The Rebirth of the Ottoman Empire

[Saepe Fidelis]

And Pasha agrees with you :

You're muddling what I said- I aid Persia is unlikely and kinda nonsensical.

I also said that Pasha shouldn't call someone a troll just because they think the TL is a little unbelievable.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I enjoy the time-line but it doesn't mean I can not criticize how easy it is for the Ottomans to have Persia all for themselves.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

You're muddling what I said- I aid Persia is unlikely and kinda nonsensical.

I also said that Pasha shouldn't call someone a troll just because they think the TL is a little unbelievable.

Thing is you keep pointing about Persia while the real problem about Pasha now is that he called someone a troll. Those two are not related to each other.

And as to why he called him a troll ?

Sheez. Talk about major Ottoman wankage here.

There's actually very little wankage. The map is mostly just what Egypt & the Ottomans had between them in OTL with a few extra oases in Africa, and vassaldom for Iran.

Was there any actual point to your post, or were you just kind of being a dick?

BIG ASS UPDATE

I want to know the conditions in how the Ottomans are able to maintain such a huge empire in a short time. It's no criticism to call it a wank, it just seems to be an observation.

If you read the updates and conversations then you will understand how.And abduls explanaition was quite clear and short. Plus theres only a touch of wankage no one said there isnt any.

You know, you're a troll. Read the scenario - it clearly explains it. If you have a question or issue with a specific point, that's one thing, but a contentless complaint like this is lame.

It's not "so fast", it's 65 years, and of that entire map, very little of it didn't start Ottoman at the beginning of the scenario. The additional African territory is all Sahara - it amounts to the acquisition of a couple of oases. The only wankish elements are acquisition of Iran and the British Arabian protectorates.

Well, Sa'id once said to me himself that he personally likes seeing OE getting dismantled, and that's just fine. He can hate this TL, who forbids him ? Well Pasha is being short tempered here, I agree. But saying "Ottoman wankage Ohnoes" in a thread about Ottoman wank TL, was not a good start. But let's putting that aside. Then Pasha said it's just the territory Ottomans had before the war with Russia plus the the territory of Khedivate of Egypt. Maybe Sa'id just can't believe how could Ottoman Empire reabsorbed Egypt along with its African empire, but he can just get straight to it, no ?

As to why they can, I believe it has been told in this thread why, by me, if not complete, so let me settle it :
1) In the late decades of 19th century, the ruling regime of Egypt was in serious prestige crisis, holding mounts of debts, facing unrests and rebellions, prompted British to actually request Ottomans to invade Egypt and restore order. They had the army of quality to do that before it got butchered by the Russians in 1878, which didn't happen ITTL. And what is Egypt ? Pretty much a line of arable land along the Nile and little else.
2) As for Sudan, Ottomans had much more familiarity with the region than any other Europeans. Ottoman-based Sufi Orders had strong presence there and in Chad, and those Sufi Orders were pretty much Caliph's channels of influence. And this region had pretty much similar pattern of population distribution with Egypt's
3) In Chad, it's even worse. Only some oasis and lakes. Its population is even way more scarce than the previous two.

The main cause why Ottomans would be able to control such big portion of Africa is because those areas are generally sparsely populated, and very concentrated to only token of areas out of that big territory. That will help a lot in controlling and administering the local populace. Really, just Africa's Siberia to Ottoman Empire's Russia. The difference with Russian case is that the Ottomans would be much more knowledgeable about Sudan and Chad before entering those regions, then Russia was about Siberia before entering it.


Let's see if Sa'id will be either satisfied, or even give a damn about this explanation of mine.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

I enjoy the time-line but it doesn't mean I can not criticize how easy it is for the Ottomans to have Persia all for themselves.

I agree with that. But really, you could have just gone straight to that.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Alright, easy. We all love a good Ottoman Empire TL but let's not turn into fanatics here, he raised a legitimate point.
Sure, the change in the Ottoman Empire is very fast, but given reforms described and a move towards democratisation then I'm sure it could be dont-the Ottoman Empire's weak political situation was what held it back a lot-crap Sultans (not all of them but there were a few) and rebellious army officers meant that its industrial and economic potential were not reached.

