Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Ottoman Empire a Turkish state?

The article begins with this claim. I think this is a very serious error because it contradicts the very basic idea of an "empire", that they are NOT national. Otherwise they would be called like today's nation states such as France, Poland or Turkey, which refer to names of nations who founded them or are in majority of the population. Turks were only one the subjects of the empire and even maybe the most despised ones. Moreover, Ottoman governments, usually did not follow the interests of Turks, the majority of whom were at the bottom of the social hierarchy as peasants, but to the contrary exploited them, as can be seen from the greatest riots in Ottoman history like Jelali riots. Until the advent of nationalism to Eastern Europe, being a Turk was something nobody could confess to himself, and this word could even be used as an insult. Neverthless it is noteworthy to say that Turks did enjoy certain legal priveleges against Christian subjects of the empire, like other Moslem subjects, according to Islamic sharia rule. Ottoman Sultans, beginning from the days of "Beylik" (pre-state times of Ottomans,) until the fall of the empire, never married a single Turkish woman or gave birth from her. INVARIABLY, all the mothers of Sultans were non-Turks. For the majority of the history of the empire, and especially for the peak times between 1453 and 1689, the ruling of the empire was almost EXCLUSIVELY by non-Moslim and non-Turkish origin people, or in other words "devshirmeh"; children taken from their families in early age and brought up in "Ottoman-Islamic" way, not Turkish way. Those people (devshirmes), at the same time were at the heart of the army, by forming the "Janissarie" troops. So, what was it that made Ottomans "Turkish"? Or in other words, what is the source of this frequently made mistake? I think the answer to this question is that the Ottoman army and "state" spoke Turkish. Although one very heavily distorted with Persian and Arabic. And later when the empire collapsed, the Ottoman bureaucracy and army formed the core of the new nation state; "Turkey". So we make a backwards reasoning and make the conclusion that "Ottoman Empire" was Turkish. But the reality is not so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.123.120 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

The whole section about Ottoman Kosovo in the Kosovo article is highly insulting. It is completely and utterly bias and should be stricken from the article. 'Islamized Serb' says it all. It was obviously written by an Ottomanphobic writer who like many Eurocentric historians views the Ottoman Empire as one big black spot on European history, if acknowledged at all. This is such an anachronism!!! The Ottoman Serb citizens where an integral part of the cosmopolitan empire and contributed instrumentally to it's rise. They were part of the ruling elite and gene pool of the Osmanli dynasty. The devishirme was not 'blood money' and many Balkan Christian parents welcomed the opportunity it provided for career advancement. If the Serbs et al were so oppressed wouldn't they all be Muslim and no church or monastery left standing in Kosovo or Serbia for that matter. The hateful and vengeful bias against the Ottomans must end, afterall who were the Ottomans- Hungarians, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Circassians, Tatars, Cossacks, Poles, Romanians, Albanians, Jews, Persians and finally, and not most importantly Turks. Please read Osman's Dream for a measured and timely history of the Ottoman Empire by Caroline Finkel.Vrooman 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ottoman Sultans, beginning from the days of "Beylik" (pre-state times of Ottomans,) until the fall of the empire, never married a single Turkish woman or gave birth from her. INVARIABLY, all the mothers of Sultans were non-Turks". Sorry but this is wrong my friend. Osman Bey's mother was Hayma Ana (Mother Hayma), Orhan Bey's mother was Turkmen Mal Hatun, Mehmet I's mother was Devlet Hatun from Germiyanoğlu tribe, Murad II's mother was Emine Hatun from Dulkadiroğlu tribe, Selim I's mother was Turkmen Aişe Hatun, and we can give many more examples against your claim. Yes, Ottoman identity was obviously not Turkish but building a wrong theory to support your arguments is not scientific at all. Be careful for the next time, Deliogul 11:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Deliogul if I made a mistake but, I have the following in my list: Mehmet I's mother Bulgarian Olga, Murat II's mother Veronika, Selim I's mother a Pontus Christian woman carrying the nickname Ayshe, etc. The confusion maybe because of giving Moslem names to Christian women after they are accepted into the Harem. The first two guys' (Osman and Orhan) mothers maybe Turkish in origin, but I didn't take that into account, since that is quite normal and expected. And even if I was wrong with mothers names, as you say "Ottoman identity was obviously not Turkish", so the beginning sentence of "Ottoman Empire, a Turkish state" is a very serious error and should be corrected. I hope you will agree on this.

No no your list is wrong. As you see I didn't talk about Mehmed II or Suleiman I or Selim II because all of them had foreign mothers but the data I gave is true. The sultans I mentioned all had mothers who came from Turkmen tribes or other Turkish Emirates. Also we call Osman and Orhan "Ghazi" not guys ;) On the other hand, you are right about your claim. Ottomans were a unique blend of Roman, Byzantine and Seljuk Empires with strong influences from both East and West. We can write such a statement rather than basically stamp Ottoman Empire as Turkish. See you, Deliogul 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and see you )

