#1) the ottoman empire was bad | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

spoonfullofwit · 3 months

Text

The HOTD AND MAGNIFICENT CENTURY CHARACTER COMPARISONS ARE NOT PASSING THE VIBE CHECK (in my opinion)

(Mostly talking about the shows. Not delving too much into books because I have not read the books yet. It’s on my TBR. And I know certain details that happen in the books because of videos that talk about A song of ice and fire universe. And I am not delving too deep into the Ottoman Empire history)

Okay....Wow.

Like....wow. Where do I even begin?

Point 1: A quick one to get it out of the way. Viserys I and Suleiman being similar is the best one in regards to that they are so oblivious when it comes to their family and it goes straight over their heads.

They don't understand why their families can't get along even though it so fucking obvious why, and they had the power to put a stop to the infighting if they did the obvious thing. For Suleiman put a stop to the fratricide law to prevent his sons from being forced into killing each and stop their mothers from plotting against each other to save them. And for Viserys not getting married a second time or abdicated the throne while he was alive and give it to Rhaenyra.

They love their wives to death and when Hurrem and Aemma died Suleiman and Viserys souls died with them. They have complicated relationships with their children; they have obvious favorites that caused conflict within the family. Suleiman with Mehmed and Mihrimah. Viserys with Rhaenyra.

I get this comparison. I accept.

But give my man Suleiman more credit because he was a better leader, commanded respect, and always stood on business on every aspect. While Viserys was a little flaky and kind of wishy-washy especially with politics and governance; despite being a decent enough guy he was not a good ruler. While Suleiman is considered the greatest rulers of all time both in the show and in real life because he was decisive, smart, and ambitious.

In a fight/war Suleiman would have fucking obliterated Viserys (without the use of dragons of course). But if not pitted against each other I think they would have been good enough friends. (though I think they would have secretly thought each other was a little weird).

Point 2: The main ones that burned my biscuits.

Hurrem is more like Rhaenyra and I am willing to die on this hill.

People have the uptmost gall and audacity to say that Hurrem is Alicent Highttower coded.....DID WE WATCH THE SAME SHOWS?

Hurrem is so Targaryen coded. At the very least Martell or a little bit Baratheon coded.

Like people are getting caught up on the ONE aspect of Hurrem's character which is that she is a bad stepmom ( i love her but it is the truth) like Alicent since they are both trying to kill their step children to make way for their own biological children...but Hurrem is more than that. And reducing her to just that is a disservice to the core of her character.

Yes Rhaenyra and Mustafa were robbed of their thrones but they are so different with their values and morals. And their gender plays a huge part in that also.

Mustafa did not have to prove himself to anyone or was questioned of his capability of ruling because he is a man. If history played out in his favor, there would not have been huge shift in history. It would have been more of the same because like I said he is a man. Mustafa is not much of an underdog because he has all of the privileges that Rhaenerya does not have access to.

She is constantly having to prove herself and her worth because she is a woman. She is constantly doubted and her honor is always called into question because she does exactly what every man does.

Rhaenyra is willing to do things (blood and cheese) that honestly I don't think Mustafa would have done. And if they met they would have not liked each other.

Because Rhaenyra probably would have reminded him too much of Hurrem.

Hurrem and Rhaenyra are rebels that dance to the beat of their own drum. They are the ones that broke the mold of what is acceptable for women. They were the first to achieve a level that was thought impossible for a woman.

Rhaenyra is the first woman to be named rightful heir to the Iron Throne and first sole ruling Queen (even though sadly it was for a short time). As a character Rhaenyra was balling the fuck out (as she should!). She was arrogant, was not afraid to put someone in their place, larger than life, and she wanted power. She fought in a literal war! Under the right circumstances she would have been a great ruler. She did what thought was best for her and lived life on her terms. Which is something even real women can barely do.

Hurrem was the first slave to become a legal wife of a Sultan and helped create an entirely new title, Haseki Sultan, which is the chief consort of the emperor. Which is the second most power position for a woman underneath Valide sultan (Mother of the Sultan). Haseki Sultan had immense power and influence of the empire! That is a huge step! She began an entire era called the Sultante of Women! She trailblazed for other women to rise up and gain power. All because she stuck her neck out, stood her ground and refused to be walked all over. Hurrem was all or nothing and did not asked but demanded respect. She dared to reached for more despite the heavy risk. She's fiery, charismatic, brave, intelligent, vicious, altruistic, headstrong, complicated, and plays by her own rules not anyone else's. She fought tooth and nail for she wanted.

Sounds very Targaryen to me. Show version Hurrem even have prophetic dreams and has fire and dragon motifs for christ sake!

Rhaenyra and Hurrem were both betrayed, abandoned, and had to move mountains to get what they want while losing a great deal in the process. They don't follow rules that don't serve them and are unabashedly upfront. These two would have been great friends! Hurrem, Rhaenyra, Laena Velaryon and Daemon would have been the best group on fucking earth. They would probably taken over the world in style.

Alicent would not have liked Hurrem. Maybe would not be so hostile toward Hurrem, but still would not like Hurrem's rule-breaking ways and her confidence.

As the saying goes good girls barely make history.

Point 3: The "good girls" in question

Mahidveran is the one who's soooooo damn Alicent Hightower coded. Like they are pretty much the same except Mahidveran is more outwardly viscous.

This is team "I blindly follow rules that don't serve me then get mad when said rules don't serve me." They allow others to control their lives and understandably they became resentful for it, and rest in their victimhood mentality.

They hide behind other people because they cannot stand on their own two feet. They are so self-righteous and refuse to take accountability for the wrong they have done.

I will give Mahidveran props for standing up for herself and her son to Suleiman from time to time. While Alicent waited until the last possible moment to stand up to her father (which resulted in absolutely noting). And I will give Mahidhveran major points for being a more involved parent and did not raise a rapist, drunk, and pedo.

While Hurrem and Rhaenyra went against the staus quo, Mahidveran and Alicent IS the status quo. If there was no Hurrem, Mahidveran would have been just another Vahide Sultan we would not have known or cared about. Or if Mustafa died before becoming a Sultan she would have been just another concubine pushed to the side because she did not break the mold. Which is understandable because it is dangerous for a woman to act out if she does not have protection or leverage. I understand that not everyone has it in them go against the grain and that's okay. Same for Alicent, if Rhaenyra never existed and Alicent married Viserys and carried on having sons she probably would not made much of a impact because again she complies with the restrictive patriarchal view of femininity and cannot fathom living another way because the risk of societal backlash is too great and scary. And again not everyone is strong enough to not give a fuck what societal expectations.

However, my problem with women/female characters like this is that they do absolutely nothing for the progress of other women and do everything for the progress of men. Even for men who don't deserve it (cough Alicent). They help continue the cycle of men dominating over everyone and maintaining a status quo that keeps women disempowered and treated as property and pawns.

I am not saying Hurrem and Rhaeynera are perfect feminists or perfect women or even perfect people. I am not saying everything they did was for the betterment of women because let's be real it was probably not. But women who take hold of their agency and personhood, shows other women that there are alternative ways to live and you do not have stand for a society or system that mistreatments you. Being selfish is the most radical thing a woman can do, because selfish "wild" women shows the gaping cracks of patriarchy, if more women choose to be themselves and live on their own terms then the system would eventually fall completely apart.

Alicent and Mahidveran would have been great superficial friends. They hang and out exchange niceties. Mahidveran would tell Alicent everything she want to hear because that's the kind of friend Mahidveran is (look at Hattice, Shah and Fatma.) And I totally see Mahidveran trying to worm her way into a marriage alliance between Helaena and Mustafa...Which I wouldn't be mad at cus my sweet baby Helaena deserved someone who wouldn't hurt her and keep her safe.

Thank you for reading my Ted Talk. Sorry if its long and got way to philsophical I might make more posts on this because it is very interesting and obviously I have thoughts on this. I love these shows so much.

#magnificent century #hurrem sultan #mahidevran hatun #mahidevran sultan #hurrem x suleyman #sultan suleyman #sultan suleiman #house of the dragon #rhaenyra targaryen #alicent hightower #hotd #game of thrones #fire and blood #king viserys #viserys targaryen

86 notes · View notes

needcake · 8 months

Text

@hetaberia-week

Day 1: historical .

1539,

Lisbon

A man in his crew had made a comment that had stayed with him hours after they had reached the capital. In fact, Portugal was still thinking about it when he finally left the Casa da Índia and crossed the short distance to the Ribeira Palace, walking up the stone steps in the winding staircases, nodding at the palace staff that passed him by and greeted him demurely, and, being himself clad in black, it had taken him a moment to realize everyone was too.

No bad news ever comes unaccompanied, his crewmate had said, and Portugal was still thinking of that when he opened the door to the King’s private drawing room, finding him with his eyes red-rimmed, clutching a letter to his chest in anguish. The Empress of the Holy Roman Empire, his younger sister, had died in May, he said, her last pregnancy had robbed her much of her strength, the child had not survived either. Portugal still smelled of gunpowder and ash, he could still feel grains of Indian sand inside his boots, but his eyes were lost on some unidentifiable corner of the King’s private drawing room as he sat down before his desk. They never lived long, did they. He had held her as a baby in his arms, had seen her learn her first words of his language, had attended her wedding, had visited her children. Their lives went by so fast, not like his.

There would be a funeral and the King wanted him to accompany him, Portugal did not think to say no. He was tired, battered, hurting, ears still ringing from cannon blasts shot across the Indian coast by Ottoman ships into his fortress in Diu, wearing months of a siege they had at great pains finally won. No bad news ever comes unaccompanied, and he found himself on a carriage a few days later bound to Granada, crossing the border with his shoulders heavy with padded fabric, his hair combed and clean, golden rings on his fingers.

The husband, the Holy Roman Emperor, was not there when they reached the church. Unable to bring himself to say the final good-bye to his beloved wife, he had instead sent his son in his place, his first-born and only surviving son and heir, and the boy stood, stone-faced and ashen, accompanying his mother’s coffin into the small, packed full church alone.

How small he seemed at that moment. And Portugal would never forget that image, of the boy entering the church behind his mother’s casket, his posture stiff with grief, dark clothes too heavy, golden fleece too garish. It would be the last time he ever saw him as a child. Once the ceremony was over and the body was buried, the son would leave the marble grounds of that church forever changed. No bad news ever came unaccompanied.

From across the entrance to the church while the crowd dispersed, surrounded by a group of nobles and high-ranking clergymen, Spain spotted him and excused himself to come to him, the pull on the bottom of his stomach becoming stronger the closer he came, recognizing him as an old soul like himself, despite him being so much younger.

“We did everything we could to save her,” Spain said, taking Portugal’s numb hand between both of his in a comforting gesture.

It should be the other way around, Portugal thought, looking at his young face and red-rimmed eyes. It was Spain who had just lost a Queen and an Empress, Portugal had lost her long ago, the moment they had sent her away to be married in a political alliance, but Spain had just lost a companion, an advisor, a friend. Portugal should be the one comforting him.

What an odd creature this boy was, he thought, observing the brown curls that framed his youthful face, feeling the calluses on his fingers from handling sword and quill, looking into his olive green eyes that so reminded him of someone else.

Portugal laid his other hand on top of theirs.

