为什么奥斯曼帝国表现得比当时任何其他国家都仁慈和受人敬重，却被欧洲如此歪曲?
正文翻译
Why is the Ottoman Empire so misportrayed by Europe when it showed more mercy and respect than any other country of its time?
为什么奥斯曼帝国表现得比当时任何其他国家都仁慈和受人敬重，却被欧洲如此歪曲?
Why is the Ottoman Empire so misportrayed by Europe when it showed more mercy and respect than any other country of its time?
为什么奥斯曼帝国表现得比当时任何其他国家都仁慈和受人敬重，却被欧洲如此歪曲?
评论翻译
Dimitris Almyrantis
This question is disquieting. Leaving aside the fact that Bayazit’s welcome to the expelled Jews (“You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler…he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!”) is well publicized in the West, and likely one of the most well-known pieces of royal correspondence in Europe, trying to mono-colour the West in this fashion is itself a heavy misportrayal.
Europe was more than willing to try and converse with the Ottoman empire on friendly terms. If the West had really regarded Turkey as an illegitimate barbarian invader, as claimed by many, then at least from the Napoleonic Wars and on even the smallest Western coalition could have marched up to Istanbul and taken over the Balkans.
Instead, the padishah was admitted to the Concert of Europe and, in time, hundreds of thousands of Europeans died defending his empire from Russian aggression. Had England and Austria not been there to clean up the messes of Mahmut II and Abdulhamit II, the Ott. emp. would have been destroyed twice over in the 19th century. Europe took in Turkish food, dress, customs and stories as her own; visiting Istanbul was a pilgrimage for Europeans with a cosmopolitan or poetic bent. Even at the dawn of the 20th century, when the West was all but resigned to her failure to mediate the Eastern Question, still “every romantic instict cried out against the removal” of the Turkish empire.
这个问题令人不安。
撇开Bayazit欢迎被驱逐的犹太人这一在西方广为宣传的事实不谈，试图以这种方式将西方单一化本身就是一个严重的错误描述。
欧洲非常愿意尝试与奥斯曼帝国进行友好的对话。如果西方真的像很多人宣称的那样，把土耳其视为非法的野蛮入侵者，那么至少从拿破仑战争开始，甚至是最小的西方联盟都可以进军伊斯坦布尔，占领巴尔干半岛。
相反，奥斯曼苏丹（君主）被允许参加欧洲音乐会，成千上万的欧洲人为了保卫他的帝国不受俄国侵略而牺牲。要不是英格兰和奥地利在那里收拾了苏丹马哈茂特二世（1785-1839年）和苏丹阿卜杜哈米特二世（1842年—1918年）的烂摊子，奥斯曼帝国在19世纪都被摧毁两次了。欧洲接纳了土耳其的食物、服饰、习俗和故事；伊斯坦布尔之行是欧洲人的朝圣之旅。即使在20世纪初，当西方对她未能调解东方问题几乎感到无可奈何时，“每一个浪漫的本能都在大声反对“奥斯曼帝国的倒台。
This question is disquieting. Leaving aside the fact that Bayazit’s welcome to the expelled Jews (“You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler…he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!”) is well publicized in the West, and likely one of the most well-known pieces of royal correspondence in Europe, trying to mono-colour the West in this fashion is itself a heavy misportrayal.
Europe was more than willing to try and converse with the Ottoman empire on friendly terms. If the West had really regarded Turkey as an illegitimate barbarian invader, as claimed by many, then at least from the Napoleonic Wars and on even the smallest Western coalition could have marched up to Istanbul and taken over the Balkans.
Instead, the padishah was admitted to the Concert of Europe and, in time, hundreds of thousands of Europeans died defending his empire from Russian aggression. Had England and Austria not been there to clean up the messes of Mahmut II and Abdulhamit II, the Ott. emp. would have been destroyed twice over in the 19th century. Europe took in Turkish food, dress, customs and stories as her own; visiting Istanbul was a pilgrimage for Europeans with a cosmopolitan or poetic bent. Even at the dawn of the 20th century, when the West was all but resigned to her failure to mediate the Eastern Question, still “every romantic instict cried out against the removal” of the Turkish empire.
这个问题令人不安。
撇开Bayazit欢迎被驱逐的犹太人这一在西方广为宣传的事实不谈，试图以这种方式将西方单一化本身就是一个严重的错误描述。
欧洲非常愿意尝试与奥斯曼帝国进行友好的对话。如果西方真的像很多人宣称的那样，把土耳其视为非法的野蛮入侵者，那么至少从拿破仑战争开始，甚至是最小的西方联盟都可以进军伊斯坦布尔，占领巴尔干半岛。
相反，奥斯曼苏丹（君主）被允许参加欧洲音乐会，成千上万的欧洲人为了保卫他的帝国不受俄国侵略而牺牲。要不是英格兰和奥地利在那里收拾了苏丹马哈茂特二世（1785-1839年）和苏丹阿卜杜哈米特二世（1842年—1918年）的烂摊子，奥斯曼帝国在19世纪都被摧毁两次了。欧洲接纳了土耳其的食物、服饰、习俗和故事；伊斯坦布尔之行是欧洲人的朝圣之旅。即使在20世纪初，当西方对她未能调解东方问题几乎感到无可奈何时，“每一个浪漫的本能都在大声反对“奥斯曼帝国的倒台。
When the Young Turk revolution of 1908 seemed to offer new hope for Turkey - the ignominious and atrocious conclusion of that revolution was not yet expected - a Western response was, “all classes of the community [were influenced] with new ideas of liberty, progress, and honesty, culminating in the extraordinary revolution which quickly removed the Sick Man from the position which he had disgraced so many years, and set up a representative government in Turkey, without the horrors of bloodshed which usually followed such great and important changes. This extraordinary peaceable revolution, so quickly and silently brought about, has gained the admiration of the whole civilised world.” Who today can read such a positive portrayal without wincing?
19th-20th century Turkey failed to live up to such expectations. England had bled in Crimea for what, in retrospect, seemed to be the seigneurial right of Abdulhamit and the feudal oligarchy to massacre their Armenian chattels. Despite generations of effort, the Turkish ruling class never did shake - or perhaps entrenched more firmly, under the spell of new technologies and ever deadlier arms - the perception that the military elite of a province had the right of life and death over its populace. The Tanzimat had abolished that right, and replaced old Pashaliks with vilayets: but the change only seemed the more farcical after the failure of efforts at a constitutional state.
