Mehmed 2 is the worst sultan ever made. Osman 1 conquer the land with his brothers and create foundation of ottoman while mehmed2 create code for kill his own brother and later on. It mark of the down fall. Imagine if his descendants didn't kill any relatives than the world of ottoman might be strong. 19 brothers was strangle lol... Instead using them for government.
@@jannyholo539 Do You remember the Ottoman Civil war ...Now Islamic Law doesn't say that king's Eldest Son will succeed him ...So Every Son have equal Claim to make things never gone that way As the Civil war era They simple Murdered there Brothers For Greater Good but in Some case like some Sultans Didn't actually killed but rather gave them Governorship Farthest From the Empire like Algeria or Yemen from there Claiming the Crown in Istanbul is nearly Impossible So Because Europe had a good Succession Rule but Ottoman's didn't so they used to kill in order to not become European Puppet (As Europeans will influence there Politics )
This is perhaps the most informative, easy to follow, educational video I've ever watched. Thank you so much for your efforts. We're all smarter for it. I know I am.
Ottoman empire benefits a lot from war and business through silk road. Silk clothes, ornaments and spices were the main commodities. When Vasco Da Gama a Portuguese discovered a newe route to India then the volume of trade in Ottoman declined significantly.
We are mistakenly taught that the numeric system/zero that we use, were Arab in origin, when in fact this foundation stems from India from Hindu mathematicians.
@@AndraMikkelsen What they don’t teach us (although it depends on the country) is even more important than the wrong informations that they may give us by accident (obselete knowledge from the past, as the one you underlined, still remain in the current school programs). As what they do not teach us is epistemology and skepticism, which could help us filter the wrong informations and get closer to the right informations. « How do we know » « how do we know that we know » « what does it mean to know » « what makes justified beliefs justified » etc I guess the reason why they (our governments) don’t want a whole population of enlightened philosophers is because we wouldn’t swallow their lies nor help them in their political agendas which might create problems within society. They would rather divide us into political groups so that we -the population- are never united against them, but only divided against each other over things that are none of our business, ignoring the things that actually impact our daily lives and quality of life.
@@loupbleu3177 : yes, like academia now, intent on telling students what to think, the "required" language to use, and penalising them if they engage in independent, critical and objective thought that goes against the current orthodoxies.
The Turks were the only one of the members of the Central Powers who were able to successfully force a change in the peace treaty they were made to sign after WW1
Turks indeed had a decisive role in triggering historical major events like the Migration Period, Crusades, Age of Discovery as well as ending the Middle Ages with the conquest of Constantinople, fall of the Roman Empire.
I can make alternate history so Ottomans never collapse well, kinda. Basically, Ottoman Empire takes over Kostantiniyye right ? They try to turkify everyone in the empire and since the empire didn't even have 1 million people, the non Turks are advised to only have one child and the Turks have 10 to 15 children. Now, basically everyone in the empire speaks Turkish and they get integrated into Turkic identity. They control their largest extent after a quick expansion. This took like 50 years. Ottoman Empire becomes the Turkish Empire. Then the Turks take over the Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Sulawesi and Malaysia. Then they rapidly increase their army and navy and declare war on Britain and join the 7 year war. The Turks quickly take over British India and some forts in West Africa. Alongside the French fleet, they bombard naval factories on the British coast and land on it. They reach London and Britain surrenders, ending the 7 years war. France takes over all of British North America and British West Africa and Turkey takes over British India which was only ports and forts at the time. Turkish India Company is established and Turkey becomes unstoppable taking over what was in this timeline the British Raj and British East Africa. At WW1, they had Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kenya, Somaliland and Uganda as colonies and their greatest extent as the actual homeland of the Empire. India doesn't exist because it's Muslim and all non Muslim colonies that Turkey has become Muslim. Turkey wins WW1, WW2 does not exist and eventually Turkey becomes a constitutional monarchy. Capital: Kostantiniyye GDP: 8 trillion Population: 200 million MIlitary: #9
You are absolutely correct. They were only good at triggering historical events but left nothing behind. Where are the Ottoman libraries? Universities, Discoveries, Inventions and so on. Just an efficient killing machine, nothing more. It isn't an accident that out of 1.1 Billion Moslems there is only one Nobel prize winner
In 1.47 minutes you are saying "Macedonia" apparently you are referring to the Greek one, and only one Macedonia, right? Or to the new country unfortunately called North Macedonia (ex-Vardarska used to be called with the real name: Vardar Banovina)? If you are referring to NM, please correct your video. As historian you should know about the Vardar Banovina....
