Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => History General Discussion => Topic started by: Draconic Aiur on July 18, 2019, 10:14:13 PM

Title: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Draconic Aiur on July 18, 2019, 10:14:13 PM
Did a online quiz for my Ottoman History Class. I like to give a passage answers I wrote for this question:


 Describe the Ottoman policy concerning the religious practices of conquered people. What were the advantages of this policy for the Ottomans?  Explain.

1.   For starters a millet is a non-muslim religious community. So, the Ottoman Empire policy concerning the religious practices of conquered people is the "millet system". The millet system is a system that the Ottoman Empire used to rule over non-muslim communities, that were minorities of the state, and gave limited power to rule their own affairs in their community and so long as they pay taxes and the "cizye" (non-muslim tax). The leader of the millet community would keep the peace and give tribute to the Empire which it served. Islamic Ottoman Empire through text says at their community acknowledges the people of the "book", which are Christian: Catholic and Orthodox (most influential) and Jewish people and people who worship similarity to Islam in Christianity and Jewish faith. This means the non-muslim, Abrahamic or Judah religions are tolerated. However, like the past and the future there are people who mistranslated or use a translation to their own ends. Murad I, with such a man who created the "Devshirme" system to his own political gain, which this system is a blood price for Christian boys (from conquered nations) aged 8 to 18 to be forcibly taken by the Ottoman Empire i'm trying to serve the Ottoman Empire with all 12 converting them to Islam. Of course, there was also persecution among non-muslim civilians, but I gained momentum with wars of the empire: Such as Crusades and conquests of the Ottoman Empire. Advantages of the millet system were the non-muslim citizens would be required to pay taxes, maintain order and thus because the Ottoman Empire is tolerant of non-muslims, the Ottoman Empire would have religious harmony and protection for non-muslims. But that is only one perception advantage of the Ottoman Empire because when one look for advantages, they look for profit. And what better profit to be made with cannon fodder, diversity among the ranks but not the religious ranks. 

What were the world-wide results of the Ottoman capture of Constantinople? Explain.
4.   The fall of Constantinople and or capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire had many effects worldwide and around Christian controlled nations. One effective the Byzantine Empire came to an end when the Ottoman Empire took Constantinople. Another could be the when the Ottoman Empire took Constantinople it sent shock waves everywhere through Christian countries and marked the end of the European middle-ages. This was because Constantinople was the Christendom symbol of Byzantium Imperial power, and for it to fall meant disaster for the world of Christianity with the one who conquered it: Mehmed II, the Ottoman Empire ruler from 1451, claimed he was the successor to the Roman Empire. Conquering Constantinople meant to the Ottoman Empire as advancing forward in it's global conquest with Constantinople as the capital of the Ottoman Empire destroying the symbol of Christianity further. Hope all is Constantinople how many different Wars after the fall which include the Ottoman-Venice War (1463-1479) which was the result of the Ottoman Empire's alliance with the "Crimean Tatar khan Haci Giray", Mongolian descendants of Genghis Khan that inherited the title of conqueror and were Muslims as well, and were rooted in Crimean colony that Venice had special access, and customs due to them colonizing Crimea, and had access to Ottoman waters. Later, when Russia took control of Crimea in 1774, the entire war and Russian involvement would foreshadow the Crimean War in the 19th century. Back to the Conquering of Constantinople, after the event alliances were made among nations like Hungary and a Romanian region called Wallachia, which ruler is the famous Vlad the Impaler which he escaped an ottoman war with this country only to be imprisoned in Hungry where he fled to, then escaped hungry back to Wallachia and became King again until the Ottoman Empire had his head. The fall of Constantinople helped the Turks to control trade, with further conquests in Europe like above with Venice and Wallachia and help silence the Catholic Church's demands bike when the fall ended the current pope out the time, Pope Nicholas V, called for Crusade but no military response was made. When Byzantium refugees came to Western Europe new philosophy emerged and the Renaissance blossomed when Greek scholars came to Italy.