I'm not a fan of the Empire annexing Persia though, I agree that a sphere of influence makes sense and I'mm happy with that. However, I think we underestimate the differences between Sunni and Shia. I hate to use an OTL example, but look at Iraq. The factionalism was so bad there that for awhile we considered balkanising it into three separate states-that's how much animousity there is. Sure, things have probably changed ITTL; a more liberal empire etc., but I don't think the memory of Sunni Sultans slaughtering Shia will subside swiftly (I love alliteration).

You've explained the military plausibility and I'm open to that, but an occupation is different than a conquest. Other than that point, however, this TL is really good and refreshing-better than Entente gang rape or a Russia wank.

No, we OVERestimate the differences between Sunni and Shia. Iraq had a Shia majority in the Ottoman period and it caused zero problems. 20% of Anatolia is Shia, and you probably aren't even aware of that because it hasn't caused any trouble since the 16th c. All provinces of the empire contain Shia. It's no issue whatsoever. The only difference is that to most (but not all) Sunni, the Sultan is also Caliph. To Shia, he's only Sultan. It's irrelevant.

Sa'id raised no point whatsoever. The map is simply the combination of the Egyptian territories with the Ottoman as of 1876. The "huge difference" is that the Ottomans failed to lose territory. It's retarded to call that wanking. A point would be "I have doubts about X for the following reasons..." - not "BLAH THIS IS A WANK BLAH!". That's just a drive-by trolling.

I don't think it's very likely that the Ottomans would annex Persia, but it could easily become a protectorate. Back then it had a small population and its government was very weak and decentralized.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

You're muddling what I said- I aid Persia is unlikely and kinda nonsensical.

I also said that Pasha shouldn't call someone a troll just because they think the TL is a little unbelievable.

Excuse me. This is his comment, in full:

Sheez. Talk about major Ottoman wankage here.

That was the entire post. That is trolling, period.

If he'd offered constructive criticism or explained what he thought was wankage, and why, then that would be different.

 

[Guerrilla Republik]

I like it.

But what of the political changes in the US, or South America. You've barely mentioned any of that.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Don Grey: I'm not arguing about the annexation or dominance over arabia; after all, the spirit of Arab nationalism hasn't been stirred up in this TL by a TE Lawrence and there hasn't been a Nasser (yet) so I agree there.

But Persia is different. It has a large population with several urban centres; it has a distinct culture from the Ottoman territories (i.e. neither Arab nor Turkic nor European) and with a well established ruling dynasty as well as a ong history of independence and even regional hegemony.

Therefore I agree that annexing strategically important areas like the south Caspian coastline and Azerbaijan make sense, but annexing the entire area doe snot; all it will do is sap the energies of the empire with guerrilla warfare carried out by Shia groups (even if the mass of people don't care, there will be an insurgency who will damage vital infrastructure and will be hard to dispose of).

So I am in favour of having a kind of 'sphere of influence' in Persia-military garrisons, economic dominance and a client ruler as well as some territory exchange, I don't think that annexing Persia makes any sense, even for a wank.

You're projecting today's situation on the past. Iranian and Turkish nationalists in the 20th c have created discourses that have altered how people view their cultures and pasts. The Ottoman Empire was a distinctly Persianate culture, not Turkish, and that's still the case. What is a Turkish culture? Riding around on horses and eating them and their milk and blood?

There were real differences between them, but of any two cultures extant at the time, the Ottoman and Persian were the most compatible. Persia until after WWI had a very decentralized, weak, and backward government system. It only retained its nominal independence because of British-Russian rivalry.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

And Pasha agrees with you :

Regarding Arabia, Western maps actually tend to minimize Ottoman control in the peninsula. For example, the Ottomans had real, not nominal control over Qatar from the 1870s, but that's rarely shown on maps because the British tended to discount Ottoman sovereignty there for their own purposes. Likewise, the Ottomans had real control over the Rashidi Emirate, and more than merely nominal control over the Saudi Emirate, which would color most of the peninsula Ottoman. Ottoman control over these was considerably more substantial than a great deal of the territory of the European colonial empires, which they possessed on as lines across maps. Saud and Rashid were actual paid officials in the Ottoman government.

I don't think there's much chance of the Ottomans gaining control over Aden and it's immediate hinterland unless the British lose India, and a lot would have to go right for the Ottomans to gain Oman and the Trucial states. The Hadramawt, though, is fair game if taken before 1890 or so.