当1908年的青年土耳其人革命似乎为土耳其带来了新的希望时，人们还没有预料到这场革命的可耻和残暴的结局。
而西方的反应是，“社会上的所有阶层都受到了自由、进步和诚实的新思想的影响，最终导致了一场非凡的革命，使被羞辱多年的“西亚病夫“迅速倒台。他在土耳其建立了代议制政府，避免了在重大变革之后经常发生的流血恐怖。这场如此迅速而又悄无声息的和平革命，赢得了整个文明世界的赞赏。”今天，谁能读到这样一篇正面的描写而不赞叹呢?
然而在此之前的19 -20世纪，土耳其未能达到这样的期望。英国曾在克里米亚流血，回想起来，阿卜杜勒·哈米特(Abdul hamit)和封建寡头统治下的封建权力似乎就是屠杀亚美尼亚人。尽管经过几代人的努力，土耳其统治阶级从未动摇过。在新技术和更致命武器的魔咒下，似乎更加根深蒂固了，它认为一个省的军事精英对其人民拥有生杀大权。在《米德哈特宪法》改革后已经废除了这项权利，用行省取代了旧的宗教区域管理：但在建立一个宪政国家的努力失败后，这种改变看起来尤其显得滑稽。
19th-20th century Turkey failed to live up to such expectations. England had bled in Crimea for what, in retrospect, seemed to be the seigneurial right of Abdulhamit and the feudal oligarchy to massacre their Armenian chattels. Despite generations of effort, the Turkish ruling class never did shake - or perhaps entrenched more firmly, under the spell of new technologies and ever deadlier arms - the perception that the military elite of a province had the right of life and death over its populace. The Tanzimat had abolished that right, and replaced old Pashaliks with vilayets: but the change only seemed the more farcical after the failure of efforts at a constitutional state.
当1908年的青年土耳其人革命似乎为土耳其带来了新的希望时，人们还没有预料到这场革命的可耻和残暴的结局。
而西方的反应是，“社会上的所有阶层都受到了自由、进步和诚实的新思想的影响，最终导致了一场非凡的革命，使被羞辱多年的“西亚病夫“迅速倒台。他在土耳其建立了代议制政府，避免了在重大变革之后经常发生的流血恐怖。这场如此迅速而又悄无声息的和平革命，赢得了整个文明世界的赞赏。”今天，谁能读到这样一篇正面的描写而不赞叹呢?
然而在此之前的19 -20世纪，土耳其未能达到这样的期望。英国曾在克里米亚流血，回想起来，阿卜杜勒·哈米特(Abdul hamit)和封建寡头统治下的封建权力似乎就是屠杀亚美尼亚人。尽管经过几代人的努力，土耳其统治阶级从未动摇过。在新技术和更致命武器的魔咒下，似乎更加根深蒂固了，它认为一个省的军事精英对其人民拥有生杀大权。在《米德哈特宪法》改革后已经废除了这项权利，用行省取代了旧的宗教区域管理：但在建立一个宪政国家的努力失败后，这种改变看起来尤其显得滑稽。
It is not a prized memory for anyone, but the infliction of severe, and in most people’s terms arbitrary violence was part and parcel of Ottoman politics: and in the long years of decline, this brutal strain grew and strangled the empire where she stood. This is only natural in any nation’s history, and indeed often its present: I need not introduce the schools of modern apologetics that every colonial empire cultivates. But the hubris of trying to portray the Ottoman empire as the most respectful and merciful country of its time - we are talking about the state that, in its heyday, considered the lives of all enemies who did not surrender at once forfeit - is grotesque.
Attempts to retain historical perspective - and telling history focused on the virtues and context of the subject, of which there is no shortage - are good. So is a decent sense of pride and belonging to one’s people. Buying a white-washed narrative of Ottoman history, which blithely ignores its ugly and grasping side to give a homogeneous, shiny and united impression, is not at all healthy. The modern efforts to “portray” the empire as a just commonwealth brought down by hatred from without and betrayal from within too often ends up looking like this:
这对任何人来说都不是什么珍贵的记忆，但用大多数人的话说，残酷的暴力是奥斯曼帝国政治不可缺少的一部分:在漫长的衰落岁月中，这种残酷的压力与日俱增，并扼杀了她所在的帝国。这在任何一个国家的历史上，甚至在其现在，都是很自然的。我不必介绍每一个殖民帝国所培养的现代护教学流派（apologetics）。但是，试图把奥斯曼帝国描绘成那个时代最值得尊敬、最仁慈的国家——这种傲慢是荒谬的。
保留历史视角的尝试，以及专注于美德和主题背景的历史讲述，都是不错的选择，这可以给予一种体面的自豪感和对人民的归属感。但为了给人一种同质的、光辉的、团结的印象而听信一种粉饰过的奥斯曼历史的叙述是不健康的。现代社会试图将一个被外部的仇恨和内部的背叛所击垮帝国“描绘”为一个公正的联邦，结果往往会变成这样:视频略
Attempts to retain historical perspective - and telling history focused on the virtues and context of the subject, of which there is no shortage - are good. So is a decent sense of pride and belonging to one’s people. Buying a white-washed narrative of Ottoman history, which blithely ignores its ugly and grasping side to give a homogeneous, shiny and united impression, is not at all healthy. The modern efforts to “portray” the empire as a just commonwealth brought down by hatred from without and betrayal from within too often ends up looking like this:
这对任何人来说都不是什么珍贵的记忆，但用大多数人的话说，残酷的暴力是奥斯曼帝国政治不可缺少的一部分:在漫长的衰落岁月中，这种残酷的压力与日俱增，并扼杀了她所在的帝国。这在任何一个国家的历史上，甚至在其现在，都是很自然的。我不必介绍每一个殖民帝国所培养的现代护教学流派（apologetics）。但是，试图把奥斯曼帝国描绘成那个时代最值得尊敬、最仁慈的国家——这种傲慢是荒谬的。
保留历史视角的尝试，以及专注于美德和主题背景的历史讲述，都是不错的选择，这可以给予一种体面的自豪感和对人民的归属感。但为了给人一种同质的、光辉的、团结的印象而听信一种粉饰过的奥斯曼历史的叙述是不健康的。现代社会试图将一个被外部的仇恨和内部的背叛所击垮帝国“描绘”为一个公正的联邦，结果往往会变成这样:视频略
Cem Arslan
It is in essence a fine goal to try and dispel the rather unfairly negative view of the Ottoman Empire many people seem to have these days.
