Byzantium and the Ottomans

[Avrelianvs]

So your Albanian ancestors were ruling class in the OE. Thank you for admitting that I am right.

If I may answer this single point (and then I'm done with this thread 'cause has become too nationalistic for my tastes) this proves exactly the opposite. Yes, my ancestors were in the ruling class of the OE, but they didn't become Turks. Surely the people in their lands didn't become Turks. In fact, the surest way for a Turk to kill himself, back in the days, was to travel alone in Albanian or Serb lands. Better than a bullet in the head, although probably not quite as fast. So, if I was in your place, I'd wait before claiming we were all sitting around the fire singing Kumbaya.

Anyway that's my last post in this thread.

 

[Therion]

It's for a different game but Card. Contarini's suggestions here may still be relevant to this discussion.

 

[unmerged(614938)]

I agree after 1800 Europe was also religiously tolarent...




You said well and I agree with you its not about being tolarent or not.If Ottomans was the most cruel nation in earth you would speak like that and if they gave the paradise on earth still you would speak like that.

Its about being ruled by another nation thats the reason for dislike for Ottoman empire so we understand you and respect you if I was ruled by another country I would probably hate them too but try to be objective none of us saying that Ottomans were the angels but they were much better compared to other nations at that time.

One more thing this argument will not end friends I think it will be better for us to stop it right now.It will be better for us to discuss the game lets leave politics outside...

I don't want to make you think I hate Ottomans or something, nor that they have been the worst of them all. I am just trying to say that because of things happened in history between us, there is no way that Ottomans and Balkan people should be in same culture group. Trying to assimilate someone is not same as accepting someone as part of your nation's heritage. Whole Europe was like that in the time, I said that few times in my post and you are again saying to me that people were like that in medieval age, ignoring my sentences where I said the same. What I want to say, everyone was assimilating at that time. There was no tolerant nations. I don't say Ottomans are worst. They did what all Europe did. And that is FACT. And because of that fact, our countries can't be in same culture group in this game. It just doesn't make sense. That is what I am trying to say here.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

Ottoman tolerance was not something that was in place because they were naturally tolerant of other religions - they werent. They conquered most of Balkans as part of Jihad. They were tolerant because they were smart, they didnt want to gobble Balkans and then stop with the expansion, they wanted to move further west toward Austria, Italy etc. Its hard to do that if you face constant uprisings in the conquered territories, and its much easier to tolerate the locals (since compared to the west we were completely insignificant) and simply move your armies and go conquer other places.

You are generally correct about this. Ottoman tolerance had practical motivations. They were not good guys or anything like that. Good guys don't try to conquer the world.

But you are completely brainwashed about the Devshirme system. Again I blame the romantic traditions, and I am sorry for you. It was introduced in the 1390s and effectively lasted until about 1590. The devshirme collected from the whole Balkans numbered at most around 3000 in one go, usually it was in the hundreds. Some peasants even bribed the collectors to give their children away. The children were mostly teenagers, so most remembered their families and helped them if they had the chance later on. You are only right about one thing, it was not done to provide education for the Balkan peasants, it was done to produce an effective ruling class loyal to the Sultan and replace the Turkish nobility who could challenge the House of Osman. And it was a great thing for the kids themselves. Most important difference in their life was not that they became Muslim but it was they became rich and educated instead of peasants. Only in the Balkans people are so brainwashed that they think Sokolovic was sorry to become the Grand Vizier instead of a peasant. I find it amazing how much people are whining about this after 400 years. Sweden was taking Sami kids away and Australia the same with aboriginals, in the 20th century and neither of those countries even had an MP from those kids. Sweden is in the EU, why not whine about that?

As for the Serb uprising, it was in the 19th century, after the EU timeframe. And in the beginning they raised their banners in the name of the Sultan. That's what Hobsbawm writes, who is hardly a Turkish nationalist.

Judged by the standards of their time, the Ottomans were indeed very tolerant. Yes, life as an Orthodox under Ottoman rule might not have been paradise - but at least during the 16th century it was way better than life as a Muslim or a Jew in Catholic Spain. Or life as a Protestant in a Catholic country.

Well put. You are also right that thanks to enlightenment the West surpassed the OE in tolerance.

The starter of this thread should read these posts I mean these guys cant even stand to see the name of the Ottoman Empire and you are talking about putting these culture's under same group come man that was mistake I think

Balkan people can't stand each other.

 

[DanubianCossak]

You said well and I agree with you its not about being tolarent or not.If Ottomans was the most cruel nation in earth you would speak like that and if they gave the paradise on earth still you would speak like that.

