Ottoman Empire in EUIII
- Thread starter Tunch Khan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
So the Ottomans were so tolerant that destroyed all Balkan pathriarchates, but one, keeping in mind that plurality (of Patriarches) is one of the major differences of Orthodox dogma. But, yeah, what, in XV century, would the smelly Balkan villagers know about fundaments of Orthodoxy, compared to the highly refined TurksTunch Khan said:
Weren't we talking about EUIII period? Or you switch from your point just 'couse its convinientTunch Khan said:Ever since the Ottoman withdrawal, there's still no single mosque in Athens, let aside a minaret even to this date where a hundred thousand muslims live. Let me remind you that Greece is a modern liberal democracy and member of Europen Union. Hmm, take that country's mindset 700 years back in time and give them the Janissaries to see how they treat their cultural and religious minorites. Not hard to guess for me. Please don't let me give examples from how Bulgaria attempted to force convert their Turkish minorities just 20 years ago and held them in concentration camps. Now take Todor Jivkov 700 years back in time and hand him the Janissaries and see how he taxes the conquered peoples, if left any. Not hard to guess right?
? I haven't been to Athens to count Mosques and number of Muslims there, so I cannot say whether it is true or not (though Greeks were frequently criticised for not separating church and state), but in Bulgaria currently, if there are members of certain legally allowed faith in a city willing to provide for a temple have one. Funny you compare OE religious tolerance to an Atheistic totalitarian regime that in its early days put you into a concentration camp just for going (or escorting someone) to a temple. Rally backs your point . With that said Turkish people were not sent to c. camps but either had their names changed or got expulsed to Turkey. There was a number of Turkish people sent to c. camps, but that was a general practice for dealing with anyone opposing the state (not to mentioned it happened 18 not 20 years ago). And Zhivkov had enough Janissaries, don't worry. Was there any point in bringing 20th century stuff in the topic, while you so vigourously agitated against 19th century examples (who are at least closer to EUIII timeframe), 'cause my point with the bright-coloured clothes was the association with the specific hats Jews were forced to wear in Medieval Europe . Enough said.NIce idea, though a bit over-detailness in some divisions. Arabs for sure have to be split if just as an extra Mumluk maulus (not to mention that if Scots are broken into two cultures, theres even more reason to get subcultures). btw Khazahi and Uzbeki were already in EUII so I guess they'll be in EUIII anyway.Kurdistani said:
Last edited:
Well... I only floated it because i saw highland and lowland culture for scotland...Yakman said:
Otherwise I would be in favour of just having Turkic, Iranic and Arabic cultures...
Revised list
Turkish =
Oguz Turkish (Anatolia and Azerbaycan)
Turkomani (Iran and Central Asia)
Uzbeki (Uzbekistan)
Tatari (Russia)
Khazaki (Khazakistan)
Arabic=
Shami (Syria)
Iraqi (Iraq)
Misiri (Egypt)
Maghrebi (North Africa)
Bedouin (Arabian)
Hijazi (Mekka and Madina)
Yemani (Yeman)
Persian =
Tajik (North east Iran and Afghanistan)
Hazar (Central Afghanistan)
Gilani (Northern Iran)
Farsi (Southern And Central Iran)
Luri (Western Iran)
Kurdish =
Kirmanji (Eastern Anatolia)
Sorani (Upper Mesopotamia and Iranian Kurdistan)
Other cultures if they are need...
Eastern Armenian (Armenia)
Western Armenian (?)
Assyrian (Mosul)
Turkish =
Oguz Turkish (Anatolia and Azerbaycan)
Turkomani (Iran and Central Asia)
Uzbeki (Uzbekistan)
Tatari (Russia)
Khazaki (Khazakistan)
Arabic=
Shami (Syria)
Iraqi (Iraq)
Misiri (Egypt)
Maghrebi (North Africa)
Bedouin (Arabian)
Hijazi (Mekka and Madina)
Yemani (Yeman)
Persian =
Tajik (North east Iran and Afghanistan)
Hazar (Central Afghanistan)
Gilani (Northern Iran)
Farsi (Southern And Central Iran)
Luri (Western Iran)
Kurdish =
Kirmanji (Eastern Anatolia)
Sorani (Upper Mesopotamia and Iranian Kurdistan)
Other cultures if they are need...
