The Ottoman Empire: Old World Memories and Remnants of a Golden Age

Many people are unaware that the Koran has a chapter on Jesus and calls him the light the truth and the way (more or less). It also says in the Koran that at the end times Jesus will appear at God's right hand. No mention of the prophet. There's also a chapter on Mary.

I've not read very many chapters of it. When I first bought a copy many years ago I literally said 'Go ahead and impress me,' closed my eyes and opened it on a random page. The page was talking about Gog and Magog, who are mentioned extensively in British folklore, and I thought 'Wow. This is definitely a magical book.'
 
Last edited:
Funny. I had just finished listening to this general overview of this subject. Sunset of the Ottomans (Myth20c - Ep240)
My first thought was that these people were the basis for the Atreides and Fremen relationship in Herbert's Dune sagas. Especially the breeding program of the concubines of the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire. These women and their culture as secret movers and shakers of empire is exactly what Herbert shows the Benne Gesserit to be.
I find that correlation fascinating, because many believe Herbert to be portraying a purely Islamic culture; without understanding that his entire saga is a tale of the Ottoman Empire; a breed of peoples that used the blood of European "nobles" to augment a jihadic Islamic empire.
I am new to the depths of this area of history; but it appears this thread is a nice place to explore the flavors of thought and opinion on a topic that has so recently come to the fore; for me.
 
Last edited:
Beirut-Port-in-1920s.jpg

In October 1982, a few months after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, ARAMCO World Magazine published a collection of articles called "Paradise Lost: A Eulogy for Lebanon," about the ante-bellum time in the Lebanon between 1945-1982, which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. Apparently it was a time of innocence, abundance and prosperity.

a0101eb84d3dd6018c7bfff4ad04a533fcb4c615.jpg

This photo shows an exterior view of the Sofar Grand Hotel in the Lebanese village of Sofar, about 30 kilometers east of the capital Beirut, at the time the most famous hotel in the Middle East.

After the French occupation following World War II, Lebanon flourished between 1950 and 1980, experiencing a kind of cultural, economic and material renaissance. Probably in connection with the golden age of the Ottoman Empire, this period is called the golden age of Lebanon.

The feeling of having lost a paradisiacal life exists in many cultures, but in Asia and the Middle East in particular, these glorious times were not long ago, and quite a few countries still lived in the living memory of the old world until a few decades ago.

When a culture's connection with its roots is cut, as in this case by the Israeli invasion, there is a sudden rupture and the realization that something essential has been irrevocably lost. Although the time before was certainly not perfect, people's memories show that there is a qualitative difference between before and after. As soon as people lose their roots to their own culture and history, much of what constitutes life disappears, and the desire to regain that connection arises. Material prosperity is only a consequence of this connection to one's roots, and when wealth is pursued as an end in itself, true quality of life can never emerge.

The sentimental memory of the Lebanese of the pre-1982 era probably reflects much more than is apparent at first glance: in the last 200 years, most cultures or nations have lost their own roots as a result of one or more orchestrated crises, and have been in a state of inner emptiness ever since. Only by reconnecting with the past can something emerge that forms a foundation for human civilization.
 
The above also fits very well with the claim that Islam was created by the Catholics to destroy both Christianity and Judaism.

The Lebanon was primarily Christian until recently, and the "Golden Age" had a Christian upper class that ruled the country.

This information came from Alberto Rivera, former Jesuit priest after his conversion to Protestant Christianity. It is excerpted from “The Prophet,” published by Chick Publications, PO Box 662, Chino CA 91708. Since its publication, after several unsuccessful attempts on his life, he died suddenly from food poisoning. His testimony should not be silenced. Dr. Rivera speaks to us still …​
"The great untapped source of manpower that could do this job was the children of Ishmael. The poor Arabs fell victim to one of the most clever plans ever devised by the powers of darkness. Early Christians went everywhere with the gospel setting up small churches, but they met heavy opposition. Both the Jews and the Roman government persecuted the believers in Christ to stop their spread. But the Jews rebelled against Rome, and in 70 AD, Roman armies under General Titus smashed Jerusalem and destroyed the great Jewish temple which was the heart of Jewish worship…in fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy in Matthew 24:2." (...)​

