Yes, Berber pirates did come to Iceland. These pirates were not really under the Sultan's control. In the 17th century, the Ottoman territories in North Africa (of which these pirates were) became only nominally dependent on Constantinople and could pursue their own policies. And their foreign policy was piracy. And yes, they sailed to Iceland via Gibraltar. And they chose Iceland because it is easy to rob it. That's as far as I know.
Romanian being a Romance language has nothing to do with Venice. The Roman Empire killed the local population and settled Latin speaking people there, in order to subdue the region and those settlers, as wel as some surviving natives, became the Romanians.
They didn't kill them all, they assimilated and brought people there. As a result, romanians have native balkanic(dacian) and slavic DNA in general, not italian. The same way France is not italian in DNA even they speak a latin language but rather native gaulish people
@@thieph Balkanik and east -european (not slavic) - Balkanik mean WHG - western hunter gatherers + anatolian farmers, east-european - indo-european tribes (yamnaya culture) - which together mean THRACIAN/dacian .... I have 52% balkanik DNA and 23% east-european DNA....
Fellow Turk here, let's talk about ottomans. While Ottoman rising is pictured perfectly in the video, often, foreign videos tend to dismiss one factor that is also important. Sultans rule the empire, but, some sultans were ruled by their queen/mother. Especially during after the Sultan the lawmaker, we see many background plays between mother-queen of the sultan for his place, his childrens place and for decisions of empire. Weak sultans were killed in secret, plotted by their family in order to replace to the next sultan. Also, janissaries were proud soldiers of the empire, and they were proud of their sultan, when their sultan was strong like the mehmet the conquerer. When the sultan is weak, they became stronger and forcefully/politically affected by the next sultan decision. In the end, if you can't control janissaries, or can't have their respects, you as a sultan had no chance to stay alive. If you don't conquere, respect and pay fairly to your soldiers, they won't fight for you, but against you. Ottoman empire had also some periods where they were isolated from their people(e.g. tulip period). After wars that ottomans lost to french, italians etc., they don't just lost some areas, they were also forced to give more rights to their minority community, and also reduce many taxes for the winner side, e.g. france. This was an economic pain(google 'capitulations of ottoman') that ottoman would be suffer of. Lastly, they don't follow technology, military strategy and the world. They might've fancied the european art and literature, but they were still trying to fight with them in 1800, but with a 1600s time of strategy, lack of weapon tech and mostly corrupted generals. Ottomans tried to reform themselves. They killed janissaries finally with a proper army that the sultan could able to raise after his previous 3-4 sultans had tried and killed by janissaries. They sent scholars to france and germany to gain knowledge(young turks were mostly fashioned by the emperialistic german ideology but people like Atatürk, who was sent to France had took ideas to french secularism and ideology. The problem is, Ottoman empire was too late to adapt those changes and others like Russia and France benefit from this a lot. The final nail came when france spread the nationalism in which minorities in the empire rise up to gain their independency, or. killing many ottomans while resisting and thus reducing the military strenght which was already bad enough.
And who were the janissaries - slav kids who were taken from their parents , indoctrinated to islam, given muslim names , trained to murder their own people. Just poor , brainwashed children who never remembered their origin and name.
Timur /Tamerlane was 200 years later he founded the Timurid Empire, a Turco-Mongol Empire that covered Iran,Iraq,Afghanistan, the south caucasus, most of Central Asia, parts of Pakistan,India and Turkey..........
If you want to really learn about ottoman expansions and history I suggest this: ''Ottoman History'' playlist from ''Kings and Generals'' it starts with video ''Battle of Kosovo 1389 - Serbian-Ottoman Wars DOCUMENTARY'' There is 46 videos 15ish minutes long. 1st 20ish videos would explain this video so much more in depth. S tier content.
