StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've encountered a statement which goes as follow:

1. The Ottomans held significant territorial assets of economic, political, and military value that was not in Europe (their center of gravity was more towards the Middle East).
2. The Ottomans were not culturally European.

Contemporaneously, did the other European powers and the Ottomans themselves view the Ottoman Empire as European? I would have thought that the "sick man of Europe" would demonstrate sufficiently that the Ottoman Empire's contemporary peers viewed them as a European power, one that was on the periphery but European nonetheless.

Context: the person making the above claim is using the Ottoman Empire as an example of a non-European power that also pillaged and conquered other nations in what I can only interpret as an attempt to deflect criticism of various European nation's imperial past.

They viewed themselves as the successors to the Caesars. Mehmed titled himself "Caesar of Rome", after all.

How much of that was just prestige though, Lonestar?

On the other hand, pretty substantial numbers of the civil service came from the European provinces, sooo...

To the op: There are plenty of examples of non-european countries pillaging and conquering the shit out of other countries, he doesn't have to argue that the Ottomans were oriental for that.

With that said, the "sick man of europe" refers to politics rather than cultural identity. I would say that the Ottomans were definitely of a distinctly eastern mindset untill the mid to late 19th century at least.

Let me try this again. What the OP should have been:

Context: a person making the following claim is using the Ottoman Empire as an example of a non-European power that also pillaged and conquered other nations in what I can only interpret as an attempt to deflect criticism of various European nation's imperial past (my thought was that the Ottomans were Europeans).

1. The Ottomans held significant territorial assets of economic, political, and military value that was not in Europe (their center of gravity was more towards the Middle East).
2. The Ottomans were not culturally European.

Contemporaneously, did the other European powers and the Ottomans themselves view the Ottoman Empire as European? I would have thought that the "sick man of Europe" would demonstrate sufficiently that the Ottoman Empire's contemporary peers viewed them as a European power, one that was on the periphery but European nonetheless.

It of course varied over the centuries. But basically, the Ottomans saw themselves in opposition to the west.

Fire Fly wrote:Context: the person making the above claim is using the Ottoman Empire as an example of a non-European power that also pillaged and conquered other nations in what I can only interpret as an attempt to deflect criticism of various European nation's imperial past.

A rather curious pick considering that there are enough obviously non-european empires he could have chosen. Mongols anyone? The Aztec empire? I'm also curious as to how that somehow exonerates the european imperialists, unless someone explicitely claimed that only Europe had a brutal imperial past.

Fire Fly wrote:Context: the person making the above claim is using the Ottoman Empire as an example of a non-European power that also pillaged and conquered other nations in what I can only interpret as an attempt to deflect criticism of various European nation's imperial past.

Here's a short list of non-European powers that "also pillaged and conquered other nations:"

China
Japan
Arabia (Muslim Conquest)
India
Quechua (Inca)
Mexica (Aztec)
Persia
Zulu
Mongols


But that aside, what does the fact that non-European civilizations have acted like shitheads have to do with European Imperialism?

At the apogee of the Ottoman empire (early/mid 16th century) did the concept of some sort of 'European' identity even exist?
This whole question strikes me as potentially an exercise in trying to impose modern geo-political concepts onto people with a different view of the world.

It's probably easier and shorter to list the non-European powers which *didn't* at least attempt to conquer and pillage their neighbors.

Gurachn wrote:At the apogee of the Ottoman empire (early/mid 16th century) did the concept of some sort of 'European' identity even exist?
This whole question strikes me as potentially an exercise in trying to impose modern geo-political concepts onto people with a different view of the world.

Agreed, but keep in mind that the idea of a europe-wide Roman Empire never really died out - and most of us probably took it to mean whether they viewed themselves as heirs to European countries or not.

Thanas wrote:

Gurachn wrote:At the apogee of the Ottoman empire (early/mid 16th century) did the concept of some sort of 'European' identity even exist?
This whole question strikes me as potentially an exercise in trying to impose modern geo-political concepts onto people with a different view of the world.

Agreed, but keep in mind that the idea of a europe-wide Roman Empire never really died out - and most of us probably took it to mean whether they viewed themselves as heirs to European countries or not.

Ah, l but the equation of a unified concept of 'Europe' with the Roman empire is itself a bit dodgy. I would question whether a native of Hispania felt much commonality with a subjugated Goth tribesman even before Alaric sacked Rome, much less after things started to splinter.

It seems far more likely to me that any concept of pan-regional identity would be based more along religious lines (i.e. Us Christian vs. all others) than geographic ones.
Any claim the Byzantines may have had on entry into the club was almost certainly lost when Mehmet II took Constantinople in 1453.
Their new neighbors certainly didn't welcome them very warmly!

Gurachn wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Gurachn wrote:At the apogee of the Ottoman empire (early/mid 16th century) did the concept of some sort of 'European' identity even exist?
This whole question strikes me as potentially an exercise in trying to impose modern geo-political concepts onto people with a different view of the world.

Agreed, but keep in mind that the idea of a europe-wide Roman Empire never really died out - and most of us probably took it to mean whether they viewed themselves as heirs to European countries or not.

Ah, l but the equation of a unified concept of 'Europe' with the Roman empire is itself a bit dodgy. I would question whether a native of Hispania felt much commonality with a subjugated Goth tribesman even before Alaric sacked Rome, much less after things started to splinter.

Civis Romanus sum. If that was not a common identity then I do not know what is. Just because there are regional differences does not mean a common identity does not exist. Even moreso when you consider the barbarians clearly considerd Rome to be superior.

Thanas wrote:Civis Romanus sum. If that was not a common identity then I do not know what is. Just because there are regional differences does not mean a common identity does not exist. Even moreso when you consider the barbarians clearly considerd Rome to be superior.

I was not suggesting that the empire didn't have a sense of identity, but questioning the idea that Imperial Rome necessarily equates to Europe.
At its height the empire included almost as much territory in Asia minor and North Africa, but did not include huge swaths of northern and North Eastern Europe (Germania, Sarmatia).
To pull this back to the OP, I would contend that any concept of European-ness related more to "We Christians (who just happen to live mainly within the modern day conceptual construct of Europe) against the Turks, Tatars and heathen invaders".

Gurachn wrote:

Thanas wrote:Civis Romanus sum. If that was not a common identity then I do not know what is. Just because there are regional differences does not mean a common identity does not exist. Even moreso when you consider the barbarians clearly considerd Rome to be superior.

I was not suggesting that the empire didn't have a sense of identity, but questioning the idea that Imperial Rome necessarily equates to Europe.
At its height the empire included almost as much territory in Asia minor and North Africa, but did not include huge swaths of northern and North Eastern Europe (Germania, Sarmatia).

The Roman Empire has been the ideal form of Govenrment for every ruler from antiquity all the way to Napoleon. The areas which you consider to be part of Europe are only so in modern discourse, for the large parts of the middle ages the uncivilized Asia started to the right of Magdeburg. You only want to include them because they are in the EU nowadays, but that is no criticism that is really applicable to what we consider historical europe.