Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC and Mobile 💥 s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/KingsandGenerals 💥 Receive a Special Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
I've been playing Supremacy 1914 for a while now, and you mentioned that the game has over 120 different units but the game only has 13 different units
Bruh, this game got no strong diplomacy and neither does it have that many units, it's just a simple game made by a small studio with low budget with a lot of bugs
Elbette İngilizce önemli ve ve lazım bir dil çünkü küresel bir hal aldığı için gerek teknolojide gerekse de basın yayın akademik ortamda fakat en azından mümkün olduğunca videosunu yaptığınız milletlerin dillerinde güzel ve sağlıklı bir altyazı koymanız yerinde olacaktır(Yani Dünya ya hitap etme amacınız varsa tabiki sonuçta İngilizce'den ibaret değil dünya)
Still more frank than the Italians ;) But for some boring facts: Austria really accepted Islam as an official state religion after the occupation of Bosnia. Lest to say "occupation" doesn't really hit the nail since the result of it was new public schools, hospitals, courtyards and infrastructure which the Bosnians were so grateful about that they ended up among the highest decorated WW1 soldiers of the whole Austrian Empire - so the Ottomans had a clue that Austria treated its muslim population quite favorable.
That saying doesn't always work. Check the mongols and China in ancient times. The chinese were not united and thought by helping the mongols they will get rid of the other Chinese. But ones it was done the mongols also attacked those who helped them
@sebâstian turnayev don't know. I know the Central Asian nations are Turkic and the origins of the Turks in Turkey (They came from Oghuz Turks from modern Kazakhstan). Though the Turks in Turkey are a little more mixed with the populations which lived in Anatolia before the Seljuks and Ottomans.
@sebâstian turnayev don't know but all people are a little mixed anyway. I know Tajiks are Iranian but Uzbeks, Kyrgiz, Turkmen and Kazakhs are more related to Siberian Turkic opulations than the Middle Eastern Arabs or Iranians.
There was a curious irony involving the Berlin-Baghdad Railway: The first German monarch trespassing Anatolia, Frederick Barbarossa, claimed that his path on the region would be "A Road made of Iron", instead of a "Golden Road", which means he would fight until reaching Jerusalem, instead of paying gold to the Turks, allowing a peaceful passage for him and his knights. It appears that the "Road made of Iron" really comes several centuries later, but without bloodshed.
It is a bit complicated, while the Ottomans clearly lost Turkey came out of it pretty strong. Just like Austria-Hungary time had basically made both those empires old and dying. Kinda like Russia, really. Running a 20th century country like a medieval empire just didn't work anymore and even if WW1 never happened, they would have collapsed in the 20s anyways. And at least, they did get Gallipoli. Who know how things would have turned out if the British successfully invaded Constantinople? Which BTW was wrongly named as Istanbul here, it wasn't Istanbul yet. History might have turned out pretty different then. But I don't see the Ottoman empire and Austria-Hungary living past the 1930s even if the central powers would have won the war. There was just too much to modernize.
It’s all a decree from Allah. No empire lasts forever, and considering the shit the Ottomans did after their nationalistic reforms, it isn’t a surprise they internally collapsed and their own Arab section revolted. And that revolt just made everything worse them the Arabs themselves. Bruh moment.
@@themercifulguard3971 Karma is a bitch. Most Turks nowadays are happy they don't have to deal with 'the Arab problems' anymore. Anatolia is more than enough for us.
In a way, ironically, the German assertion that the Entente were the enemies of Muslims was more accurate than it might seem when you know the history that comes after WWI.
Very Very True. I mean Britain already had that done it after the 1857 rebellion in the Subcontinent, they removed all Muslims from official positions, and put the Hindus in their place, why? Because the last Mughal "Emperor" decided to join the rebellion, and so Muslims played a deadly price even those to didn't participate, even when the rest(Most) of the rebel rulers were all Hindus.
The entente did grant independence to Arabs tho, not a lot of them but the ones that helped in the Arabian peninsula, which is where Saudi Arabia emerged. It was the Kurds that got screwed over.