"Complacency" within the Ottoman Empire after Suleiman was not just limited to foreign policy; if you compare to European powers at the same time, the Ottoman Empire didn't really grow out of feudalism; one of the reasons it was relatively tolerant towards minorities when compared to Europe was that most power was incredibly decentralised, so communities far away from Constantinople could basically do whatever they liked as long as they paid their taxes and/or supplied the janissary force with new members (*cough* this post isn't exclusively about devşirme, so I won't go any deeper into that.), but the system of tax collection was incredibly inefficient because most appointed tax collectors were also the people who held a good deal of local authority anyway and so weren't really interested in giving all the money back to the Sultan (they kept a lot of it for themselves). One of the most underrated aspects of the end of feudalism in Europe is how it made everything much more centralised and efficient and made more specialised trades such as gunsmithing much more profitable and competitive and thereby more innovative. As for why The Ottoman Empire didn't progress out of feudalism? I'm honestly not sure, but the size of the empire is obviously a big factor (Russia had the same problem), but I think the biggest reason is that most of the empire were just very happy to be left alone as much as possible. As long as most of the power was back in Constantinople, most of the powerful people didn't really know what was going on in Lebanon or Algeria, so the local rulers could do as they liked. And when they weren't allowed to, they rebelled. Like, look at what happened in Egypt before the French and the British came...
@@rasmusn.e.m1064 but before the 1800s they were pretty tolerant When they lost land and they could actually govern their empire they started cracking down on minorities in the 1800s
10:00 romanians were mixed tribes of dacians, thracians and celts when they were conquered by rome. over the time they had lots of nomadic people settling there, slavs, goths, magyars, cumans, pechenegs, avars etc. it's hard to keep a single identity when you are settled on the steppes cause people come and go all the time. the most accepted theory is that they all stuck up with their own version of latin since it was the "lingua-franca" of the time since imperial rome to middle ages in the biggest cities around. eventually it became the modern romanian language.
The Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire) was already 1000 years old and weak after many wars, especially with the Crusaders. The Turks were tribes that migrated by millions and took over lands like the Mongols
To answer your question why the Crimwar isn´t mentioned is because they won the war, they fought with the French and British against Russia. And to give you some information about the lands in Africa and north of the black see. The territory was rules by Rulers that made deals with the Ottomans to get there protection in case of wars. Egypt was ruled directly by the Ottomans
Actually Egypt wasn't always ruled by the Ottomans when they captured it. Albanians ruled it for a long time in the Ottoman era for around 200 years until the Brits 'took it'.
From 1804 until 1912, the Serbs dealt serious blows to the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, and in 1912, together with their allies, they dealt the last blow to the Ottomans
If the Ottomans wanted, they could destroy you, not one of you could be there, that power was always there in the Ottomans, but the Turks, fair people, did not do this to you.
4:20 both names probably derive from the ancient turkic word temir/iron. in tamerlane's case it's turko-persian, timurlenk. lenk means lame in persian, he got it because he caught an arrow in the (i'm not gonna do that joke) foot as a young petty raider on the silk road, way before he decided to conquer a quarter of the world. timur/temir still means iron. on genghis' case the name was turko-mongolic. temuchin means a blacksmith/iron worker. the suffix is mongolian. in both cases, in central asia iron was considered to be sacred (tengriists, shamanists and later on early muslims, nestorian christians and buddhists still used iron as a protection from evil spirits and swords to something to give an oath to (not the same as knighthood in europe, they swore on the sword itself))
The conquest of Syria and Egypt was great for the Ottomans. Portugal was already in India by then, in fact it was the portuguese blockade of the red sea that ended up killing the Mamluks as their trade income crashed at the same time they were forced to invest in the military defence of that theatre (until then they had no enemy there). That made the Mamluk state effectively bankrupt and they had to focus militarily on the south and ask ottoman advisors to help them modernise - this was what enabled the Ottomans to conquer syria and egypt in one swipe. The ottomans inherited the portuguese problem in the red sea and militarily they were never able to defeat the portuguese but the chain of alliances they created across the indian ocean made the portuguese monopoly of the east not fully enforced which made sure some of the indian trade (which was massive) still found its way to the ottoman egypt and Portugal was content with their share and overstretched so they let it stay that way.
The most powerful period of the Ottoman Empire was the time of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire took control of 20 million square kilometers during her reign.
9:36 As far as I know, the origin of Romanian is still very much debated by linguists. One guess is just that Latin-speaking populations in the Balkans survived the conquests in the Balkans by the Avars and later the Bulgars as well as the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire turning to Greek as its most widely spoken language. These populations also possibly settled or were settled north of the Danube in modern-day Romania, and their Romance language just evolved from there. It doesn't explain everything because there are "cousin languages" of Romanian like Aromanian in other isolated spots of the Balkans like parts of Serbia, but it's the only hypothesis I remember.
