Hi all. This episode was late (and less animated) than usual because Final Cut Pro decided it wanted to die and so I had to delete all of my current ongoing projects (yay!). Next week's episodes will be: 'Did Appeasement work?' and 'How did Ethiopia stay independent during the Scramble for Africa?'.
@@basedandcringepoliticalcat4707 No that's a popular misconception. It was named by the Spanish Conquistadors after a mythical paradise Island called califia that was written about in a Spanish romance which was popular at the time.
@@antiochusiiithegreat7721 Yeah, they originally thought California was an island. If you discovered the California peninsula first, then you might think that.
@@elemparador Ottoman Empire is a failed imitation of Byzantine Greek Empire. Btw, Byzantines lasted for 1,000 years, longer than most empire in the world.
@@arolemaprarath6615 failed? I wouldn't say failed for 600 years. They fought against crusaders if they were Christian they may even establish The Roman Empire.
@@elemparador Ottoman Empire was blessed by their geography. No nearby powers were strong enough to break into their geographic barrier but believe me, if France or Britain were next door of the Ottomans, that failed Byzantine-like empire wont last for 300 or even 200 years. Most likely to exist around 100 years or less.
@@arolemaprarath6615 You know it is harder to keep an Empire alive in modern times? In Byzantine case, approximately for one thousand years what did the world gain both by technologically and culturally? I am not trying to defend the Ottoman Empire but Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299. It was founded in middle age time and one way or another endure till the 20th century until the year 1922 to be precise. It is way harder with colonial and strong empires like Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Russia etc. There was a lot of enemies for the Ottomans. The world was rapidly improving. Ottoman Empire had witnessed the radical changes of military technology. They had witnessed the revolutional cultural changes like French Revolution and Renaissance. 622 years does not seem like a failure to me actually. And when i think about the Byzantines, most of their lifetime was in constant decline, rapidly losing lands and reputation to both Seljuk Turks and Arabs (Muslims) and European monarchs (Christians). I'd like to remind you the Latin Invasion in the beginning of 13th century way before their complete annexation by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 precisely 250 years ago. After the beginning of 18th century Ottoman Empire also couldnt hold on against the modern European Empires, especially after the 1789 corruption and downfall of the Ottomans increased. But again i must remind you, it is way easier to keep a state alive in old times when the value of 50 years technology had been invented in 500 years time.
Oh pls. Ottomans are already so powerfull i can't even imagine them with American colonies in Eu4 Edit: Not anymore. Thx to paradox, they can't even expand into Aq qoyunlu now
If they werent thst powerful why arent they dead when other powerful countries teamed against them even when thry werent working on military And they were against people who used war crimes?
@@YuiFunami But I usually colonize anyways, no matter what country I play as. Even as Russia or Ottomans. Its good to get some extra gold by colonising Mexico, or have some extra colonises with almost little to no effort. Which could help you in war later.
@@zxera9702 surviving as a vassal isn't really "outlasting". For example, during most the 1900's Britain has been a vassal to the US. Officially they had an empire until HK was handed over but in practice they were a US satellite.
@@zxera9702 ottomans are british vassal, the british only kept them alive to halt Russian Domination on the warm seas and to protect their indian trade routes and colonies there, british confinticate the most richest and vital lands are cyprus and egypt while the worthless rest are used as a buffer zones agains russians(im talking about anatolian and constatinople, which is a worthless city by that time)
Paradox Games aside, I think the biggest issue with t he Ottomans was that they were simply too busy. Maintaining the trade network, fighting rivals, keeping things together. That's a lot of work. Spain, without having to worry about most of that, was able to easily redirect efforts to other ventures. Not to mention geography helped.
Incorrect. Spain was in the thick of European politics and wars. They had LOTS to concern them, no less than the Ottomans. Same for Portugal and Holland.
@@StudSupreme while Spain did have its own array of problems it wasn't near as bad as the Ottomans though. Spain mostly had to deal with enemies such as France and it was powerful enough to match it and it had a geographical advantage. Meanwhile the Ottomans had fierce competition from all around its position in the world, not to mention the fact it was mostly conquering lands from other religions which adds a whole different issue to its imperial maintenance.