Question one is to discuss Region, question 2 for how a single capture could effect the timeline so easily.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: aitm on July 19, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
Sentence structure..study it more. Grammar...do it.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2019, 12:43:53 PM
I haven't read it. Your English is difficult to read. Two things I saw.

Devşirme system is not just about political gain. It's not just about taking boys to convert islam either. It is about taking clever, talented boys to educate them to use them in high offices in general. There are devşirme architects, admirals, ministers, artists...etc in Ottoman Empire. Mimar Sinan (architect), Barboros Hayrettin Paşa (admiral) is two famous examples. Sadrazam İbrahim Paşa, for example is a devşirme boy and the Vizier of Sultan Süleyman.

Fall of Constantinopolis is not officially considered as the end of the Middle Ages. Because first of all, it is not one event that ended the Middle Ages. That is incompatible with the modern understanding of history. From plague to the decline of the church... anything that prepared for the Renaissance movement could be counted among the reasons that caused the end of the Middle Ages.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 19, 2019, 01:19:20 PM
It look some study.  But once I had given the Turks some thought, given a compassionate nature, I developed a sympathy for them.  One has to imagine, what is it like to be a Turk in 1550 CE, without prejudices.  The Ottomans, the Safavids and the Mughals were great civilizations in their day.  Tribal people, or opposing civilizations of course ... disagree.  One has to choose to look beyond Eurocentrism.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Draconic Aiur on July 19, 2019, 01:20:59 PM
Sentence structure..study it more. Grammar...do it.

I did do good sentence structure and grammar........

I haven't read it. Your English is difficult to read. Two things I saw.

Devşirme system is not just about political gain. It's not just about taking boys to convert islam either. It is about taking clever, talented boys to educate them to use them in high offices in general. There are devşirme architects, admirals, ministers, artists...etc in Ottoman Empire. Mimar Sinan (architect), Barboros Hayrettin Paşa (admiral) is two famous examples. Sadrazam İbrahim Paşa, for example is a devşirme boy and the Vizier of Sultan Süleyman.

Fall of Constantinopolis is not officially considered as the end of the Middle Ages. Because first of all, it is not one event that ended the Middle Ages. That is incompatible with the modern understanding of history. From plague to the decline of the church... anything that prepared for the Renaissance movement could be counted among the reasons that caused the end of the Middle Ages.

Yet Murad I made the Devşirme system all to counter the rise of Turkish nobility. So it's mostly political.

The fall of Constantinopolis  is commonly hed as the end of of the Middle Ages, even though the exact date is 1600.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2019, 03:45:32 PM
Yet Murad I made the Devşirme system all to counter the rise of Turkish nobility. So it's mostly political.

First thing. Ottoman rulers do not refer to themselves as 'Turks', but as Ottomans. Osmanlı; Of Osman; Osmanoğulları; Sons of Osman. It's the name of the family and it comes from the founder's name Osman. (Murat I's grandfather.) Also a common male name.

You percieve devşirme system as a very narrow concept. It's not. It's like a real life functional, huge factory.

You are talking about Ottoman Empire. Ottoman is not an empire in Murat Ist period. It's a little state. And there has never been a 'Turkish nobility' as in the sense of Western nobility in Ottoman Empire. Actually, they changed the system and included the harem system, so there won't be a Turkish 'nobility' class, so nobody butthe family could have a claim on the Ottoman throne. 

Ottoman sultans did not marry. (They did in Murat's time.) The women who have their children -concubines; which is an inadequate term with sexual connotations- are women from their harems who are taken from Christian states in wars. They are official spoils of war. They are all devşirme women. That doesn't mean they all become concubines, hardly. They are chosen, like the boys. They are subjected to an education too. When they are chosen to have sex with sultans, concieve and give birth, esp. to a male, they are refered to as Sultans too. (Also the children female or male) These women are called Gözde (Favourite). But still not wives. They are too converted christians who are taken forcibly, when they are very young or just a child. Some times not even as spoils of war, but just because wanted and taken.