2:58 Yeah you're probably pretty spot on there. The Romans by this point could be described as a 'sick man'. Having just gone through the black death, numerous costly civil wars where rebels would invite foreign states (including the Ottomans) to occupy parts of the empire, a busted economy, all while still not having recovered from the disastrous Fourth Crusade which sacked the capital and partitioned the empire. The fact they managed to survive for nearly 100 years after the Ottomans reduced the empire to a collection of city states is honestly kind of a feat in itself. Most other empires at the time would be on death's door by that point.
Imo it’s not even fair to call them the sick man because the Roman Empire by 1400s was way past sick man more comparable to a walking corpse. The reason they made it so far is because by this point they logically used all their power point on defense and just fortified everything they had and used Constantinople with an almost impregnable defense to its fullest advantage. The Roman Empire was crippled after the loss of Anatolia tho and especially when Constantinople was sacked by barbarians.
I'd personally describe the Ottomans as the traditional Islamic and Persian empire. The empire, at least in my opinion, ran similarly to the Abbasids. The Ottomans appointed governors or left the nobility in place like the Abbasids, and their loss of authority in North Africa, the Levant, and Mesopotamia mirrors Abbasid loss of authority over Egypt which was seized by its governor as his own personal domain.
i am a romanian : Romania ( DACIA region ) was conquered in 101 by the roman empire ( And its capital Sarmisegetuza was burned to the ground because the roman's where upset that Dacian's did not want to surrender ) and occupied for a long time by the romans , that is why romanian language has latin influences and resembles latin language
19:41 those are the "cool guys" historians for you, jumping ahead, oversimplification, ignoring things that dont fit their narrative etc. 22:29 I dont think "no war" argument is accurate, Ottoman Empire more or less kept fighting conflicts throught its existence just not always major ones. 26:05 That is just wrong. By the time Ottomans conquered Egypt Portugese were already well established in the indian ocean, and in fact one of contributing factors to fall of malmuks was loss of trade with india due to portugese piracy, To answer your question - a time of decline is usually assigned to start after the siege of Vienna.
I second this, Al Muqaddimah makes really good and well researched videos. Also love how he covers less mainstream stuff that western channels don't tend to talk about as much, like the Umayyad Caliphate.
Ottomans didn't have any incentives to seek any improvements to their instutions, they tought they won the world. They didn't have financial diversity and instutions like banks and such, the Spanish silver and gold inflation made a hit in economy but mostly, to them Europe really didn't have any value. Bad land, bad resources, and bad history. Remember, they originated from the old old world, asia, and from their point of view they were the rulers and would be rulers of "everywhere". Aside from that, they had a very strong and stable monarchy and govermental system, so much so no rich tradesman could overcome the sultan and get trade rights unlike european kingdoms. For example, Englishmen could rise against their king for trade rights, accept taxing and for taxes, they could demand representation. This decentralized weak crowns allowed the commoners and lower nobles to rise and get rich. They could have loans from banks and money traders, invest and their investment could be legally defended. When this happened, altough they had great resources and land at hand, ottomans lost. Understanding they have already lost took 300 years :). Also they were landlocked from Atlantic, and lost all the resource and slave trading to other nations. At the end, they weren't dragged backwards really, but other nearby powers had a chance of advancing really quick and soon. By improvements on trade and agriculture, France amassed a population of 35-40 million in 1850, and ottomans still had 15-20 because ther was no way to feed them conventionally. Manpower, trade, instutions of law and trade ended them. Their last century was all about trying to advance the nation but they were constantly in wars, and wars are by themselves can be really devastating. I think Turks are, alongside the Russians and Japanese, really one of the fewer people that accepted they are backwarda in many areas and need total conversion or die. In form of a republic, they managed to do their long sought reforms.
Kudos to this 'historian' who got through the history of the Ottoman Empire WITHOUT mentioning Slavery or its utter cruelty. Well done! How very droll!
Because en empire practicing slavery is such a novel idea and such a totally unexpected piece of shocking information that it should be the first and pretty much the only thing to Talk about. Get a grip
@@nosmokejazwinski6297 I think he says that when taking about British and French and others we would definitely talk about slavery and colonialism but here no one talked about the Ottoman are also done slavery from Europe to Africa . And hell iam not going into ww1 and post atrocities, would i.
