🚀Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/HistoryMarche and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com/
BREAKING NEWS The Malaysia court today has now announced that the Sharia laws (Islamic laws) in Kelantan state to be "unconstitutional". Please pray for Malaysia guys, we failed to help Palestine and now we failed to defend Sharia laws
Sultan Selim I was a beast. He became Sultan in his early 40s & reigned for only 8 years but he trippled the empire's territory. Conquered the entirety of Mamluk Sultanate, Annexed Eastern Anatolia & ravaged safavid capital, also filled the ottoman treasury to its full. In my opinion, He's the best ottoman sultan as his success rate is 100%.
He defeated states who hasn't gunpowder weapons and also never fought against enemy with gunpowder weapons. He also outnumbered his enemies 2-3 times. He is most overrated Sultan in Turkey. Also lands he conquered are large but sparsely populated. Population of Ottomans was 2-3 times of Mamluk Sultanate and Safavid Empire.
@@Asterix958 this video cleary lack some pivotal detail ,safavid are in winning streak and before of ridanya selim choose to cross sinai desert which only alexander the great dare to cross it and tuman bay bought some cannon from venetian for ridanya
@@rakadean39 He didn't buy guns from Venetians. I read Egyptian sources, it says that news arrived that Venetians will bring cannons but no cannon came to Egypt. Instead, Tuman bay II produced 200 handguns but he can't use because army of Selim encircled Tumanbay's army and Tumanbay forced to give pitched battle and these handguns remained in fortified positiion, not being used. Journey of Sinai Desert is overrated. Ottomans in 1914 and 1915 crossed Sinai Desert 2 times, losing couple of soldiers from 30k soldiers. We know that Army of Selim I took huge casualties i this journey while Ottomans in 1914 easily crossed thanks to German consultants.
Within 8 years, one would topple his father after a civil war, annihilate the Safavids, conquer the Mamluk Sultanate and rip off the title caliph, this was none other than the baddest man of the 16th century, Selim I.
Humiliated Safavids (which were Turkic like the ottomans) and conquered the strong Mamluks. Just in 8 years is very crazy, undoubtedly he was a military genius.
It is not like he took the caliphate completely. He took the holy relics of Islam. All the powerful Islamic sultans considered themselves caliphs, but when the Mamluks were destroyed, the only strong caliph candidate was the Ottomans.
In Turkish we have a saying that reads: "Yavuz'a vezir olasın." It literally translates to "I hope you'll be a vizier to [Sultan Yavuz] Selim", a phrase used for people who you want to perish lol. This is because Selim was kinda notorious for having his pashas/viziers executed if they ever failed or crossed him. It is said that he brought back so much gold following the conquest of the Mamluks that new chambers had to be built in the imperial palace in Istanbul. This gold was one of the driving forces that fed the Ottoman war machine back then and helped Suleiman continue his pressure in the Balkans. In my opinion, Selim does not get the recognition he deserves, compared to Mehmet the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent. His story is truly impressive and unique in the Ottoman history, he forced his father to abdicate the throne (then allegedly poisoned him to death), marched against another Muslim powerhouse a.k.a the Safavids and conquered all the way into the Mamluks while crossing the notorious Sinai Dessert within two weeks. Many of Turkish historians refer to Selim as Turkish version of the Alexander the Great, due to the similarities in their effective eastern expansion. Although he was sultan for a brief period of eight years, the legacy he left behind echoed in the region for centuries to come.
It took only 3 Europeanbalkan countries to destroy the Ottoman Empire.including Greece,Bulgaria, and Serbia. Imagine what would've happened if all major European countries were united militarily against the Ottomans in the Balkan wars. Turkey would've been History!
@@LordByron1821Well, I was just stating the fact that Turkish historians refer to him as Alexander of the Ottomans due to the similarities between expansion towards the East. I suggest that you take a look at the history btw, the Balkans and the European countries joined in forces against the Ottomans on numerous occasions, also known as the Crusaders, just sayin :D
As a Turk who enjoys reading history since a very young age, I would like to say Sultan Selim the Resolute is widely accepted as the greatest Ottoman to ever walk on the earth. Rest of the Sultans are not even compariable with Selim, only with the exception of Mehmed II. That famous Suleiman's success is actually solely based on Selim's hardwork. He did 80 years of work only in 8 years, riding horse nonstop in the melting deserts of Arabia and harsh terrains of Caucasus, showing a unseen sheerwill, always staying diciplined all of which resulted in the 400 years of conquest of what is 3/1 of greatest territorial extent of the empire , which even included holiest cities of three biggest religions: Jerusalem, Mecca & Medina, Constantinapole. He was the first Turkish origin caliph of Islam, second Caesar of the Romans and the Khagan of Two Seas, Selim was one of the very few man that only come in half a millenia.
@userx47191 Selim's methods are still debated in Turkey today. Declaring Shiites as heretics caused numerous problems. His relocation of Kurds to Anatolia and expulsion of Alevi Turkmen from Anatolia contributed to the Kurdish issue we face today. Beside that Suleiman the Magnificent ruled the Ottoman Empire for 46 years, facing numerous enemies during his reign. He spread Islam to Indonesia and its surrounding regions and formed an alliance with France, allowing the Ottomans to engage in European politics. His naval forces operated in many seas. The era of Suleiman is considered the peak of the Ottoman Empire's golden age. I'm a non-Muslim Turk, and I believe both rulers were great in their own right. However, Suleiman displayed a bit more diplomatic finesse compared to his father. If we can overlook his decision to kill his son, Mustafa, which ultimately doomed the empire, Suleiman's achievements still stand out.
@IamnotracistlmaoHe aynen kötü hava koşullarından durdu kanka. İki katı orduyla gidip zigetvar yarısını ben telef ettim öldüm zaten. Pargalının başarılarını kanuniye yazmaya devam
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century "Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8 To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire. Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
Selim's rule seems almost perfect from a prosperity and power perspective. He not only greatly strengthened the state like no Sultan before or after him but also left behind a very capable heir Suleiman who is also one of the greatest Sultans. What really set Selim apart from Suleiman was that Suleiman killed his capable heir (Mustafa) and the list of great Sultans ended with Suleiman.
I dont know why everyone say Suleyman the best ottoman sultan.Suleyman was a good sultan for his code of law,but Selim, Mehmed 2 and Murad 2 deserve more. In 8 years,Selim doubled the size of empire,crushing both safavids and mamelukes and capture the holiest place of Islam. No other ottoman sultan had that feats. Mehmed 2 was another marshal sultan.Capturing Constantinople, subduing most of the balkans and fought numerous battle against legendary figures like hyunadi,sigismund, skandarbeg,vlad and uzun hassan. Murad 2 is the most underrated ottoman sultan.winning crushing victory against superior latin crusader force time after time. Compare to these three,Suleyman's achievement is nothing significant. Yes he won key battle in rhoades,mohacs and preveza,but during his reign ottoman forces was best in world.If Mehmed or Selim had that army anf reign 46 years,they would reach paris or samarkand
It kinda makes sense when you think of Ottoman takeover of Eastern Mediterranean resulted in Western Europeans explore alternate ways to India and East Asia.
I consider Selim I the greatest sultan of the Ottoman Empire. He increased its area by 70%, as he annexed Iran, the Levant, and Egypt. All of this was thanks to his intelligence and acumen, in parallel with the truce of European countries.
It will be interesting that Iran will turn back to Sunni, if Sultan Selim live long enough. The Twelver will become minority and the converted Sunnis to Shiahs by swords, will coming back to Sunni fold.
Şah İsmail, Hayır bey (khayr Bey), Tuman Bey and Kansu Gavri (Al-ghawri) are also Turk. The meaning of "Bey" is something like "lord". Today, the word "bey" is used to mean "mister" in Turkish.
