Jump to content

Talk:Ottoman dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ottoman Sultans as Roman Emperors

[edit]

Can someone provide a citation for the claim that Mehmet Fatih was crowned Roman Emperor by the Orthodox Patriarch? If he was in fact crowned, did successive Ottoman sultans also officially take the title of Roman Emperor (cite)? Dec. 15 '05 20:36 EST 129.22.46.197

Fatih Sultan Mehmet became the Roman Ceasar but not officially. He invaded the last lands of Roman Dynasty and as we know, till the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Sultans didn't even have a rival in this position. Finally, we can consider that Mehmet II had all the power of a Ceasar but not officially became a Ceasar. (This answer is from Dusrun Onur Ilhan, from Turkey/Istanbul)

Mehmed II indeed claimed the title of Caesar of the Roman Empire when he conquered Constantinople in 1453, and his heirs held it till the abdication of the Mehmed VI in 1922. The title was reinforced around 1500 when Manuel Palaiologos, grandson or grandniece of Constantine XI and heir apparent of the throne, decided to sold his rights to the current sultan Bayezid II. Manuel became a Turkish nobleman and his sons made career in the Ottoman navy. The claim was contested by the Christian powers, however; not just because they didn't think that the Roman emperor could be a Muslim, but because when Manuel sold his rights he had actually an elder brother living in exile in Naples, Andreas, who claimed the Byzantine throne due to his primogeniture. Andreas died childless in 1503 and named Ferdinand II of Aragon as his heir, and through him the claim passed to the Kings of Spain. So, in essence, there are reasons to see the Ottoman sultans as Roman emperors, or not. They though they were and acted as such in any case.--Menah the Great 03:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Sultans as Caliphs

[edit]

Which one was the first one to be a Caliph?--iFaqeer 08:04, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Selim I (Yavuz Sultan Selim) was the first Caliph. He gained the title after the conquest of Egypt where the Holy Treasures (Kutsal Hazineler) were kept. 212.98.201.1 09:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is disputed: see http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sangat/khilafat.htm

It may be disputed (but then so were the last two US Presidential elections!) but Selim was nevertheless the first Ottoman caliph, which is all that is relevant to this article. While the earlier sultans took the title for granted, it is not true that the claim was an 18th c fabrication. The legitimacy of the claim was thoroughly discussed and debated in the 16th c. Jpiccone 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Djem 1

[edit]

How Come Djem was taken out as a Sultan for a brief period?? User:Tancarville

See Cem.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:24, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Other meanings of Osmanli

[edit]

I know of another meaning of Osmanli: Ottoman language. I think there also is a people of the name Osmanli. Sarcelles 19:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Osmanlı" means "Ottoman." It's an adjective and can refer to just anything Ottoman (e.g. the language). Therefore, the title of the page should be changed to make clear WTF is meant by "Ottoman." In Turkish, the article is called (transl.) "the Ottoman Caliphs." (check [1], registration is needed but for free).
I googled "osmanli" in English and couldn't find serious articles, where it was used as a noun like here.
Another thing: It's not "Osmanli" but "Osmanlı." Not "i" but "ı", a Turkish character from the ASCII set. There was a big discussion in wikipedia some time ago about conventions for non-English names as titles for articles. It was decided that, if regional/local titles are the same as (or very similar to) the English titles only with e.g. German umlauts or French accents then the local variant should be used. So, if there was an English concept as "Osmanli" it should be "Osmanlı" for a title.
Summing up, "Osmanli" is a) incorrectly spelled and b) makes no sense in Turkish c) nor does it seem to be in use in English. Ben T/C 00:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments... Anyway, I propose moving the page to Ottoman dynasty. Please comment now. Ben T/C 15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in full, Ottoman dynasty would be great, though I'm not certain whether the 'd' should be capitalized or not. This page should then be made a redirect to Ottoman (and so should Osmanlı); that disambig should in turn be expanded to include links to the Ottoman Turkish language, the Ottoman Dynasty and possibly more. /The Phoenix 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and the suggestions. I'll do it now. Ben T/C 13:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. This title makes much more sense.
I capitalized the d. Alternative titles could be Ottoman caliphs or The Ottomans. I made some redirects. Ben T/C 14:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great! /The Phoenix 13:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osmanli Culture