That's your personal opinion Deliogul. To quote Quataert: "...the Ottoman family was ethnically Turkish in its origins, as were some of its supporters and subjects. But ... the dynasty immediately lost this "Turkish" ethnic identification through intermarriage with many different ethnicities. As for a "Turkish empire", state power relied on a similarly heterogeneous mix of peoples. The Ottoman empire succeeded because it incorporated the energies of the vastly varied peoples it encountered, quickly transcending its roots in the Turkish nomadic migrations from Central Asia into the Middle East." I think this answers it. The amount of Turkic ancestry that the Ottoman citizens possessed is irrelevant here. It's true that neither the dynasty nor the majority of the "Ottoman citizenry" (muslim population) were ethnically Turkish, simply because this ethnicity didn't exist at the time. In many languages of the Ottoman Empire "Turk" simpy meant only "Muslim". And out of all the Ottoman citizens, only a part was actually Turkish-speaking. Of course it's important that the administration of the Empire was done in the Turkish language, and that all the peoples who became Muslim and Turkish-speaking were called 'Turks', but this is not what a "Turkish state" implies. "Turkish state" implies a nationalism that was unknown to a religious empire, and to define an Islamic empire by a modern ethnicity is very unscientific. Therefore it's anachronistic to label the Ottoman Empire as such. This doesn't mean however that the modern Turkish nation isn't the main heritor of the Empire in both ancestry and culture. It's only a matter of precision and neutrality. In late antiquity "Roman" was used for "Christian", in the same way that "Turkish" was used for "Muslim" in the Ottoman Empire. I think the best formula is the one used in the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire articles. The states are defined by the now "ethnic-less" Roman, but in the very opening paragraph it is mentioned that they were known as the "German Empire" and the "Greek Empire" respectively. So it would be much more correct and satisfactory to change the opening into something along those lines: "The Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state (or Empire) etc... It was known to its Western contemporaries mainly as the 'Turkish Empire'...". Miskin 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We discussed it and concluded that we can't also say that Ottoman State was simply a religious state. As I said before (and normal for an empire), Ottoman Empire was a blended whiskey, not a pure malt ;) Of course Islam was really important but Ottomans used a complex system which was taken from Byzantine and Seljuk Empires. Actually we need a subsection for the theories about the motives of Ottomans. You know some says everything Turks did was a natural outcome of the Roman/ Byzantine system that they used, other says that the Ghaza (to fight and die for Islam) was the main motive behind the success (at least the early ones). So it is complicated, Deliogul 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand but those views don't sound too credible. Mehmet adopted some aspects of the Byzantine government and gave privileges to the Greek Church and population. Yet the Empire did make its own innovations on its system of government, it didn't just copy its predecessors. The Greeks were given local power on their respective millets but didn't participate in the decision-making of the Muslim government. By Roman/Byzantine "motive" you must be referring to the concept of creating an ancient/medieval-style religious empire which aimed to include all nations in the world? If you want to make such a section should find the source first, otherwise it might come out as OR. Miskin 17:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I can find sources for Ottoman culture (at least for 13th- 15th century) because I'm taking a lecture about Ottoman society and culture at school and we are reading various sections from different books about the Ottoman state and its people. The theories I mentioned above are the mainstream ones so they are credible. Whatever, it is okay if you don't get my point about Ottomans but it is sad that you don't love whiskey enough haha. Deliogul 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer whine. :) Miskin 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since everyone agrees that Ottoman Empire was not categorically "Turkish" I propose to change this word with a geographical definiton suc as: "...Mediterrenean, Middle Eastern, Southeast European ..." ohh I don't know what to say! Please help!

Romans called "our sea" to Mediterranean. During 15th and 16th centuries, Ottomans, in a sense, filled gap of "multinational world power" and took the control of the Mediterranean region. Therefore we can call Ottoman Empire a Mediterranean power. On the other hand, I still think that we must create a section about the main theories about the source of power of the Ottomans (which are the ones, Gibbons, Köprülü and Wittek formed). See you, Deliogul 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a seperate section should be created for that. I see that we cannot put any more geographical words in the beginning sentence, there are already many. And since we cannot define the empire, then we must change the structure of the sentence.

Actually, I liked the "Concept of Millet" part in the article but I don't know how to integrate it into the introduction part. Any comments? Deliogul 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How is: ....was a state comprised of several "millets" which are religious and national groups autonomous in their internal affairs....

But they weren't autonomous in a sense we think today. There was the Zimmi status which guarantees the freedoms of Greeks, Armenians etc. but they had to pay the Cizya tax for these rights. Also, it was the Sublime Porte's decisions to change such social contracts (for example, for a long time only Turks were serving in military but during the dissolution period, people from many nations forced and paid to join the Ottoman army). We can say that there was a common understanding between Anatolia and Rumeli (Lands of the Romans) and between the Sublime Porte and Anatolia. I still couldn't find the correct statement to express the Ottoman structure. Deliogul 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It is very difficult to classify Ottoman Empire or indeed any agrarian land-based empire in today's ethno-nationalistic terminology. Was the Roman Empire an Italian state? Why don't we say "the Ottoman Empire was an agrarian land-based empire, also known as the Turkish Empire to its contemporaries"? --Free smyrnan 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, it is also incorrect to make the assertion that only Turks served in the army. Check out 1453 by Crowley where you will read about Serbian soldiers in the Ottoman army - Orthodox Serbs, not Janissaries- for just one example. Also please be careful about making the millet=nation anachronism. The word, in today's Turkish, does mean nation, but it did not, for most of Ottoman times. Indeed in order to translate French nation, this meaning was later added onto the word.--Free smyrnan 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you got it wrong. I was talking about the post- Nizam-ı Cedid (the new army) era. Only Anatolian people were serving in that army in the beginning but later, thanks to endless and long wars, Ottomans started to gather Arabs etc. to serve in the army. You know, for example, Janissaries were totally Greeks, Serbians etc. and Ottoman army once was a unique blend of the people from all around the empire. By the way, I think more people must express their ideas before we decide about the structure of the Ottoman Empire. See you, Deliogul 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So, how do we change the sentence? "Agrarian based medieval state"? Even though they lived up to the 20th century, their medieval character never changed. Once they tried to change, they disappeared.