However, it is imperative that one not lose his grasp on reality and go off the far end in doing so, and the question seems to at the very least teeter on the brink of said end.
从本质上说，这是一个很好的提问，试图消除目前许多人对奥斯曼帝国的不公正的负面看法。
然而，重要的是，一个人不能失去对现实的认知，并在这样做时走向极端，这个问题似乎在中立和偏颇之间摇摆不定。
It is in essence a fine goal to try and dispel the rather unfairly negative view of the Ottoman Empire many people seem to have these days.
However, it is imperative that one not lose his grasp on reality and go off the far end in doing so, and the question seems to at the very least teeter on the brink of said end.
从本质上说，这是一个很好的提问，试图消除目前许多人对奥斯曼帝国的不公正的负面看法。
然而，重要的是，一个人不能失去对现实的认知，并在这样做时走向极端，这个问题似乎在中立和偏颇之间摇摆不定。
Dimitris Almyrantis
My thoughts exactly.
我也是这么认为的。
My thoughts exactly.
我也是这么认为的。
Basil Keilani
I would argue that people from the Middle East and Turkey portray the empire in as much of a flattering light as possible. Whereas the British and French do not deny imperial abuses, so many Turks and Arabs do not want to think of any possible abuses during the empire.
You hear all the time how the British and French were evil for having their empires and drawing the borders that they drew, but it is somehow okay to glorify the Ottoman Empire while saying it a very tolerant empire. That depends whom you ask. Doesn’t it?
It is said that millions of of Slavic people were enslaved. So many young boys were taken from families and made into soldiers. So many lands were conquered and rebellions were brutally oppressed. ISIS wasn’t the first group in history to massacre Yazidis in Iraq. The Ottomans did so before. Alevis in Turkey were massacred, and Alevis in Syria were not allowed equal representation in court and some Alawites were massacred in Lebanon. These things are just not mentioned by people from the region while people will openly talk about how the British oppressed the Irish and millions of Indians starved. On the island of Xios there was a rebellion by some Greeks in 1840. The Ottomans savagely put it down and massacred 10s of thousands of people and sold many of the inhabitants into slavery. It wasn’t all the population that was involved in the rebellion.
我想说的是，中东和土耳其的人在尽可能地吹捧这个帝国。在英国和法国不否认（自己的）帝国的暴行的同时，许多土耳其人和阿拉伯人却不愿去想（自己的）帝国时期可能发生的任何暴行。你总是听到说英法两国是多么邪恶，因为他们拥有自己的帝国并划定了自己的边界，但在赞美奥斯曼帝国的同时说它是一个非常宽容的帝国却是没问题的。
这取决于你问谁了，不是吗?
据说有数百万斯拉夫人被奴役。那么多的小男孩被从家里带走，变成了士兵。许多土地被征服，叛乱被残酷镇压。ISIS并不是历史上第一个在伊拉克屠杀雅兹迪人的组织。奥斯曼人以前也这样做过。在土耳其的阿拉维人被屠杀，在叙利亚的阿拉维人不被允许在法庭上享有平等代表权，一些阿拉维人在黎巴嫩被屠杀。这些事情是该地区的人不会提及的，而人们会公开谈论英国人如何压迫爱尔兰人和数百万印度人挨饿。1840年，在Xios岛上，一些希腊人发动了叛乱。奥斯曼人野蛮地镇压了它，屠杀了成千上万的人，并将许多居民卖为奴隶。尽管并不是所有的人都参与了叛乱。
I would argue that people from the Middle East and Turkey portray the empire in as much of a flattering light as possible. Whereas the British and French do not deny imperial abuses, so many Turks and Arabs do not want to think of any possible abuses during the empire.
You hear all the time how the British and French were evil for having their empires and drawing the borders that they drew, but it is somehow okay to glorify the Ottoman Empire while saying it a very tolerant empire. That depends whom you ask. Doesn’t it?
It is said that millions of of Slavic people were enslaved. So many young boys were taken from families and made into soldiers. So many lands were conquered and rebellions were brutally oppressed. ISIS wasn’t the first group in history to massacre Yazidis in Iraq. The Ottomans did so before. Alevis in Turkey were massacred, and Alevis in Syria were not allowed equal representation in court and some Alawites were massacred in Lebanon. These things are just not mentioned by people from the region while people will openly talk about how the British oppressed the Irish and millions of Indians starved. On the island of Xios there was a rebellion by some Greeks in 1840. The Ottomans savagely put it down and massacred 10s of thousands of people and sold many of the inhabitants into slavery. It wasn’t all the population that was involved in the rebellion.
我想说的是，中东和土耳其的人在尽可能地吹捧这个帝国。在英国和法国不否认（自己的）帝国的暴行的同时，许多土耳其人和阿拉伯人却不愿去想（自己的）帝国时期可能发生的任何暴行。你总是听到说英法两国是多么邪恶，因为他们拥有自己的帝国并划定了自己的边界，但在赞美奥斯曼帝国的同时说它是一个非常宽容的帝国却是没问题的。
这取决于你问谁了，不是吗?
据说有数百万斯拉夫人被奴役。那么多的小男孩被从家里带走，变成了士兵。许多土地被征服，叛乱被残酷镇压。ISIS并不是历史上第一个在伊拉克屠杀雅兹迪人的组织。奥斯曼人以前也这样做过。在土耳其的阿拉维人被屠杀，在叙利亚的阿拉维人不被允许在法庭上享有平等代表权，一些阿拉维人在黎巴嫩被屠杀。这些事情是该地区的人不会提及的，而人们会公开谈论英国人如何压迫爱尔兰人和数百万印度人挨饿。1840年，在Xios岛上，一些希腊人发动了叛乱。奥斯曼人野蛮地镇压了它，屠杀了成千上万的人，并将许多居民卖为奴隶。尽管并不是所有的人都参与了叛乱。
Look, the Ottoman Empire conquered European lands, so that was one reason some didn’t look too fondly on the empire. I mean it did want to conquer Italy and Austria. How would you feel about someone trying to conquer you? That said, the French did become allies of the Ottomans for centuries! The British and French saved the Ottoman Empire when it faced the Russians. The Ottoman Empire was prevented from being taken completely apart by the European powers. Many people romanticized Istanbul and the Ottoman Empire. The ones who tend to not like the Ottomans so much were the people of the Balkans and their descendants. Do Turks romanticize being under Mongolian imperial control in the old days? No.