@@geoffbarney5914 The Entente promised land to the Arabs which they took instead that action is the origin of the prominence of wahabbism/Islam*ism* and oh so many of the conflicts in the middle east.
Historically, the greatest endmy of Islam was and remains Islam. Sunni vs. Shi'ia, secular Muslims vs. Religionists, nationalists vs Transnationalists. Islam has been and remains at war with itself. The mistake many make is thinking Islam is monolithic. In fact, it's no mor monolithic than Christianity. The mistake Germany made us thinking of Islam as monolithic.
Sharif Hussein 20:55 = Holy war is out of the question as the Ottoman Empire sided with Christian states to fight other *christian states* Also Sharif Hussein: Sides with Christian states to fight a *Muslim state*. At the end: Israel was created and almost none of thr promises were fulfilled. Laughable ending.
make no mistake about it , half the animosity towards the west in the muslim world now is because of this story . Muslims "Arabs" sided with Christians "British-french" against other Muslims "ottomans" only to be betrayed by the Christians who create a "Jewish state" that Jewish state to many Muslims became like a form of ISIL , a Judaic state in the Levant or JSIL now many Muslims feel they've been fighting a religious war for 80 years since Zionism took hold of our territory with a state whose flag and name come from a scripture
@@amrshatlaa9617 As it stands, the Muslim world will never unite. The youth is getting less and less religious as days go by so it's a matter of time for a cause called "Muslim solidarity" to be gone for good. Christian states appear to be better but it isn't a secret that religion isn't the reason of their collaboration in world affairs. I wish Muslim majority states can match their interests too someday.
Jihad is an holy war its like an crusade so if the ottomans have an jidah but work with Christain states this doesn't really make it an jidah as its not a fight for the muslims he can in fact have an Jihad and ally him self with Christain states but it should be an fight for Islam and Muslims . While he claimed an Jidah Sharif Hussain didn't he declared independence against the ottomans this is just war and war can happen between muslim states. Jihad only happened an few times around like during the times of the crusaders where taking Jerusalem was an important thing even Moroccans attened to. Yeah kinda sucks Israel being created they promised an big independent Arab state but screwed them in the end even after fighting their wars
Ottomans: proceeds to protect the straits achieving a considerable victory in Gallipoli (et al) blockading the aid the Russians needed during the war, ultimately triggering and helping the Russian Revolution. The Germans (28 years later): boy that was too much. The Ottomans also fought and held with relative success millions of the entente´s men that would have been used in the European theater other way.
""Proclaiming himself as a friend of Muslims was unusual for an european monarch". Francis I of France in 1536, and Elisabeth I of England in 1571: "Not so unusual as you think..."
I wrote my masters thesis on Anglo/German imperial competition in the Ottoman Empire, in particular the Berlin-Baghdad railway as I believe it to be not only an interesting and oft overlooked aspect of WW1 but also to be a primary cause for the war itself. It includes the oil rush led by a young Churchill in charge of the Royal Navy and moving away from coal powered ships, the Viceroy of India unilaterally seizing Kuwait for the British Empire without the British governments consent in London to stop the railway reaching the Persian gulf and German efforts to bypass suez and create a shortcut to India. At the turn of the century the British government was all but signed up to join the railway project until British business’ with interests in the area (prominent being the owners of steam liners along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers who felt threatened) began a press campaign to stop it and the government backed down. Ironically, initial German interest in the Ottoman Empire was purely economic, it was British attempts (often from sources other than the government in London) to monopolise trade, resources and other development in the area which pushed Berlin to get directly involved and began a descending cycle of confrontation between the two empires.
Further confirming what Lenin said which is that WW1 was an inter-imperialist conflict fought for access to markets and resources driven by monopoly capital.
@@rodger3352 The Christian theologian wanted there to be no Jihad he thought it was medieval and no place for it in modern times. That religion should be used in war...
Halfway through this video I noticed that the map contains all of the major rivers. Even without explicitly stating so K&Gs shows the importance of the same. Great work as always.