"Another problem was the true Christians in North Africa who preached the gospel. Roman Catholicism was growing in power, but would not tolerate opposition. Somehow the Vatican had to create a weapon to eliminate both the Jews and the true Christian believers who refused to accept Roman Catholicism. Lookng to North Africa, they saw the multitudes of Arabs as a source of manpower to do their dirty work. Some Arabs had become Roman Catholic, and could be used in reporting information to leaders in Rome. Others were used in an underground spy network to carry out Rome’s master plan to control the great multitudes of Arabs who rejected Catholicism. When ‘St Augustine’ appeared on the scene, he knew what was going on. His monasteries served as bases to seek out and destroy Bible manuscripts owned by the true Christians." (...)​
“The Vatican wanted to create a messiah for the Arabs, someone they could raise up as a great leader, a man with charisma whom they could train, and eventually unite all the non-Catholic Arabs behind him, creating a mighty army that would ultimately capture Jerusalem for the pope. (...)​
“As time went by, the power of Islam became tremendous – Jews and true Christians were slaughtered, and Jerusalem fell into their hands. Roman Catholics were never attacked, nor were their shrines, during this time. But when the pope asked for Jerusalem, he was surprised at their denial! The Arab generals had such military success that they could not be intimidated by the pope – nothing could stand in the way of their own plan. (...)​
The pope realized what they had created was out of control when he heard they were calling “His Holiness” an infidel. The Muslim generals were determined to conquer the world for Allah and now they turned toward Europe. Islamic ambassadors approached the pope and asked for papal bulls to give them permission to invade European countries.​
“The Vatican was outraged; war was inevitable. Temporal power and control of the world was considered the basic right of the pope. He wouldn’t think of sharing it with those whom he considered heathens.​
“The pope raised up his armies and called them crusades to hold back the children of Ishmael from grabbing Catholic Europe. The crusades lasted centuries and Jerusalem slipped out of the pope’s hands.​
“Turkey fell and Spain and Portugal were invaded by Islamic forces. In Portugal, they called a mountain village “Fatima” in honor of Muhammad’s daughter, never dreaming it would become world famous.​
“Years later when the Muslim armies were poised on the islands of Sardinia and Corsica, to invade Italy, there was a serious problem. The Islamic generals realized they were too far extended. It was time for peace talks. One of the negotiators was Francis of Assisi.​
“As a result, the Muslims were allowed to occupy Turkey in a “Christian” world, and the Catholics were allowed to occupy Lebanon in the Arab world. It was also agreed that the Muslims could build mosques in Catholic countries without interference as long as Roman Catholicism could flourish Arab countries.​
Also interesting that Lebanon was basically traded with Turkey between the Catholics and the Muslims, both part of the same "deep state" structures back then, trying to destroy the original form of Christianity. The original form of Christianity to me looks more and more like the sole spiritual heritage of humanity.

Before the Muslims and the Ottoman Empire, the Near East was probably Christian, with an Arab flavor. And this cultural flavor was later used to create Islam.

So I would say Islam wasn't invented out of thin air, but was based on the original "religion" that existed on earth, and there was probably an Arab way of life that was similar to early Christianity, but based on the Arab cultural values and perspectives.
 
We have to ask when the Ottoman Empire actually became an "Islamic" Empire. Was Suleiman a Muslim? Mehmet?
While it is certainly true that the Islamic Turks persecuted non-Muslim and non-Turkish people in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th/20th centuries, was that always the case?
Edit: In one of his volumes, Fomenko deals with the Conquest of Constantinople. (The English translation was available, but it depicts a contemporaneous image of the event):
View attachment 23085
Notice any "anomalies"?
Here are just a couple:
1) The Ottoman banners/flags
View attachment 23086
View attachment 23087
So, no sign of crescent moons.
2) Hagia Sophia:
View attachment 23088
Hagia Sophia is a "Gothic-style" Church, rather than a domed Church.

Mehmet II had coins minted. Here is just one..
View attachment 23089
The coin depicts Mehmet, other people, and animals. All are against Islamic Law. (In fact, the coin looks more like something from the "Graeco-Roman world" than what we understand as the "15th century" today.

And here's just part of the detail from a sword of Suleiman.
View attachment 23090
Again, it depicts animals.(And creatures from Fantasy too.) This is strictly forbidden under Islamic Law.
It's hard to believe in the conclusions of this thread when we actually see how messed up history really is.

This is something I found some time ago on the website of the Metropolitan Museum (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/192693):

DP106674.jpg

Its title is Cassone with painted front panel depicting the Conquest of Trebizond (after ca. 1461) and this is the description given by the museum itself:

This impressive marriage chest is said to have come from the Palazzo Strozzi, and it has the Strozzi emblem of a flacon perched on a caltrop (a spiky metal weapon) with a banderole inscribed ME[Z]ZE—probably a reference to the half-moons in their armorial device. The form of the cassone evokes classical sarcophagi. The painted front does not belong to this chest but is contemporary with it. It shows a battle before the city of Trebizond; Constantinople is seen at the upper left. In the foreground is a battle between Ottoman and Byzantine troops. Trebizond fell to the Ottomans in 1461, but the ruler seated beneath a canopy is identified as Tamerlane (ca. 1336–1405), the Mongolian emperor who defeated the Ottoman sultan at Ankara in 1402. These historical anachronisms have not been explained, but the advance of the Ottomans was something that preoccupied all of Europe—not least those with mercantile interests in the Middle East.

Here below is Tamerlane, identified by the name (not looking very 'mongol', according to modern standards):

Cat56DetailR1_R50Y.jpg

Not only that but the weapons and clothes of both the armies look totally oriental. Byzantines were always represented very similar to a mix of Romans and Greeks as they show us in pictures, but not here.

Immagine 2022-07-13 083150.jpg

And I doubt the location is Trebizond, since every detail points to Constantinople and the opposite coast, which is demonstrated by the presence of a fortress called 'LOSCUTARIO', corresponding to modern Uskudar (Üsküdar - Wikipedia).