There are other kind of devşirme people too. Anyone who works in the palace in the big hierarchy can be a devşirme. It doesn't have to have any political power over anyone. They just need to be ended up there and seen able to do various jobs.     

What I mean is, it is a complicated structure and a wider concept than you think. 

(I know when someone says 'harem', the western people, esp. men imagine something from Orientalist paintings, but it is far from the reality.)

Quote
The fall of Constantinopolis  is commonly hed as the end of of the Middle Ages, even though the exact date is 1600.


No, it isn't. 16th century is high Renaissance. Surely, it didn't arrive every corner at the same time, but it is a movement after all.

Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2019, 03:50:31 PM
It look some study.  But once I had given the Turks some thought, given a compassionate nature, I developed a sympathy for them.  One has to imagine, what is it like to be a Turk in 1550 CE, without prejudices.  The Ottomans, the Safavids and the Mughals were great civilizations in their day.  Tribal people, or opposing civilizations of course ... disagree.  One has to choose to look beyond Eurocentrism.

To provide some perspective, for example, in 16th century a lot of European ambassadors understood Ottoman Turkish, but almost none understood English. This must be very alien for British and the American today. It's weird even to me.

I don't like Ottomans, don't care about their culture. I like Anatolian Seljuks.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 19, 2019, 03:52:49 PM
To provide some perspective, for example, in 16th century a lot of European ambassadors understood Ottoman Turkish, but almost none understood English. This must be very alien for British and the American today.

I don't like Ottomans, don't care about their culture. I like Anatolian Seljuks.

Seljuks did the initial work (Alp Arslan and all that).  The Ottomans picked up when the Seljuks disintegrated.  Then the Ottomans were set back by Timur Lenk.  But made a remarkable comeback in just 150 years.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2019, 04:02:14 PM
Seljuks did the initial work (Alp Arslan and all that).  The Ottomans picked up when the Seljuks disintegrated.  Then the Ottomans were set back by Timur Lenk.  But made a remarkable comeback in just 150 years.

Naah, I dont care about invasions or wars... the culture of Anatolian Seljuks would thrump any other. I also like the Gökturks. Do you know them? It's a nonmuslim Turkish state. They have a religion called Tengrism.

Ottomans and Seljuks. Two very different Turkish states, Baruch. You sound like 16th century Europeans under Ottoman threat with your perspective. These are cultures in conflict. LOL even today.

There are Ottoman nationalist, Turkey Nationalists and Göktürk Nationalists for example. LOL Shaman religions vs Islam vs Secularism...etc.     
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 19, 2019, 04:33:55 PM
The little green first 2 seconds at the beginning is Murat I's borders. Not even a state.

Rise and Fall of the Ottoman Empire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuwanQyGKHw
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 19, 2019, 04:50:15 PM
Naah, I dont care about invasions or wars... the culture of Anatolian Seljuks would thrump any other. I also like the Gökturks. Do you know them? It's a nonmuslim Turkish state. They have a religion called Tengrism.

Ottomans and Seljuks. Two very different Turkish states, Baruch. You sound like 16th century Europeans under Ottoman threat with your perspective. These are cultures in conflict. LOL even today.

There are Ottoman nationalist, Turkey Nationalists and Göktürk Nationalists for example. LOL Shaman religions vs Islam vs Secularism...etc.   

No, concerning Tengrism.  Just heard about the Kalmyks though.

These girls?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knqg9tHDWWQ&list=PLfRVkcCNsNL-5Bi6UmFI0bmO8C0yn2CXu&index=4
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Draconic Aiur on July 19, 2019, 11:09:54 PM
First thing. Ottoman rulers do not refer to themselves as 'Turks', but as Ottomans. Osmanlı; Of Osman; Osmanoğulları; Sons of Osman. It's the name of the family and it comes from the founder's name Osman. (Murat I's grandfather.) Also a common male name.

