TR Turkic- Military culture thread

[GoatsMilk]

Turcophobia and anti turkism sentiment is present in a lot of countries around the world..

In Europe its a way of life with imagery in churches, weapons, statues, books, media, words you name it.

This turcophobia has been going on for centuries. Thats why the eu will never get us because their racist feeling towards Turks have a historical, racial and religious connotations to it.

The lord of the rings thing really represents the Ottoman empire at its core. Saruman Suleiman, Conquest of Constantinople, Siege of Vienna, even with the cavalry saving the day. Your typical western bullshit, where despite creating the most global tyranny, they see themselves as the holy saviour.

 

[Ryder]

The lord of the rings thing really represents the Ottoman empire at its core. Saruman Suleiman, Conquest of Constantinople, Siege of Vienna, even with the cavalry saving the day. Your typical western bullshit, where despite creating the most global tyranny, they see themselves as the holy saviour.

Haradrim aka Arabs were serving Sauron.

In turn they are promoting the notion of evil Turks using others as slaves and puppets.

 

[GoatsMilk]

The more you know about Turkish history the more you see the Turks and Ottomans are the core narrative of the bad guys in lord of the rings. While the good guys represent various Europeans and only Europeans. On the one hand its good entertainment, but at the same time it shows the subconscious psychology of europeans.

On the one hand despite their global terror and genocide, including wiping out entire continents as in the americas, austrailias etc. They inherently see themselves as angels and victims facing greater odds and dangers. Completely oblivious to their own global tyranny and an endless list of genocides.

While the Turk despite being no more then a drop in the ocean facing the european onslaught were not only able to defeat the savage crusades, but they were able to strike deep into europe, where for a few hundred years the europeans believed it was a foregone conclusion that the Turks would conquer them all. Comparatively speaking too, the Turks were far nicer then europeans in an age of empires the Turks were the most progressive.

The problem with this kind of media is that it plays into that european madness/prejudice. Even that christ church terrorist used 90% of his justification because of Ottoman history.

If your a holy man and you look at our history, it would like seem like Allah created the Turk just to oppose the devil.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Nein2.0(Nomad)

Nein I would be careful in associating too strongly in the turkic-mongolic (steppe/altaic) connection.

The mongols inflicted some of the worst atrocities at scale (on mankind) on turkic areas in central asia (and they would do so on persians, chinese, arabs and russians as well, but these are not fellow steppe kin argument like turkics):

Why Genghis Khan was even nastier than you thought

Genghis Khan has been a byword for barbarity for the last 800 years, and rightly so. Under his reign of terror the Mongols killed around four million people

www.dailymail.co.uk

I feel this long term really pushed down the (turkic) population potential in central asia (given how populations today are reliant on historical context to cascade from)

......leading to situation (of relative weakness in central asia) we have today (turkics would have been in more stronger position vis a vis Russia and China if mongols didnt do this stuff).

Its uncomfortable subject, but maybe members want to share their thoughts on it....every larger culture's successes also needs look at defeats + recoveries + inherited context too.

 

[GoatsMilk]

@Nein2.0(Nomad)

Nein I would be careful in associating too strongly in the turkic-mongolic (steppe/altaic) connection.

The mongols inflicted some of the worst atrocities at scale (on mankind) on turkic areas in central asia (and they would do so on persians, chinese, arabs and russians as well, but these are not fellow steppe kin argument like turkics):

Why Genghis Khan was even nastier than you thought

Genghis Khan has been a byword for barbarity for the last 800 years, and rightly so. Under his reign of terror the Mongols killed around four million people

www.dailymail.co.uk

I feel this long term really pushed down the (turkic) population potential in central asia (given how populations today are reliant on historical context to cascade from)

......leading to situation (of relative weakness in central asia) we have today (turkics would have been in more stronger position vis a vis Russia and China if mongols didnt do this stuff).

Its uncomfortable subject, but maybe members want to share their thoughts on it....every larger culture's successes also needs look at defeats + recoveries + inherited context too.

Turkic empires destroying Turkic empires is not a new thing, its existed all throughout Turkic history. The mamelukes of Egypt for example actually refered to egypt as Turkiye, Ottomans destroyed it.

Timur ruined the Goldern horde which freed Russia from Turkish ownership. Timur almost destroyed the Ottomans.

