Counterexamples from history, as opposed to your fantasies:
- The British empire, whom you mentioned, had pretty much every corner preserve their language, religion, culture, and traditions.
So, you're naming facts as fantasies. Perhaps you should first study on your wording and choice of words. Then you can start evaluating the arguments of your opponents in discussion instead of completely ignoring what they asserted.
Yet, let's keep things civil and answer your claims. Major colonialist countries such as the Great Britain and France used to apply a
systematic assimilation policy in native lands they colonized or countries they invaded. By that, thay also made sure that GB's and France's interests would become permanent even if their soldiers would be pulled back in the future. Thus, in the countries they exerted dominance, they made every effort to spread their religions, their languages, and their cultures by stealthily interfering in the educational systems, and key locations in bureaucracy, military, economy, and intelligence of would-be colonized countries. Therefore, for example, majority of African countries speak English and French as their mother tongues today, and the generations in colonized countries around the World grew up as the most fervent admirers of cultures of colonizers. Consequently, colonization in a wider sense is the process of enslaving the minds of colonized. Which has been succesfully enforced upon the rest of the World by major colonizer powers in the last two or three centuries.
To clear it up, your fallacies bear no value historically, you're just one among many others who are brainwashed by the nationalist education systems in their countries. I would compile some more sources under this post to further consolidate my arguments and refute yours but I won't bother myself because I know you won't even read them to understand before you post here.
- Every actual group of intolerant pillagers. Why isn't all of Russia speaking Mongolian? Where is the influence of the huns or the avars or any other steppe people who conquered huge tracts of land? There isn't any, because they added nothing to the cultures they conquered.
To ask such a question one must really be ignorant of the history of Russian Tsardom and Turco-Mongol Khanates. Once again I will push the limits of my patience, ignore your insolent tone and try to answer that question. The simple answer is none of the muslim Tatar Khanates spoke Mongolian. Golde Horde spoke Kipchak language, Crimean Khanate spoke crimean tatar language, Kazan Khanate spoke Kazan tatar language, Astrakhan spoke turkish tatar and nogai dialects, Nogai Khanate spoke nogai etc. Secondly, when the Russian lands were invaded by Tatars in mid 13th century, the independence of small russian principalities was preserved by their conquerors as the Golden horde didn't have enough manpower to hold vast lands, numerous cities and castles conquered. Instead, they made those principalities tributaries on the condition that knezes have their sovereignty confirmed by the khan himself when they inherit the throne. So, tatar khanates weren't intent on invading whole Russia and assimilating them which was physically impossible, thus; they were contented with constant raids and tributes. They settled in tatar lands where turkic muslim peoples also populated ever since the Volga Bulgars. Starting from the reign of Ivan the Terrible, Russian Tsardom removed those tatar khanates one by one and followed a systematic cultural conversion policy to avenge the centuries in which people of Rus lived under hegemony of Golden Horde Khans. After 1917 revolution, SSCB followed a more vicious policy towards minorities and grandchildren of tatars via exiles and bans. For instance, the alphabet of crimean tatar language was changed to cyrillic alphabet in 1939 for
"not providing the necessary proximity conditions to the culture of great people of Rus." My aim is definitely not to offend friends from Russia, every nation had a way of dealing with the people of newly conquered places though. Now back to the subject after a brief history lesson, the way you approach history is very problematic. Classfying the Ottoman Empire as a tribal society of steppe people with no cultural acquisition is one example to it. I will suggest some academic reading once again, one of the greatest academics on the history of Ottomans, if you're not just a beligerent nationalist robbing me of my precious time:
https://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Empire-Classical-Age-1300-1600/dp/1842124420
It's the same with the ottomans. It wasn't some supernatural tolerance or care for their fellow man (After all, if you really cared about religious freedom in the balkan peoples, why not...not subjugate them?). It's simply that there is very little turkish "culture and traditions" beyond what they stole from the byzantines.
Again same arrogant tone with courage of ignorance fed by narrow-minded nationalism. Anyone who has a little peace of mind can easily deduce that annexed people couldn't have preserved their identity and all hungarians, bulgarians, serbs, and greeks would be muslims speaking Turkish today had they been persecuted and assimilated. Your words make no sense after all. The countries we subjugated rebelled against the Sublime Porte on many occasions. However, the standart for caring about religious freedom is not annexing or subjugating the people either. The dhimmi subjects of muslim Rome enjoyed a considerable degree of freedom of religion and lifestyle as decreed by countless firmans of padishahs in a period in which rest of the Europe was ravaged by religious wars and intolerance. Your vile wording won't change this fact either. Even their ancestors preferred to take shelter in leniency of their enemies saying
"I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of Constantinople than the Latin mitre", yet those nationalist generations brainwashed by the cold war era nationalist propaganda and education system insist on their hostile attitude against their benefactors.
It's always the turks who call others "nationalist" as an insult, and then spin fanciful tales like this. "After having their homeland invaded and being subjegated to a foreign power, the people of the balkans were sooooooo thankful to these strangers with guns that they voluntarily converted on the spot!". What was the phrase you used, "words far from common sense"?