Immagine 2022-07-13 082926.jpg

So here we clearly see Tamerlane in a battle against the Ottomans, unless the true Ottoman was Tamerlane himself. To be fair the city where the battle rages on seems to have the name Trebisond upon it, but there are other cities/fortresses depicted with their names on what seems to be the Bosporos. I cannot read and/or recognise their names though. So the question is if this battle really happened near Constantinople, as the painting implies (and then we have another huge geographical problem regarding Trebisond which was not where it's supposed to be), or it's just 'poetic license' and the poet/painter depicted the Bosporus but decided to add Trebisond out of the blue or...

... or it's just the ignorance of people in that age, the favourite 'explanation' by our modern geniuses. Here below Trebisond with its almost unreadable name:

Immagine 2022-08-19 110002.png

Immagine 2022-08-19 110741.png

edit: a quick addiction to identify the Bosporus location. We have also PERA, modern Beyoğlu (Beyoğlu - Wikipedia). It is supposed to be an islamic town at that point (since it was conquered in 1453 by Mehmet II) but it still has the Genoese Saint George's Cross upon it:

Immagine 2022-08-19 112854.png

There's another fortress on the painting, but I cannot identify it and its name is not clear. Let me know if somebody has some suggestions. Here the picture:

Immagine 2022-08-19 113343.png

edit2: an aereal view:

Immagine 2022-08-19 114221.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's hard to believe in the conclusions of this thread when we actually see how messed up history really is.

This is something I found some time ago on the website of the Metropolitan Museum (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/192693):


Its title is Cassone with painted front panel depicting the Conquest of Trebizond (after ca. 1461) and this is the description given by the museum itself:

This impressive marriage chest is said to have come from the Palazzo Strozzi, and it has the Strozzi emblem of a flacon perched on a caltrop (a spiky metal weapon) with a banderole inscribed ME[Z]ZE—probably a reference to the half-moons in their armorial device. The form of the cassone evokes classical sarcophagi. The painted front does not belong to this chest but is contemporary with it. It shows a battle before the city of Trebizond; Constantinople is seen at the upper left. In the foreground is a battle between Ottoman and Byzantine troops. Trebizond fell to the Ottomans in 1461, but the ruler seated beneath a canopy is identified as Tamerlane (ca. 1336–1405), the Mongolian emperor who defeated the Ottoman sultan at Ankara in 1402. These historical anachronisms have not been explained, but the advance of the Ottomans was something that preoccupied all of Europe—not least those with mercantile interests in the Middle East.

Here below is Tamerlane, identified by the name (not looking very 'mongol', according to modern standards):

Not only that but the weapons and clothes of both the armies look totally oriental. Byzantines were always represented very similar to a mix of Romans and Greeks as they show us in pictures, but not here.

And I doubt the location is Trebizond, since every detail points to Constantinople and the opposite coast, which is demonstrated by the presence of a fortress called 'LOSCUTARIO', corresponding to modern Uskudar (Üsküdar - Wikipedia).

So here we clearly see Tamerlane in a battle against the Ottomans, unless the true Ottoman was Tamerlane himself. To be fair the city where the battle rages on seems to have the name Trebisond upon it, but there are other cities/fortresses depicted with their names on what seems to be the Bosporos. I cannot read and/or recognise their names though. So the question is if this battle really happened near Constantinople, as the painting implies (and then we have another huge geographical problem regarding Trebisond which was not where it's supposed to be), or it's just 'poetic license' and the poet/painter depicted the Bosporus but decided to add Trebisond out of the blue or...

... or it's just the ignorance of people in that age, the favourite 'explanation' by our modern geniuses. Here below Trebisond with its almost unreadable name:

edit: a quick addiction to identify the Bosporus location. We have also PERA, modern Beyoğlu (Beyoğlu - Wikipedia). It is supposed to be an islamic town at that point (since it was conquered in 1453 by Mehmet II) but it still has the Genoese Saint George's Cross upon it:

There's another fortress on the painting, but I cannot identify it and its name is not clear. Let me know if somebody has some suggestions. Here the picture:
edit2: an aereal view:

Only had a glance but this article provides some detail.
Early Modern Military Architecture in the Ottoman Empire - Nexus Network Journal
 
So @kd-755 showed me some more detailed page in a previous edition of the same website, when the museum was still worried of giving informations to us mortals (Art Object). It's definitively a depiction of the Bosporus in all it selements... aside Trebizond! Seriously?

Purchased in 1913 from the Florentine dealer Stefano Bardini (1836–1922), this elaborate chest, or cassone, has long enjoyed status as one of the few fifteenth-century objects of its kind to survive intact and, moreover, to portray a contemporary historical event—the conquest of Trebizond, the last outpost of the Byzantine Empire, by Mehmed II in 1461 (for another example of a cassone panel depicting a contemporary historical event, see 07.120.1). This status has been called into question by a detailed, technical examination undertaken in 2008. It has now been demonstrated that so far from being intact, various parts of the chest are not integral and that, most importantly, the painted front may originate from another chest. This means that the purported provenance of the chest from Palazzo Strozzi, first asserted by Weisbach [see Ref. 1913], may have no bearing on the interpretation of the scene on the painted front. That the chest itself is connected with some member of the Strozzi family is clear from the emblems that appear on the end pieces, which are original to it: the Strozzi falcon or hawk perched on a caltrop (spiky metal devices that, when scattered on the ground, destabilize the enemy’s horses) with a banderole inscribed ME[Z]ZE—perhaps indicating another Strozzi emblem, the half-moon crescent [see Ref. Nickel 1974]. The inside of the lid and the back of the cassone retain their original stenciled patterns simulating patterned fabric, and the top of the lid is embellished by a gessoed piece of cloth that is gilded and tooled to simulate a runner of cut velvet (this motif is worn, the paint having been almost entirely lost, so that the design is barely legible today).