I don’t think the Ottoman Empire is portrayed worse than the other empires out there. Many Europeans feel guilty about their colonial past and admit to injustices, but the descendants of the Ottomans, in contrast, state that the Ottomans did no wrong, essentially. The Ottoman Empire was certainly no worse than the other empires, but it’s descendants should come clean about its dirty past, as well. I say this as someone who had Ottoman ancestors including officers. I just think people need a more honest look at history.
听着，奥斯曼帝国征服了欧洲的土地，这就是一些人不太喜欢奥斯曼帝国的原因之一。我的意思是它确实想要征服意大利和奥地利。如果有人试图征服你，你会怎么想?
顺便一说，几个世纪以来，法国确实成为了奥斯曼的盟友！英国和法国在奥斯曼帝国面对俄国人时拯救了它。奥斯曼帝国没有被欧洲列强彻底摧毁。许多人把伊斯坦布尔和奥斯曼帝国浪漫化了。那些不太喜欢奥斯曼人的人是巴尔干半岛的人民和他们的后代。在过去，土耳其人会幻想自己受蒙古帝国的控制吗?不。
我也不认为奥斯曼帝国被描绘得比其他帝国更糟。许多欧洲人对他们的殖民历史感到内疚，承认不公正，但与此相反，奥斯曼人的后裔却声称奥斯曼人基本上没有做错。奥斯曼帝国当然不会比其他帝国更糟糕，但它的后代也应该坦白自己肮脏的过去。我这么说是因为我的祖先是奥斯曼人，也曾是军官。我只是觉得人们需要更诚实地看待历史。
I don’t think the Ottoman Empire is portrayed worse than the other empires out there. Many Europeans feel guilty about their colonial past and admit to injustices, but the descendants of the Ottomans, in contrast, state that the Ottomans did no wrong, essentially. The Ottoman Empire was certainly no worse than the other empires, but it’s descendants should come clean about its dirty past, as well. I say this as someone who had Ottoman ancestors including officers. I just think people need a more honest look at history.
听着，奥斯曼帝国征服了欧洲的土地，这就是一些人不太喜欢奥斯曼帝国的原因之一。我的意思是它确实想要征服意大利和奥地利。如果有人试图征服你，你会怎么想?
顺便一说，几个世纪以来，法国确实成为了奥斯曼的盟友！英国和法国在奥斯曼帝国面对俄国人时拯救了它。奥斯曼帝国没有被欧洲列强彻底摧毁。许多人把伊斯坦布尔和奥斯曼帝国浪漫化了。那些不太喜欢奥斯曼人的人是巴尔干半岛的人民和他们的后代。在过去，土耳其人会幻想自己受蒙古帝国的控制吗?不。
我也不认为奥斯曼帝国被描绘得比其他帝国更糟。许多欧洲人对他们的殖民历史感到内疚，承认不公正，但与此相反，奥斯曼人的后裔却声称奥斯曼人基本上没有做错。奥斯曼帝国当然不会比其他帝国更糟糕，但它的后代也应该坦白自己肮脏的过去。我这么说是因为我的祖先是奥斯曼人，也曾是军官。我只是觉得人们需要更诚实地看待历史。
Dicle Kırmızıoğlu
Altough you are right about descendants of the Ottomans seeing the Empire in too pure light and saying it did no bad, it is more compicated than a colonization empire taking lands from their original people and enslaving them to their bidding.
European Empires were in most part, weren’t empires in the real sense. They were colony empires that treated their colonies as their inferiors and treated it’s people as such. Colonies that belonged to such empires were never a real part of these countries. They didn’t see their people as citizens or their equals. They were just money and man power sources mostly.
Old Empires like Ottoman Empire weren’t colony Empires. All land and countries that Ottoman Empire took became a real part of the Empire. Sarajevo or any city in the Arabian penunsula was as important as İzmir for the Empire. Any distinction between the citizens came from religion not from coming from another part of the Empire. And for the Balkans, they belonged to the Ottoman Empire so long, when Ottoman Empire lost these land, they belonged to it more than any part of Anatolia did. Most of the important army officers and such else came from there, trained in schools in Balkans.
尽管你是对的，奥斯曼人的后代把帝国看得太理想了，说它做得不坏，但这比殖民帝国从他们的原始人民夺取土地，并奴役他们要复杂。
欧洲帝国在很大程度上，不是真正意义上的帝国。他们是殖民地帝国，把自己的殖民地当作劣等，也把殖民地人民当作劣等。属于这些帝国的殖民地从来都不是这些国家真正的一部分。他们不把自己的人民视为公民或平等的人。它们大多只是金钱和人力资源。
像奥斯曼帝国这样的旧帝国不是殖民地帝国。奥斯曼帝国占领的所有土地和国家都成为了帝国的一部分。萨拉热窝或阿拉伯半岛上的任何一座城市对帝国来说都和伊兹密尔（土耳其第三大城市，位于安纳托利亚高原西端的爱琴海边）一样重要。公民之间的区别来自宗教而不是来自帝国的其他部分。
至于巴尔干半岛，他们属于奥斯曼帝国很长时间了，当奥斯曼帝国失去这些土地时，他们比安纳托利亚（半岛）的任何部分都更心向于奥斯曼。大多数重要的军官和诸如此类的人都来自那里，在巴尔干的学校接受训练。
Altough you are right about descendants of the Ottomans seeing the Empire in too pure light and saying it did no bad, it is more compicated than a colonization empire taking lands from their original people and enslaving them to their bidding.
European Empires were in most part, weren’t empires in the real sense. They were colony empires that treated their colonies as their inferiors and treated it’s people as such. Colonies that belonged to such empires were never a real part of these countries. They didn’t see their people as citizens or their equals. They were just money and man power sources mostly.