@sebâstian turnayev I think you should look at the whole picture. The Turkic peoples first emerged in the Altaic region (a mountaing range between China,Siberia (Russia),Kazakhstan and Mongolia). Basicaly you have Mongoloid(Chinese,Japanese,Korean,Asian etc) Nomads and Caucasoid(Germans,Poles,French,white etc)nomads. So when these nomads (Mongoloids east of the Altaic and Caucasoid west of the Altaic) basically assimilated one another (mixed culture,genetics,customs) the Turks arose. The earlier Turks were part of various multi ethnic Nomadic empires on the Eurasian Steppe like the Xiognu or the Rouran. Then the Gokturk Khaganate emerged and spread across the Steppe and the Turk influence increased as Turkic culture spread and many Nomads assimilated and became Turkified (similarly how many various noamds were united under a similar culture before this which we know as the "Scythians"). So the Turks spread everywhere. In the East in places like Siberia and Mongolia they are geneticaly Mongoloid with less Caucasoid genes as they kept on mixing with the local East Asiatic populations (such as the Mongol or Tungusic people) they started to look more and more "Mongoloid" (like your modern day Korean or Japanese) while the Turks who migrated westward started to replace/assimilate and intermix with the Indo-European people of Central Asia (most of them Iranic groups like Sogdians or Scythians). These Turks started to look more and more "Caucasoid" (like Iranians or Afghans) and the ones who reached Anatolia (modern day Turkey) look extremely similar to Greeks,Armenians,Iranians and other neighbours. So Turks diversified in terms of both genetics amd appearance and essentially every Turkic person is a mix of different genes and even cultures similar and glued together by a "Turkic" factor which is langauhe and similarities in culture as well. So basically both Uzbek and Turks are equally "Turkic" and a Greek looking Turkish person is just as much of a Turk as a Mongol looking Siberian with many differences. As for Turkestan/Central Asia Tajikistan is mostly Iranic whike Afghanistan has significant Turkic minorities (Hazara,Uzbek). As for Uzbek,Turkmen,Kazakh,Kyrgyz and Uyghur they are Turkic peoples because of a "Turkic" culture which has customs from their Turk ancestors as well as the Iranic people that inhabited the region before the Turks migrated there. Similarly they are geneticaly quite mixed as well they bear both ancestry from the Turkic peoples as well as many nom-Turks as well. The best possible answer to your question is "yes the Uzbek are both Turkified and real Turks" they are descended from the original population of Turks and also non-Turks that adopted Turkic culture (this also happened vice versa as Turks were influenced by other cultures as well). I hope you understand. As for Turkish-Uzbek relations that a whole other story.
@@tigertank06 I believe its sometimes called "The long 19th century" as an era, because the political issues do bleed into the 20th century prior to WW1.
A rising power building a mega-infrastructure project which makes the established imperialist powers nervous... This sounds oddly similar to certain recent events.
That's because the same imperialists are continuing to monopolize the world today. US, the spoiled son of the British Empire. France, the forever loyal allies of the US because the 5th republic was literally created by the US after the WW2. Germany, a puppet state of the US, working so hard to deserve the meal that their masters are giving each day, and Saudi Arabia, somehow the safest country in the world, except for women. 😀 The most corrupt alliance in the world's history.
I wish if you could cover an episode about the Moroccan-English alliance between the two monarch (Elizabeth the first and Ahmed Al-Mansour), this alliance whose goal was to invade Spain and divide its American colonies between Morocco and England
Kind of ironic that Wilhelm II claimed to be a friend of Muslims. When building his colonial empire in Africa he took Tanzania front Omani Arab control and divided up the Sokoto Caliphate with the British. I suppose he meant “as long as they aren’t in the areas I have a hope of colonizing”
You forgot to mention that the Omani Arabs were a minority in the land and that their (also colonial btw) empire was already crumbling - also because of that. The Germans actually allied with them in their new colonial possessions and they became the new - but old - elite in the new German colony there. So they weren’t kicked out, attacked or oppressed.
