Turks

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Since Blue moose and Kaiser Issak have obviously abdicated another champion of the Turks appears.

Once more into the fray.....



HOW CAN YOU SERIOUSLY ARGUE THOSE THINGS?

YOU MAKE A MOKERY OF YOURSELF JUST SAYING THEM AND MUCH MORE SUPORTING THEM.

HAVE YOU MET A TURK IN YOUR LIFE? WE BALKANIANS HAPPEN TO LIVE NEXT DOOR.WE ONLY DROVE THEM BACK TO ASIA IN 1912. and much more besides..

My post is a reply to molly bloom's one.

Firstly- DON'T SHOUT!

I can read well enough thank you.

Secondly, I am not a 'champion' of the Turks, just someone keen to see a little balance and commonsense prevail. I hardly think we can take your posts as being unbiased, given that you choose the surname of the last emperor of Byzantium as a handle.

Have I ever met a Turk, blah, blah blah... yes of course I have. Surprisingly enough, they failed to flay my skin, or torture me. I have met quite a few Greeks, too, one of whom had to leave Greece during the Colonels' rule for fear of being tortured and executed.

Ascribing barbarity and evil to a whole civilization is a facile approach to history. Many of the examples of cruelty and 'evil' I mentioned were perpetrated by 'civilized' Christians on non-Christians or on each other. After the recapture of Buda by 'civilized' Christian forces, they massacred the Jewish community and flayed the Turkish prisoners alive, selling their skin to Germany physicians and alchemists, who were to use it in medicine. Very civilized, that.

Byzantine cruelties? Well apart from the obvious ones of heirs or rivals to the throne being routinely blinded, castrated, or thrown into the Bosphorus, there is of course Basil Bulgaroctonus, the civilized Christian emperor, who ordered the blinding of the Bulgars, amongts other instances. But of course, one out every 100 was blinded in only one eye, so perhaps he's only '99% cruel'.

As for Sinan- so what of his parentage? He wasn't the only architect of the Ottomans, in any case. You offer no proof that Turks were not involved in trade, or governance, or the arts, simply your insistence that they weren't.

Instead of vitriol and insults, give us some analysis, some facts to back up your all too obvious prejudices.

[Palaiologos]

Molly bloom,

It seems you are biased against european civilization. Try to open your mind and bit and read some books.

I have mentioned a variety of arguments against the turks in my previous posts, go back please and read them.

AND HOW DARE YOU JUDGE BULGAROCTONUS?
HE BLINDED 99 IN EVERY 100 BULGARIANS WHILE LEAVING THE OTHER ONE-EYED, TO LEAD THE HIS COMRADES BACK HOME.THERE WERE 10.000 PRISONERS IN TOTAL. IT WAS AN EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE MOVE. THE BULGARIAN ECONOMY COLAPSED NOT BEARING TO FEED SO MANY CRIPLES. WE WON THAT WAR.
A WAR THAT WAS MARKED BY BULGARIAN CRUELTIES AND SLAUGHTERS. IT WAS NOT A TORTURE IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE. NOBODY ENJOYED BLINDING THE BULGARS. SUCH AN INCIDENT WAS NEVER REPEATED IN BYZANTINE HISTORY. AS THE AMERICANS DROPED THE BOMB TO END A LONG AND COSTLY WAR, SO DID WE USE OUR OWN SUPER WEAPON.

How one can argue that Tatars, Huns and Mongols did not concern themselves with the arts, sciences etc.? It is pretty obvious since their way of life was driven towards warfare, not creation. No known representatives of these races have been hailed for their creations in these fields.

Same with the Turks. The Turks actually consider all the above as their ancestors and are proud of their "accomplishments". That does not mean that the arts did not flourish at the Ottoman Empire. They did, but not because of the Turks.

Also you should better give more attention to my words.

I NEVER SAID THE TURKS OR ANY OTHER RACE WERE EVIL, JUST BARBARIANS. NO RACE IS EVIL.TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT.


I am still waiting for an answer to No.4.

[Hagbart]

Well I'm kind of proud of the Vikings too!

It's true that the Turks based their civ more on warfare than some others...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Molly bloom,

It seems you are biased against european civilization. Try to open your mind and bit and read some books.

I have mentioned a variety of arguments against the turks in my previous posts, go back please and read them.

AND HOW DARE YOU JUDGE BULGAROCTONUS?
HE BLINDED 99 IN EVERY 100 BULGARIANS WHILE LEAVING THE OTHER ONE-EYED, TO LEAD THE HIS COMRADES BACK HOME.THERE WERE 10.000 PRISONERS IN TOTAL. How one can argue that Tatars, Huns and Mongols did not concern themselves with the arts, sciences etc.? It is pretty obvious since their way of life was driven towards warfare, not creation. No known representatives of these races have been hailed for their creations in these fields.

