Talk:Ottoman Turks

Turks ≠ Ottomans

For the inhabitants of modern Turkey, see Turkey. Among other things, they're not all Turks.

That is true, there are also Kurds. But Turkey received the name of the Turks. The Kurds, who live in several different states now, were sectioned and quartered compliments victorious allies, just as many other people were. H.J.

yes, but Turkey got its name from the (much larger group) Turks, not the Turks from Turkey, so defining 'Turks' as those 'who live in Turkey' is not accurate. Not to mention the fact that Turkic peoples live in many many states. --MichaelTinkler

Right, Turkic Turks live in TurkeyH.J.

and in Turkmenistan, Turkestan, Uzbekistan, etc., etc.

It is absolute nonsense to say that the Ottomans fled the Han-Dynasty during the 12th century A.D. The Han-Dynasty was ruling during the two centuries B.C. and A.D.

I agree that Ottomans ≠ Turks (Ottoman Turks). There were many Albanians. Muslim Bosnians, but also Eastern Roman renegates, some goergians etc who were ruling class of the Ottoman Empire. Kurds were not so much part of the Ottoman ruling class for example. Also, Ottoman Empire was also ruled from the territory which was out of the territory of existing Turkey. Muslim Balkaners were bery very important to the Ottoman Empire, the heart of the Ottoman empire was western Anatolia and Balkans This article needs reconstruction.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garbled sentence in section on Ottoman Turks

The section on Ottoman Turks contains this sentence: "While initially is illuminated manuscript work." Obviously it is garbled. I'd fix it myself but I'm not sure exactly what the intended meaning is.

DMJ001 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What land route?

" The Ottoman Turks blocked all land routes to Europe by conquering the city of Constantinople, the capital city of the Byzantine Empire" Naturally they did not block ALL land routes to Europe - just the ones leading through Constantinople. The Mongols for example came from Asia to Europe through the steppes north of the black sea. And as the Ottomans already conquered a large part of the Balkan BEFORE conquering Constantinople obviously wrong- how would they be able to conquer the area of Bulgaria/Rumelia when Constantinople is the "only landroute"? Perhaps " The Ottoman Turks blocked all trading routes from Asia to Europe by conquering the city of Constantinople, the capital city of the Byzantine Empire"? ConjurerDragon (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - trade caravans through the central and European steppe would have been open to raids and much too risky. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan[reply]

Turkey/0ttoman history Lacks info about women

Lacks into into about women 5.198.19.146 (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turks did not block trade routes

The page reads: "...the Ottoman Turks blocked all major land routes between Asia and Europe. Western Europeans had to find other ways to trade with the East." One of the references given, John Tolan, Gilles Veinstein, and Henry Laurens (2013), contradicts this outright. On the subject of Capitulations, it says, "The principal aim of these capitulations was to define and ensure the guarantees and immunities granted to foreigners—merchants in particular—living in the Ottoman Empire. By providing indispensable legal guarantees, they thus made Western commerce possible within the Ottoman Empire." and "In promulgating the capitulations, the Ottomans were merely following practices that had already been current among their former masters, whether Christian or Muslim, in the zones they had seized (Byzantines, Seljuks, Mamluks, Turkoman beys)." It also says, "There was another realm where the weight of reality led Christians and Muslims to set aside the ideology of conflict and to peacefully cross the land and sea borders separating the two worlds: the realm of commerce. Even in the Middle Ages, the attractiveness of precious commodities from the Middle and Far East—pepper, spices, silk—and the enormous profits anticipated from such trafficking (Venice’s fortune rested in large part on that foundation) had always prevailed over the disadvantage of having to load the supplies in Beirut or Alexandria, that is, in Muslim territory. The fact that the hub for trade among the three continents was in the Muslim world was not enough to dissuade enterprising souls from taking part in that commerce. As for the Muslims, they did not discriminate in such matters, beyond setting higher customs duties for the harbī. The interested parties concluded trade treaties establishing the rules of the game and offering foreigners the security necessary." I suggest removing the entire phrase from the wikipage, since this evidence contradicts it. Khaydock (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ottomans" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ottomans has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17 § Ottomans until a consensus is reached. Joy (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish migration to Anatolia

Mistake in the 2nd sentence. Turks did not begin to migrate to Anatolia in the 13th century. It began 2 centuries earlier 2A01:C23:898D:E800:78BB:1B18:E9F7:BDB8 (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]