22:10 The idea that empires who remain peaceful and static become stagnant and decline because they don't have any urge to modernize is a frequent hypothesis, and it can apply to the Ottomans, though Blue severely underplays the amount of wars they had with the Safavid Empire of Persia to the East, and with the Austrians and the Russians to the north. But honestly, all empires eventually fall due to a combination of foreign wars, economic problems, lack of modernization, a growingly conservative and/or debauched ruling class and/or separatist tendencies from provinces. It's just impressive that the Ottomans lasted over 600 years with how much everyone around them had a reason to take them out.
btw here are all the languages descended from LATIN : italian , spanish , portuguese , romanian , and i think french too ( basically all regions that where conquered by the roman empire )
Mercenaries and nomads , called out by Byzantines to protect them. But when the well dried out , they turned against Constantinople, plundered it and the game begun. It was finished when they all fell at the prime of decadency, getting way too comfortable. The end.
The Ottoman Empire ultimately became stultified, it was so bound in tradition and set in its ways it could not adapt to the British industrial revolution. Gradually the European powers chipped away at it (ironically Britain tried to prop it up but gave it up as a bad lot)
I like unusual rarely known facts, or ones I think are rarely known. On the fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II they pulled down the flag a symbol of Constantinople. On that flag was the cresent and star which is now a familiar sight in the Muslim world and which the Ottoman empire used thereafter. Today on the flag of Turkey. Many think it was Mehmeds dream but that coukd be symbolic of taking Constantinople thus tieing together the empire.
Well if you want to go back further of when it was used it was before Greek mythology depending on when you think that started. If you're Greek then you think when time was recorded. But nobody can date it, Minoan, yet it was used before then in the Egyptian era and before. The point is the Islamic world widely uses a symbol from the Christians.
Yup, Aja Sofia the biggest orthodox church was very recently turned into a mosque. And no reaction from anyone, they are in Nato, who cares about the orthodox cultural treasure😢
En 1571 el ejercito del Papa , el Imperio Español y otros derrotaron a los turcos , a Suleiman el Magnifico en la batalla Naval de Lepanto, en el estrecho de Corinto.
His name was Ataman probably not Osman its name was Devlet-i Alliye or for west Türkish empire or Devlet-i Turkiya also Memlük name was Devlet-i Turkiya because they were Kıpchak Türk.. Timur didnt use Han - Kağan - Kan he used Emir and to be Dynasty he politically married with Mogol princess and used Emir for real life he was a great Kağan.. Temuchin han was Mogol his father killed by Tatars its a cousin ethnicity for Turks and following wolf and Kök Tengri like Turks in general but Mogols are not Turks nvm Timur means İron in Turkish i could tell u more but this is not a library or university.. google'da bu kadar oluyo..
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Yes, Berber pirates did come to Iceland. These pirates were not really under the Sultan's control. In the 17th century, the Ottoman territories in North Africa (of which these pirates were) became only nominally dependent on Constantinople and could pursue their own policies. And their foreign policy was piracy.
And yes, they sailed to Iceland via Gibraltar. And they chose Iceland because it is easy to rob it. That's as far as I know.
Romanian being a Romance language has nothing to do with Venice. The Roman Empire killed the local population and settled Latin speaking people there, in order to subdue the region and those settlers, as wel as some surviving natives, became the Romanians.
They didn't kill them all, they assimilated and brought people there. As a result, romanians have native balkanic(dacian) and slavic DNA in general, not italian. The same way France is not italian in DNA even they speak a latin language but rather native gaulish people
@@thieph I specifically said they didn't kill them all
@@buurmeisje sorry, I didn't read all.
@@thieph Balkanik and east -european (not slavic) - Balkanik mean WHG - western hunter gatherers + anatolian farmers, east-european - indo-european tribes (yamnaya culture) - which together mean THRACIAN/dacian .... I have 52% balkanik DNA and 23% east-european DNA....