Thanks for finally using Turkish sources🎉 Halil İnalcık is the most well known man in the world for his Ottoman sources. Also you can look it up his student İlber Ortaylı, globally well known man whose descendents are Crimean Tatar aristocrat and Russian Empire aristocracy. Also Murat Bardakçı, for his large sources and Yusuf Halaçoğlu.
Selim the 1st deserves more respect than Sulieman the Magnificent. Not only he made the Ottoman global power but he left the empire stronger than before him.
dont forget that suleiman the magnificent is basically also selim legacy , solidify why he is very underapreciated and main target of western propaganda
@sairadha u r absolutely correct. It is solely due to Selim that Ottomans survived and became a global superpower. Suleiman would not have survived a foe like Ismail and enemies from all the sides. The credit goes to the warlike sultan Selim. He is the true successor of Osman and Mehmet the conqueror.
@@pranavsubramaniyan6667 I dont know why everyone say Suleyman the best ottoman sultan.Suleyman was a good sultan for his code of law,but Selim, Mehmed 2 and Murad 2 deserve more. In 8 years,Selim doubled the size of empire,crushing both safavids and mamelukes and capture the holiest place of Islam. No other ottoman sultan had that feats. Mehmed 2 was another marshal sultan.Capturing Constantinople, subduing most of the balkans and fought numerous battle against legendary figures like hyunadi,sigismund, skandarbeg,vlad and uzun hassan. Murad 2 is the most underrated ottoman sultan.winning crushing victory against superior latin crusader force time after time. Compare to these three,Suleyman's achievement is nothing significant. Yes he won key battle in rhoades,mohacs and preveza,but during his reign ottoman forces was best in world.If Mehmed or Selim had that army anf reign 46 years,they would reach paris or samarkand
@@blackgoku2023 u r absolutely right and u have given excellent information 🙌 Suleiman was more of an afterglow and shadow of his father sultan Selim. If it were not for sultan Murad 2, Mehmet fatih and Selim the grim Ottomans would have been gobled up by their formidable foes. Suleiman was neither an astute, clever and determined general like his father Selim han nor a charismatic leader like his great grandfather Sultan Mehmet han.
Just goes to show how powerful the Royal Mamluk charge was that they straight up drove the middle line behind their cannons instantly. A less experienced commander might have lost control of his men and poorly retreated to safety and cost the Ottomans the battle. Heavy cavalry charges are still scary, even with guns and cannons on the field.
Although Mamluks proved the superiority of their cavalry many times, in this case, this is the result of Ottoman tactics, similar events also happened at Nicopolis, mohac, etc. The Ottoman center was made up of Azab troops, who were lightly armored and their main purpose was to draw the enemy troops in. Directly quoting from Wikipedia, Azabs constituted the majority of the foot soldiers of the Ottoman Army in Anatolia and performed duties such as ensuring the security of settlements and defending castles. Azabs were a constant part of Ottoman campaigns during the rise. Their duty in field battles was to stand at the front of the army center, ahead of the janissaries . The lightly equipped azab soldiers would make the enemy army think that the Ottoman center was weak, and this could lead to an attack towards the center where the sultan's brigade was located. If this expected attack took place, the azabs would shoot arrows at the enemy troops, trying to cause casualties during the advance and especially to disrupt the pure order of the enemy cavalry .
Loving the new map style - it's fantastic! Your content keeps getting richer, and I thoroughly enjoyed the latest episode. Keep up the great work, looking forward to more!😆
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century "Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8 To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire. Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century "Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8 To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire. Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
@@theyellowjestersAhh, finally. Fellow EU4 players. I'm a new guy needing some advice. Basically, I'm playing as France, and fought a war with England seven years ago. Very easy it was to steamroll Normandy (I took Labourd and Bordeaux in a prior war). But England, along with Portugal, blockaded my ports, really messing up the war score. I had to give a minor province to England to end the whole thing. What now? I need Normandy, but can't because of the English and Portuguese navies. I have allied with Denmark and Castile, but neither will help yet, the latter because they are no longer rivals of England and have allied Portugal, the former because I've not done them any favours yet. Denmark are the only power that seem to be strong enough to face England on the high seas, as per the ledger, but 8 carracks vs 19 galleys doesn't appear to be a good sign. I have been throwing money towards my navy (8 carracks and a bunch of galleys on the way) but England has absurdly powerful admirals. What do I do?
@@iramkazim5038 I'm not very good at the game. but Galleys as far as i'm aware are good for the Baltic, Mediterranean, and black seas. If you're on the atlantic in most places, you want carricks and the heavier ships. Try and focus on those. Do some favours for your ally that is willing to fight England and try to up your Diplomatic Tech, that'll help strengthen your navy. Others may have other and better Ideas but that's what I would do. Hope it helps!
It's noteworthy that Selim's father Bayezid possessed the same logistics and armies that Selim did yet failed to annex the Levant region from the Mamluks forget the entirety of the sultanate
It was because Bayezid was more inclined towards conquering Eastern Europe rather than middle east and in the striking contrast, Salim was not much interested into europe.
@@ahzamrasheed1208 He was actually interested in Europe too. But his time wasn't enough. He died while preparing for a campaign against Europe, probably Hungary. And there is anecdote that he said to the great cartoghrapher and admiral Piri Pasha: "I wish to enter from Andalus to turn back to Constantinople."
@@ahzamrasheed1208Selim was very much interested in Europe but when he took throne, the rebellions were brewing in eastern Anatolia & Safavids were quickly expanding in persia which was a clear threatening sign to the existence of Ottoman Empire. It was important to pacify the eastern lands as Ottomans had not forgotten the disaster at Battle of Ankara (1402). After winning it, Selim was forced to act against mamluks as mamluks openly supported Safavid invasion in Ottoman territory.
Bayezid didn't even send his main army, he used mostly provincial troops close to border of Mamluk Sultanate. Also Mamluks under Qaitbay was in their golden age, having better trained, equipped and larger army.
Fun fact. Mamelukes were Turkic governed state. Even the states name was "Et Devlet-üt Türkiyye" Which literally translates to the "The State of the Turkiye"...
Hungary: the ottomans are powerful but they are still a rival and we can deal with them the next war The Ottomans : *doubling their size and economy in a single year*
During that battle Ottoman army was 80% cavalry with around 40,000 Sipahis while army size was around 50,000. Janissaries weren't in left wing rather in front of cannons which began shooting as soon as Mamluks entered their range and caused heavy casualties. This was the reason Mamluk army charged on Ottoman wings where Sipahis always positioned, in hope they could force lightly armored Sipahis to retreat and prevent Ottoman cannons shooting. Ofc Sipahis struggled in heavy combat as they were lightly armored and mostly skirmish but they held their ground to protect Ottoman center, otherwise they could do feigned retreat easily. After Mamluk assault was repelled it was game over, Ottoman center charged at them while Sipahis flanked them and most of Mamluk army couldn't even flee. Only Hayır Bey's wing escaped from the battleground as he began retreating as soon as their assault on Ottoman wings failed, he was born in Anatolia but wasn't Turkish rather Circassian. The fact he was using a Turkish title suggest he knew some about Turkish tactics and realized the battle was lost. There is no Turkish record what so ever that Hayır Bey was working for Sultan Selim, in fact Selim giving him "the traitor" nickname proves otherwise. There was no way any Ottoman Sultan would trust somebody who betrayed their country so it is more likely he was given that nickname for running from battle. Same as some eastern cultures like Japanese Turks would look down on those who run away or betray their people. At least in Turkish culture it isn't so harsh as Seppuku etc, rather you would be seen as dishonorable until you prove yourself next time..