I'm from Tunisia, and as you can see in the map shown multiple times in this video, the north part looks like it doesnt belong to anyone, yes it was independant, but a big part of our history was that Spain invaded, then the ottomans took it back, then spain came back again, then again the ottomans, and so on .. All of this to say that Spain and The ottomans were very much at war and in a big conflict in the mediterranean all the time. they even used proxy pirate forces against each other.
@The Flying Dutchman Technically, there is zero difference, it's just that we've gotten used to thinking that if there is at least a somewhat big body of water between the occupying power and the occupied, then it's something different from a regular subjugated territory. If the Ural were a sea rather than a mountain range, we would see Siberia as Russia's colony either.
@@yarpen26 I think op was making a eu4 reference where you unluck idea groups and only exploration and expansion gives you a "colonist" which is needed for taking colonizing the Americas
We dont care europe too much even they tried to colonize other countries because their lands dont have material, good climate :D And we are in anatolia and our land was central asia you ignorant your leader rome's lands.
That would have been fun to watch. A majority Muslim country right at the US’s doorstep spreading their influence all throughout Central America and the Caribbean.
"From 1576 to 1581 he (Constantinople Pateiarch Jeremias II) conducted the first important theological exchanges between Orthodoxy and Protestants. On 24 May 1575, Lutherans Jakob Andreae and Martin Crusius from Tübingen presented the Patriarch with a translated copy of the Augsburg Confession. Jeremias II wrote three rebuttals known as 'Answers,' which established that the Orthodox Church had no desire for reformation. The Lutherans replied to the first two letters, but the third letter ended in a deadlocked disagreement between the parties. The significance of the exchanges were that they presented, for the first time in a precise and clear way, where the Orthodox and Reformation churches stood in relation to each other."
The Orthodox Russian Empire also got involved in the 30 years by sending troops to the Protestant side as well as the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Though it was more to screw over the Austrian Von Hasburgs then anything to do with religion. Same as France who were Catholic but joined up with the Protestant side of the war.
One of the history professors in the masters program I was in told me that the amount of gold coming to Spain from the western hemisphere and flowing east was actually a major cause of destabilization due to insane inflation and contributed to the downfall of the Ottomans
As a history teacher I can say the guy was wrong. Spain imported more silver than gold from the New World and traded that in Asia for gold at a favorable rate. And then they ruined their economy through inflation, it became much cheaper to import goods than to buy them locally...like the US did in the last fifty years.
@@asoka7752 wtf I was baffled when I read the original comment, now again reading yours, I’m very glad there’s a history teacher here because the myth that spain got gold from american tribes, is just that, a myth, people who lived there did not posses the technical requirements to mine for gold, it is infact true that they had a very small supply of gold that got washed to the river banks (as far as I know) and the story goes, they used that little amount of gold to plate and make some items which then misled the intruders to believe they indeed had way more gold, which they didn’t, the amount of gold they brought back couldn’t have ever progressed a whole ass country let alone a village
@@lejonlar1999 Yes, it is confusing. 😅 'Hindi' is Turkish for turkey the bird, and 'Hindistan' is India. In Portuguese, they call turkey 'peru' which is also a country's name in America whom they used to think India. There is another bird that resembles turkey; guinea fowl which is native to East Africa that was dominated by the Turkish Empire back then. And so, the Englishmen thought that the bird they find in the West Indies/America was the same the Turks used to sell them, thus they named it turkey. In Turkey, however; we were told that the Spaniards and the British had brought turkeys from India, and so we called them 'hindi'/Indian.
Ottoman's nayy created to be strong in inland sea(mediterranean), those ships can't stand long in oceans. With such navy tradition you can't win a single battle in open seas as they didn't.
@USERZ123 Yes, it's true that the ottomans could have found a way, but it's also true that the europeans had better hull desings. The galleys used in the mediterranean by the ottomans weren't as robust structurally as european ships of the same period, so the ottomans would have had to develop a ship similar to a cog or a caravel without the precedent of the vikings (who made small but strong ships).
