Overestimated Countries

Esopo

Banned
Apparently, puerile means "I can't convince anyone that my ignorance is more valid than their knowledge" .

Interesting.

You have offered absolutely nothing to back up the idea that the Arabs within the Empire care about "the whole Arab world west of Suez" more than about their religion or a polity they've been part of for centuries.

i backed it, since the beginning. Analogies and the nature of nationalism itself mainly.
On the other side, you didnt back you statement that they would remain faitfhul in any way.

Anyway, you keep stating that im ignorant, i dont know anything and so on. It is offensive and i consider this a proof that you are not interested in discussing an issue but in winning some internet prize. i have enough. find someone else to insult.
 
1) yes? so, prove me that the turkish army skills and know how of the population were better than the austria's ones.

So, prove to me that they weren't. You're the one arguing that the Ottomans were inferior, the burden of proof that they were unable to match Austria-Hungary is on you and your documentation, the rest of us are saying that we have no reason to blindly accept that.

2) it was unstable and (barely) survived until 1918. should it prove that it was stable? no.

It was unstable, yet it managed to survive four grueling years of war, without collapsing, only to be dismembered AFTER the war. This is not a state on the brink of collapse by any reasonable definition.
 
Conscription doesnt mean much. In fact the same happening of an arab revolt means that those regions werent faitful. sure, they werent hostile to the turks, but, as you said, they never saw an ottoman official.
There was no a french riot against the government when germany invaded france, after all.

No, because the ottoman empire would not destroy its relationships with every european nation helping the nationalist revolts.
I should have clarified that those who fought for Sharrif Hussain in the Arab revolt were all from the Hijaz. Pretty much every Arab from Syria and Mesopotamia stayed loyal to the Sultan, and it should not be needed to point out that the majority of Arabs living in the Ottoman Empire had little in common with the Bedouin who fought in the Arab revolt.

I'm fairly sure Nassirismo isn't arguing that the Ottomans were without any issues or problems, just that none of them threatened to shake the Empire apart.

At least, that's my understanding of his post/s.
You'd be correct. Internal problems might shake the Ottomans, but they aren't being brought down by anything other than outside intervention.

1) yes? so, prove me that the turkish army skills and know how of the population were better than the austria's ones.

2) it was unstable and (barely) survived until 1918. should it prove that it was stable? no.
1- The Ottomans sent a number of troops to assist Austria in 1915-16. The German commanders noted their usefulness when compared to their Austrian comrades.

2- Barely survived? The fact that they had a pretty difficult situation due to war doesn't necessarily mean that a peaceful Ottoman Empire is a house of cards.
 

Esopo

Banned
So, prove to me that they weren't. You're the one arguing that the Ottomans were inferior, the burden of proof that they were unable to match Austria-Hungary is on you and your documentation, the rest of us are saying that we have no reason to blindly accept that.

No, i proved that they were inferior because they had a smaller army and inferior population. if we have only these two datas, lacking other datas we have to judge only about these. And these two datas say that they were inferior.
 
i backed it, since the beginning. Analogies and the nature of nationalism itself mainly.
On the other side, you didnt back you statement that they would remain faitfhul in any way.

No, you haven't backed it. You've offered nothing about conditions within the Ottoman Empire that would make this happen, only said that because it happened in X place, it would happen here - nevermind whether the Arabs within the Empire feel the same way as the people who caused problems for the Habsburgs did within that empire.

Anyway, you keep stating that im ignorant, i dont know anything and so on. It is offensive and i consider this a proof that you are not interested in discussing an issue but in winning some internet prize. i have enough. find someone else to insult.

You keep demonstrating over and over again that you don't know anything about the Ottomans, so I keep pointing out that your arguments reflect that.

I don't give a crap about internet prizes. What I care about is a discussion based on actual knowledge of the situation, not Eurocentirc generalizations.
 

Esopo

Banned
I should have clarified that those who fought for Sharrif Hussain in the Arab revolt were all from the Hijaz. Pretty much every Arab from Syria and Mesopotamia stayed loyal to the Sultan, and it should not be needed to point out that the majority of Arabs living in the Ottoman Empire had little in common with the Bedouin who fought in the Arab revolt.


You'd be correct. Internal problems might shake the Ottomans, but they aren't being brought down by anything other than outside intervention.


1- The Ottomans sent a number of troops to assist Austria in 1915-16. The German commanders noted their usefulness when compared to their Austrian comrades.

2- Barely survived? The fact that they had a pretty difficult situation due to war doesn't necessarily mean that a peaceful Ottoman Empire is a house of cards.


1) as i explained, the same fact that there was a revolt shows that they werent so faithful, even in a war when even austria-hungary didnt face any riot in any of its invaded regions.

2) until 1914? yes. for the 20 years after? very likely. after? i dont know. my idea is that arab nationalism will eventually manage to break it apart.

3) source? and it is not enough to prove the superior skill of an army nor the superiority of equipment nor the better know how of the whole population. And remmeber that in 1915-16 the best of austria's troops were in italy or carpathians, not in balkans. where the austrians kept the worst of their forces

4) the empire risked to collapse more than once before the war, both in XIX and at the dawn of XX century.
 
1) as i explained, the same fact that there was a revolt shows that they werent so faithful, even in a war when even austria-hungary didnt face any riot in any of its invaded regions.

2) until 1914? yes. for the 20 years after? very likely. after? i dont know. my idea is that arab nationalism will eventually manage to break it apart.

3) source? and it is not enough to prove the superior skill of an army nor the superiority of equipment nor the better know how of the whole population. And remmeber that in 1915-16 the best of austria's troops were in italy or carpathians, not in balkans. where the austrians kept the worst of their forces

4) the empire risked to collapse more than once before the war, both in XIX and at the dawn of XX century.
1- But not all Arabs are the same! Just because a small number of Bedouin (who make a small portion of the Arab population) revolted doesn't mean that the sedentary Arabs will be inspired by them.

2- Well, your idea has many flaws in it, as has been discussed previously in the thread.

3- I can't remember exactly, but I think I remember reading it in Edward Erickson's book "Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War 1". Which I would recommend anyway for anyone interested in the Middle Eastern theater of World War 1.

4- The only time that the Empire came close to collapse on its own was very early on in the 19th century when central authority was in collapse, and various Beys made bids for independence (some of whom were successful). However, the Ottomans were able to overcome this crisis eventually.
 

Esopo

Banned
1- But not all Arabs are the same! Just because a small number of Bedouin (who make a small portion of the Arab population) revolted doesn't mean that the sedentary Arabs will be inspired by them.

2- Well, your idea has many flaws in it, as has been discussed previously in the thread.

3- I can't remember exactly, but I think I remember reading it in Edward Erickson's book "Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War 1". Which I would recommend anyway for anyone interested in the Middle Eastern theater of World War 1.

4- The only time that the Empire came close to collapse on its own was very early on in the 19th century when central authority was in collapse, and various Beys made bids for independence (some of whom were successful). However, the Ottomans were able to overcome this crisis eventually.

1) i agree on that.

2) i can accept this, too.

3) thanks, ill try to get it.

4) it risked also in 1908. And all the national revolts during XIX century show a unstable situation.
Basically the ottoman empire had both french and russian (latent political revolution ) and austrian (ethnic minorities rioting) problems.
 
Top