The decline of the Ottoman coincided with the sea exploration of the new world, circumnavigation of the earth, the discovery of spice islands, in which European bypassing the Silk Route as the major economic contributor to the empire, I believe.
I'd love to see a citation on "most modern navy in the world" considering that the time mentioned corresponds with Magellan. Were Ottoman boats capable of circumnavigating the globe? (They might have been, I have no idea.) Also, I usually hear "the Golden Age of Islam" referring to the Umayyad dynasty in Iberia. Which is neither here nor there...
In fact, Ottoman's navy was not the most modern but however was the most powerful because of the power of Ottoman's economy. Ottoman's lost several war at Mediterranian Sea but every each time they had capacity to built more after these defeats. The other topic, entire Islam history neither Umayyads not Abbasids were more powerful than Ottomans. There are many reasons for this. Controlled territory size, technology, population, economic activity, etc. I am agree with the idea of Umayyads were the first biggest Islamic state. Yes, this is true but being the first one is not the mean of the biggest one. Of its own time, Umayyads were more powerful than most of European kingdoms. Well, I think everythink is clear now for you :)
@@atakanozgun_ That doesn't surprise me re: the economics bit. I think it's a fair differentiation. Is the technology the most advanced (probably in the early 16th century, that medal would go to the Portugeuese who were doing some really impressive things!) or richest which...actually might go to the Chinese. (We'd be looking at the late Ming dynasty, which was quite prosperous, but not really interesting in naval exploration...Or heck, maybe even the Castilians which had recently conquered both Mexico and Peru, so were fantastically wealthy at least as far as gold and silver reserves go...and also had some pretty impressive naval technology, even if they were mostly using it to cart metal back from the Americas.) I would agree that, as far as strength (and duration) goes, the Ottomans were probably the "dominant" Islamic empire. Not sure that they are necessarily the "golden age" of Islam, though, partially because they were competing intellectually with a far more advanced Christian-European world. (Europe in 700 AD was a backwater, while the same really couldn't be said for Europe in 1450-1900 AD, which were the heyday of the Ottomans). I suppose it's a minor point, all in all. And everything was clear to begin with. But thanks for the condensation...
@@Niniene I also read that the time during which ummayads were ruling spain is considered golden age of islam. I think he made a mistake here in this video
I think so too. There seems to be a somewhat odd trend in associating the Ottomans with everything good Islam ever did, bizarrely. As well as often time warping their abilities to eras that were far distant from them. (Like, I'm sure their Navy *was* impressive...as was their wealth. But in the 16th century, they were competing with powers that had empires where the sun literally never did set and had taken so much gold and silver from the Americas that it disrupted trade balances in China.) The Ottomans were an impressive power. They made some significant achievements! But other Islamic (and non-Islamic) empires did, too. Why lie?
i want to say something about that weird "onion hat" thing, it is actually a shroud that they cover you when you die, it is representing being ready to die anytime.
"The Ottamans set such a good example as pacific conquerors that they won the confidence of many former Byzantine subjects . For example , when Nicaea fell , Orhan allowed all who wanted to leave the city to depart freely , taking with them their holy relics , but few availed themselves of the chance . No reprisals were taken against those who had resisted , and the city was left to manage its internal affairs under its own municipal government . BOOK : Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire . AUTHOR : Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters . Edition : 2009 page -109 .
The Ottomans controlled all trade between Europe and Persia, India, and the Far East. The Ottomans controlled the Silk Road and trade routes by sea. The two main centers of commerce between the East and Europe were Constantinople and Alexandria. The sea routes were far more profitable, lucrative, easier and quicker from the Far East and India sailing to the Northern tip of the Red Sea. All of those goods were transferred the short distance to Alexandria, and then to Western Europe. The Ottomans had a monopoly/stranglehold on all trade between East and West which was why Columbus tried sailing to the west - to create trade routes eliminating Constantinople and Alexandria.
