European country colonizes European country

longsword14

Banned
Osman's Dream, The Ottoman Empire and the World Around It (2007), Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 2, Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975, and The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600,
Please quote the relevant passages that support your case.Even I can name a lot of books but how would it be relevant?
 
You mistake the point, but if you so desire to I would argue that Rome was not universalist until a brief window of time consisting of perhaps two to three centuries of its near 2000 year history. The Ottoman Empire, likewise, had windows where it better represented itself as universalist, however said universalism was mostly directed towards the Islamic World after the dreams of conquering Europe were, more or less, dashed. They were more universalist than the Chinese Empires, which also made pretensions to world ownership by way of conceit. They were, however, no more universalist than the Spanish under the Habsburgs, as Charles V too dreamed of a one world monarchy, with one world religion, under one banner. That did not erase his role as a colonizer.

This was a long time ago, back when I was a freshman. But here is wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Turkism#Turkey.27s_role

Only if the Balfour Declaration and Mr. James Gelvin's led me astray, so I will have to disagree.

As far as I can tell, your point was that the Ottomans weren't universalist because Christians weren't fully equal. If not that, then what was your point? What definition of universalism are you working with?

You know that Wikipedia should never be used as a source itself. Furthermore, that page doesn't say that the Ottomans used pan-Turkism in appealing to Central Asians.

I can't speak to Mr.James Gelvin because I haven't read whatever you're referring to but the Balfour Declaration doesn't contradict my statements at all. :confused:

Please quote the relevant passages that support your case.Even I can name a lot of books but how would it be relevant?

I just said twice that I'm tired and don't want to get into this debate yet again. Why is this hard to understand? I recommended those books if they wanted to get started on improving their knowledge, not to continue arguing against them. I was ending my participation in the argument.
 

scholar

Banned
As far as I can tell, your point was that the Ottomans weren't universalist because Christians weren't fully equal. If not that, then what was your point? What definition of universalism are you working with?

You know that Wikipedia should never be used as a source itself. Furthermore, that page doesn't say that the Ottomans used pan-Turkism in appealing to Central Asians.

I can't speak to Mr.James Gelvin because I haven't read whatever you're referring to but the Balfour Declaration doesn't contradict my statements at all.
That Ottoman Universalism was a brand of Islamic Universalism, and no functionally different from any other religious universalism like the Habsburgs. That in no way contradicts the notion they were colonizers, particularly since you were quoting passages about the Ottoman colonization of Europe.

If I was in college, of course. I am not writing this for college, and rather than trying to prove you wrong, I am only trying to show that what I said was not as absurd as you claimed it was. It is mentioned, briefly, in the passage. Enver Pasha, the Ottoman Minister of War, was involved in Turkish intrigues in Central Asia with pretensions of a Pan-Turkic state. Pan-Turkism and Turkish Nationalism developed a break as the Young Turk movement matured, and when the Ottoman Monarchy was overthrown, the Pan-Turkic element within the Empire was likewise terminated.

Actually, it does. The book opens with passages on the development of Arab Nationalism occurring first within Jewish and Christian communities, and later spreading to others inside of the region until the dream of a unified Arabia was captured by the Hashemites, whereby the British and French supported the movement, only to betray the movement. The point of this section was to describe how the land of Palestine was the product of many frustrated promises by great powers playing with the hearts and minds of the populous. Likewise, it shows that an attempt to create Pan-Ottomanism was frustrated, and indeed failed, with the rise of Turkish and Arab nationalism instead. While not all Arabs were behind the revolt, that's not a counter-point. The United States, even near the end of the war, was still substantially populated with people who identified themselves as Englishmen first and foremost, and the war was lost near as much by Parliament deciding outright victory would be too expensive as it would be by any victory on the ground.
 
That Ottoman Universalism was a brand of Islamic Universalism, and no functionally different from any other religious universalism like the Habsburgs. That in no way contradicts the notion they were colonizers, particularly since you were quoting passages about the Ottoman colonization of Europe.