You percieve devşirme system as a very narrow concept. It's not. It's like a real life functional, huge factory.

You are talking about Ottoman Empire. Ottoman is not an empire in Murat Ist period. It's a little state. And there has never been a 'Turkish nobility' as in the sense of Western nobility in Ottoman Empire. Actually, they changed the system and included the harem system, so there won't be a Turkish 'nobility' class, so nobody butthe family could have a claim on the Ottoman throne. 

Ottoman sultans did not marry. (They did in Murat's time.) The women who have their children -concubines; which is an inadequate term with sexual connotations- are women from their harems who are taken from Christian states in wars. They are official spoils of war. They are all devşirme women. That doesn't mean they all become concubines, hardly. They are chosen, like the boys. They are subjected to an education too. When they are chosen to have sex with sultans, concieve and give birth, esp. to a male, they are refered to as Sultans too. (Also the children female or male) These women are called Gözde (Favourite). But still not wives. They are too converted christians who are taken forcibly, when they are very young or just a child. Some times not even as spoils of war, but just because wanted and taken.

There are other kind of devşirme people too. Anyone who works in the palace in the big hierarchy can be a devşirme. It doesn't have to have any political power over anyone. They just need to be ended up there and seen able to do various jobs.     

What I mean is, it is a complicated structure and a wider concept than you think. 

(I know when someone says 'harem', the western people, esp. men imagine something from Orientalist paintings, but it is far from the reality.)
 

No, it isn't. 16th century is high Renaissance. Surely, it didn't arrive every corner at the same time, but it is a movement after all.



I'm sorry I got my anser from course notes and readings that my professor, Dr. Talmer Balci gave us and must have forgot the timeline and wrote it in a as a name to label the country as a whole.. However from reading his notes and possibly skipping others I arrived at the Devşirme system and it's definition and it was directed at conquered christian boys from 8 to 18. I checked this online it said the same. The women are taken as semi-slave girls and if beautiful sent to the harem as a contribution to the sultan as a penance when a man named Kara Rustem entered the the fray:

Quote
The Origin of the Janissaries
One day a scholar called Kara Rustem came from the land of Karaman. This Kara
Rustem went to Chandarli Halil, who was military judge, and said, "Why do you let so
much state income go waste?" The military judge Kara Halil asked, "What income is this
that is going waste? Tell me at once." Kara Rustem said, "Of these prisoners that the
warriors in the struggle bring back, one-fifth, according to God's command, belongs to
the Sultan. Why do you not take this share?" The military judge Kara Halil said, "I will
submit the matter to the Sultan!" He submitted it to Murad I,' who said, "If it is God's
command, then take it." They called Kara Rustem and said, "Master, carry out God's
command." Kara Rustem went away and stayed in Gallipoli and collected twenty-five
silver pieces from each prisoner. This innovation dates from the time of these two men.
To collect a tax from the prisoners in Gallipoli has become the practice since Chandarli
Kara Halil and Kara Rustem. After that he also instructed Gazi Evrenos to take one out
of every five prisoners captured in the raids and, if anyone had only four prisoners, to
take twenty-five silver coins from him. They acted according to this rule. They collected
the young men [in the devshirme]. They took one in every five prisoners captured in the
raids and delivered them to the Porte. Then they gave these young men to the Turks in
the provinces so that they should learn Turkish, and then they sent them to Anatolia.
The Turks let these young men work in the fields for a while and made use of them
until they learned Turkish.After a few years they brought them to the Porte and made
them janissaries, giving them the name Yeni Cheri [New Levy]. Their origin goes back
to this time.