Eastern Armenian (Armenia)
Western Armenian (?)
Assyrian (Mosul)
Tunch Khan said:
No. Things started to get really grim in the 17th century.
If the Ottoman Empire is properly portrayed, it should become increasingly oppressive, rigid and inflexible as soon as its conquests stall and it can no longer fuel itself on loot and tribute.
Alexandre
Tunch Khan said:Ever since the Ottoman withdrawal, there's still no single mosque in Athens, let aside a minaret even to this date where a hundred thousand muslims live. Let me remind you that Greece is a modern liberal democracy and member of Europen Union. Hmm, take that country's mindset 700 years back in time and give them the Janissaries to see how they treat their cultural and religious minorites. Not hard to guess for me. Please don't let me give examples from how Bulgaria attempted to force convert their Turkish minorities just 20 years ago and held them in concentration camps. Now take Todor Jivkov 700 years back in time and hand him the Janissaries and see how he taxes the conquered peoples, if left any. Not hard to guess right?
Ehm actually this isnt entirely true....there is a mosque in athens but it's not allowed to be used beacuse it's right next to the overall area of Acropolis....And actually it doesnt really matter cause there are numerous free mosques in the rest of greece(in north to be more specific)
Hehe, that's plain game with words what you are doing. I am talking about Athens which hosts a muslim minority of more than one hundred thousand people and they are not allowed to have a mosque. The one next to Acropolis is merely a ruin since the Ottoman withdrawal and it's being used as a contemporary art gallery. The ones in Thessaloniki are being used as churches, such as the magnificent Yeni Cami.Prussia said:
Prussia said:
:rofl:
Don't discredit yourself by blatant one-sidedness. (Not you in particular, but many here...)
Tunch Khan said:
Maybe the Christians can give back the Yeni Cami, and the Muslims can give back the Hagia Sophia?
fraese said:
Here it is ok if the church/mosque is not burnt.
We call it religious tolerance. :rofl:
There some very big differences between western Europe and eastern Europe.
In Balkan Kingdoms(Serbia,Bulgaria,Byzantium) there was no such dark feudalism, like in western Europe.That's why in western Europe people talk about Renaissance and the term used in eastern Europe is "Resurrection" ,Balkan people dreamed of the resurrection of their medieval kingdoms, not of the ideals of Roman Empire.The Balkan people had their feudalism after they were conquered by the Ottomans, but yet it was far better feudalism than the feudalism in Western Europe and that's westerns thought that life in Ottoman Empire is good.The German peasants sang during the peasant war that they want to go to serve the Sultan because life was better in the Ottoman Empire.
Now you got my point
in 14th century life in the Ottoman Empire was better than life in Western Europe but worse than the life that Balkan population led in itheir kingdoms.
Slavic and Greek shouldn't be national cultures of Ottoman Empire because there were no greeks and slavs serving the Sultan, they were turcized greeks and slavs and there is a big difference.
The "devshirme"(blood tax) from which were future janissaries "collected" was one the most hated taxes.
Neither slavs not greeks gave their children full with joy because of their children future career.There only cases of Anatolian greeks that gave their children free willing.
In Balkan Kingdoms(Serbia,Bulgaria,Byzantium) there was no such dark feudalism, like in western Europe.That's why in western Europe people talk about Renaissance and the term used in eastern Europe is "Resurrection" ,Balkan people dreamed of the resurrection of their medieval kingdoms, not of the ideals of Roman Empire.The Balkan people had their feudalism after they were conquered by the Ottomans, but yet it was far better feudalism than the feudalism in Western Europe and that's westerns thought that life in Ottoman Empire is good.The German peasants sang during the peasant war that they want to go to serve the Sultan because life was better in the Ottoman Empire.
