Yes. If the Ottomans reached Americas before Spain and Portugal. If they advanced more in weaponry and technology than their european counterparts. If the Young Turks - in lieu of forsaking their religion and Ottomans - united with the Ottomans and fought _for_ Islām, Caliphate, and the Sultanate, not _against_ it.

@@SignsBehindSciencenice historical revisionism. Imagine thinking they failed because they were not extremist enough.

I have not had the opportunity to formally study the vast intricacies of Ottoman history, but it has long held a fascination for me. The understanding I had developed from my own unstructured and fractured readings was that their were too many court/harem structures and institutions which like the Jannisaries had simultaneously thrived in their privilege, but at the same time atrophied real progress because any reformation was by definition a threat to them. This video gave me a more cohesive overall timeline of some of the developments and reform attempts in the 19th C. I’ve often wondered “what if” the Ottomans had managed to stay neutral in 1914, or even allied with the Triple Entente instead of the Triple Alliance. But regardless of any “what-ifs” around that I think the Empire was doomed to be broken up by external forces as much as internal forces. I love your vids, and will check out Sultan Sunny now :-)

@@AL-lh2ht Imagine claiming they were extremist lmao

@@SignsBehindScience They'd have to get through and dominate the Alaouite to get access to the Atlantic which is far off from their central control.

its pronounced jaan-nisaa-ree Jaan-nisaari Life-sacrificer.

​@@4th_Disciplelol nope yeni çeri in turkish (new soldier)

Basically

The Praetorians are worse imo. I mean can you blame the Janissaries? Abducted as children to be slaves and forcibly forsake your religion.

@@user-nw6se9yc7j oh really i totally had it all wrong. could you please explain etymology of Yeni and Ceri?

excellent points brother, could you recommend me a few good books on ottoman history

The last great Ottoman sultans after Sultan ahmed was Abd-ul-Hamid han.

I wouldn't agree on point 3, cause afaik there wasn't really Russia vs OE wars, but Russia/Germany/ France/ UK coalition vs OE wars.

2. Abdülhamit 33 yılda 13 kez borç aldı ve ödeyemediği borcun karşılığında Kıbrıs Adasını İngilizlere kiraladı. Ödenmeyen borçlar nedeni ile borç veren ülkeler tarafından Duyunu Umumiye adlı bir kurul oluşturuldu ve bu kurul Osmanlı maliyesini yönetiyordu. Osmanlı kendi maliyesini bile dış güçlere teslim etmiş durumdaydı.

@@kronoxodus319yes, “Arming the sultan” Naci yorulmaz “Ottoman endgame” Sean mcmeekin

Actually Tanziman reforms were quite different from Europe because many reforms implemented by Europe were not suitable for the Ottoman Empire, which had multi-ethnic groups and people from three religions living spreaded this vast lands, they were not confined to a particular region. But what you say is true, the biggest problem of the Tanziman reforms was that they were too late to start. These reforms that needed to be initiated before the nationalist movements spread to Ottoman lands. Apart from the western modernization steps like industry, army etc, the biggest aim of the Tanzimat was to carry out a cultural reform in the Ottoman Empire, because it was realized Ottoman Empire did not have a clear cultural code like Roman Empire was a big problem. In the long term, an attempt was made to create a civilization that separated the Ottoman society from the rest of the world in matters such as education system, urbanization, dress code, architecture, music, art etc. but they could only be completed in Istanbul, it did not spread in the rest of the Empire or maybe litle spread some cities such as Izmir. In the remaining lands, major ethnic and religious conflicts couldn't be prevented.

Actually, Turks still use “Rum” for the indigenious Greeks in Anatolia and in Cyprus. Modern nation building indeed had changed many perceptions and definitions but some persisted. Still feel astonished that the there was a Roman nation until the 19th century even though modern historians tended to defime them as Greeks.

Just curious, what "structure in society" was destroyed after independence? And the "people felt that way?" What exactly is "European" anyways? A gender non-binary resident of 2023 London? There's a lot of myths on both sides of this debate. "We were more Anatolian than European" is as much an unsubstantiated myth as "the Ottomans were always bad" and "we were slaves for 400 years". BTW not all of Greece was under Ottoman control all the time, and we were not isolated from the rest of Europe; there was no passport control back then, or visas. Just as it's not true the Ottomans were always bad, never attempted to reform, and "enslaved" us. The problem is that we don't learn much history between 1453 and 1821, so every Greek just makes things up as we go along. The Ottoman Empire was multicultural, and in 400 years, they didn't actually try to change/influence us much, believe it or not. Their biggest fault is just being economically incompetent.

