4 ms·

> The thing is, it's neither "bad" nor "good", it's just history. And in that context, the Janissaries are quite an interesting case because their history is fi

> The thing is, it's neither "bad" nor "good", it's just history. And in that context, the Janissaries are quite an interesting case because their history is filled with very extreme ups and downs. Let me guess, your country / nation luckily never had anything to do with the Ottoman empire?

barry-cotter 8y ago
When Irish people are anti-British it’s boring. When Serbs are anti-Turkish or anti-Ottoman it’s boring. If your country won before you were born you you should get over it. History is not worth learning about and studying for the propaganda victories it can be useful for today but for what it can teach us about humanity. Better that we forget everything than that we remember only to nurse grievances and pass them on to our children and theirs.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
I'm sure those Christians around the Balkans would have much rather been a part of the Holy Roman Empire that were nothing but kind to the Orthodox.
- dragandj 8y ago
  When you mention it, parts of Serbia that were under Austria-Hungary are noticeably more urbanized and developed than the parts that were under the Ottoman Empire, despite them being in the same state for exactly one century. Turkish slavery/occupation is perceived as much, much worse in folk memory than the Austrian. Of course, both of these are foreign empires, so neither of them is good, but one is clearly worse than the other...
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >When you mention it, parts of Serbia that were under Austria-Hungary are noticeably more urbanized and developed than the parts that were under the Ottoman Empire, despite them being in the same state for exactly one century. ... The parts of Serbia that Austria-Hungary didn't conquer by force about a hundred years ago were more developed than the parts they did conquer by force? Clearly the Ottoman's fault.
    - acqq 8y ago
      I had to parse slowly and try to figure out about what boomboomsubban wrote, what I now believe he wants to point is probably: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_of_World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_of_World_War_... Austria-Hungary fought with the army from and occupied during the World War I the Serbian "territories" (inhabited with the people who massively died during the occupation) that dragandj says are still "less developed" today: From the Wikipedia article: "The estimates of casualties are various: the Serb sources claim that The Kingdom of Serbia lost more than 1,200,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses), which represented over 29% of its overall population and 60% of its male population,[14][15] while western historians put the number either at 45,000 military deaths and 650,000 civilian deaths[16] or 127,355 military deaths and 82,000 civilian deaths.[17]" The numbers are all over but whatever they are, they are huge for a small country. To compare with something that happened around the same time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide "The Armenian Genocide (...) also known as the Armenian Holocaust,[9] was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians,[note 2] mostly citizens within the Ottoman Empire." "Date: 1914–1923"
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Far more in depth than what I said, but exactly. The territory didn't change hands peacefully, and that's likely the cause for the development difference.
        dragandj 8y ago
        Wait, what? None of the territories here were changing hands peacefully, and the World War I events have nothing to do with the Ottomans. In WWI Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia and that's how the WWI started. It did a lot of damage to Serbian state. But this is 100 years after 1804, when Serbia started a process of breaking off from slavery under Turks. By the mid-19 century Serbia was practically independent. I am comparing two areas that have been under foreign Empires for a long time. The area north of Danube and Sava was only briefly under Ottoman rule, and then was conquered by Austria(+Hungary) while to the south of Danube and Sava was under Turkish rule for 300-500 years. Not only Serbia, but also Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania etc. All the areas that were ruled by the Turks are backwaters even to this day, the areas to the north much less so. There are other factors, of course, but everyone from the Balkans clearly recognizes this (development) dividing line. WW 1 and WW 2 came later and brought its own share of destruction, but that destruction came after the nations were formed here, and the distinction I'm talking about have much older roots, that can still be clearly seen, even in how the towns and cities are laid out, ways of doing business etc.
- RightMillennial 8y ago
  The sacking of Constantinople was just an honest mistake. /s
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Which one?
    - RightMillennial 8y ago
      I was referring to the 4th Crusade's siege and then sacking that crippled the Byzantine Empire.
mda 8y ago
Eeh, all balkan countries had their dirty little bloody revenges as well hadn't they. History is history, deal with it.
BeetleB 8y ago
>Let me guess, your country / nation luckily never had anything to do with the Ottoman empire? Occupied people should never have a monopoly on the narrative.