They also controlled, as they do today, the choke point of Russia's European trade, since Russia's other trade would either be overland w/ rest of Asia, or from Vladivostok in their far east
Ottoman legitimacy drew on Turco-Mongol and Islamic precedents. Fleischer sees the Ottoman Empire as a 'unique, if not aberrant, phe nomenon' in Islamic history due to its emphasis on natural justice and the central role of the Ottoman dynasty as rulers of a defined geographic sphere (Fleischer, 1986: 253). The sixteenth-century Ottoman theorists Ebu's-Su'ud and Mustafa Ali upheld broadly similar theses for the legiti macy of the Ottomans which included the manipulation of their lineage to indicate their descent from Oghuz, the eponym of the Ghuzz Turks, their inheritance of Muslim lands from the Seljuk Turks and their dedica tion to justice, understood as a religious, universal concept (Imber, 1997: 73-4; Fleischer, 1986: 282, 287-8). Although the Ottomans adopted a more obviously Islamic profile after their conquest of the Arab lands, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, in the early sixteenth century, a distinction remained between religion and the state/dynasty (din-ü-devlet) which was also apparent in the Ottomans' dual legal sys tem based on the Shari'a and 'state' kamun, despite the close partnership between the two. Secular attitudes derived from the Turco-Mongol heritage were also qualified by the tendency among Ottoman political theorists of dis cussing international relations using the medieval dar al-islam/dar al-harb formulation and its concomitant, jihad or ghaza. This reflected the ori gins of the Ottoman Empire as a Turkic warrior principality on the frontiers of Byzantium which led generations of Ottoman sultans to style themselves 'holy warriors' (ghazis) until the Empire's demise in the 1920s. Their conquest of the Balkans and Aegean peninsula was legitimised in terms of jihad against the infidel, and their conquest of Constantino ple was celebrated as the culmination of the Islamic conquests which had begun in the seventh century. In much advice literature of the sev enteenth and eighteenth centuries, the need to continue the jihad and expand the Ottoman Muslim domain in order to restore the inner vital ity of the Empire is a recurrent trope alongside more practical suggestions for reform. International Society and the Middle East: English School Theory at the Regional Level (Palgrave Studies in International Relations) 2009th Edition by B. Buzan (Editor), A. Gonzalez-Pelaez (Editor) p.55
Please note that the Hagia Sofia which is shown several times in this video was not built by the Ottomans, but rather from the Byzantine Greeks (or Eastern Roman Empire) as a Christian Church in 537 AD. This is about 900 years before the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453. The Ottomans proceeded to then convert Hagia Sofia to a mosque.
Great video. Sounds a little romatacized with 0 credence that "ottoman culture" was built on other cultures who flocked to them during the golden age and became their teachers and tutors.
Well they were tolerant just and progressive enough to let multiple cultures live and thrive under them ! So called “diversity” which Europe of 21st century after so much emphasis still is unable to achieve, ottoman did that in fifteenth and sixteenth centuries !
Good summary on the ottoman empire however I had to dislike because there never was back then a country called macedonia nor there is today. There is nowadays a country called north macedonia... plain Macedonia is something else and it belongs to Greece. Should have higher standards for a channel called '' history on maps ''
"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. His language was also "Ottoman"; though he might also call it "Turkish," in such a case he distinguished it from kaba türkçe, or coarse Turkish, the common speech. His writing included a minimum of Turkish words, except for particles and auxiliary verbs." Davison, Roderic H. (31 December 1964). Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876.
I like the concept: HIstory taught via maps and audio However you skipped from 1346 to like 1520 with no explanation at 1:38 Would be better off a 12-15 minute video with more detail...(like the taking of Constantinople for F sakes) Way too basic, in 8 minutes you basically said like 1 minute of information, barely capturing the history
Pl read this peace message: " The Ottamans set such a good example as pacific conquerors that they won the confidence of many former Byzantine subjects . For example , when Nicaea fell , Orhan allowed all who wanted to leave the city to depart freely , taking with them their holy relics , but few availed themselves of the chance . No reprisals were taken against those who had resisted , and the city was left to manage its internal affairs under its own municipal government . BOOK : Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire . AUTHOR : Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters . Edition : 2009 page -109 .
As a Muslim myself. You're spitting bitter facts. Especially Asian Muslims. Even most of these rituals are not even in my holy books. Ottoman empire is perfect example for how the knowledge is very important. Thanks to my parents.
"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
1:50 If you are calling the territories as they were then, then there was no "Palestine" - the entire Levant west of the Euphrates was known as "Syria". If you are using today's name, then too there is no "Palestine", only Israel
Notice how land territories change names over decades and even centuries. Land mass assigned arbitrary names by humans is just arbitrary. Claim to land is dumb as fuck. Humans think they're so important. Lol.