[edit]

The new section "Osmanli Culture" should probably be moved to Culture of the Ottoman Empire. /The Phoenix 18:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

page titles

[edit]

Most monarchs on wikipedia follow the naming conventions for titles, but none of the Ottoman sultans do. I propose that the titles be changed to add "... of Turkey" or "..., Ottoman Sultan" or "..., Ottoman Emperor". Many of them need disambiguation and this is the format that the European monarchs follow. Any comments? Cuñado - Talk 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Clarification

[edit]

the ottoman empire's main article says it was founded/begun in 1299. that's the date given in the article that osman declared the kayi's independence from the seljuks. but the ottoman dynasty's article says it ruled the empire started in 1281. how is that possible? are both dates correct? and does the answer lie in the dynasty's article that mention's osman's father isnt included in the dysnasty timeline? 4.230.174.139 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. 1299 is the correct date. I have changed the dates in the article accordingly. Yucina (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the Ottomans' sovereign state is in dispute. It is definitely around 1299; however it is not certain. Most probably this day was accepted by the Ottomans -and many historians- later since it is -almost- the beginning of a new century -both in Hijret(Muslim) and Gregorian calendars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.185.13 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian wars

[edit]

I have removed the paragraph relating to the Armenian rebellion/massacre (Headed "Just for clarification") from this article as it quite simply does not belong here. This article is about the House of Osman, not the alleged policies of the Ottoman government almost a century ago. The paragraph did not clarify anything already contained within the remainder of the article. Pavlvs-rex


Which mid-17th century Sultan was referred to as Mahomet Han? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The interlanguage links were quite messy. Currently, three Wikipedias have separate articles for the Ottoman Dynasty and the List of Sultans of the Ottoman Empire: the Chinese, English and Turkish Wikipedias. These are two different topics, and I have thus organized the links as follows:

Ottoman Dynasty
List of Sultans of the Ottoman Empire

I have also removed the link to the Polish Wikipedia (pl:Władcy Turcji) since it has a much broader scope than the articles in other projects: it covers all Turkish monarchs, not just the Ottomans. --BomBom (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

In the infobox the ethnicity of the dynasty is given as "Turkish". However, Valide Sultans (see the article "List of Valide Sultans") were always non-Turkish so the later Sultans would have hardly any trace of Turkish ancestry. Is there a way of clarifying or qualiflying this in the article?

Ethnicity is primarily a matter of culture, not genetics.Eregli bob (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ottomans were not "Turkish." There is no evidence of that assertion.--85.104.84.9 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange assertion

[edit]

"Thus they still formally acknowledged the sovereignty of the contemporary Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm and its successor, the Ilkhanate."

This statement makes no sense. In what way is the "Ilkhanate" a successor to the Konya Rum Sultanate ?Eregli bob (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that the page Osmanoğlu family be merged into this page, Ottoman dynasty. The two pages refer to the same thing, although this Ottoman dynasty page focuses on the family during its reign as the rulers of the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, the other page (Osmanoğlu family) contains much more information, especially about the family today, and seems to be more complete. However, the issue remains. I think the ideal result would be a comprehensive, merged article that contains historical information about the family during its rule, as well as modern and relevant information about it as it exists in the modern day.

I do not know what the final title of the merged article should be (as the word "Ottoman" is a centuries-old Anglicization of the name "Osman", which still exists in the de facto name of the family, as "Osmanoğlu" means "son of Osman"). "Dynasty" is perhaps not a good word to include in the title, as it implies that it is still ruling, or that it only refers to the family when it was a dynasty. However, the word "Osmanoğlu" would be a rather arbitrary and exotic name, at least for the English Wikipedia.