From Notes:

Quote
The Devsirme (Child-levy) system: Devsirme is from Turkish, meaning "gathering."  Sultan Murad I introduced the devsirme system.  It was a result of the military needs of the fast growing empire: it needed loyal army troops in high
numbers.  Bayezid I allowed them into the civil service. They were reliable civil servants in the palace and in the administration.
From the 15th until the 17th century, between 200,000 and 300,000 boys were taken out to devsirme. The devsirme was performed in the Balkan countryside. At certain times, normally every 4th year, some of the young minor boys from each community were to be given to the sultan. Their age was normally between 8 and 10. The levee included only the children of Christian villages engaged in agriculture, excluding urban children and any only child.  The government considered the Devshirme as an extraordinary levy on the reaya [tax paying subjects] not as the enslavement of its own subjects. There were levies every three to seven years, according to need. [Estimates very from 1000 to 3000 taken annually]
The boys collected through devsirme, were divided into 2 groups. The best fits were sent to one of the sultan's palaces. The other ones were sent to Turkish farmer and soldier families around Anatolia, but also to families in Rumelia. They learned Turkish and Ottoman lifestyles received military as well as administrative training. They made the janissary troops.
The young men at the palace school could under no circumstances leave the palace or be in touch with the outside world.  Their training was diverse, ranging from demanding physical training to theoretical training. They had to learn Turkish, Persian and Arabic. They were given training to become experts in different forms of Arabic calligraphy (at this time, Turkish was written with Arabic letters). Other important subjects were literature, theology (the Quran and the hadiths) and Islamic law, Sharia.
Most of the men from the palace school would not stay in the palace. Many of them became land-owning sipahi, which meant that they became part of the cavalry. The highest rank of which any of these could dream was to become an officer.
The ones who remained in the palace had better career possibilities. A number of them were appointed sancakbeyi, governors in smaller provinces, and they could rise to become beylerbeyi, governor in one of the 31 larger provinces into which the empire was divided. The highest rank, for the few, was to become vizier, and finally grand vizier.The devsirme recruits were called Kapikullari-Servants.  The term kapikullari refers to all recruits from
Christian families.  The term janissary refers to soldiers only.
The system was designed so as not to develop any hereditary aristocracy which could threaten the position of the sultan and his family. Hence, only non-Muslims could enter the devsirme. And even if a member of the devsirme could marry after he finished his training and left the palace, his sons were Muslims, and could not enter the devsirme. That was the way it was intended to be, but towards the end of the 16th century the devsirme class instigated changes.

I may have made an error it wasn't from 8 to 18, but 8 to 10.

As for the concubines, I didn't know that thank you.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 19, 2019, 11:49:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDWaBmKpfY

FYI - sorry it is long.

But what made the Turks and broke the Turks was ... the Silk Road

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeyMx-v2QhM

The money to be made off the caravans, one caravansary at a time!  Which was eventually destroyed by the Mongol armies (largely manned by other Turks).  Inter-Turkish warfare (exploited by Genghis Khan).  Prior to that, the wealth flowing down to India and over to Constantinope, is what attracted the Turkish armies in the first place.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2019, 06:57:48 PM
There is no need for an apology. If you are really interested, there are very good sources about the history of Turkic people in your language that goes far back for thousands of years. I know when somebody says Turks, it is us what you get, but it is actually a huge, very ancient, diverse culture. There is even something called Turcology. Russians and Germans are the best Turcologists of course, but there is a ton of interesting stuff. But then why would you do that?   
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2019, 07:06:12 PM
LOL There is even a program in Harvard. Ottoman and Turkish studies.


Baruch, get to work and find out what's the conspiracy theory on that one. It doesn't look new. 
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2019, 07:13:04 PM
No, concerning Tengrism.  Just heard about the Kalmyks though.

These girls?

Those are Kazakistan Turks. Where the people coming down from International Space Center, lands? 
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 07:20:39 PM
LOL There is even a program in Harvard. Ottoman and Turkish studies.


Baruch, get to work and find out what's the conspiracy theory on that one. It doesn't look new.

Harvard studying Central Asia?  That is easy.  Skull & Bones at Yale can't do all the dirty scholarship.  Someone has to provide culture academics for the State Dept etc.

