Which one of these Ottoman-misconception that occurs most often ?

Ottoman Empire has been most commonly misunderstood that it...

  • .... was an Anatolian-based entity.

    Votes: 17 18.7%
  • .... was dominated by ethnic Turks.

    Votes: 23 25.3%
  • .... was only lasting because of the Osmanlis.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • .... was an Asiatic-state from the very beginning.

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • .... was literally "Sickman of Europe".

    Votes: 48 52.7%

  • Total voters
    91
The Teutonic Knight's invasion was a failure....
Um...
To be fair, what else do you call a power that isn't able to do anything when its wealthiest territories break away, is the only major state to lose to Russia in a significant wat between 1815 and 1945, and has to admit that large segments of its population are "protected" by foreign powers?
Also, let me know when there's non-biased consensus that Russian units played a significant role at Grunwald.
 
I agree with your points...but it's not called the "Sick Man of Europe" because it was the worst country in Europe, but because it was the weakest of the Great Powers, and had fallen off in its "Great Power-ness" by quite a bit, and I think it's fair to call it that, even if it was reforming and could have turned things fully around.

They were called "sickman of Europe" because they "could only sit and letting things done to them", which was not the reality.
 
This is just ridiculous...everybody knows Spain was the (very) sick man of Europe...on the long term, the idea that Austria-Hungary was terminally Ill can be argued to be just as bad as the idea of Ottoman Collapse being inevitable...

Spain was a good Christian country.... And good christian country can defend its own honor by its own, because only few would be bothered seeing them do so. Ottomans were un-Christian heathen which couldn't have been let to defend their honor and pride, and should have transferred their power to the Christians.

Austria-Hungary though, had less social and political cohesion compared to Ottoman Empire. Even if all most of the ethnic groups in A-H were Catholics, all were infected by the virus of national principle. In OE's case, the sentiment that national principle was a Christian thing, besides geography, helped them case. But then again I personally suspect more. It needed three wars before Ottoman control over the Balkans were finally successfully dismantled.
 
Last edited:
And apparently I mistook the third option as common misconception..... :rolleyes::eek: But I swear that that was said for at least two times in this forum.
 

Susano

Banned
UAlso, let me know when there's non-biased consensus that Russian units played a significant role at Grunwald.
I think that reference was to the whole Alexander Nevsky story. But that was of course still way before 1815...
Of course, nevertheless it is rather nice to see the Teutonic Knights, of whom a better translation really would be German Knights, be regogniced as German ;)

Bleh. Depends on if you're looking at the fronts individually or entente vs central powers. I, for one, say Russia was a proud victor. :p

I didnt see a Russian delegate at Versailles... ;)
 
Spain was a good Christian country.... And good christian country can defend its own honor by its own, because only few would be bothered seeing them do so. Ottomans were un-Christian heathen which couldn't have been let to defend their honor and pride, and should have transferred their power to the Christians.

I would suggest that Spain and Portugal were largely ignored because they were poor, in a strategically unimportant position, and rather small, compared to the Ottoman Empire. So, they weren't really capable of even potentially influencing matters around them, at any point.
 
I would suggest that Spain and Portugal were largely ignored because they were poor, in a strategically unimportant position, and rather small, compared to the Ottoman Empire. So, they weren't really capable of even potentially influencing matters around them, at any point.

Yes, it was quite like that. In addition to that, Ottoman Empire was the Caliphate of Islam, with most of Sunni muslims of the world sweared religious allegiance to her. Many of Sufi Order around the world were practically functionable as Caliphate's extension of influence in their respective region. European powers were very nervous and worried about that, fearing that Ottomans could have sabotage their colonial activity in muslim regions.

In fact, their paranoia was quite a bit real, with the massacre of a French expedition in West Sahara by the Tuaregs was apparently backed by Ottomans. Though I'd agree that Europeans' paranoia was over the top.

Also, there was the sheer amount of bigotry. What's with the pressure to give control to Christians !
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was quite like that. In addition to that, Ottoman Empire was the Caliphate of Islam, with most of Sunni muslims of the world sweared religious allegiance to her. Many of Sufi Order around the world were practically functionable as Caliphate's extension of influence in their respective region. European powers were very nervous and worried about that, fearing that Ottomans could have sabotage their colonial activity in muslim regions.
So why there was so much limited outpouring of support when Holy War was declared on the Entente? India (Bagladesh and Pakistan), I'm looking at you.
 
Top