7 ms·

Suleiman the Magnificent's tomb believed to have been found in Hungary

63 points by diodorus 11y ago

Rayearth 11y ago
World history class taught us that Suleiman's domestic policy was what made him legendary. Much later I learned that he almost took Vienna - essentially the high water mark of the Ottomans. Imagine what the world would have been like if he succeeded...
- cup 11y ago
  Probably would have been a lot more Jews alive in Europe for starters. Edit: People seem to be unhappy with this comment. Rather than vote on it, why not comment on it.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    Why not justify it?
  - jmspring 11y ago
    You should have justification. Looking at Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ott..., it seems like Jews were at the whim of the Sultan, but during the "classic" Ottoman Empire (1300-1600s), tended to prosper. There may be counters to this, but first couple of sources I looked at indicate your initial comment either needs backing or is incorrect.
  - vessenes 11y ago
    Arab-Jew conflict like we have today is a relatively modern thing, starting around the turn of the 19th century and intensifying during WW2 for a variety of reasons, including oil politics for Hitler and increasing land / nationalism tensions. An interesting book about this and Iraq in specific is Banking on Baghdad; published in 2008, it's aimed at an interested Western reader, and is a good read.
    - smcl 11y ago
      Thanks for this reccomendation, it's in my queue now :)
  - _nedR 11y ago
    Probably the lot of Jews under Christian Europe at the time was not much better (maybe even worse) than under the Ottomans.
- Swizec 11y ago
  Story goes that's how we got croissants and coffee. Croissants as a nod to Viennese victory over the Ottoman siege in 17th century (crescent shape), and coffee apparently became popular in Europe because of that same Ottoman siege. Them's the legends at least. All I know about that part of history is that the Hapsburg empire used Slovenia as a buffer zone between them and the turks. Now my country has a lot of very fortified churches because the peasants had to hide somewhere while the Turks raided.
  - Radim 11y ago
    Interestingly, this also goes toward explaining the attitude of many south-eastern European countries toward the current immigration waves. Most countries in the Balkans (not just Slovenia) have fought the Turks for extended periods of time. For example, in Romania, Stephen the Great had a habit of celebrating victories over the Ottomans by building new churches and monasteries [1]. These still form the country's landmarks and pilgrimage points today, and Stephen is a celebrated hero. Basically many nations have linked their national identities to resisting waves of the "Musulman". It's hard to rewrite peoples' roots and archetypes at the strike of a politician's pen now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_churches_established_by_Stephen_III_of_Moldavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_churches_established_b...
    - Swizec 11y ago
      It's even worse than you think. The last wars we had about Christian vs. Muslim were in the 90's and led to NATO bombing the hell out of the Balkans. People are still sore about that. I have friends who remember hiding from NATO bombs.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
        > People are still sore about that. Vladimir Putin's whole foreign policy relates to these events... It's the reason he intervened in Georgia (remember that?), Ukraine, and now Syria.
        11y ago
- Arnt 11y ago
  Let me guess, the next sultan's tomb would have been found near Nuremberg. I've just spent a test run trying to think of a great conqueror who kept the gains, and couldn't. Some of them lost most of the gains in their lifetimes, in other cases it was lost shortly after their deaths, or disintegrated.
  - jeorgun 11y ago
    Mehmed II? In any case a lot of the territory Suleiman conquered did remain part of the Ottoman Empire into the 20th century.
  - eponeponepon 11y ago