Must to be stupid to think they deserve your atención

@@joeb5080I think that the the Greek independance hurt both the greeks and us

👍

Yeah I agree, probably reckoned it would achieve both outcomes.

i think its both, 2 birds with one stone

Couldn't agree more and it's one of the things I regret not adding to this video.

Same, coming from a Bosniak.

Thanks for the kind words!

Glad you think so!

Mehmed v pasha's = hold my key.....

Not much, more they reformed, the more the empire turned into it's original Turkic identity actually. Atatürk was the ultimate reformer, and one of his biggest lines was ''No longer shall the sons of Turks will die defending Arabian deserts''

@@subutaynoyan5372---How interesting. Thanks for replying.

​@@subutaynoyan5372k*malist spotted opinion rejected

@@subutaynoyan5372Kemalist filth

Ah yes, Ahmed Jazzar, the butcher.

Much appreciated!

Appreciate that massively!

Thank you!

4 years not a big deal plus they were aloved to be survived

@@SunioPrakash The other guys were allowed by invaders too, their subjects didn’t let them. Ottomans outlived all those arrogant tsars and could live even longer because their remaining subjects didn’t give a damn 👍🏻

Thank you!

Based

Yeah after he ignored all developments in favor of just paying the Europeans off,yeah. He established Ottoman Public Debt Administration which essentially handed of Ottoman finances to European hands,a major reason for Ottoman decline.

public wide censorship.Even for goverment officals.Empires second biggest border loss.Politicazed army.Building unnecessary palaces.Ofcourse he did developed education and expanded railways systems.But even Thedor Heltz asked to the "Padishah" to give him land.Even this describes the collapse of an empire.

​​@@zxera9702as far as I remember he put a lot of effort in renewing The Ottoman military and navy inspired by the Germans and building railroads. the debts were the so-called modern Sultans faults that he had to repay and clean their mess and the state and his reforms were doing fine until the Young Turks showed up. his Hamidiye regiment saved thousands of of lives of especially Kurds from the Raids of the Armenian supporters of Russia And for that The Kurds Called Him "Babê Kurdan" meaning "The Father of The Kurds" most of the things written about him are pure lies!

​​@@zxera9702 This is a Great explanation by an Economist On what the Ottoman Economy was like because of the sultans before Abdul Hamid II kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z552fcqJz9e7YKs.htmlsi=McbYcHu5nDutvT5O

Thanks my man, and I agree (if it had been started just 50 years earlier)

@@HikmaHistory .the problem started in 1500s after lopanto and fail Morocco invasion it was all over from naval supremacy sure it still strong but cracks start to show up the fail to capitalize on new world conquest they did take Philippines but what the point spain toke it later the Mediterranean has become a small lake compares to Atlantic and Indian and Pacific seas thier foot army still good however thier is alot of backward in the ottoman the fails to use new printing press and ban it And most importantly not separating islam from state Vienna was final straw after that 1700s zzzz ottoman still using sword when eroupe only use for Calvary and officers most of Europe musket with baonite

WOW I can't believe I missed that! I knew that and yet I still did not pick up on it despite multiple rounds of video/script editing - thanks for flagging it.

@@HikmaHistory You missed a lot of things...

Big thanks, dw the future should be promising Inshallah!

Yeah keep believing that, Empire was already dead after the 1877-78 Russian war. Only Britain's interests kept it alive for 50 more years. Im Turkish and Ottomans are my ancestors and Im proud of them but we have to see the reality here, the empire had its time up. No need to keep running a rump state. Revolution is a must when you are that fucked up

It's inferiority complexes

Democracy is unstable. A ruler cannot continue their plans because of term limit and is hindered by the parliament. In a way, autocracy is like betting. If you win, you win it all. Democracy on the other hand is somewhat of a scam to keep the people deluded.

Love the point about institutions guaranteeing continued progress!

@@billisultan6224 Democracy has its drawbacks, and many Western thinkers have spoken about it, but it ensures that the country does not fall into oppression and corruption, which often ends in revolutions and chaos. As for its being unstable, it is because it accepts mild instability so that the country does not go into major instability due to dictatorship. Which leads to revolution and chaos democracy is a s:cam , this is a bit of an exaggeration if you are talking about the West, but in underdeveloped countries it is truly like that , and the matter goes back, as I said, to the institutions

Wearing western dress , relaxation on Alcohol , copying the mechanism of Europe government....these are inferiority complex not progress or modernization. Actual modernization and progress would have been industrialisation , opening schools , science , engineering and research ..these are actual progression and modernization not that wearing Europian clothes ..

