Turks never had the zeal of spreading their language. There isn't a single language whose extinction was caused by Ottomans contrary to colonial empires like Britain, France, Russia, Rome etc. who were responsible for various extinct languages
I am from Damascus. My grandmother's father (Muhammed Fawzi Pasha ) was a famous pasha in the Ottoman Empire. He knew Ottoman Turkish. My grandmother also used some Turkish words that she learned from her father. For example, I remember her saying "Allah mustahaqin wersin" "sani kuftehor sani" when she got angry. She also played the oud for us and sang Turkish songs for us. There was a song she sang that I will never forget and I still sing it : "Yinabir gulin hal aldabu gonulumu simtan gonja fam biybadal ol guzal". My family knew the Ottoman language because they were active in Ottoman politics. But the idea of forcing people to use a single language in modern nation states or colonial states did not exist in the traditional states of the past. The Ottomans are a combination of the cultural diversity of Islamic civilization that modern people cannot understand. Turkish was used in politics and the army, poems were written in Persian, and the language of science, philosophy and religion was Arabic. Apart from these, many different languages were spoken by the people (millat) in the Ottoman lands.
Yine bir Gülnihâl aldı bu gönlümü Sim ten, gonca fem bibedel ol güzel That is a piece of waltz in Ottoman Turkish, mostly unintelligible for today's Turks. I can see it is heavily influenced by Persian. We could recognize every single word, but still the context would be unfamiliar to us anyway. It is like reading Middle English for a native English speaker from today
@@thalè-s-muet Ah, thank you very much for the information. I don't know how to write in Turkish. My family elders loved Turkish music. When I was little, I grew up listening to these songs. My grandmother had a beautiful voice, she played the oud and piano. She also listened to songs from Munir Nuraddin and Hafiz Burhan's gramophone records that my uncle brought from Istanbul. I have always been interested in Turkish music through my grandmother. I think the song Gulnihal is a composition by Hammamizada Efendi. I love listening to Turkish musicians Bekir Sidki, Alaaddin Yavas and Munir Nuraddin. Turkish music and its maqams are very similar to Arabic music. But of course, both have their own unique beauty. I am very happy to know both cultures. Greetings and love to all Turks from an Ottoman Damascene grandson from Paris.🇸🇾♥️🇹🇷
they did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
People dont understand while ottomans took persian and byzantine administration perks they still had nomadic traditions they didnt gaf about religion and language of others as long as they paid tribute or tax.
"free to do whatever they wanted to do" uh. bud... they heavily restricted what non muslims could do, and alot of the times killed people not of the book if they didnt convert lmao.
Turks never made an effort to spread it lol. By Imperial standards the Turks were pretty soft, yeah they will defeat your armies and takeover, but after that they left you alone to rule yourself just pay your tribute. Had they been like english, french, russians etc most of the world would be speaking today when you consider that the Ottomans is just one of about 40 empires the Turkic people created.
@@dam8498 conscription is quite normal, even today. Whats surprising is that europeans made less then 1% of the Ottoman army. Truth be told its crazy that the Muslim Turks didnt just use the Christian subjects as pure cannon fodder. Keep in mind the Muslim in some places were giving 30% of their people towards the army. Muslims got it far harder under Ottomans then Christians.
@@dam8498 ottomans took your 1 son, in europe u belonged to ur monarch literally if they call the banners as serfs u needed to come. Not the mention in ottoman janissary system u can be 2. strongest man in the entire state but in levy system in europe u cant even rank up if u r not knighted etc.
it wasnt matter of "they couldn't" it was a matter of respecting cultures and not forcing stuff on people. Ottoman sultan learned multiple languages to be able to talk with all the people of the empire. the reason why people in russia speak russian or people in north africa speak french is because of genocide and cultural cleansing.
ottomans respecting cultures? lmao ottoman empire is very well known about respect others, they did that with their Hordes while beaheading and raping Greeks Armenians and other anatolian tribes
Ottoman takeover of the Balkans wasn't like the Roman invasion of the Gauls or the Spanish takoever of the Americas, which saw enormous shifts in cultural and religious networks and the toppling-down of entire systems of government. The Ottomans, after a military victory, IF they want to incorporate the territory into the imperial network, simply installed a governor or made a deal with the existing one in that territory - and didn't try to make any change in an already-functioning state apparatus. Religious conversion, though somewhat desirable or necessary in some occasions, was not mandatory. All these factors combined, Turkish didn't get a stronghold in the Balkans and the surrounding regions. Ottomans came at a time when Balkan nations already had strong literary traditions with semi-standardized orthographies, all tied to religion and the broader Church institutions. These institutions controlled the respective languages their people spoke and were officially incorporated into the Ottoman system of governance. These all meant there wasn't really a need (or a desire) to switch to Turkish in a cultural or religious sense. Yes, many languages were often transcribed in the Ottoman script (Albanian and Bosnian especially) but beyond that, Balkans had working high-language registers before the arrival of the Ottomans. As for the Middle East and North Africa, Arabic and Persian were already prestige languages even for the Ottoman Turks, so they enjoyed a relative natural "protected" status; and the Ottoman political and military presence in the region was relatively limited, especially when compared to the Balkans and Anatolia.
if that was the reason why did same people started to speak french? you are taking results of lack of effort and will to make it happen and with that premise you are creating reasons for why it couldn't happen.
What a description of a nice (Ottoman) world! Occupation was occupation and slavery was slavery! By writting such rubbish U R insulting so many people who lived happily under so much and such oppression and who finally happily died by losing their head, being impaled, scorched to death by burning oil, draged and quartered by horses or ships, hanged from their torso by giant hooks etc... The image at 0:46 is a mild showing of ottoman (turkish) tolerance! These people lived happily by paying heavy tax they couldn't afford, they also had to pay jizia in order to keep their head in place, nobility had to give their children to be "educated" (this is how "parents' control" was presented), and possibly being islamised and turkified; ie loosing their identity! Common people had to pay blood tax by having their kids kidnapped and never seen again (by becoming jenissaries the boys and sex slaves in harems the girls) and many other bad things... Then you were free to do what you want living happily... EXCEPT, wearing red and green, using bells in church, etc, etc, etc... and you were free to do whatever you want living happily... EXCEPT, speaking UR language deep in Anatolia, otherwise UR tongue would be cut off; EXCEPT revolting for living this way in this ottoman paradise! They had to suffer respect and tolerance in order to pay taxes! Converting wasn't necessary (Christians were needed to pay the taxes) but was obligatory under the sword; the other option in this case (under the sword) was to be killed! Nobles and other people of some position had to surrender to keep their privileges (in case they fought they stayed free in case of winning, they became dead in case of loosing). Till the 15th and 16th century. Later, they had to convert in order to keep their privileges! Another mandatory case of converting... During the 1770 greek revolution, the Sultan ordered "KILL THEM ALL" and he revoked his order immediately, because the Admiral of the Aegean asked: "...and who is going to pay the taxes?" U get the point?
Occupation is occupation, slavery is slavery! By writting such rubbish U R insulting so many people who lived happily under so much and such oppression and who finally happily died by losing their head, being impaled, scorched to death by hot oil, draged and quartered by horses or ships, hanged from their torso by giant hooks etc... The image at 0:46 is a mild showing of ottoman (turkish) tolerance! These people lived happily by paying heavy tax they couldn't afford, they also had to pay jizia in order to keep their head in place, nobility had to give their children to be "educated" (this is how "parents' control" was presented), and possibly being islamised and turkified; ie loosing their identity! Common people had to pay blood tax by having their kids kidnapped and never seen again (by becoming jenissaries the boys and sex slaves in harems the girls) and many other bad things... Then you were free to do what you want living happily... EXCEPT, wearing red and green, using bells in church, etc, etc, etc... and you were free to do whatever you want living happily... EXCEPT, speaking UR language deep in Anatolia, otherwise UR tongue would be cut off; EXCEPT revolting for living this way in this ottoman paradise! They had to suffer respect and tolerance in order to pay taxes! During the Ottoman expansion, there were 2 choises: to fight and be free if winning and die in case of loosing OR to surrender to keep UR life, family and privileges (in case of nobles and people with some influence to the local community). Since 1600, this changed: U had to be converted in order to keep UR privileges! Other case of obligatory conversions: under the sword... There was an option of course... The dilemma was: "dead or Muslim"! During the 1770 greek revolution, the Sultan ordered "KILL THEM ALL" and he revoked his order immediately, because the Admiral of the Aegean asked: "...and who is going to pay the taxes?" U get the point?
italians made island greeks to learn italian as mandatory language even they keep the island in very short time Turks did not made turkish language mandatory to learn even 500 years of rules...
Other worse things were mandatory! Oppression, blood tax, slavery... If U didn't like such things, torture, death! No Italian forced ever a Dodecanesian Greek to carry him on his back! To avoid this, people in Chios island were walking always in groups of 2,4 etc; so that in case they see a Turk, the one carried the other, in order to avoid carrying the Turk! There is a difference between italian occupation and Turkish slavery!
@@jimanast3593 But they still speak greek and they are cristian ... tax was always ther for all emparor it was custom and normal for that times.. greek slaves speak greeks yes but not slave greeks have to speak italian .. turks was better to greeks actually for that time.. some times bad people may do bad but you can not blame all for that kind of bad treatment..
@@jimanast3593 It was not slavery, grow up. The Turks never enslaved the local populations of the people that they conquered. And don't even start with the ''bLoOd tAx'' bs, you pay unbelievable amount of tax to your government today, do you seriously expect a state defeating another state and not put tax on their people? you must be out of your mind
You seem to not understand that Ottomans never considered themselves Turkish until they had to, to stop losing land. Turks owe their identity to the founders of the Republic Mustafa Kemal and İsmet İnönü. Some fools rather like the Ottomans who had given nothing to their their grandparents but stole their money and sacrifice their lives them in foolish wars.
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014You are right, since the Turks were mostly descendants of nomadic people, they did not have much place in city life, most of them were poor. All they had was their large families, horses and fighting tribe. Although the Turkish Empire was founded by the Turks, the emperors generally did not care about the Turks except for their manpower. Even the elite army of the emperor consisted of Balkan children who later became Muslims, the "Janissaries". Atatürk established a republic from the Anatolian Turks, whom the emperor saw as colonies, and revived a nation that was on the verge of collapse. Although there are periodic problems, Turkiye is still a strong state thanks to its army, industry, population and geographical location. And unfortunately, although money is not distributed equally to the people, the state is really very rich.
Also closer to the Azerbaijani than İstanbul Turkish as well. Due to historical presence of azerbaijani Turks in eastern anatolia. Like Qara qoyunlu Aq qoyunlu states and Terekeme(karapapak) origin of dadaş Turks in Erzurum and Azerbaijani Turks living in Iğdır,Kars Ağrı and Van.
It's not like the elite and common population spoke different languages while ordinary Turks spoke only Old Anatolian Turkish the noble class was fluent in both Anatolian Turkish (daily life) and Ottoman Turkish (court)
@@SamBalino osmanlı devleti 600 yıllık bir devlettir ve bu süreçte 36 padişah tahta çıkmıştır. Ve çoğunluğu kendi halkının kültürüne saygı duymuştur. Senin dediğin olay 1920'lı yıllarda olmuştur. Türkiye kurtuluş savaşının bitmesinden sonra nüfus mübadelesi yapılmış ve Yunanistan'daki Türkler Türkiye'ye, Anadoludaki Rumlar ise Yunanistan'a, gönderilmiştir.
yea they didn't want to spread their language but even if they did they really wouldn't be able to. the ottomans didn't conquer arabic lands the same way they conquered other lands. they were welcomed by the arab muslims because they were a strong muslim empire that would unit the muslim world. if the ottomans conquered arab countries with the agenda of removing their identity they would have faced a huge resistence from the people.
It is such a joke that even 'historians' couldn't learn yet Ottoman didn't control vast majority of their lands directly. First of all under Millet system religious minorities were ruling themselves, operating their own schools, churches, government, courts and even issuing their own laws! They were only paying taxes to Ottoman and in many cases they were even collecting their own taxes and delivering it to Ottoman. Muslim territories didn't have such great autonomy but they were still quite decentralized, they were seperated into Eyalets and each Eyalet was ruled independently by Ottoman appointed Pashas. In many cases Ottoman didn't send any forces there rather Pashas were tasked to raise their own armies from local population and they had to cooperate with local rulers to do that. Ottoman never tried to change political structure in conquered territories rather adopted local rulers into their Eyalet system. For example Mamluks remained as a local power in Egypt for hundreds of years after their defeat against Ottoman. As long as they remained loyal and paid their taxes Ottoman couldn't care less who had power in local regions. This decentralized system was working extremely well while Ottoman had a massive army in Constantinople and nobody could dare to provoke them. But as the empire weakened both economically and militarily this decenralized system further weakened the empire. Everybody began doing whatever they wanted literally, Ottoman tried to suppress them and centralize their system with reforms in 19th century but it was already too late. Because enemies especially Europeans were already much powerful and they further weakened Ottoman by encouraging minorities to rebel against it. In 1914 there were 25 million Arabs, 4 million Christians and only 10 million Turks living in Ottoman so when minorities rebelled against the empire like Arabs and Armenians did it was game over. It is just a modern political lie that minorities were suffering under Ottoman rule and Turks are nationalistetc. Some minorities even had their the most prosperous era under Ottoman rule, for example no western 'historian' would mention Greeks were controlling the trade between Europe and Ottoman. And they were the richest community in entire Ottoman by very far. Ottoman never even tried to control the trade rather allowed Greeks to continue after all they were receiving more taxes with this greater trade..
All that I agree with. But still a nation like Greece would never have stayed as a part of the empire as they were treated as second class citizens due to their religion. In the court a Muslims opinion mattered more and so on. I don’t see you or others mention the janisaries. families lost their kid to be brought up as a Muslim to guard the sultan. Everyone bends history to his own side. The truth is somewhere in the middle. So all I’m saying they were good and bad things that the Ottoman Empire did and ultimately one way or another the empire would have fallen like any other.
@@konstantinoszoupalis8449 you are looking at devshirme system from today's romantic views and not based at the conditions of the era you criticize. they were taken from small villages, not from cities and at the time it was seen as a boon for the family as they were later on reaping the benefits when their kid rose in the capital. they were not of age that they wouldn't remember their families.
Bro devshirme system is nothing in scale. Janissaries are really small portion of the army and devshirmes are a way of integrating cultures. For example let's say there are 21 Greek boys in some village that's freshly conquered. They collect just a few of them (at max 7 as it's 1/3), educate them in the palace standarts, have them work in good positions. Why is this done? 1- Empire needs qualified people to rule the lands. Devshirme system both resolves this issue and gives a good life to the devshir-ed child. 2- Empire needs locals to connect to the empire. Devshir-ed childs are not assimilated. They still know where they came from and what their race is and stuff. They are working at positions in their homelands when they start working. So locals are still being managed by locals. Just educated with the empire standards. (This caused a lot of problems to the empire when locals decided to rebel. Since devshirmes supported their own race. Empire could have just used those kids as slaves and assimilated the entire population. This is nothing compared to what Europeans did. Yes still a bad thing but you know we are talking about the years 1300~-1800~.) When we look at the humanity, still we are doing horrible stuff. But when compared, there is no way I can say Turks are worse or even close to Europeans at being bad and unethical. Only thing I can think of that could be a counter argument is the Armenian problem. And my counter arguments would be 1- Europeans and Americans still did muuuuch worse than Turks in the meaning of genocide if we are to think Armenian problem is a genocide. 2- Armenian problem is not being a genocide. It's a counter-attack/defense against a rebelling population. You may ask why did the same thing not happen to Greeks and other rebelled races. It did. They won so people that died in those rebels are now "national heroes" to those countries. Armenians lost in their rebels in most of the lands they were living in so they prompt it as a genocide. Almost (I will explain why 'almost' later) no soldier killed a civil Armenian when the movements were happening. We still can't find any orders of Ottoman authorities ordering any killing of Armenians. We still can't find any mass graves of Armenians. Those Armenians who died died because 1- They were not civilians. They were rebelling against Ottoman Empire. (And it's obvious you are not a civilian no more when you equip your guns and start killing locals and soldiers eh?) 2- The movements was being done in poor conditions. The empire was at a really bad condition in terms of both economics and logistics. Most of the Armenians died in the movements are dead due to lack of food, water and health services. It's not that the Empire didn't give Armenians those, it wasn't possible to provide that much of people resources in a movement. Now the counter argument to this is the word genocide is being invented because of the Armenian events. Yes, this is true, but the perspective is wrong. The guy that invented the word based this on what the Armenians was projecting the events of being. (Like soldiers just going to villages and killing people) But it wasn't the truth. So the perspective that defined the word wasn't based on reality of the events. Yet is invalid for the Armenian events. (Look up the definition, it either includes the words systematic or intentionality. Armenian events never had any intention or systematic way to kill Armenians. It was never the goal. It was to move Armenians from our lands to out of the borders so they can not rebel.) Now let me describe why I used the word almost when saying almost no soldier killed civilian Armenians. When WW1 started, Armenians were doing lots of terror attacks against Turks. We call those eşkiya (translation could be gangster). The soldiers at the war zones were running and turning back to their villages to get the revenge of their families. Since they were runners it is not really correct to say there were soldiers. But still they were using state owned guns even though they were stolen from the state.
