Talk:Ottoman Empire

Ottoman posessions in the Atlantic Ocean?

"such as Lanzarote (1585), Madeira (1617), Vestmannaeyjar (1627) and Lundy (1655)" please I have never heard of an invasion of the Ottomans in the Island of Madeira nor on Lanzarote, please verify the source of this statements !!

If you make a search as history of Lanzarote in a search engine. You will find same information that Murat Reis the Elder (an Ottoman admiral) captured Lanzarote. Please note that; It was not a full sovereignty over those islands but as the text mentioned they were temporary acquisitions.Tarikes (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

[Archive 6 has been created with a link at the right handside. Archive 7, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Ottoman Empire/Archive 7" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Thetruthonly (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Request moved from To Do list

There are various capitalization errors that need fixing. Many of the titles only have the first word capitalized. In the section titled "Decline and modernization" (which itself could be fixed), the last paragraph has the words "ottoman empire" uncapitalized. This is obviously not right for a proper noun. Someone who can should either fix this sentence or, actually, it seems that it could be excised completely without detracting from the article.

Since this page is semi-protected, my formal request is:

{{editsemiprotected}}

• Please change "ottoman empire" to "Ottoman Empire" in the section titled "Decline and modernization".
• Please update section title "Expansion and apogee" to "Expansion and Apogee".
• Please update section title "Revolts and revival" to "Revolts and Revival".
• Please update section title "Stagnation and reform" to "Stagnation and Reform".
• Please update section title "Decline and modernization" to "Decline and Modernization".

--Jayson Vantuyl (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the first request, I actually ended up removing those two sentences at the end of the paragraph: they were fairly incoherent and seemed unnecessary. As for the four other requests,  Not done - I suggest you see WP:MOSHEAD, that's simply the way titles are capitalised on Wikipedia. Thanks! ~ mazca ^t|c 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was confused by Ottoman Army (and others) below, not realizing that they were proper nouns made it all appear inconsistent. The Manual of Style shall be my new best friend. Thanks.--Jayson Vantuyl (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

                                 OTTOMAN FLAG IS FALSE!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.138.18 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 

And in 1922, vahdettin leaves the country and in that date the empire has ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.159.117 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Genocide Anyone?

I just think Talat Pasha ordering the mass murder of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 (making it the first genocide of the 20th century) is an important fact about the Ottoman/Turkish Empire.

I agree that's it worth mentioning.. I don't know that we need a section for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.166.253 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And I think there was no such thing as genocide, honestly i wish there was so you couldnt write those lies here.

Stop all of this right now, please... there is a separate article on the subject that covers the whole subject. Everyone is very familiar with the positions of those involved, and so we don't need it bleeding onto these pages. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

01:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we include Otranato (Italy) into the ottoman map?

Otranto was first invaded by the Turks in 1480 (although it only stayed under Turkish control for 1 year). It was then invaded yet again by Ottoman admiral Barbarossa in 1537. We should therefore include this in the map. Any other thoughts? Thetruthonly (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess Otranto is not suitable to be called an Ottoman dependency because it stayed under imperial rule for such a short time. Remember, the world was not this fast back then. When you lose some territory, you had to wait a year to be ready for another fight.Deliogul (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The R.of Turkey did not succeed the Ottoman Emp.

The Ottoman Empire was not "succeeded by the Republic of Turkey". The Republic was the last region to emerge as an independent state from the empire and this meant the end of the empire - a little Serbia was the last state to emerge out of Yugoslavia, and this meant the end of Yugoslavia. Unlike the Empire, the Republic did not take up the califate, it became secular and the land of the Tukrs. It is a fact that there are emotional ties between the two and this can lead to misleading conclusions, but, with all due respect to the memory of Ataturk and the modern Turkish state, there was no succession. I suggest we edit accordingly that phrase in the introduction. Politis (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OR, anyone? I can hardly imagine this is the mainstream position in scholarship. I'm not an expert, and I can only counter your OR with mine at this point, but it seems to me that the contemporaries very much did see the new Turkey as a continuation of the old. It certainly was considered as continuing the same international rights and obligations under international law. And it did inherit not only the symbols (flag etc.) but also the name, at least that used abroad: Turkey. Just compare the texts of the Treaties of Sèvres (with the Ottoman government) and that of Lausanne. Both treaties call the country Turkey. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fut Perf, Turkey in fact succeceded the Ottoman Empire , to claim it didn't its like saying the German Empire was NOT suceeded by the Weimar republic.