A good title, I believe, would follow the example of the House of Habsburg and would be something like "House of Osman" or even "House of Ottoman", preferably the former.

If this seems sensible to you, please vote to support it below, and if it doesn't, discuss below as well. However, the two articles can't be allowed to remain this way (especially the other "Osmanoğlu family" one, as it is almost completely orphaned from the rest of the Ottoman family-related articles).

Ithinkicahn (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As a rule I don't like article mergers except in cases where one of the article is the copy of the other. During the mergers the history of one of the pages is almost lost. In the Ottoman case, the two articles are not the duplicates of each other. Except for a short lede the family refers to modern people and the dynasty refers to the ruling family. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the Osmanoğlu family article was clearly created as a mistake; if you check its history, it was originally and up until recently a simple duplicate of the Ottoman dynasty article. I don't think losing the history of the article matters in the big picture, compared to the discrepancies caused by having these 2 duplicate articles. Ithinkicahn (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The two articles, as they currently stand, have two distinct subjects: the reigning Ottoman dynasty, and their non-reigning (and indeed rather obscure) descendants. When one searches for the "Ottoman dynasty" or the "House of Osman", one will probably want the reigning dynasty. It would be rather odd to append a list of entirely non-notable grandchildren, grandnephews etc to a line of sultans. Indeed, that is AFAIK the common practice for ruling houses, any antescendants and descendants are noted in so far as they are notable on their own, but the main focus is on the period when the house was ruling. This is the case even in the multi-branched House of Habsburg, mentioned above. Constantine ✍ 09:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.I agree with Constantine - the two articles are about different subjects. I propose that the article Line of succession to the former Ottoman throne be merged with Osmanoğlu family as the line of succession is contained within the latter. Regarding the name of the family, the members refer to themselves as The Ottoman Family ("Osmanlı ailesi" in Turkish)- this is how they are announced at official engagements. They are also called the "Osmanoğlus". Osmanoğlu is their surname. This is similar to the way that the British Royal Family are called "the Windsors". While it may look foreign to English speakers it is simply a name in Turkish. While it is true that many of the members of the family are obscure and indeed wish to remain so, several are notable in their own right. Naz Osmanoglu is an up and coming comedian, Abdulhamid Kayıhan Osmanoğlu is a Turkish film star who also appears regularly on a history talk show (see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfDQdK3dxUM) Osman Osmanoğlu is an accomplished author and genealogist. In the past two years, the family has become increasingly well known in Turkey and in the Turkish diaspora around the world. They are frequently invited en masse to events hosted by Prime Minister Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. This supports their notability as a group, if not as individuals. MissyMaddie (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax WP:OR reinstated by User:Beshogur

[edit]

The user in question changed the link for "tamam Azerbaijan" from the translation of this mid-16th century text to Whole Azerbaijan, a 20th century irridentist nationalistic concept. This, of course, without providing any sources which legitimize this. How on earth does "tamam Azerbaijan" include this 20th century concept, when the Republic of Azerbaijan, or in fact even the usage of the name "Azerbaijan" for the territory to the north of the Aras River didn't even remotely exist, and came only to be established and used some... 350 years later?

On the adoptation of the already in-use name of Azerbaijan by the Mussavatists numerous people commented throughout history;

  • Dekmejian & Simonian;[6]

"Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independant state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan."

  • Babak Rezvani;[7]

"The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago."

"(...) whenever it is necessary to choose a name that will encompass all regions of the republic of Azerbaijan, name Arran can be chosen. But the term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity. On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen. Of course right now when the word Azerbaijan is used, it has two meanings as Persian Azerbaijan and as a republic, its confusing and a question rises as to which Azerbaijan is talked about."