18:22 “Germany had always been respective of Muslims” sure, if you ignore the Abushiri and Maji Maji Rebellions, the Adamawa Wars, etc which killed hundreds of thousands of Muslim Africans.
That is why we should stop making generalizations, thanks for keeping us honest. Obviously, we meant that there was less animosity towards the Ottoman Muslims.
Very instructive and insightful video ! Thanks for covering this little known chapter of this crucial period of history and giving us additional hints for a better comprehension of the march of History !
Intersting to compare to "old school" history writing, Ottoman was pro-German and did join them, but they never mention that Ottoman begging England and French for a alliance but was rejected.
The Ottomans weren't especially eager to join the war on either side, since they rightly understood that they and their own interests would be subordinated to the major European powers. While some of the Ottoman leaders had clear sympathies toward one side or the other, their main goal was to try and get the best possible terms they could out of whichever side they eventually joined. So they wanted to see if the Entente would be willing to swear off any further encroachment on Ottoman territory in exchange for the Ottomans joining them instead of the Central Powers.
@JR - Depends on how 'old school' you like to get. Once the 'Fischer Controversy' exploded during the early 1960s the quality and quantity of scholarly debate expanded with it. There was a bit of a consensus up to about 1960 that everyone just stumbled into the WW1 by accident. Once Fischer wrote his books about Germany's war aims that consensus was gone and has never been reformed. I suppose there is a difference between 'popular' history and real 'scholarly' history. Here in the UK the focus is so heavily on The Western Front and the war of attrition that it's pretty much all we read about or see on television. The Ottomans barely get a mention apart from Gallopilli and 'Lawrence of Arabia'.
@@Gustav_Kuriga Whether they have or they haven't (and to my knowledge the documentary evidence he used has not been challenged) makes little difference to the fact that his work caused an explosion in research regarding the origins of the First World War.
Please don't forget to post more videos about -Aristotle teaching Alexander the great -Tengrism -Ancient Philosophy and wisdom -Ottoman Scholars and astronomy/science
Biggest problem is that we have no Caliph. And the guys who last had it (Turkey) dont want that title and the responsibly that comes with it. And the vast majority of muslims (myself included) will refuse the Saudis as caliphs.
Kings and Generals should make this video: It's been a century since the last victory of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. On April 29. 1916, Ottoman troops defeated the British army in the city of Kut in Iraq and captured 13,309 British soldiers, including six generals and 476 officers. The triumph of the Ottoman army in Kut came only a few months after its great victory in the Dardanelles in northwestern Turkey. This incident, which went down in history as the last victory of the Ottoman Empire army and a significant defeat on Britain's part, risk being forgotten as time goes by.
Yes that Ottoman was beging England and French for a alliance but was rejected, before join a alliance with Germany, is not somthing the history books highlights.
@@kirgan1000 As a Turk ottomans never begged to England and French. İt was just a negotiation and came after asking to Germans. And i am not racist and hateful. and i love all countries but i really wanna say FUCK ww1 era France and UK now .
Ottoman Empire entered the war in which they could not win anything but just prolong war on behalf germans. They lost almost half of their men, it was the only country that lost all of its territory, and their population collapsed dramatically. Most people don't realize it, but the only real loser of the first world war is the ottoman empire. We can also add hungaria too.
all participants. Because of world war 1 and over all harsh treatment of the central powers revanchism nationalism had a big stage and also had easy access to power
@Абдульзефир Bro What? Ottoman Empire didn't help anything to Aceh during Acehnese Dutch War but Dutch still difficult to conquered that Region they are not always in hence of Ottoman for help
The Ottoman economy had already collapsed and the empire was about to collapse. Entering the World War I only shortened his life. But there is a truth, if it had not been destroyed, the Middle East would have been a much more peaceful place
Not going to lie… originally thought this was about some sort of alt-history world where Brandenburg-Prussia allied with the Ottomans to attack Austria, like a lot of my EU4 games.