DP106674.jpg

The scene on the painted front is universally recognized as coming from the most active and prestigious workshop for the production of painted cassone in mid-fifteenth-century Florence: that shared by Apollonio di Giovanni and Marco del Buono. Its subject is neither biblical nor mythological, nor even based on a contemporary novella such as those by Boccaccio. Rather, it depicts an event that unfolds before two identifiable cities of the Byzantine Empire. Much work has been done identifying the places shown [see especially Refs. Paribeni 2001, Paribeni 2002, and Lurati 2005]. In the left background, clearly labeled on its walls, is Constantinople.

Immagine 2022-08-19 183950.png

An attempt has been made by the artist to suggest a number of the city’s landmarks and distinguishing topographical features, some of which are also labeled. There is the Latin church of San Francesco;

Immagine 2022-08-19 184131.png

the monumental column of Justinian in the Augustaion and the Egyptian obelisk (evidently topped by a crescent) in the Hippodrome originally laid out by Emperor Septimus Severus in the third century AD and further embellished by Constantine;

Immagine 2022-08-19 184347.png
Immagine 2022-08-19 184456.png

the Hagia Sofia;

Immagine 2022-08-19 184634.png

the nearby sixth-century church of Saint Irene;

Question_mark_(black).svg.png

what must be intended either as the Blachernae Palace or its thirteenth-century annex, the Palace of Porphyrogenitus, which served as the imperial residence for the last Byzantine emperors (the fragmentary inscription may possibly have been intended as [PALAZZO] DEILO [IM]PER[AT]ORI);

Immagine 2022-08-19 185015.png

the Golden Horn—the city’s fabled inlet that was protected by a chain that could be drawn across it—with western ships (carracks) moored next to the Genoese quarter of Pera, the walls of which are dominated by the great circular Galata tower, atop which the Genoese flag can be seen.

Immagine 2022-08-19 185141.png

Other boats in the Golden Horn and the Sea of Marmara may be either Greek dromons or Ottoman.

Immagine 2022-08-19 185352.png

Further back, on the European side of the Bosphorus, is the CHASTEL NVOVO (the "new fortress" of Rumeli Hisari built by Mehmed II in 1451–52 in preparation for the seige of Constantinople; its distinctive towers are still a landmark today).

Immagine 2022-08-19 113343.png

Across the Bosphorus is another walled city designated as LO SCUTARIO—Scutari, present-day Üsküdar (the name, Skutarion, derived from the leather shields of the Roman soldiers stationed there; it fell to the Ottomans almost a century before Constantinople).

Immagine 2022-07-13 082926.jpg

Then, dominating the hill on the right is the walled city of Trebizond (modern-day Trabzon). Located on the southern coast of the Black Sea, it became the seat of a separate Byzantine empire when it was conquered by Alexios Komenos in 1204—the year Constantinople fell to the crusaders—and was the last outpost of the Byzantine Empire following the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453. It fell to the Ottomans in 1461, marking the final demise of Byzantium. Although hardly an accurate depiction, it seems clear that for his depiction of Constantinople the artist was supplied with descriptions and maps, such as the one included in Cristoforo Buondelmonti’s Liber insularum Archipelagi of 1420 [see Ref. Pope-Hennessy and Christiansen 1980] as well as, possibly, drawings by that inveterate traveler Cyriac of Ancona and the reports of other visitors to the city [see Ref. Lurati 2005].

Immagine 2022-08-19 110002.png

Before the walled city of Trebizond is depicted a battle. An encampment of tents is shown on the far right, in front of which the leader of one of the armies is seated on a triumphal chariot drawn by two white horses.

Immagine 2022-08-19 185949.png

He wears a turban, as do other members of his army, including the troops emerging behind Scutari, and he points his white baton towards a gesticulating, bearded figure who, dressed in blue, wears the sort of cylindrical hat splayed out at the top that was associated in Western Europe with the Byzantine Greeks [see Ref. Lurati 2005]; he rides a black steed and is plainly either reporting on the progress of the battle or taking orders.

Immagine 2022-08-19 190304.png

Prior to 1980 it was presumed that the figure on the chariot was Mehmed II [see Ref. Weisbach 1913] and that the battle depicted the Ottoman defeat of the Byzantines in 1461—hence the designation of the chest as the Trebizond Cassone. However, as has been pointed out by Paribeni [see Ref. 2001], Trebizond was taken by Mehmed II without a battle: it capitulated without bloodshed. Moreover, a close examination of the costumes reveals that it is the Ottomans who are being vanquished (for the costumes, see especially Refs. Paribeni 2001, Paribeni 2002, and Lurati 2005). Clearly shown among the captives and those in retreat are members of the Ottoman elite infantry, the Janissaries, wearing their distinctive white conical hats with the top folded over. Other conical hats are gold, some with a feathered decoration (for similar Turkish costumes, see Cesare Vecellio’s Degli habiti antichi . . . , Venice, 1664, book 7, pp. 297–302).