Just one question, didn't the empire (as traditionally viewed by historians) start in 1453 with the capture of Constantinople? i think we should switch the date, 1299 seems like artifically enlarging the life span of the Empire.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1- So you are accepting that Ottoman Sultans were actually Kayzer-i Rums. Just joking. The first ruler that was called Sultan was Murad Hüdavendigar. It was back in mid 14th century. Also, we can say that the Battle of Kosovo of 1389 must be enough for cherishing the rise of the empire, if the assumed titles of rulers don’t impress you.

2- As far as I know, Turkish Republic officially succeeded the empire. It is not about opinions of scholars but about diplomatic stuff. Also, we must keep in mind that Caliphate was legally present under the republic, until it was abolished with the Kemalist reforms in 1924. Deliogul (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is an interesting question. How far can a modern nation state be the successor of an empire. Is Greece the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire/Greek Empire/Byzantium? Is England the successor of the British empire? Is Italy the successor of the Roman Empire? Thanks all for your food for thought. Politis (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the Ottoman Empire was "in many way an Islamic successor to the Byzantine Empire." True, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantines-however Ottomans were not Roman/Byzantine in any way in the form of religion/culture. User:Stephantom1

I have some sympathy with Politis' position on this but mainstream opinion confers the status of successor state upon the Republic of Turkey. siarach (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As for England and the British Empire - England isn't even a country anymore than is Languedoc or Texas. Any analogy using the UK/British Empire is inappropriate. While the UK preceeded the Empire and was its founding state the Commonwealth is the continuation of the empire with the UK forming only a member state along with other nations which formerly made up the Empire. siarach (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Stephantom. While the Ottoman Empire controlled broadly the same territories that were once under Byzantine dominion (when the eastern roman empire was at its greatest extent) and might have absorbed some of the administrative structure the idea that this somehow makes it a successor state isn't valid imo. siarach (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC) In fact, as some other people seem to agree with me, I'm thinking about removing it for the points stated above-that is unless anyone can prove that the Ottoman Empire was 'in many respects' an Islamic successor to the Byzantine Empire. What do people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephantom1 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They were more like polar oppossites than anything! The hatred between the traditional Byzantine areas of Greece and other Balkan areas against the Muslim Ottoman Empire and vice versa was very real and often extreme. When Constantinople finally fell to the Ottoman Empire, after the initial pillaging etc, it was quite lenient but the state of hatred brewed up over hundreds of years of intense warfare saw terrible atrocities being committed by both sides in the Balkans (Vlad the Impaler etc). The language changed, the architecture changed, the religion changed and, eventually, the culture changed beyond recognition. Also after all those years of fighting Constantinople was drained of much of its competitive advantage. Though still a great and welathy city it had declined dramtically, losing trade to Venice and Genoa etc.Willski72 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Constantinople

• The final and official replacement of Constantinople by Istanbul did not take place until 1930., "Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire", by Bernard Lewis, p. x

• The capital of the Ottoman Empire was originally called Constantinople.....and did not officially adopt the name Istanbul until 1930, "New Encyclopedia of Islam", by Cyril Glasse, p.229

• ...Constantinople was not officially renamed until 1930..., "Daily Life in Ancient and Modern Istanbul", by Robert Bator, p.33

• Istanbul was only adopted as the city's official name in 1930...., "Osman's Dream", by Caroline Finkel, p. 57