For Alternate Historians there is so much here to play with. I honestly never thought much about this alliance. For me it happened & that's all there was to it. I wish I had had 1 history or political science teacher that delved into this (or I'm sure a hundred similar situations that are just taught as having happened instead of why they happened).
@kiran m That's born out of wanting to weaken the British influence, not out of any particular love for the Indians. That's realpolitik of war, not ideology. Plus it directly contradicts the little we know of his post war plans from Zweites Buch. Where he essentially planned an Anglo-German alliance, which entailed German domination of the European continent and believed the only way to achieve this was for Germany to give up all colonial and naval ambitions. AKA, he was willing to throw the rest of the world to British domination, as long as Germany got to dominate the "Ayran" world.
@@alissa6 Not at all. He didn't give a damn about those people, it was just an expedient war time strategy. Expecting Hitler to keep to his promises once the war was won, is like expecting Hitler to stop invading European countries if the West granted him concessions like the Sudetenland, exactly the mindset behind the failed policies of appeasement. Rudolph Hess even flew to Britain just before the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union and promised Germany would guarantee the British Empire if the British would grant Germany a free hand in Europe and it's not entirely clear whether he did this with Hitler's blessing or not (the Nazis couldn't be seen to be making peace with Britain as this would've upset Japan, hence the secrecy but admittedly it's not entirely clear whether Hess did this of his own accord or not).
Germany tried something similar in WW2: to use the Muslims in the Soviet Union to fight against the Red Army. The Chief of this Operation, Reinhard Gehlen, was recruited after the war by the US, because the US wanted to make use of his Expertise in the cold war. This might have been the original idea behind the US cooperation with the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet forces there. Read "Die vierte Moschee" by Ian Denis Johnson.
I recommend Rob Newman's 2003 comedy-history show, A History of Oil. Filmed during the invasion of Iraq, it covers the Berlin-Baghdad railway as the starting point of how we get to the nightmare that is today's middle-east (in 2003 at least.)
great video as always but bruh it was way too long to see a video that the arts was done by Yağız Bozan nd Murat Can Yağbasan .. i thought you guys quit K&G .. i love every artist in K&G .. all are talented individuals yet i especially love ur arts .. so seeing you guys in here again livened my mood even more .. glad to see u guys again :)
@@civfanatic8853 It's actually a half phrase, the full phrase is Jihad in the way of God, which means striving and struggling in the way of God, islam doesn't have the concept of "Holy War" in any of it's teachings.
@@ragnar9060 I see. Tyvm for the details. Anyway, too bad that today, especially the extremists use it as ”holy war” meaning, giving it the interpretion it suits best to them. Islam says that even in such a struggle, women and children should not be harmed, so why blow yourself up? To kill women and children by tens or hundreads? The extremists are doing the exact opposite of what Coran says, but that of course is a long discussion :)
@@civfanatic8853 yeah. And what percent of civilian casualties in wars are due to those people blowing themselves up? I doubt it would normally exceed even 0.1% in any conflict. But these attacks is everything people hear about, because that's what propaganda is about
Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said: The people will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish. Someone asked: Will that be because of our small numbers at that time? He replied: No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent, and Allah will take fear of you from the chests of your enemy and last enervation into your hearts. Someone asked: What is wahn (enervation). Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): He replied: Love of the world and dislike of death. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4297)
@@BLRSharpLight what are u talking about? Prophet Muhammad did not came as leader for Arab, he came as prophet of Islam and his speech and legislation is mean to be for Muslim even though most of his first audiences was Arab (and couple of them non Arab such as salman the Persian, Bilal etc.) but they as Muslim, and not as Arab. So, his ummah is Muslim even if they are not Arab, and non Muslim Arab is not his ummah. This Hadith perfectly fulfilled after creation of countries based on nationality by colonialists. They devided Muslim territory into pieces and shared them to be their colonies. British got their pieces, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal,etc. got their pieces.
@@BLRSharpLight saying it's only for Arab, needs extra evidence. Because Allah sent him as prophet of Islam, not as Arab leader. What is your evidence? When he said this Hadith, there are non Arab sahaba as well, such as Bilal and Salman.