@@konstantinoszoupalis8449 I would completely agree every side bends history to their side, we Turks do it too even if it isn't as bad as many western sources. For example your Janissaries examples sounds like Ottoman was randomly collecting children which is entirely false. 'Blood tax' was only happening if a family failed to pay their taxes and it was actually rare in Greece. Simply because Greece was a richer region and people had very little problem paying their taxes. On the other hand in poorer regions like Serbia it was quite common. It still had rules however, like not eldest child, not under 12 or over 18 etc. In today standards ofc it is an unacceptable practice but during those days it was common. For example could you please explain what was happening to people who failed to pay their taxes in France, Spain or Germany? Those governments were saying 'np bro you would pay it next time'?? Ofc not and in many cases those entire families were enslaved. Vast majority of European population was living as Villeins anyway and they had little more rights than slaves, for example they couldn't even leave their farms without permission from their lords! Compared to those conditions Ottoman's policies were very tolerant. And they weren't even becoming slaves rather receiving 4 years education in Devshirme schools and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or receiving military training in Janissary corps to become soldiers. So they weren't even trained to become soldiers from right away. However this doesn't mean Greece should had stayed a part of Ottoman forever, they wanted their own country and became independent and i can't blame them for it. But it is an undeniable fact their new nationalist governments literally re-wrote history to declare themselves as heroes. You can see it in Greece, Serbia, Armenia etc while not in Georgia or Bosnia simply because those countries never had nationalist governments and similar re-writing of history. You can still blame us for all of your problems if you wish but could you share please how long it took for European powers to invade Balkans?? They didn't only occupy entire Balkans also caused civil wars etc. Since independence Balkans has been always in chaos and conflicts but it is our fault somehow. Even if Ottoman never existed and Turks never crossed into Europe there weren't going to be a great Balkan countries rather Balkans was going to be controlled by Italians, Germans or Russians and most likely was in far worse shape today..
@@konstantinoszoupalis8449 rubbish, to this day, the holy patriarch and Anatolian Greeks live in Turkey just fine. More than 2m Turks were killed in ethnic cleansing pogroms in the Balkans from 1912 to 1922, so the idea that the Turks shouldn't engage in a population exchange, and/or act likewise, is completely absurd. Nationalism is a European mind virus infecting the world. Empires were the most sustainable polities, especially liberal ones like the Ottoman
Ottomans was more like a united nations at its time but other imperial powers were not happy with it because they couldn't colonise the other people under ottoman rule
i found it more like to current Usa but we can call united nations too. Also %100 agree with you, divide and conquer is common practice of colonizer empires.
@@yagizz5421 yeah UN is a joke, not even functioning anymore like last century of ottoman state. And the rest was like USA more centralized. My theory is if USA loses its wealth and power its fate will be similar to the ottomans.
so why does modern anatolians stoped speaking greek and armenian and speak turkish today? they trukified whole anatolia which in itslef is a large chunk of territory
@@najibullahghafori3739exactly, there is a time in history called “Turkification of Anatolia” many ethnic groups who spoke other languages from different languages families were turkified.
Yes it conquered other people lands by force and incorporated them into their empire. It is not like the local inhabitants voted to be apart of the Ottoman Empire. So it was an imperialist empire. Imperialism does not exclusively mean western imperialism.
@@Gift-ll4nv ofc they were imperialists but not cultural imperialists. This is mainly the reason why there's been so many ethnic tensions in Anatolia for the last century. Meanwhile a country like France had little to no ethnic tensions thanks to their successful cultural genocide.
Just because the Ottomans didn't force Turkish onto the local populations doesn't make them angels in holy raiment. They still butchered their way through civilians and imposed their dogmatic, tribalistic rule. Their sultans were majority of warlord stock built for murder and laying siege to entire cities. You wanna cry about western empires take a look in the mirror first, Mehmet.
as a turk that is not correct. we are very patient and respectfull people towards other but if to many people of whatever region or people starting to overwrite our stuff, cuture and whatever more turks will use as its defence hardcore attack mechanics... turks and i am one and if you read our history you should know we are probably the most coldblooded people in war mode as long as we are not in war we are the chillest people to be around...
Dude if Britain, France Spain managed to whip out religion ethnicity and languages in only 1 or 2 century, don't you think 600 yo weren't enough for the ottomans to do it ?💀 They simply didn't want to force their language and religion into others
Occupation is occupation, slavery is slavery! By writting such rubbish U R insulting so many people who lived happily under so much and such oppression and who finally happily died by losing their head, being impaled, scorched to death by hot oil, draged and quartered by horses or ships, hanged from their torso by giant hooks etc... The image at 0:46 is a mild showing of ottoman (turkish) tolerance! These people lived happily by paying heavy tax they couldn't afford, they also had to pay jizia in order to keep their head in place, nobility had to give their children to be "educated" (this is how "parents' control" was presented), and possibly being islamised and turkified; ie loosing their identity! Common people had to pay blood tax by having their kids kidnapped and never seen again (by becoming jenissaries the boys and sex slaves in harems the girls) and many other bad things... Then you were free to do what you want living happily... EXCEPT, wearing red and green, using bells in church, etc, etc, etc... and you were free to do whatever you want living happily... EXCEPT, speaking UR language deep in Anatolia, otherwise UR tongue would be cut off; EXCEPT revolting for living this way in this ottoman paradise! They had to suffer respect and tolerance in order to pay taxes! They didn't care for educating their slaves; they just wanted them to pay the taxes; that's why they were keeping them alive (like the farmer does w/ his livestock)! They also didn't care much for converting them since muslims weren't paying taxes! But sometimes convertion was mandatory. During the Ottoman expansion, there were 2 choises: to fight and be free if winning and die in case of loosing OR to surrender to keep UR life, family and privileges (in case of nobles and people with some influence to the local community). Since 1600, this changed: U had to be converted in order to keep UR privileges! Other case of obligatory conversions: under the sword... There was an option of course... The dilemma was: "dead or Muslim"! During the 1770 greek revolution, the Sultan ordered "KILL THEM ALL" and he revoked his order immediately, because the Admiral of the Aegean asked: "...and who is going to pay the taxes?" U get the point?
@@sabrinarodrigues629If the Turks had been colonizers, probably the Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians and many other peoples who stayed under Ottoman rule for a long time would be using Turkish or Ottoman Turkish as their second official language and at the same time their religious structures would be very different. From the very beginning of the Ottoman Empire, including when it expanded in the Balkans, it never forced anything on the peoples. Except for the last times of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, in the last times of the Ottoman Empire, the people in charge were aware that if the Ottoman Empire had established these pressures at the time, the Ottoman Empire would not be in a state of collapse. That is why the Ottoman Empire became more ruthless in its last times in order not to make the mistakes it did not make in the past. So if you call the Ottomans colonizers, you insult the people who lived happily for a long time without any significant damage to that region. Examples of colonizers are the British Empire or the French Empire. Because there were always genocides and bad events in the areas they controlled, and the peoples under the these colonizers also suffered a lot.
@mustafaefe684 lol... the fact that you get offended with ottomans being called colonizers (that's what they are) is ridiculous. And, since you mentioned genocide, how is Turkey dealing with recognizing the Armenian, pontic, syriac and mount lebanon genocides?
@mustafaefe684 by the same logic, the germand didn't colonizers Tanganyka because they favored swahilli, and the Dutch in Indonesia weren't colonizers either as they promoted Malay.
@@sabrinarodrigues629 Those genocides are justified by monsters such as the pan-turkic people who glorify Mustafa kemal and worship him as a supreme leader. If you go to turkiye it would seem as if his image as a supreme leader is enforced upon the young. Erdogan and his party arent so different. Anyways I only knew about the armenian genocide who's supervisor was the monster enver pasha who is described as a "martyr" which is fucking insane as a Muslim myself. These european wannabes have literally distorted the image of the religion for almost everyone (I blame the afghans too)
The Ottoman Empire was tolerant, multiethnic, multi religious, multicultural, harmonious, lasted for centuries & its tolerance reverberates till today! They were not oppressive colonisers! You forgot to mention Bosnia & Herzegovina 🇧🇦 Finally other empires in Europe functioned on the same tolerant principles.
Occupation is occupation, slavery is slavery! By writting such rubbish U R insulting so many people who lived happily under so much and such oppression and who finally happily died by losing their head, being impaled, scorched to death by hot oil, draged and quartered by horses or ships, hanged from their torso by giant hooks etc... The image at 0:46 is a mild showing of ottoman (turkish) tolerance! These people lived happily by paying heavy tax they couldn't afford, they also had to pay jizia in order to keep their head in place, nobility had to give their children to be "educated" (this is how "parents' control" was presented), and possibly being islamised and turkified; ie loosing their identity! Common people had to pay blood tax by having their kids kidnapped and never seen again (by becoming jenissaries the boys and sex slaves in harems the girls) and many other bad things... Then you were free to do what you want living happily... EXCEPT, wearing red and green, using bells in church, etc, etc, etc... and you were free to do whatever you want living happily... EXCEPT, speaking UR language deep in Anatolia, otherwise UR tongue would be cut off; EXCEPT revolting for living this way in this ottoman paradise! They had to suffer respect and tolerance in order to pay taxes! They didn't care for educating their slaves; they just wanted them to pay the taxes; that's why they were keeping them alive (like the farmer does w/ his livestock)! They also didn't care much for converting them since muslims weren't paying many taxes! But sometimes convertion was mandatory. During the Ottoman expansion, there were 2 choises: to fight and be free if winning and die in case of loosing OR to surrender to keep UR life, family and privileges (in case of nobles and people with some influence to the local community). Since 1600, this changed: U had to be converted in order to keep UR privileges! Other case of obligatory conversions: under the sword... There was an option of course... The dilemma was: "dead or Muslim"! During the 1770 greek revolution, the Sultan ordered "KILL THEM ALL" and he revoked his order immediately, because the Admiral of the Aegean asked: "...and who is going to pay the taxes?" U get the point?
they did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
Some ethno-religious groups, when outnumbered by Turks, did accept the Turkish vernacular through a gradual process of acculturation. While the Greeks of the Pelo ponnese, Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, and the west Anatolian lit toral continued to speak and write in Greek, the Greeks of Cappadocia (Karaman) spoke Turkish and wrote Turkish in Greek script. Similarly, a large majority of the Armenians in the empire adopted Turkish as their vernacular and wrote Turkish in Armenian characters, all efforts to the contrary by the Mkhitarist order notwithstanding. The first novels published in the Ottoman Empire in the mid-nineteenth century were by Armenians and Cappodocian Greeks; they wrote them in Turkish, using the Armenian and Greek alphabets.
Check out one video by Tom_traveler...it films some ethnic Turks in Turkey whose native language is a Greek dialect. Tom..is of Greek descent and lives in Chicago...his interests include documenting a few far flung ancient Greek communities. unfortunately he missed his chance to document thosein Mariupol,
@hakanozaslan9571She didn't know she was counted with the Greeks and was surprised about that, because she KNOWS that she is Christian Turk! The exchange was on a base of religion, not nationality!
Kapodokya rumları Doğu Roma zamanında bölgeye yerleştirilmiş Türkopoller ve kabileleri ile karışmış yerli halktır.Türkler öncesinde Anadolu pek çok farklı millet yaşıyordu.Frigler,Karyalılar,Lidyalılar hatta Galatlar dediğimiz Kelt kabileleri vs vs..Bunlar İskender ve ardılları ile son olarak Doğu Roma döneminde dil ve kültür olarak asimile edildiler.Anadoluda Doğu Roma kendisine uyarladığı Ortadoks Hristiyanlığa uymayan Anadolu haklarına pek çok katliam gerçekleştirdi.Ermeniler, Kathar yada Albigen denilen insanlar vs...Şu anda Anadolu 1000 yıldır Türklerin vatani.Selçuklu ve Osmanlı İmparatorlukları döneminde kimse dinini ve dilini değiştirmeye zorlanmadı.Pax Ottomana...
Also we didn't make Europeans Muslim by force.. 500 years would be enough for Greeks to assimilate if wanted. Remember how many crusader armies were defeated. If the goal had been forcing to Islam, it would be contrary to Islam's teachings. In general politics, we had respect to other culture and religion, unless they start/plan an attack to Islam/Ottoman army. There may be limited exceptional situations but the results prove this general policy.
@kyrisoteris2046 if you ignore their close-history massacres which Indians still waiting for an apologize.. English are only "sad", if you believe.. Apologizing is a heavy thing for them even for a massacre of civilians. Please Google "The Jallianwala Bagh massacre".. Ottomans didn't colonize or exploit anyone like English. There are bridges, water ways, caravanserais, Mosques, Turkish baths everywhere Ottomans "exploited" (!).. They secured them against enemies. How many English soldiers died for securing Indians? Ottomans were protecting all civilians in its borders.. Of course they had soldiers from every nation especially Muslims (Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Circadian, Laz, converted Romans, Armenians, Greeks,...)
@@kyrisoteris2046 we should research for civilian massacres, and unbalanced power using in conflicts.. Ottomans were one of the most moral armies in the world.. And the Ottoman public was "mostly" living in peace and harmony although there were 30+ ethnicities and too many religions... It wasn't a colonizing system like English empire...
😂that's why during those years Greeks have 156 armed riots and 26 organized attempts to be free..btw ottoman rule wasn't in all Greece it was only in the cities mountains were free and Greece is 80 percent mountains...
BECAUSE THE TURKS WERE NOT COLONISTS AND IMPERIAL GANGASTERS SAME AS WESTRENS, THEY DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE LANGUAGE, RELIGION, TRADITIONS AND WAY OF LIVING OF THE SOCIETIES IN THE COUNTRIES THEY CONQUERED.
It is very normal that you are influenced by the Turks, we lived together for at least 300 years, but no one forced you to use these words. To give a better example, we also have Greek, Arab, Persian words, but we have never been ruled by Arabs, Persians or Greeks
they did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
Balkan languages heavily adopted from the European form of Turkish: "Rumelian" Turkish (Mind you, NOT the presitge "Ottoman" Turkish of the palace). Serbian, Bosnian and Macedonian have over a thousand Turkish loanwords as of today, probably numbering around several thousands in total. Before their standardization processes, Slavic languages of the Balkan area (with Greek and Albanian) had even more Turkish loans used in everyday life. Vernacular Cypriot and Cretan Greek show a strong Turkish influence in their vocabulary and phonology. Creole-like languages were spoken in Anatolia (e.g. Cappadocian Greek) and the borrowing of Turkish words into Armenian and other Middle Eastern languages even predates Ottoman times. So it's safe to say that Turkish definitely left a mark in the former Ottoman territories, even if that mark isn't a total language shift, it's one of noticeable effect.
Yeah, not exactly. It is not thousands of words. In Serbian we use a maximum of 300-400 Turkish words. Mostly nouns for referring to the common everyday things.
@@petarjovanovic1481 I was referring to the complete word inventory, the number you might come across in a language corpus. Of course the number of words actively used decreased significantly after the language was standardized.
word loans, even numerous ones, are not considered as some sort of "real influence" in linguistics. Ancient Greek, for instance, had at least 10% lydian or persian origin words, but there was no influence of those eastern languages on greek morphosyntaxis (grammar and structure) - just as the many greek-root turkish words do not affect turkish grammar or structure of language. Such exchange are and have always been omnipresent, even when the affinity of language groups is restricted to vicinity rather than coexistence. I must stress, though, that some of the most sentimentally expressive words of vernacular greek did come from the turkish (like "kefi", "sevdas", "dunias", "dalkas", "rezili"), just as that suffixes like "lis/lu" and "cis/cu" are really very common. Still, all those elements exist in modern greek not "despite greek language purification in the 19th century" (for example, they did not exist in the popular poetic language of the 15th - 19th century), but as recent elements, inoculated to greek after the exchange population of Anatolian greek orthodox populations. I suppose word loans enrich and embellish every language, so I particularly enjoy using those expressive turkish origin, newly greek words !
@@leonpoul5634 Yeah man agreed, I didn't say there was Turkish influence on a linguistic level on the Modern Greek vernacular, apart from Cappadocian Greek, in which there occurred a slight Turkicization of Greek verb conjugations and syntax. (This language as you know developed independently from Modern Greek, even in early stages was pretty much isolated from coastal Byzantine Greek.) The influence on MG was not a linguistic one but a lexical "mark", as with the suffixes and emphatic words you mentioned. Nearly a quarter of Greek population (I don't know, maybe a higher percentage?) traces some ancestry from Micro-Asia, so no wonder many words and ways of expression is still present in daily communication. In the case of Turkish, Greek loans are on another level, even the word for "basic, central, foundational" (temel) has Romaic roots, so you figure how foundational the effect is! Apart from that, yeah, languages are living entities and should not be forcibly altered, even though that's exactly what happened with Turkish, but instead of a return to an ancient heritage as with Modern Greek, we saw Ottoman Turkish developing into the "Yeni Türkçe" (New Turkish, republican Turkish, etc.) in a matter of few decades, although this time the said alteration resulted in relatively positive outcomes for the wider population. (radically increased literacy (10% to 97%), more accessible education and increased social mobility among classes) Maybe somewhat resembing the change from Kathevorusa to Demotic in MG.
Yes, you were too illeterate, uneducated uncultured to make anyone interested in learning the language. It's not a coincidence that while Europe had industrial revolution, Enlightment, Rennaisance, Turks contributed next to nothing in terms of culture and sciences. Ok, you brought the Yemeni coffee to Europe. That's all.
@@Zephyr-b4v your eurocentric education prevents you to see what the other ones did. Rennaicense works are full of direct translations from Andalusian and Ottoman scientific works. No wonder how Ottomans could turn Hagiasophia into a mosque. Thanks to accepting all people interested in science. Anywhere like that? Italy, birthplace of rennaicense. A place Muslim merchants and scientists could wander around unlike rest of Europe.
Ah yes the ones that ethnically cleansed and rage baby wiped out populations and language in the Turkish Republic. Also you all deny dna tests bc you don’t wanna find out your true identity
@@pwp8737 devshirme was only applied to boys who were drafted. Not to the general public. I see many people dont know that Janissaries were always a small part of the Ottoman Army. At their biggest extend jannissaries made 1/8 of the total Ottoman Army. So even the boys that had been through devshirme was one spoon of sugar in a whole jar.
