The South-eastern part of the peninsula was inhabited by Arabs allied to the Turks, so no need for conquest.
The Empire controlled the more densely inhabited areas of the West and East which were the largest trading establishments, included the holy islamic cities of Mecca and Medina and also much of the coastline and ports. Stationing troops in the middle of the desert to guard sand wasn’t really a good investment move. Had they attempted to do that, they would have succeeded but they would have to defend against raids from indomitable bedouin tribes which would drain manpower and resources best used elsewhere. Oil wasn’t a big thing back then.
Instead the Ottomans traded with the bedouins coming and going to and fro. This way they got what the land had to offer without expending themselves.
Why didn’t Russia try to conquer Constantinople and surrounding territories after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?
During the 1768 — 1774 Russian Ottoman war , Russia was close to conquer the Ottoman Empire
Battle of ChesmeAli Bey al Kabir
Russia conquered Crimea and kicked the Ottomans out , defeated them in Caucasus , and totally destroyed the Ottoman navy in 1770 during the battle of Chesme
a revolt occurred in Greece and Russia formed an alliance with the Mamluk of Egypt Ali Bey al Kabir who kicked the Ottomans out of Egypt and marched towards Syria with Russian support
Russia bombed and occupied Beirut , at that time the Ottoman Empire lost all of it’s Arab provinces as Iraq was ruled by Kulmnd Mamluks and Syria was falling as well , Russia had the Ottomans on their knees , but Britain , Austria and Prussia saved the Ottomans and prevented Russia from conquering Constantinople
Russia tried again in 1791 and 1878 and was too close but the Western powers feared a very powerful Russia.
Yes, Romania was part of the Ottoman Empire for a significant portion of its history. The region that is now Romania was under Ottoman rule for several centuries, starting in the late 14th century and lasting until the 19th century.
The Ottoman Empire began to expand into the Balkans in the late 14th century, and by the early 15th century, it had established control over various territories in what is now Romania. Wallachia and Moldavia, two of the three historical regions that make up modern Romania (the third being Transylvania), came under Ottoman suzerainty, meaning they had to pay tribute to the Ottoman Empire and were subject to Ottoman influence.
While Wallachia and Moldavia were technically under Ottoman control, they also retained a degree of autonomy and had their own local rulers (voivodes) who governed with a degree of independence, provided they paid tribute and maintained loyalty to the Ottoman Sultan.
Transylvania, on the other hand, was not directly ruled by the Ottomans but was often caught in the struggle for influence between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy.
Although Romanians will deny this information saying that they were never Ottoman citizens and they had their own citizenship even before their independence, their claim was not recognized by the Ottoman Empire and neither by any state as a matter of fact.
During the XIXth century, when modern diplomacy did not recognize any relationship of vassality and suzeranity between states as in the Middle Ages, Moldavians and Wallachians were considered as special subjects (citizens) of the Ottoman Empire. As far as international and Ottoman law was concerned, this means that they had Ottoman citizenship and the Ottoman Law of citizenship of 1869 applied to them. Any child born from a Moldavian or Wallachian father and mother or just from the father was by jus sangvinis also considered an Ottoman citizen and was issued an Ottoman passport. Any foreigner naturalized on Moldavian or Wallachian soil also became Ottoman citizen. All this till Romania gained its independence in 1878.
When a Romanian was traveling within the Ottoman Empire outside of the provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia, in their own minds they were a foreigner, but as far as Ottoman authorities were concerned, they were an Ottoman national travelling in their own country, even if they were in Constantinople, Damascus or Tunis. Romanians also like to call their country before their independence as United Principalities but again, they had no international status as “principalities” and officially they were just provinces (memalik-i mahruse) of the Ottoman Empire.
Yes, Turkey does recognize its Ottoman past but through the interpretation of Ziya Gökalp who was a moderate Ottoman Turkish nationalist of the last decades of the Ottoman Empire. To make it clear, in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire, various definitions of what Ottoman identity means were competing among the Ottoman elite:
Ottomanism as meaning one Ottoman nation regardless of religion and language with all being equally Ottomans. Supporters of such ideology were Sultan Abdul Aziz, Ali Kemal Bey, Demat Ferid Pasha, Patriarch Sophronius III, Dimitrios Nikolaidis, Nikola Genovitch, etc ). They opted for a Brittish model of a political union of various nations, federalism, linguistic and religious equality and pluralism. Their political party was the centrist Freedom and Accord Party. They were very beloved by the Albanians and Armenians and others. Dimitrios Nikolaidis saw Mehmet II as a Greek and legitimate Byzantine Emperor. Many of these names are fallen into obscurity. There are very hard to find sources on the believers in Ottomanism simply because its supporters are not considered national heroes by any of the modern states. On the contrary, they are hated by the Greek, Turkish, Bulgarian, Albanian, Romanian, Arab, and other ex-Ottoman states for supporting Ottomanism instead of their respective nationalist ideologies.