Persia... it could happen, if there's some sort of mess in Russia and the British could be sure their interests were protected - a stable Ottoman protectorate would probably be preferable to the chaotic situation of OTL and the accompanying threat of Russian domination.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If the Persia is an autonomously principality whose ruler pays homage to the Ottoman sultan, like Romania and Greece are in TTL, that might make the Ottoman annexation of Persia easier to manage.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

You're projecting today's situation on the past. Iranian and Turkish nationalists in the 20th c have created discourses that have altered how people view their cultures and pasts. The Ottoman Empire was a distinctly Persianate culture, not Turkish, and that's still the case. What is a Turkish culture? Riding around on horses and eating them and their milk and blood?

There were real differences between them, but of any two cultures extant at the time, the Ottoman and Persian were the most compatible. Persia until after WWI had a very decentralized, weak, and backward government system. It only retained its nominal independence because of British-Russian rivalry.

Look, I don't want to be too aggressive to a guy who obviously knows a lot about this time period and this area, and so if I've seemed a bit out of line in my critisisms just know thta I'm not having a go at you personally. I just think that calling someone a troll just because they find a TL implausible is unecessary; refute his point, crush it like you have in previous posts, but don't just lower yourself to puerile name-calling.

Now, to the points.
First off, I'm not much of an expert on Islam and you ay be right, I may just be taking today's religious and cultural situation and then applying it retroactively to history, but I just think that taking Persia is unlikely. Even if there's no initial problem, I think the Sultans would be wary of annexing a highly contentious area (contested by three Great Powers) and which contains large numbers of citizens whose loyalty is dubious (there may be few probems with Shia, but it's still a threat to the Caliph's authority, even if it's remote).
Now, I do support annexing the northern areas around the Caspian: there's proven oil reserves there, they're less densely populated and they're closer to your lines of supply. I also agree with taking ports in the Gulf and in Mesopotamia up to the Zagros. However, the heartland of Persia is very different- again, I'm no expert, but conquering an area that has a huge population (what was it at the time? Iran's pop. today is about 70 million, about the same as Turkey's). This would be an enormous demographic shift that would unsettle a ruler whose control stems largely from his dominance of the Sunni branch of Islam. Even factoring in Egypt, Arabia, Syria and Africa, that's still a lot of Shia in an officially Sunni empire.
I thnik these reasons sort of explain why Persia was never annexed IOTL-it wasn't worth the trouble. Obviously things are different here but the lines of argument are similar.

btw, about North Africa. I agree that controlling Egpypt would naturally lead to controlling Sudan, giventhat Sudan was an Egyptian imperial possession. Thing with Egypt was that it had a modern army, railway system, government etc. bt that government was bankrupt. If the Ottomans suddenly resurge in power then they can move in there instead of the British and then take the place. They could then default on all the government's debts and they've gained a much wealthier province than when they 'left' it.

I also agree with taking Chad; northern Chad is even to this day dominated by pastoralist, Muslim peoples who often class themselves as Arabs. These were politicaly dominant in the period of colonialism because the French could control them easer than the people of the south. The Ottomans, tied to them by religion, would also identify wth them more and use them to dominate the agricultural, Animist/Christian, predominantly black southerners. Same with Sudan-hence the genocide in Darfur adn plans for the south to secede-Muslim northerners, Animist/Christian southerners. This leads to chaos today (Gaddhafi's invasion of Chad/Al-Bashir's genocide) but ITTL things are different; the Ottomans can use this divide to their advantage and extend their dominance down the Nile.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Look, I don't want to be too aggressive to a guy who obviously knows a lot about this time period and this area, and so if I've seemed a bit out of line in my critisisms just know thta I'm not having a go at you personally. I just think that calling someone a troll just because they find a TL implausible is unecessary; refute his point, crush it like you have in previous posts, but don't just lower yourself to puerile name-calling.

You're missing the point. He came in, made an insulting comment, and that's it. That's the definition of trolling. If he'd actually made any points, I would have responded to them, as I did your points. My calling him a troll isn't "puerile name-calling", it was accurate labeling. Criticism of a TL is fine, and desirable. Posting only "Sheez. Talk about major Ottoman wankage here." is contemptuous and "puerile", especially since there was no wankage, at least at the time he posted that.