Appreciate that big time! I'm quite proud of this one - it will determine a benchmark for future videos.

​@@HikmaHistoryreally well done! Never understood the backdrop of Ottoman reforms..now I know it kinda sparked off in Egypt ..explains many a things of today

why it should be told in the West when Muslim countries don't teach the history of the Islamic empires, In Muslim countries they don't teach any Islamic empire history, Ottoman is looked at as Turk history and the other is looked at as Arab and Iranian history, they don't question how the economy worked, and how society worked,

Thank you!

you are welcome@@HikmaHistory

@@HikmaHistory you're most welcome, Sir

Thank you!

Thank you my friend!

I don't think Ottoman-Safavid relation is needed to be covered in here, it has been covered somewhere else (I couldn't remember who did it though). Though, Ottoman-Mughal relation is underrated, I don't think I have ever seen someone covering this relation

@@sagagis yeah there should be a detailed presentation on the Ottoman-Mughul Relations

The same thing that motivated the Ottomans also motivated the Japanese to modernise. Funnily enough, Japan's success story of modernisation actually inspired a generation of reformers in the Islamic world (e.g. Afghanistan & Egypt) during the first half of the 20th century.

On the way to modernization in western Europe the masses were in on the discussion of enlightenment ideals for decades before the reforms. Especially the ideas of full emancipation for Jews. Although much of the masses were resistant and disagreed with these ideas much of the masses did in fact embrace these ideas. While in the Ottoman empire these edicts seemed to the masses to come out of nowhere from the top and there hadn't been a ground level discussion of these ideas before reforms were implemented. Have I missed the mark on this?

Bashi Bouzaks weren't exclusively one ethnicity... and I don't see why Muhammad Ali's ethnicity is relevant especially since it is a debated topic.

What you said is true, one of the biggest reasons for the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was the discovery of new trade routes in the seas, but with the opening of the Suez Canal, Ottoman Empire had an important opportunity to become a main trade route again and especially the province of Egypt began to become rich this period. The increase in the trade volume passing through the Ottoman lands, especially through Suez, disturbed many Western states, especially the British, and considering that almost all oil fields were in the Ottoman lands, the outbreak of the First World War became inevitable.

@@CruWiT True. I agree with you. If Ottoman Empire survived another 50 years, it would have discovered oil and would have become richest country in the world. That scenario would have made the Middle East stable.

Ww1 was because of oil.. finishing the ottomans was a sideeffect​@@redjournals2817

Your pure evil

That would be horrible for everyone but the Turks though, why would the Egyptian Arabs for example just hand over such powers to the Turks to rule over them?

​@@harry-matakios1344You could also argue that by being the only credible army (for quite some time) in the Ottoman Empire, the Egyptian army would have outsized influence. It may well have been that in this new Ottoman army Egyptian officers would have been overrepresented at the top.

@@harry-matakios1344 For the same reason hungarians worked with the austrians.

@@harry-matakios1344 Egyptian Arabs???? They were ruled by an immensely oppressive Albanian warlord, who couldn't speak Arabic. Arabs weren't allowed positions within the government or high roles in the military. That was reserved for Turks, Albanians, Circassians and western Europeans and the administrative language remained Turkish. Egyptians only started ruling their country in 1952. Since the Achaemenids conquest in 525BC until 1952 it was ruled by foreigners. This was one of the worst times ever for the Egyptian peasantry. Reading what they did to escape conscription is horrible. Fleeing their lands and run away to the Bedouin or to Syria. If they couldn't do that they they would maim themselves to be ineligible for conscription, such as chopping of their own limbs. But most common was blinding one eye. But even that didn't stop Muhammad Ali, since he made a corps of one eyed conscripts. The corvée (forced labour) was probably the worst, in its entire thousands of years history, under Muhammad Ali. With hundreds of thousands dying in his projects. But these projects are what allowed Egypt to modernize. He did build modern schools and literacy increased among the Arabs, which eventually led to the nahda. After his death, his son's relaxed the conscription and corvée, and Arabs started gaining higher positions. Allowing for the native Egyptian Urabi revolt, a by product of the nahda, in the 1880s, an attempt to end 2500 years of foreign rule. But they were defeated and the British took over. Muhammad Ali was extremely oppressive. But he managed to undo the century of destruction wrought by the 18th century Mamluks, who devastated the irrigation system so much that the population was a mere 2.5 million on the eve of French invasion. 300 years earlier at ottoman conquest it was 5 million. Making it one of the lowest points in Egypt's history in millennia. He changed that, so that only 30 years later he was marching on Constantinople itself. Which is remarkable.