Its about being ruled by another nation thats the reason for dislike for Ottoman empire so we understand you and respect you if I was ruled by another country I would probably hate them too but try to be objective none of us saying that Ottomans were the angels but they were much better compared to other nations at that time.

One more thing this argument will not end friends I think it will be better for us to stop it right now.It will be better for us to discuss the game lets leave politics outside...

I dont claim that Ottomans were this or that, id rather not characterize them in those terms at all. Objectivity as such doesnt exist, and as we all know there are many shades of gray, and many points of view one can assume, so obviously we are all influenced by where we come from, i admit and accept that. Personally i got nothing against Turks, i actually speak the language a bit - and you can check my friends list as well.

What i will say is that Ottoman Empire without a doubt was a great country in terms that it was a powerful country that did things efficiently, and it was also a great survivor that achieved many things - got no problem with that, at all.

But at the same time, it definitely wasnt a paradise for those whom it ruled over.

And i will leave it at that as well.

 

[fizy45]

People calm down this is a thread to discuss the game not for politicly fighting and its really stupid to fight for a thing which happened 450 years ago Ottomans were powerful and expanded into balkans if Crotians or Serbs were the powerful one's than they would probably expand into Anatolia too that was the way of ruling at those times but lucky that times passed and today we are all living under the flag of our own nations.

Its little off topic but not just for Balkans for all europe and middle east we need to learn living together beucase while we are killing each other in meanless wars especially in 1700-2000 period the colonies in America got together and they formed United States.While we are dividing ourselves piece by piece they formed a huge goverment which covers a whole continent and after that with true politics they became the superpower of the world despite our glorious history none of our countries are match for them including the strongest EU countries too...

So lets stop it guys

About the thread starter I think you saw the imposibilty of putting Turkish and Balkanian culture's under same group there are many diffrences actually those diffrences are soo deep that even 500 years later still they cause problems

Kardeş türksün galiba ya bizans ile bizi aynı kültüre koyma olayı nedir ya adamlar tahamül bile edemiyorlar bize söylediklerinin bazıları doğru ama olmaz öyle şey yapma ya

 

[Tufto]

@Tufto

This is getting very amusing. I can agree on you with the depopulation thing ( I should have express myself differently ), they weren't so big yes, but it was happening to lot of people against their will. Some of them accepted it and became muslim, gaining lot of power and very important statuses in country, only BECAUSE they were muslim. That's one of the reasons why Ottomans and Balkan people shouldn't be in same culture group. Because not only they changed their religion to muslim, but they changed their whole lifestyle, their way of living, because every religion brings cultural aspects in it...Cultures are mainly created on religions. That is my opinion.

As for the Serb Uprising. Serb nobles rebeled against Ottoman government and demanded that Dahias leave Serbia. Dahias were Janissary leaders in Serbia, who acted independently. After that, there was an event called 'Sječa knezova', meaning Slaughter of the Dukes. We can translate word Knez to Duke. That is what it means, but they weren't dukes by title, they were local nobles who had power in Sanjak of Smederevo, or Pashaluk of Belgrade, however you want to call it, but nevermind. Thing is, Dahias killed all of the Serb nobles who tried to rebel against them. After that event, First Serbian Uprising started.. And not against LOCAL GOVERNMENT, but against OTTOMANS. That was not war for restoring central authority, but war for independent Serbian state.
And I don't have national prejudice against Turks, or anyone. I am not even Serbian.. I am a Croat. Even Croatian soil was defended by Serbs against Ottomans, in so called Military Krajina. Ottomans also did same things in Croatian territory, but that cannot be compared with what was done in other Balkan territories. I don't want you to think that I am going here to fight with you, I am just saying facts that almost any Serb, Croat, Bulgarian, Greek etc. would say. We don't learn same history in Croatia and in Turkey.

Fair enough.

 

[Dafool]

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24099

This is an article I found interesting, but you can call it apologist propaganda if you want. I just find weird that the Iroquois had a federal system working pretty much like the US and the Founding Fathers came up with a system pretty similar in the same period. The options here are only three:

1. They knew about the Iroquois League and created a similar system, but also based in the Inlightenment values.

2. They came up with a system strangely similar to the one of a population with which they had relationships (once allies then enemies etc.), but... surely Ben Franklin didn't copy: he was a saint!

3. It was the Ancient Astronauts! Those pesky aliens told Washington, and before him the Iroquois, what was the best government!

Take a pick.

