"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
In the same way that the Spanish and Portuguese and to a lesser extent other Europeans to the west referred to all Muslims as "Moors" regardless of skin color - the Portuguese even when they got to India from the fifteenth century onwards referred to the Muslims there as Moors - and also the Spanish in the Philippines.
"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
"By the seventeenth century, literate circles in Istanbul would not call themselves Turks, and often, in phrases such as 'senseless Turks', used the word as a term of abuse." Imber, Colin (2009). The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power (2 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 3.
Yep. I always imagine what The Eastern Roman Empire would’ve been like had it survived into the Modern Era and transitioned into a nation-state like it’s Frankish, German, English, and Italian contemporaries. Would it have become something akin to a ceremonial monarchy? A republic? Some form of autocracy? Or something else entirely? And I’m sure cycle of social and political collapse followed by great leadership restoring the politeia would have continued, a tradition going straight back to the classical era of Rome. I think more than anything, The Eastern Roman Empire was a victim of geography. I highly doubt any power of that time would have survived the geopolitical changes and forces the Eastern Romans endured throughout their history; and I doubt any other power would have lasted so long. It’s a true testament to their institutions, capacity to produce great leaders, society, culture, ingenuity, etc., that they survived for so long
Empires sclerotise, stagnate and fall. So did Byzantium and later the ottomans themselves. Nations always change and it's wrong to look at them in a romanticized way stemming from a golden age that happened only in a single point in history.
Perfect painting accompaniment today, for once I'm glad I missed you live. Also last time I had you on you caused a friend of mine to say "it's really astonishing just how interconnected everything is" Good job boy's, someone's learning, even if it's not me aha
"However, under Ottoman rule ethnonyms never disappeared, which indicates that some form of ethnic identification was preserved. This is evident from a Sultan’s Firman from 1680 which lists the ethnic groups in the Balkan lands of the Empire as follows: Greeks (Rum), Albanians (Arnaut), Serbs (Sirf), Vlachs (Eflak) and last but not least the Bulgarians (Bulgar)." История на българите. Късно средновековие и Възраждане, том 2, Георги Бакалов, TRUD Publishers, 2004
"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
Ive heard theres an interesting story about timur. He had one of the biggest body counts in history with his reign. And funnily enough the point when someone would out do it was was during ww2 when some soviet explorers uncovered his tomb right before Operation Barbarossa and the tide of the eastern front started to turn against the mid century Germans right around the time the soviets sealed up his tomb with the proper rights. I'm not sure how much truth there is to it but he's certainly got an interesting bit of myths around him.
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 Constantinople 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
@@retohaner5328 now I don’t know much about music, but this here diversity business seems to me to be some sort of improvisation in the mixobarbarian mode.
what annoyed me with this video was the low quality of the contributions from Columba (and to a lesser extent from FuriusPertinax) which distracted from the coherent narrative from Apostolic Majesty
Didnt know that Mongol control came all the way to East Roman borders. Huh...I guess medieval 2 total war had right idea with Mongols going for Antioch and then exploding all over middle east.
@@ApostolicMajesty oh I see. Well from what I've seen I have to disagree, but I do wonder why you don't mention in the videos that there are competing ideas about the origin of romanian when you ponder the mystery of its origins.
@@ApostolicMajesty I had a feeling that you were based on this issue as well. Current DNA testing is irrefutable proof that the continuity theory is correct, and even without it you would have to handwave all the cultural particularities and even preferred type of warfare, as the Dacians basically pioneered scorched earth and, to some extent, guerilla tactics, in Europe at least. On another note, during the stream you mentioned the term "Wallachia" (the region) and I think you or Columba said that in the Romanian language it's 'Vlahia'. This is untrue, as the term is an exonym. Historically even before Romanian was a written language, Romanians called themselves "Rumani", and as such Wallachia was "Tara Rumaneasca", literally meaning "Romanian Country". Also, "Walhaz" was used to refer to all Romanised populations by the Germanics, I am pretty sure. As such the term also gave birth to terms like "Welsh" and "Walloon". In any case, this was a good stream, even if the subject at hand was rather dark.
@@UltraRadCentrist "Current DNA testing is irrefutable proof that the continuity theory is correct" -The opposite is true. DNA testing reveals that modern Romanians have greatly in common with the inhabitants of the Balkans, they are not clearly distinct from Slavs and other populations. Even with the naked eye it is hard to distinguish between Romanians and Bulgarians for example.
Another excellent stream. Many thanks to the team.
A great stream.
"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
Because of the Ottoman Turkish Empire probably?
In the same way that the Spanish and Portuguese and to a lesser extent other Europeans to the west referred to all Muslims as "Moors" regardless of skin color - the Portuguese even when they got to India from the fifteenth century onwards referred to the Muslims there as Moors - and also the Spanish in the Philippines.
"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
"By the seventeenth century, literate circles in Istanbul would not call themselves Turks, and often, in phrases such as 'senseless Turks', used the word as a term of abuse."
Imber, Colin (2009). The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power (2 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 3.
