Comments by "Ggoddkkiller" (@ggoddkkiller1342) on "Jabzy"
channel.
-
20
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
19
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
16
-
I will mention mistakes in same order he made them from Turkish perspective;
1- Janissaries were never slave soldiers nor they ever gave up their military ways, i really wonder from which sources he could learn such nonsense really! Janissary corps existed over 500 years and ofc it kept changing in time both by demands of Janissaries and reforms done by Ottoman. Janissaries could always buy properties, retire and start civilian lives but it was strictly forbidden while they were serving they could not marry or buy any businesses. Later on it was allowed them to marry while they were still serving so not long after there were children of Janissaries and their fathers wanted to enlist them to the corps. It was refused for a while then their orphan children were allowed to enlist, soon after Muslim orphans were also accepted. Not long after Devshirme system was abolished and Janissary corps began accepting everybody. So Janissary size was rapidly increasing who were only a part Ottoman standing army and at the begining a minority. For example in 1492 Ottoman army had 6,000 Janissaries and 40,000 Sipahis, because Turks were nomads vast majority of Turkish soldiers were cavarly. However after they were allowed to marry and their children began enlisting etc the size of Janissary corps began increasing rapidly through 16 and 17th centuries. So they became dominant force within the Ottoman army and began pretty much doing whatever they wanted, revolting for higher salaries, accepting merchants and artists to the corps for bribes you name it. In 18th century Janissary member size became much larger than their actual army size and ofc Ottoman had to pay them all salaries, to reduce the burden Ottoman reduced Janissary peace time salary and increased their war time salary given directly to soldiers during their campaign so merchants etc couldn't receive it. But it didn't also fix anything as this time Janissaries began wanting war constantly and revolting simply because there was too long peace period..
2- Another reason why Ottoman literacy rate was low, Arabic alphabet was never right for Turkish. There are so many vowels in Turkish which doesn't exist in Arabic at all so it was literally impossible to correctly write many Turkish words. Ottoman literary language aka Ottoman Turkish ''fixed'' this by replacing those Turkish words with foreign words but those foreign words were never adopted by ordinary people. So this speaking and literary language difference placed a barrier between literacy and ordinary people and only educated people bothered learning Ottoman Turkish which was ofc so small part of population same as everywhere.
3- There is no evidence at all Suleiman's sons were going to betray him, Mustafa was 38 years old when he was accused for betrayal and executed. But it wasn't his doing rather simply Ottoman nobles were supporting him to become sultan anymore as he was the most loved son of Suleiman and he almost reached his 40s while Suleiman was 58. Instead of stepping down Suleiman killed him which made a lot of people upset, his youngest sick son died only weeks later. Beyazid blamed him for deaths of his brothers and indeed rebelled against him with support of some Ottoman nobles. But he was defeated and executed as well which left Selim the drunkard as the only heir of Suleiman, it was a sad episode of how to destroy a dynasty really..
4- Another mistake it is somehow told as Ottoman didn't want to reform it's army but it is just false, Ottoman was doing everything they could to reform their army but Janissaries were against it and actually rebelled several times to keep their old ways through out 18th century. For example Nizâm-ı cedîd army was established in 1792 which adopted napoleonic warfare but after a Janissary rebellion it had to be abolished in 1807. After janissary corps was abolished entirely in 1826 Ottoman could finally begin reforming it's military.
5- There were always radical Muslims same as there were radical Christians in Europe, the difference was Europe was ruled by radical Christians through out medieval ages while Muslim world was ruled by moderate Muslims. It is often ignored by westerners for obvious reasons but Turks were always traditionally quite moderate, for example do you know how many women were stoned in Ottoman in it's over 600 years old history? ONLY ONE who was a prostitute and admitted her guilt which didn't require much punishment but she also claimed she didn't do anything wrong and Ottoman laws were false. Violating Islamic laws is one thing and questioning Ottoman laws another so she got the worst punishment possible. Another example would be saudis with their radical wahabism, they actually rebelled against Ottoman and began attacking ''fake Muslims'' and tombs etc exactly same as isis did in recent years. Ottoman ordered and funded Ali Pasha to raise an army in Egypt and end their rebellion that he did without much trouble, saudis were pushed back into desert while several family members were executed. Unfortunately for Ottoman Ali Pasha's army was largely intact so he used it to fight against Ottoman for governership in more regions than Egypt. So the decline of moderate central powers and radical groups like saudis taking power was the true reason for rise of radicalism in Islamic world not printing at all..
