Çok güzel bir tanımlama verdin.

Tatar migrant in turkiye

I dont buy that Byzantine-Persian inspired administration thing.

Read about nizam ul mulk, and the siyasatnama

​@@evhesab4168They took over the Byzantine Empire. It makes perfect sense for a small number of nomads to use preexisting structuresm

You Can read a book named "History Of Ottoman Empire" by Dr. Ali Mohammad Sallabi. He is a true historian and a famous writer. This book is really good to know about Ottoman empire.

Love from İstanbul.🙏❤️💐

You should also watch arab series about ottoman empire. Tbey show it more different

Tarihi kazananlar yazar. Ve maalesef osmanlı tarihi zamanın kaybedenlerinin kazandığı dönemde geçmişten gelen öfkesinin gölgesinde yazıldı.

As a Bulgarian I gotta hate the Ottomans but ngl the Magnificent century was cool to watch to some degree. Them harem affairs kinda annoying. Damn sad when Ibrahim Pasha got beheaded. When he met his brother and father at his home of birth damn it was emotional and couldnt help it but sympathise. Show full of fine ladies but him and Hatidje daim cool story. Funny when he brought statues that wouldn't be approved by Islam to his palace.

The Ottomans was a barbaric ruthless blood thirsty Islamic savages who committed genocides,attrocities and expatriation every place they conquered. They were uncivilized subhuman savages without respect to human life and values. After 500 years of occupation and slavery in the balkans and Europe there is NOTHING positive to say! Bringing Europe back into the dark ages! Their subhuman Islamic culture of beliefs has no place in today's European democratic and Christian values. .

Ok

Those whose world is small cannot see the big world. How can someone who lives in small simple tribes in the Amazon forest explain the greatness of the State that rules the world?

5000 years of Turkish history? you are an ignorant amazon native

@@yasinmeteyigit6043 What a racist idiot thinks, wow

Like a Shia mosque in predominantly Sunni area.

We are still waiting for the explosion, unless overconsumption of legumes by the creator can change the facts

I know and I agree with you. Istanbul is, of course, even worse.

@@KhansDen bro, istanbul is a death trap. and i'm not just talking about the expected earthquake either. people living there are not good for themselves and probably less good when the earthquake happens.

​@@sickturret3587ive been living in istanbul all my life (although one might say its not that long, its all i know of) and recently people are just so unfriendly and full of hatred. theyre less expressive than a stone. its really sad to see my city turning into this mess.

Good catch, mistake on my part.

@@KhansDen canın sağolsun. Nice production 😉

Just a catch, bravo. False informaton due to the laziness.

same for Azerbaijan and inner Africa

we will recover one day the sacred place of birth of Venus [ Cyprus ] to their rightful owners " The Helens".

Even to the 21th century the Turks themself tried to force others to "become" Turks. Went so far as to call Kurds moutain turks, in a attempt to turkify us, because they basically robbed us of our country that was agreed and signed for in the treaty of sevres.

Tu vit en France ?

Francis the degenerate

The only reason Ottomans and safavid called themselves Turk was to get Turks to fight wars for them. Lmao

​@@a.s2205So, don't you think the Turks founded the Safavids and the Ottomans?😂

@@tugrul3434 nope. It's a simple rule, if you don't look like Timur, you ain't a Turk. People of Azerbaijan and Turkey are larping as Turks. Ottomans and seljuks only claimed to be Turks to get Turks to fight wars for them. Actually ataturk did the same and he ain't a Turk either.

Uncivilized barbaric savages DO NOT deserve respect!