“I’m very sorry for your loss,” he said, earnestly, and Spain’s composure cracked, his chin trembling as he turned his eyes down to nod at the ground, sniffling.

And how odd, he thought, how so very odd, that his first instinct had been to pull him into his arms, even though he didn’t.

Notes: Portugal is coming home from the Battle of Diu (1538), only to discover the Holy Roman Empress, Isabella of Portugal, had died in May, 1539.

#hetaberia 2023 #hws portugal #hws spain #hetalia #a wild fic appears

58 notes · View notes

makethatelevenrings · 6 months

Note

I mean this with ZERO disrespect, I'm simply trying to educate myself on this matter because it impacts us all.

All I can find about the Israel-Palestine conflicts is the fighting. What I want to know is why.

Whats the backstory? Why are they fighting? Why is everyone persecuting one another and who in the government is responsible?

I heard Hamas bombed Gaza and has taken hostages. What brought on this violence? Do all the Palestinians agree with this?

(More personal opinion questions, you don't need to answer these)

Do you agree with Hamas? Do you think that violence was a last resort to free Palestine? Do you think it's justified?

One thing I do hate is people saying "I hate *this group of people*, they are bad." They can't all be bad. So I don't like the titles of Anti-Israel/Anti-Palestine because you're assuming everyone there is on the same side.

In conclusion, people are stupid. The government is messed up. Citizens and families want to live so why won't the government let them?

I’m genuinely grateful that you’re asking because educating ourselves is one of the greatest tools we have. I’ll break it up into sections.

1. What’s the backstory?

In 1918, the Ottoman Empire conceded land they controlled to Britain (this is still an ongoing problem regarding many, many things because the Ottoman Empire controlled many nations that weren’t theirs to control if you catch my drift. Look up the Elgin marbles for a fun wormhole of WTF Britain). The Arab Revolt was backed by France and Britain with the promise that if the Arab fighters could force the Ottomans out of the area of the Levant, they would be granted independence (McMahon-Hussein Correspondence) but, plot twist, France and the UK instead split the region (Sykes-Picot Agreement). The Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed Britain’s support of the creation of Israel. After they gained control of the region, they established Israel and systematically began to take the land of Palestinians.

Note: Zionism began as a belief in the mid-18th century. Many, MANY Jewish people do not subscribe, encourage, or promote the idea of a Jewish state. I do not view Israel = Jewish because it is antisemitic to imply that the Jewish diaspora all exist under the state of Israel. Especially when many Jewish people disagree with Israel.

Note note: Zionism was created as a response to the numerous pogroms and other antisemitic hate crimes affecting Jewish people. the Holocaust was fucking awful. No ifs ands or buts. Genocide doesn’t justify genocide, however.

Continuing on. So, clearly, the Palestinians are pissed. They were promised independence and instead now have their land taken by a global superpower who has historically fucked over hundreds of countries (another wormhole for you: India under British rule, Ireland and literally all of its history with England, the transatlantic slave trade under Britain, Africa under British rule, Australia and the treatment of Aboriginals under British rule, America and the British, it goes on). Palestinians revolted from 1936-1939 because, again, their home and promise of independence was being stolen. They lost against the British army but then 1939 was a bit of an important year for everyone and they world was sucked into another world war.

With WWII saw the birth of the United Nations, an organization that might sound important but has the moral backbone with the equivalence of a chocolate eclair. The UN said “hey, why don’t we split Palestine and Israel into two different states so maybe they’ll stop fighting” (United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine) and, as a result, the 1948 Palestine-Israel war began. Hundreds died. 700k+ people were forced from Palestine and spread across the world in what is called the Nakba. Israeli colonizers quite literally moved into homes that had been occupied by Palestinians only days before. In 1918, the Jewish population of the region was 8.1%. In 1948, when Israel was recognized as a nation by the UN, the Jewish population of the region was 82.1%.

2. There’s plenty of infographics and videos explaining the next few decades but I’m already writing an essay basically so the gist is: Palestinians keep losing their homes and Israel keeps taking them. Israel forces the Palestinians into smaller and smaller parcels of land until the control virtually everything but a small strip of land (Gaza) and the West Bank. That brings us to 2006.

Hamas was elected in 2006 over rivaling Fatah, gaining majority amount of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council under the promise that they would help end the corruption many Palestinians were frustrated with. Instead they took military control over Gaza and established an autocratic state over millions of people who were already suffering under barbaric policies and practices from Israel. Politicians.

This is where things get a little…messy morally. Do I agree with Hamas? Fuck no. I couldn’t care less about Hamas because they don’t care about Palestinians. Do all Palestinians agree with Hamas? Firstly, you will rarely find a group of people where all agree with some. Secondly, I don’t think they appreciate being bombed by Israel while Hamas leaders chill somewhere else. The people of Palestine are the victims of Hamas and Israel.

Did some Palestinians celebrate Hamas’ actions? Yes. Do I think violence is a last resort? Yes and no. Do I think it’s justified? Yes and no.

Lemme expand on those last two points. I want to be an international human rights attorney someday. The loss of innocent life is always a fucking tragedy that I hope to help prevent or to bring justice for them. I understand violence. I understand why people are so angry. I understand the rage and grief Palestinians feel. 75 years of having their rights stripped away, their homes quite literally occupied, their land and culture chipped away piece by piece, and their children bombed and shot at.

“But how on earth can you think violence is justified if people get hurt!” The American Revolution was an act of violence that got numerous people killed yet you will rarely find someone who won’t justify it. Ukraine defending themselves against Russia wanting their land with no regard to how many Ukrainians they kill is considered justified.

People just seem to focus on the “violence is bad” aspect of things once POC are involved. Yeah, I said it. Americans tired of taxation, of British rule, and of not having their independence causes property damage, argues with soldiers in the streets, and starts a war is okay but when Palestinians do it, it’s a problem? When Black Americans ask to stop being brutalized by the police, it’s a problem? When Black South Africans ask to end an apartheid state, it’s a problem? When Central Americans ask for western nations to stop causing coups that destabilizes their nations, it’s a problem? I could go on.

Yeah, violence is bad. Violence is also the way that a lot of countries are where they are today. Violence is sometimes the only reason why things changed. Violence is enacted on the oppressed everyday yet people only seem to really care once the oppressed fight back.

3. I’m anti-Israel because I don’t agree with the government and the state of Israel. I don’t agree with their 75 years of violent oppression of Palestinians. I don’t agree with their current or past actions. I’m anti-Hamas. I think they’re a vacuous organization that is more focused on getting what they want than considering the consequences of innocent Palestinians.

I’m also really fucking furious at Joe Biden’s insistence that we send aid to Israel. We have given Israel $260 BILLION since 1948. BILLION. And yet we have people dying because they can’t afford healthcare. Students leaving school because they can’t afford tuition. We have 8 year olds in debt because they can’t afford school lunches. The unhoused population is growing rapidly due to the housing crisis. I can sense the unemployment rate creeping higher. I know many people who have lost their jobs this past month alone. We’re days away from another government shutdown and they can’t vote on a speaker.

American politicians would rather send Israel billions more to bomb innocent people than to feed their own citizens. That, in my opinion, is a sort of violence that can never be justified.

#honey.txt #sorry for the essay #but really not sorry #I took a whole class on the global south during the Cold War and it really opened my eyes #granted my specialization is Central America but plot twist #America has been at the center of fucking stuff up there too

36 notes · View notes

female-malice · 29 days

Text

Lefty pop history is so bad. Jacobin just published an article saying pre-modern Japan was a victim of European colonization. That's not even remotely true. Not even by any stretch of the imagination.

Japan did end up colonizing 1/3 of the globe. But in lefty internet pop history, European colonization needs to be a ubiquitous all-powerful omni-villain. They want you to believe that Europe is directly or indirectly responsible for all colonization. But Europeans did not invent conquest or perfect conquest. Many of the greatest conquerers in history are Asian. Europe was a weak subcontinent until the Ottoman Empire challenged Europe to a naval expansion race for 400 years.

17 notes · View notes

gemsofgreece · 9 months

Text

Now stfu. Thanks :)

Oh wow. I kinda expected, you know, a page in an encyclopedia or any other page with educative content about Greece or geography in general, but you come proudly with a random Turkey vs Greece article by a David dude.

Honey. You will find anything spelled out on the Internet, including actual mistakes. That's why we check our sources. In fact, this article has many other mistakes as well.

False. Turkey gets more tourists than Greece.

False. The Turkish Republic is exactly 100 years old and the Ottoman Empire lasted about 600 years.

Where to start with this one... If Greece is famous for anything, that's not its urban locations.

Mistake #1: Aya Sofya is not famous because of its minarets and Mistake #2: Ephesus was built in the 10th Century BC, so its heyday or point in time it should be referred with was at least 900 years before the Golden Age of the Roman Empire. Although granted, a lot for its preservation was done in the Roman era.

OMG American mistake #18361986: Greece is NOT a tropical country and HAS ZERO tropical islands

Built by WHOM of WHAT? Perhaps David meant King Antiochus I Theos of Commagen, check an actual source for once

David is straight out pulling facts out of his ass, isn't he

"The major cities like Istanbul and Santorini" the guy is either trolling or hasn't stepped one foot in Greece ever. Santorini is a tiny island and its "major city" Fira has 1,600 residents LMAO my grandparents' godforsaken village has more than that

The guy does a super delicate trolling, I give him that. The guy says things like oceans and tropical and major city of Santorini but has also come across Slav-Macedonian. Amazing combo. David is a man of contrasts. For the record, I haven't come across it and I have lived all my life here. I mean, it exists but you have to struggle to find its speakers and they are all bilingual anyway.

Overall David, that international traveller, does not really mean bad... apart from this????

That was very professional there. But even though he says this, he proceeds to say equally good stuff about both countries, I 'd say. The article is a confusing text by a confused man. But that's not the point. The point is his myriad of inaccuracies and mistakes (as called out in several of the comments), some very typical of Americans, like mistaking Greece for a tropical destination or confusing oceans and seas.

Which brings us to you @libbyhaiku .

I believe, very politely, I added in the tags of that damn post this:

That really set you off. You sent me an ask, telling me to fact check in google... what... whether the country of which I am a native has seas or oceans?

And I did! Even though I don't need to fact check whether Greece has oceans. And once again every website of any actual integrity, apart from the David dude, repeats this over and over. Greece has seas. Which I told you.

Furthermore, @jamy-libations searched for it on their own accord, and to my understanding they are not Greek or native Greeks, they told you and you responded as you responded to me.

I wonder, did you tell them to shut the fuck up too in your message?

So, here's the answer. You and David are making a very typical American mistake, or maybe its not a mistake within your very own borders, which is that because the USA is surrounded by oceans, you think ocean is the standard generic term for sea.

In fact, the word ocean can be used in two ways: either as THE Ocean, which is the entire body of saltwater of the earth and derives as a concept from the Greek mythology, just like the very word derives from Greek so I know well what it means, or to describe the five major bodies of water: the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Arctic, the Indian and the Southern ocean.

