[Kghyutgykim]

During the14h century Eastern Anatolia became Muslim, very late in Islamic History.

Yet they surfaced as masters/rulers of the Islamic Empire after they got conquered, but yet kept control until modern times. Subjects became masters. This very easily, how come?

Very Fascinating i must say.

Did the experienced Byzantines shift their theological belief perhaps, from Christianity to Islam, but retained their Empire ambitions and power hunger?
I respect Turks, not because of their aims and objectives but because of their professional Chameleon character.

[hwood]

Religion is a tool my friend, that is the secret.

[wallyfindme]

During the14h century Eastern Anatolia became Muslim, very late in Islamic History.

Yet they surfaced as masters/rulers of the Islamic Empire after they got conquered, but yet kept control until modern times. Subjects became masters. This very easily, how come?

Very Fascinating i must say.

Did the experienced Byzantines shift their theological belief perhaps, from Christianity to Islam, but retained their Empire ambitions and power hunger?
I respect Turks, not because of their aims and objectives but because of their professional Chameleon character.

1) Turks were never subjugated by Arab/Persians.

2) It doesn't have much to do with religion, the Ottoman rulers were simply ambitious and competent enough to to achieve their goals.

3) Already in 1055 the Seljuk leader Tughril relegated the Abbasid Caliph to state figurehead and took the real power + the Mamluks who ruled over Egypt were largely of Turkish origin too.

[Mqcawkzd]

1) Turks were never subjugated by Arab/Persians.

2) It doesn't have much to do with religion, the Ottoman rulers were simply ambitious and competent enough to to achieve their goals.

3) Already in 1055 the Seljuk leader Tughril relegated the Abbasid Caliph to state figurehead and took the real power + the Mamluks who ruled over Egypt were largely of Turkish origin too.

Turkic rule always relied on Persian cultural intelligence. Most great Turkic dynasties were actually Turko-Persian and utilized Persian in the court.

Same with Arabs, the Abbasids utilized Persian intelligence and culture as a part of their success.

[radikal]

Turkic rule always relied on Persian cultural intelligence. Most great Turkic dynasties were actually Turko-Persian and utilized Persian in the court.

Same with Arabs, the Abbasids utilized Persian intelligence and culture as a part of their success.

example ?

[Tapupah]

1) Turks were never subjugated by Arab/Persians.

2) It doesn't have much to do with religion, the Ottoman rulers were simply ambitious and competent enough to to achieve their goals.

3) Already in 1055 the Seljuk leader Tughril relegated the Abbasid Caliph to state figurehead and took the real power + the Mamluks who ruled over Egypt were largely of Turkish origin too.

I never claimed Turks got subjugated by Arabs/Persians. I know about the Seljuk invasion. However i Believe the core population of this region are still mainly the same as they were before they converted into Islam.

[Njxatsbf]

example ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seljuq_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum

And from here:
The lifestyle in the Ottoman court in many aspects assembled ancient traditions of the Persian Shahs, but had many Greek and European influences. "Ottoman architecture" was influenced by Persian, Byzantine Greek and Islamic architectures. The Ottoman architecture are a continuation of the pre-Islamic Sassanid architecture. For instance, the dome covered square, which had been a dominant form in Sassanid became the nucleus of all Ottoman architecture.[137][138] Ottoman classical music arose largely from a confluence of Byzantine music, Arabic music, and Persian music. Ottoman Turkish was a Turkic language highly influenced by Persian and Arabic. The Ottomans had three influential languages: Turkish, spoken by the majority of the people in Anatolia and by the majority of Muslims of the Balkans except in Albania and Bosnia; Persian, only spoken by the educated;[142] and Arabic, spoken mainly in Arabia, North Africa, Iraq, Kuwait and the Levant.

If the basic grammar was still largely Turkish, the inclusion of almost any word in Arabic or Persian in Ottoman made it a language that was essentially incomprehensible to any ethnic Turkish Ottoman subject who had not mastered Arabic, Persian or both. Educated Ottoman Turks spoke Arabic and Persian. Usage of these became limited, though, and specific: Persian served mainly as a literary language for the educated,[142] while Arabic was used for religious rites.

[Hokimjers]

Turkic rule always relied on Persian cultural intelligence. Most great Turkic dynasties were actually Turko-Persian and utilized Persian in the court.

Same with Arabs, the Abbasids utilized Persian intelligence and culture as a part of their success.