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century "Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8 To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire. Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
The ottomans went through succession crisis before they made the meaningless claim of “new Roman Empire” most notably after the capture of Baiazid I by Tamerlane
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century "Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8 To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire. Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
ottomans had the same territory as the byzantine empire 1000 yrs ago lol both had their elite units ottmans had janissaries and byzantines had roman legionarries
The word Yavuz had a bad meaning, but because it was the nickname of Sultan Selim and the love for him, it gained a good meaning. Children started to be given the name Yavuz a man changed the meaning of a wordThis is what's truly legendary
Selim was brutally efficent, despite his short reign of only 8 years he still quite possibly was the Ottoman sultan who achieved the most. Although one also can't ignore how he frequently implemented very bloody policies to get what he wants
@@One10ab Shortly before his battle with Shah Ismail at Chaldiran, as punishment for the earlier Shiite revolts Selim ordered many Shiite men within his domain killed. Now the estimate of 40k men massacred is usually seen as inflated by modern historians, who state that the contemporary tax records from the region don't record a significant drop in tax revenue that would have been caused by such a high death toll (amongst other arguments for the claimed deathtoll being inflated), however even if the numbers are exaggerated the fact that the massacre still happened remains. This wasn't the only case of Selim killing Shiites in his realm, as after his conquest of Syria he similarly killed some Shiite men in the region, many of them civilians
@@zgramzhnisk3036 there was also his anger and use of violence against family members and state bureaucrats as well as the kapıkulu there is reason why he was nicknamed the grim
I mean no offence but conquest of such vastness wasn't possible without the bloodbath . Many great conqueror's were extremely confident and violent to ensure victory .
Useful information: The name of the Mamluk state declared in its official documents: الدولة التركية "ed-devletü't-türkiyye" means the state of Turkey and Devletü'l-Etrâk: means the state of the Turks. Its army generally consists of mostly Turks and a minority of Circassians who were freed from slavery. In other words, its rulers and army are almost entirely Turkish. At the same time, the Safavid dynasty is the predecessor of today's Azeri Turks. Their difference from the Ottomans is that they are from the Shi sect. All 3 rulers in the Middle East were in the hands of the Turks. Mamluks: Turks who were founded in Egypt, escaped from slavery, became rulers and soldiers, and ruled the Arabs. Ottomans: A Turkish state based on Sunni sects, spreading in Anatolia and the Balkans, recruiting soldiers from all races and religions with a policy of tolerance in the view of the Empire. Safavids: An ultra-conservative, Turkish nationalist state from the Shiite sect founded in Iran.
@@NoName-fv5oo I am a descendant of the Karamanids dynasty. My ancestors fought with the Ottomans for a long time and lost their country and were exiled to the Balkans. The army members captured in the war were sold as slaves to the Arabs. After a while, they gained their freedom and established another independent Karamanids state in Libya. However, the Ottoman Empire destroyed this state and took Libya under its control. Mamluks mostly consist of Central Asian Turks who were taken as slaves by the Mongols. The most famous sultan is Baybars. In fact, its name is Turkish and it itself is Uzbekistan Turk. He was captured by the Mongols in Bukhara. Later, he became the ruler of the Mamluk state and took his revenge on the Moguls.
"ed-devletü't-türkiyye" means the state of Turkey" ed-devletü't-türkiyye means state of Turks. It doesn't mean state of Turkey. -iyye suffix is Arabic. -ia suffix in Turkey (originally Turquia) is latin suffix denoting land like Italia, France, Russia, Spain (original is Spania) etc..
Circassians were not minority but they ruled the mamluks when ottoman conquered them the bahri mamluks were Turks they were overthrown by Circassian mamluks
Fun fact: Mehmet The Conqueror appointed his young son Cem as the successor and said “For the benefit of the State killing your own blood is permitted” his reasoning was to make Cem as the sultan because he was more visionary than his brother Beyazıd. So the Empire can grow more into Italy to become the new Rome.
Some incident happend safavid shah sent a gift with beautiful box when sultan selim open is a human poop and the sultan sent him back with the best turkish delight and wrote in the box "people sent a gift what they eat" 😂😂😂😂
i would be more satisfied if you mentioned war of ridaniye from top to bottom. because there is some bloody street fights for a 6 month period and this is very important thing for mamluks fall.
9:21 - “I don’t like your stupid face!” 😂 I love the little captions. Anyway, Ismail’s attack seemed like incompetence of the highest order. “Shia later” said Selim. I don’t play Simon says. I play Selimon says.
This pusht is the key figure behind the Kurdish problem in Anatolia, relocated those mountain Indians from Zagros the create a sunni-buffer against Safavids.
The real reason why people think ottomans are the 3rd Rome isn’t because of Constantinople but they continued the Roman tradition of beefing with the persians😂
also another fact that selim actually wanted spare his brother korkud through a test by order his grand vizier to fake a message that he will support korkud as sultan which he accepted and forced selim to strangle him
Salim 1:I'm gonna fight 'em off A seven nation army couldn't hold me back They're gonna rip it off Takin' their time right behind my back And I'm talkin' to myself at night Because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cup of milk And the message comin' from my eyes Says, "let's invade them all"
There are great story,very nice story about great warrior named Budhi Darma expert in martial art from Himalaya,India journey to Nusantara to find place named Batu karu that famous in martial art.This story recorded in Seruling Dewata martial art college 🙏,
as an arab we know that the overall just rule of ottomans and the defending of sunni islam made the populace greet them as liberators, and welcomed their rule, thats why the war was done in 2 battels, only the mamulkes fought and defended their rule. and they are from turkic origin.
The Safawids were a desaster for Persia as they forced Shia on the whole land. Alhamdulillah in the early 18th century they were shattered by the same Afghan Ghilzai tribal confederation (Hotaki dynasty) that makes up the Taliban leadership today
@@MA-lb8dq son of Mut'a, but at what cost, most of iranians are agnostic atheists now anyway. cannot be compared to any muslim(sunni) land. stupid RAFIDI.
Selim I was obviously the second Alexander, beating the Turkic Safavids many times and conquered Mamluk dynasty which Essentially stopped the Mongol expansion doing it in just 8 years.
Not go discredit him any bit but Achemenids tho in a difficult period of instability were far more stronger than the Mameluks even at their peak. Alexandar's achievements were definitely bigger, though what Selim did wasn't done in the Islamic world since the time of Timur, a century earlier
What an idiotic comparison! The longest travel Salim ever did was from Constantinople to Cairo (which had been just a tiny phase of a teenage Alexander's campaign)
Hard to believe that these events still feel like mid-Middle ages, barely two hundred years post-Mongol and post-Crusade time, yet just over 2 decades ago America had already been discovered and Portugal and Spain were conquering the world while the Renaissance was just around the corner.
Yup. But it was Selim I who laid the groundwork on which Suleiman the Magnificent built his legacy. Without Selim I, perhaps the history of Suleiman would have been quite different.
@Iamnotracistlmao he has no defeats, he deleted mamluks which is one of the strongest muslim state with a stronge army. he defeated undefeated safavid army
In a study revealed by Alexander Lyon Mcfie in his book The End of the Ottoman Empire (2014), on the economic and social history of the Ottoman Turks, it unstoppable military was found that throughout force
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century "Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8 To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire. Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
Hi there, thank you for your great channel. Uzun Hasan and Aqquyunlu were Sunnis also, in 1473 Qizilbashs didn't have any kingdom yet, grand father, father and brother of Ismail 1 Safavi rebelled unsuccessfully ons after another against Aqquyunlus and three of them were killed by Uzun hasans successors, after them Ismail rebelled successfully in 1501 and founded Safavi dynasty with the help of Qizilbashs
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century "Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8 To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire. Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
@@barskama309 there is no ethnic "Turk" in Ottoman times. mustafa kemal just grouped all the muslim muhacir (refugees) coming from ottoman lands into anatolia into one single "Turk" identity.