Greece, unlike the USA, is surrounded by neither. Greece is surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea and its adjacent smaller seas like the Ionian, the Aegean, the Libyan, the Cretan, the Myrtoan, the Ikarian, the Karpathian Seas. While the Mediterranean Sea is connected to the Atlantic Ocean through the very narrow strait of Gibraltar, it is so enclosed by land and it exchanges so little water with the Atlantic that it is both traditionally and scientifically considered its own body of water, a Sea, and not just a general area of the Atlantic Ocean.

Here's to explain to you the difference between an ocean and a sea by an actually serious source.

Here is a map of the Mediterranean Basin. As you see, it is almost entirely enclosed and it does not earn the status of being an ocean, let alone containing a multitude of them. Greece is also in the far end of the Mediterranean, as apart from the Atlantic as possible. None of the countries in the Mediterranean Basin have access to an ocean or oceanS, apart from Spain, France and Morocco, as evident here.

Now, I would honestly have not cared or written so much if you didn't throw a tandrum for a tiny tag in a post I reblogged in a positive manner. Unfortunately, you chose the asshole way.

And since we're at it that photo was actually taken in the Italian....... oceans

and it's edited... but whatever, we have this species too.

#submission #greece #mediterranean sea #i can't believe i have to fight a foreigner over whether Greece has oceans #libbyhaiku #ffs #the entitlement

41 notes · View notes

lemonhemlock · 1 year

Note

If Viserys wanted Rhaenyra on the Iron Throne so bad and change the unwritten rule that woman cannot sit on this throne he should have made an actual order. In show called magnificent century, Kosem sultan changes cruel rule in Ottoman Empire that says the one who ascends the throne has to kill all his brothers. How she did that? Seconds after her husband, Sultan Ahmed died she wrote on piece of paper that this rule no longer exist and the throne will go to the oldest son (before even the youngest son could have a throne if he managed to kill all of his older brothers) so brothers murdering each other for throne rule ended. And after writing this on piece of paper she put sultan seal there so it was basically an edyct, a new rule to apply to, ordered by sultan (even though he was dead at that moment but no one except Kosem knew). And by this she made sure her sons won't brutally execute each other. Viserys could have done it basically in episode 1 or even after Aegon was born. Saying Rhaenyra is heir means nothing after sons were born. He should have solidified her right to rule by writing something like this and showing it to every lord so they would all know it was king's order that Rhaenyra will be Queen not King's whim based on the fact he didn't want Daemon to be his heir.

Between the point in time where I received this ask and today, I think I managed to answer something similar here and here (including @duxbelisarius' addition about Dorne, which I had forgotten to mention).

I have heard of Magnificent Century, but I haven't had the chance to watch it, so I can't really comment on what Kosem did. Unfortunately, I am not versed in Ottoman sultanate inheritance either, beyond the basic premise of brothers killing each other for the throne. :)) So I don't really feel confident in performing a comparative analysis between Kosem's fake edict and 12th Century England (Anarchy time - the civil war the Dance is based off).

My main concern with this is that I don't think the solution would have been as simple as "writing a piece of paper", otherwise Viserys would have done it and, most importantly, the real-life king Henry I would have done it for his real-life daughter Matilda, whom he very much wanted to succeed him. The fact that the Anarchy still happened leads me to believe that common law (especially regarding such an important topic as inheritance to the throne) couldn't really be changed that easily.

There are so many different types of feudal societies that some historians dispute the use of the term, but for Westeros specifically we seem to be operating on the basic understanding of a politically weak(-ish) King* with a collection of very powerful vassals. I say this because the King only seems to have the Crownlands + Dragonstone as his own personal lands, from which to derive his own resources & taxes, which are of questionable profitability (as highlighted in the linked posts). Everything else seems to be based on what his vassals agree to give him. eg. they should be in charge of tax collection in their own lands; if the King raises taxes to (what they consider to be an) unfair level, who is to say they won't just skim off their tributes and lie about it? The King imposing his own tax collectors who worked directly for the Crown was one of the steps towards dismantling feudalism and creating a more centralised state, if I am not mistaken. Similarly, if the King tries to impose a certain law that proves to be unpopular, who is to say that his vassals will just agree to it?

*Ofc, Targaryen Kings have something no one really does - dragons - which gives them an important power advantage. But they still have to haggle and please their vassals to a certain extent because going on dragonback and burning down the subjects who disagree with you every time is not only Not A Good Look, it's also not feasible. You can't go to war every time you have a disagreement.

Also, important to note that at the time of Rhaenyra being made heir, Viserys' Balerion had been long dead. Rhaenyra was teenage girl, he wasn't going to send her off in any kind of military expeditions. Daemon was the only actual dragon threat, yet he was hardly willing to be fighting any battles that invalidated his claim to the throne.

Anyway, not to digress too much, this is only to imagine a scenario in which Viserys issued such an edict after Aegon's birth, confirming Rhaenyra as heir and trying to pass it off as law -> disgruntled vassals -> need for military reprisals to subjugate them into accepting this new law. I think Viserys realised this really was a pain in the arse and decided to not complicate his life too much and leave things vague in the hopes that "everyone will get along in the end" (he really is non-confrontational if he can avoid it).

But, obviously, enough people in Westeros disagreed that the original oaths were still valid after Aegon's birth* - a complication Viserys had no idea how to solve, so he just avoided it as much as possible. It's also historical fact that two different sets of oath-taking were not enough to ensure Matilda's crown after her father died, so I would really question the practical impact these vows had as a legal instrument. It's very easy as a noble lord to nod your head whenever the King verbally insists his eldest daughter will succeed him, while planning to throw your support to her brother anyway after he dies.

*In addition, a contract cannot be enforced if the terms that lead to the signing of that contract no longer exist; there are legal concepts such as force majeure that account for this. When those oaths were taken, Rhaenyra was an only child, and their options as heir were Rhaenyra or Daemon. When Viserys died, Rhaenyra had three legitimate younger brothers.

#ask #anon #succession for the iron throne #anon is currently off while i make my way through my backlog #anti rhaenyra targaryen #anti viserys i targaryen #well not really but gotta tag for the black stans #the anarchy tm

75 notes · View notes

jeweled-blue-eyes · 7 months

Note

hello! Sorry for barging in like this! (also sorry for my poor english too)

First I’d like to thank you for the recents posts bringing some very welcomed nuance to the character of Iklies I’m VADD. After the release of the new season cover, I felt like there was a significant wave of hate directed to the character - and, well, kinda for the wrong reasons? I mean, it’s absolutely understandable to not like him and call out the toxicity, but there were some readers who actively spread misinformation to get the character in a very bad light? And using some colonising rhetoric?? Guys??? This is not the take you might think this is???

I think I might’ve wanted to vent a bit with someone more open to a nuanced discussion, since I think the whole work is too well crafted to be reduced to a ‘black and white’ interpretation.

First what really caught my attention was using the description seen in the novel about how “Delman’s are savages” like?? 1. the poster themselves recognises that it’s a description used by Derrick (if I’m not mistaken), who is anything BUT a trustworthy source; 2. I bet the colonising, slaving country won’t have nice things to say about the people they just conquered? Not to mention is a description frequently used to even justify such actions, as it was in our own world (colonising nations having the “duty” to bring reason, advancement and enlightenment to such poor, barbaric people, who couldn’t know any better); 3. even if all of that was true, who is to say that every single countryman is like that? Are they not allowed to have their own individuality? Should we judge every Eorka citizen using Derrick as the standard then? Would that be fair?

Then what most caught my attention was the description that “He had a nice childhood, despite being a bastard (???), therefore he had it easy and by being such a violent man it only shows how much of a monster he’s always been”. I don’t even? Aside from the argument itself not making the slightest sense, from my reading of the novel the whole “bastard-lost prince” (a very beloved common trope for MLs in any other case, mind you) seemed pretty vague, and I thought it might’ve even been the result of Leila’s manipulation/mindcontrolling - since this way, with Iklies having some sort of “pedigree”, he would seem himself as “worthy” of Penelope, like Callisto (the Crown Prince) is. Was that part of his backstory truly confirmed? It could just be a wrong interpretation of mine, since it’s been some months since I’ve read it (thought, quite sincerely, I don’t think it being truth or not would change anything - the story starts with him being already a slave, being sold in an auction after fighting hungry dogs that would devour him to show his prowess for potential buyers, no amount of happy childhood will make this less f up).

Sorry for ranting so much! I was just really happy to see your posts and analysis!

Hope you have a nice day!

I remember that post! The pro slavery and colonising rhetoric was very uncomfortable to read and I think I blocked them after they tried to "educate" me in the comments of my posts and eventually used insults to force me to change my opinion.

I'm interested to see the passage that says Iklies allegiently had a good childhood when he was an illegitimate child of the King, because manhwas traditionally show the struggles and trauma of being a bastard. Princes often didn't have a good relationship with their half brothers. See the Ottoman Empire where they eventually legalized systematic fratricide. Furthermore if Delman is a warrior nation as implied and Iklies was really treated as a prince then wouldn't he have been expected to fight in the Livius war and gain combat experience? If he was then he's a child soldier and still didn't have a good childhood. If he was not then it's likely that he was just treated as a nobody. And no matter how good his childhood was it's not going to become an armor that can protect him against the trauma of having his rights stripped off him and treated like human garbage. What kind of logic is that anyway. Penelope didn't have a good childhood but Iklies had one that's why he deserves to suffer in the future, because he never had to suffer before?

"such a violent man it only shows how much of a monster he’s always been" I have huge issues when they call Iklies a psychopath or claim he was born evil. Together with them claiming that the people of Delman are thieving, murdering savages consumed by greed and violence. It doesn't only sound like stereotyping but also as if the root of the evil is in their genes. Which we know was historically used to justify ethnic clensing. They echo the words of Derrick who believes in the superiority of the Eorkan military power and the intrinsic evil of the Delman's that is defined by colonialism ideology. Why should we trust the words of someone who treated his own stepsister as a subhuman because she was of commoner blood? His family owns a diamond mine, he directly benefits from slavery. Of course he would defend it with every breath.

Certain Callisto stans/Iklies antis say the Delman people had it better in slavery than in freedom. How can the country of Delman be poor and uncivilized when the Eorkan military suffered huge losses due to Delman's archery skills? For Delman to last for years in a war against an Empire, the country would had to have an organized and well trained army, a food supply and a functioning infrastructure. The farmers would have lived comfortably enough that they could work hard and keep sending their army supplies throughout the years. The war would have been won in a week if Delman was really just a bunch of unwashed savages who didn't know left from right. Moreover if Delman wasn't a wealthy country and rich in natural resources the Eorkan Empire never would have invaded it. I even question the claim that Delman had been plundering from smaller countries, because if they had an army that could damage the Eorkan Empire that much why did they never annex the smaller countries? The plundering at the borders might have been done by thieves that had nothing to do with the army of Delman. Or it might have been just invented and used as an excuse to conquer them. Either way even if it was true, as you said, does that justify what happened to the cripples, the wives and children at home? "Your father was killed, your mother raped by soldiers, your younger sibling tortured to death and you were sold into slavery but you should be thankful because now you get to live in a civilized society serving your family's murders until they decide to do the same to you."