    Genghis Khan? Charlemagne, arguably..? Maybe one of the Qin emperors... yeah, there aren't many great military conquerors whose gains lasted. Start digging in the arts and philosophy though, and there are plenty, after a fashion.
    - riffraff 11y ago
      Julius Caesar and Augustus? Those conquests lasted for a few centuries.
      - pqs 11y ago
        Napples and Sicily also have been part of the Spanish crown for centuries. The Spanish kings held half of South America for centuries.
        Arnt 11y ago
        Yes, South America is much bigger than Spain itself, was conquered quickly and then kept... good point. Thanks.
    - Arnt 11y ago
      Didn't Ghengis Khan's realm contract and then split when he died? IIRC Charlemagne gained two thrones (not by conquest), then added to that area by conquest, and largely kept the military gains.
manofthehaus 11y ago
He was great in Civ
mudil 11y ago
He is the only Sultan who has ever got married. His wife, Roxelana, is a legendary figure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxelana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxelana). Being one of the girls in the harem, this Ukrainian girl completely captivated Suleiman's heart, took over him, and convinced him to get married. She was a de facto ruler (at least a major player) of the Ottoman Empire while he was on conquests and even when he was in Constantinople. The other interesting thing about Roxelana is that pretty much all her descendants, future sultans, were either degenerates or feeble minded, which historians think contributed to the decline of the Ottoman empire.
- wtbob 11y ago
  Of note, Roxelana was originally a sex slave, of the sort ISIL is noted for today: born a Christian, she was captured by Crimean Tatars and added to the sultan's harem. It was only when he fell in love with her that he freed and married her.
- GnwbZHiU 11y ago
  How do you mean by "He is the only Sultan who has ever got married"? The other Sultans don't get married?
  - morazow 11y ago
    In Ottoman empire the Sultans do not get married, I think it was forbidden. They have Harem, the women are concubines. The story is that Roxelana (aka Hürrem Sultan) got herself freed and when Süleyman wants her, refuses and tells him "he needs to marry her" since she is not a slave anymore. She was only woman marring a sultan. His was interesting fact for me also, because it means all sultans are kinda bastards. But a little research shows that children are not considered bastards. Also from religion point of view.
    - _nedR 11y ago
      If i remember correctly this was a rule that was politically motivated to keep the polical power concentrated within the family.
davidf18 11y ago
He rebuilt the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Jerusalem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Jerusalem These walls are of Jerusalem Stone and are very impressive and thick as are the gates.
selimthegrim 11y ago
Oh noes, is this going to be Turkish sovereign territory too like the "tomb" in Syria?
cba9 11y ago
> Historians believe Suleiman’s heart and internal organs were buried in the tomb and his body taken back to Constantinople, as Istanbul was then known. His death at Szigetvar was kept secret for 48 days to prevent his troops from giving up the fight. I was wondering how the tomb of the most famous sultan could have possibly gotten itself lost. The answer is it's only sort of his tomb.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- riffraff 11y ago
  you are probably being downvoted for these > That's why there is to this day an almost inconceivable hatred in eastern Europe towards Muslims. > You can see it for example in the refusal of all eastern European countries (in the EU) to take even a single refugee from Syria. If the EU tried to force them they would likely leave the EU over this. which are neither historic, nor facts.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - wsc981 11y ago