Ottoman Empire didn't collapse because of that. It is not a simple thing so you can't explain it in a single sentence. People are preparing thesis' about the dissolution period of the empire. Therefore we must think deeper... By the way, why don't people tell their opinions? See you, Deliogul 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems they would survive if they could change, but apparently they couldn't. Anyway that is another discussion. There are obviously not enough people around here to tell about their opinions unfortunately. I am personally only occupied with removing the word "Turkish" from the paragraph. I don't think we need to put a description instead of that. It can just remain blank, but the sentence order does not allow that. Let people understand what Ottomans were like, by reading the article, not just by reading the first paragraph. That is not too much to ask from them, I guess. Maybe this will also open another discussion, but the phrase "unification of cultures" is also wrong. Ottomans considered themselves so great that they did not care about any culture, they were superior to anything, and they just applied what was convenient for them. "Islam" was also for convenience. Of course in time, without their noticing, Islam gradually seized over them, and they themselves became a "convenience" for Islam. Finally, Ottomans' function in history was only one of filling the "gap" in time. So I wouldn't mind if you changed the whole paragraph.

Don't forget that "change" is a tricky word ;) I think we must form a paragraph which talks about the borders of the empire and how different nations were ruled. Osman's family came to Anatolia with the second wave of the Turkic immigration then his sons built a complex dynasty from Western and Eastern values so they were Turkish in the roots but not in the practice. I really can't write a good paragraph but if you can offer me one, I can make my comments to upgrade it and then we can put it into the article. Take care, Deliogul 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the expression "agrarian land-based empire" or "agrarian land based empire also known as Turkish empire to its contemporaries" instead of the expression "turkish state" would do; as free smyrnan has proposed. There is no need to change the remaining stuff as they are actual, except the last expression; "unification of cultures" which is far too assertive remembering that the Ottomans never pursued such goals.

I have a couple of problems with the article, first of all, the beginning sentence of it states that Ottoman Empire was a turkish state but probably as we all know, nationalism meant nothing to Ottomans until late 19th and early 20th centuries. Turkishness was not something that they identified themselves with and in fact most of the Vezirs, governing elite of the Empire, in terms of their ethnic backgroud, were not Turks, but christian devshirmes. I think instead of saying it was a Turkish state we can stress that it was built by a small Turkish tribe..And then add to it what Smyrnan proposed that it was known as the "Turkish empire to its contemporaries". It would be more like a encyclopedic content, rather than having a revisionist, nationalistic history telling..--laertes d 11:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the term Turk did not mean much in an early modern society. National identities were European creations exported from Europ by other parts of the world. So an empire cannot be labelled as national, nor can it be deemed anti-Turkish or something. The discussion about the origins of the Ottoman Sultan is generally based on a amateur book called Padisah Analari which was written with few reference to adequate sources and generally includes wrong information. There were Turkish Valide Sultans contrary to the belief. However, the idea can give one some sort of an understanding of the problem. Let me give you an example: German emperor and Spanish king Charles V was as French as the French king with whom he fought several times. His maternal tongue was French, he was 1/8 Belgian, 1/4 Castillean, 1/4 Catalan, 1/4 German and 1/8 French. So what does it say us about Habsburgs? The idea of a nation is a different thing and it especially does not mean anything when applied to the dynasties.

Everyone agrees that the expression "turkish state" is wrong, but no-one can change it for some reason

The term "Turkish State" is not academically satisfying and we are aware of the problem. National, political or geographical expressions are true on their own but none of them is totally correct, enough. I guess we need to say that the empire was containing lands from three continents where many different groups of people were living and Ottoman Sultan's were of Turkic descent but not pro- Turkish in their policies and the Ottoman aristocracy was formed from many different nations not only Turks. Build me a good part which talks about these things then we can put it into the article. Deliogul 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maps

The boundaries given on the "Ottoman Empire (1595)" map are in conflict with the map at the beginning of the section and are highly suspect. I think it needs to be replaced. 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Revolver66

You are right, it was rubbish and I removed it. Ottomans, for a brief period, managed to manipulate whats happening in Lehistan (Poland) but this doesn't mean that my ancestors annexed those territories. If you have other useful ideas, please share. See you, Deliogul 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether there is space for it, but here is an anecdote that I find interesting: The OE did not recognize the partitioning of Poland in 1795 (exact date?). For a very long period after that, whenever ambassadors were accepted by the Sultan, the Sultans traditionally asked "where is the Polish ambassador?" and were given the ritualized reply "delayed on the road". The Polish Embassy in Ankara has this on their website BTW, ref here --Free smyrnan 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I know about the Ottoman role in the politics of Poland but this doesn't mean that Ottomans went and conquered those places. It is just a useless fantasy. You know, Ottoman rulers were Sultan-ı İklim-i Rum (the ruler of the Roman lands) but everybody's power has a limit ;) See you, Deliogul 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way I'm talking about the map. Don't get it wrong hehe. Deliogul 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The maps are very much "inflated". As it's mentioned even in this article, the Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldova were never part of the Ottoman empire. They paid a tribute. Also Hungary was for some time a vassal of Poland. Is it right to show Hungary in Poland? No, of course not. And there are TWO maps that show this area in the Ottoman Empire.
There were two types of territories in the Ottoman Empire. Directly controlled territories and indirectly controlled territories (lords/kings of these lands accepted the Ottoman supremacy and ruled under the shadow of the Sublime Porte). We have to clearly understand that an empire is a way more complex body than the modern day, unitary states. See you, Deliogul 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed it's much more complex, so that's exactly what I mean: is it normal to represent those exactly the same as, let's say, Istanbul? The current maps show every bit of territory where the Ottoman Empire had some influence (and a little more than that) inside the borders, colored the same as any other region. That's what I mean by inflated. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.120.210.195 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

My try at a new map

This is my try at a map of the Ottoman empire acquisitions with fixed borders

I believe that since the map says clearly "acquisitions", it is impossible to include territories like the Crimea inside the borders. These were not acquisitions, and I think the current map is misguiding. I am very aware Turks will not like this, but I'm sure this is much more accurate than the original map. I did not add it on the page because.... I want to hear what others think first because I'm afraid it might be "mercilessly edited". ;)