barry-cotter 8y ago

When Irish people are anti-British it’s boring. When Serbs are anti-Turkish or anti-Ottoman it’s boring. If your country won before you were born you you should get over it. History is not worth learning about and studying for the propaganda victories it can be useful for today but for what it can teach us about humanity. Better that we forget everything than that we remember only to nurse grievances and pass them on to our children and theirs.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

I'm sure those Christians around the Balkans would have much rather been a part of the Holy Roman Empire that were nothing but kind to the Orthodox.

dragandj 8y ago
When you mention it, parts of Serbia that were under Austria-Hungary are noticeably more urbanized and developed than the parts that were under the Ottoman Empire, despite them being in the same state for exactly one century. Turkish slavery/occupation is perceived as much, much worse in folk memory than the Austrian. Of course, both of these are foreign empires, so neither of them is good, but one is clearly worse than the other...
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >When you mention it, parts of Serbia that were under Austria-Hungary are noticeably more urbanized and developed than the parts that were under the Ottoman Empire, despite them being in the same state for exactly one century. ... The parts of Serbia that Austria-Hungary didn't conquer by force about a hundred years ago were more developed than the parts they did conquer by force? Clearly the Ottoman's fault.
  - acqq 8y ago
    I had to parse slowly and try to figure out about what boomboomsubban wrote, what I now believe he wants to point is probably: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_of_World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_of_World_War_... Austria-Hungary fought with the army from and occupied during the World War I the Serbian "territories" (inhabited with the people who massively died during the occupation) that dragandj says are still "less developed" today: From the Wikipedia article: "The estimates of casualties are various: the Serb sources claim that The Kingdom of Serbia lost more than 1,200,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses), which represented over 29% of its overall population and 60% of its male population,[14][15] while western historians put the number either at 45,000 military deaths and 650,000 civilian deaths[16] or 127,355 military deaths and 82,000 civilian deaths.[17]" The numbers are all over but whatever they are, they are huge for a small country. To compare with something that happened around the same time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide "The Armenian Genocide (...) also known as the Armenian Holocaust,[9] was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians,[note 2] mostly citizens within the Ottoman Empire." "Date: 1914–1923"
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      Far more in depth than what I said, but exactly. The territory didn't change hands peacefully, and that's likely the cause for the development difference.
      - dragandj 8y ago
        Wait, what? None of the territories here were changing hands peacefully, and the World War I events have nothing to do with the Ottomans. In WWI Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia and that's how the WWI started. It did a lot of damage to Serbian state. But this is 100 years after 1804, when Serbia started a process of breaking off from slavery under Turks. By the mid-19 century Serbia was practically independent. I am comparing two areas that have been under foreign Empires for a long time. The area north of Danube and Sava was only briefly under Ottoman rule, and then was conquered by Austria(+Hungary) while to the south of Danube and Sava was under Turkish rule for 300-500 years. Not only Serbia, but also Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania etc. All the areas that were ruled by the Turks are backwaters even to this day, the areas to the north much less so. There are other factors, of course, but everyone from the Balkans clearly recognizes this (development) dividing line. WW 1 and WW 2 came later and brought its own share of destruction, but that destruction came after the nations were formed here, and the distinction I'm talking about have much older roots, that can still be clearly seen, even in how the towns and cities are laid out, ways of doing business etc.
RightMillennial 8y ago
The sacking of Constantinople was just an honest mistake. /s
- mcguire 8y ago
  Which one?
  - RightMillennial 8y ago
    I was referring to the 4th Crusade's siege and then sacking that crippled the Byzantine Empire.

mda 8y ago

Eeh, all balkan countries had their dirty little bloody revenges as well hadn't they. History is history, deal with it.

BeetleB 8y ago

>Let me guess, your country / nation luckily never had anything to do with the Ottoman empire? Occupied people should never have a monopoly on the narrative.