Off topic, but I feel the need to respond to this. The United States developed without any notable influence from the Iroquois. The foundation of this myth relies on a quote by Benjamin Franklin. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but he essentially said "How can the savage Iroquois manage to hold together a political union of their tribes and yet a dozen or so English colonies can't do better?". The early government of the United States doesn't bear any uncanny resemblance to the Iroquois government. The primary similarities are a type of legislative body, voting, and a confederal structure. These are things that were hardly unknown within Western culture, especially during the Enlightenment.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Boiled down; which is more important: nationalistic pride about what brackets your culture is in, or historical plausibility?

Are you kidding? These are the EU fora. Nationalistic pride will always win out no matter what, especially when it concerns the Balkans (see also e.g. the 100% ethnically pure Balkan regions in Victoria)

 

[Blaze86420]

Not true. Ottomans haven't even SEEN any Arabs until the 1500s. They came to Turkey via Iran and converted to Iranian Islam on the way. It would even make more historical sense to put them in the same cultural group as Iran than with the Arabs, but in gameplay terms Arabs make more sense. Byzantine makes by far the most sense both historically and in gameplay.

That is a hundred percent incorrect. There is no such thing as Iranian Islam (what in the hell is that? The Ottomans were Sunni Muslims) And the Ottomans have certainly had contacts with the Arab world prior to the annexation of Syria and Egypt. The Sultanate has been importing Arab jurists from Al Azhar and other Islamic schools across the Arab world for decades, because there weren't many madrassas in Anatolia and the Balkans initially and because Arabic was the language of theology and science. And the Ottomans did in fact have direct control over their Arab provinces, they were ruled by governors sent from Constantinople, until the break down of central authority in the 17th century anyway.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

That is a hundred percent incorrect. There is no such thing as Iranian Islam (what in the hell is that? The Ottomans were Sunni Muslims) And the Ottomans have certainly had contacts with the Arab world prior to the annexation of Syria and Egypt. The Sultanate has been importing Arab jurists from Al Azhar and other Islamic schools across the Arab world for decades, because there weren't many madrassas in Anatolia and the Balkans initially and because Arabic was the language of theology and science. And the Ottomans did in fact have direct control over their Arab provinces, they were ruled by governors sent from Constantinople, until the break down of central authority in the 17th century anyway.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Firstly, you sure are quite arrogant for someone who thinks Iran was Shia when the Turks converted to Islam. Turkics, and not only the Oguz, but all Turkics- got Islam via Iran. Islam came with associated traditions based on Iranian civilisation, and we are discussing the traditions here and not religion itself, because that's how it is in the game.

Secondly, Ottomans of course had contacts with the Arab world, after they settled and started bordering the Med. They traded with the Arabs and had similar high culture (Turkish version of which was more similar to Iran). However, their contacts with the Arabs were 1/100th of their contacts with the Greeks. You are also wrong about madrassas. There were plenty of madrassas in Anatolia, which was Turkish land for 200 years when the Ottomans were founded. Both the Sultanate of Rum and the Turkish Beyliks built madrassas. Actually the jurist and scholar class has always been dominated by ethnic Turks in the OE, even when the central government depended mostly on the Devshirme. Ottomans invited scholars from all over the world and there were obviously Arab scholars as well.

Thirdly, Ottoman rule in Anatolia and the Balkans involved dividing up the land in Timars, which was a version of the Seljuk ikta and Byzantine Pronia systems. The Timar owners did not own their land and were government officers. The state also sent judges to all those lands, who independently reported to Constantinople. The Timar owner and the Judge ruled the land for the Porte. This system was applied in some parts of Syria after 1516. In the rest of the Arab lands, i.e. remaining parts of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hedjaz, Algeria, Tunisia and most importantly Egypt, this system was NOT applied. Ottomans ruled those lands directly only at the Governor level, and not at town/sanjak/village level, like they did in Balkans and Anatolia. Ottomans let the Egyptian locals run the place and shipped the excess gold from the budget to Constantinople.

For those who still don't get it, the point is that the Ottoman ruling class had Turkish, Greek, Armenian and Balkan culture. They were of course mainly Turks, therefore similar to Crimean Tatars, Azeris and Turkmen as well. Beyond that they were similar to other Tatars and Turkics, Caucasians, Kurds and Iranians. Only after that they were similar to the Arabs and Hungarians and Ukrainians, etc. This is my (and most good historians') take on the matter, it's nothing to be offended about.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

Are you kidding? These are the EU fora. Nationalistic pride will always win out no matter what, especially when it concerns the Balkans (see also e.g. the 100% ethnically pure Balkan regions in Victoria)

And how come nobody is whining about Granadans being in the Iberian culture group?