The Safavids engaged in massive wars against the Ottomans, both were Turkic empires.

 

[Huelague]

The more you know about Turkish history the more you see the Turks and Ottomans are the core narrative of the bad guys in lord of the rings. While the good guys represent various Europeans and only Europeans. On the one hand its good entertainment, but at the same time it shows the subconscious psychology of europeans.

On the one hand despite their global terror and genocide, including wiping out entire continents as in the americas, austrailias etc. They inherently see themselves as angels and victims facing greater odds and dangers. Completely oblivious to their own global tyranny and an endless list of genocides.

While the Turk despite being no more then a drop in the ocean facing the european onslaught were not only able to defeat the savage crusades, but they were able to strike deep into europe, where for a few hundred years the europeans believed it was a foregone conclusion that the Turks would conquer them all. Comparatively speaking too, the Turks were far nicer then europeans in an age of empires the Turks were the most progressive.

The problem with this kind of media is that it plays into that european madness/prejudice. Even that christ church terrorist used 90% of his justification because of Ottoman history.

If your a holy man and you look at our history, it would like seem like Allah created the Turk just to oppose the devil.

You should read Tolkien first.

 

[Nilgiri]

Turkic empires destroying Turkic empires is not a new thing, its existed all throughout Turkic history. The mamelukes of Egypt for example actually refered to egypt as Turkiye, Ottomans destroyed it.

Timur ruined the Goldern horde which freed Russia from Turkish ownership.

The Safavids engaged in massive wars against the Ottomans, both were Turkic empires.

Yes but these wars were not of the same depopulative style genocide the mongols carried out in their first expansive phases. They were not content say with just killing the elite that chose to resist them (or a few days of punitive pillage)....that was more the norm of the time.

It bears a real impact on central asia long term. Central asia did not have the population bulk like other parts of world mongols also went into.

 

[Huelague]

Turkic empires destroying Turkic empires is not a new thing, its existed all throughout Turkic history. The mamelukes of Egypt for example actually refered to egypt as Turkiye, Ottomans destroyed it.

Timur ruined the Goldern horde which freed Russia from Turkish ownership.

The Safavids engaged in massive wars against the Ottomans, both were Turkic empires.

You miss the Seljuks.

 

[Ardabas34]

Yes but these wars were not of the same depopulative style genocide the mongols carried out in their first expansive phases. They were not content say with just killing the elite that chose to resist them (or a few days of punitive pillage)....that was more the norm of the time.

It bears a real impact on central asia long term. Central asia did not have the population bulk like other parts of world mongols also went into.

I think they rather depopulated East Iranian urban centers. Those Turkic Empires like Khwarezmians ruled over largely Iranian and Arabic populations.

 

[GoatsMilk]

You should read Tolkien first.

Just going on the movies they put out. I would imagine 90% of people who know of Tolkien know him from the films. That's where my analysis comes in. Are his books worse for it?

 

[GoatsMilk]

You miss the Seljuks.

The cuman Turks sided with the Kievan Rus to destroy the Khazar Turks, only for the Cumin Turks to then destroy the Keivan Rus and send them fleeing towards where moscow is today.

Its an old old story. If Turks united instead of fighting each other, the world would be very different today.

 

[Nilgiri]

I think they rather depopulated East Iranian urban centers. Those Turkic Empires like Khwarezmians ruled over largely Iranian and Arabic populations.

Well the underlying population then would have been the turkic population today. The genetic distinctions in central asia have been blurry for quite long time....as to iranic + turkic lineages of the population themselves.

Though I will admit I have not looked into it at the depth required.

 

[Ryder]

Well the underlying population then would have been the turkic population today. The genetic distinctions in central asia have been blurry for quite long time....as to iranic + turkic lineages of the population themselves.

Though I will admit I have not looked into it at the depth required.

Central Asian Steppes had a lot of Turks joining Genghis Khan's army.

Kwarazmian Empire was a Turkic Empire that largely ruled Eastern Iranian populations with other minorities.

Mongols did destroy a lot of beautiful cities like Merv, Bukhara and Khiva.

Bukhara actually rivalled Cordoba, Cairo and Baghdad at the time. Bukhara's intellectual knowledge even rivalled the house of wisdom.

Mongols did do a lot of damage like all nomads they came in like a Tsunami later on they died down.