Immagine 2022-08-19 190517.png

Their commander is almost certainly the turbaned figure to the left of the melee, dressed in gold, holding a scepter and mounted on a black horse. He is defended by Janissaries, one of whom turns around while pointing with his left hand.

Immagine 2022-08-19 190952.png

Scimitars are wielded by both armies, as are the distinctive recurved composite bows of Ottoman warfare. In front of the triumphal chariot five captives, two of whom kneel, are being presented to the victorious army commanders. The characterization of the two armies should have been enough to refute the common identification of the figure on the triumphal chariot as Mehmed II. And, in fact, a careful examination with the aid of infrared light in 1980 revealed an inscription identifying him as TANVRLANA—Tamerlane, or Timur (1336–1405), the celebrated Mongol emperor and commander who defeated the Ottomans under Bayezid I at Ankara in 1402 (Bayezid was taken prisoner). The battle, then, would seem to be Tamerlane’s victory over Bayezid at Ankara, but anachronistically shown against the backdrop of Trebizond. As remarked by Gombrich [see Ref. 1955], "it cannot have been the intention of the painter simply to represent a Greek disaster." And, indeed, the setting of a battle that took place in 1402 in front of a city that fell to the Ottomans in 1461 signals an emblematic intent.

Cat56DetailR1_R50Y.jpg


In the minds of Europeans, Tamerlane’s victories assured him a place among the "worthies". As such, his image was included in a fresco cycle of famous men commissioned about 1432 by Cardinal Giordano Orsini for his palace in Rome. A number of interpretations have been suggested to explain the apparent anachronisms (see the thorough summary in Ref. Krohn 2008). One would have it that the figure is not actually Tamerlane but the Turkmen rival of the Ottomans, Uzun Hasan (1423–1478), who was known in his time as a second Tamerlane [see Ref. Paribeni 2001 and Baskins, as reported in Ref. Krohn 2008]. Uzun Hasan made a pact with Mehmed II not to aid the Byzantine forces and thus to assist the Ottoman conquest of Trebizond. How this relates to the actual battle scene depicted remains problematic, but it may be worth noting that the Venetians sought Uzun Hasan as an ally against the Ottomans. What cannot be doubted is the intention to conflate historical events, using the past as a template for the future by reminding viewers that the Ottomans—now a threat to Europe—were not invincible. Paribeni [see Ref. 2001] has indicated a pair of cassoni panels commissioned from the workshop of Apollonio, apparently in 1461, that illustrate the triumph of the Greeks over Xerxes’ invading Persian army in 480–79 BC. Given the date of the commission, there would appear to be a reference to the conquest of Trebizond, the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, and a hoped for reversal. At the Council of Mantua in 1459, Pius II promoted a crusade against the Turks. An army was assembled in Ancona in 1464, but dispersed when Pius died there on August 15. There were, of course, also mercantile interests, and Paribeni [see Ref. 2001] has pointed out that in December 1460 an accord established a Florentine commercial presence in Trebizond. The presence on the MMA cassone of the two cities of Constantinople and Trebizond would thus seem to transform Tamerlane’s victory at Ankara in 1402 into an emblematic prognosis for the defeat of the Ottoman conquerors of Trebizond.

As noted above, the painted front may have belonged to another chest so that the attempts to link it with the Strozzi remain speculative. Moreover, it has not been proven that the chest itself came from the Strozzi palace, though it contains Strozzi emblems. Several Strozzi marriages have been suggested as appropriate moments for the commission: Caterina Strozzi, who married Jacopo degli Spini in 1462 [see Ref. Nickel 1974]; the brother of Vanni di Francesco Strozzi, who traveled to Constantinople and Trebizond in 1462 and who commissioned a cassone from Apollonio for the marriage [see Ref. Paribeni 2001]; Strozza di Messer Marcello degli Strozzi, who married in 1459; Benedetto di Marco degli Strozzi, who married in 1462 [Baskins, reported in Ref. Krohn 2008]; and finally, most prominent of all, the wealthy banker Filippo Strozzi—the builder of Palazzo Strozzi—who married Fiammetta degli Adimari in 1466 [Beatrice Paolozzi-Strozzi, in Ref. Krohn 2008].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In October 1982, a few months after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, ARAMCO World Magazine published a collection of articles called "Paradise Lost: A Eulogy for Lebanon," about the ante-bellum time in the Lebanon between 1945-1982, which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. Apparently it was a time of innocence, abundance and prosperity.

It is great that you bring up Lebanon, as it is really a gem of the region which lost its glory, but there are some corrections to be made to your post here. I don't think you errored intentionally, you just skipped important historical facts, which is odd, because in your following post about Lebanon you do acknowledge the creation of Islam to oppose the other religions.