Actually, I expected the Balkans to rise up when I started the thread. You are right about this forum, few people discuss the game and everyone tries to push some sort of nationalist agenda. And yes, I do have an agenda of improving the OE and the ERE, but its not an nationalist one. No nationalist who likes the OE likes Byzantium. Think a bit and you shall figure it out. Actually I would like to be able to play any Anatolian or Balkan state and create a viable Empire like those two. Combined rule of 1600 years was not a coincidence- Balkans and Anatolia belonged together in history. I really believe any Anatolian or Balkan ruler who could manage it would have taken on the Byzantine geopolitical mission. I suggested a common cultural group as a way to facilitate this.

So, I wonder. Please lay your pitchforks and torches for a moment and listen up: do you think a problem exists with the performance of the Ottoman Empire in EU games? And do you think this is because they rule over wrong culture-wrong religion provinces? What is best way to simulate their historical achievements? Change culture groups or change cultural acceptance mechanics?

I suggested putting them in the same cultural group with their historical subjects and neighbours, and half the people started whining about how Turks kidnapped their grandfathers, or how I dare group Turks with infidels. Fair enough, let's change cultural acceptance mechanics then? That way everyone can keep their national purity intact.

 

[Randarkmaan]

But you are completely brainwashed about the Devshirme system. Again I blame the romantic traditions, and I am sorry for you. It was introduced in the 1390s and effectively lasted until about 1590.

Actually the Devshirme system as it is generally known and recognized existed for an even shorter period of time than this. In its infancy it was pretty much the same as the slave soldier/palace elite system practiced by other muslim dynasties where the recruiting pool mostly were young enslaved POWs and sometimes slaves purchased from further away traders (though this was more the way the mamluks ran things, constantly replenishing their caucasian/central asian ruling class). I think it began to take on its classic and remembered form by the mid to late 15th century, but even by the 16th century it changed quite a bit, for instance muslim bosnians were included sometime in the 16th century, and albanians as well I think, so it was not only drawn from christian populations. And as you say it was effectively over by the end of the 16th century. For instance being a janissary became effectively hereditary, as did many other jobs and positions that recruited through the Devshirme, the janissaries also became more and more entwined with the urban trade guilds to the point where it was difficult to specify the difference between a guildsman and a janissary (at least in the capital and the major cities).

Also interesting to take note of the discussion of whether Ottoman rule in the Balkans was "successful" or not with people bringing up examples such as general hostility (Devshirme is mentioned, which probably had rather minor impact) and revolts. People fail to take account of the fact that throughout the 16th and 17th centuries the lands that were most difficult to govern for the Ottomans were the largely Turkish-dominated provinces in central Anatolia, where they faced several peasant revolts often aided by revolting impoverished timariots (feudal soldiers, often called sipahis). The classic Ottoman military system relying on feudal cavalry was in decline (for several reasons, economic upheaval was an important part as many could no longer meet their obligations as regarded equipment and armed retainers using their now obsolete fiefs) and most of these soldiers were Anatolian, in additions there was the problem of general lawlessness, banditry and proliferation of firearms amongst the peasantry. The Ottomans met these challenges by beating down the revolts, employing the armed peasants and bandits as soldiers (this led to further problems) and increasing their reliance on the janissaries for their military, though the janissaries were now more a less a force made up of a mix of the sons of janisarries and volunteers, and they were often raised locally by regional rulers rather than by the state itself via the Devshirme which was largely defunct.

Kind of a derail, but I find it somewhat enlightening to think about this (as I said Turkish Anatolia being harder for the Ottomans to govern than the non-Turkish Balkans). And I also hope Paradox implements some of this into the gameplay of the Ottomans requiring them to juggle various military systems in the hope that they will come up with a winning recipe. Also worth noting is that the period when the janissary corps was at its strongest represented a time when the urban working classes (the guilds) had tremendous influence over the state and could use this influence to protect their sometimes tenuous economic position, and some sort of event chain and national modifers related to this activated by in-game triggers could be cool.