Don't mess with the Massagetae!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massagetae
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2019, 07:32:45 PM
It's not Central Asia, it is Anatolia. Get to Mesopotamia, walk some way up and go on to West. I know, Americans will get the hang of the geography of the world one day, you landed on the moon. I got tears when listening Collins a day ago, try harder. You owe that to them. :)
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 07:36:41 PM
It's not Central Asia, it is Anatolia. Get to Mesopotamia, walk some way up and go on to West. I know, Americans will get the hang of the geography of the world one day, you landed on the moon. I got tears when listening Collins a day ago, try harder. You owe that to them. :)

Not where the Turks came from.  They are in "temporary" occupation of Anatolia.  Erdogan just needs to keep messing up.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2019, 07:48:04 PM
Not where the Turks came from.  They are in "temporary" occupation of Anatolia.  Erdogan just needs to keep messing up.

Oh ffs, 'temporary' for a 1000 years?! Turks entered Anatolia in 1071!
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 08:09:49 PM
Oh ffs, 'temporary' for a 1000 years?! Turks entered Anatolia in 1071!

The Egyptians have perspective we can't imagine.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 20, 2019, 08:34:25 PM
The Egyptians have perspective we can't imagine.

LOL They are the epitome of ancient for the Western world isn't it? Well, it makes sense.

But then there is Hitites, Assyrians AND Sumerians, you know. (If you even spell Annunaki, I'll smack you.)
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 20, 2019, 09:21:07 PM
LOL They are the epitome of ancient for the Western world isn't it? Well, it makes sense.

But then there is Hitites, Assyrians AND Sumerians, you know. (If you even spell Annunaki, I'll smack you.)

Stick that on your clay tablet and smoke it!  Egyptians still exist, Sumerians not so much.  The drought around 2000 BCE, and intermarrying with Akkadians pretty much diluted them out, except for their religion and language.  Like Manchu occupying China.  There are very few actual Manchu left, because they got absorbed by the Han.

The Egyptian stone work is hard for modern Egyptians to forget.  Mesopotamian clay work has mostly eroded into dirt.

The Chinese know they have been around a long time, but their writing doesn't go as far back.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 24, 2019, 05:52:54 PM
Stick that on your clay tablet and smoke it!  Egyptians still exist, Sumerians not so much.  The drought around 2000 BCE, and intermarrying with Akkadians pretty much diluted them out, except for their religion and language.  Like Manchu occupying China.  There are very few actual Manchu left, because they got absorbed by the Han.

The Egyptian stone work is hard for modern Egyptians to forget.  Mesopotamian clay work has mostly eroded into dirt.

The Chinese know they have been around a long time, but their writing doesn't go as far back.

Oh ffs. Prefiguration and Postfiguration and all, Baruch?

 
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on July 24, 2019, 06:38:02 PM
Oh ffs. Prefiguration and Postfiguration and all, Baruch?

I just hope that Erdogan's Neo-Sultanate isn't driven to war with the West.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
If you want to find where the serious problems of the world are, just look for neighbors of differing religions... 
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 12:05:32 PM
If you want to find where the serious problems of the world are, just look for neighbors of differing religions...

Globalism = the world is too small for more than one country.  Question?  Red ants or black ants?
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 12:09:03 PM
Globalism = the world is too small for more than one country.  Question?  Red ants or black ants?

Is the US too small for 50 States? 
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 12:11:18 PM
Is the US too small for 50 States?

Yes.  This has been true for over 158 years.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 12:15:42 PM
Yes.  This has been true for over 158 years.

OK, why?  You are quick with the claim, how about some reasons?
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 12:37:50 PM
OK, why?  You are quick with the claim, how about some reasons?

New Englanders and Southerners hate each other.

BTW ... doing genealogy, because being an old man, this is my last shot at this.  Do you mind a few anecdotes?  Also I am not hostile to military combatants on any side.  I respect all combatants, see war as tragedy, not jihad or crusade.

