Talk:Ottoman Empire

Ottoman Map

I think there are some problems with the map, it seems somebody just deleted the Transilvania region in the Balkans considering that this place wasnt a part of the empire because it was simply paying tributes to the Ottoman State. However, giving various forms of regional autonomies was the way to rule a large territorial empire, in fact if you start deleting parts of the map based on that you will be reducing the Ottoman Empire to Constantinople and its close entourage alone. The entirety of the Ottoman state was ruled via vassal states and autonomous regions. Hence, I believe that deleted part should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.198.248 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If Romania wasn't a part of the Ottoman Empire, then what was the Romanian War of Independence (1877–1878) (a part of the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)) about? Where did the Pruth River Campaign of 1710-1711 take place? In which part of Slovakia was the Peace of Zsitvatorok (1606) signed? 78.181.132.235 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern Romania was an Ottoman vassal state. The obvious solution would be to show it hashed or in a different colour on the map.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Egypt too was an Ottoman vassal state, Kurdish areas were an autonomous region ruled largely by Kurdish people etc., anybody can extend this list. As I stated before, nearly the entirety of the Ottoman state had been ruled via vassal states and autonomous regions, so what's the point of singling out Romania? Being a vassal state means Romania was part of the Ottoman Empire, pretty much any historical map will show it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.198.248 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The map you are referring to is I believe this one (or the other one, below) [1]. This map used to be fine until User:Spiridon Ion Cepleanu ruined it by blanking the region of Romania and only adding the text Christian Vassal States. He did this in a very unprofessional way. If someone has the skills to undo that I'd much appreciate it.

This map [2] was also ruined by the same user. As you can see, he removed half of Ottoman Southeastern Europe. Can someone please return this to its original appearance?

This map [3] is in my opinion quite good, because it also shows the vassal territories with a lighter color. DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with DragonTiger23, a single user decides to make substantial changes to the conventional history maps by coming up with the idea that vassal states should not be shown in an Ottoman map. In fact, he is only interested in removing Romania from the Ottoman map and has no problem with the other vassal states of the empire that are still part of the map after his edits. If only someone can return the map to its previous state I believe we can continue using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.198.248 (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I managed to undo it.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Intoduction POV?

From the introduction paragraph: "The conquest of Constantinople was a pivotal event in the evolution of Turkish statehood, since the victory of 1453 cemented its Eurasian nature, which remains one of the essential characteristics of Modern Turkey. " This seems POV, and has no citations for it. At any rate, it doesn't seem factual enough to be in the introduction paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.135.183.53 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

and: what is the exact meaning of "Turkish statehood" in this context (history of the Ottoman Empire)?--R. la Rue (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Cavann (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

For those who want to read more about the history of the Ottoman Empire, read Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream, New York 2006. --R. la Rue (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient Cartographic Info about the Ottoman Empire

How can there be no 'proper' map of the ottoman empire on this page? There is only a single map on the entire page and even that with insufficient information: the border of the empire are clearly not visible (they get off-chart, especially on the Maghreb side). There used to be a less detailed animated map, and even that was better than this one... what happened? I understand that detailed map information is important, but I believe borders are at the top of the list when it comes to empires.

It would probably more reasonable to have a map of perhaps the 'golden-ages' of the ottoman empire as a main map, and a separate animated map showing how the empire had taken its geographical shape during its existence at the history section. That would at least also make it easier to understand it at first glance. Right now, the illustration themselves don't even tell me how big the ottoman empire was back then, neither can I find out who their neighbors were - overall pretty insufficient. EthemD (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are several maps used until now but none of them was completely accurate so they were removed, as far as I remember.

• This files are animated maps showing how the empire had taken its geographical shape during its existence.
• Here are different maps of the OE.

Maybe it would be a good idea to chose the least problematic files, define what should be done to improve their accuracy and ask somebody at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab to correct them before they are added to the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me we ought to have several maps. Beyond the current map, I think there should at least be a map or two of the Ottoman Empire int he 19th century/early 20th century. john k (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This was a map I made showing the Ottoman territories (including nominal and vassal) in 1914 before World War I.