Well researched. Similar like the liberal policies about distributing the Turkish language, subjects of the Ottoman Empire were free to keep their original religion. Unlike the practiced method by other powers at that time, the population of conquered regions were not forcibly converted to Islam but had the freedom of choice, like Orthodox Christianity or Judaism.
As a Turk, I can comment: In general, the Ottoman people are divided into two, Muslim and non-Muslim. These two groups maintain their own traditions and unique forms of judgment, and in administrative units, clergymen such as imams and priests have the right to judge. As can be understood from this example, everyone continues their lives on their own belief system and culture, and the priority in the state's functioning mechanism is taken into account by the general social structure. If we had not done this, the Ottomans would not have been able to resist much in geographies such as the Balkans, which have a large Christian population. This is an indication of why the Turks basically established so many empires but did not cause such impressive social (cultural) destruction. There was a good example in the video: in the early years of the printing press, Armenians and Serbs could write in their own alphabets. In fact, it was even argued that the Turks used the Armenian alphabet instead of the Arabic alphabet because it was more suitable for phonetics. In other words, it allowed many languages as well as many alphabet structures... And it allowed the beginning of its collapse. Unfortunately, there are many nations that try to portray the Ottoman Empire as a bad state through propaganda, but history has always chosen the most suitable potential for itself... There is no Ottoman, but as a Turkish youth who is completely loyal to Anatolia with its heritage and values, I offer my gratitude and respect to my ancestors. Greetings!
they did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
@@ThedeadaccountAL turkey is imposing on pomaks of thrace to learn turkish at schools.. while turkish is a foreign language for the pomaks as pomaks are slavs. Turkey considers all muslims of greek thrace and bulgarian thrace as turks even though they are slavs, gypsies , sudaneses etc... You are even now imposing turkish on non turkish muslims in thrace . Even now in 2025!
@@ThedeadaccountAL turkey is imposing on pomaks of thrace to learn turkish at schools.. while turkish is a foreign language for the pomaks as pomaks are slavs. Turkey considers all muslims of greek thrace and bulgarian thrace as turks even though they are slavs, gypsies , sudaneses etc... You are even now imposing turkish on non turkish muslims in thrace . Even now i
The Ottomans continued the Roman or Rum tradition for the Empire model. Just as Latin language never became the standard language in the Greater Roman Empire this was a similar model for Ottomans. This also stems from the way the Ottomans collected taxes. Instead of having a complex tax office in every town they simply sold the contract to regional "Lords" who paid the Ottomans in advance and the native "Lords" collected the taxes from the locals. This meant that there was no need to a standard language to collect taxes from every region. The Ottoman soldiers not speaking Turkish also created huge problems but this is an entirely different subject. Some people don't realize that most of the Ottomans were not ethnic Turks. Just as most Roman officials were not from Rome region in Italy, most of the Ottomans were not ethnic Turks.
There is no such language as "Ottoman Turkish". Turkish people speak Turkish. The elite class spoke Turkish because they were Turks, BUT they also knew Persian and Arabic. They spoke these languages among themselves in a mixed way. For example: Subject (Turkish) + verb (Arabic) + predicate (Persian). In fact, they did this on purpose. To appear different from the public. Meanwhile, they also used words from Balkan languages. Ataturk removed all these foreign words. Only Turkish words remained.
No one "spoke" Ottoman Turkish; it was a literary form, rather than a spoken language. The elite also spoke the Commoner Turkish(There are transcripts from the court mainly by ambassadors or envoys, even written in Latin dating back to 17th century, and the court spoke in a manner that is resonably intelligible with modern Turkish), however they wrote with the Ottoman purple prose.
You are wrong about the match of the languages and the word order. The verbs are always Turkish not Arabic. The rest depends but the verbs are 99% of the time Turkish. That's same even today. Even if we use an Arabic or Persian loan word for the verb, we add a Turkish auxiliary verb or suffix next to it or even combine them to form a new verb. For example: Merak (curiosity in Arabic) Meraklanmak = to get curious (-lanmak is the Turkish suffix) Dikkat (attention in Arabic) Dikkat etmek = to pay attention in Turkish Vaz (means 'back' in Persian) Vazgeçmek = to back down in Turkish. Geçmek means to pass, to move in Turkish and it's a separate word we frequently use in daily life And we use many foreign words today, they are not completely removed at all. I wish it was more successful and we actually spoke like the Anatolian Turks of the past or even today. They still use way more Turkic words but they are bound to be forgotten by the coming generations since they are not actively used in the standard language ://
@@ibekdin Bulgarians are not Turks. Being a turk refers to a member of the Turkic ethnic group, primarily associated with the people of Turkey and Central Asia. Today's Bulgaria is a mix. If we talk about the Bulgars 1500 years ago. Now that's a debate if they are from central asia, as there isn't a lot of informationa bout them
@islombekochi Bulgaryanlar Türk değiller. Bulgarlar Türklerdi ve bugünkü Bulgaristan dediğimiz yeri yönettiler. Ülkelerinin adı Bulgar imparatorluğuydu ve hanedan Hristiyan olup slavonik kilise etkisi altına girince zamanla yerel halk olan slavlara karıştılar. Oradaki slavlara Bulgar denmeye başlandı. Bulgaristanda Türk olan sadece Bulgar adı kaldı, bir de Boris adı.
@@ibekdin You got the history wrong. If Bulgar elite really did that, Bulgarians would be today speaking Turkic, not Slavic (and don't add the Turks, because they came from the Ottoman era, not from the Bulgars). And no, it's not like English when it heavily adopted French words, that doesn't change the root the English language is still Germanic. The name Bulgarian came from the Bulgar elite, the same as how French people took the name of the Frank elite.
the reason why turks enden up in germany as immigrants its because the germans destroyed them selfs and most of europe during ww2 and needed workers so the begged the turks for help They reason why germany recovered as a economic giant after world war 2 was because of thousands of turkish workers who helped build up germany When people like you try to piss on others they usally piss on them selfs so clown 🤡 read history And dont forget that turks was in contact whit germans during the siege of vienna in 1529 and not from 1970 s and onwards Drink your milk boy you have alot to learn
@@Mahanology You are totally wrong as even today turkey obliges greece to send the slavic by blood pomaks to turkish schools in greek thrace just because pomaks got islamized during the ottoman times.... I mean the pomaks speak pomak slavic as maternal language yet today in 2024 turkey conducts a linguistic and cultural genocide in greek thrace by obliging the greek citizens pomaks to go to turkish schools. And greece allows this.! And it s not only the pomaks who are slavs but erdogan calls as turks the indian romani aka the gypsies who are muslims in greek thrace and have as maternal language the indian romani.......So turks did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
We Turks did not assimilate any country, we wanted people to live well during the Ottoman period. But doing this was the biggest mistake and they rebelled
The short answer is they did not colonize the regions. Colonizing is what Europeans do, not turks. Each race lived with their own distinct culture and the Ottomans didn't meddle with it. You could argue about the cruelty of the jenessary system or the heavy taxing for non-Muslims. But we are the 'bad' people in the history. edit: I saw the comments, now. My notifications aren't on. Anyways to sum up all of the responses. -Almost everyone is 'bad' in history. Killing someone is bad=wars are bad. But every ethnicity that has ever existed have done it. I am addressing the 'objective' history not being objective. I don't think any other race is better. -India literally speaks English lmao. Language is very important part of 'colonizing', aka spreading your culture. To this day kids there get taught English books, not as a second language. Not to mention India's obsession with whiteness. Literally no one can deny how Indians are into white skin. Indians and brits didn't live with each other and if they did. Brits were seen as a higher class which wasn't in the case for Ottomans. Turks were never the higher class. -Turks migrated from Central Asia and lived with the locals, hence marrying or breeding(however you would like to refer.) with each other. Turkification of Anatolia was made long before the Ottoman Empire. The Anatolians integrated with Turks. Literally take a peak of a Turk's DNA test and you can see the Anatolian blood. The Turkic and Anatolian DNA differ from each person but we all have those parts in us. -Colonizing is mostly the term used for Europeans. Besides Japan idk any nation that has colonized. Some could argue Japan could have been influenced by interactions with the Europeans. But I am not into history and neither it is my biggest asset. I just know my nation's history. -If you can't think, please use your reasoning skills with a little research. All of you seem to have liked your own comment considering they all have 1 like. That is both pathetic and hilarious. -Bunlara salladıktan sonra kendi yorumumu beğensem mi diye düşündüm sonra baktım tam mükemmel 31 sayısında kalmış dokunmadım. JHSDKFHSDKJFHS
You are totally wrong as even today turkey obliges greece to send the slavic by blood pomaks to turkish schools in greek thrace just because pomaks got islamized during the ottoman times.... I mean the pomaks speak pomak slavic as maternal language yet today in 2024 turkey conducts a linguistic and cultural genocide in greek thrace by obliging the greek citizens pomaks to go to turkish schools. And greece allows this.! And it s not only the pomaks who are slavs but erdogan calls as turks the indian romani aka the gypsies who are muslims in greek thrace and have as maternal language the indian romani.......So turks did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
So by this logic Britain didn’t colonise India. All the local languages and customs were preserved and they didn’t meddle with the locals unless they didn’t pay taxes just like the ottomans. If not, why is Britain different?
8:24 For those curious about the meaning of this couplet "He who moves slowly will reach his goal in time, But one who rushes may stumble over his own robe."
The Turkish dialects spoken in Cyprus, Balkans and Meskhetia is result of Ottoman policies. The Crimean Tatar language broke away from all other Kipchak languages and became Oghuz-like language, again happened in Ottoman period. The numerous Turkic and Turkified loanwords that entered North African Arabic, Hungarian, South Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Armenian and Caucasian languages are also a result of the Ottoman expansion.
It is very normal that these languages are influenced by the Turkish, we lived together for years, but no one forced you to use these words. To give a better example, we also have Greek, Arab, Persian words, but we have never been ruled by Arabs, Persians or Greeks
They were not hell bent on destroying the culture of the native peoples they conquered or subjugated. You didn't even need to revert to Islam if they defeated you. They effectively were the opposite of the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. Unfortunately this became their undoing because instead of crushing Arab nationalism in the empire they allowed it to fester which led to its downfall.
@Proud_Hadrami Astaghfirullah your ancestors fought against their Khalif, their emir, and the wishes of our prophet (pbuh) all for the false promises of the kafirun.. This is not something to look back fondly on brother
Arab nationalists have destroyed the legitimacy of the ummah time and time again, and they are continuing to do so until this day, its clear that arabs can not unite or run a nation without excessive betrayal it’s in their blood
Arabic letters are such a bad fit for Turkish that Ottoman documents were forced to work around a simple verb like "died." In Turkish, the words "was" and "died" are almost identical: oldu and öldü. You can see the difference clearly in Latin letters, but the vowel differences were hard to mark in Arabic letters. So the Ottoman death reports had to use workarounds, euphemisms like "he passed away" and "he bought the farm."
@@Zysuzuuauajz True, the Arabic script and Islam were both adopted through Persians. Long before the Ottomans, Saldjuks were using the Persian version of the Arabic script.
Forget about spreading, it’s an incredible achievement that people of Anatolia speak the language; this could be only possible with constant and steady migration (with bare minimum numbers) started around 11th century from ancestral lands - Turkestan in Eurasian steppes. Just like Hungarian exists today surrounded by Slavic and Romance languages, journey of Turkish language from Central Asia to Southern Eastern Europe is a big achievement.
Actually the Turks (the original Turks) did spread their language, with in the geographic area that is today's Turkiye. The original Turks were Asian, look at people from Turkiye who genetically are overwhelmingly Caucasian and Middle Eastern
I'm learning about the greek revolution in my greek school. They say that ottomans killed and tortured Christians if they didn't become islam (εξισλαμισμός) they also said that they forced language on us, put unfair laws on us etc.
Ottomans weren't like Arabs and European powers, we all know why Africa, North and South America are rootless and cultureless today. No one speaks Berber and Egyptian in North Africa today, for instance thanks to Arabs😂.
@@fadyalqaisy huh? From Egypt and Levant to Morocco, they didnt speak Arabic at all until the conquest of the caliphate. Now they all speak Arabic with minority of Berbers and almost no other languages in Levant except Kurdish.
@@alpddar2518Arab presence in the levant, Egypt and Sudan and North Africa was well established and documented by greek historians over the millennia like Herodotus, Strabo, and Diodoris Sicculus and they still do speak Arabic. Although Anatolia and the Persian mountains are only a stone throw away from the peninsula but they didn’t speak Arabic back then and still don’t speak it
They did the spread it on the Greeks on Anatolia, genociding the Armenians and removing any non Muslim and then replacing them with Turks. So yes they did spread their langauge on other peoples
The Turks never committed genocide, the report for this is in the General Harbord Report, you cannot accuse them of genocide without knowing it, you are doing nothing but slander, the Ottomans brought peace and tranquility wherever they went, it is stated in the report that the Armenians committed genocide, not the Turks, the USA is explaining...
you are such a delusional boy, but the comments in this video is enought im not even gonna spend time and respond to this bs with a long explained text :Ddddd
The Ottoman Empire was one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse territories in history. (as historically acknowledged in numerous academic studies) But of course you won't agree, because that’s not what you were taught. Hatred isn’t inherent to human nature. Unfortunately, even your regular books which are taught in primary schools begin with narratives fostering hatred towards Turks. It’s both sad and tragic how these young minds have been conditioned by some "national" education system to despise a land that was once peaceful.
For hundreds of years, Turks lived in friendship with the Armenians, even the Armenians were called a loyal nation. Nothing was done for so many centuries, but why did something happen later? They definitely need to be self-critical.
@@olbiomoiros yeah your armenian grandpa told you🤓☝.even in the city where I live (Southeast of Turkey), Turks and Armenians were the richest people living in the city center and the neighborhoods where they lived together are still mentioned. Kurds and Arabs generally lived in the countryside, but then armenians were forced to migrate when the Armenians started to rebel, and the Kurds took over the remaining goods and authority. It is said that there is a lot of gold under the places known as rich Armenian neighborhoods.
Ottomans ruled 500 years. During this time there was never a pressure to any ethnicity to adopt Turkish. Some did voluntary. Same with religion. İf they had this agenda in governance it could have been achieved within 500 years. I like the photo you used from a comedy movie in your video. How ever that shot was as humor and did not represent Turkish culture or folklore in realistic manner. I think you should study ottomans not only from British records but also many other. Ottoman archives can be enlightening.
It was an occupation. There was pressure through higher taxes for other religions, and a lot of people changed to islam because of this. But once they did it, they became "Turks". Why do you think people in Turkiye look balkan or middle eastern, but not asian as other turkish nations do?? This video fails to address how different religious groups were not equal citizens to the muslim/turks.
@@Bn843hhu Sadece Macarlar Türkidir, Finland ne alaka.... Dil yapsının benzemesi Türk oldukları anlamına gelmez. Ayrıca Macarların 1400 yıl öncesinden kuzenlerimiz olması, onlara Türk diyebileceğimiz anlamına gelmez. Onlar kendine TÜrk diyor mu? hayır, ne diyor Macar diyor. Kazaklar, Kırgızlar kendine tabiki Türküz diyor, ancak biz kazak türküyüz diyor, öncelikle kazak diyor. Hepsi bir deyip herkesi Türk ilan etmeye çalışanlar, tarih bilmeyen gerzeklerdir. Ülke cahil dolu amk.
the thing is lot of westerners or people who are not familiar with the islamic culture. ottomans weren't just an empire it was more of an islamic caliphate which they didn't need to spread their language because basically country is serving a religious purpose more than an ethnic purpose.
@@anate9 yes, so did the Native Americans, the Jews of Germany and the Circassians in Russia. The point is, the nations I mentioned were ethnically cleansed from the Anatolian peninsula.
I am Albanian from Macedonia. Turkish was the city language in albanian cities. It was like an aristocratic language. Until today many albanians are assimilated and speak turkish as mothertongue, even though their grandparents and/or parents spoke albanian, same for Kosovo. Albanians who speak turkish as a mother tongue are 100% from the city centers(downtown+old city center) and are/were wealthy with good jobs.
@@creeperawman1431 Oh I see how you happy you are to assimilate the albanians and when you came across with people with stronger culture and you COULDN'T you pretend that you were never interested. That's the turkish mentality now : barbarians trying to act like civilized.
It’s important to recognize there are still western Turkish speakers in modern Syria and Iraq, highlighting the language historically spread beyond the bounds of Turkish Republic’s borders. There were more Turkish speakers before the emergence of modern nation-states, at which point Arabic became the compulsory language within many Ottoman successor states in the Middle East.
@AlptheSpearo conquer is another word for colonization...as for assimilation your photo is a living proof unless my eyes are not looking good and I see a turk (far east Mongol type person)...
I am Caucasian , I am a Ahıska Karapapak Turk. When the Turks entered Anatolia, they settled us in the Caucasus for border security. My lineage is clear, my ancestors are clear, the Turks have many branches. The Oghuzs are not so slanted-eyed.But whatever you want , Alr kid🤚🏻
In Ottoman society, Turkish was the common language, Arabic was used for academia, and Persian for literature, but the rise of nationalism, influenced by Western ideas, disrupted this linguistic and cultural harmony within Muslim society.
