Devlet-i Ebed-müddet

[char]

Did the Ottoman Empire deserve the title it gave its self "the eternal state" ?

The Greek and Roman worlds legacy endures, you can see it in law, art and architecture.

Does the Ottoman empire have a similar lagacy, I expect it does, in Asia?

What where the crowning achievment of Ottoman Turkey?

Iyi talih herkes.

Türkiye ebediyen.

[6644kp]

Well that is one really cool title

[Sher Khan]

Well, considering how long it managed to stay alive, even when several onlookers expected it to collapse at any moment, it might just deserve the title (at least more so than Nazi Germany deserving to call itself the Thousand-year Reich).

[white-wolf]

Strange, I did not hear that title before. Devlet-i Muazzama, but Devlet-i Edeb-müddet?

[Crimson Scythe]

The title varies a little from ruler to ruler. And many more were created over the centuries. I mean, just look at some of the letters written by Ottoman Sultans to other heads of state. Sometimes introducing the ruler and the state took longer than the actual message.

As for the appropriateness of the title, I think it fits pretty well. The Ottomans had an uncanny knack for remaking their society again and again, despite internal and external crises.

[Lysimachos11]

500 years an eternal state? Nahh, not even close to the 2000 years of the Roman state. Plus they did not have their own distinct culture, as their religion came from the Arabs and architecture was an exact copy of Byzantine techniques. Their only legacy today would be the Balkan Muslims, apart from that I cant think of something else.

[dogukan]

500 years an eternal state? Nahh, not even close to the 2000 years of the Roman state. Plus they did not have their own distinct culture, as their religion came from the Arabs and architecture was an exact copy of Byzantine techniques. Their only legacy today would be the Balkan Muslims, apart from that I cant think of something else.

ıh well, I guess motiv explained it well...but you're just underestimating Ottomans. Anyways, eternal state issue is a different thing. But Ottoman culture is pretty awesome, to simply put. And yes it has a lot of Byzantine influence which makes it even more awesome.

[motiv-8]

2000 years of a Roman state? That's a stretch...

The Ottomans did not have their own distinct culture? That's an entirely bizarre claim with hugely lacking evidence. By the same logic presented, the Romans did not have a distinct culture either, rather they ripped off the Etruscans and Greeks.

"Eternal State" is a mark of the royal arrogance that dominated the court in Constantinople, not much more, kind of like the European title of Emperor or "Defender of the Faith." The poster above me is taking things far too literally in retrospect, though in the 16th and 17th centuries there was doubtless little reason to expect that it indeed would be an eternal state. It wasn't exactly short-lived, either.

As for heritage of the Ottoman Empire, it can be found all over the Middle East; you just have to pay attention. Ottoman politics in the later part of its life had a marked effect on the societies of North Africa and the Levant, and a were a spark for the movement later known as "Pan Arabism" and the related nationalist movements that sprang up throughout the 20th century. Ottoman religion, far from being "taken from the Arabs" had its own distinct styles and institutions, from the Sufi orders and dervishes to the Sheik al-Islam. Ottoman land tenure policies and irrigation techniques influenced the development of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq for at least a half a century, if not more, being continued on in pieces by the later colonial administrations.

[Lysimachos11]

2000 years of a Roman state? That's a stretch...

758 BC - 1453 AD = 2000 years. Bit of a stretch yes but the late Byzantine Empire was still in direct line of succession with the Roman Emperors, which followed the Republic. You might also draw the line in 700, making it around 1450 years of a continuous Roman state.

The Ottomans did not have their own distinct culture? That's an entirely bizarre claim with hugely lacking evidence. By the same logic presented, the Romans did not have a distinct culture either, rather they ripped off the Etruscans and Greeks.

Well they had their own culture, but nearly all of it was copied. Just look at any large Ottoman mosque, they are direct copies of the Hagia Sophia. The Ottoman system of slave warriors (Janitsars) was copied from the Arabs who trained Mamluks.