It's just my first try. Don't get angry on me. After all, this was my attempt at doing what the to-do list said that needs to be done. Just my try. Sorry if it offended you or anything. Mirc mirc 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your map is good but it would be better if we change the explanation under the map instead of changing the map itself ;) Crimean Khanate accepted the supremacy of the Sublime Porte and fought next to Ottomans for centuries. Turks even tried to save Crimea from the Russian advance during the Crimean War. Ottomans didn't gain all of their territory by conquest and it is really normal when we think they didn't lost all of their territory during the times of war ;) See you, Deliogul 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a good idea. I might do that too, if time allows me. And that one will explain a little more clearly the status of the changed territories, while this one will make a somewhat more clear distinction. Maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll do that today, but I don't know as I might be busy later this afternoon. Mirc mirc 11:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Just two suggestions for the little country of Croatia :-). Central Croatia (the area above the letter "B" in the word Belgrade, lol) and a small coastal strip up north were never ever a part of the empire. On the other hand, Dalmatian region (which is indicated as free) in actuality was under the Turks apart from islands and a couple of major cities (which, of course, belonged to Venice). On grander scale it may be a bit nitpicky, but still... :-) Cheers Zoran M 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Successor States

In my humble opinion, the legal successor of the Ottoman Empire is Turkey. Other countries only shared the debts of the collapsed empire. Also, for example, Egypt was lost tens of years before the actual collapse of the Ottoman State so how come they are one of the successors? Deliogul 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: If you are counting the religious rights of the Ottoman Sultan as the Caliph of the people of Egypt, that's only de jure not de facto. Also, I'm waiting your comments too ;) Deliogul 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Note 2: An unsigned guy deleted the successor states part. Now what are we going to do? We can just forget about that part or we can discuss this issue on an academic basis. Actually, I support this deletion but we need the consensus of Wikipedians. Deliogul 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There are different understandings of what a successor state is. Even though all these states are successors, most Turkish people think that there is one successor, Republic of Turkey. Maybe it is best to create a section explaining when these states are split off (successor) from Ottoman Empire. Communication will help, if they read it. --OttomanReference 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Partitioning and WWI

Introduction

Could you please, why did you remove the section for dissolution? OttomanReference 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the "golden age" section, too. --OttomanReference 22:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you also clearly state what was the problem. Your edit summary claims there is a problem without being explicit. Thanks --OttomanReference 22:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem? I guess it is just a vandal attack. You can revert the article back to its original version. See you, Deliogul 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to learn, if s/he has a specific position which can be added without killing the rest of the summary. --OttomanReference 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Are you talking about the below section?:
The "golden age" of the Ottoman Empire is during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th Century. In different fields, this can be seen both in the architecture of Koca Mimar Sinan Ağa, and in the domination of the Mediterranean by the Ottoman navy, led by Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha. The Ottoman Empire reached its territorial peak in the 17th century. Culturally, the Empire portrayed itself as the Islamic successor of earlier Mediterranean empires (the Roman and Byzantine empires). From a diverse system of Millets, to a multi-ethnic state (Ottomanism), it developed its own distinctive culture, influential both in the European and Islamic worlds.
The reason I removed it is because it's redundant with content that I added elsewhere in the intro to give it thematic coherence (inception - rise - height - fall). Mentioning a "golden age" is slightly coloured language and is superfluous because I already mentioned the C15th and 16th as being the times when the empire was at its height. The geographical passage is too specific, too wordy and difficult to follow, so it's best to keep it simple, as I have attempted to do. As far as the mention of specific individuals in Ottoman naval and architectural history - this seems to be giving Wikipedia:Undue weight. The article on France doesn't single out Rene Descartes' contributions to philosophy in its introduction. The article on Austria history doesn't single out Johann Sebastian Bach's contributions to music in its introduction. The aim of the introduction is to give, as concisely as possible, the information that is essential for an understanding of the topic - talking about specific individuals in architectural and naval history, as opposed to the many hundreds of figures important in Ottoman history, doesn't do this. Finally, some of my changes are simply re-arranging language that is sometimes stilted. Things like "during its lifespan" are, I believe, contrary to Wikipedia's aim for generally prosaic descriptions. Slac speak up! 08:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:Slac Says: "slightly coloured language" "Golden age" is a terminology which was used for the period by respected historians (more than once). It is not false, not misinformation, ... It is factual. Introduction for 700 years of worlds' (historically) powerful entity can not be covered in 300 words. Your kind of objectivity is impossible. What you try to say "objective" without letting out some other important facts for some other people is impossible. Also what is "superfluous" (the Suleiman the Magnificent) for you is the biggest achievement of this empire. Introduction section of an empire should cover (a) territory (b) military achievement (c) cultural achievement (d) how it is dissolved. I found your comments really not constructive. Just because you are the one demanding objectifying, your total rewrite does not have continuity and sincerely does not hold integrity. see your version. The current version covers the perspectives of (a) territory (b) military achievement (c) cultural achievement (d) how it is dissolved. As I said before; if there is a way (through communication) instead of trashing the available (which people worked-on) introduction section, I would like to get your critique and add your position. However, the given response is very non-cooperative and it does not present any position that can be negotiated or clearly integrated. If you help me out by giving concrete positions that can be negotiated; I would like to have your POV be integrated. But you really need to grasp the fact that changing one view (what you give as an example Johann Sebastian Bach to Rene Descartes) could make it more relevant to you but that does not mean that it is relevant to rest of the world. In any how, if you tell us what is "essential for an understanding of the topic" for you, this community would try to integrate you view. But total rewrite, which you demand, based on your POV is POV. Besides for a person who criticize the language being too colorful, you are using excessive colorful language. Thanks.--OttomanReference 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Golden Age is Golden Age... It is a common terminology for the Ottoman dominance in 16th century. It is a period just like the Decline or the Dissolution. I don't understand what is so special about it? Please be calm folks ;) Deliogul 21:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
To take the second post first, calling something a "golden age" implies definite beginnings and endings (what are they?), and is in any case vague and subjective. How exactly is an age "golden" compared to any other age? Was the average Anatolian peasant more educated, better fed and happier under Suleiman than under any other Sultan?
With respect, OttomanReference, I think you need to assume good faith. I don't have a specific POV that I want to see integrated; I want a better introduction in general terms. I was bold and incorporated new material while rephrasing old material (remember, quite a substantial swathe of old material is still there, some slightly rephrased) and the result, for the reasons that I have stated, I believe to be better than the previous version. As far as I see it, my introduction covers the key points of the Ottoman Empire in the required level of detail. I don't see how the previous version does, and what you have said so far has not changed my opinion. What is critically important about the few sections I excised? Merely attacking my position as being "POV" doesn't actually prove to me how an alternative position is more logical. Slac speak up! 02:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Lacrimosus says "I has(have) the key points of the Ottoman Empire in the required". What are they? Could you defend your position? Sentence by sentence. OttomanReference 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't believe I have to, but in order to maintain good faith I will. Give me a while. Slac speak up! 04:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Folks we are talking about the golden age of an "empire" not a "republic". Military and economic capability of the House of Osman was in its peak during the 16th century. I accept that the terminology is subjective but this is the case for nearly all monarchies in history. When we say that the British Empire was leader of the Concert of Europe back in 19th century, we are talking about the ruling class, not the peasants... Deliogul 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there - regardless of the form of government, the term is still subjective. It's much more accurate therefore to say "the military and economic capability of the House of Osman was at its peak during the 16th century", as you yourself did above. Slac speak up! 04:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alliance with Russia