    Eastern Europe isn't very interested in Muslim immigration, and I can't blame them if we look at the integration problems we face with Muslims in Western Europe. [0][1]. Also, remember that the Balkan countries has had much tensions between Muslim populations and others in the past. Many non-Muslims in these countries share the same feelings [2]. I believe immigration without integration (which is happening in Western Europe) might eventually cause a civil war; it's already breaking down the social cohesion in Western European countries. At the same time the large amount of immigrants, who tend to make heavily use of social benefits and healthcare without providing much economic benefits, will destroy the welfare state [3] (Dutch article). I know I'm not voicing a popular opinion (yet!), but I believe it's the truth and therefore needs to be said. By the way, I should note I have no problem with hard working immigrants that want to contribute to society and make an effort to integrate. For example, I have huge respect for the Polish workers that have come to The Netherlands to work in the greenhouses for a minimum wage. These people work hard and don't appear much in criminal statistics. They also tend to learn Dutch and because of the shared cultural background they integrate much easier. I will personally try to help a Thai lady who also made a big effort in learning the Dutch language and adopting Dutch culture. Sadly she works for very little money and most of what she makes, she tries to send to her family (parents, son, grandson) in Thailand. But I have a huge respect for her and hopefully I can help her have an easier live in The Netherlands. --- [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/eastern-europe-migrant-refugee-crisis.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/eastern-europ... [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/europe/despite-shrinking-populations-eastern-europe-resists-accepting-migrants.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/europe/despite-shrin... [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/refugees-hungary-croatia-muslims-tensions http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/refugee... [3]: http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4504/Economie/article/detail/4163749/2015/10/15/Hoeveel-kost-een-gevluchte-Syrier-eigenlijk-echt.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4504/Economie/article/detail/41637...
jdimov9 11y ago
There are hardly any ideological differences between this celebrated sultan and the ISIS (Daesh) religious leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Their ambitions are also largely identical. Incidentally, Russia freed my country (Bulgaria) from the oppression of the Turkish (aka Ottoman) empire 300 years ago. Today, Russia again seems to be the only country with the will AND capability to fight ISIS (Daesh).
- clock_tower 11y ago
  I still haven't quite forgiven Putin for the Russo-Georgian War, but the Russo-Georgian War was a fair sight less bad than how the Turks and Persians treated Georgia; and you're right about the Turks and ISIS. Historians in the English-speaking world have a habit of gushing about the early Islamic caliphate, the Umayyads in al-Andalus, and the Ottoman Turks. (Indeed, Carly Fiorina regards the Ottomans as "the greatest in the world" -- http://www.examiner.com/article/fiorina-sings-the-praises-of-islam-ottoman-empire-greatest-civilization http://www.examiner.com/article/fiorina-sings-the-praises-of... .) The fashion for this began with Jewish Orientalism in the 19th century, and with the point that the Umayyads in particular were pretty tolerant of the Jews; but this obscures the fact that the Ottomans and the others were _vile_ -- routinely impaling and crucifying, and slave-trading (for both sexual and other purposes) on a really enormous scale. If 300,000 slaves imported mean that the American South was indefensible, what does that make the Ottomans, who practically depopulated the Caucasus because Caucasian men were brave and Caucasian women were beautiful? (And this is without even mentioning their similar depredations in the Balkans, and in Africa.)