Glad the Turks/Ottomans didn't find the new world!!! I would hatebto be Muslim. Islam would just crush our culture ... Never!! Thanskt the Europeans found us
@@sleepforever dude what are you talking about, Ottomans NEVER DID IMPERIALISM which means you would have kept your language & your religion like every country in the Ottoman empire had. The Greeks still speak Greek & are still Christian, so are all the Balkan countries (still speak their own languages & practice their own religions). Ottoman's never did colonialism & Ottoman's never did imperialism because it never was in its interest & it never will be. This is why the power that Turkey is creating right now will not involve those things either. This video did not properly describe the reasons as to why Ottoman's didn't colonize. There are other, actual strategic reasons
Ottoman zenith was Suleyman the Magnificent’s reign in the mid 1500s. After that it was a slow decline. Europe had the printing press, the Renaissance, the Reformation and unmatched naval power in Spain, Portugal, England and Netherlands. Not to mention the battle of Lepanto checked any further Ottoman advance in the Mediterranean. The Ottomans however had countless natural resources across the empire so there was little need.
That’s somewhat of an outdated view, the ottoman decline didn’t really begin until about the second half of the 1700’s, they were still winning wars with Europeans, more technologically advanced then Russia, and still became rich from the trade routes, which many people forget went in both directions
Yes. I am NOT a historian. BUT the greatest territorial expansion of the EMPIRE was NOT even reached until 1683, so how can you say it declined after the mid-1500s??? Doesn't make sense for you to say that.
Ottoman Empire also saw "Colonizing" as "looting". And due to religion, looting was seen as thievery and therefore a great sin. Ottoman Empire wasn't too keen on breaking religious beliefs although for some exceptions which were thought to be FOR religion. I believe they were only able to take and conquer places (without invading them) via declaring war of some sort. Otherwise it was seen as "being an asshole" and taking people's houses without telling them is a sin.
@TugiDeg You are wrong!I am Georgian and we Georgians had many battles with them.They had always been invading my country.They invaded and conquered western Georgia and they had been kidnapping girls and boys in order to sell them as slaves and make janissaries and sultan's concubines from them!The Ottomans invaded other European countries and kidnapped young people who were sold by them as slaves!
Well it's complicated like ROME witch had the same believe that their gods would grant them victory if their war was justified but justified is really open to interpretation I mean was Caesar justified in conquering Gaul not really neither did the Ottomans
That's a silly way of looking at it, colonization is just the act of controlling an indigenous population by another state for it's self-interests. Just as the europeans saw and justified their colonization of others as civilizing mission, the ottomans justified their invasion of their neighbours on their neighbours because they could and in the case of the balkans because they followed the 'right' religion. There was no moral opposition because they were already engaged in empire building and had a long history of slavery. As said in the video the main reason they didn't colonise the americas/southern africa was because they didn't need to.
I really love how accurate you go with the customs of cat characters even with some minor ones, this is us some details I really love to pay attention to
@@jonatanlj747 The Renaissance was part of the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages refered to a time in Europe from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire to the 1500s.
Feudalism in general. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING AND WHY? Why couldn't medieval people just be communists instead? Seize the means of production from the nobles and Church!
Research the ethio- adal war in the horn of Africa and the Swahili coast They really did try and break the portuguese monopoly in the Indian ocean But it failed However the portuguese also tried to capture the horn of Africa coast from the somali which also failed horribly after they were defeated and a joint ottoman-somali attack recaptured the Kenyan coastal cities of lamu, pate and mombasa The portuguese immediately sent for reinforcements from India and recaptured the taken cities brutally punishing it's Swahili inhabitants for helping the ottomans and somalis Alot more also happened there's an entire campaign that took place Notable leaders involved were: Piri reis Cristavao de gama (son of the famed vasco de gama) Imam ahmed gurey Tristao de cunha Emir Nur Ibn mujahid Emperor Dawit II Emperor Geledewos Read over it it's kinda interesting
@@EDCHlNA Technically no Even though somalis adopted a ottoman styled currency to have economic independence from the portuguese monopoly It still took a hard hit from portuguese dominance Goa was under portuguese control and so was Macau Shit didn't change for anyone And by the time it did Ottoman were extremely behind in technology and somalis themselves were not only extremely behind in tech but also divided into more then 5 different states Easy pickings for the Brits and Italians
@Hasan Cihat Örter'i Eleştirmeyi Severim Yes but suleiman abandoned the war effort after the capture of the Swahili coast by the portuguese and ottoman influence and naval power in the Indian ocean was horrible by the time 70 years had past and we were nearly 1660-70 ottomans had their own issues in the Balkans with a rising russia and also the safavids Portugues only kept getting stronger all the way till 1800 They dominated the Indian ocean And along came British east Indian company And dutch empire And also French Before we knew it they were already landing on our shores lol
@Hasan Cihat Örter'i Eleştirmeyi Severim Oh they weren't, they were actually very powerful and more superior than most of the world They just didn't have the desire to continue the war in the Indian ocean for some reason If they had ottoman dominance would have reached India And mughals would gave lasted alot longer Bab al mandeb trade routes would have made Egypt super rich like Ptolemy Egypt
Actually, we're talking about the most glorious era of Ottoman. The biggest reason by far was Suleiman's indifference about new lands. Ottoman's navy was partly independent from army so it wouldn't affect that much their competition with Safavids or Habsburgs. Their navy was already strong asf thanks to Barbarossa, he almost never lost against Eurepean states in Mediterrenean. They also had no problem in terms of money to enhance the navy.