The fall of Byzantium was one of the biggest tragedies of European and ME history, in my view.
Or it is what allowed for European hegemony.
@@James-sk4db which went well in the 20th century
Yep. I always imagine what The Eastern Roman Empire would’ve been like had it survived into the Modern Era and transitioned into a nation-state like it’s Frankish, German, English, and Italian contemporaries. Would it have become something akin to a ceremonial monarchy? A republic? Some form of autocracy? Or something else entirely? And I’m sure cycle of social and political collapse followed by great leadership restoring the politeia would have continued, a tradition going straight back to the classical era of Rome.
I think more than anything, The Eastern Roman Empire was a victim of geography. I highly doubt any power of that time would have survived the geopolitical changes and forces the Eastern Romans endured throughout their history; and I doubt any other power would have lasted so long. It’s a true testament to their institutions, capacity to produce great leaders, society, culture, ingenuity, etc., that they survived for so long
Empires sclerotise, stagnate and fall. So did Byzantium and later the ottomans themselves. Nations always change and it's wrong to look at them in a romanticized way stemming from a golden age that happened only in a single point in history.
Perfect painting accompaniment today, for once I'm glad I missed you live.
Also last time I had you on you caused a friend of mine to say "it's really astonishing just how interconnected everything is"
Good job boy's, someone's learning, even if it's not me aha
"However, under Ottoman rule ethnonyms never disappeared, which indicates that some form of ethnic identification was preserved. This is evident from a Sultan’s Firman from 1680 which lists the ethnic groups in the Balkan lands of the Empire as follows: Greeks (Rum), Albanians (Arnaut), Serbs (Sirf), Vlachs (Eflak) and last but not least the Bulgarians (Bulgar)."
История на българите. Късно средновековие и Възраждане, том 2, Георги Бакалов, TRUD Publishers, 2004
Just another confirmation that Bosnians, Montenegrins and Macedonians are all new identities.
"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
Ive heard theres an interesting story about timur. He had one of the biggest body counts in history with his reign. And funnily enough the point when someone would out do it was was during ww2 when some soviet explorers uncovered his tomb right before Operation Barbarossa and the tide of the eastern front started to turn against the mid century Germans right around the time the soviets sealed up his tomb with the proper rights. I'm not sure how much truth there is to it but he's certainly got an interesting bit of myths around him.
The more videos I see (and hear) the more I like Columba. Nothing against the other two Gentlemen!
What a week to get a Susan Wiki-Wiki reference. Judgment day comes for us all
One corection, believe it or not stefan dusan is one of the few members of his dynasty who actually wasnt canonized as a saint
I felt happy like a little kid when you mentioned the beginning of romania
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 Constantinople 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
«Mixobarbaroi», eh? Sounds familiar.
It's like Barbaroi but with a minor 7 and without the augmented 4
@@retohaner5328 now I don’t know much about music, but this here diversity business seems to me to be some sort of improvisation in the mixobarbarian mode.
what annoyed me with this video was the low quality of the contributions from Columba (and to a lesser extent from FuriusPertinax) which distracted from the coherent narrative from Apostolic Majesty
Didnt know that Mongol control came all the way to East Roman borders. Huh...I guess medieval 2 total war had right idea with Mongols going for Antioch and then exploding all over middle east.
Best Islamic empire😍
Best? Yes.... they contributed a lot to the progress of humanity.
Harems full of teenage boy dancers is indeed a great achievement.
the romanians originate not from dacia, but from southern dalmatia
I subscribe to the Romanian-Dacian continuity theory, and that the southern Dalmatians or rather the Illyrians were the ancestors of the Aromanians.
that's unironically a Hungarian conspiracy theory
@@ApostolicMajesty oh I see. Well from what I've seen I have to disagree, but I do wonder why you don't mention in the videos that there are competing ideas about the origin of romanian when you ponder the mystery of its origins.
@@ApostolicMajesty I had a feeling that you were based on this issue as well. Current DNA testing is irrefutable proof that the continuity theory is correct, and even without it you would have to handwave all the cultural particularities and even preferred type of warfare, as the Dacians basically pioneered scorched earth and, to some extent, guerilla tactics, in Europe at least.
On another note, during the stream you mentioned the term "Wallachia" (the region) and I think you or Columba said that in the Romanian language it's 'Vlahia'. This is untrue, as the term is an exonym. Historically even before Romanian was a written language, Romanians called themselves "Rumani", and as such Wallachia was "Tara Rumaneasca", literally meaning "Romanian Country". Also, "Walhaz" was used to refer to all Romanised populations by the Germanics, I am pretty sure. As such the term also gave birth to terms like "Welsh" and "Walloon".
In any case, this was a good stream, even if the subject at hand was rather dark.
@@UltraRadCentrist "Current DNA testing is irrefutable proof that the continuity theory is correct" -The opposite is true. DNA testing reveals that modern Romanians have greatly in common with the inhabitants of the Balkans, they are not clearly distinct from Slavs and other populations. Even with the naked eye it is hard to distinguish between Romanians and Bulgarians for example.