So much for "one hundred years ago". --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It happened this way probably because Ottoman Sultans succeeded the throne of Roman Caesars via conquering the heart of the once mighty empire. It was not like "change this, change that". The dynasty used to give utmost respect to this heritage. Deliogul (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The "change of a name" is only one perspective in this issue. The names of the cities changes with time. It is not unique to Istanbul. Wikipedia uses the current name in these articles. Good Example is New York City. We do not see different articles created for every name used by NY city, or Istanbul. On the other hand, Constantinople is not just a name of the city. It is a historical state centered around the city. There is an article devoted for it at the Wikipedia. User:Kansas Bear takes the problem only from one perspective. I wonder if he is aware that by constantly changing the references to the city (article Istanbul) to "Constantinople," he is creating an illusion that the "state Constantinople" is Istanbul. He is constantly creating "REDIRECT" from the word "Constantinople" in the articles to the page "Istanbul." Many of my friends surprised when they click on the "Constantinople" link and find themselves in the city of Istanbul. In the past, to my friends, I had to explain the difference between these two entities. I just want to give a friendly reminder, being correct on one perspective is not being totally right. Wikipedia avoid redirects as a rule. If the Article name is Istanbul, we should keep the links as Istanbul. User:Kansas Bear should argue over changing the name of Istanbul to "Constantinopole." By the way what would happen if I act like Kansas Bear but replace "Constantinople ("City of Constantine") " to "Kostantiniyye." Which one has the highest authority? It is better to use what Wikipedia used in the article created for the city. --Deniz Gokturk (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article link to Istanbul, and just say that prior to 1930 the city was known internationally as Constantinople? Ultimately, we're talking about the same exact place, so the debate is a bit silly. Bombay is a really good example of how to deal with the change of a city name. Ultimately, we should obviously merge the article on Constantinople into Istanbul, and make it open just like Mumbai does. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Easier Said Than Done. Currently there are two articles and three different ways for the same entity. I guess the first breakdown was between Turks and Greeks. They divide the city historically at the onset of the Fall of Constantinople (1453). Second breakdown occurred by the perspective of User:Kansas Bear. He links the article Istanbul between 1453 to 1930 using the name Constantinople. If you ask them, they come up with righteous reasons. They do not give away from their perspective and stubborn to others. This needs a Wikipedia size arbitration. --Deniz Gokturk (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The city was officially and in daily parlance called Constantinople until Ataturk founded the Turkish Republic. Also, it was referred to by Greek and Turkish speakers as, Is tin Poli or Istabmbol/Stambol. The term 'Constantinople' spans both the Eastern Roman/Greek/Byzantine Empire, as well as the Ottomon/Turkish Empire. It is as 'Turkish' as it is 'Greek'; there is a fast growing acceptance of that reality amongst both peoples - just as they accepted in the past. Politis (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you say Politis, is it a Greek Comedy to have two different articles for the same entity. I do not bother to ask your perspective on using different names depending on the articles, and creating stupid redirects. I guess, if you could see the problem created by this "war on names", you would not say "reality amongst both peoples." I'm having my tea looking at people preying at the historical sites at Istanbul. I guess my realities shaped by the present time. Not by historical arguments, or texts from Bible. The article Mumbai lives in the present time, not in the historical Bombay. What does this tell about you? Living in the present or past? My point is, give the deserved respect to past, but keep it in present, one article one united culture of the city, working all together rather than keeping two small article domains to each national perspective. --Deniz Gokturk (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Military Section

The article Military of the Ottoman Empire is a sub article on this topic which was already split up. The content of this section in this article should be an appropriate length for a "summary style." The text in this article is too big to far an WP:Summary Style. It is a major copy of the "Military of the Ottoman Empire," rather than a summary. It does not consider to balance other parts in the main page. A major negative point for/as a summary section; it does have subheadings of its own, which it should not have. As so, falling into being developing content by itself rather than the summary of the content already developed in the Military of the Ottoman Empire. This content has many issues such as being a POV fork (developing arguments rather than summarizing (becoming a spin-off)). — Cemil Yilburak (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to move the deleted information to the main article Military of the Ottoman Empire before deleting them from the Ottoman Empire article with the pretext of "summary editing". Many details have been lost. 85.153.24.5 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not bite me. I wanted to do the best. Instead of attacking me on the personal level, help me to fix what is missing on the Military of the Ottoman Empire we can improve that article. I spend hours to give a balanced WP:Summary edit on this article. If you tell me what is missing on the , I will be happy to work with you to IMPROVE both articles. — Cemil Yilburak (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is user:Shiham K really the User:Flavius Belisarius? I used the history search tool and find out that the edit controversial text by User:Flavius Belisarius matches the same text that user user:Shiham K is constantly reverting to. Cemil Yilburak (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Capital

Capital:

Söğüt (1299–1326) Bursa (1326–1365) Edirne (1365–1453) Constantinople (1453–1922)

What is Constantinople? I think this is İstanbul since 1453. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.129.241 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rise of the Ottoman Empire

Who wants to help me expand Rise of the Ottoman Empire? It's in need of referencing (big time) and its sections don't cover enough for the article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WHY THE CAPITAL IS CONSTANTINOPLE?