I feel like I've missed something. Selim seems to be able to wage his own private war, as heir to the Ottoman Empire. And the Emperor is doing nothing.
There is a lot of fiction in this video from the causes of war to the battle details. For example, Ottomans went to war with the Mamluks only because the Safavid Shah tricked the Mamluks into believing that the Ottomans would attack them. However, the Ottoman army was on its way to crush the Safavids. Shah Ismail was planning on joining the war later but was shocked by the disintegration of the Mamluk Empire in a short period of time and changed his mind. The details of both battles are off, especially Chaldiran. 🤦♂️
THE TURKS AND THE WEST from 11 days. Europe stood in awe of the Ottomans who crushed many states and conquered vast territories, going, as all patriotic Turks will proudly point out, "all the way to the gates of Vienna." European literature is replete with the depictions of the Turk as the hated enemy. The English often thought of the Turk as awe-inspiring and destructive. Thomas Fuller wrote in The Holy Warre (1639): "The Turkish Empire is the greatest... the sun ever saw. ...Grass springeth not where the grand signior's horse setteth his foot." During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries , understanding the Turks ‘ military organization , given the credit for the greatest empire since antiquity , became a major European preoccupation . Speake, J., n.d. Literature of travel and exploration. p.891. By the middle of the 16th century, the Turks arguably possessed the greatest empire in the world. A History of the Middle East Paperback - March 15, 2006 by Saul S. Friedman (Author) p.181
The Otttoman Empire is the greatest empire the world has ever seen. The only reason it isnt considered so is because of the saltiness and hate europe retains towards them till this day
@@giorgijioshvili9713 do you know another sentence i see that in every video. ottoman empire ruled three continent 200 years ottoman and poland cannot be compared
@@grande-turko ottomans never ruled 3 continents lol anyway ottoman power was demolished when winged hussars arrived, turks spam random wikipedia articles to boost there Ego and why i cant to the opposite?
@@grande-turko bro turks spam random wikipedia articles to boost there ego all the time, anyway ottoman empire never ruled 3 continents and there power was demolished by winged hussars
🚀Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE now t2m.io/HistoryMarche and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 stfcgift.com/
AMAZING work as always! Please do the ottoman sieges of Vienna! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
BREAKING NEWS
The Malaysia court today has now announced that the Sharia laws (Islamic laws) in Kelantan state to be "unconstitutional". Please pray for Malaysia guys, we failed to help Palestine and now we failed to defend Sharia laws
Battle of vienna 1683 famous 20000 polish hussars charge.
Pls make a video on battle of vienna 1683 20000 polish winged hussars charge🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊😊😊😊😊🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊
Do video about Iranic warrior king Sher Shah Suri the tiger killer he did way more than Selim in less time and also founded is own Empire
Sultan Selim I was a beast. He became Sultan in his early 40s & reigned for only 8 years but he trippled the empire's territory. Conquered the entirety of Mamluk Sultanate, Annexed Eastern Anatolia & ravaged safavid capital, also filled the ottoman treasury to its full. In my opinion, He's the best ottoman sultan as his success rate is 100%.
He paved the way for his son Suleiman
Who did he conquered???? 😂😂😂
He defeated states who hasn't gunpowder weapons and also never fought against enemy with gunpowder weapons. He also outnumbered his enemies 2-3 times. He is most overrated Sultan in Turkey. Also lands he conquered are large but sparsely populated. Population of Ottomans was 2-3 times of Mamluk Sultanate and Safavid Empire.
@@Asterix958 this video cleary lack some pivotal detail ,safavid are in winning streak and before of ridanya selim choose to cross sinai desert which only alexander the great dare to cross it and tuman bay bought some cannon from venetian for ridanya
@@rakadean39 He didn't buy guns from Venetians. I read Egyptian sources, it says that news arrived that Venetians will bring cannons but no cannon came to Egypt. Instead, Tuman bay II produced 200 handguns but he can't use because army of Selim encircled Tumanbay's army and Tumanbay forced to give pitched battle and these handguns remained in fortified positiion, not being used.
Journey of Sinai Desert is overrated. Ottomans in 1914 and 1915 crossed Sinai Desert 2 times, losing couple of soldiers from 30k soldiers. We know that Army of Selim I took huge casualties i this journey while Ottomans in 1914 easily crossed thanks to German consultants.
Within 8 years, one would topple his father after a civil war, annihilate the Safavids, conquer the Mamluk Sultanate and rip off the title caliph, this was none other than the baddest man of the 16th century, Selim I.
Humiliated Safavids (which were Turkic like the ottomans) and conquered the strong Mamluks. Just in 8 years is very crazy, undoubtedly he was a military genius.
It is not like he took the caliphate completely. He took the holy relics of Islam. All the powerful Islamic sultans considered themselves caliphs, but when the Mamluks were destroyed, the only strong caliph candidate was the Ottomans.
@@GermanicDutchEnjoyer Due to his hunger for conquest Selim 8 up a lot in 8 years, aight
Mashallah ottoman caliphate hazrat Selim R.H he saved the Muslims,great muslim and caliph
Selim 1 his a strong sultan but sad he doesn't make Azerbaijan convert to the sunni Islam like his empire religion : (
In Turkish we have a saying that reads: "Yavuz'a vezir olasın." It literally translates to "I hope you'll be a vizier to [Sultan Yavuz] Selim", a phrase used for people who you want to perish lol. This is because Selim was kinda notorious for having his pashas/viziers executed if they ever failed or crossed him.
It is said that he brought back so much gold following the conquest of the Mamluks that new chambers had to be built in the imperial palace in Istanbul. This gold was one of the driving forces that fed the Ottoman war machine back then and helped Suleiman continue his pressure in the Balkans.
In my opinion, Selim does not get the recognition he deserves, compared to Mehmet the Conqueror and Suleiman the Magnificent. His story is truly impressive and unique in the Ottoman history, he forced his father to abdicate the throne (then allegedly poisoned him to death), marched against another Muslim powerhouse a.k.a the Safavids and conquered all the way into the Mamluks while crossing the notorious Sinai Dessert within two weeks.
Many of Turkish historians refer to Selim as Turkish version of the Alexander the Great, due to the similarities in their effective eastern expansion. Although he was sultan for a brief period of eight years, the legacy he left behind echoed in the region for centuries to come.
Except as he fought his cousins, the Mamluks, the Spaniards were colonizing the Americas
It took only 3 Europeanbalkan countries to destroy the Ottoman Empire.including Greece,Bulgaria, and Serbia.
Imagine what would've happened if all major European countries were united militarily against the Ottomans in the Balkan wars.
Turkey would've been History!
That's an insult comparing him to Alexander!
There will be always one of a kind Alexander in the history of mankind!
@@LordByron1821 hahahahahahaah hahahahah thats was 1914 not the prime ottoman teenager eu boy
@@LordByron1821Well, I was just stating the fact that Turkish historians refer to him as Alexander of the Ottomans due to the similarities between expansion towards the East. I suggest that you take a look at the history btw, the Balkans and the European countries joined in forces against the Ottomans on numerous occasions, also known as the Crusaders, just sayin :D
As a Turk who enjoys reading history since a very young age, I would like to say Sultan Selim the Resolute is widely accepted as the greatest Ottoman to ever walk on the earth. Rest of the Sultans are not even compariable with Selim, only with the exception of Mehmed II. That famous Suleiman's success is actually solely based on Selim's hardwork.
