The Ottomas "Good Empire"

I just realised turks did nothing wrong threads are the new hitler didnt do anything wrong threads since retards still actually take the bait for them.

>Knowing that he and his fighters would be impaled if captured, Sinđelić detonated a powder magazine within the rebel entrenchment, killing himself, his fellow rebels and the encroaching Ottoman soldiers.

>be me
>balkan nigger
>practise my glorious culture of chimping out every decade
>superior ottoman warrior comes to kick my ass for being a punk
>"shieeeeeeeet"
>blow myself up like a fucking arab
>Ottomans later a small tower out of my useless body parts to warn other dissenters not to be so dumb

And mind you the Balkanites were just as evil. We never hear about it because of 'le oppressed people and evil turks' bullshit this website loves.

t- Turk

How can you be this retarded? Conquer people who don't want to be conquered and they'll fight back. Should have stuck with just being an Turkic-Greek rape baby in Asia-Minor, faggot.

>Conquer people who don't want to be conquered and they'll fight back
First off, nobody wants to be conquered.

Second, that's what most of the world did. Nobody gives westerners as much shit for their past on this board as they do turks.

>Should have stuck with just being an Turkic-Greek rape baby in Asia-Minor, faggot.
But we didn't. We went out and built a (relevant) empire that lasted much longer than most.

in short no

they were despotic and oppressive empire, that held vastly different ethnicity of people in check by a use of violence

it was not better compared to other empires

and squandered most of it due to sheer incompetence just like the rest

you, unlike many other empires however are not remembered fondly by any of the conquered people, so no, you were not the good guys in any way, shape or form

>Second, that's what most of the world did. Nobody gives westerners as much shit for their past on this board as they do turks.

Because westerners generally left something good behind when their empires fell apart, in some cases, like the British, imperial rule is better than independence for some of their colonies, you on the other hand destroyed the region, and turned it from a wealthy and important region into a backwards semi-feudal shithole until you were kicked out.

Turks are the antagonists of Eurasia.

Well, were. After Ataturk it all turned into a culturally homogenous shithole, like so many other muslim countries.

turks are literally the bad guy of history

>and squandered most of it due to sheer incompetence just like the rest
Well of course. All Empires decline eventually. But compare the Ottoman Empire to any other Iranic or Arab Empire and you'll see how successful we were.

>however are not remembered fondly by any of the conquered people
Nobody really is.

>Because westerners generally left something good behind when their empires fell apart,
You mean small time infrastructure which was mainly for the westerners anyway?

>, like the British, imperial rule is better than independence for some of their colonies
Typical white mans burden rhetoric. And yet we're the evil ones...

>you on the other hand destroyed the region, and turned it from a wealthy and important region into a backwards semi-feudal shithole until you were kicked out.
You mean we exploited the region just like any other colonizer did?

If you're talking about good things we accoplished there's also the fact that we
>made the first (successful) multicultural empire
>had religious pluralism
>great architecture
>revolutionary military techniques
>even sheltered jews from oppression from the west then

And I like how you bring up the Brits while ignoring a few others i.e Belgians, Spanish conquistadors etc etc

Here have a (you)

>>made the first (successful) multicultural empire
Alexander
>>had religious pluralism
Moor Spain
>>great architecture
Stolen from Byzantines
>>revolutionary military techniques
Oh you mean where the entire general command relied on subpar European imported war advisors?
>>even sheltered jews from oppression from the west then
Because said jews were the enemies of the people, if you're referring to the Spanish jews.

This thread is missing something.

I just can't put my finger on what tho.

>made the first (successful) multicultural empire
HRE
>had religious pluralism
Umayyads and a fuck ton of others
>great architecture
minarets and copy/pasted hagia sophia?
>revolutionary military techniques
true with black powder but europe was doing that too
>even sheltered jews from oppression from the west then
who the fuck cares about jews?

>armenian genocide: check
>turk idf: check
>balkaners: check
>roach memes: nope
fixed

>Alexander
Alexander was not "multicultural". He established an empire by marrying his generals to the top elite of the people he conquered because there were only so many of them and many of them wanted to go home.
>Moor Spain
Barely.
>Stolen from Byzantines
* Inherited and improved
>Oh you mean where the entire general command relied on subpar European imported war advisors?
(you)
>Because said jews were the enemies of the people, if you're referring to the Spanish jews.
Jews were never really liked by Islamic empires either. But we still took care of them.