#anon #answered asks #thank you for the message 🌸#vadd #death is the only ending for the villainess #villains are destined to die #ditoeftv #anti cha siyeon #iklies khan delman

27 notes · View notes

minetteskvareninova · 17 days

Note

💕

Well, first off, this is the first ask I got that from outside our little Magnificent Century circle, and I am a little puzzled, because like. I didn't specify the question has to be about Magnificent Century, but like... Is OP even a Magnificent Century fan? I am also a bit unsure of what unpopular means here, like is it a rarepair, or a pair that gets a lot of flack from the fandom? Anyway, I am involved in the Magnificent Century fandom more than any other, so I am going to pick a couple from that show that I feel like is talked about more negatively than not, even if it isn't necessarily trashed.

💕: What is an unpopular ship that you like?

I had to really think about this one. And you know what? I am going to cheat and pick a couple from Kösem. Specifically, Fahriye and Mehmet Giray. I am the biggest Kösem season 1 evangelist in this fandom and Fahriye's subplot is one of the reasons why, like honestly it's just so good??? Sure, part of their appeal is the way they grew apart and just as a basic "secret love of a princess", they weren't very impressive. But still. Their story is so good and I wish people talked about it more.

I am also going to say something super controversial: Bayezit x Huricihan isn't that bad. I don't love it either, and still like Huricihan better with Cihangir, but on their own, they are fine. Sometimes even cute. And yes, I know they are cousin, but come the fuck on. It's 16th century Ottoman Empire. We kinda accept a certain level of values dissonance when it comes to pairing sultans with their literal slaves, why not here? Also, I am a vicbert shipper, which if you didn't know is a pairing from ITV Victoria that includes the show version of queen Victoria and prince consort Albert. Who both in show and irl were first cousins. Like they have a whole ass common uncle running around (Leopold I. of Belgium; well, he's technically Albert's father, because in the show-verse he banged his brother's wife, it's wild) and shit. I, resident of a luxurious palace from the finest crystal glass, am sure as fuck not going to throw stones around here, 'kay?

#magnificent century #answer asks

7 notes · View notes

sissa-arrows · 8 months

Note

How do you feel when people say Arabs are colonizers/settlers in North Africa? Like yeah it's true North Africa today has wrongly become synonymous with Arab, and that indigenous Imazighen had their cultures and languages supressed by the non-Imazighen state (like many years in Morocco for example), but some people go further and say they are worse than European colonialism???

1: I invite you to read this post if you haven’t already.

2: Most of the “Arabs are settlers in North Africa” come from ignorant people in the diaspora who know nothing about their history and have identity problems.

3: I will use the term Amazigh to simplify but there is no unique Amazigh identity it doesn’t exist. There’s a Kabyle identity, Chaoui, Chenoua, Kel Tamasheq, Riffi, Siwa… they are all Imazighen but they have different clothes different music, different languages, different traditions… anyone who try to pretend there’s one unique identity is full of shit.

Now to the subject. I’ll talk about Algeria as it’s what I know.

Arab/Imazighen in North Africa is not about race it’s about culture.

Most North African are genetically Imazighen but culturally some of us have been more or less Arabized.

In my own blood related family some of us are completely Arab some of us are completely Amazigh and some of us are a mix of both. Does that mean some of us are settlers or descendants of settlers and some of us are indigenous Algerians?

When the Arabs came (it wasn’t just Arabs by the way) I’m not gonna pretend they came with flowers and it was all happy and peaceful. It was war. It was ugly. There was resistance (and today you can see people calling themselves Arabs celebrate the resistance of people like Dihiya for example because they don’t see it as an Arab vs Amazigh fight but a non Algerian vs Algerian fight). But the goal wasn’t to come and steal our land and replace us. The goal was to spread islam. You can see it just with the Imazighen dynasties (there was a Persian dynasty at some point) that ruled over Algeria AFTER the spread of Islam. The “Arabs” who took over Spain afterward and created Al Andalus. They were actually mostly Imazighen (genetically AND culturally).

So like I said the divide is cultural not racial cause the majority of us are descendants of indigenous Imazighen. Now that cultural divide created by Arabization was made in different ways. There’s those who were Arabized by being in contact with Arabs. Those who were Arabized because Arabic is the language of Islam so they Arabized themselves. Those who were Arabized as an answer to French colonialism (in some region for example the French insisted on removing our “arabness” so the way to resist was to insist on keeping and strengthening that Arabness in other region they did the opposite so keeping and strengthening your Amazigh identity was the way to resist.

Later after Al Andalus, after the Ottoman Empire (which was an alliance not colonialism), after French colonialism started… The independence war came and while the Chaoui and the Kabyle paid a heavy tribute none of the leaders and people asked for a Chaoui or Kabylian Algerian their slogan were not “An Amazigh Algeria” it was “An Algerian Algeria”. Then the independence came and with it the time to rebuilt came. The government didn’t want to rebuild with division they wanted unity. That’s where a huge mistake was made. I think the unity should have been built on simply being Algerian. But because of politic, because teachers were sent from Egypt to help us and those teachers spoke Arabic and also because we wanted to get rid of French influence and wanted one language the identity chosen was “Arab” and the arabization by the state started. There were times when schools were not allowed to teach the regional variant of Tamazight. It was really bad and that’s where the whole “Arabs are settlers in North Africa” come from. I do think unity was needed. One of the reasons the French managed to colonize us was the lack of unity. One of the reasons we won was the unity between all Algerians. So unity was needed to rebuild. We needed one banner one identity but that identity shouldn’t have been “Arab” it shouldn’t have been “Amazigh” either it should have been just Algerian. Because at the end of the day our country was saved by Algerians some Arab some Amazigh. So the Algerian identity should have been enough. People have every right to be angry because while it’s getting better now a generation (who fought for the independence) was still robbed of part of their identity and they had to fight to keep it.

Now things are getting better. It’s not perfect but it is getting better despite the attempts to create division made by foreign entities.

(Also the Arabs tried to convert us the French tried to wipe us out of earth. So I’m willing to hear people who say both are bad but saying the French were better? That’s bullshit. That’s what the French say to justify what they did.)

#politic #Algeria #ask #arabization #colonialism

11 notes · View notes

fromchaostocosmos · 7 months

Text

Youtube had recommended to me Hasan and Ethan's podcast the leftovers episode on the current situation going in Israel.

I saw part of when it was live.

I had/have thoughts and I'm going to my best express them here.

I will be honest that I did watch the whole thing and I did not go back once the full episode was posted, which was 4hrs long, to watch it in total because I just did not have the energy.

I have seen stuff before that Hasan has said that I find to be not giving the full historical context, lacking details, or just missing information as to if it is on purpose or not I don't know.

Like he has talked about the Ottoman Empire and Jews before in way that I find just baffling because that is not example of what we call good times in Jewish history. Like just because there were moments that were not as bad as what the xtians controlled places were doing doesn't mean it wasn't still shitty thing going on.

In fact the Ottoman Empire predated the xtians in the forcing of Jews to wear marked clothing, especially the color yellow, to show they were Jews as well as Jew hats.

So within this specific episode of the podcast there was a lot calling Israel and Israelis colonizers, but it was hard to tell if this was for all them or just in regards to those who go past the greenline.

There was the familiar old line of British Empire gave British Mandate Palestine to the Jews which is 1) not true and 2) ignore the very long history of Jews always having some of us be in our homeland

There was a small acknowledgment that Jews come from there, but it was treated that our desire to want to return is not as valid as Palestinians desire and that our desire to return to homeland is something new rather than something we have been doing since the first time we were taken and have always tried to return.

Jewish trauma was again treated as less valid by Hasan and our fears of another Genocide and Ethan was trying to explain to him that Jews fear another Holocaust and Hasan was like Palestinians are currently going a Holocaust/ethnic cleansing (I don't remember which was used by him)

I don't think Hasan understands that Jewish trauma doesn't just begin and end with the Holocaust. That we have a collective trauma that is from multiple traumas that keep building on top of each other. That we never really have breathing room between each cataclysm. That we survived multiple genocides and ethnic cleansing.

He also taked about when ever Hamas does something reporters ask random Muslims to denounce the violence. I wonder if he knows that Jews around world as soon as we know to be Jews get asked about Israel and to denounce Israel by random people all the the time.

He also said that Muslims can't ever get a break. I'm not here to do oppression Olympics. I don't random Muslims should be bothered by reported nor do I think Palestinians who are trying to deal with the chaos of bombing that has just happened be bothered either.

I'm just curious if he knows is all.

He has also totally ignored the the not that old history of Mizhari Jews and the expulsion of their communities.

The fact is that there is only one country in the whole world that I can say with 100% confidence will never kill or harm me just for being a Jew.

Like the Israeli gov has got lots of problems and I'm not they wouldn't discriminate against me ever, what I am saying is just for being a Jew that won't happen ever in only one country for sure. I'm not sure anyone who is not Jewish understand what a big deal that is for us. How we have never had that before.

Hasan also brought up how this people with influence on policy making are saying horrific things how Israel should rid the world of Gaza.

It is vile for anyone to say that and I think it needs to be clear who the overwhelming majority of these statements come from and that is xtians politicians and people of influence. Because they don't see those in Gaza as human and the see Jews as tools to bring Jesus back and then we get murdered by Jesus.

To act like Jews have any overwhelming influence on what is being said is gross and false. Also I like to remind you we only make up .2% of the world population.

Also I really really hate how the world zionism has been taken away from us because it was all about the right for Jews to return to our Homeland and to right to not be killed.

Hasan also supports BDS which I personally can not understand how one can not see how that is pretty clearly antisemitic.

So as I said I had lots of thoughts. I hope I did my best to get them out clearly.

Please do not go harass Hasan. Do not think that my post is excuse to be Islamophobic or to right anything racist/gross/etc about Palestinians. Anyone who does so will not just be blocked, but they will be reported for hate speech.

#i/p

7 notes · View notes

danidandandadididan · 3 months

Note

bosnia hcs?

Bosnia hcs

I love Bosnians i swear

Anyway

1. Lightest bitch of the BiH family

2. His pre conversion name was Stefan, idk who needs to hear this

3. Absolutely hates it when Idriza and Ilija start speaking, not because they’re gonna say anything horrible its just that to him their accents are equivalent to nails on a chalkboard

4. Which is ironic cause his vocabulary is even worse

5. Went to look for artifacts from his Bosnian kingdom era to prove to serbia he was never serbian, and cried when they were in cyrillic

6. Illiterate probably

7. Writing was never his talent he probably sings well

8. chainsmoker

9. In fact he fucking reeks of smoke and stale coffee

10. Calls Ilija turklet while he has a fez on

11. Islamized and somehow still basically an atheist

12. Gives up a lot idk how to explain it, like if you give him a rubik’s cube he’ll give up on it 3 minutes later. He then gives it to Ilija so he can pour gasoline on it, light it on fire, and harass their neighbours with it

13. Said “we’re all Bosnians here” and almost met the same fate as Murat

14. During the ottoman period he was really quick to convert cause of his lack of connection to the church.

15. Technically was a Heretic for his time

16. Aromantic… but not in the “oh yeah i just don’t feel romantic attraction” he’s just too stupid to feel romantic attraction

17. Did a lot of weed at some point of his existence

18. Smokes, drinks alcohol, does absolutely none of the prayers, and still yelps in disgust if you put a piece of slanina in front of him

19. He was probably way better off during the ottoman empire, i mean that financially and status wise lol. Before he was actually someone, but that was just cause he gave his religion up so easily. It got worse for him after the empire fell

20. So bad that if you robbed him you’d end up giving him money instead out of guilt

21. Yk what i said about the familial bond? Yeah well Srpska and Bosnia have an enemy bond, Srpska was born viewing Bosnia as an enemy, and it’s reciprocated on Bosnia’s side. It’s funny seeing a grown ass man target a really angry toddler

22. Idk what job he’d have, i dont even know what bosniaks have done for this country ever either

23. Believes Yugoslavia was a gift from God (don’t ask why he split from it)

24. Thinks Srpska is a public threat that needs to be detained, probably put him in a mental hospital a few times

25. “I would cross myself, but it's Eid, so I can't”

26. As for his relationship with herze they probably snuggled up twice

27. Dreamt he set her on fire more times though

28. Has this jpeg of a kitten as his walpaper

29. Grows his own fruit in his garden, loves his trešnje especially

Thats about it

Nghah

#yugotalia #aph bosnia

6 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 11 months

Text

1. It's not the intention, but it can, when it's justified. For example, criticizing Westboro, the Iranian regime, Zakir Naik, and Joel Osteen. They can be criticized for what they do in the name of their religion. It's in the context of the belief. The last two are also public figures, and don't represent "all Muslims" or "all Xians."

