determining relationships within the Ottoman power elite. 73 Ali gives the text of this letter in KA, Mehmed/ Grand vezirate of Damad Ibrahim Pa~a, Halet Efendi 598, 438b-439b.Ali says that the ship of state is piloted by five officers: the sultan, the grand vezir, the treasurer, the secretary-in-chief, and the head of the Janissary Corps. He then asks to be taken on as the sixth, without specifying the office but probably meaning the chancellorship.
Metin Kunt in "Ethnic-Regional (Cins) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Establishment," IJMES 5 (1974): 233-39.:
We can imagine that language was an element which reinforced the feeling of identity with the place of origin. All slaves, of course, learned Turkish; all who made it to higher levels shared the refinements of Ottoman culture. Nevertheless there are indications that the original language was not forgotten. For example, Mere Hiiseyin Papa, a grand vezir in the early seventeenth century, would give the order for the removal of guilty persons in his native Albanian; the order 'Take him!', 'mere' in Albanian, stuck as his nickname.2 Nor is he an isolated example, though he surely is an extreme one.
.....
Looking back at the time when Kuprilii's first patron, Hiisrev Pasha, was executed, and trying to explain how Kopriilii managed to survive his patron's downfall, we note that a few months after Hiisrev Pasha was executed Tabani- yassl Mehmed Papa was appointed grand vezir. He, too, was of Albanian origin. Perhaps, then, the explanation is that Kupriilii stayed on after Hiisrev Pasha was executed under the administration of an Albanian grand vezir. Surely this whole story is of minor significance by itself, but it is interesting to see that all the pieces fit together as one might expect. The implications of cins solidarity in Ottoman politics in general are much more difficult to ascertain. What happens, for example, when a new grand vezir is appointed? Can one speak of a new administration formed along cins lines? Was cins solidarity equally strong among the various cins groups? Did one cins group ever succeed in establishing a superior position vis-a-vis the others? There is an assertion in the literature of the early seventeenth century that the Albanians did indeed gain ascendancy. This assertion appears in one of the soul-searching political treatises which flourished as a genre after the troubles at the turn of the century. The author, Veysi, writing in the i620s, cites all that is wrong with the Ottoman state in his day in the form of a kasdde. Among the wrongs he notes:
Acibdir izz ii devletde cemi'an Arnavud ii Bo?nak (;eker devrinde zilletler ?aha al-i resulullah
In E. J. W. Gibb's translation: 'Tis passing strange all those in rank and power Arnaut and Bosniac be, While languish in thy reign, 0 King, the sons of the envoy of God.2 How justified was Veysi in this lamentation?
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Jul 25, 2009 16:07:45 GMT -5
Doing "dirty work" is hardly a fitting term since in fact Albanians used the Ottoman system to do the dirty work for them. They monopolized military and administrative elite circles and closed them off to other ethnic groups, notably Bosnians, Georgians and Turkmen and created a system of ethnic solidarity within the Ottoman system. Its no surprise 26 viziers were of Albanian origin, a historic fact Turks bring up every time I tell them that I am Albanian.
As this began to occur more and more, non-Albanian, principally Turkish-Anatolian elites began to lament what they called the "erosion of the empire" by people whom they thought could barely be trusted. Albanians were at the top of this list of "distrusted" and were viewed in the most negative light. So much so that Abdulhamid II issued an order banning all slander against Albanians in the Yildiz Palace. This circle of elites continued until the end of the Ottoman Empire. In fact it was symbolic of the Young Turk revolt that vezier Mehmet Alvonyali Pasha was executed after the Sultan was overthrown.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Jul 26, 2009 4:26:11 GMT -5
Bravo Avloniti, none denies your osman past...
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jul 27, 2009 13:22:49 GMT -5
I agree with Desire that the Ottomans was a inter-cultural empire just like the Byzantines.
However, this does not negate the fact that there were Turkish people living in the empire.
And actually the Turkic people in Central Asia identity themselves as Turks.
It's exactly like the Arabs identifying themselves as Arabs, but they are from different tribes. That's all.
And hellboy your point is pointless, of course people adopt some culture of the places & people whom they live with. That goes for anyone !
you are really a clown...
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Jul 27, 2009 16:53:33 GMT -5
no you are the clown!
Central Asians dont identify themselves as Turks,unless Turkey tells them to.
Now,I never said they werent an inercultural empire like the Byzantines.
ALL Empire are multi-cultural,get that? ITS AN EMPIRE!
But the main mover was Turk and went on incorporating other elements to its Turk ways.But they are different and distinct.
"It's exactly like the Arabs identifying themselves as Arabs, but they are from different tribes. That's all."