I’ve heard that quote before but what makes you say it here?

Yeah but are you aware of socio economic situation of the empire back then? It basically didn't have enough population to industrialise, Germany was about 60 million people back then, wheras the entire empire is about 15 million. It had insane problems, majority of the population were suffering from epidemics, siphilis was a common problem, the country was poor and first thing they needed to do was revision the society itself. Because Persia-Islamic social structure joining with a very very poor Anatolia became a huge thorn in the side. And when the heart of the empire, the Balkans were lost, Atatürk and his buddies basically had to figure out how to bring a land that was in 15th century, to modernity. The Great Depression happening just a few years after the republics formation didn't help, considering the odds, Kemalism did really created the foundations of an industrialised, modern nation from the ashes of an agricultural empire.

In what ways?

USA needs to stop funding and training terrorists ın Syrıa and Iraq YPG-PYD-PKK terrorists agaınst us cant forget Miserable failed coup attempt in 2016 What an ally lol Snakes and they ask us why everybody hate U.S

Inaccurate information.

@@keno2285 - Right, Muhammad Ali was a boxer, what's this guy's name: Ali Pasha?

@@LuisAldamiz He was not Albanian.

@@keno2285 - 2:25 - "replacing the Ottoman pasha was an Albanian commander known as Mohammed Ali". So I got it right from the beginning, at least per this video. Wikipedia also agrees: "Muhammad Ali[a] (4 March 1769 - 2 August 1849) was the Ottoman Albanian[3] governor and de facto ruler of Egypt from 1805 to 1848, considered the founder of modern Egypt". He was born in Kavala, now Greece but within an Albanian family and he was the commander of an Albanian troop.

@@LuisAldamiz Very reliable sources!

How so?

@@HikmaHistory tp start with Muhammed Ali’s soldiers were not called Başı Bozuk. Başı Bpzuk were literally ill-disciplined and a unit that was only raised only in times of war in the Ottoman army and in 18th and 19th century they were not even called Başı Bpzuk and they were not raised as an unit in that time frame. Also your take on Tanzimat reforms is wrong because Ali did not came up with them he implemented them and then he rebelled. Muhammed Ali had foreign officers even from the US war of independence. By just these three facts I can assure your take on this topic is flawed. Just search for Halil İnancık’s lectures on the topic he was a professor in U of Chicago and U of London on Ottoman history.

Nope they should did that aftermath the battle of Lepanto in 1571

It's a "neutral" History channel

Makes sense, they did call themselves the Sultanate of Rome with the goal of acquiring Constantinople. Even the star and moon turkey came from the Roman’s

they took alot from the Byzantine empire but also from the former Muslim empires especially the Iranian ones

What is the name of the book?

​@@oday215 This crescent comes from the ancient religious belief of the Turks Tengrism, and somehow this symbol continued among the Turks, it is not related to Islam or Rome. In fact, no Arab state has a crescent on its flag, but all Turkish states have a crescent their flag.

@@CruWiT the city of Constantinople did have a symbol of the crescent moon before the Turkish conquest, maybe both can be true

200 yrs is a bit harsh but I agree - had they started a century before (when military contests with European powers was still competitive), it could have the time needed to work.

@@HikmaHistory one hundred to remain competitive, two hundred to have maintained dominance.

@@Merle1987 If they did it 200 years prior, absolutely they could've maintained dominance. But that's very ambitious, many European states hadn't even started widespread modernising reforms by then.

The Ottomans were still competitive with the other European states in the 18th century. The 1800s was when they were left behind in the dust. Alas, if the Ottomans didn't let Peter I go they wouldn't have to deal with a modernized Russia but well hindsight is 20/20

I'm sorry, but care to explain how dressing like Europeans would save an empire from collapse?

I’m amazed that I didn’t spot this with all the rounds of editing I did! 😅 But yes you’re absolutely right

The western powers would have never allowed a strong independent Egypt. The Ottoman Empire on the other hand they were happy to allow to exist and strengthen to counterbalance Russia.

It all depended on what Europe decided - they held the power.

@@HikmaHistory Before Britain decided to preserve the Ottoman Empire to ensure the control over India, Britain did come up with a plan to orderly dismember the Ottoman Empire as well when the inevitable happened. So the point is why did they choose to preserve the Ottoman Empire despite that it is clearly falling apart instead of rallying Greece and Egypt under Britain's sphere of influence?

