Close Menu
    Maps

    Ottoman colonialism


    Ottoman colonialism

    Posted by Bertoto679

    Bytes Europe

    View 32 Comments

    32 Comments

    3. mwhn on

      colonies are detached enclaves

      this was turkey trying to expand and put border over middle east and north africa that had prior fallen apart

    4. Thardein0707 on

      This is not colonialism. This is standard imperial expansion just like every other land empire.

    5. IKONTROLWATER on

      You’re gonna break some redditers brains when its not white devils.

      Edit: Triggered.

    7. Coolkurwa on

      My favorite thing in history is when something starts out small and unassuming and then just takes over everything! 

      Like Rome starting out as an unassuming city state, or a few british trading posts in India and then they end up ruling the place, or some dude preaching in a Roman backwater and somehow starting the world’s biggest religion.

      I really need to read up on the Ottomans.

    8. Ekoloj on

      Ottoman’s hasn’t any colonies. They have a Vilayets (province) or Eyalets (States). And if Ottomans a colonialist empire, probably todays little countries are never exist.

    9. Fortheweaks on

      Why is the map half French half another language (Portuguese ?). It’s not even modern French as it looks like, transposed from an old map ?

    11. Easy_Use_7270 on

      Ottoman Empire didn’t have any colony. Each of these regions were either a core territory or an autonomous/vassal principality. In the core territories, the people had the same rights as the rest of the empire.

    15. chekitch on

      Ottomans didn’t have colonies. They expanded/conquered..

      But also, I have a feeling some here think colonialism is worse than conquer, and I am shocked by that. Why would you think that? They are just different things..

    16. Automatic_Tough2022 on

      This sub has become full of propaganda , it’s sad to see honestly, first arab colonialism now this , people suddenly doesn’t know the difference between colonialism, expansion and conquest, it’s like there is an agenda some people here trying to push and it reeks of hasbara bullshit.

    19. gdch93 on

      I love this sub, because it constantly reminds us on who the real colonisers were and keep on being.

    21. classikman on

      Ahh love the debate going on. Here’s a fun fact many European countries only considered Ottomans Turks European because they couldn’t stand the fact they were conquered by non Europeans. They used to white wash Turks now they are not as powerful and it’s the other way around.

    24. GroundbreakingBox187 on

      Not this trend again. There a very clear consensus in the historical record on what is and isn’t colonialism and I feel like this sub can never comprehend that. Migrations and conquests that could lead to ethnogensis vs actual colonists whose purpose is to colonize.

    27. Stickeys on

      Turks never do land acknowledgements or talk about being on “stolen land,” I wonder why that is

    28. AcanthocephalaSea410 on

      “Colonialism” is a word chosen to create confusion. Did the British establish settlements in India? No. They established them in Australia. As you can see, it is a problematic word. Colonialism is the exploitation of a distant place that is not part of you.

      In Turkish, we use words meaning “exploitationism” or “absorptionism”. When you use this word, you don’t think of settlement. You think of impoverishing someone or sucking their blood.

    29. Federal_Ad9582 on

      I’m sorry but that’s not colonialism! Seriously look up what it means. This is just territorial expansion they literally didn’t do anything else but conquer and place people in these regions, tax the regions etc, just typical imperial stuff. Colonialism is very very different

    32. thedarkpath on

      Is every land conquest colonialism now ? Feel the word is being misused. Its just empired expanding and absorbing defeated neighbours.