13
-
8
-
@thattubechannel First of all your assumptions suggest you don't know much about Turkey nor Turkish people. As nobody is trying to justify it, in fact both Ottoman and Turkey officially accepted there were war crimes and Ottoman officials were tried and even punished with death penalty including an Ottoman governer! Turkey and vast majority of Turkish people are only against re-writing history like Ottoman targeted ''peaceful'' Armenians only because they were Armenians therefore it was a genocide but it couldn't be more false. I suggest you to read manifesto of Kajaznuni who was the first PM of Armenia and was living in Van city of Ottoman during their rebellion. He states very openly that they began preparing for a rebellion even before Ottoman joined WW1, they were a russian proxy as they believed russian empire was going to liberate them and even says if they didn't rebel perhaps Ottoman wasn't going to target them! He also talks about russian betrayel, soviet invasion of Armenia etc, a must read and you would realize the scale of Armenian rebellion. As Turks we know the scale of it as we don't only read history, we literally live in it! My father's village in central Anatolia quite far from Armenian majority regions but still in the area Armenian militia operated and i've heard many stories from elders there who lived through it. Armenian militia attacking Turkish villages burning them down, next day Turkish militia attacking Armenian villages. So it wasn't a small minority of Armenians starting a rebellion rather it was a full blown civil war and that's why Ottoman decided to displace them and cut their weapon and supply routes from russian empire to suppress their rebellion.
So it is just a weak narrative to claim there is a parallel between our actions and western colonialism. Some African tribes were never a threat to British empire, Indians were never a threat to Americans, Spanish empire never had to invade central America and begin a sacking campaign through it! They only did that to enrich themselves and fabricated ''spreading civilization'' moronity later on to refuse their genocides even if every single colony on Earth is in far worse conditions than non-colonized countries..
Perhaps it is lack of history knowledge which makes you think there is a parallel, especially if you are taking today's Turkey into consideration so let me state some facts. In 1914 there were 13 million Muslims living in Anatolia which includes Kurdish and Arabic minorities. While there were 6 million Greeks and 4.5 million Armenians despite living under ''terrible conditions'' for centuries. On the other hand russian empire had 164 million, UK 46 million and France 39 million population while literally over a billion with their colonies. So Entente powers really believed they could carve up even Anatolia not just Arabia etc. Russian empire really had an objective to capture Constantinople even during WW1! And as a result Muslim population of Anatolia dropped from 13 million in 1914 to 10.5 million in 1923 that you can not find ''neutral'' western historians talking about this anywhere as it doesn't serve their interests!! Don't worry i won't begin a self dramatisation and crying like some others, we came from infertile valleys and deserts of central Asia and if this is the price of heavenly Anatolia we would pay it again. So it all comes to persective, you are only looking one side of the coin and thinking you know the other side but nope, you have no idea. We didn't invade Anatolia in 1915 rather we did so in 1071 over 800 years before that. And had every opportunity to assimmilate or genocide Armenians but we chose to allow them literally rule themselves, operate their own institutions and even issue their own laws. Even then our reward was this moronity, still doesn't matter we know who we are and we couldn't care less what westerners or other nations think of us. We are one side you are another, this is how world works even if it is quite primitive..
I will just ignore ''Islamic civilization collapsing'' part as it was mostly the fault of Arabs. I really don't like being prejudiced towards any nation but do you know who hates Arabs the most? Other Arabs! They are so cruel to each others it is beyond any understanding.