Fellow Turk here, let's talk about ottomans. While Ottoman rising is pictured perfectly in the video, often, foreign videos tend to dismiss one factor that is also important. Sultans rule the empire, but, some sultans were ruled by their queen/mother. Especially during after the Sultan the lawmaker, we see many background plays between mother-queen of the sultan for his place, his childrens place and for decisions of empire. Weak sultans were killed in secret, plotted by their family in order to replace to the next sultan. Also, janissaries were proud soldiers of the empire, and they were proud of their sultan, when their sultan was strong like the mehmet the conquerer. When the sultan is weak, they became stronger and forcefully/politically affected by the next sultan decision. In the end, if you can't control janissaries, or can't have their respects, you as a sultan had no chance to stay alive. If you don't conquere, respect and pay fairly to your soldiers, they won't fight for you, but against you. Ottoman empire had also some periods where they were isolated from their people(e.g. tulip period). After wars that ottomans lost to french, italians etc., they don't just lost some areas, they were also forced to give more rights to their minority community, and also reduce many taxes for the winner side, e.g. france. This was an economic pain(google 'capitulations of ottoman') that ottoman would be suffer of. Lastly, they don't follow technology, military strategy and the world. They might've fancied the european art and literature, but they were still trying to fight with them in 1800, but with a 1600s time of strategy, lack of weapon tech and mostly corrupted generals. Ottomans tried to reform themselves. They killed janissaries finally with a proper army that the sultan could able to raise after his previous 3-4 sultans had tried and killed by janissaries. They sent scholars to france and germany to gain knowledge(young turks were mostly fashioned by the emperialistic german ideology but people like Atatürk, who was sent to France had took ideas to french secularism and ideology. The problem is, Ottoman empire was too late to adapt those changes and others like Russia and France benefit from this a lot. The final nail came when france spread the nationalism in which minorities in the empire rise up to gain their independency, or. killing many ottomans while resisting and thus reducing the military strenght which was already bad enough.
And who were the janissaries - slav kids who were taken from their parents , indoctrinated to islam, given muslim names , trained to murder their own people. Just poor , brainwashed children who never remembered their origin and name.
Timur /Tamerlane was 200 years later he founded the Timurid Empire, a Turco-Mongol Empire that covered Iran,Iraq,Afghanistan, the south caucasus, most of Central Asia, parts of Pakistan,India and Turkey..........
If you want to really learn about ottoman expansions and history I suggest this: ''Ottoman History'' playlist from ''Kings and Generals'' it starts with video ''Battle of Kosovo 1389 - Serbian-Ottoman Wars DOCUMENTARY'' There is 46 videos 15ish minutes long. 1st 20ish videos would explain this video so much more in depth. S tier content.
"Complacency" within the Ottoman Empire after Suleiman was not just limited to foreign policy; if you compare to European powers at the same time, the Ottoman Empire didn't really grow out of feudalism; one of the reasons it was relatively tolerant towards minorities when compared to Europe was that most power was incredibly decentralised, so communities far away from Constantinople could basically do whatever they liked as long as they paid their taxes and/or supplied the janissary force with new members (*cough* this post isn't exclusively about devşirme, so I won't go any deeper into that.), but the system of tax collection was incredibly inefficient because most appointed tax collectors were also the people who held a good deal of local authority anyway and so weren't really interested in giving all the money back to the Sultan (they kept a lot of it for themselves). One of the most underrated aspects of the end of feudalism in Europe is how it made everything much more centralised and efficient and made more specialised trades such as gunsmithing much more profitable and competitive and thereby more innovative.
As for why The Ottoman Empire didn't progress out of feudalism?
I'm honestly not sure, but the size of the empire is obviously a big factor (Russia had the same problem), but I think the biggest reason is that most of the empire were just very happy to be left alone as much as possible. As long as most of the power was back in Constantinople, most of the powerful people didn't really know what was going on in Lebanon or Algeria, so the local rulers could do as they liked. And when they weren't allowed to, they rebelled. Like, look at what happened in Egypt before the French and the British came...
The ottomans were tolerant towards minorities unless they were Balkan
Jk jk
But they were very brutal in the 1800s towards Balkan people
@@AdvancedGamer- Yes, and look at what happened. It's hard to generalise over such a long period of time.
@@rasmusn.e.m1064 but before the 1800s they were pretty tolerant
When they lost land and they could actually govern their empire they started cracking down on minorities in the 1800s
2:57 Bad comparison because the Roman Empire and Ottomans situation and how they got there are totally different from each other.
10:00 romanians were mixed tribes of dacians, thracians and celts when they were conquered by rome. over the time they had lots of nomadic people settling there, slavs, goths, magyars, cumans, pechenegs, avars etc. it's hard to keep a single identity when you are settled on the steppes cause people come and go all the time. the most accepted theory is that they all stuck up with their own version of latin since it was the "lingua-franca" of the time since imperial rome to middle ages in the biggest cities around. eventually it became the modern romanian language.