As for heritage of the Ottoman Empire, it can be found all over the Middle East; you just have to pay attention. Ottoman politics in the later part of its life had a marked effect on the societies of North Africa and the Levant, and a were a spark for the movement later known as "Pan Arabism" and the related nationalist movements that sprang up throughout the 20th century. Ottoman religion, far from being "taken from the Arabs" had its own distinct styles and institutions, from the Sufi orders and dervishes to the Sheik al-Islam. Ottoman land tenure policies and irrigation techniques influenced the development of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq for at least a half a century, if not more, being continued on in pieces by the later colonial administrations.

There is bound to be some alteration of the cultural aspect taken from others. Pan-Arabism was most directly motivated by Western Colonialism though. Ottoman domination of the Islamic world can be put in the same category of the Crusades and Mongol attacks.

My main reason to see the Ottoman legacy as not very substantial is that after the Ottoman Empire's collapse noone really cared that it was over, and there are no states except Turkey that want to identify themselves with the Ottoman Empire in the present day. Looking at the Roman Empire, or other Turkic Empires such as the Gök Türk Empire there was huge prestige taken from identification with former empires. This is totally absent in the case of the Ottoman Empire, though this may have to do with Modern times and values setting in.

[Crimson Scythe]

Well they had their own culture, but nearly all of it was copied. Just look at any large Ottoman mosque, they are direct copies of the Hagia Sophia.

Have you ever been inside any of said mosques? The similarities are more superficial than you might imagine. Ayasofya's architectural design, which allows it to enclose such a large space, was certainly worthy of being duplicated elsewhere, hence its influence on other Ottoman mosques in Istanbul. Once you get beyond that, however, the differences are quite apparent, particularly in the way that the insides are decorated. Just compare the Sultan Ahmet mosque to its neighbour Ayasofya. They're similar on the outside, but inside they're very different.

Furthermore, the influences are closely tied to geography. Mosques further east look very different from Ayasofya, because of the Persian influence. Just look at the Mevlana mosque in Konya, for instance, which, IMO, blends Byzantine and Persian influences.

The Ottoman system of slave warriors (Janitsars) was copied from the Arabs who trained Mamluks.

The idea of using foreign troops as your elites is hardly unique to any state. The Romans used auxiliaries as specialists, Carthage had Libyan infantry, the Brits used Scottish Highlanders, and the French still have their Foreign Legion. Who copied what from whom? In principle they're all the same, their differences are in the details. Lazy history is bad history.

There is bound to be some alteration of the cultural aspect taken from others. Pan-Arabism was most directly motivated by Western Colonialism though. Ottoman domination of the Islamic world can be put in the same category of the Crusades and Mongol attacks.

A suspect analogy, though it can be debated, to be fair. It depends on one's perspective. The Ottoman conquest of the Muslim Middle East (which is only a fraction of the Muslim world as a whole, btw) was done much more by diplomacy than by force. Defeating the Mamluks of Egypt militarily was certainly required, but was much more peaceful than the creation of the Crusader states or the Mongol invasions. This shows the true power of the Ottoman state, namely its ability to have its will be done with the selective application of force, rather than sheer brute force. Its control over its territories was handled much in the same fashion, which was both its greatest strength during the classical period, but also its greatest weakness in the post-Napoleonic period.

My main reason to see the Ottoman legacy as not very substantial is that after the Ottoman Empire's collapse noone really cared that it was over, and there are no states except Turkey that want to identify themselves with the Ottoman Empire in the present day. Looking at the Roman Empire, or other Turkic Empires such as the Gök Türk Empire there was huge prestige taken from identification with former empires. This is totally absent in the case of the Ottoman Empire, though this may have to do with Modern times and values setting in.

I'd argue that this is a result of the manner in which the Ottoman Empire was ultimately destroyed, ripped apart by conflicting nationalisms. And just FYI, Turkey doesn't identify itself with the Ottoman Empire, but rather is identified with it by others (sometimes deliberately for political purposes). Turks, until very recently, identified more with their pre-Ottoman past than anything else, partly because the Ottoman past was too closely associated with an ISLAMIC past. Now, that does have something to do with present day political values setting in, if you follow Turkish politics. For good or ill, I haven't decided yet.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