Now you got my point
in 14th century life in the Ottoman Empire was better than life in Western Europe but worse than the life that Balkan population led in itheir kingdoms.
Slavic and Greek shouldn't be national cultures of Ottoman Empire because there were no greeks and slavs serving the Sultan, they were turcized greeks and slavs and there is a big difference.
The "devshirme"(blood tax) from which were future janissaries "collected" was one the most hated taxes.
Neither slavs not greeks gave their children full with joy because of their children future career.There only cases of Anatolian greeks that gave their children free willing.
It has been argued that the reason for Ottoman success in the Balkans was because the feudal relations between the Christian Lords and their peasants was so oppressive that the peasants were not that hostile to the Ottoman presence.
Kurdistani said:
I suppose You found that in same book with arguments that name Slavs derives from slave.
nomoi said:To judge the OE's tolerance against other religions is nothing but a trendy
I do not say everything was perfect but regarding that time zone it was almost perfect.
For the record, this is still a dilemma that many discuss; "What if OE hadn't proposed that kind of tolerance to religious minorities? Than what would have happened?". That's the discussion.
Plus Istanbul is the city that is owned by a muslim state and have a record number of churches. It is only my view but I don't believe it would be the case if Istanbul is conquered by a chrisitian state at that time frame.
I agree,
Still in 1890, the 40% of the city population were Orthodox Greeks.
One cannot judge the OE with the nationalist point of view of 19th and 20th centuries. The resulting ideas would be highly off-track.
Dusan said:
IIRC at least early on the Ottoman conquest *did* lead to lower taxes though, mostly because the Ottomans to a large degree financed their empire by plundering their neighbours. IE: For your average peasant coming under the Sultan's rule was a good thing, as A) You didn't pay as much taxes and B) You weren't plundered by the Ottomans every spring
Once they ran out of neighbours it got trickier.
Arilou said:IIRC at least early on the Ottoman conquest *did* lead to lower taxes though, mostly because the Ottomans to a large degree financed their empire by plundering their neighbours. IE: For your average peasant coming under the Sultan's rule was a good thing, as A) You didn't pay as much taxes and B) You weren't plundered by the Ottomans every spring
Once they ran out of neighbours it got trickier.
O.K. You are serious, let me spent few minutes to explain.
In first period of Ottoman rule Serbia was vassal which meant that complete organization of the state remained from previous state and local taxes was collected by local (Serbian) feudalists (from Dusan empire, by low ,tax was 1/10 of income).Then money/goods were transferred to Constantinople.
Logically taxes can not be lower then previous.
After disappearance of local feudalists OE collected taxes through dahias (some kind of OE feudalists) which led to several uprising due to overtaxing , cruelty and some kind of humiliating dahias rights ( I am not sure if it is implemented for all vassals-like right of dahias for the bride, first wedding night).
I hope that now You better understand what are You are writing about.
No.Kurdistani said:
When the ottomans began their invasion , there were many small principalities on the Balkans and the reason for ottoman success was vassalage system.
In order to save his principality the prince became ottoman vassal and fought against other christian states.
P.S:In 15-16 ct. there was the so called "Privileged population"-christian population which was free of taxes and had sort of authonomy(usually villages in the mountains)
but that's not enough for slavic and greek to be national culture of the Ottoman empire
Tunch Khan said:
Nope...The mosque is not a ruin first. Second. No Mosque in the whole greece was used or still in use as church. All the mosques of northern Hellas are used by muslims.
As for the Yeni Cami(Γενι τζαμί) you are again wrong. Yeni Cami is today a preserved mosque that was used by jews in the start of 20 century that were exislamised.Today it's in perfect condition and it protects musilim artifacts as well as ancient archaiological ones. Yeni Cami was never used as a church....lol we have our own churches we dont want mosques for god's shake...
Please try to post correct facts and not something that popes up in your mind.
link
- Status