The article you brought up gives you the notion that the Israeli invasion of 1982 destroyed Lebanon. It is not true.
To start off, I don't know why you'd use an article from "AramcoWorld", it literally was the western propaganda arm of the royal Saudi family, who helped finance the extremist Sunnis in Lebanon, who were the ones massacring the Christians.

I will provide a thorough explanation of how Lebanon lost itself, and even this long reply won't be enough. Basically, yes, Israel did some damage there, but thinking that Lebanon is defined by "pre 82" and "after 82" is being virtually unaware of the country's history.

After the French occupation following World War II, Lebanon flourished between 1950 and 1980, experiencing a kind of cultural, economic and material renaissance. Probably in connection with the golden age of the Ottoman Empire, this period is called the golden age of Lebanon.

The French entered Lebanon in 1917, after WW1. The flourishing period you speak of, happened between 1930 and 1965, and things deteriorated since.
Lebanon had a Christian majority up until the 60's. As the country developed and modernized, the Christians had less children, and the Muslims had more.
In the Arab world, we're talking about huge gaps of 8 children vs. 3 children per family for example. As Lebanon developed, more jobs were available, and Muslims migrated there from every Arab country, shifting the balance.

The primal problem of Lebanon was its diversity, which became very tribalized. The French left the country to its independence in the 40's, and installed a very strange "democratic" system, in which each one of the many groups (Christians, Sunni, Shia and Druze and more) had a "fixed" position such as Presisent, head of Parliament and etc., and it is so until this day. The fixing of political roles was based on a population census made in the 30's, and not one census was made ever since. Basically, voting means nothing, because every group has a reserved spot in government and parliament.

When the French left, many Christians left Lebanon as well.
The "mini civil wars" started already in the 1950's, as Muslims claimed the Christians got the better share of the political power, unfairly.

The Lebanese civil war officially started in 1975, but killing and massacres were common for decades.
In this small country, of just a few millions in population, the people already had dozens of polarized militant groups, among them: Communists, Fascists, pro-Syria annexation, pro-Egypt annexation (pan-Arabism), pro-Iraq, and one very critical group: Palestinians, who in fact triggered the civil war into full scale.

In the early 1970's, the neighboring Jordan went to war against the Palestinian militants in what is known as Black September, after the militants tried to overthrow the Hashemite royals, and killed thousands of Jordanians.
Upon defeat, Jordan expelled the Palestinians to southern Lebanon, which became the "wild west" of the country. The (Sunni) Palestinian PLO organization under Yasser Arafat began to de-facto occupy the region, robbing and terrorizing the Shia villagers who lived under their rule. They developed a strong militia which began to:
1. Raid and massacre Christian villages 2. Fire rockets at Israel day by day, and send assassins to its towns.

In 1976, the Syrian Army entered Lebanon and began to interfere in the battles. Its final goal was to annex Lebanon into Syria, but they sank in "the Lebanese mud". Months after, a Pan-Arabian force of 30,000 soldiers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Sudan entered Lebanon to try and keep the peace, but had failed.

Prior to the Israeli invasion, Israel provided support for the Christian militias along its border, so that they can repel the Palestinians out, but they were being overcome.

Israel entered Lebanon in 1982, after a decade of assaults from across the border. It was also feared that the Christians will be annihilated, and Syria will annex the country.
Israel focused on southern Lebanon and defeated the Palestinian militia. The Christians allied with Israel, and a Lebanese unit was even formed in the Israeli army.

The next move by Israel is disputed until today as to whether it was a mistake or essential: Israel used the momentum and captured Beirut, and expelled the Syrian army. Israel did not proceed past Beirut. Israel then tried to restore Lebanon to Christian domination by installing a Christian Presisent who was popular back then. Once Israel left Beirut, the new president was assassinated. The civil war raged on, and Israel retreated to the south. There, Syria financed a new Shia group, Hezbollah, to fight Israel in the south border.

The civil war continued until 1990, when the Syrian army captured a part of Beirut.
Between 1940 and 1990, the majority of Christians left Lebanon. Today, there's a bigger population of Christian Lebanese diaspora, than the entire Lebanon itself. Most of them live in South America.

When a culture's connection with its roots is cut, as in this case by the Israeli invasion, there is a sudden rupture and the realization that something essential has been irrevocably lost.

The sentimental memory of the Lebanese of the pre-1982 era probably reflects much more than is apparent at first glance: in the last 200 years, most cultures or nations have lost their own roots as a result of one or more orchestrated crises, and have been in a state of inner emptiness ever since. Only by reconnecting with the past can something emerge that forms a foundation for human civilization.

As you probably now understand, there is no "pre-1982" era in Lebanon.
The weakening of the country was gradual, through many bloody decades, and was mainly caused by:
1. Majority of Christians leaving: the Christians were, and still are, the basis of the economical backbone: traders, artisans, artists, businessmen. Up until the 90's, almost every Muslim was a farmer.
2. The flooding of the country with firearms, by all countries who interfered with it: Syria, Iraq, Israel, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan.
3. An unfair, blatantly fake democratic system which the French created only to try and bury a sleeping dragon of polarized diversity.
4. Decades of murders and town on town raids, with over 150,000 dead (out of a few millions total). Annexation attempt by Syria.
5. High corruption by the Muslim politicans, who grabbed political power in the late 80's, and began to rob the country, leading a lavish lifestyle contrary to Islamic values (drinking, partying etc.).