He did 80 years of work only in 8 years, riding horse nonstop in the melting deserts of Arabia and harsh terrains of Caucasus, showing a unseen sheerwill, always staying diciplined all of which resulted in the 400 years of conquest of what is 3/1 of greatest territorial extent of the empire , which even included holiest cities of three biggest religions: Jerusalem, Mecca & Medina, Constantinapole.
He was the first Turkish origin caliph of Islam, second Caesar of the Romans and the Khagan of Two Seas, Selim was one of the very few man that only come in half a millenia.
@userx47191 Selim's methods are still debated in Turkey today. Declaring Shiites as heretics caused numerous problems. His relocation of Kurds to Anatolia and expulsion of Alevi Turkmen from Anatolia contributed to the Kurdish issue we face today.
Beside that Suleiman the Magnificent ruled the Ottoman Empire for 46 years, facing numerous enemies during his reign. He spread Islam to Indonesia and its surrounding regions and formed an alliance with France, allowing the Ottomans to engage in European politics. His naval forces operated in many seas. The era of Suleiman is considered the peak of the Ottoman Empire's golden age.
I'm a non-Muslim Turk, and I believe both rulers were great in their own right. However, Suleiman displayed a bit more diplomatic finesse compared to his father. If we can overlook his decision to kill his son, Mustafa, which ultimately doomed the empire, Suleiman's achievements still stand out.
@IamnotracistlmaoHe aynen kötü hava koşullarından durdu kanka. İki katı orduyla gidip zigetvar yarısını ben telef ettim öldüm zaten. Pargalının başarılarını kanuniye yazmaya devam
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
Selim's rule seems almost perfect from a prosperity and power perspective. He not only greatly strengthened the state like no Sultan before or after him but also left behind a very capable heir Suleiman who is also one of the greatest Sultans. What really set Selim apart from Suleiman was that Suleiman killed his capable heir (Mustafa) and the list of great Sultans ended with Suleiman.
I dont know why everyone say Suleyman the best ottoman sultan.Suleyman was a good sultan for his code of law,but Selim, Mehmed 2 and Murad 2 deserve more.
In 8 years,Selim doubled the size of empire,crushing both safavids and mamelukes and capture the holiest place of Islam. No other ottoman sultan had that feats.
Mehmed 2 was another marshal sultan.Capturing Constantinople, subduing most of the balkans and fought numerous battle against legendary figures like hyunadi,sigismund, skandarbeg,vlad and uzun hassan.
Murad 2 is the most underrated ottoman sultan.winning crushing victory against superior latin crusader force time after time.
Compare to these three,Suleyman's achievement is nothing significant. Yes he won key battle in rhoades,mohacs and preveza,but during his reign ottoman forces was best in world.If Mehmed or Selim had that army anf reign 46 years,they would reach paris or samarkand
It's kinda weird to think of this being just 5 years before the fall of Tenochtitlan, and that the Ottoman rise was contemporary to Spanish expansion.
It kinda makes sense when you think of Ottoman takeover of Eastern Mediterranean resulted in Western Europeans explore alternate ways to India and East Asia.
They would come to a head at the battle of Lepanto
@@SplendidFactor the battle of preveza 1538
I Think portugal put the egypt economy on their knees in his indian trade expansion.
What exactly is weird about it?
I consider Selim I the greatest sultan of the Ottoman Empire. He increased its area by 70%, as he annexed Iran, the Levant, and Egypt. All of this was thanks to his intelligence and acumen, in parallel with the truce of European countries.
Lol never Iran
@@classicmoviez3909 Ottomans occupied Tabriz, but yes, the majority of Iranian territory was never conquered by the Ottomans.
It will be interesting that Iran will turn back to Sunni, if Sultan Selim live long enough. The Twelver will become minority and the converted Sunnis to Shiahs by swords, will coming back to Sunni fold.
Iran 😂😂 turkish fantasy dreams
Suleiman the Magnificent was better
Şah İsmail, Hayır bey (khayr Bey), Tuman Bey and Kansu Gavri (Al-ghawri) are also Turk. The meaning of "Bey" is something like "lord". Today, the word "bey" is used to mean "mister" in Turkish.
Thanks for finally using Turkish sources🎉
Halil İnalcık is the most well known man in the world for his Ottoman sources.
Also you can look it up his student İlber Ortaylı, globally well known man whose descendents are Crimean Tatar aristocrat and Russian Empire aristocracy.
Also Murat Bardakçı, for his large sources and Yusuf Halaçoğlu.
yeah turks have well documented history... sadly look at them now , a pale shadow od what they used to be
i think they should invest more in education
Selim the 1st deserves more respect than Sulieman the Magnificent. Not only he made the Ottoman global power but he left the empire stronger than before him.
dont forget that suleiman the magnificent is basically also selim legacy , solidify why he is very underapreciated and main target of western propaganda
Absolutely
@sairadha u r absolutely correct.
It is solely due to Selim that Ottomans survived and became a global superpower. Suleiman would not have survived a foe like Ismail and enemies from all the sides. The credit goes to the warlike sultan Selim.
He is the true successor of Osman and Mehmet the conqueror.
@@pranavsubramaniyan6667 I dont know why everyone say Suleyman the best ottoman sultan.Suleyman was a good sultan for his code of law,but Selim, Mehmed 2 and Murad 2 deserve more.
In 8 years,Selim doubled the size of empire,crushing both safavids and mamelukes and capture the holiest place of Islam. No other ottoman sultan had that feats.
Mehmed 2 was another marshal sultan.Capturing Constantinople, subduing most of the balkans and fought numerous battle against legendary figures like hyunadi,sigismund, skandarbeg,vlad and uzun hassan.
Murad 2 is the most underrated ottoman sultan.winning crushing victory against superior latin crusader force time after time.
Compare to these three,Suleyman's achievement is nothing significant. Yes he won key battle in rhoades,mohacs and preveza,but during his reign ottoman forces was best in world.If Mehmed or Selim had that army anf reign 46 years,they would reach paris or samarkand
@@blackgoku2023 u r absolutely right and u have given excellent information 🙌
Suleiman was more of an afterglow and shadow of his father sultan Selim.
If it were not for sultan Murad 2, Mehmet fatih and Selim the grim Ottomans would have been gobled up by their formidable foes.
Suleiman was neither an astute, clever and determined general like his father Selim han nor a charismatic leader like his great grandfather Sultan Mehmet han.
❤love the ottoman caliphate beautiful video by historymarche 🇸🇴🇹🇷🇬🇧🤲🏽
Then don't put Turk flag with that kuffar British flag together
@@aliozkan6323it ain’t a big deal brother relax, I live in Britain
Thanks so much for the support. Very kind of you.
Just goes to show how powerful the Royal Mamluk charge was that they straight up drove the middle line behind their cannons instantly. A less experienced commander might have lost control of his men and poorly retreated to safety and cost the Ottomans the battle. Heavy cavalry charges are still scary, even with guns and cannons on the field.
Its only a trap
Although Mamluks proved the superiority of their cavalry many times, in this case, this is the result of Ottoman tactics, similar events also happened at Nicopolis, mohac, etc. The Ottoman center was made up of Azab troops, who were lightly armored and their main purpose was to draw the enemy troops in. Directly quoting from Wikipedia,
Azabs constituted the majority of the foot soldiers of the Ottoman Army in Anatolia and performed duties such as ensuring the security of settlements and defending castles. Azabs were a constant part of Ottoman campaigns during the rise. Their duty in field battles was to stand at the front of the army center, ahead of the janissaries . The lightly equipped azab soldiers would make the enemy army think that the Ottoman center was weak, and this could lead to an attack towards the center where the sultan's brigade was located. If this expected attack took place, the azabs would shoot arrows at the enemy troops, trying to cause casualties during the advance and especially to disrupt the pure order of the enemy cavalry .
the french heavy cavalr charge was equally just as decimating like in the battle of nicopolis
Loving the new map style - it's fantastic! Your content keeps getting richer, and I thoroughly enjoyed the latest episode. Keep up the great work, looking forward to more!😆
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
"Yoink!" is particularly informative. I also condone the new map style.