63 points by diodorus 11y ago

World history class taught us that Suleiman's domestic policy was what made him legendary. Much later I learned that he almost took Vienna - essentially the high water mark of the Ottomans. Imagine what the world would have been like if he succeeded...

cup 11y ago
Probably would have been a lot more Jews alive in Europe for starters. Edit: People seem to be unhappy with this comment. Rather than vote on it, why not comment on it.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  Why not justify it?
- jmspring 11y ago
  You should have justification. Looking at Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ott..., it seems like Jews were at the whim of the Sultan, but during the "classic" Ottoman Empire (1300-1600s), tended to prosper. There may be counters to this, but first couple of sources I looked at indicate your initial comment either needs backing or is incorrect.
- vessenes 11y ago
  Arab-Jew conflict like we have today is a relatively modern thing, starting around the turn of the 19th century and intensifying during WW2 for a variety of reasons, including oil politics for Hitler and increasing land / nationalism tensions. An interesting book about this and Iraq in specific is Banking on Baghdad; published in 2008, it's aimed at an interested Western reader, and is a good read.
  - smcl 11y ago
    Thanks for this reccomendation, it's in my queue now :)
- _nedR 11y ago
  Probably the lot of Jews under Christian Europe at the time was not much better (maybe even worse) than under the Ottomans.
Swizec 11y ago
Story goes that's how we got croissants and coffee. Croissants as a nod to Viennese victory over the Ottoman siege in 17th century (crescent shape), and coffee apparently became popular in Europe because of that same Ottoman siege. Them's the legends at least. All I know about that part of history is that the Hapsburg empire used Slovenia as a buffer zone between them and the turks. Now my country has a lot of very fortified churches because the peasants had to hide somewhere while the Turks raided.
- Radim 11y ago
  Interestingly, this also goes toward explaining the attitude of many south-eastern European countries toward the current immigration waves. Most countries in the Balkans (not just Slovenia) have fought the Turks for extended periods of time. For example, in Romania, Stephen the Great had a habit of celebrating victories over the Ottomans by building new churches and monasteries [1]. These still form the country's landmarks and pilgrimage points today, and Stephen is a celebrated hero. Basically many nations have linked their national identities to resisting waves of the "Musulman". It's hard to rewrite peoples' roots and archetypes at the strike of a politician's pen now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_churches_established_by_Stephen_III_of_Moldavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_churches_established_b...
  - Swizec 11y ago
    It's even worse than you think. The last wars we had about Christian vs. Muslim were in the 90's and led to NATO bombing the hell out of the Balkans. People are still sore about that. I have friends who remember hiding from NATO bombs.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      > People are still sore about that. Vladimir Putin's whole foreign policy relates to these events... It's the reason he intervened in Georgia (remember that?), Ukraine, and now Syria.
      - 11y ago
Arnt 11y ago
Let me guess, the next sultan's tomb would have been found near Nuremberg. I've just spent a test run trying to think of a great conqueror who kept the gains, and couldn't. Some of them lost most of the gains in their lifetimes, in other cases it was lost shortly after their deaths, or disintegrated.
- jeorgun 11y ago
  Mehmed II? In any case a lot of the territory Suleiman conquered did remain part of the Ottoman Empire into the 20th century.
- eponeponepon 11y ago
  Genghis Khan? Charlemagne, arguably..? Maybe one of the Qin emperors... yeah, there aren't many great military conquerors whose gains lasted. Start digging in the arts and philosophy though, and there are plenty, after a fashion.
  - riffraff 11y ago
    Julius Caesar and Augustus? Those conquests lasted for a few centuries.
    - pqs 11y ago
      Napples and Sicily also have been part of the Spanish crown for centuries. The Spanish kings held half of South America for centuries.
      - Arnt 11y ago
        Yes, South America is much bigger than Spain itself, was conquered quickly and then kept... good point. Thanks.
  - Arnt 11y ago
    Didn't Ghengis Khan's realm contract and then split when he died? IIRC Charlemagne gained two thrones (not by conquest), then added to that area by conquest, and largely kept the military gains.

manofthehaus 11y ago

He was great in Civ

mudil 11y ago

He is the only Sultan who has ever got married. His wife, Roxelana, is a legendary figure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxelana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxelana). Being one of the girls in the harem, this Ukrainian girl completely captivated Suleiman's heart, took over him, and convinced him to get married. She was a de facto ruler (at least a major player) of the Ottoman Empire while he was on conquests and even when he was in Constantinople. The other interesting thing about Roxelana is that pretty much all her descendants, future sultans, were either degenerates or feeble minded, which historians think contributed to the decline of the Ottoman empire.

wtbob 11y ago
Of note, Roxelana was originally a sex slave, of the sort ISIL is noted for today: born a Christian, she was captured by Crimean Tatars and added to the sultan's harem. It was only when he fell in love with her that he freed and married her.
GnwbZHiU 11y ago
How do you mean by "He is the only Sultan who has ever got married"? The other Sultans don't get married?
- morazow 11y ago
  In Ottoman empire the Sultans do not get married, I think it was forbidden. They have Harem, the women are concubines. The story is that Roxelana (aka Hürrem Sultan) got herself freed and when Süleyman wants her, refuses and tells him "he needs to marry her" since she is not a slave anymore. She was only woman marring a sultan. His was interesting fact for me also, because it means all sultans are kinda bastards. But a little research shows that children are not considered bastards. Also from religion point of view.
  - _nedR 11y ago
    If i remember correctly this was a rule that was politically motivated to keep the polical power concentrated within the family.

davidf18 11y ago

He rebuilt the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Jerusalem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Jerusalem These walls are of Jerusalem Stone and are very impressive and thick as are the gates.

selimthegrim 11y ago

Oh noes, is this going to be Turkish sovereign territory too like the "tomb" in Syria?