You should definitely watch stuff about Tamerlane, dude was a legend that made Mongol atrocities look like childsplay.
The Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire) was already 1000 years old and weak after many wars, especially with the Crusaders. The Turks were tribes that migrated by millions and took over lands like the Mongols
Just like I said, nomads and mercenaries.
To answer your question why the Crimwar isn´t mentioned is because they won the war, they fought with the French and British against Russia. And to give you some information about the lands in Africa and north of the black see. The territory was rules by Rulers that made deals with the Ottomans to get there protection in case of wars. Egypt was ruled directly by the Ottomans
Actually Egypt wasn't always ruled by the Ottomans when they captured it. Albanians ruled it for a long time in the Ottoman era for around 200 years until the Brits 'took it'.
The ottoman empire fell because it was hollow and empty inside. Lifting the lid showed that underneath there was convenient space for storage
Sorry but what do you mean by the lid allegory?
@@christophernakhoul3998 Google ottoman and you should get it
👍
said Ottomanologist Chris. you would ask whatever you wonder about 600 years long history of ottomans to him👆
From 1804 until 1912, the Serbs dealt serious blows to the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, and in 1912, together with their allies, they dealt the last blow to the Ottomans
My God, what a blow you dealt to the Ottomans, you lived with the Ottomans for 500 years and you are talking about a coup.
If the Ottomans wanted, they could destroy you, not one of you could be there, that power was always there in the Ottomans, but the Turks, fair people, did not do this to you.
What you’re trying to say is,"you have to keep match-fit".
4:20
both names probably derive from the ancient turkic word temir/iron. in tamerlane's case it's turko-persian, timurlenk. lenk means lame in persian, he got it because he caught an arrow in the (i'm not gonna do that joke) foot as a young petty raider on the silk road, way before he decided to conquer a quarter of the world. timur/temir still means iron.
on genghis' case the name was turko-mongolic. temuchin means a blacksmith/iron worker. the suffix is mongolian. in both cases, in central asia iron was considered to be sacred (tengriists, shamanists and later on early muslims, nestorian christians and buddhists still used iron as a protection from evil spirits and swords to something to give an oath to (not the same as knighthood in europe, they swore on the sword itself))
You deserve a much more in-depth account than this.
You should watch a video about the Barbary pirates and their history and how they went to Iceland
The conquest of Syria and Egypt was great for the Ottomans. Portugal was already in India by then, in fact it was the portuguese blockade of the red sea that ended up killing the Mamluks as their trade income crashed at the same time they were forced to invest in the military defence of that theatre (until then they had no enemy there). That made the Mamluk state effectively bankrupt and they had to focus militarily on the south and ask ottoman advisors to help them modernise - this was what enabled the Ottomans to conquer syria and egypt in one swipe. The ottomans inherited the portuguese problem in the red sea and militarily they were never able to defeat the portuguese but the chain of alliances they created across the indian ocean made the portuguese monopoly of the east not fully enforced which made sure some of the indian trade (which was massive) still found its way to the ottoman egypt and Portugal was content with their share and overstretched so they let it stay that way.
The most powerful period of the Ottoman Empire was the time of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire took control of 20 million square kilometers during her reign.
22:30 I don't know you tell me after you talk with Ireland and Switzerland.
Many powers that did remain or became aggressive also collapsed.
Like British Empire
I'm Algerian 🇩🇿and my surname is ( Beyazid) 👋 thanks, like the video 👍
9:36 As far as I know, the origin of Romanian is still very much debated by linguists. One guess is just that Latin-speaking populations in the Balkans survived the conquests in the Balkans by the Avars and later the Bulgars as well as the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire turning to Greek as its most widely spoken language. These populations also possibly settled or were settled north of the Danube in modern-day Romania, and their Romance language just evolved from there. It doesn't explain everything because there are "cousin languages" of Romanian like Aromanian in other isolated spots of the Balkans like parts of Serbia, but it's the only hypothesis I remember.
Serbs also survived the conquest
We did a little trolling
Good lord, Connor talks some nonsense, even after watching the video he still doesn't understand.
27:20 You assume right but Lepanto was not their only defeat at that time period. Plus famous Sultan Suleiman died.