OK, I suspected, but now have proved ... GGGGrandfather was an officer in the Confederacy.  Have found a lot of material relating to his experience ... which is totally amazing to me.  I have seen his actual full Confederate military documentation on-line.  Isaac X, 2Lt, Company B, 26th Tennessee infantry Regiment, 3rd Tennessee Volunteers.  He was from E Tennessee, was mustered in at Nashville, ended up at Ft Donelson early in 1862.  I know the officers he fought under, and so where in the fort he was when the fight happened.  He fought there and was captured in the first major defeat of the Confederacy, thanks to Brig General Grant.  Was marched off to Johnson Island prison camp for officers, a small island near-shore to Sandusky Ohio, in Lake Erie.  Less than 6 months later, he was part of a prisoner exchange (common early in the war) and returned to Confederate custody at Vicksburg Mississippi.  Promoted to 1stL.  Don't know if he saw further fighting, but the 3rd Tennessee Volunteers continued to fight, with new recruits, until April 1865, all thru Tennessee and Georgia, to great loss.  He had a son, by his first wife, in 1864.  But there is an oddity.  The kid was nick-named Ulysses.  I have seen both of their headstones, on-line, in SE Kansas.
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 01:03:01 PM
New Englanders and Southerners hate each other.

BTW ... doing genealogy, because being an old man, this is my last shot at this.  Do you mind a few anecdotes?  Also I am not hostile to military combatants on any side.  I respect all combatants, see war as tragedy, not jihad or crusade.

OK, I suspected, but now have proved ... GGGGrandfather was an officer in the Confederacy.  Have found a lot of material relating to his experience ... which is totally amazing to me.  I have seen his actual full Confederate military documentation on-line.  Isaac X, 2Lt, Company B, 26th Tennessee infantry Regiment, 3rd Tennessee Volunteers.  He was from E Tennessee, was mustered in at Nashville, ended up at Ft Donelson early in 1862.  I know the officers he fought under, and so where in the fort he was when the fight happened.  He fought there and was captured in the first major defeat of the Confederacy, thanks to Brig General Grant.  Was marched off to Johnson Island prison camp for officers, a small island near-shore to Sandusky Ohio, in Lake Erie.  Less than 6 months later, he was part of a prisoner exchange (common early in the war) and returned to Confederate custody at Vicksburg Mississippi.  Promoted to 1stL.  Don't know if he saw further fighting, but the 3rd Tennessee Volunteers continued to fight, with new recruits, until April 1865, all thru Tennessee and Georgia, to great loss.  He had a son, by his first wife, in 1864.  But there is an oddity.  The kid was nick-named Ulysses.  I have seen both of their headstones, on-line, in SE Kansas.

Your post is honorably noted without criticism.  I do not have the same detail on my Yankee side, but I know some ancestors fought in the Civil War.

But I gently remind you that you did not answer the question of why the US too small for 50 States.  There is no need to rush an answer.

I know a lot about the Civil War.  I was born near Boston and we moved to Petersburg Virginia when I was 9.  I (and my younger brother) were the only students from north of the Mason-Dixon Line.  It was hard...  There was a girl from Georgia in my first class.  Our accents were SO different that we literally could not understand each other.  I spend my 5 years there digging up minnie balls and a few odd items like belt buckles in the nearby creek which was actually a war trench that was slowly returning to nature.

We moved to Maryland which was rather neutral territory in the modern area.  You might have found it funny to hear me speak when I was a Mass child.  The Virginians sure did.  When we moved to MD, I deliberately set about changing my natural accent.  In college, a linguistics teacher guessed I was from western PA or maybe Ohio. 

But whenever I visited family in NE, I was back in the "pak the caw in the yawd" after 2 days.  Old accents die hard.  Today, I speak "Johnny Carson" American Standard.  That's why I love linguistics, I suppose.

Be well...
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 03:06:45 PM
Your post is honorably noted without criticism.  I do not have the same detail on my Yankee side, but I know some ancestors fought in the Civil War.