Mashallah mu ngjeth mishi 🇦🇱❤️🇹🇷☝🏼☪️🏴

No we do not

@@gmfrunzikyes we do, you can go to lgbt europe we dont want week people like you

Tradhetar ke lindur ti more pis

Ju thjesht jeni mbetje turke e felliqur! Nuk I perket shqiperise , se pergjigjen e shqiptarve e ke kunder !

biggest mistake is not colonize america or oceania - india if they have navy actualy they maybe can do that they already have vassal state in oceania

The Ottomans in general were not able to take control of the Mediterranean sea as they were never sea people. Their roots are from the depths of the Mongolian steppes, far away from any coastal areas and they had never seen the sea before, they lacked any understanding of the sea and what it means to have seamanship. It was always a foreign concept to them and not in their dna, unlike the indigenous people of the Mediterranean.

@@mn7486 They could have used experienced people's who inhabitant their empire and learned new skills

@@jamesmurphy9426 They actually did, all the Ottoman naval generals were non-Turkish, but you can’t go far this way.

@@mn7486 the Ottoman navy, like it's army, was very formidable and quite feared among Europe. The fact that many nations had to form alliances just to defeat them just like in Lepanto. It held on to the mediterranean sea for almost 2 centuries. No one remains on top forever. They eventually went in a phase of decline in the 18th century.

You cannot make propaganda to simplify a nation that has established 16 empires with a section taken from a famous historian's book. The article you took refuge in has nothing to do with reality.

I think the ottomans treated minorities far better than the Turkish republic. Most Kurds, Arabs, Armenians... in Turkey can't even speak their own language anymore and have to hide their ethnic background because of racism. I see that the republic did that in order to prevent another independence movement from happening but they were far too aggressive and cruel (as nationalists usually are). For a time they even banned non-Turkish names or music in their native languages. But objectively it's in fact better to create a united identity based on common values and language. This makes the country more stable and the citizens stop arguing about unimportant things such as ethnic backgrounds. But natural integration is better than forced assimilation

Absolutly OTTOMANS was better then turkiye definilty

Ugh that's a biased opinion of urs or u r very little knowledgeable about Ottomans they treated other nations and minorities far better then those of their neighbours.. even today for example Arabs can't even speak their language in turkey..

@@cynical-_-guy1086 they can

@@adrva345it’s only good if you want to create a singular identity, if you’re happy with assimilating and destroying Kurdish identity in the process then the result is cultural genocide.

Hello Elena, and thank you for your comment. Indeed, Tatar history does interest me. However you are correct in your asessment that a lot of history is being "hidden". Then again, it's easier to get information then ever before. Therefore, both you and me can find valuable information regardless whether we studied or not. As for me, I studied history. Would like to know more about your thoughts.

"Hidden", yeah... I've read an article saying much the same thing. More than just proof, it lacked the basics: a reason WHY.

Galata Tower was built by Genoans

What is the meaning of the name; is it in latin or Italian;

Galata tower built by genoese, there was a walled genoese colony in the area, ottomans destroyed the walls of the colony but kept the tower, you can still see the doria family arma on the tower. Name galata comes from celtic people named galatians, they camped on the hill during their migration and the hill is named after them. Same hill gave the name of football club galatasaray.

Impressive @@burakalbayrak7835

True 👍

The Holy League, Jan Sobieski, Eugene of Savoy stopped them for good. Güle güle.

The ancient Christian world of Damascus, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antakya had already fallen to the Arab Muslims. Then Constantinople to the Turks. Rome is the last city left

what is your point

one caveat, Byzantines invited Ottomans to cross to Europe during a civil war, a mistake that proved to be fatal in the future

Ottoman rule was devastating for Hungary. Loss of population, destroy all the forests along the Danube, etc...that the country could never recovered and led to the loss of territories after WWI. BTW excellent, how Turcs could fight back after the WWI insane Treaty.

Are you turkish

Thats what Ataturk thought.

​@@muptanyesiloglu8700Atatürk made it more weak by making it secular

@@AdamRecapyou know not what you say. Go back to England, Arabia, or wherever you are from.

​@@AdamRecap I'm having trouble understanding how that works lol. Secularism doesn't make a country weaker. If that were the case, the Taliban's Afghanistan would be a superpower by now, instead of the secular United States.