If I was in college, of course. I am not writing this for college, and rather than trying to prove you wrong, I am only trying to show that what I said was not as absurd as you claimed it was. It is mentioned, briefly, in the passage. Enver Pasha, the Ottoman Minister of War, was involved in Turkish intrigues in Central Asia with pretensions of a Pan-Turkic state. Pan-Turkism and Turkish Nationalism developed a break as the Young Turk movement matured, and when the Ottoman Monarchy was overthrown, the Pan-Turkic element within the Empire was likewise terminated.

Actually, it does. The book opens with passages on the development of Arab Nationalism occurring first within Jewish and Christian communities, and later spreading to others inside of the region until the dream of a unified Arabia was captured by the Hashemites, whereby the British and French supported the movement, only to betray the movement. The point of this section was to describe how the land of Palestine was the product of many frustrated promises by great powers playing with the hearts and minds of the populous. Likewise, it shows that an attempt to create Pan-Ottomanism was frustrated, and indeed failed, with the rise of Turkish and Arab nationalism instead. While not all Arabs were behind the revolt, that's not a counter-point. The United States, even near the end of the war, was still substantially populated with people who identified themselves as Englishmen first and foremost, and the war was lost near as much by Parliament deciding outright victory would be too expensive as it would be by any victory on the ground.

The sentence you responded to said " Things like the Ottomans being a universalist, not ethnic Empire is not exactly one of the great historical debates of our time.". The people I quoted were also saying that the OE was an ethnically Turkish empire and I was responding to that.

Envers attempt was not official Ottoman policy. He was literally an exile at that point working on his own at that point. His attempt was also in 1921-22. It is misleading to say that the Ottomans appealed to Pan-Turkism in Central Asia-especially in the context of 19th century nationalism. This is why I called what you said absurd. The Ottomans were not going to base their appeals on something as weak as Pan-Turkism.

Oh I see. You're talking about a book and not the literal declaration. In that case, I can't argue because I haven't read it. I will say though that I'm not sure comparing the Arab Revolt to the US Revolution supports your point more than mine. There was no "US Nationalism" at the time. The Seven Years war led to a sense of separation from Britain but identification with home states, not a country who's concept didn't even exist yet. At least Arabia had Muhammed, the Rashidun, and the Ummayads. US nationalism was nonexistent before the Revolution and was still relatively weak right after. The Revolution was caused by a minority of unelected elites convincing their states that independence in a union would be better than subservience, and then focusing on a nationalism based around that union for survival. Similarly, the Arab Revolt was caused by an elite making an opportunistic powergrab and using Arab Nationalism to partly justify it. WW1 and the partition of the OE supercharged the movement yes but I wouldn't say it was particularly powerful before then.
 
The Ottomans were absolutely universalist -- the universal Khilafa, especially. They were not, however, a European empire.
 

scholar

Banned
The sentence you responded to said " Things like the Ottomans being a universalist, not ethnic Empire is not exactly one of the great historical debates of our time.". The people I quoted were also saying that the OE was an ethnically Turkish empire and I was responding to that.

Envers attempt was not official Ottoman policy. He was literally an exile at that point working on his own at that point. His attempt was also in 1921-22. It is misleading to say that the Ottomans appealed to Pan-Turkism in Central Asia-especially in the context of 19th century nationalism. This is why I called what you said absurd. The Ottomans were not going to base their appeals on something as weak as Pan-Turkism.

The Ottoman Empire attempted to stylize itself as a Caliphate, which granted it universalist undertones within the Muslim sectors of the Empire, but outside of that it was not really universalist. There were some exceptions where Romans/Greeks obtained areas of high influence and prestige, Suleiman had a subordinate who was Christian who was next to himself the most powerful man in the empire.
When I said this, I was trying to point out that what made it universalist was its nature as a Caliphate. That beyond that it was not really "universalist" in the way we ordinarily use the term.

Enver Pasha more or less controlled the Empire for over a decade. You are referring to his attempt after going to the Soviets, but he made overtures well before this. Kemal was even reported to have rejected Pasha's Utopian Dream of a Unified Pan-Turkish state, which was partially his justification for going to war in the first place. The military and the government didn't want to, and quite a few resigned over it if I'm remembering correctly.
 
Top