Islam isn't a race; you can't convert to or apostasize from a race (there's only the human race), so anything pertaining to such a claim can be ignored. They're trying to manipulate you and/or are racists themselves, thinking all Muslims are brown people/all brown people are Muslims. In reality, Muslim ethnicity is highly diverse.

The Muslims of the Ottoman Empire took millions of slaves, yes. Acknowledging this fact doesn't target modern day Muslims, any more than acknowledging that the Puritans of Salem perpetrated the Salem Witch Trials from 1692-1693. This doesn't target the modern day residents of Salem, nor any modern day Puritans. Typically, you're probably going to be using qualifiers. Modern Xians. Moderate Muslims, etc.

2. It's actually not that difficult. Whatever you're saying, use "Islam" or "Xianity" rather than "Muslims" or "Xians." If you say something like "all Muslims" or "all Xians" then you're probably in the wrong territory, unless it's something justifiable, such as "all Muslims believe Muhammad was a prophet," or "all Xians think Jesus died and came back to life."

You might say something like "Islam teaches Muslims to hate all non-Muslims, and particularly Jews." This doesn't mean you're saying (all) Muslims hate Jews, or that you should assume that any Muslim you encounter hates Jews. It says that that's what the doctrine says and teaches. Because it does. And that's not our fault. And it's not our obligation to pretend otherwise. Whether people follow it or not is a different story and variable.

Precision is your friend. And if you've done all this and people get upset because they can't read or lack comprehension, then ignore them. Check your work, and if you've been reasonable, then assume they're an idiot or a bad actor and move on with your day.

“Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.”

-- Christopher Hitchens

You can't and won't please everyone, and if you're trying to, then you're already doomed to failure.

Much of the rhetoric around accusations of "Islamophobia" is tactical and ideological. It's not about how you said it or who you did or didn't target, it's that you dared to say anything at all. To these people, there is no legitimate way to criticize Islam, no matter how carefully you phrase it.

So, ignore them and say what you want to say. Their crocodile tears are not an argument, and they're doing to you what they falsely accused you of doing: targeting people, not beliefs or ideas.

If you get pushback, don't scramble to appease them, because you can never appease them enough. You don't need to try and make them happy; they never will be. And they don't have a right to not be offended. Indeed, it might do them some good, to build resilience. Don't apologize for saying things that you are allowed to say.

Just give them a LOL. It works wonders.

And you don't have to always get it right, or get it perfect from your first try. If you phrase something poorly or miss your intended target, just learn for next time.

3. I don't know as much about them.

https://religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com/tagged/Hinduism

https://religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com/tagged/Sikhism

https://religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com/tagged/Buddhism

Also, I don't run across them that much in my life, and I'm not as interested in them.

Which is also another tip. If you don't know, or you're not comfortable that your information or facts are sound, you don't have to answer or give an opinion.

#ask #criticism of islam #criticism of religion #islam #criticism of ideas #religion is a mental illness

12 notes · View notes

pineapplerightsideupcake · 3 months

Text

You Don’t Care About Palestine and I Can Prove It (pt.1)

This recent wave of insane antisemitism is a perfect example of everything, everything that is wrong with the modern western leftist.

The western leftist is fundamentally still a Christian colonizer in their thinking but they have been told that those are bad things. So the WL has to distance themself from that in order to be a Righteous Person. But to truly do so would mean work. It would mean personal sacrifice, it would mean reading a book without pictures in it. It would be hard.

So the western leftist takes short cuts. They become atheists without unlearning their rigid “good people” vs “bad people” views. They continue to weaponize shame and shunning and glorify the “correct” empty words over real compassion. There are still only believers and heretics in their paradigm.

So now they have distanced themselves from the “Christian” allegations but not the “colonizer” part. So they search for ways to do that. But the genuine ways would mean sacrifice. It would mean upending the distribution of wealth globally and that’s not what they want. It’s what they say they want but the average western leftist is so awash in wealth and privilege that their imagination cannot conceive of a world where everything from their smart phone to the banana they had for breakfast hasn’t been subsidized by oppressing the global south. They don’t actually want to live in a world where the power grids shut down between 2pm and 6pm and chocolate costs $45 dollars a bar. The growing pains of a truly equal world would be immense.

It would be hard.

Then comes Oct 7th. The western leftist doesn’t understand the Middle East. They don’t have to. They barely know their own history let alone the history of dozens of nations and empires reaching back thousands of years.

So to the western leftist the story looks like this:

Jews are white(bad). And in 1948 something?happened and they all moved to a place called Palestine where brown (good) Muslims (oppressed) lived. Then they genocided them a lot and took their land just like America did to the Native Americans! Now they are doing it more and I am alive to signal what a good person I am by objecting! Dismantle Israel so people can hold hands under a rainbow! Just stop fighting gosh I can’t believe those noble savages haven’t tried that yet!

They can’t conceive of a world where Arab Muslims actually have all the power when we talk about the geopolitics of the Middle East. That if the nation of Israel was dismantled the surrounding nations would finish the job they started centuries ago and wipe out every last Jew in the ME.

They can’t conceive of displacement or genocide led by non white non westerners. They don’t know Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire before it was a British Colony, if they know even that. They couldn’t tell you a single thing about the Ottoman Empire. They don’t know how or why Israel came to be. They don’t know the 75+ years of blood and turmoil that came after. At least not as anything beyond some vague notions of displacement.

They say the word Apartheid but don’t know what it means.

They repeat back Hamas sources that call the dead Palestinians “martyrs” because they don’t know what it means in the mouths of religious zealots.

They call Jews “Nazis” because they’ve reduced the meaning to just “bad person”.

They say “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” because it rhymes. Because it looks good in a hashtag. But they don’t know what it means.

And that’s not a bug- that’s a feature. Because a Good Leftist doesn’t question the Correct Opinion. They don’t point out misinformation. They don’t call out hypocrisy. They don’t ask for nuance.

To the modern left, any dissent is as good as total agreement with the Enemy.

#hamas israel #israel #palestine #i/p conflict

6 notes · View notes

separatist-apologist · 6 months

Note

Hi, I am your Ottoman Obession era Anon.

Yes, I would recommend the book. Shadows of God by Alan Mikhail. I think i pick thus book after halfway watching Rise of Empire : Ottoman in Netflix. Why you should read this book? Please allow me to share my thought

1. I am not someone from History study or Labguage study. Therefore, I want to read history book that are easy to understand and not overcomplicated. You know,most often I put down the book because I couldnt follow the story or underatand what is going on. And i am not native English speaker, and it just hard for me to read certain book. Or maybe the author tried to hard to impress reader with bombastic word that after googling the word, i am still dont see how it make sense.

But this book? Damn, i feel like a girly pop reading a diary. It doenst just blandly narrated a story but I found this book interesting because it also give us the insight of the character. If i look back, it follows Selim journey from his childhood to how he claimed the throne. I can understand what is going on in the book and not to get lost myself.

Ngl, since the historical figure mention in the book is Selim, i am now rooting for him to claimed the throne and praying for his mother wellbeing. And oh! I love Selim mother the most in the book. The author touched a lot of aspect being an ottoman prince mother and his mother contribution during Selim ruling as a gavernor in Trapzor. They are very close to each other and i found it really sweet.

2. It does not exclusively follow Seim jourbey. The author also gives us hindsight on what is happening aroubd Europe at the time. I have read history book before and they exclusively narrate the historical figure and it made me confuse when there is foreign figure appear around the main historical figure. But this book? It tell us what was happening around,guve an idea where actually this event set place and how it correlate to other event in history. It became so fun to read when I can recognize othe histrical figure. For example the borgia. I know the borgia family because of a manhwa (korean type of comic).

It so fun to read and trigger my roller coaster emotionally.

3. I found it more interesting when I learn that Selim as said in the book is not highly favoured by his father. Especially when he is sent far away from Constantinople (or istanbul atm) assigned as governor. They said that the more far away the son is sent to givern a state,the lesser the chance the son get to be a Sultan.

It really made me think, did Beron apply the same thing? Except his intention to worsen the sibling relationship? Because i think I remember in one of your fic you had this scene where eris mentioning how lucky for Elain that Lucien is exiled. Otherwise, Beron would pit her and his other daughter in law. Which to me was genius since Beron wanted his son to fight each other for the throne.

Even in the book, it mention that the father/current Sultan is not excluded from this fraticide practice. The son still can and have the right to claw their own father from the throne

I recommend this book. Why? Simple, because someone slow like me can read it and enjoy the drama in this book. I think you would too. Sorry for the rambling tho.

You're back! This is the exact kind of recommendation I'm looking for, ESPECIALLY from a non-fiction book. When I was in grad school, one of my professors discussed what made good, academic writing ESPECIALLY if you were writing for lay people. And the hallmark of it was accessibility. Even within niche topics, your writing shouldn't be so convoluted that you need to re-read sentences over and over.

You can get away with some of it in academic journals but I'd argue if I'm reading a paper on a topic I'm knowledgable and published in, and I'm asking myself "what the fuck are you trying to say?" you've done a bad job.

And books ESPECIALLY because history is, in my opinion, one of the most fascinating subjects AND should be one of the most accessible ones as well. History is like gossip, it's half rumor, half fact depending on who is telling it. It's like when your friend texts, "can I say something fucked up?" like HELL YES tell me the atrocities and salacious gossip, I beg you.

I had a world history teacher in high school who once said history was the greatest soap opera and he made it accessible in a way that I've always been obsessed. And I'm saying all this because you said it was dumbed down enough for you to understand- but consider that it was WELL written enough to keep your attention rather than being so smugly satisfied with itself that the author renders the subject matter boring.

You sound exceptionally smart to me. You're reading in two languages! Give yourself WAY more credit and remember that a LOT of academics are just puffed up blow-hards that could use a regular person telling them, actually- you're not that interesting.

#im gonna pick it up this weekend and ill report back to you!#haters book club - but lovers edition #every month we pick a new history read lmao

2 notes · View notes

fymagnificentwomcn · 2 years

Text

Best of “Daily Sabah”

I promised this once and I think it might be surprising how it works in some way.