Same with the Turks. That does not mean that the arts did not flourish at the Ottoman Empire. They did, but not because of the Turks.

Also you should better give more attention to my words.

I NEVER SAID THE TURKS OR ANY OTHER RACE WERE EVIL, JUST BARBARIANS. NO RACE IS EVIL.TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

.

Firstly- don't patronize me, and STOP SHOUTING!!!

I am not biased against Western Civilization (how absurd), I clearly have a better grasp of it and a greater overall view than you do. I am extremely proud of Western civilization (parts of it) but appalled at how frequently it falls short of its avowed aims and ideals.

How dare I judge Basil Bulgaroctonus? Well, how dare you judge the Ottomans? I simply use the same standards you do.

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of Turkish/Mongol/Asiatic accomplishments in the arts or the sciences. A society with a militaristic bias does not imply a non-scientific or non-artistic society- look at ancient Rome, Prussia or Sparta.

Take, for instance, the astronomer Ulugh Beg:

http://faculty.washington.edu/dwaugh/CA/cities/samarkand/obser.html

and I quote:

'The Legacy of Ulugh Beg

Kevin Krisciunas[1]

Muhammed Taragai Ulugh Beg (1394-1449) was a Turk who ruled the province of Transoxiana (Maverannahr), a region situated between the River Oxus (Amu Darya) and the River Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the principal city of which was Samarkand. Ulugh Beg's grandfather was the famous conqueror Timur (1336-1405). Ulugh Beg became the ruler of Transoxiana in 1447 upon the death of his father. But his rule was of short duration. Two years later he was killed by an assassin hired by his son 'Abd al Latif.
Were it only for his role as prince, viceroy, and martyr, few scholars would know of Ulugh Beg. But his memory lives on because he was an observatory builder, patron of astronomy, and astronomer in his own right. He was certainly the most important observational astronomer of the 15th century. He was one of the first to advocate and build permanently mounted astronomical instruments. His catalogue of 1018 stars (some sources count 1022) was the only such undertaking carried out between the times of Claudius Ptolemy (ca. 170 A.D.) and Tycho Brahe (ca. 1600). And, as we shall briefly discuss here, his attitude towards scientific endeavors was surprisingly modern. The administration of Transoxiana was the responsibility of Ulugh Beg's father for most of Ulugh Beg's life. The prince had the opportunity (and the inclination) to pursue scholarly matters. His interest in astronomy dates from an early age, when he visited the remains of the Maragha Observatory, made famous by the astronomer Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-74). The principal accomplishment at Maragha was the Zij-i ilkhani, or Ilkhanic Tables.[2]'

from:

http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/hpaksoy/cam6.html

I could also mention Musa Pasha (Kadizade) who wrote commentaries on Euclid and Al-Chagmini, and later went to work at Ulugh Beg's observatory.

Or the mathematicians, Molla Lutfi and Mirim Celebi. Or Katip Celebi (known in the West as Hajji Khalifa)
a notable Turkish encyclopedist who compiled the Kashf al-Zunun.

Of course the real question might be, why does the West know more about Tycho Brahe's observatory than it does Ulugh Beg's? Perhaps because teaching in the West is biased towards what is seen as the 'heritage' of Western thought and scholarship, that is, preferably from Causcasian sources and preferably non-semitic or African or Asiatic in origin.

Your 'arguments' are not really arguments; they're simply statements (usually biased) with little or no supporting proof. You offer no direct quotes, or references, or links, and do not show that Ottomans weren't traders, or merchants, or artists or architects- you simply state that they weren't, and hope that we'll take this for granted. Rather like me claiming the moon is made of green cheese, and hoping everyone will take it on trust....

[XOR]

Ya, but from there to Turks being scientific it's actually quite shocking. I dont know if things in the Ottoman empire were handled by foreigners because the turks were too dumb to do it themselves, what matters is what kind of empires did they pull out. Certainly, not a "Scientific" one.

[Spiffor]

Molly Bloom :
Just a short post to tell I'm supporting you. Please continue to tell some historical facts, and don't be tempted to enter a flamefest with Palaigolos.
Thank you for bringing some intelligence into this thread.

[Palaiologos]

First of all please accept my apologies for the "how do you dare to judge....."

Anybody can judge anything. My English were bad, i meant that you should not speak for things we know better. I had made the same mistake in my discussion with blue moose(If you had read all the posts you would know).