I'd argue that this is a result of the manner in which the Ottoman Empire was ultimately destroyed, ripped apart by conflicting nationalisms. And just FYI, Turkey doesn't identify itself with the Ottoman Empire, but rather is identified with it by others (sometimes deliberately for political purposes). Turks, until very recently, identified more with their pre-Ottoman past than anything else, partly because the Ottoman past was too closely associated with an ISLAMIC past. Now, that does have something to do with present day political values setting in, if you follow Turkish politics. For good or ill, I haven't decided yet.

forgive me, but isn't that just to darn stupid?

back on topic, Ottomans sure did have their own culture. when walking in Old Islamic Cairo, i can tell which mosque was built in the Ottoman Empire era, and which isn't(and i am not even a historian). Ottoman cuisine, not to mention language that survived into it's provinces. was the Otto's culture effected by other distinctive cultures? of course. so were the Ancient Egyptians.

[Crimson Scythe]

forgive me, but isn't that just to darn stupid?

Hardly. Until very recently, Turks tried very hard to differentiate themselves from the Ottomans. The core of the Republican ideology rested on this. It's only since Turks have become more comfortable with their 'new' identity that they've been willing to reconnect with their past.

To be fair, though, I'm generalizing here. Many Turks (a minority, to be sure) identify more with their Ottoman past than with their Republican present. Their numbers have been growing, particularly in the wake of European objections to Turkey's EU membership (which is what I was referring to in my previous post). It's very difficult to draw a line between history and politics when Turkey is concerned.

[PointOfViewGun]

758 BC - 1453 AD = 2000 years. Bit of a stretch yes but the late Byzantine Empire was still in direct line of succession with the Roman Emperors, which followed the Republic. You might also draw the line in 700, making it around 1450 years of a continuous Roman state.

That's a very important stretch though. A lot of historians would argue with you that Byzantine Empire became a completely different empire than the traditional Roman Empire. The two differs in culture anyway. The Roman Empire we know is mostly based in central Europe and Eastern Roman Empire is based on a completely different culture than the Western(Traditional) Roman Empire. You can see that distinction in almost every Roman document.

If you can argue that Roman Empire spans through 758BC to 1453AD then people can also argue that Ottomans have direct heritage to Seljuk Empire which in return to different Turkish dynasties across Asia. These are connected to each other though documents of rulers that claim heritage to their predecessor states.

Well they had their own culture, but nearly all of it was copied. Just look at any large Ottoman mosque, they are direct copies of the Hagia Sophia. The Ottoman system of slave warriors (Janitsars) was copied from the Arabs who trained Mamluks.

Same can be said for every single achievement of any civilization. Trying to explain to you the legacy of Ottoman Empire would sound like a pissing contest here. You simply have to look better. That's all.

There is bound to be some alteration of the cultural aspect taken from others. Pan-Arabism was most directly motivated by Western Colonialism though. Ottoman domination of the Islamic world can be put in the same category of the Crusades and Mongol attacks.

My main reason to see the Ottoman legacy as not very substantial is that after the Ottoman Empire's collapse noone really cared that it was over, and there are no states except Turkey that want to identify themselves with the Ottoman Empire in the present day. Looking at the Roman Empire, or other Turkic Empires such as the Gök Türk Empire there was huge prestige taken from identification with former empires. This is totally absent in the case of the Ottoman Empire, though this may have to do with Modern times and values setting in.

That's mainly because people have usually little knowledge of the Ottoman Empire.

[motiv-8]

758 BC - 1453 AD = 2000 years. Bit of a stretch yes but the late Byzantine Empire was still in direct line of succession with the Roman Emperors, which followed the Republic. You might also draw the line in 700, making it around 1450 years of a continuous Roman state.

Sorry, but you're using an incredible leap of logic based on... well, I see absolutely no evidence here... to claim that a single Roman state existed from 758 to 1453... That is.. utter nonsense.

Well they had their own culture, but nearly all of it was copied. Just look at any large Ottoman mosque, they are direct copies of the Hagia Sophia. The Ottoman system of slave warriors (Janitsars) was copied from the Arabs who trained Mamluks.

So your idea of argumentation is to ignore others' points and regurgitate the same crap you did previously? Progress.

There is bound to be some alteration of the cultural aspect taken from others. Pan-Arabism was most directly motivated by Western Colonialism though. Ottoman domination of the Islamic world can be put in the same category of the Crusades and Mongol attacks.