Of course after only like five minutes on the page I always feel disgusted by the hate towards Armenians, Greeks, Jews, conspiracy theories and shocked by the lack of self awareness with Evil Decadent West and great Turkey which has no problems whatsoever, only getting greater (basically Russian propaganda ,just exchange Ukrainians, Poles etc. for Armenians, Greeks, Jews, while EU and USA stay the same).

Let’s move to the series we will discuss - the portraits of historical figures from Ottoman history.

There are several rules that apply to all biographies:

1. All Ottoman padişahs were practically perfect by default and there was not a single one you would call bad, including those that used to be heavily criticised, like Ibrahim. A lot of them are child prodigies. If anyone is guilty of anything, it’s “greedy courtiers” (read: not from the sacred Imperial Family, unless some are misguided by them, like Şehzade Mustafa or those who murdered Sultan Osman).

2. All the women knew their place and were “intelligent and benevolent”. Usually are mentioned in one sentence of padişah’s bio saying they were beloved consort, insert the “intelligent and benevolent” stock phrase bit and number of kids (plus highlight that the padisah in question did not spend much time in harem, was monogamous or near it, and that women had small influence on him, everything else is slander). Basically they only took part in charity and defended their padişah husband or son, but God forbid were ambitious,, led factions and schemed or got involved in real politics - this is slander.

3. Normalization of violence - all opposition to current or future padisah is bad by default and all people who were executed deserved their death and it was always for the benefit of state. No what ifs, but also no evidence;) No, no scheming women as well, look parts 1 & 2. If the sovereign decided so, it must be the good decision for the state. Only greedy courtiers can make bad decisions. And Sultan Ahmed, who abolished the fratricide law and committed the biggest mistake ever. Fratricide was Constitutional (xD, yes Mehmed II wrote constitution) and basically involved no decision on the part of padişah - it simply had to be that way, no need to question it. It’s Constitution, after all. Going all automatic. No choice. Which is actually not true, but the simplified explanation of fratricide law, which is often circulating around even outside propaganda circles ( I might make a separate post on the topic one day tbh). Firstly, the law was not “ancient” or “eternal” or even “ several centuries old”. It was used as part of multiple civil conflicts emerging during Empire’s earliest era where the was no central power established and then condified by Mehmed the Conqueror in second half of 15th century. Moreover, it was not included in laws easily because fratricide is a huge sin in Islam. This is why the whole wording contains the phrase “most ulema agreed to it’. By no means it was unanimous and non-controversial matter. And the original intent was to make each padisah decide based on current situation and whether he deemed it necessary for maintenance of order (hence original wording “is acceptable”, not “must execute”.) Secondly, it was established in special moment when the state was still consolidating and beginning transformation to sedentary. Hence, it was used as tool in times when the state and its establishments were dispersed to determine central administration and was also to be used as tool in civil wars to end them.

Since the law clearly was shown to be outdated pretty soon (during Suleiman sedentary sultanate was pretty firmly established), and after Murad III conducted first slaughter of all his brothers living in palace in capital in 1574, the criticism among people was growing, and reached its climax when Mehmed III executed 19 brothers. It was different when princes were executed in provinces in aftermath of civil war, and it hit differenly when elder prince just killed his brothers automatically after ascending the throne (again it happened for the first time in 1574 ).

Presenting something as “constitutional” or “rooted in our statehood and laws since forever” erases the choice and culpability of a particular padisah. It enables to absolve him of individual decision and redirecting attention towards a bigger concept - the utmost important of statehood and order over individual, including padisah. Similarly, it never questions the concept of “order” as determined by a padisah in a particular context (brings to mind quote from MC Ibrahim - “Truth? Truth is what padisah wants believe”). It goes without saying this view is also closely connected with victim blaming. Moreover, the way they mention executions always places emotional focus with the poor monarch who just had no other choice but it hurt him so.

Erdo propaganda does not deny fratricide law existed and does not deny all sorts of violence in general - it chooses to normalize it instead and treat it as unavoidable and serving a higher purpose. I’ve seen from Erdoğan supporting Turks multiple statement in vein “This is how world works, accept it, war is part of life, everyone does it, only the strongest will survive” or applauding it “Sultan Murad was fearful and killed all those traitorous trouble stirrers, they all feared him, thanks to this he saved the state”. Normalization of violence stresses everyone is engaged in violence and erases difference between oppressor and victim.

Normalization of violence is important for contemporary authoritarian regimes, including Turkey. Making people indifferent to violent acts by showing this as normal process of human life and necessity. Same with victim blaming and not questioning whether the person persecuted by regime was punished justly - “it was necessary”.

4. Ottoman system was perfect and was never in decline. We all know the famous “X ruined Empire”, but it does not come from Neo Ottomanists propaganda. It’s a take coming from (outdated) historiography by Young Turks (who were also nationalistic and misogynistic). The explanation is simple - for Neo Ottomanists the whole system was absolutely perfect, the system of succession also worked pretty well and there were no bad Sultans, everything was going great, only traitors supported by foreign agents, Free Masons and Zionists caused the collapse of Ottoman Empire. The system itself was chic and it was basically fairyland (back to point 2 with exemplary royal family always abiding by rules of Islam and patriotic feelings). Again, all crises were caused only by greedy subjects who caused problems to the Imperial Family and all the evil forces from outside. Nobody could cause the decline because in Neo Ottomanists’ view there was no real crisis, and the biggest danger came from outside.

This is why Sabah’s pieces might look alluring with their “pretty nice” and sympathetic descriptions of Imperial women and even give thus give impression of not being connected with Neo Ottomanists... but they are. Same with certain revisionism giving the allure of “hot takeism” or praising democratic & modern values, but by suggesting that the system of absolute monarchy not only promoted them, but even.. invented them (yes, they go as far). Positive propaganda is definitely more present in the historical series of articles.

Let’s move to examples:

Hürrem Sultan (Source)

Süleyman ruled for 46 years, people wanted to see Şehzade Mustafa take the throne instead of his elderly father. The close circle of Şehzade Mustafa encouraged him to seek power, and after some time, he began to talk at times as if he were the sultan. This made Süleyman suspicious about a possible plot against him, and when the sultan acquired evidence about the betrayal of his son, he executed Şehzade Mustafa. It is said that Hürrem, who wanted her children to sit on the throne after Süleyman, encouraged the Sultan to kill his own son. Some historians also blame Hürrem and her son-in-law Rüstem Pasha for encouraging Süleyman to kill his grand vizier, Pargalı İbrahim Pasha, and forgetting to mention what Şehzade and the grand vizier did to deserve this end. Perhaps Hürrem was not sorry about these incidents and perhaps she was happy with the results. However, she was not to blame for the executions of Şehzade Mustafa and Pargalı İbrahim Pasha. Mustafa had proven that he was not worthy of the Ottoman throne with his reckless behavior. Although he was courageous, he lacked two qualities that were more important: patience and cautiousness. Moreover, neither Süleyman nor Hürrem hesitated to execute their son Şehzade Beyazid when he stirred up a riot. During those times, the Ottoman sultans did not hesitate to sacrifice even their loved ones for the unity of the empire and the people – one of the reasons why the Ottoman Empire stood for centuries.

Do I even have to point out the obvious fact Hürrem could not execute Bayezid because she had been dead by this point? (and not like she would ever, she did intercede for his sake and it’s pretty certain he was the prince she supported for the throne... actually books which state that she supported Selim usually provide no evidence, only base it on assumption that “Hürrem ruined Empire” ... which is again a narrative not propagated by Neo Ottomanists but by Young Turks historians in the past, and it assumes she had to promote the son which was weak and easy to dominate, to make use of the badly working system).

In short: she executed her son but it was awesome. Very.. interesting approach. Putting on her something she could not even physically do, but as something that was actually praiseworthy.

Obviously, there is no questioning of Ibrahim’s or Mustafa’s guilt. “Forgetting to mention what they did” and not following with particular examples and evidence & sources backing up the claims. Going from “evidence of betrayal” to “Mustafa was reckless and impatient and this is why he didn’t deserve the throne” in the same article. So did he betray or was punished for imprudent actions? Very enlightening. And Suleiman’s only problem was getting old.

They are still not claiming outright rebellion, though, of course it will pop up soon.

Kösem Sultan (Source)

Kösem Sultan was brought to the Ottoman palace as either Bosnian or Morean slave and given the name "Mahpeyker," meaning moon-like face in Persian language for her beauty.

The first source I’ve ever seen that does not at least mention the Greek claim. Hmm.

She practiced Sufism with her highly religious husband. Mahpeyker lived a quiet and peaceful life and looked after her children.

That’s her whole Haseki career according to Sabah🤦‍♀️ .

Yes, they say Kösem was good and should not be blamed for anything, but at the same time do a huge disservice by undermining her actual political skill and influence. They again focus mostly on her charity and motherhood, mostly removing her as a political agent otherwise. The description of Kösem's murder criticizes the murderers, but again removes Turhan’s (or Terhan’s xD) agency and actual role, instead of attributing actual action on the part of “bureaucrats supporting Terhan”. Typical narrative. Always only the bureaucrats. Never a member of the royal family (TBF in same vein they often devoid padisahs of agency at times, but at least then they compensate it by giving them other ‘great’ counteractions and ‘smart moves’ in addition to that).

Even today, fervent supporters of women's rights accuse her poking his nose into state affairs by saying that she put her "hennaed" fingers on state affairs. The period of "Sultanate of Women" in the Ottoman history was the outcome of a total political necessity. It took a short period of time and brought many benefits. Mahpeyker Sultan was always described as an ambitious woman, yet it is rarely mentioned that she took action with her patriotic feelings. Indeed, it was a sacrifice for Mahpeyker Sultan, whose sorrowful days were more than happy ones in her life, to carry heavy state affairs on her naïve shoulders at a troublesome period.

Now the people who slander Kösem are “fervent supporters of women’s rights” (xD) who want to discuss her contribution to the actual ruling of the state. Oh they finally admit SOW existed (read later, they sometimes deny its existence), but again “total necessity”; no women would ever have political ambition, she can only be forced to do it.

Her “naive shoulders” just tops it. Yes, do not slander her - she didn’t make good decisions but it was because she was naive. Hmmm... Yes great doing her actual justice, thanks. Maybe admit she could actually make sound decisions as a real politician?

And the Mehmed IV article suggested those who murdered her alleged (note this word choice in particular) she was taking part in state matters... according to them, neither Turhan nor Kösem truly ruled during that period, it was again a bunch of courtiers.

Now let’s move to the “Mighty sovereigns of Ottoman Throne” series. I will focus on padisahs from MC/K era, but all articles are “gold”.

Selim Yavuz (Source)

Some viziers and soldiers from the center wrote a letter to Şehzade Korkut, whom Sultan Selim loved very much and had assigned as the governor of Manisa. They stated that they wanted to see him as sultan and that the conditions were ready for this. Although it is said that Sultan Selim had these letters written to test his brother, he actually did not need such an action. Instead of informing his brother about the situation, Şehzade Korkut accepted the offer. Thereupon, he and all the other şehzades were executed. It is said that Sultan Selim was very upset when he made this decision for a greater purpose.