I read your links with great interest. It seems Ulugh Beg's scientific staff were Muslems(it doesn't specify Turks).

Still Ulugh Beg and the other mathematicians you mention were members of the Turkish upper class. It is obvious that aristocrats will have different interests than the commoners and will be inclined towards the Arts and Science.

And lets speak with facts now:

During the reign of the Mongols their Empire made considerable contributions to the arts and sciences.(effective use of gunpowder,medical advances etc).BUT THAT WAS NOT DUE TO MONGOL SCIENTISTS. It was their Chinese and Persian subjects.

Realize that in the Ottoman Empire sciences were promoted, and perhaps even by Turks, but only at the upper classes. The common Turkish people remained ignorant and bloodthirsty.

Now that i think of it, i am wrong. The commoners did made some breakthoughts. They tortured and killed Greeks and Armenians in ways that surpass imagination.

Since i made the trouble and read your links, could you please make me a favor? Go back and read my posts and Oerdin's.All of them. I have written facts about the Mongols and Turks. Historical and supported facts.

P.S I am still waiting an answer for No.4

[Palaiologos]

Could you please give me a definition of the word BARBARIAN?

Or do you think that no civilization ever had such a status?

I never said the Turks were stupid. They are just better in other things, not science.

Propably some cannibal in a tribe in Africa wrote a poem. Does that mean his tribe supported the Arts?

You can't possibly compare Turkish achievments in the sciences(Beware not Arab achievments) with those in Europe and the west.

Every civilization in History made achievments. The Gauls forged swords in a way that no Roman weaponsmith could ever replicate.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT GAULS MADE BREAKTHROUGHTS IN SCIENCES?

AND I CAN NOT SUPPLY MY ARGUMENTS WITH LINKS SINCE I GET MY INFORMATION FROM BOOKS.

[Palaiologos]

I can't believe there is so much misinformation spread in other countries about the Turks. See what these "patrons of the arts" are doing to the Kurds.

They kill them after horrible tortures and force them to change their language.

And that is no statement.It is a fact.

The common Turk has changed little in his attitude towards who perceives as "hostile" since the Middle Ages.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
First of all please accept my apologies for the "how do you dare to judge....."

Anybody can judge anything. My English were bad, i meant that you should not speak for things we know better. I had made the same mistake in my discussion with blue moose(If you had read all the posts you would know).

I read your links with great interest. It seems Ulugh Beg's scientific staff were Muslems(it doesn't specify Turks).

Still Ulugh Beg and the other mathematicians you mention were members of the Turkish upper class. It is obvious that aristocrats will have different interests than the commoners and will be inclined towards the Arts and Science.

Most scientists tru history were in the 'upper' class, both in Europe and Asia.
In Greece too...

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Palaiologos

Propably some cannibal in a tribe in Africa wrote a poem. Does that mean his tribe supported the Arts?

Yes

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
I can't believe there is so much misinformation spread in other countries about the Turks. See what these "patrons of the arts" are doing to the Kurds.

They kill them after horrible tortures and force them to change their language.

And that is no statement.It is a fact.

The common Turk has changed little in his attitude towards who perceives as "hostile" since the Middle Ages.

What does this have to do with science?..

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Hagbart


Most scientists tru history were in the 'upper' class, both in Europe and Asia.
In Greece too...

No hagbart, no.


Kalinicus, Herodotus, Archimedes, Colombus, Gallileus(not sure how it's in English), are just a few of great innovators and thinkers that did not come from the upper class. They came from the middle class.


I am sure i can find many more if i think of it but these come first to my mind.

[XOR]

Let's just put it in general Terms, because really, Chinese made much more impressive scientific breaktroughs than the Ottomans, let's leave the nowadays Turks behind and speak about the Ottoman empire.

What was their level of sophistication on:

a- Manufacturing: Not their great infrastructure as to build 1000 battleships, just what level of complexity it had. If they barely built hand tools or if they actually build more complex machines like cars and trains (no matter if they actually invented or not).

b- Education: Did they have an above-contemporary-average educational system? How was their literacy rate compared to the rest of the world? Did their educational system include highly technical material (like engineering institutions) or just basic things and bureaucracy (acounting/laws) in general?

c- Exportable technology/discoveries/invention: How much of the techniques developed by the turks ended up being relevant enough for the rest of the world to copy them? How much in our biology/chemistry/physics books comes from their discoveries?

You certainly must get one or another thing, with the huge numbers of things invented in the world some of them must have been invented by Ottomans, but I seriously doubt that Ottomans were any more scientifically productive than their contemporaries.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Hagbart


Yes

You can't be serius.


Are you trying to raise your postcount or something?