these things are rude, city of the name is Istanbul, we live in istanbul and we say there as istanbul - not constantinople, when will you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.220.223 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul wasn't around until 1930. The Ottoman Empire was dead by 1922. When will people blinded by nationalism such as yourselves get it?Gabr-el 05:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And why is the broken time of the empire is 1923???? It has ended in 1922 and Ottoman Empire didn't joined Lausanne Treatry, because Sultan has gone in late 1922 and the Empire is over. Gabriel, why won't you understand? It doesn't matter what you called Istanbul. Are you calling ancient places with ancient names???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.14.101 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Convention of Constantinople - an example of a Turkish and International usage of the city's name pre-1930. Gabr-el 05:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Gabr-el, please do not call it 'nationalism'... because we do not see the old name of New York- New Amsterdam-written in articles before 1667 do we? Or places of Greece which had Turkish names (e.g. Selanik) written in all those articles. In fact it is those who still believe today’s Istanbul to be Constantinople who are being nationalistic but I’m sure you wont agree with my point of view... since at wikipedia Turkish people are always wrong. Turco85 (Talk) 16:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was officially renamed to its modern Turkish name Istanbul in 1930 with the Turkish Postal Service Law, as part of Atatürk's national reforms. It would help if these people knew their own history!!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It would also help if my opponents did not try to drag in the race card here. If Turks want to believe that their nation is the best nation in the world, that's perfectly fine and up to them. If they want to reinvent their history, go ahead, but not on Wikipedia. Why would we write down Greek cities in Turkish? That's completely irrelevant. They haven't lost their Greek names under the Ottoman Empire, the Greeks did not call them by the Turkish names. Your New York - New Amsterdam example is so flawed and irrelevant - this is about a city that was called Constantinople from 330 to 1930. New Amsterdam is not valid when discussing the city from the time of its renaming. We don't call it New Amsterdam in most articles because most articles about New Amsterdam are post-Dutch rule, when it was called New York!! You have proven yourself to be both a poor logician and a poor historian.Gabr-el 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that it is wrong that Constantinople is written in the article? No I did not. I only responded because you are calling people nationalists which is, in my view, inappropriate. I am not your ‘opponent’…but this comment has once again shown how aggressive users are towards the Turkish wikipedians... this is not the first time I observe this and it will certainly not be the last. Turco85 (Talk) 17:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I said he was blinded by nationalism, whats your point? I have nothing against Turkish Wikipedians; do not accuse me of being racist against Turks by saying I am aggressive towards them. The line above is very nationalistic. That is all I said. This issue has been done to death. Gabr-el 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But you also questioned my academic knowledge. If you do not want to be perceived as aggressive, then please be a bit more respectful. Turco85 (Talk) 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be getting somewhat better on WP, Turco, but you are correct, the depth of prejudice against Turks is so deep and so unconscious that the Turk-haters are able to run around and do pretty much what they want. I can't think of another ethnic group that is as mistreated on WP. For example, think of Kansas Bear's sentence above, "It would help if these people knew their own history!!!"--and try to imagine that he addressed that sentence to an African-American--the rush of good editors denouncing him would be overwhelming. But when he says this to a Turk, no one speaks up.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Let me guess, there's a Genocide going on in Wikipedia, in the form of numerous blocks on Turkish Wikipedians? This whole anti-Turk issue is something of your making; look at the way you are trying to court Turco, and how you present an allegation that wikipedia is anti-Turkish. At the end of the day, me and Kansas bear are defending the truth, which is that Istanbul was never the capital of the Empire, just as New Amsterdam was never the capital of the United States during the War of Independence (because neither correspond to the correct time frame). Witnesses to the fact that you are attacking us for defending the truth, regardless if its presented in a manner that is a little sensitive to yourselves. Gabr-el 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So is this the reason you edit wikipedia? So you can indirectly call someone a racist? You want to talk about race, why don't you address the NUMEROUS times I've been called an Armenian, Kurd, or Iranian? How about checking the 3 times my page has been vandalized and check where those IP addresses lead. Who should I address when the evidence states: "It was officially renamed to its modern Turkish name Istanbul in 1930 with the Turkish Postal Service Law, as part of Atatürk's national reforms.", Dorothy and Toto? Since I use references, most people find that upsetting, so I'm anti-Turk(another label attached to me) and a racist. Pity no one EVER cares to check my page where I clearly show my ancestry(since it's of such great importance), which I should know since I've done the genealogy! Don't cry to me if people don't know their own history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you hate Turks, why not just admit it? Apparently it's perfectly acceptable to hate Turks on WP. If you don't hate Turks, why not make a big effort and try to treat them with respect--maybe even write something NPOV about Turkey once in a while. Your choice. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you hate Americans of a multi-ethnic background why don't you just admit it? As for "maybe even write something NPOV about Turkey"....So reverting vandalism on Ataturk's article is what? Evidence of my hatred of Turks?? You don't like my edits, then find the evidence that proves my sources are incorrect. Spare me your personal animosity simply because I'm not "bowing down" everytime I cross paths with someone that may happen to be Turkish! It appears your own hatred has blinded you to facts even when they hit you in the face. So go back to patting yourself on the back since you have indirectly called me a racist for the 2nd time. My, you must think you're something special, since you can spews childish insults on the internet. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this simple for everyone:

• Istanbul was not the name until 1930, FACT
• The Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1922, FACT
• Therefore, the Ottoman Empire was finished 8 years before the name Istanbul came
• Therefore, Istanbul was not used as the name of the Capital

And echoing Kansas bear's words, it would help if these people knew their history. Gabr-el 04:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In fairness not everybody is an expert is their history. Stupid argument in my eyes. Justinz84 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If they're not an expert in their history, then they shouldn't act like one. Nor does it take an "expert in history" to know the capital of one's country. Thats some stupid reply you have there Gabr-el 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You talk like that and you have rollbacker privileges? Someone obviously made a mistake. For the good of WP let's hope that mistake is soon rectified.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gabr-el, ignore this person. It is very apparent that history is beyond his comprehension. He believes that the US was at war with the Ottoman Empire[1]!! LMAO!! Instead of making demands for respect, he should spend quality time reading how the US did NOT declare war on the Ottoman Empire;

• Middle East historiographies By I. Gershoni, Amy Singer, Y. Hakan Erdem, p66.
• America and the Armenian genocide of 1915 By J. M. Winter, p115.
• Two thousand questions and answers about the war By Julius Washington Muller,p4.
• Herald and Presbyter, p21.

Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You have some good qualities KB--you're knowledgeable enough to make some good contributions, and you know how to use sources. But you seem intent on insulting those who disagree with you. That's not behavior conducive to cooperative editing and it's not good for WP. It's best to conceal your contempt and rage. And thanks for the references, but I think most of us already knew that there was no official declaration of war.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Please, please don't take away my rollback privileges!!! Gabr-el 22:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Gabr-el. Mate, there are people in this world who do not know the names of capital cities in todays world- let alone to know the names of cities in the early 1900s. Justinz84 (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not your "mate". Whats your point? We're being criticized and attacked for defending history. Besides, that echoes the sentiment, that people should learn their recent history - Constantinople was the name until only 80 years ago. Gabr-el 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So why we use the Turkish names in older capitals like Edirne and just use "Constantinople" for İstanbul? Maybe Edirne is not stirring any nationalistic sentiments on both sides of the border?! Why not putting "Adrianople" or something for Edirne and "Brusa" for Bursa? You guys are funny to read though, thanks :) Instead of all this non-sense, why not writing something like "Constantinople (present day Istanbul)" or "Constantinople (name changed to Istanbul in 1930) ? Than it will be both factual and also people will understand the modern-day location?? --Gokhan (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a little note, "İstanbul" is not Turkish, it's Greek, there is no Turkish word or name for the city, well come to think of it, modern Turkish (official lang. of Turk. Republic) is a crafted language, out of Arabic, Persian, French and others, so we cannot expect it anyway. Thus, the official name of the city, according to the Ottoman records, is "Konstantiniyye" which basically means the city/place of Konstantin, who surprisingly happens to be the name of the guy who founded (or let's say, upgraded from Byzantium) the city. The local population, the public loved to call it Stampoli, which transformed into İstanbul, because Constantinople was a Roman name, and neither Turks nor the Greeks loved them exactly (and Ottoman and Turkish is not the same thing, claiming to be Tukish, was a crime in the Ottoman Empire, usually met by summary execution). But the Ottoman rulers liked the idea of being a kind of successor to the Roman Empire and kept the name, just changed the spelling. (And no, i'm Turkish, and living in İstanbul for 25 years, so just suck it up guys. History is not what you are taught at schools.)78.177.8.201 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Just as an aside, the Greeks didn't hate Romans but were Romans themselves, Rhomioi.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Zenith

when was the empire at it's greatest extent? say, prior to the outbreak of the First World War it would also help if you could provide a map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.219 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Under Suleiman the Magnificent, the Empire reached its zenith. Now although the Empire had landed at Otranto in 1480, its greatest success was under Suleiman the Magnificent. Gabr-el 04:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question - the Empire and its classical institutions have always been regarded to've have reached their high point of functional effectiveness and prestige under Suleiman, but you were asking about when did the Empire reach its greatest territorial area, and that was in fact in the late 17th century, before the defeat at Vienna.Lewvalton (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ottoman Empire