8
-
8
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
7
-
@thattubechannel Once again you are trying to twist what i said to serve your narrative which is just a weak argument tactic if you ask me! I've never ever said they deserved it but very clearly they weren't targeted because they were Christians or ethnic minorities rather because they literally rebelled against the empire therefore that ''Ottoman always persecuted minorities'' claim is just false. For example Georgians also spent hundreds of years under Ottoman rule, Georgians also declared independence and fought against Ottoman but the biggest difference was Georgians didn't become russian, british, french proxies while claiming a massive country from Caspian sea to Black sea! Rather they only claimed where they were majority and fought against both Ottoman and Russian empire for their lands! At the end Georgians got twice larger country than Armenians with half of their population which tells a lot about what Armenians did wrong..
Comparing Arabic Jizya tax and Ottoman Jizya tax is a huge mistake, Arabs never had a system like Millet system offering so many rights to minorities, in fact some of them didn't even consider religious minorities as citizens at all! So they were paying Jizya tax to live in the country basicly. I also never claimed Ottoman did everything right, Ottoman economic system was just terrible and it was one of main reasons why the empire fell so far behind European empires in it's last century or two. Ottoman could also offer more autonomy to minorities like British empire did but this had a condition that we have to mention. European empires needed to give Ottoman such a chance but instead they jumped into partitioning Ottoman wagon and armed every single minority they could find and encouraged them to rebel. Ottoman didn't have seperated populations rather from Athens to Yerevan from Istanbul to Alexandria all had mixed populations. I think you are smart enough to guess what would happen if you arm minorities and release them to establish their country in a such mixed envoirement, huh? Literally MILLIONS were slaughtered or displaced in Balkans, Caucasus and even Anatolia that according ENTENTE SOURCES more than 300,000 Muslim civilians were killed by your ''innocent'' rebels!! I really wonder if you were going to accept there was a Turkish genocide if we lost the war and we were displaced from Anatolia, were you??? You can not make us genociders only because we won the war especially against wicked empires like russians, it is just that simple. We aren't accepting it nor will ever accept it even 1000 years later. If you want to recognize and condemn all atrocities our doors are open but i really doubt it, you westerners have quite twisted understanding of human values...
7
-
7
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
5
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
4
-
4
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
4
-
3
-
3
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@arched3954 First of all ''1.5 million Armenians killed'' claim is nothing but a lie! In 1910 there were 1.6 million Armenians in Ottoman then Russian empire invaded entire eastern Turkey in 1914 so Ottoman lost those majority Armenian territories and accordingly couldn't genocide them, right? Armenians who live in western Turkey according to Entente sources they were around 500,000 and never relocated as they never received russian weapons nor became a part of Armenian rebellion. 1.6 million minus 500 thousand 1.1 million remaining, minus russian occupied territories where hundreds of thousands Armenians were living, minus hundreds of thousands recolated Armenians who could reach Syria and Lebanon then migrating into Caucasus and Russian empire! We are looking at 500,000 Armenian casualties at highest, in fact this was the claim for decades but recently it kept increasing and became completely unrealistic 1.5 million claim with riciulous explanations like ''Ottoman lied about Armenian population'' etc..
You can read the manifesto of first Armenian PM Kajaznuni who was in Van province of Ottoman during WW1 and a leader of their rebellion. He openly admits they were russian proxies and began preparations for a rebellion even before Ottoman joined WW1. He could even say if they didn't rebel perhaps Ottoman wasn't going to target them, also talks about their struggle while they were migrating to Russian empire and how russians betrayed them with soviet invasion of Armenia etc. It is a must read for sure.