WTF are you talking about? What influence by "western ideas"? Greeks never stopped fighting the Turks and only between 1453 and 1821 we count more than 35 war events, that is 1 revolution, rebellion, revolt every single decade of the 3 and a half centuries. Come on, point out which "western influence" influenced the Greeks for their huge, bigger and better prepared than the 1821 one, revolution of 1768. The fanatically pro-Ottoman British back then? Or was it the Russians who only belatedly allied with Greeks sending Orlov to coordinate actions (but the revolution had already been going on, already starting even before 1768 but Russians mingling in belatedy in 1770). What "western ideas" inspired the Greeks? The discovery of America, the circumnavigation of Africa or the Protestant Reformation? Why you Turks are unable to read history as it actually is?
Colonialism destroyed cultures but ottoman beating Britain ( atleastly once) was beginning of the end for Colonialism so ottoman never did colonialism + they ended colonialism so they saved cultures instead of changing them with turkish culture but now balkans hate ottoman more At the end of all, turkish culture not spreaded like other ones until we look to asia☠️
The Turks didn't even want to force Turkish onto Arabs because Arabic was the holy language of islam, so it's actually the Turks that appropriated many Arabic words. And they couldn't force the Balkans to speak Turkish because ever since 1774, Russia forced Turkey to protect its Christian subjects. Before that there was a LOT of forcing, which gave us modern Turks.
They did already spread Turkish in Anatolia. Anatolia has never been a Turkic nation in its genes, not even today. They are decendants of motly Byzantine, then Iranics, Greeks, Georgians and so on who have switched to speak Turkish only recently.
When the Young Turks took over, it was a nationalist takeover. So in many ways, the empire was not cohesive enough when the nationalist sentiments swept the Balkans - and when the empire started breaking apart, there was a group that attempted to force a new national identity. That lead to genocides and massive contempt for the Turks. My grandfathers uncle was murdered and hung from a church. I've read a lot of accounts from all sides during this time and there were so many atrocities by everyone. Truly horrific times and it shaped many later conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.
The Ottomans didn't impose their language, just like they didn't impose their religion. They would just double your taxes for not being a Muslim or not obeying enough. The Ottomans bassed a big portion of their laws on taxes, unlike Christians who are claiming it to be a sin.
Also important to note, not everything was shining and beautiful, if you resist to the Ottomans or if you are going against the Ottoman law, they will pogrom you. .
Because we didn't oppress cultures and languages of the regions we took over as told by other people. Had the ottomans forced their culture and language upon the people we had under control for roughly 100-600 years, they would be very similar to us with just one generation. But we allowed them to keep that, and they should be thankful.
What a joke! The Ottoman Empire did oppress cultures, religions, and ethnicities for the entire duration of its existence. It was a genocidal, terrorist empire for the entire duration of its being and the list of atrocities and oppressive acts against kaffirs by the Ottomans is endless. No one should be "thankful". The Ottoman Empire should be spat upon and relegated to the garbage dump of history.
Some countries, cities or territories were not actually part of the Ottoman Empire. Today's Romania (Wallachia and Moldavia at that time) was never part of the Ottoman Empire!!! Romania was only a suzerain of this empire (or even independence for some periods) for this it was paid with a lot of blood, wars and gold! It is sad and shameful for our ancestors to say today a foreigner or to show a map how they were in that empire. For example,Stefan the Great of Moldavia won 36 out of 38 wars with the Ottoman Empire!!! If you name another king with such a performance, I will give you a keg of beer !
The Ethnic Turks of Anatolia were peasants of the Empire. The Sultan used their children for war because they were nomadic. Turks were called Etrak-ı biidrak which means donkey or good for nothing Turks. The only Ethnic Turks that rose to power were the Balkan Turks because the Ottomans heavily invested in the Balkan area and almost nothing to Anatolia. Even the Sultan asked the Germans to make a report on the conditions of the Anatolian Turks and they wrote that Anatolian Turks were living in a Stone Age. Turks especially in Office had to hide their identity until the National Revolution.
Greece came into existence as an independent nation-state only in 1832. Before that, for most of the preceding 400 years, it was part of the Ottoman Empire, whose dominant language was Turkish, and over time spoken Greek incorporated many words from Turkish, and also from Italian. Once independence was achieved, many nationalists attempted to eliminate all Turkish, Italian, and other borrowings from Greek so as to create a national language that would genuinely represent the Greek nation and its former glory. This resulted in the creation of the 'purifying' form of the Greek language -'Katharevousa' Greek-one of two varieties of Greek that would compete for status as the country's official language into the 20th century (Mackridge 2010).
the dominant language was never Turkish, at least in everyday life. the majority spoke greek in mainland Greece, the islands and in Cyprus, as well as Smyrna.
Most of the Turkish words in greek are actually arabic or persian ,turks had to returkify their language after they became a country in order to reduce arabic and persian influence
Now, this is half the truth - and half of what is written in your source. First of all, hellenistic and medieval Greek had two distinct forms, manifest already early in the byzantine period, the vernacular "demotic" greek, and the more "atticizing", "classy" Greek, both always mutually compehensible, written in greek, and strongly interacting . Thus, the so - called "purification" (which had started much before Greek independence as a predilection of the more classicizing greek as a language of prestige, science etc in both the empire and the greek diaspora) was merely a choice of which of the two branches would be the official language of the new kingdom and the main carrier of its education, and the "katharevousa" didn't just come out of nothing, or as some sort of revival of the dead classical texts, but rather of an existing and flourising classical lingual tradition ! We should not forget that many post - conquest (of Istanbul) documents were universally in Greek (the ottoman language had not yet been standardized), and many high - ranking officials were actually of Greek birth and education. So, the Greek language reform had nothing in common with the Rumanian for instance (where 50% of the vocabulary was slavic), or even the turkish (where, what in 1923 was called "malumat-i-vataniye", became 4 years later "yurt bilgisi" !).
No people spoke already demotic ( public) everywhere, with the formation of Greece (katharevousa) purified, tried in order to remove all foreign origin words
Turkic languages lack the following words since they are foreign concepts to the Turks, so they had to borrow them from other languages: Honor: şeref - from Arabic: Šaraf Literature: Edebiyat - from Arabic: Adab Poetry: şiir/nazim - both from Arabic: ši'r and nazm Morality: ahlak - from Arabic: ‘aklāq Arithmetic: Hisap - from Arabic: hisāb Manner: tavr - from Arabic: tawr Bath house: hamam - from Arabic: hammām Clean: temiz - from Arabic: tamyīz Pure: saf - from Arabic: sāfin Logic: mantik - from Arabic: mantiq Chastity: iffet - from Arabic: ‘iffa Prosperity: refah - from Arabic: rafāh conscience: vicdan - from Arabic: wijdān Honesty: dürüst - from Persian: dorost Justice: Adalet - from Arabic: ‘adāla Altruism: fedakarlik - from Arabic: fidā + Persian: kâr Thankfulness: şükran - from Arabic: šukrān Patience: Sabir - from Arabic: şabr Civilization: medeniyet - from Arabic: Madaneyyah
creator of this video, you should check out why there is something called turco-calvinism and why the calvinist dutch and orthodox greek would rather see turkish turban than a latin mitre. simply put, there was no intent to spread turkish language. the ottoman empire was not a colonialist empire, but a traditional agrarian one. even if turkish was standardized, the schools which teach it would not teach it to orthodox or jewish people, but to turks only. you are stretching a need which does not exist...
I think this video is a little misleading because you have to remember that Anatolia was not predominantly Turkish speaking before the Ottomans and it now is overwhelmingly Turkish speaking. And Turkish is a Central asian, not a West asian language. Turkish was also well spoken throughout the Balkans as well as Greece prior to independence, as was even dominant in many parts of the Balkans. So ultimately, when you consider that Turkish was originally only spoken by a relatively small group of people in that region, we can see that they very much did spread the Turkish language.
Since Turkic peoples are originally from Central Asia, it is safe to say that each square inch of the current Turkish state itself lies exactly where there used to be Greek, Armenian, Georgian, Arab, Kurdish and Aramean lands. All of those languages and cultures that existed in Anatolia for centuries were basically erased in favour of the Turkish culture that currently replaces them. Some (or many) of their most visited tourist attractions are to this day remains of previous civilizations of each area. The Ottoman Empire, though ambissious, at a point in history was simply not organized and powerful enough to Turkify the Balkans, North Africa and the Middle East, while the Western Powers were colonizing half of the world very efficiently. If they had gotten industrialized and reformed their language earlier, perhaps they could have succeeded in keeping their dominance, but as this did not happen, we see that nowadays even the Kurdistan issue, for instance, is still giving Turkey a ton of headache. (I don't hate Turks, just trying to put history together in a cold analysis.)
you are revisionising between two terms. Migration, And Colonisation. So just like Anglicans of England turks migrated to anatolia so as you cant say that Ethnicities were originally from England, forced to asimilisation, you cant say the same thing for Anatolians.
2:27 Latin was also a very stylized and formal language. It never resonated across social classes and it's not the origin of the Romance languages as is commonly thought.
If that were true, which it’s not, why is there a basic mutual understanding between different Romance language speakers? A Spanish speaker can look at something written in Italian and easily understand most of it. Same with Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, French, and Romanian and more. A romance speaker looks at something written in German and it’s nothing more than gibberish.
@@TheManCaveYTChannel "Why is there a basic mutual understanding between different Romance language speakers?" There is mutual understanding because they descend from a common root and share a lot of history and influences. Latin, although related to the Romance languages, is not "the base" of them.
Turkish has never been renowned as a high culture language . Turkic languages lack rich literature and lacked prestige throughout history so much so that even turkic rulers ( Iran -India -central Asia ) tried distance themselves from Turkic languages
@@majidbineshgar7156 After the Turks converted to Islam, they started to use Persian/Arabic as the state language in the states they established. The fact that a certain majority of the people they ruled were non-Turks also played a role in this. However, the language of the entire aristocracy and the army continued to remain Turkic. In all the states Turks established before Islam, the state language was always Turkic. The issue is completely moving away from nationalism and loss of identity in the name of religion. As an iranian, you should know this better. Because at the end of the day, u iranians who have a ''rich literature and prestige'' lost to a handful of desert bedouins lol
In the 11 century there were seljuks that defeated Romans in 1071 or 1074 I forgot, then seljuks won against Romans and occupied Anatolia and after that many Turks from Seljuk empire started to emigrate to Anatolia so that's why there are too many Turks in Anatolia
@@Zhanbolat884 , but it wasn't like the local Anatolians disappeared. Local Anatolians would have outnumbered incoming Turks. Which means that the existing Anatolian population would have been a far bigger source of ancestry for the modern people of Turkey.
@@ishmamahmed9306Turkish migrations to Anatolia did not end until the 15th century, and the local population consisted of different nations with Hellenic culture, not just Greeks.
@@ishmamahmed9306 There was 430000 nomadic tents were even only in Western Turkey noted by Arab historian Umar. Central Turkey and the other regions also had high number of turks
Turks never had the zeal of spreading their language. There isn't a single language whose extinction was caused by Ottomans contrary to colonial empires like Britain, France, Russia, Rome etc. who were responsible for various extinct languages
Whattt?
Write it as: "... for various languages extinction". BTW, not just languages but cultures and the whole population of tribes.
@@FrancisUnderwood-fz6qb The OP has brain which you don't.
@@UndoEverythingcultures and ethnicities just follow once the language is gone 99% of the time. The language is one groups prime identity
If you want to spread your culture and language one really important thing is to be smart, something ottomans were lacking hard
I am from Damascus. My grandmother's father (Muhammed Fawzi Pasha ) was a famous pasha in the Ottoman Empire. He knew Ottoman Turkish. My grandmother also used some Turkish words that she learned from her father. For example, I remember her saying "Allah mustahaqin wersin" "sani kuftehor sani" when she got angry. She also played the oud for us and sang Turkish songs for us. There was a song she sang that I will never forget and I still sing it : "Yinabir gulin hal aldabu gonulumu simtan gonja fam biybadal ol guzal".
My family knew the Ottoman language because they were active in Ottoman politics. But the idea of forcing people to use a single language in modern nation states or colonial states did not exist in the traditional states of the past.
The Ottomans are a combination of the cultural diversity of Islamic civilization that modern people cannot understand. Turkish was used in politics and the army, poems were written in Persian, and the language of science, philosophy and religion was Arabic. Apart from these, many different languages were spoken by the people (millat) in the Ottoman lands.
I can say Turks can clearly understand these words.
Yine bir Gülnihâl aldı bu gönlümü
Sim ten, gonca fem bibedel ol güzel
That is a piece of waltz in Ottoman Turkish, mostly unintelligible for today's Turks. I can see it is heavily influenced by Persian. We could recognize every single word, but still the context would be unfamiliar to us anyway. It is like reading Middle English for a native English speaker from today
My outmost respect to your late grandmother
May her soul rest in peace
The song you mentioned is one I like a lot.
@@thalè-s-muet Ah, thank you very much for the information. I don't know how to write in Turkish. My family elders loved Turkish music. When I was little, I grew up listening to these songs. My grandmother had a beautiful voice, she played the oud and piano. She also listened to songs from Munir Nuraddin and Hafiz Burhan's gramophone records that my uncle brought from Istanbul. I have always been interested in Turkish music through my grandmother. I think the song Gulnihal is a composition by Hammamizada Efendi. I love listening to Turkish musicians Bekir Sidki, Alaaddin Yavas and Munir Nuraddin. Turkish music and its maqams are very similar to Arabic music. But of course, both have their own unique beauty. I am very happy to know both cultures. Greetings and love to all Turks from an Ottoman Damascene grandson from Paris.🇸🇾♥️🇹🇷
@@bulentkulkuloglu Choq teshekkurat efendim. Choq sherafyab oldum.♥️
The answer is: They have never tried to do it
they did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
@@polha4966 don't forget dinosaur genocide by the turks circa 66 million BC 😢😢
The answer is, they couldn't enforce it
No.its true:tgey have never could
They can't
Ottoman Empire was a tax collecting empire. As long as the subjects to the Empire paid their tax, they were free to do whatever they wanted to.
People dont understand while ottomans took persian and byzantine administration perks they still had nomadic traditions they didnt gaf about religion and language of others as long as they paid tribute or tax.
Sounds a bit like modern usa. Inside their territory anyway
"free to do whatever they wanted to do" uh. bud... they heavily restricted what non muslims could do, and alot of the times killed people not of the book if they didnt convert lmao.
Killing pagans were quite common thing in Eastern Rome as well.
thetax was by islamic rule. only 10% if you are wealthy otherwise no tax.
Turks never made an effort to spread it lol. By Imperial standards the Turks were pretty soft, yeah they will defeat your armies and takeover, but after that they left you alone to rule yourself just pay your tribute. Had they been like english, french, russians etc most of the world would be speaking today when you consider that the Ottomans is just one of about 40 empires the Turkic people created.
Does this paying tribute include first born son like in other empires 🤔
@dam8498, obviously, it's the medieval era
@@dam8498 conscription is quite normal, even today. Whats surprising is that europeans made less then 1% of the Ottoman army. Truth be told its crazy that the Muslim Turks didnt just use the Christian subjects as pure cannon fodder. Keep in mind the Muslim in some places were giving 30% of their people towards the army. Muslims got it far harder under Ottomans then Christians.
@@dam8498 ottomans took your 1 son, in europe u belonged to ur monarch literally if they call the banners as serfs u needed to come.
Not the mention in ottoman janissary system u can be 2. strongest man in the entire state but in levy system in europe u cant even rank up if u r not knighted etc.
@@billyjesus5442 In their final years they were pretty horrific, you are probably aware of the Batak massacre.
it wasnt matter of "they couldn't" it was a matter of respecting cultures and not forcing stuff on people. Ottoman sultan learned multiple languages to be able to talk with all the people of the empire. the reason why people in russia speak russian or people in north africa speak french is because of genocide and cultural cleansing.
I see, this explains why north Africans speak arabic
ottomans respecting cultures? lmao
ottoman empire is very well known about respect others, they did that with their Hordes while beaheading and raping Greeks Armenians and other anatolian tribes
@@alcubz2622they were speaking arabic before taken by ottoman. Umayyads erased their language
@@HorusianBerber is still around
Accurate!
Ottoman takeover of the Balkans wasn't like the Roman invasion of the Gauls or the Spanish takoever of the Americas, which saw enormous shifts in cultural and religious networks and the toppling-down of entire systems of government. The Ottomans, after a military victory, IF they want to incorporate the territory into the imperial network, simply installed a governor or made a deal with the existing one in that territory - and didn't try to make any change in an already-functioning state apparatus. Religious conversion, though somewhat desirable or necessary in some occasions, was not mandatory. All these factors combined, Turkish didn't get a stronghold in the Balkans and the surrounding regions.
Ottomans came at a time when Balkan nations already had strong literary traditions with semi-standardized orthographies, all tied to religion and the broader Church institutions. These institutions controlled the respective languages their people spoke and were officially incorporated into the Ottoman system of governance. These all meant there wasn't really a need (or a desire) to switch to Turkish in a cultural or religious sense. Yes, many languages were often transcribed in the Ottoman script (Albanian and Bosnian especially) but beyond that, Balkans had working high-language registers before the arrival of the Ottomans.
As for the Middle East and North Africa, Arabic and Persian were already prestige languages even for the Ottoman Turks, so they enjoyed a relative natural "protected" status; and the Ottoman political and military presence in the region was relatively limited, especially when compared to the Balkans and Anatolia.
if that was the reason why did same people started to speak french? you are taking results of lack of effort and will to make it happen and with that premise you are creating reasons for why it couldn't happen.
@@kuershatkurt6003 which same people?