In 2000, Israel evacuated the last military outposts it kept on the Lebanese side of the border. The remaining Christians who lived in the south, were under death threats from the Hezbollah, and fled to Israel, where they received citizenship.

There is no 1 artificial crisis that created a before and after. You're talking here about one of the most complicated countries in the world!
And the people with the memories, they now live abroad, mostly in Brazil and France, jealously keeping their original Lebanese identity.
 
Last edited:
To start off, I don't know why you'd use an article from "AramcoWorld", it literally was the western propaganda arm of the royal Saudi family, who helped finance the extremist Sunnis in Lebanon, who were the ones massacring the Christians.

thanks for informing me about the background of that magazine, that is indeed very questionable. That people generally remember a golden age of the 60s seems to be the case, though.
 
thanks for informing me about the background of that magazine, that is indeed very questionable. That people generally remember a golden age of the 60s seems to be the case, though.

Lebanon knew several golden times, which were separated by times of great bloodshed. The country has a very rich and complex history for its small size.

A part of it which is often forgotten, is the influence of the Druze people. The Druze is a ethno-religious group which imo deserves its own SH research post. Their primary presence originated in Lebanon, and they used to be the majority there until the mid 1800s.
The Christian Arabs began to migrate there in the 19th century by encouragement of both the Ottomans, and Austria, which tried to establish itself in Lebanon prior to France.
Between the late 18th century and early 20th century, there were many wars between Christian and Druze. The Druze were often richer and with stronger military culture. At first, most Christians were peasants and vassals to Druze landlords, but after many wars, there was a mixed situation in which Druze lords owned Christian lands and vice versa. The Ottomans were so desperate to solve the tensions in Lebanon that they invited the Austrians to negotiate new terms, which even caused the feudal system to change and make Lebanon a tax free region in the Empire.

An interesting solution the Ottomans used, they appointed an Ottoman Catholic chancellor to supervise every province in Lebanon, and he was in charge of solving disputes. Both the Druze, Christians and the Muslim minority supported it. The Christian Lebanese are of the Maronic faith, closer to Orthodox than to Catholic.

Even that didn't last long, and in one of the civil wars the Christians defeated the Druze and caused most of them to flee and resettle in Syria, in a province now called "The Druze Mountain".
The Druze became a minority in Lebanon, and when the French stepped in, their political power was reduced even further.

So "golden ages" in Lebanon are very subjective to which decade and province you talk about. It's a land with rich soil and good geography, involving both high snowy mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, beaches and grasslands. When peace is kept and the politics are stable, it is a paradise for the classic Arab farmer, the climate grants with high quality products that could be exported to far away lands for decent returns. The mountain of Baal Bek, known for the great monoliths, is one of the most fertile province which once fed the whole country. In the last decades the Hezbollah militants use it to grow poppy and cannabis which is exported worldwide ("Lebanese hashish") and is their main source of income.
 
Like in any other society... you follow the rules, you are safe... for those who wanted real freedom... well, as the "komiti" experienced in Macedonia during their Ilinden Uprising (Macedonian National Day is celebrated on 2 August, the day this uprising started), Ottoman rullers had only one answer... and they didn't care if you were Muslim or Christian!

This was recorded by the brothers Manaki in 1905... real footage that tells the truth!

Download Video
 
Reading the OP, I think it is biased, so let me provide the exactly opposite bias. Slavery and brutality was a thing in that "diverse paradise" society. Janissaries - exclusive to the Ottoman Empire - pretty much destroy the argument that the populations loved the Ottoman Empire. I will quote Wikipedia which is often wrong, but not in this case:

From the 1380s to 1648, the Janissaries were gathered through the devşirme system, which was abolished in 1648.[12] This was the taking (enslaving) of non-Muslim boys,[13] notably Anatolian and Balkan Christians; Jews were never subject to devşirme, nor were children from Turkic families. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "in early days, all Christians were enrolled indiscriminately. Later, those from what is now Albania, Bosnia, and Bulgaria were preferred."[14]
tl;dr: Soldiers came up your door, stole your children and you never saw your children again. They were circumcized, trained brutally, and sent to fight to the death. And you even paid taxes as an ottoman citizen, doesn't matter.

Children were kidnapped at a young age and turned into soldiers in an attempt to make the soldiers faithful to the sultan.
And if they survived enough battles to reach adulthood, they were brainwashed/conditioned by their enviroment to fanatically support the same system which enslaved them.
 
Reading the OP, I think it is biased, so let me provide the exactly opposite bias. Slavery and brutality was a thing in that "diverse paradise" society. Janissaries - exclusive to the Ottoman Empire - pretty much destroy the argument that the populations loved the Ottoman Empire. I will quote Wikipedia which is often wrong, but not in this case:


tl;dr: Soldiers came up your door, stole your children and you never saw your children again. They were circumcized, trained brutally, and sent to fight to the death. And you even paid taxes as an ottoman citizen, doesn't matter.


And if they survived enough battles to reach adulthood, they were brainwashed/conditioned by their enviroment to fanatically support the same system which enslaved them.
They were taking one boy over family, not all the children... just to clarify... not right, but these were the rules.
 