Depends.Turkic people branched off and became distinct little groups:Turks,Turkmens,Uzbek,Kazakh,Uyghur,Tatar etc.They are Turkic as a group,but only one,today,is Turk.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jul 28, 2009 0:56:51 GMT -5
Doing "dirty work" is hardly a fitting term since in fact Albanians used the Ottoman system to do the dirty work for them. They monopolized military and administrative elite circles and closed them off to other ethnic groups, notably Bosnians, Georgians and Turkmen and created a system of ethnic solidarity within the Ottoman system. Its no surprise 26 viziers were of Albanian origin, a historic fact Turks bring up every time I tell them that I am Albanian. As this began to occur more and more, non-Albanian, principally Turkish-Anatolian elites began to lament what they called the "erosion of the empire" by people whom they thought could barely be trusted. Albanians were at the top of this list of "distrusted" and were viewed in the most negative light. So much so that Abdulhamid II issued an order banning all slander against Albanians in the Yildiz Palace. This circle of elites continued until the end of the Ottoman Empire. In fact it was symbolic of the Young Turk revolt that vezier Mehmet Alvonyali Pasha was executed after the Sultan was overthrown. Interesting information.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jul 28, 2009 1:13:07 GMT -5
I agree with Desire that the Ottomans was a inter-cultural empire just like the Byzantines. However, this does not negate the fact that there were Turkish people living in the empire. And actually the Turkic people in Central Asia identity themselves as Turks. Indeed. After the break up of the Hun and Kokturk states, Turkic tibes like Avars, Bolgars, Ghuzz (Oghuz), Khazars, Cumans, Pechenegs kept on migrating to Caucasus, Balkans, Crimea, Volga Basin, Ukraine, Anatolia and Iran. Some massive wave of migration continued even in 16th and 17th Centuries. As of 18th Century, the migration pattern turned out to be toward Anatolia due to the Ottoman retreat. Such migration even continued in 19th and 20th Centuries. That is why, there is no single place on earth but Turkey, which is a home for Turkics more than any other place on earth.
|
|
|
Post by engers on Jul 28, 2009 5:53:11 GMT -5
only 1,3 million Albanians?
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Jul 28, 2009 10:16:24 GMT -5
Albanians are to be in the millions in Turkey^^
One BBC article even said 5 million blooded Albanians there
and jan,you are wrong.Turkic to migration to Iran(Azeris too,local stock),Anatolia(most ethnic Turks Anatolian in blood),East Europe(Gagauz indigenous in blood) was minimal,but they had a lot of impact nonetheless.They were military people
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jul 28, 2009 11:56:11 GMT -5
excuse me hellboy, but you cannot know better than a Turk who is classified as a Turk and who is not.
They are not Central Asians, they are Turks, get it in your brain you moron!
All the people in Central Asia are Turks.
|
|
|
Post by raven on Jul 28, 2009 13:14:55 GMT -5
All the people in Central Asia are Turks. Central Asians like Kazakhs and Uzbeks etc do not consider themselves Turks. they are Turkic linguistically of course but this doesnt mean they are Turks or identify as such. i dont know how many times this has to be repeated but being Turkic speaking doesnt make someone a Turk!
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jul 28, 2009 13:17:49 GMT -5
Yes they do!
They actually say they are Turkistanli - this is the Central Asian Turkic region.
Stop trying to disassociate ourselves from each other!
|
|
|
Post by raven on Jul 28, 2009 13:18:35 GMT -5
Albanians are to be in the millions in Turkey^^ One BBC article even said 5 million blooded Albanians there theres no sure way to know. Albanian migration to Turkey went on for centuries during Ottoman times so many became totally assimilated during that period. i think the 1.3 million figure are those who have relatively recent Albanian ancestry and are aware of it. by recent I mean something like 3-4 generations ago. there are probably millions of other ppl who have Albanian ancestry and arent aware as it is very distant.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jul 28, 2009 13:22:09 GMT -5
Turkestan (literally meaning "Land of the Turks") is a region in Central Asia, which today is largely inhabited by Turkic peoples. It has been referenced in many Turkic and Persian sagas and is an integral part of Turan.
Oghuz Turks (also known as Turkmens), Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Khazars, Kyrgyz and Uyghurs are some of the Turkic inhabitants of the region who, as history progressed, have spread further into Eurasia forming such Turkic nations as Turkey and Azerbaijan, and subnational regions like Tatarstan in Russia and Crimea in Ukraine. Tajiks and Russians form sizable non-Turkic minorities.
It is subdivided into Afghan Turkestan, Russian Turkestan and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (also known as Chinese Turkestan, East Turkestan or Uyghuristan) in the People's Republic of China. The Tian Shan and Pamir ranges form a rough division between the latter two.
|
|
|
Post by raven on Jul 28, 2009 13:22:15 GMT -5
Yes they do! They actually say they are Turkistanli - this is the Central Asian Turkic region. Stop trying to disassociate ourselves from each other! look thracian i cant be bothered to argue with you. Kazakhs Uzbeks etc dont call themselves Turks and certainly dont care for any kind of Turanian unionism. if you dont believe it fine
|
|