What a description of a nice (Ottoman) world! Occupation was occupation and slavery was slavery! By writting such rubbish U R insulting so many people who lived happily under so much and such oppression and who finally happily died by losing their head, being impaled, scorched to death by burning oil, draged and quartered by horses or ships, hanged from their torso by giant hooks etc... The image at 0:46 is a mild showing of ottoman (turkish) tolerance! These people lived happily by paying heavy tax they couldn't afford, they also had to pay jizia in order to keep their head in place, nobility had to give their children to be "educated" (this is how "parents' control" was presented), and possibly being islamised and turkified; ie loosing their identity! Common people had to pay blood tax by having their kids kidnapped and never seen again (by becoming jenissaries the boys and sex slaves in harems the girls) and many other bad things... Then you were free to do what you want living happily... EXCEPT, wearing red and green, using bells in church, etc, etc, etc... and you were free to do whatever you want living happily... EXCEPT, speaking UR language deep in Anatolia, otherwise UR tongue would be cut off; EXCEPT revolting for living this way in this ottoman paradise! They had to suffer respect and tolerance in order to pay taxes!
Converting wasn't necessary (Christians were needed to pay the taxes) but was obligatory under the sword; the other option in this case (under the sword) was to be killed! Nobles and other people of some position had to surrender to keep their privileges (in case they fought they stayed free in case of winning, they became dead in case of loosing). Till the 15th and 16th century. Later, they had to convert in order to keep their privileges! Another mandatory case of converting...
During the 1770 greek revolution, the Sultan ordered "KILL THEM ALL" and he revoked his order immediately, because the Admiral of the Aegean asked: "...and who is going to pay the taxes?" U get the point?
Occupation is occupation, slavery is slavery! By writting such rubbish U R insulting so many people who lived happily under so much and such oppression and who finally happily died by losing their head, being impaled, scorched to death by hot oil, draged and quartered by horses or ships, hanged from their torso by giant hooks etc... The image at 0:46 is a mild showing of ottoman (turkish) tolerance! These people lived happily by paying heavy tax they couldn't afford, they also had to pay jizia in order to keep their head in place, nobility had to give their children to be "educated" (this is how "parents' control" was presented), and possibly being islamised and turkified; ie loosing their identity! Common people had to pay blood tax by having their kids kidnapped and never seen again (by becoming jenissaries the boys and sex slaves in harems the girls) and many other bad things... Then you were free to do what you want living happily... EXCEPT, wearing red and green, using bells in church, etc, etc, etc... and you were free to do whatever you want living happily... EXCEPT, speaking UR language deep in Anatolia, otherwise UR tongue would be cut off; EXCEPT revolting for living this way in this ottoman paradise! They had to suffer respect and tolerance in order to pay taxes!
During the Ottoman expansion, there were 2 choises: to fight and be free if winning and die in case of loosing OR to surrender to keep UR life, family and privileges (in case of nobles and people with some influence to the local community). Since 1600, this changed: U had to be converted in order to keep UR privileges!
Other case of obligatory conversions: under the sword... There was an option of course... The dilemma was: "dead or Muslim"!
During the 1770 greek revolution, the Sultan ordered "KILL THEM ALL" and he revoked his order immediately, because the Admiral of the Aegean asked: "...and who is going to pay the taxes?" U get the point?
@@jimanast3593 i see you were there to tell us.
italians made island greeks to learn italian as mandatory language even they keep the island in very short time Turks did not made turkish language mandatory to learn even 500 years of rules...
Other worse things were mandatory! Oppression, blood tax, slavery... If U didn't like such things, torture, death!
No Italian forced ever a Dodecanesian Greek to carry him on his back! To avoid this, people in Chios island were walking always in groups of 2,4 etc; so that in case they see a Turk, the one carried the other, in order to avoid carrying the Turk!
There is a difference between italian occupation and Turkish slavery!
@@jimanast3593 But they still speak greek and they are cristian ... tax was always ther for all emparor it was custom and normal for that times.. greek slaves speak greeks yes but not slave greeks have to speak italian .. turks was better to greeks actually for that time.. some times bad people may do bad but you can not blame all for that kind of bad treatment..
@@jimanast3593 It was not slavery, grow up. The Turks never enslaved the local populations of the people that they conquered. And don't even start with the ''bLoOd tAx'' bs, you pay unbelievable amount of tax to your government today, do you seriously expect a state defeating another state and not put tax on their people? you must be out of your mind
@@jimanast3593 source?
@@Sovyetadam Well known phrase in Greece (and it's history through tradition etc): "Γιατί οι Χιώτες πάνε 2 - 2;"
If you went to an Ottoman emperor and said, "Hey Emperor, I'm Turkish too," he would probably say, "So?"
It wasn't always the case . especially in the few final decades, the racial discrimination existed sadly , that led to many different revolts
@@teneqe Hadi oradan👞🦴
You seem to not understand that Ottomans never considered themselves Turkish until they had to, to stop losing land. Turks owe their identity to the founders of the Republic Mustafa Kemal and İsmet İnönü. Some fools rather like the Ottomans who had given nothing to their their grandparents but stole their money and sacrifice their lives them in foolish wars.
The Palace people considered the ordinary turks and steppe turks as donkeys.
Real fact
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014You are right, since the Turks were mostly descendants of nomadic people, they did not have much place in city life, most of them were poor. All they had was their large families, horses and fighting tribe. Although the Turkish Empire was founded by the Turks, the emperors generally did not care about the Turks except for their manpower. Even the elite army of the emperor consisted of Balkan children who later became Muslims, the "Janissaries". Atatürk established a republic from the Anatolian Turks, whom the emperor saw as colonies, and revived a nation that was on the verge of collapse. Although there are periodic problems, Turkiye is still a strong state thanks to its army, industry, population and geographical location. And unfortunately, although money is not distributed equally to the people, the state is really very rich.
Fun fact, Eastern Anatolian Turkish dialects are closer to Ottoman Turkish than the modern Turkish spoken in Istanbul or Ankara.
Also closer to the Azerbaijani than İstanbul Turkish as well. Due to historical presence of azerbaijani Turks in eastern anatolia. Like Qara qoyunlu Aq qoyunlu states and Terekeme(karapapak) origin of dadaş Turks in Erzurum and Azerbaijani Turks living in Iğdır,Kars Ağrı and Van.
What? 😂😂😂
Makes sense, they had to colonize western Anatolia to create a Turkish majority
It's not like the elite and common population spoke different languages while ordinary Turks spoke only Old Anatolian Turkish the noble class was fluent in both Anatolian Turkish (daily life) and Ottoman Turkish (court)
It is the official narrative thought in Turkey's schools .
As well s Persian.
They have virtually erased Greek from Anatolia
@@SamBalino osmanlı devleti 600 yıllık bir devlettir ve bu süreçte 36 padişah tahta çıkmıştır. Ve çoğunluğu kendi halkının kültürüne saygı duymuştur. Senin dediğin olay 1920'lı yıllarda olmuştur. Türkiye kurtuluş savaşının bitmesinden sonra nüfus mübadelesi yapılmış ve Yunanistan'daki Türkler Türkiye'ye, Anadoludaki Rumlar ise Yunanistan'a, gönderilmiştir.
@@sammyshahshah1008 nobody spoke persian in the ottoman empire or goverment
It's not that they couldn't, it's that they didn't. Their goal was tax, not to forcibly spread their language and culture.
yea they didn't want to spread their language but even if they did they really wouldn't be able to. the ottomans didn't conquer arabic lands the same way they conquered other lands. they were welcomed by the arab muslims because they were a strong muslim empire that would unit the muslim world. if the ottomans conquered arab countries with the agenda of removing their identity they would have faced a huge resistence from the people.
the entire anatolia was greek speaking before the turks came.
По этому 80 % выживших армян разговаривали на турецком? Даже не могу представить сколько из ни разговаривали только на турецком😢
It is such a joke that even 'historians' couldn't learn yet Ottoman didn't control vast majority of their lands directly. First of all under Millet system religious minorities were ruling themselves, operating their own schools, churches, government, courts and even issuing their own laws! They were only paying taxes to Ottoman and in many cases they were even collecting their own taxes and delivering it to Ottoman.
Muslim territories didn't have such great autonomy but they were still quite decentralized, they were seperated into Eyalets and each Eyalet was ruled independently by Ottoman appointed Pashas. In many cases Ottoman didn't send any forces there rather Pashas were tasked to raise their own armies from local population and they had to cooperate with local rulers to do that.
Ottoman never tried to change political structure in conquered territories rather adopted local rulers into their Eyalet system. For example Mamluks remained as a local power in Egypt for hundreds of years after their defeat against Ottoman. As long as they remained loyal and paid their taxes Ottoman couldn't care less who had power in local regions.
This decentralized system was working extremely well while Ottoman had a massive army in Constantinople and nobody could dare to provoke them. But as the empire weakened both economically and militarily this decenralized system further weakened the empire. Everybody began doing whatever they wanted literally, Ottoman tried to suppress them and centralize their system with reforms in 19th century but it was already too late. Because enemies especially Europeans were already much powerful and they further weakened Ottoman by encouraging minorities to rebel against it.
In 1914 there were 25 million Arabs, 4 million Christians and only 10 million Turks living in Ottoman so when minorities rebelled against the empire like Arabs and Armenians did it was game over. It is just a modern political lie that minorities were suffering under Ottoman rule and Turks are nationalistetc. Some minorities even had their the most prosperous era under Ottoman rule, for example no western 'historian' would mention Greeks were controlling the trade between Europe and Ottoman. And they were the richest community in entire Ottoman by very far. Ottoman never even tried to control the trade rather allowed Greeks to continue after all they were receiving more taxes with this greater trade..
All that I agree with. But still a nation like Greece would never have stayed as a part of the empire as they were treated as second class citizens due to their religion. In the court a Muslims opinion mattered more and so on. I don’t see you or others mention the janisaries. families lost their kid to be brought up as a Muslim to guard the sultan. Everyone bends history to his own side. The truth is somewhere in the middle. So all I’m saying they were good and bad things that the Ottoman Empire did and ultimately one way or another the empire would have fallen like any other.
@@konstantinoszoupalis8449 you are looking at devshirme system from today's romantic views and not based at the conditions of the era you criticize. they were taken from small villages, not from cities and at the time it was seen as a boon for the family as they were later on reaping the benefits when their kid rose in the capital. they were not of age that they wouldn't remember their families.
Bro devshirme system is nothing in scale. Janissaries are really small portion of the army and devshirmes are a way of integrating cultures. For example let's say there are 21 Greek boys in some village that's freshly conquered. They collect just a few of them (at max 7 as it's 1/3), educate them in the palace standarts, have them work in good positions. Why is this done?
1- Empire needs qualified people to rule the lands. Devshirme system both resolves this issue and gives a good life to the devshir-ed child.
2- Empire needs locals to connect to the empire. Devshir-ed childs are not assimilated. They still know where they came from and what their race is and stuff. They are working at positions in their homelands when they start working. So locals are still being managed by locals. Just educated with the empire standards. (This caused a lot of problems to the empire when locals decided to rebel. Since devshirmes supported their own race. Empire could have just used those kids as slaves and assimilated the entire population. This is nothing compared to what Europeans did. Yes still a bad thing but you know we are talking about the years 1300~-1800~.)
When we look at the humanity, still we are doing horrible stuff. But when compared, there is no way I can say Turks are worse or even close to Europeans at being bad and unethical. Only thing I can think of that could be a counter argument is the Armenian problem. And my counter arguments would be 1- Europeans and Americans still did muuuuch worse than Turks in the meaning of genocide if we are to think Armenian problem is a genocide.
2- Armenian problem is not being a genocide. It's a counter-attack/defense against a rebelling population. You may ask why did the same thing not happen to Greeks and other rebelled races. It did. They won so people that died in those rebels are now "national heroes" to those countries. Armenians lost in their rebels in most of the lands they were living in so they prompt it as a genocide. Almost (I will explain why 'almost' later) no soldier killed a civil Armenian when the movements were happening. We still can't find any orders of Ottoman authorities ordering any killing of Armenians. We still can't find any mass graves of Armenians. Those Armenians who died died because
1- They were not civilians. They were rebelling against Ottoman Empire. (And it's obvious you are not a civilian no more when you equip your guns and start killing locals and soldiers eh?)
2- The movements was being done in poor conditions. The empire was at a really bad condition in terms of both economics and logistics. Most of the Armenians died in the movements are dead due to lack of food, water and health services. It's not that the Empire didn't give Armenians those, it wasn't possible to provide that much of people resources in a movement.
Now the counter argument to this is the word genocide is being invented because of the Armenian events. Yes, this is true, but the perspective is wrong. The guy that invented the word based this on what the Armenians was projecting the events of being. (Like soldiers just going to villages and killing people) But it wasn't the truth. So the perspective that defined the word wasn't based on reality of the events. Yet is invalid for the Armenian events. (Look up the definition, it either includes the words systematic or intentionality. Armenian events never had any intention or systematic way to kill Armenians. It was never the goal. It was to move Armenians from our lands to out of the borders so they can not rebel.)
Now let me describe why I used the word almost when saying almost no soldier killed civilian Armenians. When WW1 started, Armenians were doing lots of terror attacks against Turks. We call those eşkiya (translation could be gangster). The soldiers at the war zones were running and turning back to their villages to get the revenge of their families. Since they were runners it is not really correct to say there were soldiers. But still they were using state owned guns even though they were stolen from the state.
@@konstantinoszoupalis8449 I would completely agree every side bends history to their side, we Turks do it too even if it isn't as bad as many western sources. For example your Janissaries examples sounds like Ottoman was randomly collecting children which is entirely false. 'Blood tax' was only happening if a family failed to pay their taxes and it was actually rare in Greece. Simply because Greece was a richer region and people had very little problem paying their taxes.
On the other hand in poorer regions like Serbia it was quite common. It still had rules however, like not eldest child, not under 12 or over 18 etc. In today standards ofc it is an unacceptable practice but during those days it was common. For example could you please explain what was happening to people who failed to pay their taxes in France, Spain or Germany? Those governments were saying 'np bro you would pay it next time'?? Ofc not and in many cases those entire families were enslaved. Vast majority of European population was living as Villeins anyway and they had little more rights than slaves, for example they couldn't even leave their farms without permission from their lords! Compared to those conditions Ottoman's policies were very tolerant. And they weren't even becoming slaves rather receiving 4 years education in Devshirme schools and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or receiving military training in Janissary corps to become soldiers. So they weren't even trained to become soldiers from right away.
However this doesn't mean Greece should had stayed a part of Ottoman forever, they wanted their own country and became independent and i can't blame them for it. But it is an undeniable fact their new nationalist governments literally re-wrote history to declare themselves as heroes. You can see it in Greece, Serbia, Armenia etc while not in Georgia or Bosnia simply because those countries never had nationalist governments and similar re-writing of history. You can still blame us for all of your problems if you wish but could you share please how long it took for European powers to invade Balkans?? They didn't only occupy entire Balkans also caused civil wars etc. Since independence Balkans has been always in chaos and conflicts but it is our fault somehow. Even if Ottoman never existed and Turks never crossed into Europe there weren't going to be a great Balkan countries rather Balkans was going to be controlled by Italians, Germans or Russians and most likely was in far worse shape today..
@@konstantinoszoupalis8449 rubbish, to this day, the holy patriarch and Anatolian Greeks live in Turkey just fine. More than 2m Turks were killed in ethnic cleansing pogroms in the Balkans from 1912 to 1922, so the idea that the Turks shouldn't engage in a population exchange, and/or act likewise, is completely absurd. Nationalism is a European mind virus infecting the world. Empires were the most sustainable polities, especially liberal ones like the Ottoman
Ottomans was more like a united nations at its time but other imperial powers were not happy with it because they couldn't colonise the other people under ottoman rule
this is by far the stupidest thing ive read in here.
@lefterismagkoutas4430 lol then you have no idea about history
i found it more like to current Usa but we can call united nations too. Also %100 agree with you, divide and conquer is common practice of colonizer empires.
@@mertuzun4868
USA is already a small United Nations, but it is a much more unified version of the UN.
@@yagizz5421 yeah UN is a joke, not even functioning anymore like last century of ottoman state. And the rest was like USA more centralized.
My theory is if USA loses its wealth and power its fate will be similar to the ottomans.
The Ottomans COULD spread Turkish, but didn't want to do so by force. They just left the people speak their own languages.
but many locals also learnt Turkish some on their own for better communication and rising up in community and business
Right they just tried covering everyone but your free to speak your language 🤦🏽♂️
so why does modern anatolians stoped speaking greek and armenian and speak turkish today? they trukified whole anatolia which in itslef is a large chunk of territory
@@najibullahghafori3739exactly, there is a time in history called “Turkification of Anatolia” many ethnic groups who spoke other languages from different languages families were turkified.
Meglio l'italiano del turco. L'italiano deve diffondersi in tutto il mondo,non il vostro turco.
Let me explain with one sentence only:
"Ottomans were not social/cultural Imperialists, like western ones".
Yes it conquered other people lands by force and incorporated them into their empire. It is not like the local inhabitants voted to be apart of the Ottoman Empire. So it was an imperialist empire. Imperialism does not exclusively mean western imperialism.
Turkish Imperialism is even much more worse
their culture was not very literary as opposed to the west. they could only impose their religion.
@@Gift-ll4nv ofc they were imperialists but not cultural imperialists. This is mainly the reason why there's been so many ethnic tensions in Anatolia for the last century. Meanwhile a country like France had little to no ethnic tensions thanks to their successful cultural genocide.
Just because the Ottomans didn't force Turkish onto the local populations doesn't make them angels in holy raiment. They still butchered their way through civilians and imposed their dogmatic, tribalistic rule. Their sultans were majority of warlord stock built for murder and laying siege to entire cities.
You wanna cry about western empires take a look in the mirror first, Mehmet.