Poor little cutie 😭

It is said that he slept very little. He was not fond of harem life either. His only known wife was Hafsa Hatun, the daughter of the Crimean Khan Mengli Giray. She had a son named Şehzade Süleyman and six daughters.

Of course, though in this case, I might agree he was not much into harem life. Plus outdated info on Hafsa’s origins.

Suleiman (Source)

According to historic documents, he was generous, elegant, modest, dervish-spirited, devoted to his religion and did not act impulsively or did not do anything without consultation. He put the interests of the nation above everything, even his family. The criticism about him, especially the fact that he was under the influence of his family, are baseless allegations.

Like his father, he did not pay much attention to the harem life. His son Mustafa, born from his first wife Mahidevran, started to prepare a rebellion against his father after being persuaded to do so by those around him and was executed in 1553. From his second wife, Hürrem, a daughter named Mihrimah and sons named Mehmed, Selim, Bayezid and Cihangir reached adulthood. Mehmed, who his father loved very much, died of smallpox in 1543 at the age of 22. Cihangir also died in 1553. Şehzade Bayezid rebelled against his father and took refuge in Iran after being defeated. He was executed in 1562.

Basically whole article on absolute perfection and paragon of virtue. Again, sons were guilty and misguided. Women had no influence. This is the only mention of Hürrem in the whole article. Later she and Mahidevran are only referred to as “his two wives” to stress he was under no influence of them “- Historians say that his two wives and those around them were political factions and accuse the sultan of being under the influence of the second faction”. Plus Ibrahim had to die because he had too close relationship to the Sultan, but it was still not Sultan’s fault of giving him all these ranks. And both Mustafa and Bayezid were rebels, which in Bayezid’s case is true (but they do not discuss this in depth anyway), but with Mustafa again no evidence, not even mentioning any details because who cares. Guilty as charged.

There is not a single evidence Mustafa ever rebelled, even from sources sympathetic to Suleiman (or even negative stuff said on him in sources).

Even those who try to decipher what influenced Suleiman’s decisions and try to understand his state of mind and how some actions of Mustafa could be read by him in certain way do not claim that Mustafa ever rebelled, like Zahit Atçil in his famous piece “Why did Suleiman execute Şehzade Mustafa?”. Atcil mentions Mustafa tried to gain support (e.g. got into diplomatic relations with Venice), but afterwards stresses that “Forming coalitions and seeking allies were perfectly legitimate moves for a candidate to the throne, and supporting a particular claimant constituted a way for various social groups (e.g., janissaries, viziers, scholars, middle-class citizens) to participate in imperial politics.” Atcil also adds that all candidates did seek for allies, only Mustafa was far more successful than his half-brothers in securing support. Mustafa in the letter to certain Ayas Pasha (not that one ;) mentioned yes he did want the throne, but stressed that it would be only after his father’s death, which sounds very much like MC Mustafa.

Ok correction they also mention Hürrem when they talk about Suleiman’s building endeavours and that he commissioned “complex in the name of Hürrem Sultan”. Yes there are some doubts how much influence Hürrem could have in what that complex turned out to be, but this removes ALL of it. It’s only Suleiman’s and he named it in her honour.

And this is again just hilarious:

An anecdote is also told about this. During the Cold War, Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, leader of Soviet Russia, saw Sultan Suleiman in his dream. In this dream, he asked the sultan: “You were in Hungary for almost two centuries. Before we were even in the country for 10 years, the people revolted. How did you manage that?" The sultan gave a historical answer: “After we conquered Hungary, we made Hungary our homeland and settled down. We did not require the people to speak Turkish. We did not declare the day we conquered the land as a Hungarian national holiday as you did.”

And all the references to how modern and pretty much democratic Suleiman’s rule was, sooo like the French Revolution! I don’t even have strength to delve into it all, but one point is clear - they do focus on the positive and actually do not portray democratic values as bad at all - they just twist everything to suggest such very absolutist system was actually protecting these values.

Selim II (Source)

The essay on Selim of course promotes similar view with respect to his father and his brothers, while Selim’s most admiring trait was obviously “obedience”. Plus, the piece removes Selim’s agency in the whole conflict with Bayezid. And according to sources he did scheme against his brother and reading letters contained e.g. in New Perspectives on Safavid Iran (”Am I my brother’s keeper? Negotiating corporate sovereignty and divine absolutism in sixteenth-century Turco-Iranian politics” essay by Colin Mitchell), we can see he actively participated in negotiations with Shah Tahmasp to have Bayezid executed.

Indeed, his brothers Mehmed and Cihangir fell ill and died. The ambitions of Şehzade Mustafa and Bayezid, who rose up against their fathers, cost them their lives. Şehzade Selim attained the blessing of patience and thus proved that he was the most worthy candidate for the throne. Patience is the most precious virtue of a statesman. Actually, his father was also inclined toward supporting Şehzade Selim to succeed him for the throne since he was an obedient son. He participated in expeditions with his father.

Now hold on truly tightly because shit gets really, really wild. Suddenly we learn Ottoman Empire in 16th century was run like modern democratic monarchy and that the Sultan even prevented colonialism! Not like Selim was simply not much into state affairs (which is no crime, but c’mon this explanation...). Again, I agree Selim used to get some unnecessary wank by historians, but Sabah goes wayyy into opposite extreme (and not only Sabah tbh).

Preventing colonialism

After ascending the throne, Sultan Selim II left government affairs in the hands of his prudent vizier and son-in-law, Sokollu (Sokullu) Mehmed Pasha. He was like the rulers of today's democratic European monarchies. But he was always alert for the ambitions of those around him. [..,]

Upon the request of the Astrakhan sultan for help, the Russo-Turkish War, or Don-Volga-Astrakhan Campaign of 1569, was launched. It aimed to connect the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea by opening a channel at a point where the Volga River flowing into the Caspian Sea and the Don River flowing into the Sea of Azov come very close to each other, thus providing protection for Turkistan against Russian expansionism. The project was started; however, it could not be carried out due to winter and other reasons.The Crimean Khan Devlet I Giray, to whom Sultan Selim II sent aid, invaded Moscow and forced the Russians to make peace. Thus, he prevented Asia from falling into the hands of the colonialists. The Suez Canal project of the sultan, who wanted to strengthen his political and commercial dominance in the Indian Ocean, was not realized.

Again, the Russian Empire was seen as a significant foreign force that caused the collapse of Empire, hence that focus. Young Turks actually strove to have good relations with USSR.

Never mind the contradictory statements -”we prevented expansionism and colonialism by launching war” and again preventing colonialism while “wanting to strengthen political and commercial dominance in the Indian Ocean”. Aha.

It was allowed again during the reign of Sultan Selim II to compensate for the tax loss. As a matter of fact, non-Muslims can buy, sell and drink wine in an Islamic state as their religion allows it. In the Ottoman Empire, there were pubs belonging to non-Muslims. The government used to collect taxes from them, and Muslims could not enter these places. Some, who were unaware of this rule, thought that the sultan was fond of alcohol.

Some weird ass explanation why Selim could not be drunk. I find it hard to even follow this train of thought. Usually, it’s simple - no Muslim Caliph can be drunk because Islam forbade it and they were all paragons (thanks to certain charming person on IG explaining this train of thought to me and my friends).

He was not fond of harem life. His only beloved wife, Nurbanu Sultan, was one of the most benevolent women in history. She had Mimar Sinan build the Atik Valide Mosque in Üsküdar and its complex and the Toptaşı Bimarhane (mental hospital), which today serves in Bakırköy. There are many other charities she had commissioned. She brought water to Istanbul.

The sultan had eight sons named Murad, Mehmed, Ali, Süleyman, Mustafa, Cihangir, Abdullah and Osman and four daughters named Esmehan, Gevherhan, Fatma and Shah Sultan. The descendants of Esmahan's children born from Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and Gevherhan's from Piyale Pasha have survived to the present day.

Again they are contradicting themselves - they state Nurbanu was his only wife and no way he could spend much time in the harem. But then provide all the sons whose mother was not Nurbanu (except Murad of course). Aha.

Murad III (Source)

In some modern sources, his fondness for women is mentioned, which is not true. He lived with his only wife, Safiye Sultan, until the age of 30. He had many children, most of whom died in infancy, and Şehzade Mehmed ascended the throne as his successor.

Of course. Better not list the number of those kids not to make the reader doubt whether one woman could bear them all ;)

Mehmed III (Source)

Although it is said that Sultan Mehmed III was under the influence of his Albanian-born mother Safiye Sultan because of his love and respect for her, this is an exaggeration. When he came to the throne, he had his brothers executed within the fratricidal framework of the organization law of Sultan Mehmed II in order to prevent future revolts under the claim of the throne. This decision, which the sultan made with great sadness, caused great indignation in Istanbul. This was the last application of the constitutional condition.

Again poor cookie had no choice because “CoNsTItuTiONal CoNdItIon” . Of course he was not under influence of his mother. This is the only time a woman is mentioned in this article. Handan and Halime do not exist.

Ahmed I (Source)

Sultan Ahmed is regarded as a well-educated, intellectual and determined sovereign. He refrained from personal addictions and weaknesses. Along with many Ottoman sultans, his intellect developed at an early age. Although he was enthroned when he was a child, he managed to rule with great talent and wisdom.

A child prodigy. Bah, they were all child prodigies.

The sultan was noted for a surprisingly good command of administrative matters and following them up, trying to assign matters to competent people, and directing and controlling his entourage. As soon as he ascended to the throne, the sultan sent women in the palace, including his grandmother Safiye Sultan to the old palace and did not let royal women meddle in politics.

Anyone surprised? If you ask about Kösem, she is mentioned, her kids are listed and she is called you-guessed-it “benevolent and intelligent”. That’s all.

Finally, we come to finale paragraph entitled “Mercy and Disaster”

Almost everyone admits Sultan Ahmed I’s skills and goodwill, but some do not see him as a bright sovereign. This happens to be the destiny of sovereign who ruled during turbulent times and lacked capable aides.

But he was a child prodigy at the beginning of the article?

What made them write the biggest criticism aimed at sovereign? Of course abolition of fratricide, which is deemed “disaster for Empire”. They remark Ahmed was compassionate, but that’s all. Otherwise the move was the biggest mistake. Also note the interlinking between mercy and disaster.

Mustafa I (Source)

We start by several paragraphs bemoaning the end of fratricide and again repeating what a disastrous (though merciful) act it was. They just cannot move on from this and it’s hilarious. They also try to rationalize Ahmed’s decision in several ways:

Sultan Mustafa I, the 15th of the Ottoman sultans, was born in Manisa in 1591 to Sultan Mehmed III and Halime Haseki. When his older brother, Sultan Ahmed I, ascended the throne, he strayed from the customs of previous sultans and did not have his brothers executed for the sake of the public; He didn't touch his brother.

Halime is mentioned by her name and already in the first paragraph! A success.

Plus they stress the “for public” bit for the purpose to show what can happen when you yield to opinion of subjects.

His mother was a smart and strong woman, though not as smart as Mahpeyker Kösem Sultan. She supported her son when faced with intrigues. His mother dictated the sultan's edicts.

Of course smart and going against intrigues. Actually not a single hint of criticism.