  • B.G. Fragner;[9]

"In the post Islamic sense, Arran and Shirvan are often distinguished, while in the pre-Islamic era, Arran or the western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of the republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (northwestern Iran) was reinterpreted as "South Azerbaijan" in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern-day northwestern Iran."

"On May 27, the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) was declared with Ottoman military support. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as [Transcaucasian] Tatar, which they rightfully considered to be a Russian colonial definition. (...) Neighboring Iran did not welcome did not welcome the DRA's adoptation of the name of "Azerbaijan" for the country because it could also refer to Iranian Azerbaijan and implied a territorial claim."

Basically with all this; its completely incorrect to redirect the name of "Azerbaijan" as used in this context, to the Republic of Azerbaijan as well, as its during an era when a) the region in question (to the north of the Aras) wasn't even known as "Azerbaijan" b) the concept of Whole Azerbaijan (which you redirected it to) didn't even remotely exist. "Tamam Azerbaijan" in this context simply means "all of Azarbaijan, aka present-day Iranian Azerbaijan". Leaving this here for the record. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Touraj Atabaki. Iran and the First World War: Battleground of the Great Powers' I.B.Tauris, 4 sep. 2006 ISBN 978-1860649646 p 132
  2. ^ Matini 1989
  3. ^ Minorsky 1960
  4. ^ Barthold 1963
  5. ^ Atabaki, Touraj (2000). Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and the Struggle for Power in Iran. I.B.Tauris. p. 25. ISBN 9781860645549.
  6. ^ Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris. p. 60. ISBN 978-1860649226.
  7. ^ Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p. 356. ISBN 978-9048519286.
  8. ^ Barthold, Vasily (1963). Sochineniya, vol II/1. Moscow. p. 706. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  9. ^ Fragner, B.G. (2001). Soviet Nationalism: An Ideological Legacy to the Independant Republics of Central Asia. I.B. Tauris and Company. pp. 13–32. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  10. ^ National Identities in Soviet Historiography: The Rise of Nations Under Stalin Routledge, 20 feb. 2015 ISBN 978-1317596646 p 21

Kayı

[edit]

The Ottomans' claim to Kayı origins has been called into question by several reputable historians, and should not be presented as clear and undisputed fact. 

"That they hailed from the Kayı branch of the Oğuz confederacy seems to be a creative "rediscovery" in the genealogical concoction of the fifteenth century. It is missing not only in Ahmedi but also, and more importantly, in the Yahşi Fakih-Aşıkpaşazade narrative, which gives its own version of an elaborate genealogical family tree going back to Noah. If there was a particularly significant claim to Kayı lineage, it is hard to imagine that Yahşi Fakih would not have heard of it."

Kafadar, Cemal (1995). Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. p. 122. 

"Let us recall here that behind the translation of this work [Tevarih-i Al-i Selçuk] was the Ottoman administration’s establishment of a political construct as proof that they came from the Kayı branch of the Oğuz in order to oppose the challenge of the Karakoyunlu."

Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, "Social, Cultural, and Intellectual Life," in The Cambridge History of Turkey, Volume 1. (Cambridge University Press, 2009) p. 410.

Chamboz (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive citations

[edit]

User:Gündoğdu has placed more than a dozen citations under the claim that the Ottomans were Oğuz. Spamming unverifiable citations (many of which lack even page numbers) in order to make a point is not how one should edit on Wikipedia. Pick only the best and most reliable sources, and provide quotes from them to support your position. Having a large number of unverifiable citations is not good editing, and it actually makes your position look weaker, since it appears as though you're searching for sources solely to prove a point and grabbing any and everything you can find, no matter the verifiability. Chamboz (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ottoman dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession

[edit]

The numbering for the line of succession doesn't make sense. Any ideas, as in am I right to say it's a mistake? Cltjames (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the line of succession lists today's senior members' ancestors? Can someone please explain in the text or verify the logic ? Cltjames (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_dynasty&oldid=1208724475"