Because turks are not like french and british
They are faaaaaar worse
@@imperialism_ogismfr
true
as a turk that is not correct. we are very patient and respectfull people towards other but if to many people of whatever region or people starting to overwrite our stuff, cuture and whatever more turks will use as its defence hardcore attack mechanics...
turks and i am one and if you read our history you should know we are probably the most coldblooded people in war mode as long as we are not in war we are the chillest people to be around...
than were worse!!
Dude if Britain, France Spain managed to whip out religion ethnicity and languages in only 1 or 2 century, don't you think 600 yo weren't enough for the ottomans to do it ?💀 They simply didn't want to force their language and religion into others
Occupation is occupation, slavery is slavery! By writting such rubbish U R insulting so many people who lived happily under so much and such oppression and who finally happily died by losing their head, being impaled, scorched to death by hot oil, draged and quartered by horses or ships, hanged from their torso by giant hooks etc... The image at 0:46 is a mild showing of ottoman (turkish) tolerance! These people lived happily by paying heavy tax they couldn't afford, they also had to pay jizia in order to keep their head in place, nobility had to give their children to be "educated" (this is how "parents' control" was presented), and possibly being islamised and turkified; ie loosing their identity! Common people had to pay blood tax by having their kids kidnapped and never seen again (by becoming jenissaries the boys and sex slaves in harems the girls) and many other bad things... Then you were free to do what you want living happily... EXCEPT, wearing red and green, using bells in church, etc, etc, etc... and you were free to do whatever you want living happily... EXCEPT, speaking UR language deep in Anatolia, otherwise UR tongue would be cut off; EXCEPT revolting for living this way in this ottoman paradise! They had to suffer respect and tolerance in order to pay taxes! They didn't care for educating their slaves; they just wanted them to pay the taxes; that's why they were keeping them alive (like the farmer does w/ his livestock)!
They also didn't care much for converting them since muslims weren't paying taxes! But sometimes convertion was mandatory. During the Ottoman expansion, there were 2 choises: to fight and be free if winning and die in case of loosing OR to surrender to keep UR life, family and privileges (in case of nobles and people with some influence to the local community). Since 1600, this changed: U had to be converted in order to keep UR privileges!
Other case of obligatory conversions: under the sword... There was an option of course... The dilemma was: "dead or Muslim"!
During the 1770 greek revolution, the Sultan ordered "KILL THEM ALL" and he revoked his order immediately, because the Admiral of the Aegean asked: "...and who is going to pay the taxes?" U get the point?
Turks's other empires also respect him peoples.
@ahmethasanzengin4392 Teachings Of Islam
Did bro really say that spain whipped out the ethnicities and languages?
C'mon, go read some books of Spain's history.
@Flan_Nan4444 Bruh why does all America speak spanish and portugese ?
"yea bro the Ottomans were colonizers"
Meanwhile the Ottomans:
They were colonizers.
@@sabrinarodrigues629If the Turks had been colonizers, probably the Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians and many other peoples who stayed under Ottoman rule for a long time would be using Turkish or Ottoman Turkish as their second official language and at the same time their religious structures would be very different. From the very beginning of the Ottoman Empire, including when it expanded in the Balkans, it never forced anything on the peoples. Except for the last times of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, in the last times of the Ottoman Empire, the people in charge were aware that if the Ottoman Empire had established these pressures at the time, the Ottoman Empire would not be in a state of collapse. That is why the Ottoman Empire became more ruthless in its last times in order not to make the mistakes it did not make in the past. So if you call the Ottomans colonizers, you insult the people who lived happily for a long time without any significant damage to that region. Examples of colonizers are the British Empire or the French Empire. Because there were always genocides and bad events in the areas they controlled, and the peoples under the these colonizers also suffered a lot.
@mustafaefe684 lol... the fact that you get offended with ottomans being called colonizers (that's what they are) is ridiculous. And, since you mentioned genocide, how is Turkey dealing with recognizing the Armenian, pontic, syriac and mount lebanon genocides?
@mustafaefe684 by the same logic, the germand didn't colonizers Tanganyka because they favored swahilli, and the Dutch in Indonesia weren't colonizers either as they promoted Malay.
@@sabrinarodrigues629 Those genocides are justified by monsters such as the pan-turkic people who glorify Mustafa kemal and worship him as a supreme leader. If you go to turkiye it would seem as if his image as a supreme leader is enforced upon the young. Erdogan and his party arent so different. Anyways I only knew about the armenian genocide who's supervisor was the monster enver pasha who is described as a "martyr" which is fucking insane as a Muslim myself. These european wannabes have literally distorted the image of the religion for almost everyone (I blame the afghans too)
The Ottoman Empire was tolerant, multiethnic, multi religious, multicultural, harmonious, lasted for centuries & its tolerance reverberates till today! They were not oppressive colonisers! You forgot to mention Bosnia & Herzegovina 🇧🇦 Finally other empires in Europe functioned on the same tolerant principles.
Occupation is occupation, slavery is slavery! By writting such rubbish U R insulting so many people who lived happily under so much and such oppression and who finally happily died by losing their head, being impaled, scorched to death by hot oil, draged and quartered by horses or ships, hanged from their torso by giant hooks etc... The image at 0:46 is a mild showing of ottoman (turkish) tolerance! These people lived happily by paying heavy tax they couldn't afford, they also had to pay jizia in order to keep their head in place, nobility had to give their children to be "educated" (this is how "parents' control" was presented), and possibly being islamised and turkified; ie loosing their identity! Common people had to pay blood tax by having their kids kidnapped and never seen again (by becoming jenissaries the boys and sex slaves in harems the girls) and many other bad things... Then you were free to do what you want living happily... EXCEPT, wearing red and green, using bells in church, etc, etc, etc... and you were free to do whatever you want living happily... EXCEPT, speaking UR language deep in Anatolia, otherwise UR tongue would be cut off; EXCEPT revolting for living this way in this ottoman paradise! They had to suffer respect and tolerance in order to pay taxes! They didn't care for educating their slaves; they just wanted them to pay the taxes; that's why they were keeping them alive (like the farmer does w/ his livestock)!
They also didn't care much for converting them since muslims weren't paying many taxes! But sometimes convertion was mandatory. During the Ottoman expansion, there were 2 choises: to fight and be free if winning and die in case of loosing OR to surrender to keep UR life, family and privileges (in case of nobles and people with some influence to the local community). Since 1600, this changed: U had to be converted in order to keep UR privileges!
Other case of obligatory conversions: under the sword... There was an option of course... The dilemma was: "dead or Muslim"!
During the 1770 greek revolution, the Sultan ordered "KILL THEM ALL" and he revoked his order immediately, because the Admiral of the Aegean asked: "...and who is going to pay the taxes?" U get the point?
they did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
@@polha4966 don't forget dinosaur genocide by the turks circa 66 million BC 😢😢
@@polha4966 Stop yapping ottomans were more human than your ancestors and even more than me cause I wouldn't speared anyone of you back stabber p.o.s
By this logic so were the British in India!
Turks are not cruel like Britain, Russian and France.
the Armenian genocides say otherwise
they are just as cruel as them
@@DIOBrando-wl4xqnope
@@DIOBrando-wl4xq Learn history bro
They just kidnapped children and made them soldiers. Only that.
Some ethno-religious groups, when outnumbered by Turks, did accept the Turkish vernacular through a gradual process of acculturation. While the Greeks of the Pelo ponnese, Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, and the west Anatolian lit toral continued to speak and write in Greek, the Greeks of Cappadocia (Karaman) spoke Turkish and wrote Turkish in Greek script. Similarly, a large majority of the Armenians in the empire adopted Turkish as their vernacular and wrote Turkish in Armenian characters, all efforts to the contrary by the Mkhitarist order notwithstanding. The first novels published in the Ottoman Empire in the mid-nineteenth century were by Armenians and Cappodocian Greeks; they wrote them in Turkish, using the Armenian and Greek alphabets.
Great comment and evidence of your knowledge of ethnography. My respect to you
Check out one video by Tom_traveler...it films some ethnic Turks in Turkey whose native language is a Greek dialect. Tom..is of Greek descent and lives in Chicago...his interests include documenting a few far flung ancient Greek communities. unfortunately he missed his chance to document thosein Mariupol,
Kapadokians are not the Karaman Turks!
@hakanozaslan9571She didn't know she was counted with the Greeks and was surprised about that, because she KNOWS that she is Christian Turk! The exchange was on a base of religion, not nationality!
Kapodokya rumları Doğu Roma zamanında bölgeye yerleştirilmiş Türkopoller ve kabileleri ile karışmış yerli halktır.Türkler öncesinde Anadolu pek çok farklı millet yaşıyordu.Frigler,Karyalılar,Lidyalılar hatta Galatlar dediğimiz Kelt kabileleri vs vs..Bunlar İskender ve ardılları ile son olarak Doğu Roma döneminde dil ve kültür olarak asimile edildiler.Anadoluda Doğu Roma kendisine uyarladığı Ortadoks Hristiyanlığa uymayan Anadolu haklarına pek çok katliam gerçekleştirdi.Ermeniler, Kathar yada Albigen denilen insanlar vs...Şu anda Anadolu 1000 yıldır Türklerin vatani.Selçuklu ve Osmanlı İmparatorlukları döneminde kimse dinini ve dilini değiştirmeye zorlanmadı.Pax Ottomana...
Also we didn't make Europeans Muslim by force.. 500 years would be enough for Greeks to assimilate if wanted. Remember how many crusader armies were defeated. If the goal had been forcing to Islam, it would be contrary to Islam's teachings. In general politics, we had respect to other culture and religion, unless they start/plan an attack to Islam/Ottoman army. There may be limited exceptional situations but the results prove this general policy.
So would you apply the same logic to the British in India? Surely that was tolerant too, local languages customs and identities all preserved.
@kyrisoteris2046 if you ignore their close-history massacres which Indians still waiting for an apologize.. English are only "sad", if you believe.. Apologizing is a heavy thing for them even for a massacre of civilians. Please Google "The Jallianwala Bagh massacre"..
Ottomans didn't colonize or exploit anyone like English. There are bridges, water ways, caravanserais, Mosques, Turkish baths everywhere Ottomans "exploited" (!).. They secured them against enemies. How many English soldiers died for securing Indians? Ottomans were protecting all civilians in its borders.. Of course they had soldiers from every nation especially Muslims (Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Circadian, Laz, converted Romans, Armenians, Greeks,...)
@@kyrisoteris2046 we should research for civilian massacres, and unbalanced power using in conflicts.. Ottomans were one of the most moral armies in the world.. And the Ottoman public was "mostly" living in peace and harmony although there were 30+ ethnicities and too many religions... It wasn't a colonizing system like English empire...
😂that's why during those years Greeks have 156 armed riots and 26 organized attempts to be free..btw ottoman rule wasn't in all Greece it was only in the cities mountains were free and Greece is 80 percent mountains...
Ottomans did not spread their language, because the nations under their rule despised the Turks.
BECAUSE THE TURKS WERE NOT COLONISTS AND IMPERIAL GANGASTERS SAME AS WESTRENS, THEY DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE LANGUAGE, RELIGION, TRADITIONS AND WAY OF LIVING OF THE SOCIETIES IN THE COUNTRIES THEY CONQUERED.
That's why the Ottomans murdered 1.5 million Armenians in 1915.
I am Albanian Muslim and we have many Turkish loan words that we still use even today
It is very normal that you are influenced by the Turks, we lived together for at least 300 years, but no one forced you to use these words. To give a better example, we also have Greek, Arab, Persian words, but we have never been ruled by Arabs, Persians or Greeks
@ off course
@@bajramtahiri1576those Turkish loan words were probably from Arabic or Persian. So, it is a loaned loan words.
@ some of them yes but not all of them
Persians had a huge influence on the Turkish language
If the Portuguese had done the same to my country, I'd not be speaking Portuguese now.
The point is that it wouldn't have been your choice
they did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
@@polha4966 don't forget dinosaur genocide by the turks circa 66 million BC 😢😢
@@sinanermishaha cope harder you don’t have a response to his argument 🤣
@@-Dazai- it's not an argument it's simply bullshit
Because of their respect to all other cultures,ethnicities,religions.They were far better than recent states.
@@masterfootballeague3892 facts
Are you sure?
all you gotta do is ignore them banning arabs from rising in the empire and the mass slaughters they did on chrsitians
@@Thefriedchickenmaster untill the young turks came, yes
@@Thefriedchickenmaster Look at the territories that they lead.All nations preserved,exist up to now.Evidences are clear
Balkan languages heavily adopted from the European form of Turkish: "Rumelian" Turkish (Mind you, NOT the presitge "Ottoman" Turkish of the palace). Serbian, Bosnian and Macedonian have over a thousand Turkish loanwords as of today, probably numbering around several thousands in total. Before their standardization processes, Slavic languages of the Balkan area (with Greek and Albanian) had even more Turkish loans used in everyday life. Vernacular Cypriot and Cretan Greek show a strong Turkish influence in their vocabulary and phonology. Creole-like languages were spoken in Anatolia (e.g. Cappadocian Greek) and the borrowing of Turkish words into Armenian and other Middle Eastern languages even predates Ottoman times.
So it's safe to say that Turkish definitely left a mark in the former Ottoman territories, even if that mark isn't a total language shift, it's one of noticeable effect.
Yeah, not exactly. It is not thousands of words. In Serbian we use a maximum of 300-400 Turkish words. Mostly nouns for referring to the common everyday things.
In egyptian arab dialect too
@@petarjovanovic1481 I was referring to the complete word inventory, the number you might come across in a language corpus. Of course the number of words actively used decreased significantly after the language was standardized.
word loans, even numerous ones, are not considered as some sort of "real influence" in linguistics. Ancient Greek, for instance, had at least 10% lydian or persian origin words, but there was no influence of those eastern languages on greek morphosyntaxis (grammar and structure) - just as the many greek-root turkish words do not affect turkish grammar or structure of language. Such exchange are and have always been omnipresent, even when the affinity of language groups is restricted to vicinity rather than coexistence.
I must stress, though, that some of the most sentimentally expressive words of vernacular greek did come from the turkish (like "kefi", "sevdas", "dunias", "dalkas", "rezili"), just as that suffixes like "lis/lu" and "cis/cu" are really very common. Still, all those elements exist in modern greek not "despite greek language purification in the 19th century" (for example, they did not exist in the popular poetic language of the 15th - 19th century), but as recent elements, inoculated to greek after the exchange population of Anatolian greek orthodox populations.
I suppose word loans enrich and embellish every language, so I particularly enjoy using those expressive turkish origin, newly greek words !
@@leonpoul5634 Yeah man agreed, I didn't say there was Turkish influence on a linguistic level on the Modern Greek vernacular, apart from Cappadocian Greek, in which there occurred a slight Turkicization of Greek verb conjugations and syntax. (This language as you know developed independently from Modern Greek, even in early stages was pretty much isolated from coastal Byzantine Greek.) The influence on MG was not a linguistic one but a lexical "mark", as with the suffixes and emphatic words you mentioned. Nearly a quarter of Greek population (I don't know, maybe a higher percentage?) traces some ancestry from Micro-Asia, so no wonder many words and ways of expression is still present in daily communication. In the case of Turkish, Greek loans are on another level, even the word for "basic, central, foundational" (temel) has Romaic roots, so you figure how foundational the effect is!
Apart from that, yeah, languages are living entities and should not be forcibly altered, even though that's exactly what happened with Turkish, but instead of a return to an ancient heritage as with Modern Greek, we saw Ottoman Turkish developing into the "Yeni Türkçe" (New Turkish, republican Turkish, etc.) in a matter of few decades, although this time the said alteration resulted in relatively positive outcomes for the wider population. (radically increased literacy (10% to 97%), more accessible education and increased social mobility among classes) Maybe somewhat resembing the change from Kathevorusa to Demotic in MG.
Couldn't ❌ didn't✅. don't mistake us as other countries like Europeans.
Yes, you were too illeterate, uneducated uncultured to make anyone interested in learning the language.
It's not a coincidence that while Europe had industrial revolution, Enlightment, Rennaisance, Turks contributed next to nothing in terms of culture and sciences.
Ok, you brought the Yemeni coffee to Europe. That's all.
@@Zephyr-b4v your eurocentric education prevents you to see what the other ones did. Rennaicense works are full of direct translations from Andalusian and Ottoman scientific works. No wonder how Ottomans could turn Hagiasophia into a mosque. Thanks to accepting all people interested in science. Anywhere like that? Italy, birthplace of rennaicense. A place Muslim merchants and scientists could wander around unlike rest of Europe.
Ah yes the ones that ethnically cleansed and rage baby wiped out populations and language in the Turkish Republic. Also you all deny dna tests bc you don’t wanna find out your true identity
Simple, they never tried to. Dude they didn't even try to convert their Christian minority to Islam. Let alone assimilating them to Turkish
Devshirme?
they did try bro...
Μinority??? 😜😜😜😜😜
@@pwp8737 devshirme was only applied to boys who were drafted. Not to the general public. I see many people dont know that Janissaries were always a small part of the Ottoman Army. At their biggest extend jannissaries made 1/8 of the total Ottoman Army. So even the boys that had been through devshirme was one spoon of sugar in a whole jar.
@@sarantissporidis391 yes. Christians were minority in Ottomans
Because the Empire did not suppress ethnicities. Did not rob them away from their culture, religion or nationality.
Well researched. Similar like the liberal policies about distributing the Turkish language, subjects of the Ottoman Empire were free to keep their original religion. Unlike the practiced method by other powers at that time, the population of conquered regions were not forcibly converted to Islam but had the freedom of choice, like Orthodox Christianity or Judaism.