About if relocation was too harsh, ofc it was but it was the only option for Ottoman to end their rebellion. Because you only read biased sources you have no idea Armenian militia didn't only target Ottoman forces during their rebellion rather targeted Muslim civilians as well and according to ENTENTE sources over 300,000 Muslim civilians were killed in Anatolia between 1914 and 1923. My father's village in the area that Armenian militia operated and i've heard many stories from elders there. Armenian militia attacking and burning Turkish villages and next day Turkish militia attacking Armenian villages! It wasn't a small minority of Armenians rebelling rather it reached the scale of full blown civil war, then how exactly Ottoman was going relocate only fighting age male Armenians while there was such a conflict happening?? Ofc biased sources trying to whitewash this as ''Armenian resistance'' like it was Muslim women and children who were targeting Armenians..
The only legit point of yours that the relocation wasn't indeed planned well, there wasn't enough supplies for them so a lot of Armenians died during route to Syria and Lebanon. And there was also not enough established for them to settle in those places, just a handful flimsy camps. So some Armenians resettled into Syrian and Lebanese cities while vast majority of them decided to migrate into Russian empire. During their route through Caucasus mountains many times more of them died. Even if it wasn't directly by Ottoman's hands Ottoman was still responsible for those deaths and it is a war crime for sure but not a genocide. UN definition of a genocide states crystal clear ''a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part'' and Ottoman didn't try to destroy them rather only suppress their rebellion. You can not act like Ottoman sent them into middle of Sahara desert for them to die while in reality Euphrates river runs through middle of Syria and there isn't such a large desert! This is also why UN and even many western countries do not recognize it as a genocide, it is just so ridiculous that some people could even compare it to Holocaust...
2
-
@balkanmountains2-3131 It is such a amusing joke that you accuse me being biased then continue writing ridiculously biased ''counterarguments'' that even a blind man can see how biased they are, LMAO! For example lets look into ''Ottoman didn't slaughter or convert all Christians because it would take so much time, effort, and most importantly money'' nonsense, shall we?
Christians captured back Iberian peninsula in 1492 and ordered EVERYBODY including even Jews to convert into Christianity or face severe consequences like being crucified, beheaded etc. Did it take so ''much time, effort and money'' to convert everybody or drive tens of thousands away, huh? Spain wasn't even a strong country back then but they could still do it easily. On the other hand Ottoman was the strongest empire in Europe for two centuries at least, their armies were even outnumbering huge European coalitions and crusades but they didn't have enough resources to handle some civilians?? If you could really believe this im sorry but you are just quite dumb. Ottoman could always slaughter or forcefully convert every single Christian in their path but they chose not to do it rather acted tolerantly! And this was also why Ottoman rapidly expanded as despite this modern moronic propaganda against Ottoman some Christians especially Orthodoxs prefered rule of Ottoman than a Catolic empire as they were many times more cruel against them always. Or do i have to remind you Catholic atrocities in Balkans including crusades, huh?? It didn't even take 20 years after Ottoman's collapse to Catholics invade Balkans again and slaughter you as they wished but i bet you somehow blame it on us as well..
And this brings us to again other empires, could you share please what was happening to citizens who failed to pay their taxes in other countries and empires, huh? They were getting executed or enslaved and often their ENTIRE FAMILY was punished and it was VERY COMMON practice selling their children as slaves because otherwise all their children could become slaves!! Compared to this true barbarism Ottoman way was actually merciful, taking a single child and raising them as Ottoman soldiers and even officials not slaves at all. And it is completely a lie that they were brainwashed, some of children were as old as 18 years, how exactly do you expect Ottoman to brainwash them?? They were simply choosing the better life they had as Ottoman officials over poor village life they had! It was that simple, in fact there were even families who gave their children willingly to save their lives!! Medieval life was never easy and you are just ridiculously biased to compare it to today while ignoring conditions of the time especially in other empires.