That's the problem, he was good against the Mediterranean nations, but when the Portuguese showed up in the Indian ocean they changed naval warfare and the Ottomans could never really compete. They simply didn't have the ships for open ocean sailing and their tactics for dealing with the Italians were obsolete by the time the Portuguese and Spanish took over the oceans.
@@mbern4530 they did have the ships. There's similar videos talking about the ottomans having sail ships on par with the west, even the ottoman fleet sailing in open seas in the Indian Ocean, fighting agaisnt the Portuguese navy (in africa and east indies), even scoring victories there (also in the Mediterranean in the 16th and 17th century). But it was indifference and lack of vision that caused their downfall. Tldr: ottoman navy was sufficient, it just never sailed west.
@@serhafiye7046 They lost to the Portuguese in almost every battle even when they had the superior numbers. Their cannons were so poor that Venice was helping them build modern weapons. The Ottomans just never had the ability to counter European powers when Europe built bigger ships. Just look at the battle of Lepanto where 3 or 4 large ships turned the tide of battle against them.
A major point about why they didn't even try to, is the fact that the ottoman empire (like the byzantine empire in the past) was not only conservative but also highly centralized. It had to be a sultan's wish to do it but taking risks was not even remotely in their culture.
If the Ottomans did colonialism. The whole of Greece, some parts of africa and east europa would speak Turkish. Because we was controlled in the peace this areas 400-500 years
I remember having heard of a very notable ottoman historian saying the ottomans were not in building galleons but galleys. which were fine and manueverable in closed mediterranean sea, galleons are much resource intensive tall ships useful in high seas also there was the glory and status quo following grand sultans; the decadance and less competent sultans with little vision it should be expected at least to expand into indian coast and possibly to indonesian coastline after the success of new world expeditions
Exactly. Galleys, which are rowed, are cheap and effective in closed inland seas, but not effective in the open ocean. The Europeans came to dominate the seas more than anyone else because they eventually came to have the best tall ships in the world. As in EU4: galleys are cheap and have a combat bonus in coastal and inland waters, but will lose to galleons on the high seas.
The fault is a little Suleiman's actually. He was a little egoist (which is pretty normal considering the lands you rule and the power you have) and he didn't want to work to colonise or discover new places because he thought it was unnecessary cause they already rule the world. Surely Suleiman and other governors by that time did not think about the future deeply. There was his son called Shezhade Mustafa. Everyone loved him, the Janissaries, other soldiers, people... He was very willing to conquer Atlantic ocean. He had innovative ideas for Ottomans xD. But his father was on the throne for so long time he could not make his ideas work (Mustafa was 40 by that time). And one day while Suleiman was on a campaign to Safavids he wanted to visit his father with his soldiers and wanted to join the war just like his other brothers. There are so many conspiracy theories about what I wright right now. Some says he was really coming to take the throne from his father some says not(I think not). Suleiman thought his son was coming to take his throne because he grew beard and he was coming with his loyal soldiers (Only sultans could grow beard in Ottoman's family. If you grow beard, means that you want the throne). And unfortunately because Suleiman was afraid of losing the throne to his son, he executed his son. Sure it was a very sad incident for Suleiman and he regret it. Mustafa's brother Cihangir died after a couple of months (or weeks I dunno exactly) because of sadness. But for the country, Sultans could do that. It wasn't about himself. It was about the Ottoman Empire. So after that Suleiman's other son II. Selim take the throne. He was not that effective as a Sultan. And the ideas of colonising and conquering Atlantic flew away with Mustafa. ;(
He is called next to Sultan to be executed, he wasnt going to join the battle with his army. In fact, the pawns idk what its name the one closed by Mahmud II so as to make upgrades in army, warned about the consuquences of going next to Sultan and wanted him to go back but instead he went right next to his father and executed.