Say what you say of Turks, but you've got to admit that the Turks have taken the best of Arabs/Semites and discarded the worst of them.

You Iranians on the other hand have done the opposite, that's why you are under the government of Islamistic Mullahs.

[embefuri]

Did the experienced Byzantines shift their theological belief perhaps, from Christianity to Islam, but retained their Empire ambitions and power hunger?
I respect Turks, not because of their aims and objectives but because of their professional Chameleon character.

Byzantines = Greeks = Orthodox Christians
Ottomans = Turks = Muslims

Byzantines =/= Ottomans

-the "expirienced byzantines" did not really shifted their theological beliefs, as far as i know we greeks are still orthodox christians.
-the "expirienced byzantines" got conquered, got forced into islam and got turkified, thats not really a "shift"

why did the "expirienced byzantines" got all that? because when constantinople fell, it was nothing like it used to be some centuries before.

During the14h century Eastern Anatolia became Muslim, very late in Islamic History.

Yet they surfaced as masters/rulers of the Islamic Empire after they got conquered, but yet kept control until modern times. Subjects became masters. This very easily, how come?

Very Fascinating i must say.

how? with this

[attanilifardy]

^ oh and the Byzantines did not use swords? They used sticks right?

---------- Post added 2012-04-21 at 04:16 ----------

Say what you say of Turks, but you've got to admit that the Turks have taken the best of Arabs/Semites and discarded the worst of them.

You Iranians on the other hand have done the opposite, that's why you are under the government of Islamistic Mullahs.

That's just one perspective. Let me tell you, many see things the exact opposite way of how you see them.

[Flistelib]

^ oh and the Byzantines did not use swords? They used sticks right?

do you know of any major assimilation during the byzantine empire equivalent to what happened to byzantine greeks in anatolia by the turks?

if yes please do post it

and as a side note since you kinda missed it
islam =/= christianity

[blogforlovxr]

Byzantines = Greeks = Orthodox Christians
Ottomans = Turks = Muslims

Byzantines =/= Ottomans

-the "expirienced byzantines" did not really shifted their theological beliefs, as far as i know we greeks are still orthodox christians.
-the "expirienced byzantines" got conquered, got forced into islam and got turkified, thats not really a "shift"

why did the "expirienced byzantines" got all that? because when constantinople fell, it was nothing like it used to be some centuries before.



how? with this

The people of Istanbul today don't look like they are from Mongolia, so lets skip the bullshit, OK?

Constantinople and Athens are quite far apart, regardless they spoke same language and were same people just only some thousand years ago, the historical records are there for everyone to see, you will fool not many people.

---------- Post added 2012-04-21 at 06:52 ----------

why did the "expirienced byzantines" got all that? because when constantinople fell, it was nothing like it used to be some centuries before. '
The Ottoman Empire covered pretty much the territory of the Byzantine Empire, plus a much wider Area inside Arabia and Africa plus whole Balkan and further north in Europe.

Ottomans were far more efficient than the Byzantines, anyways I'm not sure i can tell the difference other than the Ottomans being more modern than Byzantines who got stuck in time (and later absorbed/disappeared), unfortunately.

[HedgeYourBets]

The people of Istanbul today don't look like they are from Mongolia, so lets skip the bullshit, OK?

Constantinople and Athens are quite far apart, regardless they spoke same language and were same people just only some thousand years ago, the historical records are there for everyone to see, you will fool not many people.

my dear friend.

a) i am a greek who has ancestry in minor asia, that ancestry in minor asia was not some "thousant years ago" as you say, but 90 years ago.
my ancestry is from Kastamone, the city of the comnenian emperors, and around smyrne.
my ancestors used to lived there for millenums, just like every greek of minor asia naturaly lived in his ancestral lands untill 1924 when we had the poppulation exchange.

b) as far as i am concerned the people of "instanbul" can believe in what ever fairytales they wish, at this moment they believe that they are turks, its ok i have no problem with that, if they cannot accept history "as is", it is still preferable that they believe in fairytales instead of stealing my history as others do.

c) Athens was a village in 1821, our capital was Constantinople
fact a: 50% of the greek poppulation still lived in anatolia in the beggining of the 20th century,
fact b: anatolia had only 60% muslim poppulation back then if you add the armenians.

the historical records are there for everyone to see, you will fool not many people.

instructions for great success

1. open IE, firefox, chrome etc
2. type google
3. type nice words such as byzantine empire, ottoman empire, poppulation exchange 1924, greeks, turkish, whatever
4. notice wikipedia link
5. clicky, clicky!
6. profit!!!!

ofc, since i am allways helpful towards others, if you can find more people who are as clueless as you are, i promise to actualy copy-paste the stuff from wikipedia which you should have allready read if you did care about the topic

regards

---------- Post added 2012-04-21 at 08:29 ----------

The Ottoman Empire covered pretty much the territory of the Byzantine Empire, plus a much wider Area inside Arabia and Africa plus whole Balkan and further north in Europe.