2:58
Yeah you're probably pretty spot on there. The Romans by this point could be described as a 'sick man'. Having just gone through the black death, numerous costly civil wars where rebels would invite foreign states (including the Ottomans) to occupy parts of the empire, a busted economy, all while still not having recovered from the disastrous Fourth Crusade which sacked the capital and partitioned the empire.
The fact they managed to survive for nearly 100 years after the Ottomans reduced the empire to a collection of city states is honestly kind of a feat in itself. Most other empires at the time would be on death's door by that point.
Imo it’s not even fair to call them the sick man because the Roman Empire by 1400s was way past sick man more comparable to a walking corpse. The reason they made it so far is because by this point they logically used all their power point on defense and just fortified everything they had and used Constantinople with an almost impregnable defense to its fullest advantage.
The Roman Empire was crippled after the loss of Anatolia tho and especially when Constantinople was sacked by barbarians.
You shoul watch more ottoman history
22:50 Si vic pacem para bellum.
I'd personally describe the Ottomans as the traditional Islamic and Persian empire. The empire, at least in my opinion, ran similarly to the Abbasids. The Ottomans appointed governors or left the nobility in place like the Abbasids, and their loss of authority in North Africa, the Levant, and Mesopotamia mirrors Abbasid loss of authority over Egypt which was seized by its governor as his own personal domain.
i am a romanian : Romania ( DACIA region ) was conquered in 101 by the roman empire ( And its capital Sarmisegetuza was burned to the ground because the roman's where upset that Dacian's did not want to surrender ) and occupied for a long time by the romans , that is why romanian language has latin influences and resembles latin language
Temujin was his name before he became Khan in 1206......
14:14 both of the sources of those rivers are in Anatolia. so, it would be pointless to do that :D
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk 🇹🇷❤️
19:41 those are the "cool guys" historians for you, jumping ahead, oversimplification, ignoring things that dont fit their narrative etc. 22:29 I dont think "no war" argument is accurate, Ottoman Empire more or less kept fighting conflicts throught its existence just not always major ones. 26:05 That is just wrong. By the time Ottomans conquered Egypt Portugese were already well established in the indian ocean, and in fact one of contributing factors to fall of malmuks was loss of trade with india due to portugese piracy,
To answer your question - a time of decline is usually assigned to start after the siege of Vienna.
React to channel name Al muqaddimah he makes great videos on islamic history ❤
I second this, Al Muqaddimah makes really good and well researched videos. Also love how he covers less mainstream stuff that western channels don't tend to talk about as much, like the Umayyad Caliphate.
Ottomans didn't have any incentives to seek any improvements to their instutions, they tought they won the world. They didn't have financial diversity and instutions like banks and such, the Spanish silver and gold inflation made a hit in economy but mostly, to them Europe really didn't have any value. Bad land, bad resources, and bad history. Remember, they originated from the old old world, asia, and from their point of view they were the rulers and would be rulers of "everywhere". Aside from that, they had a very strong and stable monarchy and govermental system, so much so no rich tradesman could overcome the sultan and get trade rights unlike european kingdoms. For example, Englishmen could rise against their king for trade rights, accept taxing and for taxes, they could demand representation. This decentralized weak crowns allowed the commoners and lower nobles to rise and get rich. They could have loans from banks and money traders, invest and their investment could be legally defended. When this happened, altough they had great resources and land at hand, ottomans lost. Understanding they have already lost took 300 years :). Also they were landlocked from Atlantic, and lost all the resource and slave trading to other nations. At the end, they weren't dragged backwards really, but other nearby powers had a chance of advancing really quick and soon. By improvements on trade and agriculture, France amassed a population of 35-40 million in 1850, and ottomans still had 15-20 because ther was no way to feed them conventionally. Manpower, trade, instutions of law and trade ended them. Their last century was all about trying to advance the nation but they were constantly in wars, and wars are by themselves can be really devastating. I think Turks are, alongside the Russians and Japanese, really one of the fewer people that accepted they are backwarda in many areas and need total conversion or die. In form of a republic, they managed to do their long sought reforms.
uhmmm how many crusades did ottomans win till mehmed the second came ?
Can u react to the Ottoman empire by kings and generals
Kudos to this 'historian' who got through the history of the Ottoman Empire WITHOUT mentioning Slavery or its utter cruelty. Well done! How very droll!