@@BLRSharpLight You failed to understand text with context. Prophet Muhammad is prophet to all nations, whoever said otherwise is an ignorant. Prophet Muhammad bring islam and islam is for everybody. So everything he said must be interpreted in this context. Yes his first audience when he brought islam was Arab people, but his mission is not only for Arab. Because first audience was Arab it's normal sometimes in speech when he addressed it with their nation name. But smart people understand speech and text with broader context. When prophet said the Hadith it's only included Muslim, even though they are not Arab, and excluded non Muslim even though they are Arab. This Hadith was definitely not for Christian nor pagan Arab at time he said it. So, your claim its only for Arab is false.
@@BLRSharpLight let's say I don't know Arabic, which is I know. Why I would listen to an alien for my religion? I rather listen to ulama of Islam. Now, which ulama says that the prophet was only for Arab? Nabi means someone who received revelation (النبأ ) and this revelation is for all nations. Not just Arab.
In a weird, roundabout kind of way, it’s almost like the Holy Roman/Eastern Roman alliance we were waiting for since Irene of Athens finally happened in the form of the Central Powers
The seizing of the Agincourt & Erin is far more complicated. Churchill purposefully had both ships delayed and orders were given not to allow Turkish crews raise their flag aboard Agincourt. In reality, Churchill assured Turkey of joining Germany with the seizure of both battleships. As pointed out the Young Turks, were Pro-Entente. The Pro-German faction was able to win since the loss of the ships was seen a grave insult because the funds for the ships was directly raised from the Ottoman public.
I have a question "What if" The Ottoman Empire stayed neutral during WWI. How different would history had been had they net gotten involved. How much longer would this empire have lasted. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
We have idom like that "Water flows and find it's way" No one can escape the corraption mighty kingdoms, powerfull countries and great rulers was always fell. World is kinda graveyard of the countries even now no one remember powerfull kings and generals at their time. They forgotten until the world end. Our timeline, culture i mean just started at all. Just think about it sick man of europe is always sick? It not possible but their kingdom continued 650 years. They collapsed because of their sicness at all. Corraption itself turned as culture that was a dangerus thing in the world. If you doesn't have a change, you will push into change.. I think ottoman get collapsed anyway because that surfed with corraption waves and they refuse to change. I now my english kinda weird but i hope it can understandable.
@@Tofsar---I understood enough of your English. And I figured the Ottoman Empire would've collapsed anyway. I was just wondering how many more decades would it have lasted before it eventually fell.
@@brokenbridge6316 Not much if u ask me they just like crazy seamine if no one hit them they able to hit anywhere. Also i belive actually russians no needs reason for fighting at the time that events just add legitimacy their actions. Maybe sultan doesn't wanna fight but concil want it also germans push them also brits and russians push them in this war. Ottomans just needed a change mentally like i said. İf they prefer to retreat uncontroble areas like yemen or libya and algeria on the time maybe balkan war never happen arabia never rebel or egypt never fell. But ww1 to late for everything. We also have idoms like that "let the people live so the state can live" but they forgot about the people of that lands actually.
K&G is a great channel and deserve more viewers. Sadly, in this TikTok and influencers dominated world, you gotta make your title as evocative as possible, - borderline controversial even - in order to gain more tractions.
Translating jihad to struggle is more of a layman Translation, the actual meaning is different, "Mein Kampf" would be "My kifah" kifah also means struggle, but it's more accurate to the kind of struggle Hitler went through
I know about the aliance of the ottomans with germany in WW1 but have no idea about the why, where and who of the aliance. Thank you for this new history lesson and go forth!
19:13 there was like one case where they recruited some pows in a special camp for subversive activities, otherwise they were treated no different than any other pows.
I wonder what would've happened in Ottomans had not joined WW1. It seems most probably that they would still implode from civil war and rebellions, but the countries that replaced it would be different. Possibly more 'natural' based on cultural identities than the artificial borders that the west carved. I wonder how that would affect politics, peace, and alliances.