Not ironic at all, just God's finger into the rotten pie of history. 1922: the year of retribution.

Damn, Americans are so self centered and egotistical. So weird to compare military with a 400 years difference. Americans are really despicable.

Weird to point it out that way. That conquest made them more important than they could be without it. They can't have that city be free from their rule when it's between Europe and Asia. It's splitting their empire in 2 and it could be convenient staging point for separating their Balkan and Anatolian territories.

Irrelevant. Nothing was split. Ottoman Empire was anyways centered in Balkans and West Anatolia. First capital was Bursa- and then Edirne and then Constantinople. First one was near border of Romans- second one was in Thrace and third one you know. Turks conquered Serbia some 300 years before they captured Egypt. Let's not forget that. And owning İstanbul was still a massive thing- it even still is today. Turkiye is the only country can open up a corridor in Russian-Ukranian War to let wheat pass from straits. Greece and Bulgaria are even planning to open a channel as an alternative trade route against Bosphorus and we are in year 2023.@@stevekook-xw3is

@@timur-i-lenk5526 A lot of people point out that the Spanish and Portuguese Empires themselves were products of muslims power. The biggest irony of course being that The Spanish started to forcibly convert non-Christians, and would turn mosques into Churches from being radicalized with their wars against the Moors/Berbers after they had displaced the Arabs. I do think it is a cycle in a way. The Arabs mistreat their Moorshi/Berber subjects who rebel, who in turn mistreat their Christian subjects who swear a zealous holy war against them.

Catching plague in rat-ridden Payitaht (a common occurrence well into the 19th century; actually until the 1840s, when Western-style sewage facilities were implemented) was hardly an advantage. "Aside from being muslim and saved from hell": how far Islamic brainwashing can reach? Neither Jews nor Christians do believe to be automatically entitled to salvation. Stay away from Islam, you wannabe historian. And remember the time-honoured saying: “In Constantinople fire devours your goods, plague takes your wife, and whores your wit”. "Civilized world", oh yeah

Most of Janiqar was in reality Otoman kids outside of marige…We all know how much Otomans love womens and Sultan have call this military departement ” Sons of Sultan” just cos most of them was kids of best Otoman warios outside marige with Christian womens…the 2% of Janiqar departement was kids of lokal Christians royalty as Garancy for loyalty to Sultan. The Otoman Impery have bring social joystiy and lows to all teritory that thay have win in wars. During 500-600 years thay was bigest light for humanity and social peace on 3 Continents. Sultanat have protekt all religions and insure that Ortodox Churche survive Watikans ambitions to destroyed it. Without Otomans Impery Europé should be in Darknes of Christian Despots that was constantly fighting with eachelor. Turkish army have bring peace in all teritory that become part of Impery. That was most socialistik and humanistisk state of that times.

@@samirhyseini7990 Your knowledge of history is a perfect match to your English. Did you earn a degree on TikTok or on some Bullywood series such as Muhteşem Yüzyıl? Bir siktir git, palavra sıkıyorsun.

The other view is that they were forcibly and traumatically abducted (kidnapped) from their families, abused without exception... so that many died as boys, forbidden from the normal developments of life, groomed to betray their religion, and turned into a soldiers that would betray their blood... murder, oppress and intimidate their own countrymen. It is a story of corrupting the innocence of little Christian boy by means of the cruelest duress and worldly enticements. And then, there is of course how they are remembered as the most devilish of traitors by the Christians who used to live under the cruelty of the Turks. Finally, there is the view of the parents, whose children were stolen against their wills... and turned into traitors who would return to oppress and destroy everything holy and good which they held dear. You can paint it however you like, but once you put the shoe on the other foot, imagine it. Imagine a Christian empire that went around kidnapping Muslim boys, forcing them into military servitude, twisting them through cruelty and enticements to conform to the wishes of their masters... unleashed on the Muslim world to pillage, rape, murder Muslims, and menace their lives, sieging their cities and burning their mosques..