This video is a short summary of a nation spanning six hundred years. You can't expect him to mention everything good and bad
Why he should do it? It is not that important. Is slavery is a first to mention when talking about the Roman empire?
Because en empire practicing slavery is such a novel idea and such a totally unexpected piece of shocking information that it should be the first and pretty much the only thing to Talk about. Get a grip
@@nosmokejazwinski6297
I think he says that when taking about British and French and others we would definitely talk about slavery and colonialism but here no one talked about the Ottoman are also done slavery from Europe to Africa . And hell iam not going into ww1 and post atrocities, would i.
Roman Peace stead From, good, peace, water, etc.
22:10 The idea that empires who remain peaceful and static become stagnant and decline because they don't have any urge to modernize is a frequent hypothesis, and it can apply to the Ottomans, though Blue severely underplays the amount of wars they had with the Safavid Empire of Persia to the East, and with the Austrians and the Russians to the north. But honestly, all empires eventually fall due to a combination of foreign wars, economic problems, lack of modernization, a growingly conservative and/or debauched ruling class and/or separatist tendencies from provinces. It's just impressive that the Ottomans lasted over 600 years with how much everyone around them had a reason to take them out.
btw here are all the languages descended from LATIN : italian , spanish , portuguese , romanian , and i think french too ( basically all regions that where conquered by the roman empire )
Mercenaries and nomads , called out by Byzantines to protect them. But when the well dried out , they turned against Constantinople, plundered it and the game begun. It was finished when they all fell at the prime of decadency, getting way too comfortable. The end.
React to Byzantine vs Bulgaria wars
The Ottoman Empire ultimately became stultified, it was so bound in tradition and set in its ways it could not adapt to the British industrial revolution. Gradually the European powers chipped away at it (ironically Britain tried to prop it up but gave it up as a bad lot)
Wow, famous british arrogance found it's way as always.
@@Greensanctuary-c4w but it’s the truth. 😂😂😂😂
@@Greensanctuary-c4w all completely true whether it agrees with you nationalist revisionism or not
@@martynnotman3467everything that suits colonial imperialism is lovely jobely😂
@@hugh-hoof-hearts4360yea, true, but that arrogance 🤦Anyway, Scotts invented everything on that isle.
Bro can you resume the early Muslim expansion season 2
Turkey ruled more European lands then you think. All those European lands belong to the turks. They could claim it one day.
Because power poisoning.
I like unusual rarely known facts, or ones I think are rarely known. On the fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II they pulled down the flag a symbol of Constantinople. On that flag was the cresent and star which is now a familiar sight in the Muslim world and which the Ottoman empire used thereafter. Today on the flag of Turkey. Many think it was Mehmeds dream but that coukd be symbolic of taking Constantinople thus tieing together the empire.
It was the emblem of goddess Artemis (Diana), the goddess patroness of the city of Byzantium
Well if you want to go back further of when it was used it was before Greek mythology depending on when you think that started. If you're Greek then you think when time was recorded. But nobody can date it, Minoan, yet it was used before then in the Egyptian era and before. The point is the Islamic world widely uses a symbol from the Christians.
Yup, Aja Sofia the biggest orthodox church was very recently turned into a mosque. And no reaction from anyone, they are in Nato, who cares about the orthodox cultural treasure😢
@@apmoy70they had no culture , so they had to steal it.
@@apmoy70And what about Aja Sofia turned into a mosque? A disgrace!!
türkçe alt yazı pls
En 1571 el ejercito del Papa , el Imperio Español y otros derrotaron a los turcos , a Suleiman el Magnifico en la batalla Naval de Lepanto, en el estrecho de Corinto.
Typesetting Arabic writing sucks, stops mass publishing. This handicapped Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals.
His name was Ataman probably not Osman its name was Devlet-i Alliye or for west Türkish empire or Devlet-i Turkiya also Memlük name was Devlet-i Turkiya because they were Kıpchak Türk.. Timur didnt use Han - Kağan - Kan he used Emir and to be Dynasty he politically married with Mogol princess and used Emir for real life he was a great Kağan.. Temuchin han was Mogol his father killed by Tatars its a cousin ethnicity for Turks and following wolf and Kök Tengri like Turks in general but Mogols are not Turks nvm Timur means İron in Turkish i could tell u more but this is not a library or university.. google'da bu kadar oluyo..
Columbus bater this world again wow good nations truth nation Columbus