Old Empires like Ottoman Empire weren’t colony Empires. All land and countries that Ottoman Empire took became a real part of the Empire. Sarajevo or any city in the Arabian penunsula was as important as İzmir for the Empire. Any distinction between the citizens came from religion not from coming from another part of the Empire. And for the Balkans, they belonged to the Ottoman Empire so long, when Ottoman Empire lost these land, they belonged to it more than any part of Anatolia did. Most of the important army officers and such else came from there, trained in schools in Balkans.
尽管你是对的，奥斯曼人的后代把帝国看得太理想了，说它做得不坏，但这比殖民帝国从他们的原始人民夺取土地，并奴役他们要复杂。
欧洲帝国在很大程度上，不是真正意义上的帝国。他们是殖民地帝国，把自己的殖民地当作劣等，也把殖民地人民当作劣等。属于这些帝国的殖民地从来都不是这些国家真正的一部分。他们不把自己的人民视为公民或平等的人。它们大多只是金钱和人力资源。
像奥斯曼帝国这样的旧帝国不是殖民地帝国。奥斯曼帝国占领的所有土地和国家都成为了帝国的一部分。萨拉热窝或阿拉伯半岛上的任何一座城市对帝国来说都和伊兹密尔（土耳其第三大城市，位于安纳托利亚高原西端的爱琴海边）一样重要。公民之间的区别来自宗教而不是来自帝国的其他部分。
至于巴尔干半岛，他们属于奥斯曼帝国很长时间了，当奥斯曼帝国失去这些土地时，他们比安纳托利亚（半岛）的任何部分都更心向于奥斯曼。大多数重要的军官和诸如此类的人都来自那里，在巴尔干的学校接受训练。
Dean Turner
What utter nonsense. The Ottoman Empire committed 3 genocides in WW1 alone, which is recent and documented history. Who knows how many were committed over the 800 years it existed prior?
I should also like to state that, other than the siege of Constantinople in the 15th century, the Ottomans achieved no SIGNIFICANT victory against other world powers till their end. They merely inherited the lands of the Byzantine (or East Roman) Empire after conquering Constantinople - and not through military genius even then - through some clown gatekeeper forgetting to lock a postern gate.
I'll give you the main reason why the Ottoman Empire is treated with double standards compared to Britain, its the same reason that false and cowardly modern feminists won't engage in conversation about the Middle East; religion and the apparent justification that "it's a different culture……" Yes it is, a disgusting racist and misogynistic culture.
真是一派胡言。
奥斯曼帝国仅在第一次世界大战中就犯下了3次种族灭绝，这是最近且有记录的历史。谁知道在它存在之前的800年里犯下了多少罪孽?
我还想指出，除了15世纪围攻君士坦丁堡外，奥斯曼人在其灭亡之前没有取得对其他世界强国的重大胜利。他们只是在征服君士坦丁堡后继承了拜占庭(或东罗马)帝国的土地——甚至不是通过军事天才的努力，而是通过某个忘了锁后门的小丑看门人（取得的胜利）。
我会告诉你为什么奥斯曼帝国和英国相比被双重标准对待的主要原因，也正是这些原因导致虚伪懦弱的现代女权主义者不会参与关于中东的对话。宗教被辩护为“不同的文化……“。是的，它确实不同，它是一种令人厌恶的种族主义和厌恶女性的文化。
What utter nonsense. The Ottoman Empire committed 3 genocides in WW1 alone, which is recent and documented history. Who knows how many were committed over the 800 years it existed prior?
I should also like to state that, other than the siege of Constantinople in the 15th century, the Ottomans achieved no SIGNIFICANT victory against other world powers till their end. They merely inherited the lands of the Byzantine (or East Roman) Empire after conquering Constantinople - and not through military genius even then - through some clown gatekeeper forgetting to lock a postern gate.
I'll give you the main reason why the Ottoman Empire is treated with double standards compared to Britain, its the same reason that false and cowardly modern feminists won't engage in conversation about the Middle East; religion and the apparent justification that "it's a different culture……" Yes it is, a disgusting racist and misogynistic culture.
真是一派胡言。
奥斯曼帝国仅在第一次世界大战中就犯下了3次种族灭绝，这是最近且有记录的历史。谁知道在它存在之前的800年里犯下了多少罪孽?
我还想指出，除了15世纪围攻君士坦丁堡外，奥斯曼人在其灭亡之前没有取得对其他世界强国的重大胜利。他们只是在征服君士坦丁堡后继承了拜占庭(或东罗马)帝国的土地——甚至不是通过军事天才的努力，而是通过某个忘了锁后门的小丑看门人（取得的胜利）。
我会告诉你为什么奥斯曼帝国和英国相比被双重标准对待的主要原因，也正是这些原因导致虚伪懦弱的现代女权主义者不会参与关于中东的对话。宗教被辩护为“不同的文化……“。是的，它确实不同，它是一种令人厌恶的种族主义和厌恶女性的文化。
Eastern practice of Islam makes no attempt to join the modern world or separate church from state, and we somehow applaud them for this while simultaneously condemning western Christianity where in fact it has been separate from the laws of state for 300+ years. Such enabling of double standards is pure nonsense, yet in the western educational theatre it is endorsed. In retrospect, the Middle East is taught that the West hates them and doesn't tolerate their beliefs ….. it pains me how many stupid people exist on this planet.
The Ottoman Empire is considered a poor "victim of Christendom" (bearing in mind 68% of all world terrorism through history has been Islamic), while OF ALL IMPERIAL NATIONS, only the Dutch and Ottoman fuelled sex trafficking in women and castration in young males who'd make for "effective Eunuchs".
Read a bloody book or take a long walk in the desert without water, I'm at the end of my rope with human idiocy and injustice.
东方的伊斯兰教实践并没有试图加入现代世界或将教会与国家分离，我们为此鼓掌，于此同时却谴责西方事实上已经与国家法律分离了300多年的基督教。这种启用双重标准的做法纯粹是无稽之谈，但在西方的教育舞台上，这种做法却得到了认可。
现在回想起来，中东被教导说西方憎恨他们，不能容忍他们的信仰/大笑……这个星球上有那么多愚蠢的人，让我很痛苦。
奥斯曼帝国被认为是可怜的“基督教的受害者”(要记住，历史上68%的世界恐怖主义是伊斯兰教导致的)，而在所有帝国国家中，只有荷兰和奥斯曼帝国助长了对女性的性交易，并对年轻男性进行阉割，使其成为“有效的宦官”。
我对人类的愚蠢和不公已经忍耐到了极限。
The Ottoman Empire is considered a poor "victim of Christendom" (bearing in mind 68% of all world terrorism through history has been Islamic), while OF ALL IMPERIAL NATIONS, only the Dutch and Ottoman fuelled sex trafficking in women and castration in young males who'd make for "effective Eunuchs".
