Keenir
Banned
Clearly not successful Muslim state could exist..right?
![]()
it's slightly less plausible than the Pope running a country, so yeah.
Clearly not successful Muslim state could exist..right?
![]()
the ASBs demand blood!
you are well within your rights to do so.
wait, you're not an Iranian sympathizer, are you? I mean, Persia invented the things 3,000 years ago. (wow, trousers are almost as old as the Jews!)
![]()
OK, OK I wasn't entirely saying "Hitler would crush the Ottomans". Though I guess it did look like it, and yeah maybe I miss used the term Blitzkrieg. But I was just thinking about how in OTL the military advances led to powers like France being destroyed quite easily. It seems like an attachment to stupid defensive warfare is to likely for a country to fall into. Unless they keep entirely up to date on military techniques.
As far as the Ottomans are concerned they already deserved or not had the reputation of the "sick man." Until that reputation is gotten rid of, every expansionist country will be plotting to invade.
the nation that coined that name, though, was Tsarist Russia - who hoped that it would distract the other nations from the fact that Russia was on its last legs.
Depending upon one's requirements regarding independence for calling something a country, Finland was the first Nordic country to have female suffrage (1906). But Abdul's basic point still stands- the Ottoman Empire wasn't exactly alone in not having female suffrage in 1914, so how that could be evidence of the Empire's weakness and inevitable collapse is rather hard to see.That raises an interesting point. New Zealand was the first country in the world to implement universal female suffrage in 1893.
Sargon
Russia had structural problems but "last legs" is a bit rich. Without WW1 there would be no reason that it'd ever really fall.
But I guess a good Otto-defense requires a vast and unreasonable underestimation of Russian abilities.
Russia had structural problems but "last legs" is a bit rich. Without WW1 there would be no reason that it'd ever really fall.
But I guess a good Otto-defense requires a vast and unreasonable underestimation of Russian abilities.
I too would like to see some sources provided to back up some of the claims made in this thread by certain individuals (and you know who you are!). If people have been reading about this topic, then surely it is not that difficult to provide the titles of books and the names of the authors concerned, and/or of any relevant primary sources or other documents if those have been read too?
It is pretty much expected and polite behaviour to cite sources to back up claims when challenged in such a debate.
Sargon
Certain users have been um, quick, to take apart everything I've written and nitpick. While I do have an avid interest in Ottoman history, I'm no expert nor do I presume to be one. And no-I can't backup my claims for most things. Apologies to anyone I've offended.
Depending upon one's requirements regarding independence for calling something a country, Finland was the first Nordic country to have female suffrage (1906). But Abdul's basic point still stands- the Ottoman Empire wasn't exactly alone in not having female suffrage in 1914, so how that could be evidence of the Empire's weakness and inevitable collapse is rather hard to see.
Certain users have been um, quick, to take apart everything I've written and nitpick. While I do have an avid interest in Ottoman history, I'm no expert nor do I presume to be one. And no-I can't backup my claims for most things. Apologies to anyone I've offended.
Russia had structural problems but "last legs" is a bit rich. Without WW1 there would be no reason that it'd ever really fall.
But I guess a good Otto-defense requires a vast and unreasonable underestimation of Russian abilities.
But to the point you were responding to, the fact remains that Russia did collapse after 3 years of war, whereas the Ottomans didn't after 12 (by which I mean the polity suffered no collapse or revolution, as opposed to being partially militarily dismembered).
Yes, and considering how the point is unnecessary, misleading, and close to outright wrong, I don't see how it helps.no, not really....just pointing out that Russia was closer to collapse than the Ottomans were.
Well, if Turkey had the Polish Border and a hostile Germay on the other side of it, I doubt it'd hold out for 12 years.
that's a heck of a lot more enemies than Russia had.
Well, if Turkey had the Polish Border and a hostile Germay on the other side of it, I doubt it'd hold out for 12 years.
Every event is shaped by its circumstances, is what I'm trying to say.
Yes. But none of them were Germany across some really flat ground.
Are you making a serious point or just being facetious?
Because you don't actually have a serious point, you do realise?
I have to agree with the first part. Although some national identities had emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, these didn't always conflict with allegiance to the Sublime Porte. Countries like Egypt, with its semi-independent status, did develop a distinct identity.
You say the Ottomans assimilated the Arabs pretty well-well they could have done a better job. They failed to impart the Turkish language beyond the the elite in each dominion (good for the Arabs I guess). The Ottomans failed to develop and imprint a distinct national identity on any of its subjects. To this day I cannot figure out what the ancestors of present-day Jordanians/Lebanese/Syrians considered themselves to be. Had they done so-and not sided with the Central Powers in WWI-it's not improbable to say that the Turkish Republic now would stretch from the Sudan to Tripoli to Baghdad. I say Turkish Republic because the Ottoman system was outdated and far from sustainable. It was inevitable that it would collapse. The point is-had the Arabs been better assimilated-they would have remained in union with the Turks.