As a Turk, I can comment: In general, the Ottoman people are divided into two, Muslim and non-Muslim. These two groups maintain their own traditions and unique forms of judgment, and in administrative units, clergymen such as imams and priests have the right to judge. As can be understood from this example, everyone continues their lives on their own belief system and culture, and the priority in the state's functioning mechanism is taken into account by the general social structure. If we had not done this, the Ottomans would not have been able to resist much in geographies such as the Balkans, which have a large Christian population. This is an indication of why the Turks basically established so many empires but did not cause such impressive social (cultural) destruction. There was a good example in the video: in the early years of the printing press, Armenians and Serbs could write in their own alphabets. In fact, it was even argued that the Turks used the Armenian alphabet instead of the Arabic alphabet because it was more suitable for phonetics. In other words, it allowed many languages as well as many alphabet structures... And it allowed the beginning of its collapse. Unfortunately, there are many nations that try to portray the Ottoman Empire as a bad state through propaganda, but history has always chosen the most suitable potential for itself... There is no Ottoman, but as a Turkish youth who is completely loyal to Anatolia with its heritage and values, I offer my gratitude and respect to my ancestors. Greetings!
they did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
@@polha4966 don't forget dinosaur genocide by the turks circa 66 million BC 😢😢
@@polha4966 are they speaking turkish now? NO
@@ThedeadaccountAL turkey is imposing on pomaks of thrace to learn turkish at schools.. while turkish is a foreign language for the pomaks as pomaks are slavs. Turkey considers all muslims of greek thrace and bulgarian thrace as turks even though they are slavs, gypsies , sudaneses etc... You are even now imposing turkish on non turkish muslims in thrace . Even now in 2025!
@@ThedeadaccountAL turkey is imposing on pomaks of thrace to learn turkish at schools.. while turkish is a foreign language for the pomaks as pomaks are slavs. Turkey considers all muslims of greek thrace and bulgarian thrace as turks even though they are slavs, gypsies , sudaneses etc... You are even now imposing turkish on non turkish muslims in thrace . Even now i
The ottomans were in my country for about 300 years. They had no contact with the locals, and their language never adopted in my country
The Ottomans continued the Roman or Rum tradition for the Empire model. Just as Latin language never became the standard language in the Greater Roman Empire this was a similar model for Ottomans. This also stems from the way the Ottomans collected taxes. Instead of having a complex tax office in every town they simply sold the contract to regional "Lords" who paid the Ottomans in advance and the native "Lords" collected the taxes from the locals. This meant that there was no need to a standard language to collect taxes from every region. The Ottoman soldiers not speaking Turkish also created huge problems but this is an entirely different subject. Some people don't realize that most of the Ottomans were not ethnic Turks. Just as most Roman officials were not from Rome region in Italy, most of the Ottomans were not ethnic Turks.
There is no such language as "Ottoman Turkish". Turkish people speak Turkish. The elite class spoke Turkish because they were Turks, BUT they also knew Persian and Arabic. They spoke these languages among themselves in a mixed way. For example: Subject (Turkish) + verb (Arabic) + predicate (Persian). In fact, they did this on purpose. To appear different from the public. Meanwhile, they also used words from Balkan languages. Ataturk removed all these foreign words. Only Turkish words remained.
No one "spoke" Ottoman Turkish; it was a literary form, rather than a spoken language. The elite also spoke the Commoner Turkish(There are transcripts from the court mainly by ambassadors or envoys, even written in Latin dating back to 17th century, and the court spoke in a manner that is resonably intelligible with modern Turkish), however they wrote with the Ottoman purple prose.
You are wrong about the match of the languages and the word order. The verbs are always Turkish not Arabic. The rest depends but the verbs are 99% of the time Turkish. That's same even today. Even if we use an Arabic or Persian loan word for the verb, we add a Turkish auxiliary verb or suffix next to it or even combine them to form a new verb. For example:
Merak (curiosity in Arabic)
Meraklanmak = to get curious
(-lanmak is the Turkish suffix)
Dikkat (attention in Arabic)
Dikkat etmek = to pay attention in Turkish
Vaz (means 'back' in Persian)
Vazgeçmek = to back down in Turkish.
Geçmek means to pass, to move in Turkish and it's a separate word we frequently use in daily life
And we use many foreign words today, they are not completely removed at all. I wish it was more successful and we actually spoke like the Anatolian Turks of the past or even today. They still use way more Turkic words but they are bound to be forgotten by the coming generations since they are not actively used in the standard language ://
I am Bulgarian, many Turkish ottoman words have entered Bulgarian language, i am also Arab Lebanese some Turkish loan words exist in Lebanese Arabic
Bulgars were turks before assimilation so loan words are entire Slavic words
@@ibekdin Bulgarians are not Turks. Being a turk refers to a member of the Turkic ethnic group, primarily associated with the people of Turkey and Central Asia. Today's Bulgaria is a mix. If we talk about the Bulgars 1500 years ago. Now that's a debate if they are from central asia, as there isn't a lot of informationa bout them
@@ibekdin That's a terrible lie and you know it. Never once in Bulgarian history were we "Turks". Go back to school.
@islombekochi Bulgaryanlar Türk değiller. Bulgarlar Türklerdi ve bugünkü Bulgaristan dediğimiz yeri yönettiler. Ülkelerinin adı Bulgar imparatorluğuydu ve hanedan Hristiyan olup slavonik kilise etkisi altına girince zamanla yerel halk olan slavlara karıştılar. Oradaki slavlara Bulgar denmeye başlandı. Bulgaristanda Türk olan sadece Bulgar adı kaldı, bir de Boris adı.
@@ibekdin You got the history wrong. If Bulgar elite really did that, Bulgarians would be today speaking Turkic, not Slavic (and don't add the Turks, because they came from the Ottoman era, not from the Bulgars). And no, it's not like English when it heavily adopted French words, that doesn't change the root the English language is still Germanic.
The name Bulgarian came from the Bulgar elite, the same as how French people took the name of the Frank elite.
0:20 Germans: Döner Kebab was invented in the 70s in Germany by Turkish immigrants
Turks: 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Yoghurt is a Turkish word 😚 (yoğurt) The Turks found yoghurt in the history
the reason why turks enden up in germany as immigrants its because the germans destroyed them selfs and most of europe during ww2 and needed workers so the begged the turks for help
They reason why germany recovered as a economic giant after world war 2 was because of thousands of turkish workers who helped build up germany
When people like you try to piss on others they usally piss on them selfs so clown 🤡 read history
And dont forget that turks was in contact whit germans during the siege of vienna in 1529 and not from 1970 s and onwards
Drink your milk boy you have alot to learn
kebab is a Persian word not Turkish or German
@@saeeddookat2330Kebab means just grilled meat.. döner is turkish . nothing to do with poorsians .
@@saeeddookat2330it has nothing to do with persian
Thanks!
Thanks a lot!
@@Mahanology You are totally wrong as even today turkey obliges greece to send the slavic by blood pomaks to turkish schools in greek thrace just because pomaks got islamized during the ottoman times.... I mean the pomaks speak pomak slavic as maternal language yet today in 2024 turkey conducts a linguistic and cultural genocide in greek thrace by obliging the greek citizens pomaks to go to turkish schools. And greece allows this.! And it s not only the pomaks who are slavs but erdogan calls as turks the indian romani aka the gypsies who are muslims in greek thrace and have as maternal language the indian romani.......So turks did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
We Turks did not assimilate any country, we wanted people to live well during the Ottoman period. But doing this was the biggest mistake and they rebelled
T*rks assimilate Armenians and greeks .now they try to assimilate kurds
Say that to the Arabs,the balkans and Armenians
@@imperialism_ogismAs an Arab, I am not even mad about our ancestors decision
Turks migrated to Anatolia in large numbers assimilated natives in Anatolians and Central Asia.
Not true 😂
The short answer is they did not colonize the regions. Colonizing is what Europeans do, not turks. Each race lived with their own distinct culture and the Ottomans didn't meddle with it. You could argue about the cruelty of the jenessary system or the heavy taxing for non-Muslims. But we are the 'bad' people in the history.
edit: I saw the comments, now. My notifications aren't on. Anyways to sum up all of the responses.
-Almost everyone is 'bad' in history. Killing someone is bad=wars are bad. But every ethnicity that has ever existed have done it. I am addressing the 'objective' history not being objective. I don't think any other race is better.
-India literally speaks English lmao. Language is very important part of 'colonizing', aka spreading your culture. To this day kids there get taught English books, not as a second language. Not to mention India's obsession with whiteness. Literally no one can deny how Indians are into white skin. Indians and brits didn't live with each other and if they did. Brits were seen as a higher class which wasn't in the case for Ottomans. Turks were never the higher class.
-Turks migrated from Central Asia and lived with the locals, hence marrying or breeding(however you would like to refer.) with each other. Turkification of Anatolia was made long before the Ottoman Empire. The Anatolians integrated with Turks. Literally take a peak of a Turk's DNA test and you can see the Anatolian blood. The Turkic and Anatolian DNA differ from each person but we all have those parts in us.
-Colonizing is mostly the term used for Europeans. Besides Japan idk any nation that has colonized. Some could argue Japan could have been influenced by interactions with the Europeans. But I am not into history and neither it is my biggest asset. I just know my nation's history.
-If you can't think, please use your reasoning skills with a little research. All of you seem to have liked your own comment considering they all have 1 like. That is both pathetic and hilarious.
-Bunlara salladıktan sonra kendi yorumumu beğensem mi diye düşündüm sonra baktım tam mükemmel 31 sayısında kalmış dokunmadım. JHSDKFHSDKJFHS
Everyone are the "bad" people in history
Sugarcoating… you could use the example of conquering through both subjugation and unification!
If you think Europeans are the only people that colonize, European history is literally the only history you know anything about
You are totally wrong as even today turkey obliges greece to send the slavic by blood pomaks to turkish schools in greek thrace just because pomaks got islamized during the ottoman times.... I mean the pomaks speak pomak slavic as maternal language yet today in 2024 turkey conducts a linguistic and cultural genocide in greek thrace by obliging the greek citizens pomaks to go to turkish schools. And greece allows this.! And it s not only the pomaks who are slavs but erdogan calls as turks the indian romani aka the gypsies who are muslims in greek thrace and have as maternal language the indian romani.......So turks did spread turkish though to all the indigenous populations that they islamized for exemple look at the hamsin who are armenian christians yet they became turkified as consequence of their islamization by the turks. Same happened to the greek pontians what the turks now call karadeniz. The greek pontians who became muslims to save their lives during the greek genocide by the turks circa 1922, became turkish such as erdogan himself, or the mayor of constantinople who is also of greek pontian origin. The greeks who resisted islamization fled to mainland greece to save their lives. Greeks in mainland greece and byzantine anatolia were in the middle ages around 20 millions. When the greeks liberated themselves from the turks, only 2 million christian greeks were left. Imagine how many greeks and other indigenous nations of anatolia the turks islamized and turkified and killed.
So by this logic Britain didn’t colonise India. All the local languages and customs were preserved and they didn’t meddle with the locals unless they didn’t pay taxes just like the ottomans. If not, why is Britain different?
Its crazy that I can understand the poem from 13th century but not the one from 19th century
Harbi niye öyle
It is not could not. We simply won’t. We were not colonizing we were governing .
8:24 For those curious about the meaning of this couplet
"He who moves slowly will reach his goal in time,
But one who rushes may stumble over his own robe."
The Turkish dialects spoken in Cyprus, Balkans and Meskhetia is result of Ottoman policies. The Crimean Tatar language broke away from all other Kipchak languages and became Oghuz-like language, again happened in Ottoman period. The numerous Turkic and Turkified loanwords that entered North African Arabic, Hungarian, South Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Armenian and Caucasian languages are also a result of the Ottoman expansion.
It is but its not to the degree of India, Africa, Singapore and Ireland.
After a period of 600 Years, that result you have mentioned is quite normal, isn't it?
It is very normal that these languages are influenced by the Turkish, we lived together for years, but no one forced you to use these words. To give a better example, we also have Greek, Arab, Persian words, but we have never been ruled by Arabs, Persians or Greeks
They were not hell bent on destroying the culture of the native peoples they conquered or subjugated. You didn't even need to revert to Islam if they defeated you. They effectively were the opposite of the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. Unfortunately this became their undoing because instead of crushing Arab nationalism in the empire they allowed it to fester which led to its downfall.
Bütün imparatorluklar eninde sonunda çöker
As an Arab, alhamdulilah our ancestors fought against Turkish nationalists
@Proud_Hadrami Astaghfirullah your ancestors fought against their Khalif, their emir, and the wishes of our prophet (pbuh) all for the false promises of the kafirun.. This is not something to look back fondly on brother
They sure started massacring a lot by the 19th century onwards
Arab nationalists have destroyed the legitimacy of the ummah time and time again, and they are continuing to do so until this day, its clear that arabs can not unite or run a nation without excessive betrayal it’s in their blood
Wieso sollten Sieger und Herrscher denn den Besiegten ihre eigene Kultur beibringen wollen !??
Ils n'ont jamais essayé ! Voilà pourquoi. Leur mentalité n'était pas celle du colonialisme tel que pratiqué et compris par l'Occident.
Arabic letters are such a bad fit for Turkish that Ottoman documents were forced to work around a simple verb like "died." In Turkish, the words "was" and "died" are almost identical: oldu and öldü. You can see the difference clearly in Latin letters, but the vowel differences were hard to mark in Arabic letters. So the Ottoman death reports had to use workarounds, euphemisms like "he passed away" and "he bought the farm."
And many more dilemmas like above.
? Ottomans used a mix of arabic-perso script, it was never arabic
@@Zysuzuuauajz True, the Arabic script and Islam were both adopted through Persians. Long before the Ottomans, Saldjuks were using the Persian version of the Arabic script.
Plot twist: so, it was indeed mostly due to Ottoman's policy of tolerance.
Forget about spreading, it’s an incredible achievement that people of Anatolia speak the language; this could be only possible with constant and steady migration (with bare minimum numbers) started around 11th century from ancestral lands - Turkestan in Eurasian steppes. Just like Hungarian exists today surrounded by Slavic and Romance languages, journey of Turkish language from Central Asia to Southern Eastern Europe is a big achievement.
Actually the Turks (the original Turks) did spread their language, with in the geographic area that is today's Turkiye. The original Turks were Asian, look at people from Turkiye who genetically are overwhelmingly Caucasian and Middle Eastern
I'm learning about the greek revolution in my greek school. They say that ottomans killed and tortured Christians if they didn't become islam (εξισλαμισμός) they also said that they forced language on us, put unfair laws on us etc.
Ottomans weren't like Arabs and European powers, we all know why Africa, North and South America are rootless and cultureless today.
No one speaks Berber and Egyptian in North Africa today, for instance thanks to Arabs😂.
Arabs did not force anything. Most of the Areas Arabs ruled do not speak Arabic
@@fadyalqaisy huh? From Egypt and Levant to Morocco, they didnt speak Arabic at all until the conquest of the caliphate. Now they all speak Arabic with minority of Berbers and almost no other languages in Levant except Kurdish.
@@alpddar2518Arab presence in the levant, Egypt and Sudan and North Africa was well established and documented by greek historians over the millennia like Herodotus, Strabo, and Diodoris Sicculus and they still do speak Arabic. Although Anatolia and the Persian mountains are only a stone throw away from the peninsula but they didn’t speak Arabic back then and still don’t speak it
8:20 For checking as a Turkish
First poem can understand in modern Turkish %100.
Second poem's 5 words can understand in Modern Turkish.
They did the spread it on the Greeks on Anatolia, genociding the Armenians and removing any non Muslim and then replacing them with Turks. So yes they did spread their langauge on other peoples
The Turks never committed genocide, the report for this is in the General Harbord Report, you cannot accuse them of genocide without knowing it, you are doing nothing but slander, the Ottomans brought peace and tranquility wherever they went, it is stated in the report that the Armenians committed genocide, not the Turks, the USA is explaining...
you are such a delusional boy, but the comments in this video is enought im not even gonna spend time and respond to this bs with a long explained text :Ddddd
Ikr, I’m just scrolling through comments and realizing these people are just delusional. “Diversity” “inclusivity” BRUUHHH
Because muslims have a respect for Arabic language ,that is why
The Ottoman Empire was one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse territories in history. (as historically acknowledged in numerous academic studies)
But of course you won't agree, because that’s not what you were taught.
Hatred isn’t inherent to human nature. Unfortunately, even your regular books which are taught in primary schools begin with narratives fostering hatred towards Turks.
It’s both sad and tragic how these young minds have been conditioned by some "national" education system to despise a land that was once peaceful.
For hundreds of years, Turks lived in friendship with the Armenians, even the Armenians were called a loyal nation. Nothing was done for so many centuries, but why did something happen later? They definitely need to be self-critical.
lmao the turks were never friendly to the Armenians.
@@olbiomoiros source:american dick sucking fest of Armenian people
@@olbiomoirosYou are a big liar! 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
@@genveon0 because of nationalism
@@olbiomoiros yeah your armenian grandpa told you🤓☝.even in the city where I live (Southeast of Turkey), Turks and Armenians were the richest people living in the city center and the neighborhoods where they lived together are still mentioned. Kurds and Arabs generally lived in the countryside, but then armenians were forced to migrate when the Armenians started to rebel, and the Kurds took over the remaining goods and authority. It is said that there is a lot of gold under the places known as rich Armenian neighborhoods.
Ottomans ruled 500 years. During this time there was never a pressure to any ethnicity to adopt Turkish. Some did voluntary. Same with religion. İf they had this agenda in governance it could have been achieved within 500 years. I like the photo you used from a comedy movie in your video. How ever that shot was as humor and did not represent Turkish culture or folklore in realistic manner. I think you should study ottomans not only from British records but also many other. Ottoman archives can be enlightening.
It was an occupation. There was pressure through higher taxes for other religions, and a lot of people changed to islam because of this. But once they did it, they became "Turks". Why do you think people in Turkiye look balkan or middle eastern, but not asian as other turkish nations do?? This video fails to address how different religious groups were not equal citizens to the muslim/turks.