Now, to the points.
First off, I'm not much of an expert on Islam and you ay be right, I may just be taking today's religious and cultural situation and then applying it retroactively to history, but I just think that taking Persia is unlikely. Even if there's no initial problem, I think the Sultans would be wary of annexing a highly contentious area (contested by three Great Powers) and which contains large numbers of citizens whose loyalty is dubious (there may be few probems with Shia, but it's still a threat to the Caliph's authority, even if it's remote).

I'm not sure you're reading the TL. The Ottomans annexed Azerbaijan and the rest was an autonomous protectorate, and later an autonomous part of the empire. I think that's pushing it, but it's not the same as direct rule.

As for today's religious and cultural situation, where are Shiites and Sunnis duking it out? There was some conflict in Iraq, which was mostly political, even if religious divides (to a significant extent created by us) took part, but large stretches of Iran itself are Sunni, including all the extensive Kurdish areas and Baluchistan, with no conflict at all. It's simply not an issue, and it was even less one before colonial divide-and-rule tactics were employed.

Now, I do support annexing the northern areas around the Caspian: there's proven oil reserves there, they're less densely populated and they're closer to your lines of supply. I also agree with taking ports in the Gulf and in Mesopotamia up to the Zagros. However, the heartland of Persia is very different- again, I'm no expert, but conquering an area that has a huge population (what was it at the time? Iran's pop. today is about 70 million, about the same as Turkey's). This would be an enormous demographic shift that would unsettle a ruler whose control stems largely from his dominance of the Sunni branch of Islam. Even factoring in Egypt, Arabia, Syria and Africa, that's still a lot of Shia in an officially Sunni empire.

Iran's population in this era was 10 million, of which about 2.8M lived in the areas annexed in this scenario, which were Turkish and Kurdish-populated, which actually reinforces the Ottomans from an ethnic perspective, and these populations would be pretty easy to integrate.

I thnik these reasons sort of explain why Persia was never annexed IOTL-it wasn't worth the trouble. Obviously things are different here but the lines of argument are similar.

In this scenario it isn't really annexed, it's an autonomous kingdom under Ottoman suzerainty. I don't see why this is controversial. I think it would be problematic getting to this point from a geo-political standpoint, but if it's achieved it's no big stretch.

btw, about North Africa. I agree that controlling Egpypt would naturally lead to controlling Sudan, giventhat Sudan was an Egyptian imperial possession. Thing with Egypt was that it had a modern army, railway system, government etc. bt that government was bankrupt. If the Ottomans suddenly resurge in power then they can move in there instead of the British and then take the place. They could then default on all the government's debts and they've gained a much wealthier province than when they 'left' it.

I also agree with taking Chad; northern Chad is even to this day dominated by pastoralist, Muslim peoples who often class themselves as Arabs. These were politicaly dominant in the period of colonialism because the French could control them easer than the people of the south. The Ottomans, tied to them by religion, would also identify wth them more and use them to dominate the agricultural, Animist/Christian, predominantly black southerners. Same with Sudan-hence the genocide in Darfur adn plans for the south to secede-Muslim northerners, Animist/Christian southerners. This leads to chaos today (Gaddhafi's invasion of Chad/Al-Bashir's genocide) but ITTL things are different; the Ottomans can use this divide to their advantage and extend their dominance down the Nile.

Chad is a no-brainer. The population is minimal and it has no real value except as an anchor to trade routes that originate in Libya anyway. Most of the country is Sahara, so the only populated area is the Shari basin which is largely Islamic if not animist. You're talking about absorbing a population of perhaps 500,000.

My biggest issue is actually retaining the Balkan states as dependent principalities. I think that is way more trouble than it's worth and unrealistic. First of all, it would be non-stop anti-Ottoman violence, second, it would be endless opportunity for interference by the Powers, and third, it would make the Ottomans responsible for all the turmoil in the Balkan States. As it was, the nominal suzerainty of Bulgaria prior to 1908 was a serious diplomatic liability for the Ottomans which was a serious threat to their independence. That's less the case in a TL where the Ottomans are a more significant power, but I'm not sure it's feasible or desirable. I'd rather have as few Christians under control as possible, not more.