Read a bloody book or take a long walk in the desert without water, I'm at the end of my rope with human idiocy and injustice.
东方的伊斯兰教实践并没有试图加入现代世界或将教会与国家分离，我们为此鼓掌，于此同时却谴责西方事实上已经与国家法律分离了300多年的基督教。这种启用双重标准的做法纯粹是无稽之谈，但在西方的教育舞台上，这种做法却得到了认可。
现在回想起来，中东被教导说西方憎恨他们，不能容忍他们的信仰/大笑……这个星球上有那么多愚蠢的人，让我很痛苦。
奥斯曼帝国被认为是可怜的“基督教的受害者”(要记住，历史上68%的世界恐怖主义是伊斯兰教导致的)，而在所有帝国国家中，只有荷兰和奥斯曼帝国助长了对女性的性交易，并对年轻男性进行阉割，使其成为“有效的宦官”。
我对人类的愚蠢和不公已经忍耐到了极限。
Stephen Makrinos
Mr. Rathbone omitted the 1.5 Million Armenians, 400,000 Greeks and an equal number of Kurds that were butchered by the Turks. They really have not changed their ways since then, if you consider the disappearance of 2, 000 Greek Cypriot that stayed in the occupied territory of Northern Cyprus after the invasion in 1974. NATO and the West in general are Hypocrites. They instituted sanctions against Russia for taking over Crimea yet when Turkey took over a democratic nation there is no action at all, expect for some useless UN resolutions
that are never enforced. SHAME!!
拉斯伯恩忽略了150万亚美尼亚人、40万希腊人和同样数量的库尔德人被土耳其人屠杀。如果你考虑到1974年入侵后留在北塞浦路斯被占领领土上的2000名希族塞人的失踪，从那时起，他们真的一点都没变。
北约和西方都是伪君子。他们因为俄罗斯接管克里米亚而对俄罗斯实施了制裁，但当土耳其接管一个民主国家时，除了一些无用的联合国决议外，根本没有采取任何行动，甚至这些决议从来没有强制执行过。
真是可耻! !
Mr. Rathbone omitted the 1.5 Million Armenians, 400,000 Greeks and an equal number of Kurds that were butchered by the Turks. They really have not changed their ways since then, if you consider the disappearance of 2, 000 Greek Cypriot that stayed in the occupied territory of Northern Cyprus after the invasion in 1974. NATO and the West in general are Hypocrites. They instituted sanctions against Russia for taking over Crimea yet when Turkey took over a democratic nation there is no action at all, expect for some useless UN resolutions
that are never enforced. SHAME!!
拉斯伯恩忽略了150万亚美尼亚人、40万希腊人和同样数量的库尔德人被土耳其人屠杀。如果你考虑到1974年入侵后留在北塞浦路斯被占领领土上的2000名希族塞人的失踪，从那时起，他们真的一点都没变。
北约和西方都是伪君子。他们因为俄罗斯接管克里米亚而对俄罗斯实施了制裁，但当土耳其接管一个民主国家时，除了一些无用的联合国决议外，根本没有采取任何行动，甚至这些决议从来没有强制执行过。
真是可耻! !
Uğuz Kağan
After the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman Turks, and later, the expansion into Germany’s hinterland during Sultan Suleiman era, not only caused a great fear in Europe, but also created an “invincible Turk” image. From Italy to Serbia, in many countries of Europe, “are we next?” was the commonly asked question. In one of Machiavelli’s works, the main character of the book was asking, “will the Turks come to Italy next year?”. Even though the idea of a new crusades to take Istanbul back emerged, the domestic politics of Europe did not allow it.
The conquest of Rhodes in 1522 caused the Western and Central European states to have the Turks in their sights again. Between 1522–1523, 80 books and pamphlets were published about the fall of Rhodes under Ottoman rule. The growing Ottoman interest towards Europe due to Francis-Charlemagne rivalry, the conquest of Hungary, the First Siege of Vienna in 1529 caused the increase of Europe’s attention towards the Ottoman Empire.
伊斯坦布尔被奥斯曼土耳其人征服后，以及后来苏丹苏莱曼时代向德国腹地的扩张，不仅在欧洲引起了极大的恐慌，也塑造了“无敌的土耳其人”形象。从意大利到塞尔维亚，在许多欧洲国家，“我们是下一个吗?”这是人们常问的问题。在马基雅维利的一部作品中，书中的主角问，“土耳其人明年会来意大利吗?”尽管出现了新的十字军东征夺回伊斯坦布尔的想法，但欧洲国内政治不允许这样做。
1522年对罗德岛的征服使西欧和中欧国家再次将土耳其人纳入他们的视野。在1522-1523年间，出版了80本书和小册子，讲述了罗德岛在奥斯曼帝国统治下的衰落。由于弗朗西斯-查理曼对抗、征服匈牙利的发生，土耳其人对欧洲的兴趣日益增长，1529年第一次围攻维也纳，这引起了欧洲对奥斯曼帝国的关注。
After the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman Turks, and later, the expansion into Germany’s hinterland during Sultan Suleiman era, not only caused a great fear in Europe, but also created an “invincible Turk” image. From Italy to Serbia, in many countries of Europe, “are we next?” was the commonly asked question. In one of Machiavelli’s works, the main character of the book was asking, “will the Turks come to Italy next year?”. Even though the idea of a new crusades to take Istanbul back emerged, the domestic politics of Europe did not allow it.
The conquest of Rhodes in 1522 caused the Western and Central European states to have the Turks in their sights again. Between 1522–1523, 80 books and pamphlets were published about the fall of Rhodes under Ottoman rule. The growing Ottoman interest towards Europe due to Francis-Charlemagne rivalry, the conquest of Hungary, the First Siege of Vienna in 1529 caused the increase of Europe’s attention towards the Ottoman Empire.