Mustafa and Suleiman were never in good relations. Hence why Suleiman believed Vizier Rustem Pasha. Mustafa was also in conflict with Hurrem. I think Hurrem's eldest son, Mehmed, would be the better choice. Evliya Celebi described him as intelligent and had good judgement. Perhaps better so than Mustafa. He was Suleiman's favorite son as well (he was Suleiman's preferred heir).
Fun fact: Morocco's Sultan at that time was calling Ottoman Suleiman, "King of fishermen". And Ottomans always wanted to colonize other countries under the name of religion, they wanted Morocco to pledge allegiance to the empire (aka Bend the knee) but luckily the rulers at that time didn't want to and they got into a war with the Ottomans to stop them. It's like today the Vatican will come to England and tells it to pledge allegiance to the pop instead of the queen
Actually under Ottoman rule people of different ethnicities and religions lived relatively peacefully for hundreds of years. The Ottoman Empire is proof that if treated correctly, different people get along, unlike in modern societies who are constantly warring.
*Fact:* The Ottoman Empire almost made Brazil and Colombia into a Muslim Country *Brazil:* The Ottoman Empire was supporting the Yoruba people and the Hausa people, ethnic groups of Nigeria, who had been transported to Brazil and sold as slaves and invaded the State of Bahia, This is called the "Malê revolt", and it happened on a sunday, during Ramadan in 1835, then later it was suppressed by the Brazilian Army. *Colombia:* The Ottoman Empire, along with many Arabs, Lebanese, Israelis and many others, escaped from their homeland to South America, and this was not only the case of a foreign immigration, many Han Chinese, Manchu and Tibetians from the Qing Dynasty migrated to Colombia, the reason about it is because the government began oppressing the people and being persecuted, who forced many people to leave their homelands, to America.
Broman okay bro we get that you’re a salty Turk lol calm down First of all, as far as I’m concerned at least, the French weren’t the ones being thrown in Aushwitz so it had nothing to do with the Jews so I’m not gonna talk about what happened in Armenia. Secondly, wtf? Civilization? Rights? Progress? Yeah in Anatolia and Istanbul maybe, but in the Arab world? What propaganda are you being fed? The Arabs were ruling themselves they literally could not have more rights than that. And what’s this about civilisation? If we’re talking about Egypt, the Levant and Iraq, you’d be fooling yourself thinking you brought civilisation to these areas. The Umayyad, Abbasids, Mamluks and countless others were there before you. We rebel because that’s what anyone with dignity does under foreign occupation. The Turks are not Arabs and the Arabs are not Turks. Also in the late period of Ottoman history their stagnation and corruption let the Arabs fall under European rule, province by province. Their entrance into WWI, a war that wasn’t theirs, caused Sykes-Picot and the formation of nation states that never existed. The Ottomans caused the divide of the Arabs and they, alongside the western powers, are to blame for the Middle East’s problems.
the ottomans always wanted to conquer morocco, but they couldn't, there's a large misconception that morocco wasn't strong at the time, in fact they were strong enough to keep the ottomans, spain and portugal away from their land (it's obvious when you think about it, why did the spanish and Portuguese conquer very distant lands when they could've token both the american lands and morocco)
In addition after discovering and colonizing far countries, Portugal tried to occupy morocco and were defeated in a famous battle called battle of three kings where Portuguese Sebastien 1st and many Italian, Flemish and German mercenaries were killed.
@@healthnature6240 exactly, and during the rule of saadis (same dynasty to kick all of the spanish, Portuguese and ottomans), they even expanded to the south and south east, and this is to narrow the siege on the Ottomans and prevent them from entering their country.
