Comments by "Ggoddkkiller" (@ggoddkkiller1342) on "Has the Middle East ever been at Peace? | History of the Middle East 1600-1800 - 4/21" video.

Originally Mamluks were Turkic mercenaries who were hired by Egyptians and in time they became a great military power and began controlling Egyptian politics so it makes sense they were using Turks for both of them at least for early Ottoman era. In later centuries Mamluks were just an Egyptian political elite and their Turkic origin was just a past.
7
@user-ny7bt5jg6f It is implying nationality, first usage of Türk word as a national identity was in 552 with establishment of Göktürk empire. Since then there has been always some kind of national understanding between Turkic people. For example Ottoman defeated Mamluks and could banish them from Egypt then establish a new political elite, loyal to them. But they didn't even if it was harmful simply because of their Turkic origin. Ottoman was fair towards everybody as long as they stayed loyal to the empire and punished those who rebelled. But even if Mamluks rebelled several times they weren't punished so it makes sense local Egyptian writers didn't see much difference between them..
5
You could be raided in countryside of England or especially Scotland, you could be robbed and killed in middle of London as well through entire history of British empire, so British empire couldn't control those lands? If Ottoman Pashas tried to suppress locals they become ''tyrannical'' while if Ottoman allowed locals to rule themselves it becomes middle east was always at war! Between 1600 and 1800 at least 20 million Europeans got killed as there were wars one after another especially religious wars were the worst. And he could come up with like half a dozen battles not even wars to prove middle east wasn't in peace? Few thousand casualties are enough to prove they were always at war?? Such a moronic bias i must say and middle east was in peace for 400 years under Ottoman rule. It wasn't perfect and there were problems for sure but not war and massive casualties without any question. In last 100 years more middle eastern people died because of conflicts than entire 400 years long Ottoman rule...
4
You could be raided in countryside of England or especially Scotland, you could be robbed and killed in middle of London as well through entire history of British empire, so British empire couldn't control those lands? If Ottoman Pashas tried to suppress locals they become ''tyrannical'' while if Ottoman allowed locals to rule themselves it becomes middle east was always at war! Between 1600 and 1800 at least 20 million Europeans got killed as there were wars one after another especially religious wars were the worst. And he could come up with like half a dozen battles not even wars to prove middle east wasn't in peace? Few thousand casualties are enough to prove they were always at war?? Such a moronic bias i must say and middle east was in peace for 400 years under Ottoman rule. It wasn't perfect and there were problems for sure but not war and massive casualties without any question. In last 100 years more middle eastern people died because of conflicts than entire 400 years long Ottoman rule...
3
@JabzyJoe And who were those highwaymen and criminals, foreign people? There were also often local rulers and clans who used the lack of central power to enrich themselves. Ottoman also had armies and garrisons in the region but they weren't enough to chase every single criminal in the countryside exactly same as it was for British empire so they both had agreements with locals and used them to control the region. You gotta be so ridiculous to claim British empire controlled Scotland and Ottoman couldn't control Arabia while their control was almost exactly same. There were also many conflicts between Scottish clans as well until they were abolished in 1746 and any Scott opposing was slaughtered! If Ottoman did such a thing you were claiming it was a genocide but ofc it was an act of ''saving people and establishing order'' in case of British empire i bet!! You don't have to be such ridiculously biased you know.. I would completely agree conditions in British empire/Europe became way better but it wasn't because they could convince locals with roses and kisses rather because they brutally suppressed them all! On the other hand Ottoman didn't until they actually rebelled against the empire, only debate is if Ottoman didn't choose to do it or just couldn't do it. In 1900 there were only 10 million Turks living while Arabic population was around 40 million + Ottoman was constantly at war in Balkans and also against russian empire + the economy was a mess. So it is safe to say they couldn't do it in 19th century or later. The biggest problem of Ottoman they didn't use assimilation policies like other empires so after French revolution and Millet system's religious identity wasn't enough for minorities it was pretty much game over.