伊斯坦布尔被奥斯曼土耳其人征服后，以及后来苏丹苏莱曼时代向德国腹地的扩张，不仅在欧洲引起了极大的恐慌，也塑造了“无敌的土耳其人”形象。从意大利到塞尔维亚，在许多欧洲国家，“我们是下一个吗?”这是人们常问的问题。在马基雅维利的一部作品中，书中的主角问，“土耳其人明年会来意大利吗?”尽管出现了新的十字军东征夺回伊斯坦布尔的想法，但欧洲国内政治不允许这样做。
1522年对罗德岛的征服使西欧和中欧国家再次将土耳其人纳入他们的视野。在1522-1523年间，出版了80本书和小册子，讲述了罗德岛在奥斯曼帝国统治下的衰落。由于弗朗西斯-查理曼对抗、征服匈牙利的发生，土耳其人对欧洲的兴趣日益增长，1529年第一次围攻维也纳，这引起了欧洲对奥斯曼帝国的关注。
In the 16th century, the image of the Turks especially in Italy, Germany and Austria was formed by the horror, caused by endless wars and the unstoppable advance of the Ottomans. The ecclesiastics were saying that the Turks were the God’s punishment for their sins, or the wrath of God. The Ottomans were the scourge of God, therefore, there were some who said that “fighting against the Turks is fighting with God”.
The Turks are the angry scourge of God. It will not be easy to defeat “The Turk” before defeating their God, the devil. God sent the Turks as a plague to the Germans as a result of countless sins and ungratefulness. The one who kills a Turk should not feel any remorse, but must have a clear conscience for destroying the enemy of Christianity. (Martin Luther)
在16世纪，土耳其人在意大利、德国和奥地利的形象是由无休止的战争和奥斯曼人不可阻挡的前进所造成的恐怖而形成的。教士们说土耳其人是上帝对他们罪恶的惩罚，或者是上帝的愤怒。奥斯曼人是上帝的鞭子，因此，有人说“与土耳其人作战就是与上帝作战”。
“土耳其人是上帝愤怒的鞭子。在打败他们的上帝这个魔鬼之前，要打败“土耳其人”并不容易。上帝把土耳其人作为一场瘟疫送到德国，因为他们犯下了无数的罪孽和忘恩负义。 杀害土耳其人的人不应该有任何自责，而应该有摧毁基督教的敌人的良心。“(马丁·卢瑟)
The Turks are the angry scourge of God. It will not be easy to defeat “The Turk” before defeating their God, the devil. God sent the Turks as a plague to the Germans as a result of countless sins and ungratefulness. The one who kills a Turk should not feel any remorse, but must have a clear conscience for destroying the enemy of Christianity. (Martin Luther)
在16世纪，土耳其人在意大利、德国和奥地利的形象是由无休止的战争和奥斯曼人不可阻挡的前进所造成的恐怖而形成的。教士们说土耳其人是上帝对他们罪恶的惩罚，或者是上帝的愤怒。奥斯曼人是上帝的鞭子，因此，有人说“与土耳其人作战就是与上帝作战”。
“土耳其人是上帝愤怒的鞭子。在打败他们的上帝这个魔鬼之前，要打败“土耳其人”并不容易。上帝把土耳其人作为一场瘟疫送到德国，因为他们犯下了无数的罪孽和忘恩负义。 杀害土耳其人的人不应该有任何自责，而应该有摧毁基督教的敌人的良心。“(马丁·卢瑟)
In their works, European intellectuals tried to reduce the “Turkish fear”. Erasmus wrote that, the greatness of the Ottoman Empire shall not frighten people, and that Roman and Alexander’s empires were quite large as well and believed to be invincible. But they do not exist today. Machiavelli criticized the consideration of Turks as the “boogeyman” or “supernatural beings”, and stated that the Ottoman Empire is an enemy which should be defeated with realism and logic.
The Turks became the subjects of the works of ballet, theatre, opera, folk songs, poems and stories in Europe too. The main reasons of this were to keep the peoples’ conscious fresh and create a political shield against the Ottoman threat. Besides the fear, the Ottomans meant “hope” for some Christians who were crushed under heavy taxation or oppressed due to their religious beliefs. These Christians preferred living under Turkish rule rather than the kingdoms and feudal principalities of Europe.
在他们的作品中，欧洲知识分子试图减少“土耳其恐惧”。伊拉斯谟(Erasmus)写道，奥斯曼帝国的伟大不会吓到人们，罗马和亚历山大的帝国也相当大，也曾被认为是不可战胜的。但它们现在已经不存在了。马基雅维利批评把土耳其人视为“恶魔”或“超自然生物”，并指出奥斯曼帝国是一个敌人，应该用现实主义和逻辑击败它。
土耳其人也成为欧洲芭蕾舞、戏剧、歌剧、民歌、诗歌和故事的主题。这样做的主要原因是为了让人们保持清醒的意识，并建立一个对抗奥斯曼威胁的政治盾牌。除了恐惧，奥斯曼人对一些因宗教信仰而被沉重的税收压垮或压迫的基督徒来说，还意味着“希望”。这些基督徒宁愿生活在土耳其的统治下，也不愿生活在欧洲的王国和封建公国之中。
The Turks became the subjects of the works of ballet, theatre, opera, folk songs, poems and stories in Europe too. The main reasons of this were to keep the peoples’ conscious fresh and create a political shield against the Ottoman threat. Besides the fear, the Ottomans meant “hope” for some Christians who were crushed under heavy taxation or oppressed due to their religious beliefs. These Christians preferred living under Turkish rule rather than the kingdoms and feudal principalities of Europe.