Sunni pan-Islamism as meaning that it defined Islam as the core of Ottoman identity. This ideology was supported by sultan Abdul Hamid II. It pushed for a centralized caliphate. It was hated by everybody except sunni kurds. Nationalist Turks hated it because it favoured Islam alone neglecting the Turkish aspect. It was hated by Arab Islamist nationalists (e.g. Abderrahman al-Kawakibi) because it neglected the Arab aspect. It was hated by Armenians because it neglected the Christian aspect.
Mild Pan-Turkism combined with Islam difines being Ottoman as all religious and linguistic groups of the Ottomam Empire but still Sunni Turks are the “purest” of Ottomans. Supporter of such view is Midhat Pasha.
Moderate Pan-Turkism combined with humanist Islam defining being Ottoman as mainly of Turkish race and sunni religion, but tolerating other languages and religions as “foreign” minorities. Supporters of such ideology were Mustafa Kemal, Ziya Gökalp, and Mahmud Shevket Pasha. Their political party was the short lived Felah-i Vatan. Unlike Islamists like sultan Abdluhamid II from n° 2, for the moderate and also the radical pan-Turkists (the latter which I explain below at n° 5), the importance of islam was seen not from a religious point of view but rather from a humanist secularist point of view as a means of unifying socially the Turkish nation. An exceptional supporter of such ideology was Pavlos Karahisarithis. He was a Turkish Christian Orthodox nationalist of the Karamanlides community. He and his Turkish nationalist Christian Orthodox karamanlides were excempt from the population exchange of 1923 due to their anti-Greek ideology and loyalty to Kemalism.
Radical pan-Turkists combined with humanist Islam difining being Ottoman as of Turkish race and sunni religion just as the moderate ones but pushing for total and complete Turkification and annihillation of any religious or linguistic minority. Such supporters were Enver Pasha and Talat Pasha. Both the moderate and extremist pan-Turkists were inspired by the French model of state, with a very centralized government and linguistic and national uniformity with recognition of no religious or linguiistic minority whatsoever. That is, they invisioned a purely Muslim and Turkish speaking Ottoman state. It’s just tyat the radical extremists were willing to make much less compromise than the moderate ones. Their party was the Comitee of Union and Progess. Yakub Cemil young turk radical, assassinated Hüsein Nazim Pasha in the 1913 coup d’etat making pan-Turkic sunni nationalism as the one and only ideology of the state as all other ideologies and political parties were supressed. Basically this last one is the Turkish version of the Greek Megali Idea. The Megali Idea was pushing for an equal empire, occupying the same geographical space as the one invisioned by the Turkish pan-Turkists but instead of being purely Turkish and Muslim, to be purely Greek and Christian. Thus Greek Megali Idea and the radical pan-Turkists are the negative of eachother, different sides of the same coin, wanting the same Empire but either purely Greek or purely Turkish respectively. The difference is that Turanist Turks succeeded in highjacking the Ottoman state from the inside becoming it through coup d’etat while the Greek nationalists were fighting the Ottoman state from the outside by separating from it and trying to annex it to their state.
To answer clearly to your question, Turkey recognizes its Ottoman past but not from n°1 and n° 2 perspective but rather from mostly the n°4 with some sympathy and appologetism towards n°5. This means that Turkey recognizes its Ottoman past but only as a Turkish Empire according to the Comitee of Union and Progress official historical narrative. It rejects the pan-Islamist and multi-cultural Ottomanist narratives of what the Ottoman past identity means from n° 1 and n° 2 perspectives.
Today Istanbul holds an unusually large population of stray cats. They are often well taken care of by the city’s population. How old is this tradition, is it due to Turkish or Islamic culture, or does it date back to Roman times?
Today Istanbul holds a usually high population of stray cats, and are often well taken care of by the cities population. How old is this tradition, is it due to Turkish or Islamic culture, or does it date back to Roman times?
Is looking after stray animals due to Turkish or Islamic culture, or does it date back to Roman times?