A proposal has been made for the creation of a WikiProject Ottoman Empire. Izzedine (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman Flag

Are you sure the flag is correct? because the flag only took its form after the revolution, the majority of the ottoman empire's time it was three smaller moons with one star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.4.52 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

-Ottoman Empire in 19. century and Independence War-

Why isn't anything in this page about Ottoman Empire in 19. century and Independence War?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Konstantiniyye

Constantinople is "Konstantiniyye" in Ottoman Empire, so it must be "Konstantiniyye"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.123.118 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right! --144.122.250.210 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article

Ottoman Empire is not featured article in Turkish Wikipedia...--Mighty B (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Under the heading Expansion and apogee (1453–1566)

This sentence needs a citation: "This lock-hold on trade between western Europe and Asia is frequently cited[citation needed] as a primary motivational factor for the Queen of Spain to fund Christopher Columbus's westward journey to find a sailing route to Asia."

Here is a source:
Book: The Middle Sea, A History of the Mediterranean
Author: John Julius Norwich
Publisher: Chatto & Windus 2006 - Random House
ISBN: 978-0-701-17608-2

I quote from page 243:

"...Maples was now threatened and even Rome itself. Clearly Christendom must take decisive action, but how? Pope Pius II had tried on two separate occasions to launch another crusade but had met with little response. In any case, the Ottoman army consisted of highly-trained professionals. In a direct confrontation it would be effectively invincible.

Here, perhaps, lay the answer to the problem: to approach the Turkish horde from the east, attacking it from the rear, where it would be weak and probably undefended. Isabella hesitated no longer. She was, she believed, financing not just the opening-up of a new and important trade route; she was taking the first exploratory but essential step towards what might be the last Crusade against the infidel. Ferdinand too was enthusiastic; Columbus later claimed to have brought a smile to the monarch's lips when he suggested that the profits from the great enterprise would pay for the conquest of Jerusalem..."

Marty Boogaart (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is heading in the right direction, thank you. But John Julius Norwich, though a wonderful writer, is not a trained academic historian, by his own admission he does not write as such, and for a citation of this kind, that is really what is required.

It also, on its own, doesn't deal with the statement "frequently cited". (Lewvalton (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Map Image

Why did we get a new map for the article? I like this one better.

The Ottoman Empire at the height of its power (ca. 1680)

I think we should put it back.

I strongly agree, I think it is highly inappropriate to use a .gif-image in the infobox, which in addition looks horribly compressed. The previous image was much more suitable (though the large northern-Europe part which only takes up unnecessary space should be cut away from the map). Why it was removed I have no idea, but it should be put back at once in my mind. -GabaG (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is not a clear reason behind this recent change, we should put the old picture back. Deliogul (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I thouht the following Image that i put instead of the old one is much better because the old one is like a combination of different countries to the peoples who don't know much about Ottoman Empire. I know this is silly for a person to imagine Ottoman empire that way but as you know all kind of people see this page and we should consider this type of people. by the way i don't think that the new one is ugly it's like those maps that were put in byzantine empire and roman republic.

The Ottoman Empire at the height of its power (ca. 1680).

The Byzantine Empire at the height of its power.

The red map doesn't contain the Ottoman province of Eritrea and the Ottoman province of Sudan, the latter being formally (de jure) ceded by Turkey in 1923 with Article 17 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 9 years after its "de facto" annexation by the British Empire in 1914, when the Ottomans joined the First World War on the side of the Central Powers.

On a further note, the Ottomans conquered and held parts of Morocco such as Fes between 1554 and 1603 (check out the history section of the Fes article) which are not included in any of these maps. 151.57.199.31 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is not included in the first map I can gladly edit in using Photoshop. I would have to go with the first map- the other two just use garish colors and are very, very simplistic.

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, the capture of Fes was to put into place an Ottoman-friendly government, NOT to conquer it. Morocco was a client state, and not an actual part of the Empire itself- that is probably why it is not included in the map.

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another map which could be considered that I made of the OE. -GabaG (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire, c. 1600.