@@lerneanlion Because the Ottoman Empire is more effective as a counter balance to the Russians geographically than Egypt (greece is irrelevant and would easily buckle to Russian pressure). They also knew the Ottoman reforms were less effective than the Egyptian ones. The Ottoman Empire could be kept stagnant whereas Muhammad Ali marched a modern army fuelled by burgeoning industry and a modern state aparatus almost to Constantinople.

​@@HikmaHistoryAre you a Muslim? You speak like a secularist liberal

Dont cry please. Most ottomans were not torkic

I'm from Pakistan too!

@@SignsBehindScience 👍💞

19th century

Nah. Byzantine (Romans) occupied Anatolia. Seljuk Turks defeated Byzantine.

This! I am so glad someone pointed it out. Ottomans needed to understand that they were different than the europeans. They needed to exploit their strength. Nationalism introduced by europe was one of the reason of their downfall. Their rouge elements really bit hard on the opium for third world countries (Westernization)

Dang check you out with the analogy!

@@billisultan6224what is the ottomans strength a arab religion called islam?

There are people that still believe Islam as an Arabic religion? 😅

Yep

Nationalism was also a key ideology motivating the expulsion of Greeks and Armenians and sidelining Kurdish autonomy. Most countries outside Europe are multi-ethnic anyway, I would not recommend for them to follow the same bloody path

you had a corrupt government secularism is a failed concept. I live in the most secular country in the world i give it less then 50 yrs. The Ottoman chalaipha lasted over 600 yrs America wont even make 300 yrs.

​​@@Crafty_Spiritgiving Kurds autonomy is a treason to the constitution which defines Turkey as a unitary state.

Seems better than being Salafi and falling in the terrorism loop

@@mehmetkayraozer9164 iyi dedin kral

Japan is extremely westernized and obsessed with European features. They are literally a colony of the USA after WW2. China got all its new stuff from the west as well. Modernization means westernization in this world. Sorry but they are superior due to their efforts putting them a few centuries ahead of rest of us. This is changing nowadays but it won’t be that quick…

Are you serious? Name one more westernised country than Japan. China's entire culture is westernised. Westernisation was the way, Turkey today still is giving that fight, a shit ton of neo islamists try to islamise and turn the country to their old ways because the law of reason basically causing cults and tariqats to loose their grip within socio economical structure.

We have the American empire today.

@@TheWarrior-hj8vv Its supremacy is in its military and its monopoly on the dollar. It does not conquer territory and expand its borders to acquire resources. It performs military operations and partakes in embargoes to achieve its foreign policy goals. I did not say there were no more empires, but that they now take a different form.

There are many large states in which an ethnic or religious minority oppresses the rest of society, such as Myanmar, Indonesia, and Ethiopia. Often times, postcolonial states exhibit some imperial features. Also, Russia is still a land empire, it occupies territories in the space of at least three sovereign states

No.

Don't believe Tv shows 😂

No he didn't. It was the Germans who didn't want Russia to get too much Ottoman land and become too powerful who saved the Ottomans. Not Abdulhamit II who was a cruel incompetent disaster.

@@simulacrumpilot2777 yes Germany intervened with UK in the crimean wars but the empire had many inner struggles and with Diplomacy Abdülhamit saved the empire. Only 10 years after his depiction the ottoman empire fall

@@Brot_ist_geil Abdulhamit didn't save shit. A lot of the diplomatic victories attributed to him aren't actually his success but success of others. Like for example it was Otto Von Bismarck who made a softer treaty after the Russo-Turkish war of 1878. But despite that a lot of people falsely credit Abdulhamit II for it. Also the reason empire fell in the first place was Abdulhamit's stubborn refusal to implement any kind of reforms stagnated the empire. He would for example go out of his way to sabotage the army so that they couldn't stage a voup on him. Which also made army weak and it was because of Abdulhamit that Ottomans lost against the Italians and also the First Balkan War. Abdulhamit was an incompetent paranoid power hungry tyrant. Nothing more, nothing less.

@@simulacrumpilot2777 what did he kill your parents? What’s the strong use of words and your completely wrong

That guy lost half the empire to other nations, but sure, why not

Nope.

@@keno2285Yes.

@@merxho95 To say ethnic Albanians alone ruled and formed modern Egypt is a oversight.

@@keno2285Albanians ruled & pawed the way to modern Egypt this is an fact open your ears when you listen to videos. Boshnjak

@@merxho95 This video is full of inaccuracies… you obviously can’t see that through your nationalism. All you hear is šiptar, šiptar and šiptar. I am a Boshnjak so thanks for getting that right.