|
Ah, the peaceful, benevolent Ottoman Empire.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Ah, the peaceful, benevolent Ottoman Empire. found the Australian
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This post is dumb for a lot of reasons, but I'll point out that the Middle East was actually united and pretty peaceful for centuries, under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. That empire shrunk and was eaten away at by other powers in the 19th century, until it was ultimately carved up entirely by the winners of the first world war. The strife we see today is still the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Yes so peaceful under the Ottomans. Pax Ottomania was definitely a thing that existed in this reality. That's why all the historical subjects of the Ottoman Empire have such fond memories of their Ottoman history, just as Mediterranean Europeans have found memories of being part of the Roman empire. Seriously though? The Ottoman Empire was famous throughout its existence for internecine conflicts and breakway strongmen that pledged nominal loyalty to the Sublime Porte, which lasted until the strongman died and then the Ottoman Empire would go in and burn down a city or whatever to return the region to nominal-central authority. The Egyptians (well, the Mamluks) chafed against Ottoman rule for like the entire period of its domination, as did many of its other provinces, like Lebanon under the Druze (e.g. Fakhreddine). This resulted in the situations mentioned above, with nominal independence until the strongman died (or the Sultan remembered) and had to go down and kill a bunch of people. Iraq was also essentially a constant battleground for the entire duration of Ottoman rule, being as it was at the edge of two expansionist empires of relatively matched strength. I guess Anatolia was probably pretty decent then, but huge parts of the Ottoman empire were almost constantly at war for the entire 400 year period of rule. That's some crazy stuff to hear about those poor Ottomans, so pure at heart until those evil Europeans came and hosed everything up T_T. They were every bit as bad as the British were with India and etc. E: The post you were quoting was indeed dumb for a bunch of reasons though! Saladman fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
I remember before ISIS took over huge swaths of Iraq there were massive protests in the Sunni areas over mistreatment from the government. What I'm saying is, the Iraqi government apparently never learns their lesson and will probably be having to deal with yet another terror group rising up soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
Iraqi government has lost control of Nasiriyah, several provincial central government buildings have been burned down, all major social media platforms have been shutdown, MinDef has mobilized the military with orders to be ready to preserve the government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
A major difference this time is that if the government does lose control, it's going to be to Shia militias backed by Iran.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:A major difference this time is that if the government does lose control, it's going to be to Shia militias backed by Iran. Those are working with the government, though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Those are working with the government, though? The have common enemies, but they're still the biggest threat to the government in the country. We know the Sunnis and the Kurds don't have the firepower to take on the government and the militias. I mean maybe Shia populists that have nothing to do with Iran will go after the government, but the militias are far more coordinated and capable of stepping in if the country sees a power vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Where does Sadr sit with these protests?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Where does Sadr sit with these protests? I'd say he's behind them, but no solid confirmation the Sadrists have made any moves yet. Guess he's putting a stop on the Iraqi government's pivot towards Tehran.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
A Mahan airliner has been trying to land at Baghdad International despite the ongoing gun battles through the airport and attempts by protesters to storm in. This is an airline the IRGC uses in Syria and it's probably an attempt to ship IRGC fighters and officers into Iraq to help put down the protests. A US SOF MC-130H Combat Talon II is currently entering Iraqi Airspace from Jordan, apparently tasked with landing and deploying elements at Baghdad International. This is the same type of craft that was the first to land at Iraqi International in support of the invasion in 2003, so my guess is they're going to attempt to engage and capture the IRCG being deployed by the aforementioned Mahan airliner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:A Mahan airliner has been trying to land at Baghdad International despite the ongoing gun battles through the airport and attempts by protesters to storm in. This is an airline the IRGC uses in Syria and it's probably an attempt to ship IRGC fighters and officers into Iraq to help put down the protests. Sauce?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
It's surprising to me that more of the popular anger in Iraq doesn't seem to be directed at getting the US out of the country, especially with Trump openly praising war crimes all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
RIP Syndrome posted:Sauce? Flight tracker. The MC-130H has turned off its transponder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:found the Australian Or the Byzantine, possibly
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Or the Byzantine, possibly Erdogan is the legitimate successor of the Ottoman Empire, which is the legitimate successor state of Rome 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
It could also just be to secure the airport for escape if it gets really bad. How long can the embassy hold out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Erdogan is the legitimate successor of the Ottoman Empire, which is the legitimate successor state of Rome Nyet 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:A Mahan airliner has been trying to land at Baghdad International despite the ongoing gun battles through the airport and attempts by protesters to storm in. This is an airline the IRGC uses in Syria and it's probably an attempt to ship IRGC fighters and officers into Iraq to help put down the protests. this would be a very dumb way for a war to start, but if it doesn't I wouldn't shed a whole lot of tears about the capture of Revolutionary Guard shitheads