 

[Summoner]

My biggest issue is actually retaining the Balkan states as dependent principalities. I think that is way more trouble than it's worth and unrealistic. First of all, it would be non-stop anti-Ottoman violence, second, it would be endless opportunity for interference by the Powers, and third, it would make the Ottomans responsible for all the turmoil in the Balkan States. As it was, the nominal suzerainty of Bulgaria prior to 1908 was a serious diplomatic liability for the Ottomans which was a serious threat to their independence. That's less the case in a TL where the Ottomans are a more significant power, but I'm not sure it's feasible or desirable. I'd rather have as few Christians under control as possible, not more.

What about the industrial/mineral resources of some of these Balkan provinces? I was reading in another TL about an industrial revolution starting in the OE with Bulgaria as the cradle of a fledgling Ottoman industry. Bulgaria has hydropower, coal, iron and minerals. These traits would have been identified by German industrialists and investors in this TL. Not to mention a sizeable Turkish population which should make it easy to hold. Romania today has a substantial mining industry, but I'm not sure how much of that belongs to Transylvania, which belongs to AH in this TL.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What about the industrial/mineral resources of some of these Balkan provinces? I was reading in another TL about an industrial revolution starting in the OE with Bulgaria as the cradle of a fledgling Ottoman industry. Bulgaria has hydropower, coal, iron and minerals. These traits would have been identified by German industrialists and investors in this TL. Not to mention a sizeable Turkish population which should make it easy to hold. Romania today has a substantial mining industry, but I'm not sure how much of that belongs to Transylvania, which belongs to AH in this TL.

Yes, but Bulgaria was nearly half Turkish at the time. Greece, Serbia, and Rumania are almost entirely Christian, and pretty much ethnically homogeneous as well.

I agree re: Bulgaria - it had entered a proto-industrial state by 1876, and probably would have been an important industrial center (relatively) if it had remained part of the empire. Separated from the vast internal market and with its urban centers savaged, it didn't reach this promise as an independent state. Bosnia had serious iron & coal resources, as well as enormous timber and hydroelectric sources. If the rail line had been completed, it would likely have been important to Ottoman industry.

 

[Summoner]

Yes, but Bulgaria was nearly half Turkish at the time. Greece, Serbia, and Rumania are almost entirely Christian, and pretty much ethnically homogeneous as well.

I agree re: Bulgaria - it had entered a proto-industrial state by 1876, and probably would have been an important industrial center (relatively) if it had remained part of the empire. Separated from the vast internal market and with its urban centers savaged, it didn't reach this promise as an independent state. Bosnia had serious iron & coal resources, as well as enormous timber and hydroelectric sources. If the rail line had been completed, it would likely have been important to Ottoman industry.

Agreed. Despite the difficulties in holding on to these Balkan provinces, Neither OE or AH can afford to let them become independent and start trouble. I forgot about the Berlin-Baghdad railway...excellent point. This becomes much easier with the Balkans under control of 2 parties.

Regarding Bosnia, having a Muslim population that far north in the Balkans cements OE claims to the area. A string of Muslims starting in Bosnia, southward towards Montenegro, Kosovo and Albania and then east towards Bulgaria. Again, testing the Caliphate idea, if the Sultan's authority is accepted among Muslims then the only real problematic provinces may be the ones inhabited by Serbs, Romanians and Greeks.

 

[Don Grey]

I enjoy the time-line but it doesn't mean I can not criticize how easy it is for the Ottomans to have Persia all for themselves.

Sa'id where are you from originaly? Im just asking out of curiosity.Because after what Ridwan has said about you like to see the ottos dismanteled and i have read other post of yours about the ottomans your quite negative when it comes to them im not talking about persia im just talking in general.Its just that i have rarely seen an arab this negative and suspicious when it comes to the ottomans.

I hope your not from the school of thought that actualy belives the ottomans saw the arab territories as colonies and the arabs as subjects.Or that a handfull of beduins fighting for money out of 7 million arabs led by an oppurtunistic mans greed a legitimate independence movement. Or even that the ottomans held back there arab lands from reaching there true potential.I ask because ive worked in the tourism sector and dealt with those types of people from the arab community.That had some strange alergies and passif agressive resentment towerd the ottomans.I ask because of your general comments when it comes to the ottomans it feels like you have some little built in deep down resentment. Atleast thats what it reminds me of.

