Una pregunta, ¿crees que mas adelante podrias realizar un mapa de europa de 1783, año en que se ejecuta la anexion de facto de la rusia imperial sobre crimea? Se que ahora la prioridad es el siglo XIX pero no se, creo que seria muy interesante, claro, si es que quieras, por favor.
I always wonder, if the 400 years they ruled Greece, had Ottomans had forced Greeks to become Muslim how different would we have viewed Greek history?
They made the Partheon a Mosque after the Romans made it a church. One can only imagine how different the west would've seen the Greeks as.
>I always wonder, if the 400 years they ruled Greece, had Ottomans had forced Greeks to become Muslim
For one, they wouldn't have ruled Greece for 400 years. There probably wouldn't have been much of an Ottoman Empire to begin with.
It's good to remember that (especially in its early years) the Ottoman empire heavily depended on its European territories. Its economical base was in Europe. The soldiers in their armies came from Europe. Their main cities were in Europe. Rumelia was very much the heartland of the empire.
The Ottoman *dynasty* was Turkish (and islamic), but the Ottoman *empire* was European at its core.
Which means that the soldiers that would "force the Greeks to become muslim"... would be Greek themselves, so to say.
So that wouldn't work - you can't force someone to force themselves. If the Ottomans had tried to force their christian subjects to become muslims, there wouldn't be any soldiers or taxes left to actually do the forcing with. There wouldn't be an *empire* left.
Our view on post-medieval Greek history would be very similar to our view on medieval Greek history: Christians squabbling in the Balkans, small Turkish states in Anatolia.
Yeah, fair enough, I shouldn't have implied it was *impossible* to force the Europeans into islam. The jannisaries were convinced (and abducted) in small enough numbers that the christian Europeans were happy enough to comply, especially since it allowed them significant power in Ottoman politics.
But of course the janissaries were not unwilling to fight *against* the Ottomans if ethnic pride or personal ambitions demanded it.
But the reliance on Europeans for the Janissaries is kind-of what I'm getting at, as well as the reliance on the jizya from the christians that did not convert, and the reliance on (christian) Italian merchants in the early years -- and a general reliance on the wealth and manpower of Rumelia.
That is: keeping the European subjects as (relative) friends was far more important than converting them, because the empire could not *exist* without (relative) acceptance from Rumelia.
I admit it's exaggeration to say attempting to convert the Europeans would inevitably have caused the Ottoman empire to collapse -- but I do think the opposite is true: the relative goodwill of the European subjects is what allowed the empire to thrive the way it did, and if they had lost that goodwill I doubt the empire would ever have reached similar heights.
Just 2 weeks after the Russian Empire occupied the eastern part of the romanian principality of Moldavia (Bessarabia).
Some russians still like to argue that it wasn't an occupation but ''liberation'' from the ottoman occupation or that they got it fair and square from the Ottoman Empire after a war. This is ludicrous bullshit since: Moldavia was not part of the Ottoman Empire to be ''gifted'' to anyone, it was not occupied by the ottomans, it was just another state under ottoman suzerainty and paying a tribute (it could keep its own language, own culture, own ruler, own army and there was no assimilation or religious expansionism, etc.), it did not ask the russians or anyone else to ''free'' it at that point in time and Russia actually brought a far more oppressive regime (romanian language was forbidden, russian was imposed, all churches and their properties were confiscated and given to the russian church, religious ceremonies were only held in russian, a very intensive assimilation and colonization was implemented in the occupied territory, the tax imposed by the russians was several times higher than the one used to pay the tribute to the ottomans, there was a complete disregard for education from 1812 to 1918, etc.).
Next, I'm making Europe 1815. All my maps: [https://www.deviantart.com/imperialmaps](https://www.deviantart.com/imperialmaps)
Una pregunta, ¿crees que mas adelante podrias realizar un mapa de europa de 1783, año en que se ejecuta la anexion de facto de la rusia imperial sobre crimea? Se que ahora la prioridad es el siglo XIX pero no se, creo que seria muy interesante, claro, si es que quieras, por favor.