@@KoroushRP cope harder. Turks did the most work in the name of allah for a millennium.
By learning history i understand more and more that Selim 1. was unfortunately right. Enemies of the Sultanate understand only the language of sword
Those opposed to ruthless conquerors typically do not want to coexist with those who attack them all the time, yes.
kings have to be extremists to protect their empires , its a fact without bloodshed one cannot wage wars
Selim, resolute and cunning, is the type of enemy you would absolutely not want to face.
Courage leads to victory, indecision leads to danger, and cowardice leads to death.
-Yavuz Selim(Best Ottoman Sultan)
Selim hiçbir işi yarım bırakmaz :)
For those who don't know, Selim I is the father of Suleiman the Magnificent.
The whole Dynasty took on a really bad downwards spiral after Suleiman's death, unfortunately
@@iramkazim5038Except for Murad IV...
@@iramkazim5038because of the junk ukranian genes of hurrem. Suleiman's son Selim the blonde was half ukranian and he was as stupid as zelinsky.
Really? Among the Turks who could tell who was the father 😂😂
@@iramkazim5038There was good ones after Suleiman too. Abdülhamid and Mahmud "The Lifter" are examples.
This reminds me of the last time I played as the mamaluks in eu4. Ended pretty similarly too.
Everything change when Ottoman masses army at your border
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
@@lukaswilhelm9290 I couldn't stop the tide, my bending was inferiour
@@theyellowjestersAhh, finally. Fellow EU4 players. I'm a new guy needing some advice.
Basically, I'm playing as France, and fought a war with England seven years ago. Very easy it was to steamroll Normandy (I took Labourd and Bordeaux in a prior war). But England, along with Portugal, blockaded my ports, really messing up the war score. I had to give a minor province to England to end the whole thing. What now? I need Normandy, but can't because of the English and Portuguese navies. I have allied with Denmark and Castile, but neither will help yet, the latter because they are no longer rivals of England and have allied Portugal, the former because I've not done them any favours yet. Denmark are the only power that seem to be strong enough to face England on the high seas, as per the ledger, but 8 carracks vs 19 galleys doesn't appear to be a good sign. I have been throwing money towards my navy (8 carracks and a bunch of galleys on the way) but England has absurdly powerful admirals.
What do I do?
@@iramkazim5038 I'm not very good at the game. but Galleys as far as i'm aware are good for the Baltic, Mediterranean, and black seas. If you're on the atlantic in most places, you want carricks and the heavier ships. Try and focus on those.
Do some favours for your ally that is willing to fight England and try to up your Diplomatic Tech, that'll help strengthen your navy. Others may have other and better Ideas but that's what I would do.
Hope it helps!
It's noteworthy that Selim's father Bayezid possessed the same logistics and armies that Selim did yet failed to annex the Levant region from the Mamluks forget the entirety of the sultanate
It was because Bayezid was more inclined towards conquering Eastern Europe rather than middle east and in the striking contrast, Salim was not much interested into europe.
@@ahzamrasheed1208 He was actually interested in Europe too. But his time wasn't enough. He died while preparing for a campaign against Europe, probably Hungary. And there is anecdote that he said to the great cartoghrapher and admiral Piri Pasha: "I wish to enter from Andalus to turn back to Constantinople."
@@ahzamrasheed1208Selim was very much interested in Europe but when he took throne, the rebellions were brewing in eastern Anatolia & Safavids were quickly expanding in persia which was a clear threatening sign to the existence of Ottoman Empire. It was important to pacify the eastern lands as Ottomans had not forgotten the disaster at Battle of Ankara (1402). After winning it, Selim was forced to act against mamluks as mamluks openly supported Safavid invasion in Ottoman territory.
That doesn't mean circunstances were the same
Bayezid didn't even send his main army, he used mostly provincial troops close to border of Mamluk Sultanate. Also Mamluks under Qaitbay was in their golden age, having better trained, equipped and larger army.
Fun Fact: Selim used mods to win > slow down Time > Infinite Strength > Max will & moral for troops + teleportation.
Video is almost same as the books i read, how amazing you guys making this great job!
Fun fact. Mamelukes were Turkic governed state. Even the states name was "Et Devlet-üt Türkiyye" Which literally translates to the "The State of the Turkiye"...
At the time Ottoman-Mameluke War, the rulers of Mamelukes were Circassians(Burji Dynasty), not Turks.
While that is true they were at least turkic speaking Circassians. For Example the last Mamluk Sultans name was Turkic.@@apaliuna
@@apaliunathey were turkmen , at least look at their commanders name in the video lol . many mameluk governor-commanders have turkic-turkmen origin.
They were Turks after the ottomans conquered Egypt, before that they weren’t Turks
@@Khattab511 Mamelukes were literally Kipchak Turks.
Hungary: the ottomans are powerful but they are still a rival and we can deal with them the next war
The Ottomans : *doubling their size and economy in a single year*
شكرًا
Thanks so much for the support. Very kind of you.
There is a reason why Selim I was called Selim 'the grim'.
Hhhh😅
Acımasız değil büyük insan. Batılı küfrü ortadan kaldırdı
@@mfkparamotor4131acımasız
i know bloodhsed is the reason
but tbh you have to be extermist to expand your kingdom in those times
thats why all kings are sinners technically
During that battle Ottoman army was 80% cavalry with around 40,000 Sipahis while army size was around 50,000. Janissaries weren't in left wing rather in front of cannons which began shooting as soon as Mamluks entered their range and caused heavy casualties. This was the reason Mamluk army charged on Ottoman wings where Sipahis always positioned, in hope they could force lightly armored Sipahis to retreat and prevent Ottoman cannons shooting. Ofc Sipahis struggled in heavy combat as they were lightly armored and mostly skirmish but they held their ground to protect Ottoman center, otherwise they could do feigned retreat easily. After Mamluk assault was repelled it was game over, Ottoman center charged at them while Sipahis flanked them and most of Mamluk army couldn't even flee.
Only Hayır Bey's wing escaped from the battleground as he began retreating as soon as their assault on Ottoman wings failed, he was born in Anatolia but wasn't Turkish rather Circassian. The fact he was using a Turkish title suggest he knew some about Turkish tactics and realized the battle was lost. There is no Turkish record what so ever that Hayır Bey was working for Sultan Selim, in fact Selim giving him "the traitor" nickname proves otherwise. There was no way any Ottoman Sultan would trust somebody who betrayed their country so it is more likely he was given that nickname for running from battle. Same as some eastern cultures like Japanese Turks would look down on those who run away or betray their people. At least in Turkish culture it isn't so harsh as Seppuku etc, rather you would be seen as dishonorable until you prove yourself next time..
I'm already locked in watching this masterpiece...
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
So the “new Roman Empire” went through the same civil strife as the original Roman Empire….. interesting.
There's nothing new under the sun!