Thank you, it's nice to see someone who knows a thing or two.

@@uzaykaradag altyazılar bir tık problemli o zaman.

It is not km square, it is milesquare...

yet, the European states called the Ottoman Empire as the Turkish Empire (Turcicum Imperium)

Last sentence is too far fetched. We only have 2-3 poems written in palace calling nomad Turkmens refuse to pay tax as uneducated peasants. Nobody was particularly disturbed of being called as Turk- Ottoman translators- (dragoman) and officials signed each paper they wrote in Latin as ''Murat Beg- Dragoman of Suleiman- the sultan of Turkish Empire''. Ottomans knew who they were clearly- as a massive empire they just didn't set up the things upon ethnicity. No empire did that. No state even thought of establishing a country based on ethnicity until 19th century. Greeks called themselves Roman for centuries and using the humilitation term ''greek'' for themselves are strangely interested in this topic a lot.

@@mertnecati875 "By the seventeenth century, literate circles in Istanbul would not call themselves Turks, and often, in phrases such as 'senseless Turks', used the word as a term of abuse." Imber, Colin (2009). The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power (2 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 3.

@@mertnecati875 "There was the ruling Ottoman group, now largely concentrated in the bureaucracy centered on the Sublime Porte, and the mass of the people, mostly peasants. The efendi looked down on "the Turk," which was a term of opprobrium indicating boorishness, and preferred to think of himself as an Osmanli. His country was not Turkey, but the Ottoman State." Davison, Roderic H. (31 December 1964). Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876.

@@mertnecati875 The term Romaios (or Romios or Rum) has been a SYNONYM of the term Greek since the end of late antiquity... The two cases are obviously not the same... In the "Souda" Lexicon written (10th century) Graikos=Hellene and also Graikos=Romaios [Graikoi (plural) =Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί : Οι Έλληνες. Εκ του Γραίξ, Γραικός.) and Raikos=Rhomaios (Ῥαικός : Ρωμαίος)] In the "Zonaras" Lexicon (12th century) Romaios=Graikos=Hellene. [Graikoi (plural) = Hellenes (plural) (Γραικοί. οἱ Ελληνες. ἀπὸ κώμης τινός. παρὰ τὸ ῥαῖσαι ῥαικὸς καὶ γραικός. καὶ γὰρ διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀνδρείαν οἱ Ελληνες ουτως ἐκαλοῦντο.) and Raikos=Rhomaios=Graikos (Ραικός. ὁ ̔Ρωμαῖος. ̓Επίχαρμος· φιλεῖ ειναι γραικὸς, ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ˉγ ῥαικός.)] "After the Empire lost non-Greek speaking territories IN THE 7th AND 8th CENTURIES, "Greek" (Ἕλλην), when not used to signify "pagan", became synonymous with "Roman" (Ῥωμαῖος) and "Christian" (Χριστιανός) to mean a Christian Greek citizen of the [Eastern] Roman Empire." "Roman, GREEK (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became SYNONYMOUS terms, counter-posed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominantly of GREEK ethnicity and language, were often called simply ό χριστώνυμος λαός 'the people who bear Christ's name'." Harrison, Thomas (2002). Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge., p. 268

türk

​@@anttwo entendi, são um povo heterogêneo, com caucasiano e mongoloide, é um povo muito fascinante, sou latino sim, mas diferente dos da Europa, somos ainda mais mestiços apesar da minha descendência da península ibérica. Obrigado amigo

%40 mongoloid(saka tribe) %50.60 caucasian.. 😂 Seljuky was % 40_50 mongoloid.. Gökturk mixed with caucasian..

​@@meralkeskin8511More like 70-80% mongoloid, 20-30% Caucasian.