@MsMinoula Hungarian are Turks. Finland also. Moldova too . Bulgarians Türkic origin. Being aturk is not how you look.
@@Bn843hhu Such a stupid comment, none of the nations you talk about are turks in origin.
@@Bn843hhu Sadece Macarlar Türkidir, Finland ne alaka.... Dil yapsının benzemesi Türk oldukları anlamına gelmez. Ayrıca Macarların 1400 yıl öncesinden kuzenlerimiz olması, onlara Türk diyebileceğimiz anlamına gelmez. Onlar kendine TÜrk diyor mu? hayır, ne diyor Macar diyor. Kazaklar, Kırgızlar kendine tabiki Türküz diyor, ancak biz kazak türküyüz diyor, öncelikle kazak diyor. Hepsi bir deyip herkesi Türk ilan etmeye çalışanlar, tarih bilmeyen gerzeklerdir. Ülke cahil dolu amk.
well said, thank you for covering it nicely!
btürklerin övüldüğü yorumlar çok tepki toplamış, biraz düşünün beyler
Kuduruklar işte
Turkish government thought about taxes
To change the local languages are impossible
the thing is lot of westerners or people who are not familiar with the islamic culture. ottomans weren't just an empire it was more of an islamic caliphate which they didn't need to spread their language because basically country is serving a religious purpose more than an ethnic purpose.
Finally, not a Turkish propoganda or not a Armenian propogand, just pure facts
Because we are a merciful nation
The Armenians, Greeks and Kurds like this post.
@ all these nations you mentioned preserved their national identity and culture.
@@anate9 yes, so did the Native Americans, the Jews of Germany and the Circassians in Russia. The point is, the nations I mentioned were ethnically cleansed from the Anatolian peninsula.
@@anate9 true
You ethnically cleansed the Assyrians in the 1920s...
6:24 I am pretty sure that is a satirical newspaper, and is not actually from 1914. The Onion
I am Albanian from Macedonia. Turkish was the city language in albanian cities. It was like an aristocratic language. Until today many albanians are assimilated and speak turkish as mothertongue, even though their grandparents and/or parents spoke albanian, same for Kosovo. Albanians who speak turkish as a mother tongue are 100% from the city centers(downtown+old city center) and are/were wealthy with good jobs.
that's not too bad
@@creeperawman1431 Oh I see how you happy you are to assimilate the albanians and when you came across with people with stronger culture and you COULDN'T you pretend that you were never interested.
That's the turkish mentality now : barbarians trying to act like civilized.
It’s important to recognize there are still western Turkish speakers in modern Syria and Iraq, highlighting the language historically spread beyond the bounds of Turkish Republic’s borders. There were more Turkish speakers before the emergence of modern nation-states, at which point Arabic became the compulsory language within many Ottoman successor states in the Middle East.
Turks never colonized any country, they bring peace.
I am pretty sure when they came from Mongolia to Anatolia they were holding flowers and Anatolia people were glad to be turkified 😂😂😂
@panosgeorgedimitriou2290 We conquered these lands , not assimilate or colonize.
@AlptheSpearo conquer is another word for colonization...as for assimilation your photo is a living proof unless my eyes are not looking good and I see a turk (far east Mongol type person)...
@panosgeorgedimitriou2290 lol , what😂
I am Caucasian , I am a Ahıska Karapapak Turk. When the Turks entered Anatolia, they settled us in the Caucasus for border security. My lineage is clear, my ancestors are clear, the Turks have many branches. The Oghuzs are not so slanted-eyed.But whatever you want , Alr kid🤚🏻
In Ottoman society, Turkish was the common language, Arabic was used for academia, and Persian for literature, but the rise of nationalism, influenced by Western ideas, disrupted this linguistic and cultural harmony within Muslim society.
WTF are you talking about? What influence by "western ideas"? Greeks never stopped fighting the Turks and only between 1453 and 1821 we count more than 35 war events, that is 1 revolution, rebellion, revolt every single decade of the 3 and a half centuries. Come on, point out which "western influence" influenced the Greeks for their huge, bigger and better prepared than the 1821 one, revolution of 1768. The fanatically pro-Ottoman British back then? Or was it the Russians who only belatedly allied with Greeks sending Orlov to coordinate actions (but the revolution had already been going on, already starting even before 1768 but Russians mingling in belatedy in 1770). What "western ideas" inspired the Greeks? The discovery of America, the circumnavigation of Africa or the Protestant Reformation?
Why you Turks are unable to read history as it actually is?
no it was not harmony within the muslim society up to %92 of anatolian turks were illiterate because of that "harmony"
Colonialism destroyed cultures but ottoman beating Britain ( atleastly once) was beginning of the end for Colonialism so ottoman never did colonialism + they ended colonialism so they saved cultures instead of changing them with turkish culture but now balkans hate ottoman more
At the end of all, turkish culture not spreaded like other ones until we look to asia☠️
Balkan got brainwashed by school false information that ottoman are cruel empire
The Turks didn't even want to force Turkish onto Arabs because Arabic was the holy language of islam, so it's actually the Turks that appropriated many Arabic words. And they couldn't force the Balkans to speak Turkish because ever since 1774, Russia forced Turkey to protect its Christian subjects. Before that there was a LOT of forcing, which gave us modern Turks.
Arabic is everything but a 'holy" language to Turks
We didn't forced bcz we didn't want to
That's all no other stupid reasons
They did already spread Turkish in Anatolia. Anatolia has never been a Turkic nation in its genes, not even today. They are decendants of motly Byzantine, then Iranics, Greeks, Georgians and so on who have switched to speak Turkish only recently.
After Sultan Abdel Hamid II, everything changed
Osmanlı'nın yıkılmasından ana etkenlerden biri, Çokuluslu Devlet yapısıdır.
Osmanlı kuruluşu itibariyle bir Balkan Devletidir...
Why in the background Albanian text is in russian😂
Because they were tolerant in regards to culture, language, etc. But that's contrary to what they will tell you...
When the Young Turks took over, it was a nationalist takeover. So in many ways, the empire was not cohesive enough when the nationalist sentiments swept the Balkans - and when the empire started breaking apart, there was a group that attempted to force a new national identity. That lead to genocides and massive contempt for the Turks. My grandfathers uncle was murdered and hung from a church. I've read a lot of accounts from all sides during this time and there were so many atrocities by everyone. Truly horrific times and it shaped many later conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.
The Ottomans didn't impose their language, just like they didn't impose their religion.
They would just double your taxes for not being a Muslim or not obeying enough.
The Ottomans bassed a big portion of their laws on taxes, unlike Christians who are claiming it to be a sin.
Also important to note, not everything was shining and beautiful, if you resist to the Ottomans or if you are going against the Ottoman law, they will pogrom you.
.
Turks have "vicdan"
Which is an Arabic word …
It's an Arabic word and Turks don't had it...
No we dont
@@Aredash77 wish my ancestors didn't :D çöl faresi
Schöne Grüße aus Deutschland 🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪
Because we didn't oppress cultures and languages of the regions we took over as told by other people. Had the ottomans forced their culture and language upon the people we had under control for roughly 100-600 years, they would be very similar to us with just one generation. But we allowed them to keep that, and they should be thankful.
What a joke! The Ottoman Empire did oppress cultures, religions, and ethnicities for the entire duration of its existence. It was a genocidal, terrorist empire for the entire duration of its being and the list of atrocities and oppressive acts against kaffirs by the Ottomans is endless.
No one should be "thankful". The Ottoman Empire should be spat upon and relegated to the garbage dump of history.
As an Arab, there is no reason at all to be thankful 😂
@ if we weren’t so respectful you would be a hybrid whose bloodline had been so washed out you would be calling yourself a Turk.
@@Proud_HadramiYou lie! You aren‘t arab!
Armenia would disagree with you... and go fk ur self with that "they should be thankful" lmao
Some countries, cities or territories were not actually part of the Ottoman Empire. Today's Romania (Wallachia and Moldavia at that time) was never part of the Ottoman Empire!!! Romania was only a suzerain of this empire (or even independence for some periods) for this it was paid with a lot of blood, wars and gold! It is sad and shameful for our ancestors to say today a foreigner or to show a map how they were in that empire.
For example,Stefan the Great of Moldavia won 36 out of 38 wars with the Ottoman Empire!!! If you name another king with such a performance, I will give you a keg of beer !
The Ethnic Turks of Anatolia were peasants of the Empire. The Sultan used their children for war because they were nomadic. Turks were called Etrak-ı biidrak which means donkey or good for nothing Turks. The only Ethnic Turks that rose to power were the Balkan Turks because the Ottomans heavily invested in the Balkan area and almost nothing to Anatolia. Even the Sultan asked the Germans to make a report on the conditions of the Anatolian Turks and they wrote that Anatolian Turks were living in a Stone Age. Turks especially in Office had to hide their identity until the National Revolution.
3:10 movie name green valley which was one of the epic comedy movies in last 50 years.
Greece came into existence as an independent nation-state only in 1832. Before that, for most of the preceding 400 years, it was part of the Ottoman Empire, whose dominant language was Turkish, and over time spoken Greek incorporated many words from Turkish, and also from Italian. Once independence was achieved, many nationalists attempted to eliminate all Turkish, Italian, and other borrowings from Greek so as to create a national language that would genuinely represent the Greek nation and its former glory. This resulted in the creation of the 'purifying' form of the Greek language -'Katharevousa' Greek-one of two varieties of Greek that would compete for status as the country's official language into the 20th century (Mackridge 2010).
the dominant language was never Turkish, at least in everyday life. the majority spoke greek in mainland Greece, the islands and in Cyprus, as well as Smyrna.
Most of the Turkish words in greek are actually arabic or persian ,turks had to returkify their language after they became a country in order to reduce arabic and persian influence
Now, this is half the truth - and half of what is written in your source. First of all, hellenistic and medieval Greek had two distinct forms, manifest already early in the byzantine period, the vernacular "demotic" greek, and the more "atticizing", "classy" Greek, both always mutually compehensible, written in greek, and strongly interacting . Thus, the so - called "purification" (which had started much before Greek independence as a predilection of the more classicizing greek as a language of prestige, science etc in both the empire and the greek diaspora) was merely a choice of which of the two branches would be the official language of the new kingdom and the main carrier of its education, and the "katharevousa" didn't just come out of nothing, or as some sort of revival of the dead classical texts, but rather of an existing and flourising classical lingual tradition !
We should not forget that many post - conquest (of Istanbul) documents were universally in Greek (the ottoman language had not yet been standardized), and many high - ranking officials were actually of Greek birth and education.
So, the Greek language reform had nothing in common with the Rumanian for instance (where 50% of the vocabulary was slavic), or even the turkish (where, what in 1923 was called "malumat-i-vataniye", became 4 years later "yurt bilgisi" !).
No people spoke already demotic ( public) everywhere, with the formation of Greece (katharevousa) purified, tried in order to remove all foreign origin words
Turkic languages lack the following words since they are foreign concepts to the Turks, so they had to borrow them from other languages:
Honor: şeref - from Arabic: Šaraf Literature: Edebiyat - from Arabic: Adab
Poetry: şiir/nazim - both from Arabic: ši'r and nazm
Morality: ahlak - from Arabic: ‘aklāq
Arithmetic: Hisap - from Arabic: hisāb
Manner: tavr - from Arabic: tawr
Bath house: hamam - from Arabic: hammām
Clean: temiz - from Arabic: tamyīz
Pure: saf - from Arabic: sāfin
Logic: mantik - from Arabic: mantiq
Chastity: iffet - from Arabic: ‘iffa
Prosperity: refah - from Arabic: rafāh
conscience: vicdan - from Arabic: wijdān
Honesty: dürüst - from Persian: dorost
Justice: Adalet - from Arabic: ‘adāla
Altruism: fedakarlik - from Arabic: fidā + Persian: kâr
Thankfulness: şükran - from Arabic: šukrān Patience: Sabir - from Arabic: şabr
Civilization: medeniyet - from Arabic: Madaneyyah
creator of this video, you should check out why there is something called turco-calvinism and why the calvinist dutch and orthodox greek would rather see turkish turban than a latin mitre. simply put, there was no intent to spread turkish language. the ottoman empire was not a colonialist empire, but a traditional agrarian one. even if turkish was standardized, the schools which teach it would not teach it to orthodox or jewish people, but to turks only. you are stretching a need which does not exist...
As a Turk i can say just it; Ottomans only didnt love Türks thats it,
I think this video is a little misleading because you have to remember that Anatolia was not predominantly Turkish speaking before the Ottomans and it now is overwhelmingly Turkish speaking. And Turkish is a Central asian, not a West asian language. Turkish was also well spoken throughout the Balkans as well as Greece prior to independence, as was even dominant in many parts of the Balkans. So ultimately, when you consider that Turkish was originally only spoken by a relatively small group of people in that region, we can see that they very much did spread the Turkish language.
Since Turkic peoples are originally from Central Asia, it is safe to say that each square inch of the current Turkish state itself lies exactly where there used to be Greek, Armenian, Georgian, Arab, Kurdish and Aramean lands.
All of those languages and cultures that existed in Anatolia for centuries were basically erased in favour of the Turkish culture that currently replaces them. Some (or many) of their most visited tourist attractions are to this day remains of previous civilizations of each area.
The Ottoman Empire, though ambissious, at a point in history was simply not organized and powerful enough to Turkify the Balkans, North Africa and the Middle East, while the Western Powers were colonizing half of the world very efficiently. If they had gotten industrialized and reformed their language earlier, perhaps they could have succeeded in keeping their dominance, but as this did not happen, we see that nowadays even the Kurdistan issue, for instance, is still giving Turkey a ton of headache.
(I don't hate Turks, just trying to put history together in a cold analysis.)
you are revisionising between two terms. Migration, And Colonisation. So just like Anglicans of England turks migrated to anatolia so as you cant say that Ethnicities were originally from England, forced to asimilisation, you cant say the same thing for Anatolians.
Çünkü öyle bir amacımız yoktu
2:27 Latin was also a very stylized and formal language. It never resonated across social classes and it's not the origin of the Romance languages as is commonly thought.
If that were true, which it’s not, why is there a basic mutual understanding between different Romance language speakers? A Spanish speaker can look at something written in Italian and easily understand most of it. Same with Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, French, and Romanian and more. A romance speaker looks at something written in German and it’s nothing more than gibberish.
@@TheManCaveYTChannel
"Why is there a basic mutual understanding between different Romance language speakers?"
There is mutual understanding because they descend from a common root and share a lot of history and influences. Latin, although related to the Romance languages, is not "the base" of them.
@@yeskaminakuritsova9368 99.9% of linguists would disagree with you.
@@TheManCaveYTChannel I know 😊
The Ottomans were different to Colonial European powers
Soo all top comments are from Turks upvoted by other Turks lmao must all be very true.
bro just look at a map what are you yapping about
tolerance, thats why they live 600 years
Also justice ruling
People defending us Turks makes me happy and iam proud of my ancestors
Stop being, they are the worst
@@dam8498butthurt westoid spotted
@@dam8498 Funny, choose any Major random European country and you'll get one with a 2x worse history
Well, the whole Turkestan (Central Asia) speaks Turk language
Because they are Turks -_- (Kazakhs, Turkmens, East Turkestanis, Tajiks, Uzbeks and others)
@@vuernxrs Originally they weren't. Just like Anatolia, they were Turkified.
@@lekevire We came from Central Asia, we are not limited to the Seljuks. "We came in 220 BC (Asian Hun Empire)" Turks are not limited to Turkey.
@@lekevire Literally the definition of ignorance, just search about Turkic people, not so difficult to google it right ?!!!
@@vuernxrs fake! tajiks are persians not turks.
Because Turks are not French or English!
Turkish has never been renowned as a high culture language . Turkic languages lack rich literature and lacked prestige throughout history so much so that even turkic rulers ( Iran -India -central Asia ) tried distance themselves from Turkic languages
@@majidbineshgar7156 yağmalandın!
@@majidbineshgar7156says the iranian who is still writing in noodle script 🤣🤣
@@majidbineshgar7156 After the Turks converted to Islam, they started to use Persian/Arabic as the state language in the states they established. The fact that a certain majority of the people they ruled were non-Turks also played a role in this. However, the language of the entire aristocracy and the army continued to remain Turkic. In all the states Turks established before Islam, the state language was always Turkic. The issue is completely moving away from nationalism and loss of identity in the name of religion. As an iranian, you should know this better. Because at the end of the day, u iranians who have a ''rich literature and prestige'' lost to a handful of desert bedouins lol
Because their culture was just another Arabic culture 😂
Every other country colonized
Turkey spread genuine goodness and superiority to those who needed it
Because they never even tried to spread it. View farming.
… the fact that all of Anatolia is Turkish speaking id say no it did succeed somewhat
In the 11 century there were seljuks that defeated Romans in 1071 or 1074 I forgot, then seljuks won against Romans and occupied Anatolia and after that many Turks from Seljuk empire started to emigrate to Anatolia so that's why there are too many Turks in Anatolia
@@Zhanbolat884 , but it wasn't like the local Anatolians disappeared. Local Anatolians would have outnumbered incoming Turks. Which means that the existing Anatolian population would have been a far bigger source of ancestry for the modern people of Turkey.
@@ishmamahmed9306Turkish migrations to Anatolia did not end until the 15th century, and the local population consisted of different nations with Hellenic culture, not just Greeks.
@@baalyoz exactly there were many groups greeks were not that many they think they were but no
@@ishmamahmed9306 There was 430000 nomadic tents were even only in Western Turkey noted by Arab historian Umar. Central Turkey and the other regions also had high number of turks