Ottomans were far more efficient than the Byzantines, anyways I'm not sure i can tell the difference other than the Ottomans being more modern than Byzantines who got stuck in time (and later absorbed/disappeared), unfortunately.

you are not comparing pokemon cards mate, one was a christian empire that lasted 1000 years and the other one was a sort of islamic empire that lasted 500 years and existed after the previous one, there is a very good reason why byzantinology is such a specialised thing.
this is like trying to compare apples and oranges

also a side note is that the byzantines were not "stuck in time" and later absorbed/disappeared, we managed to do ok by creating our modern country and we are still here obviously

[paratayoma]

^^
To be honest I'm not interested in Greeks. This topic was about Ottomans and their Hegemony for the last half a millenia in the Near East.
You have anything to contribute?

[MarlboroCig]

^^
To be honest I'm not interested in Greeks. This topic was about Ottomans and their Hegemony for the last half a millenia in the Near East.
You have anything to contribute?

do you have anything to contribute towards answering the threads question apart from that totaly missleading inacurate shity manifest of ignorance opening post of yours?

[casinoboneerer]

During the14h century Eastern Anatolia became Muslim, very late in Islamic History.

Yet they surfaced as masters/rulers of the Islamic Empire after they got conquered, but yet kept control until modern times. Subjects became masters. This very easily, how come?

Very Fascinating i must say.

Did the experienced Byzantines shift their theological belief perhaps, from Christianity to Islam, but retained their Empire ambitions and power hunger?
I respect Turks, not because of their aims and objectives but because of their professional Chameleon character.

The native Anatolians held heretic beliefs and were persecuted by Byzantine Empire.Ottomans were more tolerant toward this and took the advantage.The ruling class of Ottomans was mainly Turkic not native Anatolian,even their successful light cavalry Akincis were mainly Turkmens.

After they conquered surrounding lands they had dynastic marriages and subjucated their allies into vassalages.Also they had a spontaneous Turkic migration from Asia Minor to conquered lands to increase the number of loyal Turkic speaking Muslims in the enemies environment.

And they gifted timars to conquered ones in return to their acceptance of Ottoman rule.

[ftpsoft]

Oghuz Turks ruled the world ))

[reawnvam]

Oghuz Turks ruled the world ))

It's true, we ruled partially Asia, Africa as well as Europe



@ageladakos, (I know you will do a comment) before you will attack me: My father is a Yoruk Turk from mediterannean part (West part of Mersin called a Yoruk town Silifke) of Turkey and my mother is a Kayserili Turk from Central Anatolia. So I am part of Oghuz Turks

[Stivenslivakovishhhs]

You can attribute it also to Byzantine power decline. The Byzantine government was unstable for 1000 years despite its relatively strong military force up until its last days. It was also notoriously corrupt and full of intrigue - so much so that byzantine - the adjective - has one extra meaning in English

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary

4) often not capitalized
a : of, relating to, or characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation <a Byzantine power struggle>
b : intricately involved : labyrinthine If that doesn't give you an idea of how strong but brittle the Byzantine government was, I don't know what else to tell you!

Hence, with energy devoted to corruption and court intrigues, the wonder is that the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did, given that corruption and political games tend to paralyze government, societies, and sap the loyalties of those they govern.

[ZesePreodaNed]

The native Anatolians held heretic beliefs and were persecuted by Byzantine Empire.Ottomans were more tolerant toward this and took the advantage.The ruling class of Ottomans was mainly Turkic not native Anatolian,even their successful light cavalry Akincis were mainly Turkmens.

After they conquered surrounding lands they had dynastic marriages and subjucated their allies into vassalages.Also they had a spontaneous Turkic migration from Asia Minor to conquered lands to increase the number of loyal Turkic speaking Muslims in the enemies environment.

And they gifted timars to conquered ones in return to their acceptance of Ottoman rule.

a good summary.