I am from Turkey and read a lot of historical articles etc about this topic. I list some other reasons did not mentioned about the video. 1- Going through morocco or from İndian Ocean was problematic. The main problem was theese regions were to far away from the Capital Istanbul. To put simply, Ottoman empire was fairly centralised for most of its time and governing far away provinces and protecting them was fairly difficult. Ottoman Empire governed indirectly the places westward from Eygpt with the help of local corsairs. 2- Ottoman ships were not suitable for ocean use, and Ottoman artisans had not the capicity and knowledge to built Ocean going vessels plus Ottoman sailors lacked the experience necessary to use these ships. All of the points mentioned previosly resulted Ottoman defat in Indian Ocean against Portuguese. 3- Ottoman elites and rulers lacked the necessary information about the importance of far awy colonies and the protecting trade routes. This empire like the Roman empire and Russian Empire was more land based. It expanded, protected its borders and gained revenues through taxation. Thus making overseas expension to a far away contient was out of question. 4- Also, Ottoman empire had a closed agricultural economy. Trade was hard between settlemetns and it required permits. It lacked the administrative foundation to support a capitalistic economy which in turn fueled colonial adventures like it was in Great Britain and Netherlands, or Germany.
then how come Ottoman sailors managed to land in Iceland to enslave their people? The real reason is Ottoman didn't have any reason, whereas Europe was desperate. plague hit them hard, lack of work force, lack of resources, lack of foods, expensive route through Ottoman empire caused them to find an alternative route to Asia, whereas Ottoman empire didn't have that need at all. Ottoman empire later might have tried, but they didn't have competent leaders later on.
It's an interesting fact that biggest colonies in the new world belonged almost exclusively to the countries with direct Atlantic ocean access. For that matter, not only Ottomans missed the opportunity, so did (by nation, not state) Germans, Russians, Pols and Italians. We might've lived in a totally different world if those powers realised New Worlds potential sooner.
@@Castellano87 Yeah exactly but to Russia, Alaska was just more vast icy land which they got in abundance so they sold it. They would love to have it now as a deterrence to the US
@@Castellano87 Man educate yourself. I was metaphorically speaking. They have vast uninhabited land in Russia, e.g. Siberia they really didn't need more of a similar climate. What would convince Russians to relocate to Alaska instead of Eastern Russia ?
There are other models of empires besides the colonialist capitalist model we're all accustomed to. The Ottoman. Empire took over lands, but they did not enact the same settler colonial practices that Spain, UK, France & the Dutch did in the modern colonial era. Ottoman onquests initially preserved much of the existing administrative machinery and culture, in many territories they amounted to little more than a change of rulers for the subject populations, Very different from the European approach to the "new world'
The comment i was looking for… Otherwise a lot of countries besides Turkic countries would speak Turkish. North africa and whole middle east would speak it but no north africans know french tho. Just like the rest of almost whole africa
Please make videos about this Why Nusantaran monarchs like Srivijaya or Majapahit or other Asian countries didn't annex Australia before Europeans came?
I Think Because Idea of Colonialization Doesn't Spread to Us at The Time. actually many Kingdom In Nusantara (Indonesian, Malaysian, Bruneian, and Filipino). Had Found it Long Time Before Europeans Do, even it More Earlier Than First European Powers Contact With Us the Nusantaran
America is ‘nothing’ in that time. The Ottomans were already powerful, also the Ottomans have no colonization culture. Everybody have always used their own language and religion with freedom.
Many european nations were powerful at that time Russian empire Britain and Nordic states Even Russian empire went to america from the other side of the world and colonised Alaska Ottomans were good on land and calm sea thats all
“No colonization culture” do you realize how insane you sound? The whole entire reason the ottoman empire and turkey existed/exist today is because of turks colonizing lands hundreds of kilometers from their steppes?
The riches of America was the reason why Christian Europe became sucessfull than Muslim world. Discovery of America allowed the European nations ie Spain, Portuguese, Britian, France and Dutch so much wealth they invested in weapons, technology and the Navy. It also increased size of Christendom by 10 folds.
The europeans were already investing in weapons, but since they didn't have to deal with pesky nomad raiders, their army could focus into sheer firepower instead of mobility.
they did for some point control (occupy) iceland for 3 monthes and it almost became integrated into the empire but denmark with the help of britain, norway and a few others invaded the island and kicked off all the ottoman inhabitants.