I had added this some time ago, but apparently somebody didn't like it and deleted it. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That'd be good for a start, although I'd rather prefer a pre-Balkan Wars map. The 1914 map represents a territorial expanse that only pertained for a couple of years (1913-1918). A map that takes 1900 as its baseline would be more useful, I think, since that would show Ottoman borders that existed for 30 years (1878-1908). john k (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I still think it would be best showing a static image as the main, and an animated one presenting the expansions etcetera beside the History paragraph. I don't get what you see in using one of the maps of the more recent ottoman empire - they are almost the most exclusive ones (in terms of area). I think its important to be inclusive. We're talking about an empire here - people want to know its influence to the world, its potential, its size. There are various maps, I just picked one for checking the dates [4] and from the looks of it between 1566 and 1881, so more than half of its period of existence, the OE ruled over half of the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea; important connection points like the Dardanelles, Bosphorus & Suez canal; important religious sites like Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Mecca & Medina; as well as river Euphrates & Tigris towards the Persian Gulf. This is the least I'd expect. We can look at old pictures and choose from those but of course a new one from the Graphic's Lab like Antidiskriminator suggested would be nice as well! EthemD (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Population exchange did not occur during Ottoman Empire, and is separate event from genocide

I have undone this edit [5], for a number of reasons. The Population exchange between Greece and Turkey took place in 1923-1924, after the massacres of the 1914-1922 period. It is a completely separate event from the Greek genocide. It also has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire. It was agreed upon in 1923 between Greece and the Republic of Turkey, and was implemented in gradual fashion over the next few years. The Ottoman Empire was dissolved before the exchange was agreed upon, or even discussed. Athenean (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Go read the source, page number is given

"Ethnic cleansing continued after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire's final collapse generated nationalist power struggles. Greece landed an army in Turkey in 1919 starting a war that produced ethnic killing, deportations, and ethnic cleansing...Killings and arson were committed during the Greek-Turkish war, but the Lausanne population exchange was not a genocide." Cavann (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I did read the source. The article didn't state anywhere that the Treaty of Lausanne was genocide, did it? In fact, it doesn't even mention the Treaty of Lausanne. Because the treaty of Lausanne was signed by the Republic of Turkey and not the Ottoman Empire. The Population exchange between Greece and Turkey and the Greek genocide are two completely separate events. That's why we have separate articles for them. One preceded the other, they are not the same. You are conflating two completely separate events. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI genocidal policies were enacted against the Greeks as early as 1914. See Greek genocide for details. Athenean (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet the Oxford Handbook entry does not mention that even tho it mentions Armenians. The preceding sentences before my edit lacked neutrality, unsurprisingly. If you are so worried about Lausanne, we can say "According to The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Greece landed an army in Turkey in 1919 starting a war that produced ethnic killing, deportations, and ethnic cleansing; however, no genocide occurred." Cavann (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me with this? Read Greek genocide. An estimated 750,000-900,000 were killed between 1914-1922, and you're telling me it wasn't genocide? Why do you think we have a Greek genocide article? Which, by the way, is loaded with sources. also, can you understand that the treaty of Lausanne and the preceding genocide are two completely separate events'? Can you acknowledge that? Athenean (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw your Oxford Handbook, says

Many, though not all, Greeks, were deported from selected coastal locations, and in 1915 Armenians were deported from most of Turkey, in what was ethnic cleansing and genocide

It mentioned the deportations of the Greeks beginning in 1915 in the same sentence as those of the Armenians, i.e. they were both part of the same genocide. Athenean (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence

Under "Religion" the second sentence reads as follows: "By 1914, only 19.1% of the empire's population was non-Muslim, mostly made up of Christian Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians, and some Jews.[130] about 5.3 million people who 23.5% of the populaition outside the Arabian peninsula provinces." There's plainly some confusion here that ought to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.70.143 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)