But I gently remind you that you did not answer the question of why the US too small for 50 States.  There is no need to rush an answer.

I know a lot about the Civil War.  I was born near Boston and we moved to Petersburg Virginia when I was 9.  I (and my younger brother) were the only students from north of the Mason-Dixon Line.  It was hard...  There was a girl from Georgia in my first class.  Our accents were SO different that we literally could not understand each other.  I spend my 5 years there digging up minnie balls and a few odd items like belt buckles in the nearby creek which was actually a war trench that was slowly returning to nature.

We moved to Maryland which was rather neutral territory in the modern area.  You might have found it funny to hear me speak when I was a Mass child.  The Virginians sure did.  When we moved to MD, I deliberately set about changing my natural accent.  In college, a linguistics teacher guessed I was from western PA or maybe Ohio. 

But whenever I visited family in NE, I was back in the "pak the caw in the yawd" after 2 days.  Old accents die hard.  Today, I speak "Johnny Carson" American Standard.  That's why I love linguistics, I suppose.

Be

I did (by referencing 1860).  As a crown colony, the US wasn't just one big blob.  But divided into multiple colonies.  It should be again.  City states would be even better.

I hope someday you can find more detail on those who served.  I recently found an American Revolution veteran in my line, from Colonial Connecticut to Colonial New York.  But there is very little detail, which should be the norm.  These old documents only survive by chance.  Sometimes transcribed years ago, before the originals disintegrate.  I once read a typed version of an original minutes of meeting of the colonial North Carolina militia.  They had a guest report from a certain Col George Washington (noted but not excerpted).
Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 05:24:00 PM
I did (by referencing 1860).  As a crown colony, the US wasn't just one big blob.  But divided into multiple colonies.  It should be again.  City states would be even better.

I hope someday you can find more detail on those who served.  I recently found an American Revolution veteran in my line, from Colonial Connecticut to Colonial New York.  But there is very little detail, which should be the norm.  These old documents only survive by chance.  Sometimes transcribed years ago, before the originals disintegrate.  I once read a typed version of an original minutes of meeting of the colonial North Carolina militia.  They had a guest report from a certain Col George Washington (noted but not excerpted).

Family records suggest the Dad side arrived first in the 1640s in New England and the Mom side arrived in Canada on Chaplain's 2nd voyage.   Dad's side were some Protestants and Quakers.  Mom's side were ferociously dedicated French Catholics.  They managed to get together anyway...

But what concerns me more is your reference to 1860.  I assume you mean 1760 when the colonies were still that.  Ptherwise, it makes no sense.

Title: Re: History Of The Ottoman Empire
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 03:14:26 AM
Family records suggest the Dad side arrived first in the 1640s in New England and the Mom side arrived in Canada on Chaplain's 2nd voyage.   Dad's side were some Protestants and Quakers.  Mom's side were ferociously dedicated French Catholics.  They managed to get together anyway...

But what concerns me more is your reference to 1860.  I assume you mean 1760 when the colonies were still that.  Otherwise, it makes no sense.

More than one subject being addressed.  In politics, it is 1860.

Preliminary ... the research prior to 1850 is incomplete, but it seems pretty easy to push it back to 1700.  Farther back it is spotty, but maybe back to 1100.  But it seems some of my ancestors (as per American Revolution) were early founders of Connecticut.  Connecticut and Rhode Island were early liberal places, compared to Massachusetts.  The ancestors of my Confederate ancestor may have been Pennsylvania Dutch (outside Philadelphia) ... specifically Mennonite.  Others were Danish (mid 19th century).  Another group are those who are Dutch from New Amsterdam (NYC).  The English/Scottish/Irish is plentiful of course.  Once their arrival in the US or colonies are traced, it is now possible to pursue back into the old country because of on-line baptismal records etc.  I lean toward romanticism, but I find it interesting that now with on-line technology, I can flesh out all the stuff from American and European history that I have studied since childhood.