I am a Turk. I have few things to say 1) yes, we did some sort of colonising. We took little kids from Balkans and converted them, made them janissaries, officers etc. Silver lining was that they were allowed to be even Grand Vizier (prime minister of today) so they could maybe one day visit their little villages proudly with their fancy dresses. Great marketing strategy to encourage those kids but this doesn't change the fact that 10 year old kids were separated from their mothers and siblings. I am not even mentioning about the girls brought to Harem. 2) vanity and greed in entire Muslim world caused the downfall. Imagine if Ottomans and Persians agreed for an alliance and supported each other. Who could stand against them in the 16th century? 3) we turks NEVER valued science or art. Even before islamisation we were pure militaristic. 4) At least we destroyed fountain of the youth
Ottoman never prefered to pick colonization as an ideas. They expanded their lands to let other people know Islam not to force them change their religions. Never tried to exploit and asimilate other nations. If they aim that they could do it because already had a power to do. They have been a superpower for 600 years over the world. If they prefer this way, hundreds milion people would speak Turkish rather than English or French in Africa, Asia, and Easten part of Europe.
truth... and EU ppl still calling us as barbar.... in reality they are barbar we seen what they did in africa and still they using these countrys as slave..
Leon The Professional “Ottoman never preferred to pick colonization as an ideas”- Colonizes The Balkan’s. “They expanded their lands to let other people know Islam not to force them to change their religions.” - imposed taxes on non Muslims and blocks them from entering positions of political power. “Never tried to exploit and assimilate other nations” - Forces Christian families to give up at least one of there sons, indoctrinated them at a young age so that they can become Muslim bodyguards to the Sultan aka the Janissaries.
@Broman i saw you in several comments in this video, you seem to hate arabs a lot, i'm not arab despite my name. And about that "top 10 anime betrayal" meme, i was talking about Alain Magnan, who was the commander of the Knights of St. John, and a close friend of Morgan Black (main character of AOE3). Alain betrayed Morgan near the end of campaign chapter 1, turn out that Ottoman were the good guy all along, later Morgan switch side to Ottoman.
@wong Kuto We already stoped them And defeated the portugueses search Battle Of the 3 KINGS... We couldnt alie with Ottomans because they wanted to invade us
The Ottoman empire didn't actually "colonize" Ionian islands in Greece, which are WRONGLY shown in red in this video (they had always been under venetian rule), how would they colonize America? It was a middle eastern style continental power, Navy and seafaring culture was unknown to the ottomans (and still is unfamiliar to Turks, to be fair)
Yeah because Spanish conquistadors where all angels towards the Native Americans weren't they?, at least the Ottomans took care of some of there slaves particular the Janissary lived like kings compared to other slaves in that time.
@@MrGaters34 you talk as if the empires except turkey were so niceee. You have to spend a long time of reading while reading a book which tells about the "empires killing the most people"to find ottomans. never stand away the facts my friend dont believe what your mom&dad and media says, to reach the true information you have to read well. Greetings from istanbul
@@coolperson4582 It's not a hard joke to understand buddy. Just wanted to point out the imo undershadowed influence the Ottoman Empire had on world events. And yes, I am fun at parties. I think...
Kraut's analysis of the lack of Ottoman colonization is more thorough than this: He pointed out that the European powers had effectively bottled up the Ottomans on all ends (The Portuguese also checked all Ottoman Naval expansion in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, with the assistance of the Safavids and Ethiopians.), and that the Ottoman Naval losses at Lepanto and Malta had far greater consequences than the Battles of Vienna ever did, because those were both desperate attempts for the Ottomans to break out of the inner seas they were restricted to, but both failed. Any Ottoman plan to expand into Morocco in order to gain an Atlantic Coastline would have basically required them to not only conquer the entire region with their Army, but would also require them to build blue water seaports in Morocco, large seaports that did not exist in their core regions of Anatolia and Greece at all, and would then require them to build transoceanic ships at those ports, meaning that they would have to maintain a huge land-based supply chain to do that. The Ottomans were absolutely stuck and had no chance at African, Asian or American colonization at all.
@@monarchyking5417 Ottoman never destroy any laungue and culture. Look balkans,araps they speak they own laungue in the other hand look european colony only blood and rapes
@@Phitend also slavery there are millions of Black people all over the world especially in Americas whom were kidnapped from the continent Africa and forced to be slaves for the white man, almost nobody talks about that! "Oh Ottomans colonized Balkans" we don't see any Balkanian slaves in Turkey do we, F...ing hypocrite's !!!
@@johnnyslokes2712 you're a fucking joke right? If there wasn't European imperialism Africa wouldn't be dirt poor. Also blacks went through way more suffering than the wealth they have today.