The quran literally states that, that area belongs to the sons of israel, when under the roman empire judeah was the home the jews until hadrian killed half a million due to a revolt and kicked them from their land.@shajedahossaim3482
Pl read this history ; ( i ). " The main reason for Ottaman success , however , was the development of stable and permanent institutions of government that transformed a tribal polity into a workable state ". ( ii ) " The Ottamans utilized all human resources in their emirate and quickly learned skills in bureaucracy and diplomacy ........ They also did not slaughter every Christian in their path ; rather , they encouraged the Christian inhabitants of the countryside and the towns to join them . Islamic law and tradition declared that enemies who surrendered on demand should be treated with tolerance . ( iii ). " The Christians of Bithynia were obliged to pay the ' harac ' , or capitation tax , for the privilege of being tolerated , but this was no more burdensome than the taxes they had paid to the Byzantine government , which had neglected their interests . Once they had made the decision to surrender or defect , the Byzantine population resigned to their fate ". " Some Christians converted to Islam upon joining the Ottamans ; however, this was not demanded . Many local Christians even participated in Ottaman raids against Byzantium ". BOOK : Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire . AUTHOR : Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters . Edition : 2009 page -109 . "Existing sources , such as the 25th century Ottoman census records , suggest that the earliest converts to Islam in the Balkans came from the ranks of the Balkan nobility and military elite that could supply the Ottomans with the manpower ............. BOOK : Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire . AUTHOR : Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters . Edition : 2009 page -146 .
@@ela7893 propaganda means: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view. stop using it for everything you dont agree with. you are ruining the whole weight of the word. fucking people use it for fucking everything these days
@@muhammedafou2693 No , It was Originally Built by The Eastern Roman Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire, it was a Christian church after the Ottoman Conquest Of Constantinople lead by Sultan Mehmed II during his second reign he successfully conquered it and the Hagia Sophia was converted to Masjid
It's kind of jarring when you call Persia "Iran" and "Israel" Palestine. You want to either use the Roman names of the regions at the time or the names of the modern countries today, but not switch off in a way that comes across as making a political statement.
These videos never explain WHY the empire wanted to grow in the first place. Was it just power? Was it to establish Islam? Was it just to see if they could? That’s the answer I’m looking for.
"The scholarly community specializing in Ottoman studies has of late virtually banned the use of "Turkey", "Turks", and "Turkish" from acceptable vocabulary, declaring "Ottoman" and its expanded use mandatory and permitting its "Turkish" rival only in linguistic and philological contexts." Soucek, Svat (2015). Ottoman Maritime Wars, 1416-1700. Istanbul: The Isis Press. p. 8.
Tbh this wasn’t very well made, he referred to Israel as Palestine and when he shows the Ottoman Empire at its height there are missing and extra bits. Most of this is true info but there is false and missing info
A 1:50 you list modern countries that lie within the historical boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. You video attempts to be a historical timeline. Palestine? If you must include Palestine (largely unrecognized), why not include the widely recognized economic and democratic powerhouse of the middle east - Israel?
Ok. Good. I I didn't hear a word you said. I was watching waiting to see a map with wrong colors. It did not happen! Well except for the thumbnail, but i won't be ungrateful. So kudos to you!
Ottoman Empire is example how to exist for so many years Against those European countries who hates them Say whatever Ottoman was more diverse, Tolerant society and culture rich then European countries They took this Humbleness very curning benefits 😔💔 If just they had leader like Mehmed ii in 1910s
They committed alot of warcrimes, allowed homosexuality, prosecuted and forced alot of Europeans into their army, they also did not really cause much achievement scientifically in its conquered territories
hate people like this who spread hate for the great and religious sultante/khilafat the Ottoman empire it was the best empire for muslims you idiot look at your racist british americans who dont like black people and treat them as garbage slaves in islam every person is equal.be careful with your words love from paktistan to turkey and erdogan
its not slavery in modern terms tho. its a variation of western serfdom. in Ottoman Empire people did not own other people as property which is slavery. In Ottoman Empire, more like serfs, people were forcibly taken to be educated as statesmen or soldiers. Not exactly slavery
Too much map inaccuracies. Croatia has never been completely occupied. Croatia made the Forewall of Christianity, together with Hungary and Poland(-Lithuania). Croatia was not the posession of Hungary, but in the personal union with it throughcommon king, like Poland-Lithuania or Hannover snd England.
When will this liberation (war) business end? We keep liberating each other from each other but where are the liberated people? At the end of the day in need of security we hand out our liberty to another organization which doesn’t give a shit of our well being, don’t we? Is liberty a hoax?