>who the fuck cares about jews?
>reeeeeeee Ottoman's are the most evil colonizing empire eva!
>yeah who gives a shit about ___
Just say you have a bias because we oppressed Europeans and then we'll be done with it m8.

>>made the first (successful) multicultural empire

>what is rome
>what is alexander
>what is persia

>had religious pluralism

What does this even mean? You had more than one religion? So did most empires, and christians were subject to many taxes and were second class """""Citizens"""""

>>great architecture

You mean adding minarets and geometrical designs over byzantine architecture?

>>revolutionary military techniques

Like? Taking christians as your soldiers? That worked out until 1650, later on your military was disgustingly corrupt and inefficient.

As opposed to your "achievements" you had a large, illiterate population, with no infrastructure, no industry, not even an attempt at that, instead just a large corrupt semi-feudal empire.

>sheltering religious minorities is an accomplishment
pretty lame think to take pride for, surely there's something better?

Did anyone save his memes? Could someone dump them, tho he was annoying i kind of miss his memes.

cockroaches = Turkey

only have this

>what is rome
>what is alexander
>what is persia
I did say successful didn't I?

>What does this even mean? You had more than one religion? So did most empires,
Every body had to pay tax. Muslims had to pay zakat. Not to mention you were exempt from the taxes if you were a woman, child, senior, or handicapped.

> and were second class """""Citizens"""""
We did have some faults but I don't see how that makes us any different than any other colonizer.

>You mean adding minarets and geometrical designs over byzantine architecture?
Yeah. Ottoman architecture was deeply influenced by Venetian, Byzantium and Iranian culture. So what?

>Like? Taking christians as your soldiers? That worked out until 1650, later on your military was disgustingly corrupt and inefficient.
As opposed to your "achievements" you had a large, illiterate population, with no infrastructure, no industry, not even an attempt at that, instead just a large corrupt semi-feudal empire.
I was referring to our golden age m8. I know fully well how we fell behind the times.
> Taking christians as your soldiers?
Why go ahead and waste our own for no reason?

>ottoman empire is evul n shiet
>except when they're not
And it's not something I particularly care about either way. I was listing 'good' things that we did.

REEEEEEEEEE OTTOMANS GET OFF MY PENINSULA REEEEE REEEEEE REEEEE

>I did say successful didn't I?

Ottoman empire more successful than Rome and Persia ? In what regard. It's not longevity. It's not cultural impact, it's not size, nor general prosperity. Face it, your empire was a dwarf compared to what was before it.

>first army to implement muskets and musket corps
>first army to implement gunpowder artillery and artillery corps
>first army to implement marching bands and military choir tradition
The Ottoman army was thought immortal, because they'd always collect their wounder and dead, never leaving them behind, so there were never any corpses on the battlefield.

>m-m-m-mih culture tho! war isnt everyfin!
One name: Taqi ad-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf.
He was called the greatest scientist of all time before it became cool to hate the east after yuros invented the humanism meme.
Also see Diwan poetry and the animation of books.

>Ottoman empire more successful than Rome and Persia ?
No. But the Balkans used to be a place that had always been in conflict with one another and the fact that the Ottomans conquered them meant that they had unified them all under one banner, thus putting their petty squabbles to the sidelines.

It brought peace and prosperity for the time being because all of them were considered Turks. It's only because of Napolean losing his war that ethnic-nationalism erupted.

Well, I don't know that they're much worse than most other empires. 'Good' might be a bit much, however.

>It's only because of Napolean losing his war that ethnic-nationalism erupted.

Napoleon and his war STARTED ethnic-nationalism.
He took land that was calmly Austrian, and told the locals they are Italians instead, and gave them their free kingdom for a while.
Same with the Germans and their confederation. And if he had won in his Egyptian campaign, and if he had the time to tackle the Ottomans in Europe, you can bet there'd be some early Yugoslavia.

The French revolution created ethnic nationalism, it wasn't its failure that produced it, it was the limited success.

That's what I meant to say. Napolean's war (which he lost) is what began it all.

My english isn't very good.

>you can bet there'd be some early Yugoslavia.

Thank god for the Brits then

>all of them were considered Turks
audible kek

>Did the Armenian Genocide happen?

No
m.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4