Actually non of them two. It’s opposite, Mongolia are like relatives to the Turkic ethnicity but aren’t straight Turks. Some claim they have their own ethnic origin then they have nothing to do with Turks. They lived in Central Asia (Turkistan) in the same region and in west Mongolia in the todays borders Turks lived there. There are even Turkic cultural stone writings with Göktürk letters. I would recommend you to do a research on these then it will enlighten you for sure. Turks established also before Göktürk other states such as Hun empire, which was the first from the modern antic Turks. Before that times and centuries the folks on every region and world lived in small villages and didn’t had technological knowledge and the population to form states as we know in the ancient time.

Ottomans come to borders of modern slovenia as far as I know

Mongol

He was a Turkic ruler and also you can google it Babur and Suleiman's letters.

In Ottoman Turkish, only the alphabet has changed. No Arab can read Ottoman Turkish because it is a Turkish language. The current alphabet is Latin, but the language is Turkish. same thing

@@ShortsHistory-yv3gz "The early Ottoman society was complex and included members of numerous religions and ethnicities. In short, it was a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire ruled by the Ottoman dynasty from circa 1300 until its demise in World War - I ". Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters . Edition : 2009 page - XXV , XXVi

@@ShortsHistory-yv3gz "By the seventeenth century, literate circles in Istanbul would not call themselves Turks, and often, in phrases such as 'senseless Turks', used the word as a term of abuse." Imber, Colin (2009). The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power (2 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 3.

@@ShortsHistory-yv3gz "In the parlance of the epoch (early 19th century), all Muslims were referred to as "Turks", regardless of what their ethnicity would be considered today." Roderick Beaton, Greece: Biography of a Modern Nation, pp. 123

Hadi canım hadi, git kendini başka bir yerde tatmin et ruh hastası.

They used "Devlet-i Aliyye" officially. Rarely called the official name as "Osmanlı".

So, you don't have a problem if a Christian state rakes your child by force, then converts him to Christianity and then makes him fight against other muslim countries right?

If you looked up for one second who made this video and channel, you might want to revisit and edit your comment about "westerners" mentioning anything.

Unfortunately many people blame all Muslims people for the actions of fews and try to make it look like these things only happen in islam kingdoms and countries but the truth will some Muslims rulers were intolerant others were known for tolerance such as the ottomans when the jews were exiled from Spain they found home in the ottoman empire late many the protestnt Christians also fled there to escape the wrath of the cathlic church , even before islam showed up signs of Christians violence and intolerance were starting to show

Kitabın ismi nedir ?

You cannot make propaganda to simplify a nation that has established 16 empires with a section taken from a famous historian's book.

@@hasanyilmaz8411 "The early Ottoman society was complex and included members of numerous religions and ethnicities. In short, it was a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire ruled by the Ottoman dynasty from circa 1300 until its demise in World War - I ". Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters . Edition : 2009 page - XXV , XXVi

@@hasanyilmaz8411 "By the seventeenth century, literate circles in Istanbul would not call themselves Turks, and often, in phrases such as 'senseless Turks', used the word as a term of abuse." Imber, Colin (2009). The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power (2 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 3.

@@hasanyilmaz8411 "In the parlance of the epoch (early 19th century), all Muslims were referred to as "Turks", regardless of what their ethnicity would be considered today." Roderick Beaton, Greece: Biography of a Modern Nation, pp. 123

What’s your country now?

bolgars were tork too! 👍🏻

ethnically macedonian doesnt exist...

@@juventinos81 Facts! 👍🏻

@@SpartanLeonidas1821 lmao the name askldhdjsfkgl

You are free to list any mistakes as much as you want instead of making bland accusations, my friend.

Thank you for the correction.

Especially Turks don't look European

@@tombond8402 Every country in Asia is different from each other. Indians do not resemble the Japanese, Koreans do not resemble the Arabs, Turks do not resemble the Indonesians, but no one is interested in exiling each other from the continent, unlike the Europeans.

Hade lan

We gotta take one step at a time.

@@KhansDenone step at a time to spread propaganda eh? 🤡🦃🤡