在他们的作品中，欧洲知识分子试图减少“土耳其恐惧”。伊拉斯谟(Erasmus)写道，奥斯曼帝国的伟大不会吓到人们，罗马和亚历山大的帝国也相当大，也曾被认为是不可战胜的。但它们现在已经不存在了。马基雅维利批评把土耳其人视为“恶魔”或“超自然生物”，并指出奥斯曼帝国是一个敌人，应该用现实主义和逻辑击败它。
土耳其人也成为欧洲芭蕾舞、戏剧、歌剧、民歌、诗歌和故事的主题。这样做的主要原因是为了让人们保持清醒的意识，并建立一个对抗奥斯曼威胁的政治盾牌。除了恐惧，奥斯曼人对一些因宗教信仰而被沉重的税收压垮或压迫的基督徒来说，还意味着“希望”。这些基督徒宁愿生活在土耳其的统治下，也不愿生活在欧洲的王国和封建公国之中。
Shab Aaz
Europeans had fear the Ottomans for centuries. In most of the battles the latter were they were victorious, to such an extent that the very image of a Turk had been associated with barbarism, strength, domination. With the portrayal of the East made by the Orientalists, that situation worsened because books, artistical works showed an exotic Ottoman, full of stereotypes. Besides, the Empire was the most powerful nation at that time, and all the great western nations had to ‘'bow’' before its supremacy. Towards the mid 19th century, the Ottoman Empire started showing symptoms of its extinction, for it had no real influence on European politics anymore and was no longer seen as a superpower. That situation led to his domination by Europe.
All this shows that maybe the Ottoman Empire wasn't seen as an ally, but rather a threat that should been ended if any opportunity appears. What happened between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, shows it clearly. The Ottomans not only had to face internal crisis, but also had to deal with multiple threats from outside : Balkan independence wars, Russian belligerent attitude, interference of Western countries in its internal affairs…
几个世纪以来，欧洲人一直害怕奥斯曼人。在大多数战斗中，土耳其人都取得了胜利，以至于土耳其人的形象总是与野蛮、力量和统治联系在一起。随着东方主义者对东方的描绘，这种情况恶化了，因为书籍和艺术作品展示了一个充满异域风情的奥斯曼帝国，充满了刻板印象。此外，奥斯曼帝国是当时最强大的国家，所有伟大的西方国家都不得不在它的霸权面前“低头”。
到了19世纪中期，奥斯曼帝国开始表现出消亡的迹象，因为它对欧洲政治不再有真正的影响力，不再被视为超级大国。这种情况导致了欧洲开始占据主导地位。
这一切都表明，奥斯曼帝国也许并没有被视为盟友，而是一种威胁，一旦机会出现，就应该结束。19世纪末到20世纪初发生的事情清楚地说明了这一点。奥斯曼人不仅要面对内部危机，还要应对来自外部的多重威胁：巴尔干独立战争、俄罗斯的好战态度、西方国家对其内政的干涉……
Europeans had fear the Ottomans for centuries. In most of the battles the latter were they were victorious, to such an extent that the very image of a Turk had been associated with barbarism, strength, domination. With the portrayal of the East made by the Orientalists, that situation worsened because books, artistical works showed an exotic Ottoman, full of stereotypes. Besides, the Empire was the most powerful nation at that time, and all the great western nations had to ‘'bow’' before its supremacy. Towards the mid 19th century, the Ottoman Empire started showing symptoms of its extinction, for it had no real influence on European politics anymore and was no longer seen as a superpower. That situation led to his domination by Europe.
All this shows that maybe the Ottoman Empire wasn't seen as an ally, but rather a threat that should been ended if any opportunity appears. What happened between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, shows it clearly. The Ottomans not only had to face internal crisis, but also had to deal with multiple threats from outside : Balkan independence wars, Russian belligerent attitude, interference of Western countries in its internal affairs…
几个世纪以来，欧洲人一直害怕奥斯曼人。在大多数战斗中，土耳其人都取得了胜利，以至于土耳其人的形象总是与野蛮、力量和统治联系在一起。随着东方主义者对东方的描绘，这种情况恶化了，因为书籍和艺术作品展示了一个充满异域风情的奥斯曼帝国，充满了刻板印象。此外，奥斯曼帝国是当时最强大的国家，所有伟大的西方国家都不得不在它的霸权面前“低头”。
到了19世纪中期，奥斯曼帝国开始表现出消亡的迹象，因为它对欧洲政治不再有真正的影响力，不再被视为超级大国。这种情况导致了欧洲开始占据主导地位。
这一切都表明，奥斯曼帝国也许并没有被视为盟友，而是一种威胁，一旦机会出现，就应该结束。19世纪末到20世纪初发生的事情清楚地说明了这一点。奥斯曼人不仅要面对内部危机，还要应对来自外部的多重威胁：巴尔干独立战争、俄罗斯的好战态度、西方国家对其内政的干涉……
Despite all of that the Ottomans did many good things, starting with the protection of the minorities. The Jews had to leave Europe to seek refuge in the Ottoman lands, just for the sake of their security and the preservation of their existence. Freedom of religion was even guaranteed for the non-muslims. During the Great Hunger, the Turks did show a generous attitude towards the Irish. The Sultan at that time, Khaleefah Abdul-Majid I, wanted to send a £10,000 aid to the Irish farmers, but Queen Victoria requested him to send only £1000 because she only sent £2000 !
The Ottomans deserve better. I am not saying they were angels, but for sure they did good things too.
尽管如此，奥斯曼人还是做了很多好事，从保护少数民族开始。犹太人为了自己的安全和生存，不得不离开欧洲，到奥斯曼帝国的土地上寻求庇护。非穆斯林的宗教自由也得到了保障。在大饥荒期间，土耳其人对爱尔兰人表现出了慷慨的态度。当时的苏丹阿卜杜勒-迈吉德一世想给爱尔兰农民提供1万英镑的援助，但维多利亚女王要求他只给1000英镑，因为她只给了2000英镑!
奥斯曼人应该得到更好的。我不是说他们是天使，但他们确实也做了好事。
链接：《大饥荒期间，土耳其对爱尔兰的慷慨援助》
The Ottomans deserve better. I am not saying they were angels, but for sure they did good things too.
尽管如此，奥斯曼人还是做了很多好事，从保护少数民族开始。犹太人为了自己的安全和生存，不得不离开欧洲，到奥斯曼帝国的土地上寻求庇护。非穆斯林的宗教自由也得到了保障。在大饥荒期间，土耳其人对爱尔兰人表现出了慷慨的态度。当时的苏丹阿卜杜勒-迈吉德一世想给爱尔兰农民提供1万英镑的援助，但维多利亚女王要求他只给1000英镑，因为她只给了2000英镑!
奥斯曼人应该得到更好的。我不是说他们是天使，但他们确实也做了好事。
链接：《大饥荒期间，土耳其对爱尔兰的慷慨援助》
很赞 3
收藏