In a significant shift in military and diplomatic policy, the empire ceased to enter conflicts on its own and began to forge alliances with European countries. There were a series of such alliances with France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Russia.
What is an example of the Ottomans aligning with the Russians during this time period (19th or early 20th century)? KVenzke 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember the details but there was a agreement between the two empires to guarantee the help of each other if another entity would attack one of the sides. Also, Russian Navy would help to defend the borders of the Ottoman Empire against a naval attack. I guess somebody will remember the date and the name of the agreement soon. See you brother, Deliogul 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Hünkar Iskelesi was the agreement. It exists in tr.wikipedia

The Ottoman Empire was also known as Turkey

The Ottoman Empire was commonly also called "Turkey", including in peace treaties and conferences.

The name Turkey originates from the Medieval Latin Turchia, and has been used in English to describe the Ottoman Empire since 1369. Turchia still means Turkey in Italian.

Here are a few examples:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Abd-ul-Mejid

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058482/Treaty-of-Paris

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9078798/Congress-of-Berlin

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1912.jpg

File:Abdulhamid looks worriedly at European Turkey in 1897.jpg

Therefore, please don't delete this information with prejudice.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Look at the word:: ARMENIA

You are developing a wrong conclusion. Turkey is the name of the "land" that the Ottoman Empire occupied; along the other terminologies. ps: Turchia means the land of Turks.. If you want to work with maps; there is also a word "Armenia" in those maps. That does not make it a state. Such as an Armenian state inside the Ottoman Empire. --OttomanReference 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • "Turkey" on this 19th century map is a state name, not a geographic region name like Armenia in the map above:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1912.jpg

Actually the name "Turkey" is written as a "state name" on the geographic region of Macedonia in this map.

Flavius Belisarius 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not have been "correct" to call the Ottoman Empire "Turkey" or the "Turkish Empire", but it was common practice in the past and we should report on it. Modern historians, of course, do not use that terminology; I have corrected many articles which said "the Turks conquered..." etc. to "the Ottoman Empire conquered". --Macrakis 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think we all need to objectively look at this and realize that we need to avoid confusing the difference between the Ottoman Empire, and the modern country called Turkey. While both states control some of the same territory, they do not control the same extent of territory, and do not consist of the same demographics. Now, while the territory and demographics of the Ottoman Empire were constantly in flux, there is a clear delineation between these two different countries; legally, demographically, and administratevly. This is not the same as a change in regime (i.e. Iran under the Shah vs. Iran under the Ayatollahs), but definitively constitutes the end of one country, and the rise from its constituent pieces of many new countries. A modern comparison would be the dissolution of the Soviet Union, wherein the territory and system of government were dissolved, and from that rose new borders, multiple states, and a variety of new governments. While the modern state of Turkey clearly inheritted and recognized much of the legal agreements bound to the Ottoman state, these are still two radically different countries. Yes, the Turks reside in both, and are identified by both, but the states are not the same, and should not be so hastily tied together. I think it is important that this article be clear enough to convey to someone entirely ignorant of history that the Ottoman Empire is not Turkey, even though it was sometimes referred to as such. If the article is going to lead off with such an assertion, then said language must clearly differentiate that this is not a reference to the modern state of Turkey, and that we are speaking of two unique entities, both of which happened to contain varied percentages of residents who identified themselves as Turks. Hiberniantears 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Someone completely ignorant of history might also be surprised to learn that the Byzantine Empire was actually called the "Roman Empire" by its own people, or "Rum" by the Muslims. But this is a fact, just like it is a fact that the name "Turkey" was more popularly used in the English language than the name "Ottoman Empire" until 1923, when it became a necessity for scholars to use only the name "Ottoman Empire" in order to differentiate it from the present-day Republic of Turkey. Flavius Belisarius 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Turkish dominated administrative institutions

Flavius Belisarius says: "Turkish dominated administrative institutions, ruling class of the empire" this statement is wrong. Administration originate from devshirme (Christians) and ruling class (Ottoman Dynasty) has been (look at girls in the harem) is not even Turkic background except initial period. --OttomanReference 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For those who still question the FACT that the Ottoman Empire was alternatively (and more popularly) called Turkey