The reason for the signicance of those two battleships: Russia had built 2 warships in the Black Sea and the Ottoman Empire was now basically helpless without any warships on their own. The decision of the British not to send those ships was a sign that they wanted to be russian allies (long before the "Rape" of Belgium") and - expecting a russian offensive- the ottomans had no other choice than to accept the german ships.
A fascinating video about a topic never discussed in normal WW1 history classes or even by history enthusiasts! I think it shows how fractured the Muslim World really is, and has been since Islam became the dominant religion in the area. It also highlights how much more important political and economic drivers are than religious ones when conflict is present. It is far more likely that the Ottomans would have been an effective force if they were united, but centuries of sectarian political divisions led to it being fractured. Lots to learn from here, including how religion alone is NOT a good way to keep disparate groups of people who have no other similarities together.
The muslims lost their power after they began turning their back to the quran and the prophet Muhammed saws and began follow their own desires and following and listening and softening themselves towards the disbelievers.
A little rectification about what you said at 19:09 about Bosnia being a muslim country. It had according to the 1910 census, a Christian majority of about 66% it wasn't a majority Muslim country til the 1960's Yugoslav census.
From what I understand, the recognition of the Ottoman sultans as rightful caliphs in the Muslim world had always been conditional. Obviously they couldn't claim descent from Muhammad (some Arabic caliphs falsified their family trees, the Ottoman Turks couldn't even do that), so their authority depended largely on the ability to protect and expand the Muslim ummah. And by the XIX century this ability had largely diminished. Germans either didn't get the memo, or it was a severe case of wishful thinking on their part...
@sebâstian turnayev I never knew they were particularly interested in each other. Some Turks do have Uzbek descent (including me) so maybe that might explain something and there’s also a possibility that Uzbeks see themselves as part of the entirety of Turkic people like many Anatolian Turks do. At least more than Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs, and others.
Thank you for this detailed amazing work! I would like to add just one background information about the young Turk movement, they had sympathy for the brits and French cause they were sent there for their education
Some nitpicking here: at about 16:34 the European map shows the current occupied areas during the war. And on the Western front it shows Belgium as entirely occupied. However, Belgium was never entirely occupied, the Belgians flooded the river Yser (IJser), which halted German advance, and the Northern part of the famously stagnant trench war lines formed there, close to Diksmuide. It was stationed by mostly Belgian and British soldiers, and was a very infamous part of the front. Inspiring the famous 'in Flanders Fields' poem. Even today (with the exception of the pandemic) a lot of British people visit the old front, the cemetaries and museums today.
Kings and Generals thank you for these videos Please don't forget to make videos about -Aristotle teaching Alexander the great -Ottoman Empire science and astronomy and "ulema" -Tengrism -Plato,Socrates,Aristotle wisdom and teachings I'm waiting for....thank you
Muslim in Malaya did anserwed the caliph called to fight British colonization during ww1. Worriors of Kelantan led by Tok Janggut fought to death against British. Peace be upon him.
16:57 By going against Ottoman empire, Aga Khan secured the future of Muslim League in British India. Ironically, Pakistan (and Bangladesh) are now Turkey's best friend, supporter of a reincarnated ottoman empire.
Most of the general people supported Ottomans though Many Muslims were executed for not fighting Ottomans and many were used as human shield Battle of Kut was also won because of most muslims of subcontinent didn't fight for British Some even later joined Ottoman military
the very fact that you called it Turkey means it is not the Ottoman Empire, not the old one and not reincarnated. Ottomanism so to speak was the idea to encompass and assimilate all the cultures into one, not just Turkish.
@@DragovianMythiX yes man ... yesterday was maybe 2016 failed coup Day in Turkey When it happened the western media directly supported it I remember fox news saying that the coup plotters are good guys(good guys those who killed 251 people, bombed their own country, terrorised people, tried to create instability by breaking the gov became good guys to them)🤣 their hypocrisy knows no bound