Kösem is also lucky to be mentioned as the person who could influence Mustafa climbing the throne! As acting for the protection of her sons, they see it as non-harmful to admit that. Especially since (as we will see) she’s mother of such paragons as Murad and Ibrahim ;)

Osman II (Source)

Osman had genius but he was young. Therefore, he could not properly use his education and genius. He was aware that the world changed and some things were not going well in the country, and he had plans to fix these.

Of course another prodigy.. .

A Polish army of 100,000 people that included Cossacks, Austrians and Hungarians were defeated after a tough battle, and Khotyn fell.

As a Polish person, I tell you Khotyn did not fall. And lying about that was Osman’s own propaganda that also enraged people against him.

In order to ensure the safety of the empire before departing for the campaign, he had his younger brother Şehzade Mehmed, who was one year younger than him, executed as prescribed by the fratricide rule of Mehmed II. Poor şehzade cursed the sultan as: “Osman, just like you deprived me of my life, I wish from Allah that your rule to be short”.

Again, matter-of-fact-tone and stressing it was “prescribed”. Suddenly no bemoaning fratricide was abolished?

Murad IV (Source)

Hold on again please.

When he was just 10 years old, he started dressing as a commoner and wandering around the city, making plans for his future work as a result of the cooperation he would establish with the public. He would keep a list of those he could benefit from and those he would punish.

Yeah everyone allowed 10 year old prince (prodigy) to wander along steets like that. No biggie.

In the aftermath, Sultan Murad forbade smoking tobacco and ordered that the coffee shops, where people used to gather to drink coffee and smoke, be destroyed. The sultan would dress up as a local, mingle with the crowds and have those he caught smoking put to death. It is said that 20,000 people were sentenced to death in this way. As such, many bullies and tyrants were cleared off the streets.

Easy? He executed thousands of his people, but no biggie, they were all bullies and tyrants anyway. And how do we know this? They smoked.

Since his childhood was spent in revolutions, he was used to all kinds of disasters. The feeling of fear was alien to him. In eight years, he ordered the execution of a number of people who were considered untouchable until then, in order to show that there was no power above the authority of the state. Those who describe him as bloodthirsty don't take into account the anarchy of his time and how the people suffered from it. He tried to be a sultan that the public wished for.

Normalization of violence again. And are you talking about the same public he executed (see above)

Sultan Murad used to take opium extracts (morphine) given by the head physician in order to alleviate the pain of the gout disease he was suffering from. This made him feel tired and lethargic. Those who saw him staggering from time to time concluded that the sultan was consuming alcohol. Moreover, he reigned at a time in which alcohol was used for pain relief. The state dignitaries were not fond of the sultan's friends and would accuse them of getting the sultan accustomed to debauchery, which was far from the truth for him.

Again no way an Ottoman Sultan could be ever drunk. They were all perfect Muslims by default. He died from gout, not cirrhosis. No matter what everyone else says. And let’s also make him more sympathetic -you accuse poor cookie of drinking and he was simply trying to alleviate his pain!🤬

Although he was considered to have a harsh stance on political matters, he was tender-hearted.

Sure.

When they list the poets he sponsored, I love how they listed Nef’i without mentioning his ultimate fate ;)

A generation ago, Istanbul, where not a single murder had been committed in a whole year, was in turmoil. Sultan Murad took drastic measures to restore the old order in the most populous city of this world.

Lemme ever believe that no murder happened in the “most populous city of this world” during whole ass year ever.

He established a personal intelligence network throughout the empire. He reorganized the spy organization in Europe and transformed it into what it was during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent. The most hidden secrets began to reach the Ottoman palace day by day.

He learned about the oppressors and the tyrants everywhere. He was able to execute bullies so quickly while passing through certain cities during his expedition because he knew them all by name.

Yeah his spy network make him watch all his subjects moves closely, but it was again about bullies and tyrants only as always. “Bullies and tyrants and oppressors” emerge so often in this article without calling one certain bully and tyrant and oppressor by that term. Whoop.

The rebels used to threaten to depose him with his brothers at every opportunity. He had three of his brothers executed, two during the Yerevan and one during the Baghdad expeditions, according to the old constitutional tradition. He left behind a less competent brother, from which the Ottoman dynasty continued.

Again “old cOnStItUtIonAl tradition” plus obligatory matter-of-fact tone. Better not remind our readers our earlier bemoaning of apparent abolition of it anyway? At least this time they spared us the stressing of how sorry and sad the little hapless woobie was.

No woman is mentioned in this article, only Kösem is mentioned next to Ahmed as Murad’s parents in opening paragraph.

All the long descriptions of his physical strength and what not our redneck could do, what distances he could run etc. let me no waste time on that please. Let’s move on to Ibrahim.

Ibrahim (Source)

Even textbooks describe this sultan as Deli Ibrahim, or Ibrahim the Mad. In fact, this is the imputation of 20th-century historians.

Do not get me wrong - tales about Ibrahim’s madness and his actions were exaggerated (the famous drowning of his concubines myth), but it’s hard to deny he had serious mental problems and it’s particularly ridiculous to maintain he only began to be called mad in 20th century (read: by Young Turks historians).

If anything, most tales were invented after his death as part of factional in-fighting and also by these who took part in the coup to remove any doubt that his deposition was a necessary move.

The rumors that Sultan Murad IV ordered his brother Ibrahim’s execution on his final days are not true. On the contrary, Murad sought out his brother before his death, bequeathed him the task of protecting the people and made amends.

Such sweet fairytale. While it is debated whether Murad ordered the execution or not, it’s the first time I hear him making amends and all that sentimental bulllshit.

After donning the turban of second Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab brought in from the Chamber of Blessed Mantle of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibrahim sat on the throne and prayed: "Oh God! You deem fit a weak subject like me for this post. May you make my nation happy during the days of my reign and make us both content with each other!" This incident is clear evidence that the sultan was not mad.

Absolutely irrefutable proof. A-ha.

Ibrahim was portrayed as a short-tempered and dissolute sultan who spent his days in the palace with beautiful girls, entirely clad in sable fur – a tale everyone believed. At a time when radiators or even stoves were nonexistent, in a humid city such as Istanbul, people living in high-ceiling places and homes used to burn wood in fireplaces. Therefore, almost everyone used to wear fur to keep themselves warm. Unlike today, however, fur was sewn on the inside of robes.

And everyone could afford fur, especially people who starved during this period. A-ha.

The sultan had some relief after Kazasker (chief judge) Hüseyin Efendi of Safranbolu, who was renowned in Istanbul for his "effective" prayers, recited the Quran to him and prayed for him. Hüseyin Efendi, who received much praise and gained popularity because of this incident, also came to be known as a spiritualist hodja (exorcist), leading to an increase in the sultan’s adversaries.

Now even Cinci, a character criticized in all sources no matter POV, gets redeemed.

During the reign of Sultan Ibrahim, there were severe cold spells in which the Golden Horn and even the Bosporus froze. The cold led to increased demand for sable fur, with those who lived in proceeding centuries overlooking the cold and seeing the "sable era" as a period of debauchery. Young Turk-leaning early 20th-century historian Ahmed Refik Altınay also played a role in this. Exaggerated definitions such as “the reign of women,” “the reign of aghas,” or “the sable era” were coined by him.

However, the sultan did not allow for the women of palace, even his mother Mahpeyker Valide Sultan (queen mother), to take part in state affairs. This was why he sent the palace women, including his mother and sisters, into exile. Ibrahim was the last surviving male member of the Ottoman dynasty, and his efforts to have children were considered debaucherous. It is said that in his final days, he devoted himself to entertainment, however, this did not have a negative effect on state affairs since it was personal.

Yes, no woman had any influence during Ibrahim’s reign, including Kösem. In a way, maybe the only thing she did according to Sabah’s articles here is she might have influenced change in fratricide law, which was a bad thing anyway, since it came from her motherly instincts (typical woman and moreover naive as we know already). She had no political agenda or political career apart from royal motherhood.

Like I don’t even have strength pointing out how many sources deny these “claims” with no evidence provided whatsover.

Instead we have them dismiss the mere idea “Sultanate of Women” ever existed.

And of course they have to point out “Young Turk” invented this term and discussed women’s involvement in politics. It is worth pointing out that Altinay wrote about Armenian genocide which was committed by Young Turks and even today the ruling regime which is anti-Atatürk inclined denies it (and not only them, many Kemalists do too, sadly).

It’s true though that Altinay put many nonsensical accusations towards Ottoman women (which was also characteristic of time period, his work Kadinlar Saltanati began to be published in 1916 and it was truly first such work in Turkey), but what drives Sabah and Neo Ottomanist mad first and foremost is that a) he mentions they actually had the influence and were important political actors b) it means their great padisahs were actually influenced by women.. which constitutes great offence for these prodigies and paragons c) suggests mothers of their padisahs could be human and also do some bad things.

Women are not mentioned anymore in the Ibrahim article except Turhan in one sentence - “The late sultan’s spouse Hadice Terhan Haseki is regarded as one of the most famous and highly qualified women in Ottoman history”. Yes they spell Terhan both here and in the Kösem article all the time. No mention of her regency. No mention of Telli Humasah, Saliha Dilasub, Sekerpare, etc. whatsoever.

The sultan’s intolerance to injustice and his inability to keep his feelings secret decreased his supporters and drove them away.

His last Grand Vizier Hezarpare Ahmed Pasha did not shy from lying to the sultan regarding foreign affairs. Thus, the sultan did not have a single useful soul in this entourage, with sycophants and hypocrites bringing about the sultan's end.

Basically his only crime was that he was too good. Again only the evil courtiers around are at fault and caused his demise.

The coup’s description is of course totally biased in Sultan’s favour and framing him as absolutely completely innocent, and even the executioner did not want to do it. No mention of fetva being issued against Ibrahim for breaching so many laws. No mention of all the disruption and difficult situations of commonfolk during Ibrahim’s reign. No his reign was stable and everything was all right.

Sultan Ibrahim is described as generous and compassionate. He donated a lot to the poor. He paid attention to ensure the treasury revenues were collected regularly, spent properly and that wages were paid without delay. He used to covertly roam the city and monitored the people’s needs on the spot.

For the conclusion, let’s look at the Abdülhamid II article:

Sultan Abdülhamid always used civilized methods in foreign policy and acted in very subtle and clever ways. He understood the importance of propaganda, which is the most effective means of power of our time, and tried to use it in the most effective way for not offensive but defensive purposes against imperialist and colonialist policies.

Propaganda is actually anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist. A-ha.

Knowing what he could do and what he could not do, he followed an honorable path in politics. He was not a person of minor ideas and circles, and acted with lofty purposes like his ancestors. In this way, many political dangers were eliminated with small concessions.

From the collapse of the great empire within 10 years after his departure, it is clear that Abdülhamid extended the state’s life by 30 years with his mistakes and merits. The Ottoman Empire, one of the five largest in the world at the time, turned into a third-world country in the next 10 years.

Yeah only problems in paradise only appeared after Ottoman Empire fell, earlier it had been all dandy and all sultans had been dandy.

#ottoman history #history #magnificent century #muhteşem yüzyıl #idk how to tag it truly #but MC fandom should be most interested anyway #yes I am braindead now

33 notes · View notes