Want some more? :)

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 19:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just trying to reduce the article size a little, and move text to links already in the article. Your edit here [1] is a fine compromise. Hiberniantears 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

^ Actually that was what I wrote in the first place :)

Cheers Flavius Belisarius 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Tell us the differences between these words: "America" and "United States of America". If you look at the maps and texts, you would see that most of the time authors are using the word "America" such as "America did this, America did that." With your logic, name of the state established in July 4, 1776 is "America" but not the United States of America. When someone asks you the name of the state which Bush is the president, you would argue that it is America. With the same logic, name of the state that is established in 1923 is "Turkey" but not the "Republic of Turkey". Such that the name of the Ottoman state is Turkey. Because why, the maps tell it so. The argument is the name of the state and the state has never been named as Turkey. I have no idea why it does not register to you. OttomanReference The word Turkey has been used to all Turkish states, some even existed at the same time (with the Ottoman Empire). If Ottoman Empire is Turkey, Ramazanoğlu which lasted until 1571 is not Turkey? Isn't it possible that you are looking from a very narrow window. The word Turkey has its own meaning beyond the Ottoman Empire. It covers Republic of Turkey, Ottoman Seljuk Sultanate of Rūm, ... You are pushing the word into a form that does not fit to it. --OttomanReference 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The name "Turkey" (from the Medieval Latin Turchia) was first coined in 1369, during the Ottoman period. This name was never used to describe the Seljuk state or any other Turkic state. It was invented in the first place to describe the Ottoman state. Flavius Belisarius 01:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The name "Turkey" was more popularly used than the name "Ottoman Empire" until 1923. After the establishment of the "Republic of Turkey" in 1923, it became a necessity to solely use the name "Ottoman Empire" in order to differentiate it from present-day Turkey. A bit like the name "Byzantine Empire" which is used more widely today in order to differentiate it from the Roman Empire, despite the fact that the Byzantine Empire was actually called the "Roman Empire" by its own people, or "Rum" by the Muslims. Of course, unlike the name "Byzantine Empire" which was coined by a German historian centuries after the collapse of the so-called Byzantine (East Roman) Empire, the name "Ottoman Empire" was also used during the Ottoman period; but the name "Turkey" was more popularly used in the English-language texts, treaties and maps. Until the establishment of the "Republic of Turkey" in 1923 made the use of the name "Ottoman Empire" a necessity. Flavius Belisarius 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One more time, we are talking about the name of the state. The "name of the state" of the organization ruled by the Ottoman Dynasty has never been Turkey. Because Turkey has been used, as the name implies, to every Turkish state. You are generating a "misinformation" by claiming Ottoman Empire or "osmanli devl;eti" or "sublim porte" (these are officially used) is officially the "Turkey". Instead of understanding what is communicated to you, you continue with your misinformation. This is bad, but I do not know if you can grasp it. This is waste of time. I'm sure you gonna do the same thing on this issue with what you did to Istanbul page. This is not a compliment to you. --OttomanReference 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Sublime Porte" was not a name of the Ottoman Empire (state) by the way, it was a nickname of the Ottoman government. A bit like the "White House" is a nickname of the U.S. Presidency (and not the United States), "The Kremlin" is a nickname of the Russian Presidency (and not Russia). As for "Turkey" as the name of the "Ottoman State" (and not an unofficial geographic region name as you described it) simply see the map below:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1912.jpg

The name "Turkey" is written on the geographic region of Macedonia, clearly as a "state name". In the info table of the map, it says "Turkey's present boundaries", "Turkey's present possessions in Europe", etc. In the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article, it says "Sultan of Turkey" for Abdülmecid.

Either you are too stubborn not to understand it, or you can't understand what you read. In any case, I know that you dislike present-day Turkey and would wish to identify yourself with the "Ottoman" identity, but "facts" are more important than your personal emotions.

As for the Istanbul article, I believe I did a very good job there. The amount of knowledge that's been put in that article and the grammatical flawlessness of the overall editing is well beyond your capacity and skills, which have disgraced the Atatürk article.

I suggest you to put aside your personal complexes towards me and try to improve your own apparent (and appalling) flaws in terms of poor writing/grammar skills and lack of knowledge. Flavius Belisarius 01:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not let me put you down. One more time; if you believe it is a good job, do not listen to me. The FA path is open to you. It is easy to come and throw shots. By the way, if Ottoman Empire was Turkish Empire, why did the Republic of Turkey end up with all this illiterate people, no bankers, no skills. So called Turkish empire. You want to hold on something which is totally hallow. ... --OttomanReference 03:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you mind if I ask you your nationality, given your tireless efforts in trying to damage Turkey's image in almost all Turkey-related articles. I've always made a guess but it might be politically incorrect to openly express it here. The other possibility is that you're opposed to the ideological values of the Turkish Republic.