The ottomans went through succession crisis before they made the meaningless claim of “new Roman Empire” most notably after the capture of Baiazid I by Tamerlane
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
@Huehue-qf1ri Osman didn't marry byzantine nobility but orhan did.
ottomans had the same territory as the byzantine empire 1000 yrs ago lol
both had their elite units
ottmans had janissaries and byzantines had roman legionarries
Selim: "You guys should play Rise of Kingdom more often, there's no forever peace"
The word Yavuz had a bad meaning, but because it was the nickname of Sultan Selim and the love for him, it gained a good meaning. Children started to be given the name Yavuz a man changed the meaning of a wordThis is what's truly legendary
I wished to see the battle of Reydaniyya detailed as well :( And how Selim I passed the Sinai desert is also worthy of explaining..
Another amazing video! I knew you'd cover Selim's video since he's your fav Sultan.
Tys for your videos ❤
Thanks so much for watching.
Selim was brutally efficent, despite his short reign of only 8 years he still quite possibly was the Ottoman sultan who achieved the most. Although one also can't ignore how he frequently implemented very bloody policies to get what he wants
What bloody policies?
@@One10ab Shortly before his battle with Shah Ismail at Chaldiran, as punishment for the earlier Shiite revolts Selim ordered many Shiite men within his domain killed. Now the estimate of 40k men massacred is usually seen as inflated by modern historians, who state that the contemporary tax records from the region don't record a significant drop in tax revenue that would have been caused by such a high death toll (amongst other arguments for the claimed deathtoll being inflated), however even if the numbers are exaggerated the fact that the massacre still happened remains. This wasn't the only case of Selim killing Shiites in his realm, as after his conquest of Syria he similarly killed some Shiite men in the region, many of them civilians
@@zgramzhnisk3036 there was also his anger and use of violence against family members and state bureaucrats as well as the kapıkulu there is reason why he was nicknamed the grim
There was even a saying goes like "May you be a vizier to Selim" as in cursing the guy you are talking about
I mean no offence but conquest of such vastness wasn't possible without the bloodbath . Many great conqueror's were extremely confident and violent to ensure victory .
Useful information: The name of the Mamluk state declared in its official documents: الدولة التركية "ed-devletü't-türkiyye" means the state of Turkey and Devletü'l-Etrâk: means the state of the Turks. Its army generally consists of mostly Turks and a minority of Circassians who were freed from slavery. In other words, its rulers and army are almost entirely Turkish. At the same time, the Safavid dynasty is the predecessor of today's Azeri Turks. Their difference from the Ottomans is that they are from the Shi sect.
All 3 rulers in the Middle East were in the hands of the Turks.
Mamluks: Turks who were founded in Egypt, escaped from slavery, became rulers and soldiers, and ruled the Arabs.
Ottomans: A Turkish state based on Sunni sects, spreading in Anatolia and the Balkans, recruiting soldiers from all races and religions with a policy of tolerance in the view of the Empire.
Safavids: An ultra-conservative, Turkish nationalist state from the Shiite sect founded in Iran.
Let me guess you as an anotolian think you are related to them?
@@NoName-fv5oo I am a descendant of the Karamanids dynasty. My ancestors fought with the Ottomans for a long time and lost their country and were exiled to the Balkans. The army members captured in the war were sold as slaves to the Arabs. After a while, they gained their freedom and established another independent Karamanids state in Libya. However, the Ottoman Empire destroyed this state and took Libya under its control. Mamluks mostly consist of Central Asian Turks who were taken as slaves by the Mongols. The most famous sultan is Baybars. In fact, its name is Turkish and it itself is Uzbekistan Turk. He was captured by the Mongols in Bukhara. Later, he became the ruler of the Mamluk state and took his revenge on the Moguls.
"ed-devletü't-türkiyye" means the state of Turkey"
ed-devletü't-türkiyye means state of Turks. It doesn't mean state of Turkey. -iyye suffix is Arabic. -ia suffix in Turkey (originally Turquia) is latin suffix denoting land like Italia, France, Russia, Spain (original is Spania) etc..
Circassians were not minority but they ruled the mamluks when ottoman conquered them the bahri mamluks were Turks they were overthrown by Circassian mamluks
Historymarche and knowledgia each produced a video about the same battle on the same day, that's impressive
Thank you so much History Marche for this vid!!!!
good job. ı love your videos
Fun fact: Mehmet The Conqueror appointed his young son Cem as the successor and said “For the benefit of the State killing your own blood is permitted” his reasoning was to make Cem as the sultan because he was more visionary than his brother Beyazıd. So the Empire can grow more into Italy to become the new Rome.
Mehmet ?? It's Mohammed
Thank you so much for the Arabic caption/translation
how to stop the video to say this is crazy keep going let's go
Some incident happend safavid shah sent a gift with beautiful box when sultan selim open is a human poop and the sultan sent him back with the best turkish delight and wrote in the box "people sent a gift what they eat" 😂😂😂😂
i would be more satisfied if you mentioned war of ridaniye from top to bottom. because there is some bloody street fights for a 6 month period and this is very important thing for mamluks fall.
9:21 - “I don’t like your stupid face!” 😂 I love the little captions. Anyway, Ismail’s attack seemed like incompetence of the highest order. “Shia later” said Selim. I don’t play Simon says. I play Selimon says.
This pusht is the key figure behind the Kurdish problem in Anatolia, relocated those mountain Indians from Zagros the create a sunni-buffer against Safavids.
"1512, actually..."
Selim I
20:50
Fates of nations are often decided in seconds. Imagine Ahmed succeeding Bayezid instead of Selim or Mustafa succeding instead of Selim II
Proud to be Turkish 🇹🇷💪🏻
Mamaluke 1: "Not what I signed up for"
Mamaluke 2: "You signed up?" ...lol...
The real reason why people think ottomans are the 3rd Rome isn’t because of Constantinople but they continued the Roman tradition of beefing with the persians😂
lol , but persia at its PRIME was unbeatable
those immortals were no joke
What??
5:18 I keep seeing Borat every time I hear; "Great Success!" 😂
also another fact that selim actually wanted spare his brother korkud through a test by order his grand vizier to fake a message that he will support korkud as sultan which he accepted and forced selim to strangle him
Salim 1:I'm gonna fight 'em off
A seven nation army couldn't hold me back
They're gonna rip it off
Takin' their time right behind my back
And I'm talkin' to myself at night
Because I can't forget
Back and forth through my mind
Behind a cup of milk
And the message comin' from my eyes
Says, "let's invade them all"
An awesome video as usual thanks
There are great story,very nice story about great warrior named Budhi Darma expert in martial art from Himalaya,India journey to Nusantara to find place named Batu karu that famous in martial art.This story recorded in Seruling Dewata martial art college 🙏,
Excellent work - As always
You're the Best! Love your content 😊😊😊❤❤❤
Best history channel ever!
Fantastic video enjoyed it
as an arab we know that the overall just rule of ottomans and the defending of sunni islam made the populace greet them as liberators, and welcomed their rule, thats why the war was done in 2 battels, only the mamulkes fought and defended their rule. and they are from turkic origin.
The Safawids were a desaster for Persia as they forced Shia on the whole land. Alhamdulillah in the early 18th century they were shattered by the same Afghan Ghilzai tribal confederation (Hotaki dynasty) that makes up the Taliban leadership today
😂
Safavids kicked Sunni's ass and made all those areas shia they ruled.
Nasibi spotted.
@@MA-lb8dq son of Mut'a, but at what cost, most of iranians are agnostic atheists now anyway. cannot be compared to any muslim(sunni) land. stupid RAFIDI.
@@arshmash5340 cry more baby cry
As always, another perfect episode!
Amazing video as usual
The most power full empire
Great overview. Thanks for sharing.
Ottomans and Saffavids continued the Roman-Persian wars.
But no carhea😭
Selim I was obviously the second Alexander, beating the Turkic Safavids many times and conquered Mamluk dynasty which Essentially stopped the Mongol expansion doing it in just 8 years.