2
You could be raided in countryside of England or especially Scotland, you could be robbed and killed in middle of London as well through entire history of British empire, so British empire couldn't control those lands? If Ottoman Pashas tried to suppress locals they become ''tyrannical'' while if Ottoman allowed locals to rule themselves it becomes middle east was always at war! Between 1600 and 1800 at least 20 million Europeans got killed as there were wars one after another especially religious wars were the worst. And he could come up with like half a dozen battles not even wars to prove middle east wasn't in peace? Few thousand casualties are enough to prove they were always at war?? Such a moronic bias i must say and middle east was in peace for 400 years under Ottoman rule. It wasn't perfect and there were problems for sure but not war and massive casualties without any question. In last 100 years more middle eastern people died because of conflicts than entire 400 years long Ottoman rule...
2
You could be raided in countryside of England or especially Scotland, you could be robbed and killed in middle of London as well through entire history of British empire, so British empire couldn't control those lands? If Ottoman Pashas tried to suppress locals they become ''tyrannical'' while if Ottoman allowed locals to rule themselves it becomes middle east was always at war! Between 1600 and 1800 at least 20 million Europeans got killed as there were wars one after another especially religious wars were the worst. And he could come up with like half a dozen battles not even wars to prove middle east wasn't in peace? Few thousand casualties are enough to prove they were always at war?? Such a moronic bias i must say and middle east was in peace for 400 years under Ottoman rule. It wasn't perfect and there were problems for sure but not war and massive casualties without any question. In last 100 years more middle eastern people died because of conflicts than entire 400 years long Ottoman rule...
2
@SCA440 You could be raided in countryside of England or especially Scotland, you could be robbed and killed in middle of London as well through entire history of British empire, so British empire couldn't control those lands? If Ottoman Pashas tried to suppress locals they become ''tyrannical'' while if Ottoman allowed locals to rule themselves it becomes middle east was always at war! Between 1600 and 1800 at least 20 million Europeans got killed as there were wars one after another especially religious wars were the worst. And he could come up with like half a dozen battles not even wars to prove middle east wasn't in peace? Few thousand casualties are enough to prove they were always at war?? Such a moronic bias i must say and middle east was in peace for 400 years under Ottoman rule. It wasn't perfect and there were problems for sure but not war and massive casualties without any question. In last 100 years more middle eastern people died because of conflicts than entire 400 years long Ottoman rule...
2
@JabzyJoe You could be raided in countryside of England or especially Scotland, you could be robbed and killed in middle of London as well through entire history of British empire, so British empire couldn't control those lands? If Ottoman Pashas tried to suppress locals they become ''tyrannical'' while if Ottoman allowed locals to rule themselves it becomes middle east was always at war! Between 1600 and 1800 at least 20 million Europeans got killed as there were wars one after another especially religious wars were the worst. And you could come up with like half a dozen battles not even wars to prove middle east wasn't in peace? Few thousand casualties are enough to prove they were always at war?? Such a moronic bias i must say and yes, middle east was in peace for 400 years under Ottoman rule. It wasn't perfect and there were problems for sure but not war and massive casualties without any question. In last 100 years more middle eastern people died because of conflicts than entire 400 years long Ottoman rule...
1
You could be raided in countryside of England or especially Scotland, you could be robbed and killed in middle of London as well through entire history of British empire, so British empire couldn't control those lands? If Ottoman Pashas tried to suppress locals they become ''tyrannical'' while if Ottoman allowed locals to rule themselves it becomes middle east was always at war! Between 1600 and 1800 at least 20 million Europeans got killed as there were wars one after another especially religious wars were the worst. And he could come up with like half a dozen battles not even wars to prove middle east wasn't in peace? Few thousand casualties are enough to prove they were always at war?? Such a moronic bias i must say and middle east was in peace for 400 years under Ottoman rule. It wasn't perfect and there were problems for sure but not war and massive casualties without any question. In last 100 years more middle eastern people died because of conflicts than entire 400 years long Ottoman rule...
1