As for the Republic of Turkey, it's still the largest regional economic, industrial and military power among all of its neighbours. Essentially a success story, given the point from where it started. And Türkiye İş Bankası is the largest private bank in the entire region, for the record. Turkish industrial conglomerates like Koç and Sabancı are also the largest of their kind in the entire area. Flavius Belisarius 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we are talking about Ottoman Empire and "Koç and Sabancı" should be thankful to Ataturk. It is questionable if they had chance to develop their industrial systems during Ottoman Empire. Do you know the ethnic background of these people you refer to, are they turkic background or were they Jewish and Arab??? Do not let me remind you that in Ottoman times all the guilds were under control of Armenians. Trade was under Greeks. Financial system was under control of Jews. Even the language they used was not Turkish. the Ottoman Turkish language is not Turkish (The fact that Persians and Arabs have a better grasp than Turks to this language, should say something to you). You know what they say, "Ottoman Turkish was largely unintelligible to the less educated members of society" Have you wondered who is that less educated member? Ottoman Empire was a real empire, composed of many ethnicities, and its ruling class was not what you believe. The native Americans (Indians) are not the rulers of America. What is this "ideological values of the Turkish Republic" that I was opposing? What is this Turkish Republic anyway? I checked the list of nations under UN. There is no Turkish Republic. Are you referring to Republic of Turkey. If so, it's name is not Republic of Turkish. And its PM (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) is an immigrant from Georgia. Turgut Ozal was Kurdish descent and Abdullah Gül is an Arab. These ultra-nationalistic views of yours are not substantiated. --OttomanReference 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize I am not the most qualified mediator on this topic, being a party to this seesaw of terminology... however, can we have a civil discussion on the merits of "official name" versus names used in place of the official name. I think the Byzantine/Roman comments have merit, and have actually led me down a different road of thought. Both "Byzantine Empire" and "Turkish Empire" are essentially Western constructs, and in many respects carry some level of derisiveness toward the named subject. Personally, I am a believer that the Byzantine Empire should be referenced as the Roman Empire, at least until 1204, if not straight through to final conquest by the Ottomans. Perhaps the real challenge here is the deliniation between the Ottoman state, and the modern nation state of the Republic of Turkey... My point here is that the Ottoman state was not a modern nation state, and to that end was referenced by many names. The republic, on the other hand, has, and always will be "Turkey". Even though the word Turkey existed in the Empire era, the Empire did not spring into creation from Turkey (tying back to the Byzantine element, one could even argue Turkey should just be called Rum, or Rumelia, or something...). In any event, I acknowledge, and do not wish to dispute, the facts which Flavius asserts above. Rather, I think there is an appropriate presentation of said facts, which has not been given proper weight. That people called the place "Turkey" is -indeed- a fact, but it was never the actual name of the empire, even though it may have been used. I submit, therefore, that we should maintain a subtle reference to Turkey as an alternate name, but not dwell too extensively on boosting the "Turkey" side of things in the interest of the "Turkish" identity of the Empire. Hiberniantears 00:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree Flavius Belisarius 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Turkonationalist POV

The version of this article asserts that the Ottoman Empire was a successor to the Greco-Roman world, which is a naive form of nationalism that could only come from Turkey. Westerners have never agreed with this POV, so please don't push your WP:BIAS and just respect WP:NPOV. Geographically, the Ottomans roughly succeeded the Persians. Turkey is NOT European, but part of that Middle-Eastern/Islamic world. You don't have to take my word for it. Just ask anybody else who is not Turkish (or fascinated with Orientalism) and they will not say to you that Turkey is more European than Persian. Exactly what attitude did the Ottomans have that was Greek or Roman, in their dealings with Europe? The Ottomans pursued the same policies with respect to Europe that the Persians did. Don't advance historical revisionism to make Turkey seem "glorious". That is precisely against Wikipedia policy. 68.110.8.21 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Many ottoman sultans among other things represent themselves as the new "Roman Emperors" and used Ceaser as one of their titles ..It may sounds strange but Many westerners at the height of the Ottoman's power identified Turks with Romans:

"If we were to carefully investigate their origins and closely examine their internal and external affairs, we may say that the military discipline, obedience and good fortune of the Romans has fallen to this race."

Francesco Sansavino, Dell'Historia Universale dell'Origine et Imperio de Turchi, 1560. i took the translation from somewhere else, i think we can add such things in the article as well.. --laertes d 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Kayser-i Rum" was the title used. Especially by Mehmed the Conqueror who saw himself as the Keeper of Greco-Roman heritage at that time.

I have to make a point clear. Roman heritage is not a requirement for being "glorious", just like being "Persian" won't guarantee "failure". On the other hand, the central system and the military power of the Ottoman Empire was direct continuation of the Roman Empire with a Turkic/Islamic notion added to it. "Kayzer-i Rum" (Roman Caesar) title was used by Mehmed II and "Sultan-ı İklim-i Rüm" (Sultan of the Roman Lands) was used by Selim I. Deliogul 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the arrogant responses. When the Eastern Roman Empire fell, the Western (Holy) Roman Empire became the only Rome. The double-headed eagle was used to acknowledge this fact, although Russia rightly claimed inheritance from the East. Nowhere was the Ottoman Empire invited to judge on the matter, having destroyed the East. It is not logical for Rome to destroy Rome, or continue to exist afterwards! So it also is not with this article and your activism to make Turkish topics seem better than they are. Seriously, I think it is rather more a case of you Turks trying to feel better about what you did to Europe. So, you "nativise" youselves with glamourous propaganda and become immune to criticism of all the destruction that came from Turkish invasion (not so different from Hun and Mongol). Explain the hostility the Ottoman Empire had for European (e.g. Roman) institutions until its collapse in World War One. Obviously, there was no lost love between Turkey and Europe. I mentioned Persia as the only viable alternative. Turkey's historical pattern of engagement in European affairs, was a rough parallel with Persia's. I am not going to accept your POV, anymore than I will tolerate denial of the Armenian Genocide. You don't admit it happened, so why should anybody believe you? It's preposterous. Usurping pretenders have no say either. Fake Romans. You would not have invaded Cyprus or persecuted the Kurds if you were Roman, because Europeans don't do those things. You are not becoming part of the European Union. Enough is enough. 68.110.8.21 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A more calm reply