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:this would be a very dumb way for a war to start, but if it doesn't I wouldn't shed a whole lot of tears about the capture of specops shitheads
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Erdogan is the legitimate successor of the Ottoman Empire, which is the legitimate successor state of Rome 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
I suppose it might be a bit of a let_them_fight dot gif
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Saladman posted:Yes so peaceful under the Ottomans. Pax Ottomania was definitely a thing that existed in this reality. That's why all the historical subjects of the Ottoman Empire have such fond memories of their Ottoman history, just as Mediterranean Europeans have found memories of being part of the Roman empire. Decent rebuttal of an opt repeated assertion. It's definitely a common misconception, I believe because even most history books haven't really bothered to look enough into Ottoman (especially later Ottoman) history to know anything more than "big empire ruled by Turks" and they assumed because this was under one government it was all stable and peaceful. Anatolia itself was often in a state of disarray and rebellion, particularly in from the late 16th to 18th centuries when the Timar system was breaking down and banditry was rampant, partly because the new soldiers the Ottomans were arming and hiring often turned to banditry in the "off-season" and there were just way too many guns in general among the civilian population (who living in a pretty unstable situation often took to banditry in order to supplement failing agricultural incomes). In the 19th century the Ottomans, despite earnest attempts at government and military reform, were never able to exert control over the periphery, instead having to rely on local strongmen who were nominally allied to the Porte but were in reality essentially independent. When they attempted to introduce direct taxation and conscription in the districts this was almost always met with violent protests and opposition from both the local population (who feared the tax collectors and losing their sons to the army) and the local strongmen and either had to be abandoned entirely or implemented in compromises which ultimately were disadvantageous to the state. In some regions such as Albania, much of eastern Anatolia, the Nusayriyah mountains in Syria (that's the Alawite homeland), Syria's Druze region in the south, areas inhabited by Bedouin (the Syrian and Iraqi deserts and Central Arabia), and Yemen, the state was as good as non-existent and constant low-key warfare against each other and neighboring areas (raiding them) was the norm. This meant, with the 19th century government and military reforms, that the burden of taxation and military service fell almost entirely on Turkish-speaking Anatolian Muslims. For some reason the inhabitants of Constantinople were also exempt from military service and most forms of taxation, likely because of lingering anxiety on the part of the rulers about the city's history of mob rule and mob violence (such as in the period when the Janissaries were in ascendance, though the details of this is actually more complex than the usual answer given in most histories in that they had just become "decadent") which had essentially ruled several sultans a century or so back. So, as said, this burden fell pretty much entirely on the Anatolian peasantry (I don't know that much about that subject, but I imagine this had an impact on the formation of Turkish nationalism). Military service especially was deeply unpopular, and though it was sometimes possible to bribe yourself out of serving or getting an exemption, many went to extreme lengths such as staging their deaths and going into hiding, or maiming themselves. With conscription introduced and service separated into three tiers (active service, and first and second line reserves) service, at least active service, was supposed to be limited in length, but the fact that the Ottoman Empire was so critically short of manpoower and suffered constant attrition from ongoing low-key warfare in the periphery meant that active service often was extended indefinitely. And because finances and the tax system were in such a bad spot, military service was typically miserable and marked by hunger and deprivation and the absence of essential equipment (winter clothing, ammunition, pack animals, etc.). e: On a related note it should be mentioned that WW1 did a number on the Ottoman Empire. It was just not up to the task of waging a modern industrialized war, arguably to a much greater extent than Russia (which is the more famous collapse). The empire was cut off from imports, troop movements and supporting military formations in the field overloaded the transportation system, massive casualties flooded the hospitals and emptied the stores of medicines and medical equipment, harvests failed. Regions were completely cut off from each other and there were massive civilian death tolls from hunger and famine-related disease, this is not counting the genocides that were perpetrated against the Armenians and other minority groups. It is estimated that at least one million people died in the Aleppo province during the war, though the actual number is probably impossible to know, for any particular region and for the Empire as a whole. e2: Harkening back to what I menioned a couple of days ago, unlike the Russian Empire which collapsed more abruptly amidst strikes, mutinies and protests, the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires sort of just stopped functioning as government authority evaporated, infrastructure broke down and food security disappeared. Nominally the military and government and head of state remained but the Empires were dead, irreparably broken. It's a bit tricky to pinpoint exactly when it happened, but in both cases it happened before the war was over. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 08:46
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Erdogan is the legitimate successor of the Ottoman Empire, which is the legitimate successor state of Rome
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 11:48
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that the Ottomans claimed the title of Kayser-i Rūm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 11:56
|
|
so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
|
Mehmed II did, yes. I believe the others kept it, but it wasn't a title that was often emphasized by anyone but Mehmed II. The Ottomans had lots and lots of titles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
The Rum title for the kingdom comes from before the Ottomans actually, and it came about to mock taking Anatolia from Byzantium. Sultanate of Rum actually died before the Byzantines and yea...then maybe someone tried to bring it back and style that poo poo lol.
CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
Mary Tudor was "Queen of England, Spain, France, Jerusalem, both the Sicilies and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archduchess of Austria, Duchess of Burgundy, Milan and Brabant, Countess of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol", guess how many of these claims were actually effective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:The Rum title for the kingdom comes from before the Ottomans actually, and it came about to mock taking Anatolia from Byzantium. Sultanate of Rum actually died before the Byzantines and yea...then maybe someone tried to bring it back and style that poo poo lol. This is kind of a weird thing to say. "Rum" is nothing more and nothing less than the Arabic word for "Rome" and referred to the Roman/Byzantine Empire or simply the land where the Romans live. Since the Seljuks of Rum ruled in Rum, they quite naturally called themselves the Sultans of Rum. As far as I know there's no mockery intended, a challenge maybe, but it really was mostly just a geographical term. Take the Persian poet Rumi, whose name comes from the fact that he was active in and lived in Rum, so essentially he's "the Roman". It also carries over into Ottoman times, though by now Anatolia is nearly always called "Anadolu" (that's just Turkish for Anatolia)* while the Balkans were referred to as "Rumelia" (essentially just meaning the land of the Romans). Mehmed II takes the title and adds it to his stack of titles, essentially by right of conquest, he kills the last Byzantine Emperor and conquers his capital (and makes it his own) after all. There's better arguments for a certain amount of Byzantine-Ottoman continuity, much of it begun earlier in the ways that Byzantine culture had influenced the Seljuk Turks (the Byzantines never quite comprehended them, they seem to have believed and worked towards trying to wow, convert and assimilate the Seljuk Turks). Though the Ottomans themselves much more typically saw themselves as the inheritor of a Turkish Islamic imperial tradition and they never really needed or tried much to draw legitimacy from any connection to the Byzantine Empire. *As an aside Western sources seem to begin to refer to Anatolia as "Turcia" sometime around the 13th and 14th century. This name sticks to later refer to the Ottoman Empire, because it's ruled by Turks and they come from Turkey. Not too dissimilar from Britain or the British Empire often just being referred to as "England" despite that only truly referring to part of the whole as we are very well aware of. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
Retarded Goatee posted:I'm pretty sure that the Ottomans claimed the title of Kayser-i Rūm.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/glubold/status/1179737043053793281 https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1179762200996659200 Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
But where has all the Rūm gone
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
How nice of them allowing Turkish jets to flyover and get a real good view beforehand, just so that they can go: "Not good enough!" and so US can save face and say: "Welp...we tried, but you're on your own, fam..."Feldegast42 posted:But where has all the Rūm gone Refer to the chart above...we're running out of Rūm! CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
Good posts about Ottoman history Randarkman. It seems like an interesting period but it's not one I know much about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Cant wait for the kyrds to destroy the turkish fsa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
hey does anyone have recommendations for texts on orientalism (outside of edward said)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Cant wait for the kyrds to destroy the turkish fsa. Honestly felt similar before Afrin, but now I think their success there is what's emboldened them to think: "We can totes do this and effectively annex even more of Syria!" and I'm no longer so sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
If the US actually withdraws and Turkey has access to the airspace, the Kurds don't have a chance of resisting an invasion, and even an insurgency would be unlikely to succeed since Turkey plans to settle refugees in the territory they seize. The regime seems to have shelled a Turkish observation point in Idlib today, so they might be taking an opportunistic shot while the Turks are busy elsewhere, or they could be registering their disapproval of Turkey planning to invade another chunk of their territory. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:https://twitter.com/glubold/status/1179737043053793281 Interesting to see someone proposing throwing our nominal allies under the bus as a bold new 'one simple trick to win wars, diplomats hate it'
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
Throwing your Kurdish allies of convenience under the bus once you're done with them is a proud American tradition at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 23:14
|
|