That is a hundred percent incorrect. There is no such thing as Iranian Islam (what in the hell is that? The Ottomans were Sunni Muslims)

What the hell does this even mean? Of course there is iranian Islam by the simple observation that there is Islam in Iran there HAS to be iranian Islam. Also prior to the Safavids most iranian muslims were sunnis or followed various sufi traditions, at the time there were also sizeable zoroastrian minorities still in place in northern and eastern Iran (but that's another story). As I said Iran being a country mostly following the twelver branch of shia Islam came with the Safavids, who set about converting the country to a single faith in order to increase unity and secure territorial integrity (there being a lot of Turks in Iran who could potentially see co-religionist Ottomans as worthy master to pledge fealty to) and dynastic legitimacy. I think this was mostly carried out in the mid 17th century (aided by the Safavids sponsoring and importing thelogians and legal experts from Iraq) and it was relatively quick and, for the time, amazingly thorough, with the exception of a few favored minorites (Jews and Armenians I think) almost the entire country was brought to follow the Safavids' sanctioned state religion.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

Good post, Randaarkman.

 

[MilosM]

Part of the reason Ottomans were chased out of Balkans for good.

They are making a comeback with these soaps though

 

[unmerged(619282)]

The idea of putting the Turks in the Byzantine group,is at least absurd.The Ottomans wanted to be seen as the new Byzantine Empire,but I believe even they were aware of the stupidity of this propaganda.

Turks are turks,say what you want,they will never be recodnised as the new byzantines,or as their succesors.They were just a lucky tribe who managed to conquer an extremley weakened BYZ,and even baerley.I m shure that if the 4 th Crusade woulden t have happened,the Turkis State woulden t even exist

 

[Randarkmaan]

The hell are you on about?

 

[Grubnessul]

Are you for real?! So, it doesn't matter the actual culture of the population living in the province, being them paesants, only the fact that the higher classes were accepting the dominant culture? Can I call bullshit, or it's too strong?

The culture of the local elite being important makes much more sense for a government in the game's era. They are the ones collecting the taxes from the peasants and pressing them into your army. You needed the loyalty of the local elite, peasants being loyal to government itself and considering them part of the same group is a Revolutionary idea. Before that, the rulers and peasants considered eachother to be completely different classes and not having the same culture. For the peasants, little changed when rulers changed, they got extorted and forced to fight in wars they had no interest in anyway. Only change when the Turks conquered Anatolia was a bit more tax until they converted to Islam.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24099

This is an article I found interesting, but you can call it apologist propaganda if you want. I just find weird that the Iroquois had a federal system working pretty much like the US and the Founding Fathers came up with a system pretty similar in the same period. The options here are only three:

1. They knew about the Iroquois League and created a similar system, but also based in the Inlightenment values.

2. They came up with a system strangely similar to the one of a population with which they had relationships (once allies then enemies etc.), but... surely Ben Franklin didn't copy: he was a saint!

3. It was the Ancient Astronauts! Those pesky aliens told Washington, and before him the Iroquois, what was the best government!

Take a pick.

I'll have a look into it, but I find it hard to believe the USA rebels copied a system from tribes they considered sub-human. But I'll read up on the Iroquois political system before picking one.

 

[Tufto]

The idea of putting the Turks in the Byzantine group,is at least absurd.The Ottomans wanted to be seen as the new Byzantine Empire,but I believe even they were aware of the stupidity of this propaganda.

They wanted to be seen as the conquerors of Rome (which in a sense they were) and sometimes called themselves Roman emperors as they ruled over the traditionally "Roman" (Byzantine) lands. But that's not what we're arguing about here. The point is that putting them in the same group could stop the Turkish culture overpowering the Greek within a few years, as well as reflect the close cultural development between the two "cultures" during the early modern period and initial acceptance of the Turks by the Greeks.

Turks are turks,say what you want,they will never be recodnised as the new byzantines,or as their succesors.They were just a lucky tribe who managed to conquer an extremley weakened BYZ,and even baerley.I m shure that if the 4 th Crusade woulden t have happened,the Turkis State woulden t even exist

1) I'm well aware that Turks are Turks. That's why they're called, y'know, Turks.
2) They did fill the power vacuum left behind by the Byzantines, but that's not the issue.
3) Byz wasn't exactly "extremely weakened" at, say, Manzikert (well, OK, it was quite weakened but it still stood a moderate chance at victory). The Ottomans did not barely conquer Byzantium. They beat it time and time again, and it only survived for as long as it did because of the Theodosian Walls, which were still tough but obsolete by 1453
4) The Turks were long established well before the Fourth Crusade. The Great Seljuk Empire? The Sultanate of Rum? Their crushing victory at Manzikert and subsequent conquest of most of Anatolia 150ish years before the Fourth Crusade?

 

[CanOmer]

If it is possible to put Turks and Arabs in same culture group for gameplay reasons then it is possible to put Turks in Byzantine group which is better for gameplay I think. Besides, Arab culture group is very large, it should be reduced.