It is easy to check. There are a couple of countries who claim heritage of Turkish, Islamic or Roman culture. For example, how good the countries such as Italy, France, Germany or England who were heirs of Roman Empire, take care of stray cats? Or how good the countries such as Morocco or Iran which are prominently Muslim Majority countries treat the animals? Do they differ from other Turkic states such as Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan in regards of animal rights?
A quick research on internet tells it was not a Roman tradition. You may check following articles.
Ritualistic Cat Torture Was Once a Form of Town Fun
1677: Londoners burn live cats in wicker pope – Past Peculiar
The Golden Bough/The Fire-Festivals of Europe
But we have some well-documented information about animals of Turkish History. For example, there was an occupation in Ottoman for the people who fed stray animals which called “mancaci”. Manca means cat & dog food.
Mancaci would feed the stray animals with the donation money of animal-lovers.
Not just cats or dogs were fed, but wild animals such as wolves. In winter months, necessary meat had been left for them, so they would not attack people or wouldn’t come to settlements.
Not to forget feeding birds
Of course only feeding them is not enough. They also needed some institutions. A cat hospital in Uskudar, Istanbul, a bird hospital in Dolmabahce, Istanbul. And another one in Bursa, solely for the storks (Gurabahane-i Laklakan) since 16th century.
Animal-loving also shows itself in architecture as bird-palaces since 15th century.
They were even included in pious foundations and wills. For example Bayezid Foundation had spared annually 30 gold for feeding birds among other things. It was/is also common to put water cups for birds in graveyards.
The first official regulation in the world regarding animal rights?; The Imperial Degree of Ottoman Sultan Murat III, dated 19th March, 1587 stated that “It was forbidden to overload animals such as horse or mule more than their capacity. And necessary care should be given about feeding and caring animals. And those who do not comply with the provisions would be punished.”
Deserved a retirement: The Cattle, which pulling cannons during wars, were retiring with a salary, when they got old. Retired animals were living in a farm which specifically established for them since 1654.
Animal holiday: An imperial degree dated 2nd October 1856, reminded people that it was forbidden by law, on fridays, to use horses to carry goods as well as ride them. Fridays were holidays for the horses since they were working remaining six days of the week.
Asking permission to kill ants: It is well known story that Suleiman the Magnificent asked his Sheikh al-Islam, whether it was ok to kill ants, which searing fruit trees in palace gardens. (The answer was: No, it was not ok!)
Many foreign traveller such as German Hans Dernschwam (1542), French Jean Thevenot (1656), Lamartine, Guer and British Ambassador Paul Ricout mentions about animal hospitals and pious foundations for animals which they had witnessed in Istanbul.
In the 17th century, the traveller Jean du Mont wrote that “For Turks, it is a crime to kill animals such as cats, dogs or horses which were not fed for their meats.
Also Busbecq (1554) writes in his travelogue about a Venetian merchant who was taken to court by Turkish people because he had nailed a bird to his door while it was alive.
Dogs came to Istanbul with Turks and they were always part of street life. However not all stories are pleasant. In 1910, a French Company which used dogs for the perfume and chemical industry applied Coup D’etat Government (Comittee of Union & Progress) of Ottoman in order to buy these dogs. They signed a deal. However, when news heard there was an uproar. Using dogs in experiment was unthinkable for most Turks, that’s why they protested.
Yet, coup government did not care. When stray dogs had been gathered on a ship, animal lovers raided the ship and saved the dogs. However, poor creatures been forcefully re-gathered. And this time there were guards who were ensuring their captivity. Then, it was decided that dogs could wait in a deserted island instead of a ship.
While 80.000 dogs were staying in a deserted island, French company declared that they backed off from the deal. All dogs died from hunger and thirst.
Official name of the island was/is “sharp” (sivri). However from then on people started to call that island as “scapegrace” (hayırsız ada). People also believed that, the earthquake of 1912 and many other following misfortunes befell on them due to this unheard cruelty towards these voiceless, innocent creatures.
This heartbreaking and disgraceful event still vividly remembered by people.
The Entire History of Ottoman Empire Explained in 7 Minutes
The year was 1299 AD when a ruler of the Turkish tribes in Anatolia had a dream of a mighty tree growing out of him and covering the whole world. This ruler was Osman I, and with the help of his successors, they built the mightiest Middle Eastern Empire of their time. The term Ottoman originates from “Uthman” which is Arabic for Osman, named after the ruler who had the dream of the Ottoman Empire. We are going to review the historic events that marked the chronology of this mighty empire.