cba9 11y ago

> Historians believe Suleiman’s heart and internal organs were buried in the tomb and his body taken back to Constantinople, as Istanbul was then known. His death at Szigetvar was kept secret for 48 days to prevent his troops from giving up the fight. I was wondering how the tomb of the most famous sultan could have possibly gotten itself lost. The answer is it's only sort of his tomb.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

riffraff 11y ago
you are probably being downvoted for these > That's why there is to this day an almost inconceivable hatred in eastern Europe towards Muslims. > You can see it for example in the refusal of all eastern European countries (in the EU) to take even a single refugee from Syria. If the EU tried to force them they would likely leave the EU over this. which are neither historic, nor facts.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- wsc981 11y ago
  Eastern Europe isn't very interested in Muslim immigration, and I can't blame them if we look at the integration problems we face with Muslims in Western Europe. [0][1]. Also, remember that the Balkan countries has had much tensions between Muslim populations and others in the past. Many non-Muslims in these countries share the same feelings [2]. I believe immigration without integration (which is happening in Western Europe) might eventually cause a civil war; it's already breaking down the social cohesion in Western European countries. At the same time the large amount of immigrants, who tend to make heavily use of social benefits and healthcare without providing much economic benefits, will destroy the welfare state [3] (Dutch article). I know I'm not voicing a popular opinion (yet!), but I believe it's the truth and therefore needs to be said. By the way, I should note I have no problem with hard working immigrants that want to contribute to society and make an effort to integrate. For example, I have huge respect for the Polish workers that have come to The Netherlands to work in the greenhouses for a minimum wage. These people work hard and don't appear much in criminal statistics. They also tend to learn Dutch and because of the shared cultural background they integrate much easier. I will personally try to help a Thai lady who also made a big effort in learning the Dutch language and adopting Dutch culture. Sadly she works for very little money and most of what she makes, she tries to send to her family (parents, son, grandson) in Thailand. But I have a huge respect for her and hopefully I can help her have an easier live in The Netherlands. --- [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/eastern-europe-migrant-refugee-crisis.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/eastern-europ... [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/europe/despite-shrinking-populations-eastern-europe-resists-accepting-migrants.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/europe/despite-shrin... [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/refugees-hungary-croatia-muslims-tensions http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/refugee... [3]: http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4504/Economie/article/detail/4163749/2015/10/15/Hoeveel-kost-een-gevluchte-Syrier-eigenlijk-echt.dhtml http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4504/Economie/article/detail/41637...

jdimov9 11y ago

There are hardly any ideological differences between this celebrated sultan and the ISIS (Daesh) religious leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Their ambitions are also largely identical. Incidentally, Russia freed my country (Bulgaria) from the oppression of the Turkish (aka Ottoman) empire 300 years ago. Today, Russia again seems to be the only country with the will AND capability to fight ISIS (Daesh).

clock_tower 11y ago
I still haven't quite forgiven Putin for the Russo-Georgian War, but the Russo-Georgian War was a fair sight less bad than how the Turks and Persians treated Georgia; and you're right about the Turks and ISIS. Historians in the English-speaking world have a habit of gushing about the early Islamic caliphate, the Umayyads in al-Andalus, and the Ottoman Turks. (Indeed, Carly Fiorina regards the Ottomans as "the greatest in the world" -- http://www.examiner.com/article/fiorina-sings-the-praises-of-islam-ottoman-empire-greatest-civilization http://www.examiner.com/article/fiorina-sings-the-praises-of... .) The fashion for this began with Jewish Orientalism in the 19th century, and with the point that the Umayyads in particular were pretty tolerant of the Jews; but this obscures the fact that the Ottomans and the others were _vile_ -- routinely impaling and crucifying, and slave-trading (for both sexual and other purposes) on a really enormous scale. If 300,000 slaves imported mean that the American South was indefensible, what does that make the Ottomans, who practically depopulated the Caucasus because Caucasian men were brave and Caucasian women were beautiful? (And this is without even mentioning their similar depredations in the Balkans, and in Africa.)