I never said countries that lost their independence were happy with the way things would be. The nationalism as we know it today did not exist until the French Revolution, so the peasants at the time had greater concerns than these sentiments such as natural disasters, war, religion and living. It was mostly ruler elites and nobles who were opposed to the Ottoman domination in their lands and they also fought against the Ottomans many times. From the point of view of the Ottomans, dhimmi subjects were a part of empire to be protected as long as they pay their taxes and remain loyal. Thus, they did not attempt to change the way their dhimmi subjects had lived.
And yes, your words were far from logic as the rest of your claims and there's no logical explanation to the view
"600 years = mere pillaging"
Counterexample: The jannisaries, the most famous and notable thing about the ottoman empire (Besides maybe that whole weird tulip thing) were an army of slaves, snatched from the arms of their mothers as children, seperated from their "language, religion, culture, and tradition", brainwashed with the the turkish "language, religion, culture, and tradition", ...
Yes, tulips in Netherland were brought from Istanbul a couple of centuries ago. That's what I call an example of cultural achievement which once again refutes your claim about culture in your earlier remarks. Secondly, you're being sentimental about janissaries and play to the crowd. While many christian states at the time simply preferred to kill their prisoners, the Ottomans chose to recruit devshirmes from among the prisoners of war, enabling them to field an elite army. Horrified by their own manpower being raised as elite warriors against them, Christian rulers and foremost figures of christendom had never been relieved by the very thought of it and called devshirme system "invention of the devil". Thus, devshirme system also provided the Ottomans with psychologic superiority such that christian world still can't get over it even today. When it comes to bearing grudge, Turks can also find many historical reasons for grievance against other nations but let's not make it personal.
and then sent off to die for their oppressors. And if a part of the empire were to protest this barbaric practice (because you can only call stealing children from their families barbaric, nothing less), those same jannisaries would be sent to kill the parents they never knew.
Yeah, the ottomans did a terrible job by recruiting from among prisoners and children of their christian subjects instead of letting them die of malnutrition and of poor conditions in remote villages. Yet the children of families who had a single boy were forbidden to recruit into devshirme. Also one out of five children in a province ( corresponding to one boy from every 40 houses in 1-2 years) were customarily recruited into devshirme in every 5-6 years. So, the devshirme system was far from being an irregular activity of collecting children from their families, on the contrary it as righteous people might appreciate used to provide great opportunities for indigent subjects of the state too. There were many famous statesmen rising from the ranks of devshirme. For example, Rustem Pasha, once grand-vizier to Suleiman the Lawgiver was once the son of a swineherd in a croatian village. Another grand vizier of Suleiman, Sokullu Mehmet Pasha was the second most powerful man on Earth at the time and was born in Sokolovići, Bosnia where he was recruited into the devshirme. What's more interesting is that a majority of those statesmen didn't forget their original families and spent considerable amounts of sums to build alms houses, bridges, hospices and other charities in their homelands. For instance, we also know Ibrahim Pasha, aka Frenk or Makbul also visited his original christian family in Parga a few times and donated them a hefty sum. Now that tell me if this devshirme system was so barbaric, why did even the muslim Bosnian people insist that their children should also be recruited as devshirmes? Finally, your claim that those janissaries would be sent to kill their parents is a huge lie among many vile comments of yours. The Ottoman army was famous for its discipline in Europe back then, if you don't believe me do read the memoirs of foreign envoys such as Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq. A Burgundian spy, Bertrandon de la Broquiere stated in his reports
"ten of us make more noise than a thousand of theirs" , referring to the Ottoman Army. Like it or not, the Ottoman Army were always instructed to not touch defenseless women and children, and the men of God. As I'm about to give examples, janissaries were the elite guards of sultan, and disorderliness was always punished heavily. For example, a sipahi and a janissary were beheaded for seizing properties of a dhimmi villager during Bogdan campaign of Suleiman in 1538. A similar event was told in Suleiman's ruzname (diary) as " ...Two janissaries were removed for unleashing their horses upon the crops of a peasant..."
But hey, after doing some more conquering, Suleiman changed some words above door. So everything's cool, right?
What a weak argument, this one of yours. The most effective thing you did against my explanations so far is respectfully disagree with me under my posts. Religious rights of dhimmi were guaranteed by firmans (royal decrees) as I already gave example of it, the Ottomans were always first to help those persecuted around the World as in the case of inquisition. It reached to a point such that anyone who ran into trouble started to seek support from the Ottomans. Francis I of France, Alaaddin of Aceh, XII. Karl of Sweden were some of those who sought Ottoman support. Anyway, not to digress from the subject you already ignored my examples from history, and I don't expect you to understand the grace in the Ottomans taking into consideration the sentiments of their dhimmi subjects in Quds. The Ottoman Empire was product of a civilization too great for likes of you to understand properly. I won't waste my time on you any longer, nor have I desire to maintain a discussion with nationalist buffoons who blatantly assault people like they're in a cage fight. You won't reveal anything of academic importance anyway.
----------------------------------------
I like the changes in this dev diary, hope new expansion will be out in no time.