Uh... no. Comparing Ottoman political power with the Crusades and Mongols is inane.

The roots of Arab nationalism lay DIRECTLY in the establishment of Turkish nationalism and Pan-Turkic ideology as embodied by political parties such as the CUP. It pre-existed the establishment of Western colonial regimes in the Middle East.

My main reason to see the Ottoman legacy as not very substantial is that after the Ottoman Empire's collapse noone really cared that it was over, and there are no states except Turkey that want to identify themselves with the Ottoman Empire in the present day.

No-one cared that it was over? Oh, right. That explains the predominance of the "Eastern Question" in European foreign politics that had a huge hand in shaping the build-up and participants of the First World War. Because nobody cared.

Looking at the Roman Empire, or other Turkic Empires such as the Gök Türk Empire there was huge prestige taken from identification with former empires. This is totally absent in the case of the Ottoman Empire, though this may have to do with Modern times and values setting in.

Except for the continued existence of Khalifa movements wishing to bring back the nominal religio-political authority wielded for centuries by Ottoman Sultans.

But yes, the other factor is the forced, militarisitic destruction of Ottoman culture by the fanatically secularist Ataturk regime. If that's what your euphemism about "modern times and values" is supposed to mean.

[Lysimachos11]

Sorry, but you're using an incredible leap of logic based on... well, I see absolutely no evidence here... to claim that a single Roman state existed from 758 to 1453... That is.. utter nonsense.

I said that was the largest stretch you could make. Read. I say also you can draw the line around 700, the date generally accepted by academics for the transition of Late Roman to Byzantine.

So your idea of argumentation is to ignore others' points and regurgitate the same crap you did previously? Progress.

No? And what I say is not crap, I just pointed to some obvious examples of Ottomans taking over technology. They weren't my main arguments as I said, and I admit they aren't the strongest ones either.

Uh... no. Comparing Ottoman political power with the Crusades and Mongols is inane.

The roots of Arab nationalism lay DIRECTLY in the establishment of Turkish nationalism and Pan-Turkic ideology as embodied by political parties such as the CUP. It pre-existed the establishment of Western colonial regimes in the Middle East.

And this says... you? I can give you two respected academics that put Turkish and Crusader and Mongol dominion in the same category. Pan-Arabism was not born out of some rational comparing of political powers what you seem to think? European colonialism made a far greater impact than that of the Ottomans because of the perceived crusading motivations of the colonialists powers.

No-one cared that it was over? Oh, right. That explains the predominance of the "Eastern Question" in European foreign politics that had a huge hand in shaping the build-up and participants of the First World War. Because nobody cared.

You confuse being concerned with a weak state such as the Ottoman Empire with caring that it continues to exist. The main concerns were Russian versus British interests, not the existence of some impotent Sultan in Constantinople. When it fell apart, neither was in any way interested in restoring the Ottoman Empire.

Except for the continued existence of Khalifa movements wishing to bring back the nominal religio-political authority wielded for centuries by Ottoman Sultans.

But yes, the other factor is the forced, militarisitic destruction of Ottoman culture by the fanatically secularist Ataturk regime. If that's what your euphemism about "modern times and values" is supposed to mean.

Bringing the secular and religious into one leader on earth, the Caliph, is a concept deeply embedded into Islamic thought. The Ottomans were merely adherents to it but did not start or invent this idea.

And obviously I meant that multi-ethnic empires werent exactly popular anymore in the 20th Century.

[Gromovnik]

No it doesn't, it was founded in one historical moment and expired in another. So it's not eternal.

[dogukan]

Saying there is no "Ottoman culture" really sounds weird to me. I mean, whenever I think of Ottomans I get a much different feeling. That culture is, simply different. There are lots of Middle eastern-Byzantine influences(even baroque, gothic inlfuence exists)....actually more than that. But when you think of Ottomans you can neither identify them as middle eastern nor western. I guess the term "eurasian" applies best to them.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

The Ottomans definitely had their own culture. It was a welding of Greek, Arab, and local Anatolian influences to the Turkish culture.

[dogukan]

The Ottomans definitely had their own culture. It was a welding of Greek, Arab, and local Anatolian influences to the Turkish culture.

Balkan and Persian culture were too damn significant...