Not go discredit him any bit but Achemenids tho in a difficult period of instability were far more stronger than the Mameluks even at their peak. Alexandar's achievements were definitely bigger, though what Selim did wasn't done in the Islamic world since the time of Timur, a century earlier
What an idiotic comparison! The longest travel Salim ever did was from Constantinople to Cairo (which had been just a tiny phase of a teenage Alexander's campaign)
Selim was a great commander because I studied, Selim 1 really loved Temurlane and Gengis Khan that's why he did some brutal things to his enemies.
Her model was Alexander the great not genghis khan and timur , because timur and genghis khan were enemies the off ottoman turks
Hard to believe that these events still feel like mid-Middle ages, barely two hundred years post-Mongol and post-Crusade time, yet just over 2 decades ago America had already been discovered and Portugal and Spain were conquering the world while the Renaissance was just around the corner.
Father of Sunni Islam in Levant and Anatolia. Rest in Peace Yavuz Sultan Selim Han.
Selim the stern was truly one of the greatest ottoman sultans. It really speaks to Suleimans greatness that he surpassed him. 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Yup. But it was Selim I who laid the groundwork on which Suleiman the Magnificent built his legacy. Without Selim I, perhaps the history of Suleiman would have been quite different.
@@shadabkhan-sy3sp yes that is so true
Bu sırada, hem Osmanlıların hem Safevilerin hem de Memlüklerin sultanları Türk hanedanıydı. Bu savaşlar üç Türk ülkesinin birbiriyle savaşıdır.
Selim Yauz is by far the most Giga Chad Sultan/King/Emperor/Caliph in the history....prove me wrong!
@Iamnotracistlmao he has no defeats, he deleted mamluks which is one of the strongest muslim state with a stronge army. he defeated undefeated safavid army
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
damn your videos are very good.thank you for this
In a study revealed by Alexander Lyon Mcfie in his book The End of the Ottoman Empire (2014), on the economic and social history of the Ottoman Turks, it unstoppable military was found that throughout force
Explain once more
What?
@@arnstoff3212 that is how you throat sing in text
@@tetrusadima Unstoppable military against Timurids? Very convincing hypothesis !!! I see this paper isn't even peer-reviewed 🤣
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
Hi there, thank you for your great channel.
Uzun Hasan and Aqquyunlu were Sunnis also, in 1473 Qizilbashs didn't have any kingdom yet, grand father, father and brother of Ismail 1 Safavi rebelled unsuccessfully ons after another against Aqquyunlus and three of them were killed by Uzun hasans successors, after them Ismail rebelled successfully in 1501 and founded Safavi dynasty with the help of Qizilbashs
Uzun Hasan was not kizilbaş he was sunni
He never said he was kizilbash
Make a video on battle of otlukbeli
We call it "Mercidabık" in Turkish sources. Thanks Yavuz Sultan Selim❤🇹🇷
its token from arabic (مرج دابق)
@@Khaled-jz8ln Lol Selim is Turk. Also Mamluks too
mamluks are mixed @@barskama309
“the Turkic identity of the empire rapidly dropped off. By the sixteenth century
"Turk" was more a term of abuse than one of approbation. "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans," says Bernard Lewis, "the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages. To apply it to an Ottoman gentleman of Constantinople would have been an insult" (Lewis 1968: 1-2; see also 332-33).8
To be a "Turk" or "Turkish" was, to the educated inhabitants of the empire, to be "ignorant," "witless," "senseless," "stupid," or "dishonest." Turks were called "country bumpkins" and "mischief-makers"; they could also be deviants and heretics, such as those who rallied to the Safavid Shah Ismail in the sixteenth century, or those who rebelled against the central government in the seventeenth century (Imber 2002: 3; Finkel 2007: 548). In the face of this history of disparagement and ridicule it is not surprising that the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp should exclaim that "the poor Turks inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plow" (quoted Armstrong 1976: 397). This is by no means the only case, as we shall see, when the ostensible "imperial people"-in this case the Turks -feel that they got a raw deal out of "their" empire.
Not only were Ottomans not Turks; "Turk" and "Turkish" were themselves vague and shifting designations. There was no sense of nationhood among the backwoods peasants of Anatolia who were usually referred to as Turks. Their affiliations were to their village or clan, or to the wider community of Islam.”
@@barskama309 there is no ethnic "Turk" in Ottoman times. mustafa kemal just grouped all the muslim muhacir (refugees) coming from ottoman lands into anatolia into one single "Turk" identity.
I feel like I've missed something. Selim seems to be able to wage his own private war, as heir to the Ottoman Empire. And the Emperor is doing nothing.
There is a lot of fiction in this video from the causes of war to the battle details. For example, Ottomans went to war with the Mamluks only because the Safavid Shah tricked the Mamluks into believing that the Ottomans would attack them. However, the Ottoman army was on its way to crush the Safavids. Shah Ismail was planning on joining the war later but was shocked by the disintegration of the Mamluk Empire in a short period of time and changed his mind.
The details of both battles are off, especially Chaldiran. 🤦♂️
Excellent video.
Famous battle
Both Mamluks and Safavids dynasties were originally Turkic people but not the people they rule.
Such a great commander, respect
When ruling for just 8 years so not caring about aggressive expansion penalty, everyone can conquer as much as territory anyway.
Hadi lan oradan gereksiz
Egypt and Sudan will weep for the Mamluk!
Safavid turkish empire🇦🇿🇦🇿
Nope persian
@@classicmoviez3909 How can one family have two nationalities at the same time. (The Safavids are Turks from Ardabil)
Selim the Grim💪🏼
Awesome!
Selim should have been Titled the Conqueror not Mehmed. He was equivalent to Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Khalid, Nader Shah, Alexander the Great, Trajan.
Amazing work! Knew youd cover Selim since he's your favorite sultan! He's my second favorite! Behind only Suleiman! Hearth please❤❤❤❤
thanks
Yavuz Sultan Selim is my favourite ottoman sultan
very good
Good video and unbiased
At 15:20 you see a city called Yerevan at the coast close to Artvin. If this should be the armenian capital Yerevan, it is hughly misplaced.
THE TURKS AND THE WEST from 11 days. Europe stood in awe of the Ottomans who crushed many states and conquered vast territories, going, as all patriotic Turks will proudly point out, "all the way to the gates of Vienna." European literature is replete with the depictions of the Turk as the hated enemy. The English often thought of the Turk as awe-inspiring and destructive. Thomas Fuller wrote in The Holy Warre (1639): "The Turkish Empire is the greatest... the sun ever saw. ...Grass springeth not where the grand signior's horse setteth his foot."
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries , understanding the Turks ‘ military organization , given the credit for the greatest empire since antiquity , became a major European preoccupation .
Speake, J., n.d. Literature of travel and exploration. p.891.
By the middle of the 16th century, the Turks arguably possessed the greatest empire in the world.
A History of the Middle East Paperback - March 15, 2006 by Saul S. Friedman (Author) p.181
The Otttoman Empire is the greatest empire the world has ever seen. The only reason it isnt considered so is because of the saltiness and hate europe retains towards them till this day
then the winged hussars arrived!
@@giorgijioshvili9713 do you know another sentence i see that in every video. ottoman empire ruled three continent 200 years ottoman and poland cannot be compared
@@grande-turko ottomans never ruled 3 continents lol anyway ottoman power was demolished when winged hussars arrived, turks spam random wikipedia articles to boost there Ego and why i cant to the opposite?
@@grande-turko bro turks spam random wikipedia articles to boost there ego all the time, anyway ottoman empire never ruled 3 continents and there power was demolished by winged hussars
So good history channel
Another great history documentary! I always learn.