Exactly same goes for ''brutal suppressions'' that there was no empire, country or even local lord who suppressed rebellions with roses and kisses rather it was always bloody. It is true Ottoman acted mercilessly against any rebellion and rebelled population was often punished by enslavement as well same as all empires. But at least in Ottoman slavery wasn't life long like other places, you even don't know that and still claiming Ottoman was ''so bad''??!! Here reduce your ignorance a little bit, in Ottoman slavery lasted 7 years for African slaves and 9 years for white slaves and even less if they converted to Islam. Afterwards they were free to return their homeland or granted Ottoman citizenship if they wanted to stay. So it is true Ottoman traded some slaves but it was never ever widespread as Europe simply because they have to released after few years. So it never made sense for a farm estate to buy slaves to just release them later and there were very few slaves in Anatolia!! Such a wicked empire releasing slaves in 9 years while others were considering even their entire family tree as slaves for many generations, just wow pupu on Ottoman...
Byzantine allowing Muslims to operate their own government, courts and issuing their own laws is just a dirty lie! I would agree Byzantine also had much much greater religious tolerance than other European empires and Muslims could live in peace in Byzantine but they never allowed same rights as Ottoman did for it's citizens. I think you misunderstood what i wrote and wrongly thought i was claiming Balkan nations had no right to seek independence from Ottoman empire. Every nation has every right to seek their independence if they want to but Ottoman never deserved the way you did it considering every Muslim as your enemy as soon as Ottoman weakened enough. If we considered every Christian as an enemy you weren't existing today so we deserved same treatment!! Too bad you can not still admit it and find ridiculous excuses for your becoming proxies of foreign powers and your brutality against Muslim civilians, fortunately despite our low population (In 1914 there were only 10 million Turks living) we defended our homeland not against you and also your owners, russkies, british, french etc! So i don't have any beef against you but we will never ever accept your re-writing history of ''Armenian and Greek genocides'' like you were peaceful people and we targeted you all of a sudden because in reality you were bloodthirsty mercenaries ready to kill all Muslims for capturing and ethnic cleasing your ''ancestral lands'' but we are guilty only because we could defeat you ofc..
Sadly Assyrian genocide really happened, i couldn't find any Turkish or foreign source which shows Assyrians engaged in a rebellion, target any Muslim civilians at all, in fact it is unclear if they even wanted to become independent but they were still targeted by Kurdish militia. In case if you have no idea Ottoman moved even garrisons from southeastern Anatolia into front lines with russian empire and Gallipoli while leaving the region under control of allied Kurdish militia. This was also why Kurds didn't accept Entente support after all they were literally ruling themselves already. However they used their responsibilities badly and targeted Assyrians. It is still Ottoman's fault, they should had stopped them somehow and i feel guilty about it unlike fabricated ''Armenian and Greek genocides'' who were going to displace us from Anatolia with foreign power but cry as genocide only because they were defeated, just pitiful liars they are...
2
-
2
-
2
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@yarsaz4347 You ''genius'' must learn the UN definition of genocide that ''a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part''. Now go check out every order Ottoman had, intercepted or captured by entente powers that in single one of them there is any intention to destroy Armenians! The whole point of Armenian displacement into Syria and Lebanon was moving them away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them weapons not to destroy them. And this was the reason why Armenians who lived in western Ottoman weren't affected at all as they never received russian weapons nor rebelled against the empire. But ofc you ''educated'' jokes have absolutely no idea russian empire invaded entire eastern Turkey in 1914, again absolutely no idea Armenians rebelled as a russian proxy shortly after while believing Ottoman was about to collapse after their defeats against russians, again absolutely no idea Armenian rebel forces didn't only target Ottoman also Muslim civilians and according to ENTENTE sources over 300,000 Muslims were killed in Anatolia!! If two groups of people are engaged against each others we call that a CIVIL WAR and if those groups are committing atrocities against each others we call that WAR CRIMES, not a genocide at all. And this is exactly why UN and many western countries didn't recognize a total fabrication as Armenian genocide so far..
Thank you ''the wise one'' for telling us who we are, you are so gifted you know who people are from thousands of kms away. I almost envy you, almost..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow..
Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers.
As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse.
As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1