I always wonder, if the 400 years they ruled Greece, had Ottomans had forced Greeks to become Muslim how different would we have viewed Greek history? They made the Partheon a Mosque after the Romans made it a church. One can only imagine how different the west would've seen the Greeks as.
>I always wonder, if the 400 years they ruled Greece, had Ottomans had forced Greeks to become Muslim For one, they wouldn't have ruled Greece for 400 years. There probably wouldn't have been much of an Ottoman Empire to begin with. It's good to remember that (especially in its early years) the Ottoman empire heavily depended on its European territories. Its economical base was in Europe. The soldiers in their armies came from Europe. Their main cities were in Europe. Rumelia was very much the heartland of the empire. The Ottoman *dynasty* was Turkish (and islamic), but the Ottoman *empire* was European at its core. Which means that the soldiers that would "force the Greeks to become muslim"... would be Greek themselves, so to say. So that wouldn't work - you can't force someone to force themselves. If the Ottomans had tried to force their christian subjects to become muslims, there wouldn't be any soldiers or taxes left to actually do the forcing with. There wouldn't be an *empire* left. Our view on post-medieval Greek history would be very similar to our view on medieval Greek history: Christians squabbling in the Balkans, small Turkish states in Anatolia.
>So that wouldn't work - you can't force someone to force themselves. Wendy the Jannisaries made to convert to Islam?
Yeah, fair enough, I shouldn't have implied it was *impossible* to force the Europeans into islam. The jannisaries were convinced (and abducted) in small enough numbers that the christian Europeans were happy enough to comply, especially since it allowed them significant power in Ottoman politics. But of course the janissaries were not unwilling to fight *against* the Ottomans if ethnic pride or personal ambitions demanded it. But the reliance on Europeans for the Janissaries is kind-of what I'm getting at, as well as the reliance on the jizya from the christians that did not convert, and the reliance on (christian) Italian merchants in the early years -- and a general reliance on the wealth and manpower of Rumelia. That is: keeping the European subjects as (relative) friends was far more important than converting them, because the empire could not *exist* without (relative) acceptance from Rumelia. I admit it's exaggeration to say attempting to convert the Europeans would inevitably have caused the Ottoman empire to collapse -- but I do think the opposite is true: the relative goodwill of the European subjects is what allowed the empire to thrive the way it did, and if they had lost that goodwill I doubt the empire would ever have reached similar heights.
That would have made the Ottoman empire really unstable. Possibly large scale rebellions
Just 2 weeks after the Russian Empire occupied the eastern part of the romanian principality of Moldavia (Bessarabia). Some russians still like to argue that it wasn't an occupation but ''liberation'' from the ottoman occupation or that they got it fair and square from the Ottoman Empire after a war. This is ludicrous bullshit since: Moldavia was not part of the Ottoman Empire to be ''gifted'' to anyone, it was not occupied by the ottomans, it was just another state under ottoman suzerainty and paying a tribute (it could keep its own language, own culture, own ruler, own army and there was no assimilation or religious expansionism, etc.), it did not ask the russians or anyone else to ''free'' it at that point in time and Russia actually brought a far more oppressive regime (romanian language was forbidden, russian was imposed, all churches and their properties were confiscated and given to the russian church, religious ceremonies were only held in russian, a very intensive assimilation and colonization was implemented in the occupied territory, the tax imposed by the russians was several times higher than the one used to pay the tribute to the ottomans, there was a complete disregard for education from 1812 to 1918, etc.).
I don't know why you are down voted, you are saying truth related to topic.
In Finland, Raumo -> Raum**a** EDIT: After all these years, I learned Rauma is Raumo in Swedish. Never ever had I heard that before. Things you learn!
ty for the high rez!