Genghis Khan just to make an empire also exterminated other Mongol tribes who refused to join him.

He was overall a brutal and ruthless man who was the product of his time.

Mongols fought everybody in their quest for World Domination.

 

[Ryder]

The Zengids are underrated!!

Not to mention Saladin the liberator of Jerusalem was a student of Nurredin Zengid and served him in his armies.

 

[Ryder]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1436851204265480201

It seems the Arabs did not conquer the Turks but they conquered and massacred the Eastern Iranians who lived in parts of central Asia.

The Turks were more further up. It confirms there were battles also skirmishes but no outright conquest.

Arabs referred to the Central asian steppe as a frontier. Some of the Turks may have also fought as mercs.

People forget not even the Chinese could have conquered the Turks despite numerous attempts.

 

[Ryder]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1432631995243405313

Ibn Khalduns works even mentioned this.

When you are a powerful civilisation or empire you have people admiring even copying your ways.

Interesting with the whole Turquie movement. When Europeans copied the Ottomans from fashion to even military.

The winged hussars even came from Turkic traditions.

Lets not forget the use of sabers. Sabers came from Kilij swords.

 

[Anastasius]

I don't necessarily disagree with the core of the sentiment but the problem is that certain, ahem, "hardliners" consider literally anything "westernization" even something as simple as believing that education and critical thinking should not be marred by religious dogma or that women should be permitted a degree of freedom and safety from physical abuse.

You can dislike the more insane aspects of Western society such as sexual degeneracy and whatnot but whenever I read someone complaining about it and then supporting backwards mentalities like the above, I can't help but feel that there's a degree of insincerity involved.

I also don't think Turquerie should be seen as anything other than a brief curiosity with foreign fashion sense and music like people traveling to the Gulf states or Africa or Asian countries not named Japan for the cultural "experience". It's not like other European societies were extolling the Ottomans for their political or scholarly virtues.

 

[Manomed]

 

[Ryder]

I don't necessarily disagree with the core of the sentiment but the problem is that certain, ahem, "hardliners" consider literally anything "westernization" even something as simple as believing that education and critical thinking should not be marred by religious dogma or that women should be permitted a degree of freedom and safety from physical abuse.

You can dislike the more insane aspects of Western society such as sexual degeneracy and whatnot but whenever I read someone complaining about it and then supporting backwards mentalities like the above, I can't help but feel that there's a degree of insincerity involved.

I support modernisation but not westernisation.

We should never reject who we are. Japanese modernised but they never rejected their past or called their ancestors a joke.

I know Japan has a lot of problems but at its core they are still traditional all those aspects of respect, honour and discipline comes from their culture through their ancestors.

Of course im not calling for Turkey to be a full blown nomad nation full of tents, or a theocracy or an Ottoman state.

But we should never reject our past.

Lots of good aspect of Western culture and civilisation. This applies to every culture or civilisation. But they also have their bad ones as you mentioned.

 

[Ryder]

I don't necessarily disagree with the core of the sentiment but the problem is that certain, ahem, "hardliners" consider literally anything "westernization" even something as simple as believing that education and critical thinking should not be marred by religious dogma or that women should be permitted a degree of freedom and safety from physical abuse.

You can dislike the more insane aspects of Western society such as sexual degeneracy and whatnot but whenever I read someone complaining about it and then supporting backwards mentalities like the above, I can't help but feel that there's a degree of insincerity involved.

I also don't think Turquerie should be seen as anything other than a brief curiosity with foreign fashion sense and music like people traveling to the Gulf states or Africa or Asian countries not named Japan for the cultural "experience". It's not like other European societies were extolling the Ottomans for their political or scholarly virtues.

You got to remember when you are a superpower or a strong empire your influence spread far wide.

Ibn Khaldun mentioned this. Defeated peoples would admire or even imitdate their conquerors. Not just defeated peoples a powerful state can influence their neighbours.

When the Turks took over Anatolia some of the Greeks dressed like Turks some also wore Muslim Turbans and dressed like a Muslim despite being orthodox christian.

With the whole Turquie movement its no surprise. When Tanzminat happened the Ottomans began to imitate Western Europe.

Where ever power lies, people get curious at the culture and the peoples.

The USA is the superpower of the world due to this it allows them to spread their soft power worldwide.

They are all phases.