I know you dont like the ottomans you dont have to its not like there best thing since the invention of a blowjob there not even my favorite empire either .I just defend them because i belive its the underdoge and gets a bad rap(my fav empire is the first roman empire if anyone was wondering) .But i would love to know the honest reasons why you dont like them so i can understand where you coming from on this issue. Because i dont think were getting anywhere talking like this and your first comment was not just about persia its seems a bigger issue then that.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Sa'id where are you from originaly? Im just asking out of curiosity.Because after what Ridwan has said about you like to see the ottos dismanteled and i have read other post of yours about the ottomans your quite negative when it comes to them im not talking about persia im just talking in general.Its just that i have rarely seen an arab this negative and suspicious when it comes to the ottomans.

I hope your not from the school of thought that actualy belives the ottomans saw the arab territories as colonies and the arabs as subjects.Or that a handfull of beduins fighting for money out of 7 million arabs led by an oppurtunistic mans greed a legitimate independence movement. Or even that the ottomans held back there arab lands from reaching there true potential.I ask because ive worked in the tourism sector and dealt with those types of people from the arab community.That had some strange alergies and passif agressive resentment towerd the ottomans.I ask because of your general comments when it comes to the ottomans it feels like you have some little built in deep down resentment. Atleast thats what it reminds me of.

I know you dont like the ottomans you dont have to its not like there best thing since the invention of a blowjob there not even my favorite empire either .I just defend them because i belive its the underdoge and gets a bad rap(my fav empire is the first roman empire if anyone was wondering) .But i would love to know the honest reasons why you dont like them so i can understand where you coming from on this issue. Because i dont think were getting anywhere talking like this and your first comment was not just about persia its seems a bigger issue then that.

There's no need for allegations like that, let's not jump to puerile nationalism just yet. We've managed to skirt around the Balkans so far, let's not get trapped in theri arguments shall we?

btw, Pasha-this discussion has revealed to me how little I know about the OE. If you could recommend some books or resources I'd be really appreciative and hopefully our exchanges could be a little more enlightened. I'd specifically like some stuff on the Ottoman Midle East, because most of the books I've read about focus on the Bakans and Europe. Cheers.

 

[Don Grey]

There's no need for allegations like that, let's not jump to puerile nationalism just yet. We've managed to skirt around the Balkans so far, let's not get trapped in theri arguments shall we?

btw, Pasha-this discussion has revealed to me how little I know about the OE. If you could recommend some books or resources I'd be really appreciative and hopefully our exchanges could be a little more enlightened. I'd specifically like some stuff on the Ottoman Midle East, because most of the books I've read about focus on the Bakans and Europe. Cheers.

Its not allegations or nationalism ive just seen this so many times from personal experiance.Ive found my self in a position where i have became an apologest for the ottos (even though i have my personal beefs with them) and ive found out if i know where the problams stems i can speak in a manner more stutible to there understandings.Ive also noticed general dislike of the ottomans most of the time comes out of presistant misconceptions in history.Just trying to help out didnt mean anything by it.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There's no need for allegations like that, let's not jump to puerile nationalism just yet. We've managed to skirt around the Balkans so far, let's not get trapped in theri arguments shall we?

btw, Pasha-this discussion has revealed to me how little I know about the OE. If you could recommend some books or resources I'd be really appreciative and hopefully our exchanges could be a little more enlightened. I'd specifically like some stuff on the Ottoman Midle East, because most of the books I've read about focus on the Bakans and Europe. Cheers.

There are not too many good summaries. Probably History of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey vol 1 & 2 by Stanford Shaw, or Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream.

NOT NOT NOT Lord Kinross, Ottoman Centuries.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Its not allegations or nationalism ive just seen this so many times from personal experiance.Ive found my self in a position where i have became an apologest for the ottos (even though i have my personal beefs with them) and ive found out if i know where the problams stems i can speak in a manner more stutible to there understandings.Ive also noticed general dislike of the ottomans most of the time comes out of presistant misconceptions in history.Just trying to help out didnt mean anything by it.

I was at a dinner party last night where most of the guests were elderly Turks, and one was holding the opinion that the Ottomans weren't Turks, but just used them for cannon-fodder. I asked him where his family was from, and he was half Circassian (Çerkez) and a quarter Albanian. So I pointed out that he wasn't Turkish either, nor for that matter was anyone who lived in Turkey, at least from an ethnic perspective.

Turkish culture is Ottoman, and the blood of the people who live there is also Ottoman, meaning a mix of lots of different peoples.