I am upset because my intelligence has been insulted and because you're presenting it as incontrovertible FACT. (See the rules about balanced point of view in articles) Nobody in those times viewed Turkey as a legitimate successor to Rome or Greece. The main reasons being, that the Catholic Holy Roman Empire and Orthodox Russia existed to pursue their "rightful inheritance" to the imperial claim. No former province or country of the Eastern Roman Empire, willingly submitted to Turkish rule. I tried to explain in the last reply, that presenting Turkey as Rome is extremely insulting and heartless to the memories of those valiant fallen warriors in defense of Constantinople. All the Crusades in the world could not stop Turkey from destroying the Greek half of Rome. Just because the Ottoman dynasty created propaganda (oh, don't worry--we are a true Roman sucession) to assuage their critics, doesn't mean anybody has to believe it. The language of Turkey is not Romance or Greek; I "wonder" why. While it is Wikipedia's intention to stay neutral, the Turks were clearly foreign and in the wrong with regards to how they treated what was left of Rome. Sorry, but there are aggressors and victims in the world. Turkey did not bring Rome to Rome, but Turkey did bring Silk Road and Eurasian Steppe culture to the Mediterranean world. It is evident in the current capital of Turkey (Angora), that Turkey was pressured by Westerners to abandon the frivolous and aggravating status of Constantinople as their capital. This is against your claims of widespread acceptance. But whereas the Germans and Russians could succeed Rome and Greece, there was no contest over succession to Persia. Nobody but local Persians themselves contested Turkey's rule, so be happy that Turkey at least had that. 68.110.8.21 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Greconationalist POV

lol, i think you should have named the section youre creating greconationalistpov..

"Europeans don't do those things"

Sure for instance they absolutely dont do such things as genociding american indians, australian aborgiones, African people and often killing off natives in anywhere they set their foot..Not to mention pagan holocoust committed by christians in the Roman days..The discussion forum is supposed to be a serious place, you just go watch 300..--laertes d 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about European war strategy. There would be nothing gained by a 20th Century invasion of Cyprus by other Europeans. Turkey's very nature from inception, has been at odds with Europe. Geographic proximity does not mean an affinity, especially since the state of Turkey was imposed on the region from an exterior force. 68.110.8.21 13:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

==Sections and WP:SS==

The article is longer than 110K. The sections should be brought to Wikipedia:Summary style. Is there anyone who want to tackle with this issue? --Anglepush 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who would take the summary style editorial. Article is TOO LONG. Anglepush 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Ottoman Flag in the Infobox

This flag was never used as the official Ottoman "national flag", but as the flag of the Ottoman Navy between 1793 and 1844.

The first truly "official national flag" of the Ottoman Empire is the one of 1844, introduced with the Tanzimat reforms, which is practically identical to the present-day flag of Turkey.

Perhaps it's more romantic to put a flag up there that's slightly different than the flag of Turkey (the prototype of the Turkish flag) but it's simply not true that it was the Ottoman "national flag". Hence, it's factually wrong and misleading.

The Republic of Turkey didn't change the last Ottoman flag of 1844, but only introduced a law to standardize its geometric proportions in 1936.

Turkish flags in Istanbul, 1920 (Ottoman period):

http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/kararkoy02.jpg

http://www.osmanzengin.com/ESKi__iSTANBUL/tepebasi.jpg

Turkish flags in Istanbul, 1927 (Turkish Republic period):

http://www.azizistanbul.com/eskifoto05/bahcekapieminonu1927.jpg

http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/Portals/Istanbul/eskiimg/esk02.jpg

Flavius Belisarius 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The pictures that you show only make it clear that the empire's latest flag was the same with the modern day Turkish flag but they don't satisfy me enough about editing modern day Turkish flag as the flag of the Ottoman Empire. Imho, we must put the Kızıltuğ (Crimson Flag) to the flag part of the infobox because it is used as the flag of the empire for five centuries, a lot more than the flag which is used between 1844 and 1922. Also, Crimson Flag had been a symbol of the power for the Asian originated dynasties since the times of Göktürks and Mongols.
  • the original Crimson Flag
    the original Crimson Flag
  • the modified Crimson Flag
    the modified Crimson Flag
Take care, Deliogul 11:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Even that flag was not an official "national flag" - it was the "battle standard" used at the battlefields.

The naval version was blue (a bit greenish blue, i.e. turquoise) used during the naval battles.

The Ottoman Empire didn't have an official "national flag" until 1844. Which is the current Turkish flag.

Until then, every institution in the empire had its own flag. Flavius Belisarius 12:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As you see, we think differently. Kızıltuğ wasn't a battle standard, it was the depiction of the power and sovereignty of the House of Osman. On the battlefield, it was showing that the "ruling one" is there. At least we have to mention that the 1844 flag was a new thing and was used in a short period of time during the imperial times. Actually even the modern day Turkey flag is a modified version of Kızıltuğ with the Roman ruling symbols, the crescent and star. Deliogul 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire - shorth lived possessions

Hello Flavius Belisarius. I see you have reverted my edits to the article Ottoman Empire, regarding the statement about "temporary acquisitions like those of Lanzarote (1585), Madeira (1617), Vestmannaeyjar (1627) and Lundy (1655)", saying that "in 1585 Lanzarote was taken, including its governor who was later ransomed. Lundy remained under Ottoman control for 5 years between 1655 and 1660. Vestmannaeyjar was held for only 26 days though.)" Ok. And what about Madeira? I have never heard of such temporary acquisition (of course that can be my ignorance...)! Could you tell me some more on the story? And source it? Meanwhile, and given your rationale for the revert, I believe it would be better in the artcile to call it temporary occupations. I'm doimg so. And also tagging Madeira for a source. Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you! The Ogre 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There you go (from the official website of the Turkish Navy) [2]. The source is the book of Admiral Büyüktuğrul, who cites a letter written by the British Ambassador in Spain, Sir Francis Toone, to the Duke of Buckingham that in 1616 the Turks landed on the coastline between Cadiz and Lisbon, and landed on Madeira in 1617. Flavius Belisarius 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, my friend, but those sources are in Turkish, a language I do not speak or read. Could you shed some light on the subject? Cheers! The Ogre 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_Empire/Archive_5&oldid=876345120"