Our goal wasn't to gain as many lands as possible. The Ottoman Empire was a continous Empire. The territory was comnected by land. The goal was to increase the size of the land countrolled, but of the mainland, so everything stays connected. I hope you understand
Wasn't there also something like their ships weren't very good in the Atlantic Ocean? Mainly sticking to the Mediterranean and India ocean is pretty smooth sailing compared to Atlantic or pacific.
This is very interesting video with well-explained external and internal factors. I also wonder why in the past 500 years of being dominated by the Ottoman, Greece Romania and Black sea countries could survive their own languages and their appearance still looked the same as most European.
Then Anatolia was not even entirely muslim (%55-%45).We see them as a muslim empire like modern days muslim countries -no tolerance to other religions. But Greeks and Armenians were actually one of the really important part of the empire. So living together was a better idea then occupy the country and destroy the local people. Because you did not have people to replace their places. May be the idea of genocide was not existed until you have the sufficient crowd. (Like 10m Turkish vs. 2m Armenian.)
Because Ottomans didn't try to assimilate them. Let them live like they did before, which bit their ass during their weak period since every people of each nation wanted to form their own country and it split the Ottoman Empire.
@@mustafayaylal6580 you are going wrong way it is very easy to assimilate or evacuate whoever you want when you are in power. What is interesting is that ottoman didn't do that with its power.
@@javidaliyev1345 No it’s not. Empires from around the world have all struggled with assimilating conquered people. Russia conquered modern day Finland, Armenia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Poland, Azerbaijan, etc. Those languages still exist. The same can be said of Imperial Austria, Imperial China, the Mughals, etc. The Ottomans were just as successful as everyone else. The Ottomans still assimilated conquered groups (including kidnapping children from different parts of Asia, Europe, and Africa and forcibly converting them to Islam.) This continued into the 20th century, with the renaming of Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian places and oppression of their academic cultures. Modern Turkey still continues their assimilationist policies into the 21st century with Kurdish culture being repressed in Turkey and its occupation of northern Syria.
Not in the slightlest. In the napoleonic wars the ottomans lost to GB and France several territories including Egypt. Not that much later they lost Greece and by that point it was clear that European economics, administration and warfare were quite ahead. Industralization boosted english, french and later german control over the world, but the gap was already there.
Ottomans knew about the America's well before europeans did. Cause a sailor took special permission to travel to the west of europe .Then he came back with a great map and gave it to Suleiman the magnificent.But suleiman didnt have any interest in it they've seen it as empty landmasses.Only ottoman sultan could colonise was Murad II aka the conqueror who made many reforms to Empire , Army , Education. Other sultans werent that bright when it came to ruling.
Also, probably because curiosity wasn't running high in the Sultans' minds at the time since they had every luxury, therefore they didn't have the will to invest in such expeditions. And on top of that, there was no chance for someone to make the journey and take the risk without sourcing the funds. Problem was that investing in ideas and expeditions wasn't a popular thing in the Ottoman Empire. In fact, if you look at how the stock market came to be, you'd see that it started by the Dutch so that the sailors can get the money they need to make the trip with the promise of bringing back goods/gold etc.
They also did not have the ships to do it. Turkish naval technology at the time wouldn't allow oceanic exploration. All of the Indian expeditions failed because of this.
Maybe. But, they could have just used the colonies as a safety valve for their minority populations, and they could wipe out the Native Americans so that they wouldn't have to share power with them now that they are out from under the Sultan's thumb. Or, the Ottomans could have organized their colonies along the same lines as their home country, and reproduced the problems that led to the Armenian Genocide within the Empire in the New World. So, its not very likely that the Natives would have survived under the Ottomans, because the Ottoman imperial model was prone to hurting minorities in the 1st place.
good cult Ibn 'Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'" Grade: Sahih (Darussalam) Reference : Sunan an-Nasa'i 4059 In-book reference : Book 37, Hadith 94 English translation : Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4064
Thank God it didn’t. Britts however may have done some terrible atrocities but they laid down firm foundations like order and knowledge to it’s Colonies and now these countries today are one of the most prosperous in the world compared to the countries that Ottomans have had been ruling. Despite that, Ottomans used to rule not so cruel compared to convertants to which some rights to rule were given by Ottomans. Ottomans were pious and conservative but unfortunately Industrial Revolution bypassed them and that is the reason why their Empire crumbled.