Reading the OP, I think it is biased, so let me provide the exactly opposite bias. Slavery and brutality was a thing in that "diverse paradise" society. Janissaries - exclusive to the Ottoman Empire - pretty much destroy the argument that the populations loved the Ottoman Empire. I will quote Wikipedia which is often wrong, but not in this case:


tl;dr: Soldiers came up your door, stole your children and you never saw your children again. They were circumcized, trained brutally, and sent to fight to the death. And you even paid taxes as an ottoman citizen, doesn't matter.


And if they survived enough battles to reach adulthood, they were brainwashed/conditioned by their enviroment to fanatically support the same system which enslaved them.
That's very true of what you said, that's exactly what I posted on some prior post on this thread. No one really knows the sacrifice of what Balkan people had to endure under the Ottoman empire. The thread's author and some other German posters think it's a joke. They think the Ottomans were good and benevolent like the Jedis. pfff
All of this just because someone doesn't know history and wants to sell a post about something they don't know anything about. Pathetic. Running a website is not the same thing as running history!

If it wasn't for the 25 years alliance in between Gjergj Kastrioti in Albania and Janosh Hunyadi in Hungary in 1444 against the Ottomans, I'm sure the whole of Italy would be speaking Arabic as of right now and they'll be screaming: Allahu Akbar!

The Ottomans had a clear goal, they wanted the Balkans so they could jump at Vatican and take revenge for the sack and destruction of Constantinople and Jerusalem. They wanted revenge. Which was stopped for 50+ years in Albania. Sulltan Mehmet I died trying to take Albania but he went to hell without succeeding. Sulltan Mehmet the II was able to conquer it, but by that time ottoman forces were too weak to take on Vatican city, thus they abandoned their plans.

This is stolen history that no one talks about, not some stupid thing about the ottomans being good old guys and Germans being the good guys after them!! If it wasn't for the Ballkan's resistance to muslims, half of Europe would be in burkas, sandals and in mosques right now!
 
That's very true of what you said, that's exactly what I posted on some prior post on this thread. No one really knows the sacrifice of what Balkan people had to endure under the Ottoman empire. The thread's author and some other German posters think it's a joke. They think the Ottomans were good and benevolent like the Jedis. pfff
All of this just because someone doesn't know history and wants to sell a post about something they don't know anything about. Pathetic. Running a website is not the same thing as running history!

As you maybe saw already, I have also been critical of the OP, but to be fair the author is trying to point out a certain early period in the Ottoman era which was more let's say, fantastical for its citizens. I'm not convinced of it but open to it, and possibly it's not even what we call "Ottoman" since historical timelines and identities have been tampered with.

Another thing, I think that in the "Old world" it could've been such a scenario in any Imperial realm, that living as a citizen in the "inner lands" would be prosperous and with freedom, but living as a conquered enemy would be the total opposite, a strong polarity in policies. In the example of Ottomans it is the Balkan people who suffered the wrath, despite being a part of the Empire (some of them).

There are those who also praise the old Russian Empire for making such a fantastical world for its unified peoples with free energy and all that. Might be true? Yes, but at the same time if you lived in the Cossack lands, life was probably far from fun and games.

So the point isn't to defend the post, just to point out, I think it was possible for an entity, an Empire, to be capable of great evil and great good at the same time.
 
I remember Sylvie talked about something similar in one of her videos. The idea was that back then Islam and Christianity were still somewhat unified, and no stictly separated religions.
That reminds me of Ignacio Olague and his investigation into "Islamic Spain" pre 1492:
https://mergueze.info/the-arabs-hav...-never-invaded-spain-ignacio-olagues-revenge/
As you maybe saw already, I have also been critical of the OP, but to be fair the author is trying to point out a certain early period in the Ottoman era which was more let's say, fantastical for its citizens. I'm not convinced of it but open to it, and possibly it's not even what we call "Ottoman" since historical timelines and identities have been tampered with.

Another thing, I think that in the "Old world" it could've been such a scenario in any Imperial realm, that living as a citizen in the "inner lands" would be prosperous and with freedom, but living as a conquered enemy would be the total opposite, a strong polarity in policies. In the example of Ottomans it is the Balkan people who suffered the wrath, despite being a part of the Empire (some of them).

There are those who also praise the old Russian Empire for making such a fantastical world for its unified peoples with free energy and all that. Might be true? Yes, but at the same time if you lived in the Cossack lands, life was probably far from fun and games.

So the point isn't to defend the post, just to point out, I think it was possible for an entity, an Empire, to be capable of great evil and great good at the same time.
Short history of Bogomils in Bosnia
The heretical Bogomils and the Balkans.

I came across an old text: by L P Brockett
[Projekat Rastko] L. P. Brockett - The Bogomils of Bulgaria and Bosnia: The Early Protestants of the East. (1879)

So much of the history has been hidden away or simply destroyed. What really was going on back then, Popes, Crusades, Schism ...
 
Last edited:
Pick your tower and place it in your time!

Translation from twitter.

"The timeline I prepared about the historical change of the Galata Tower from the beginning of the 6th century to the present."



View: https://mobile.twitter.com/studioodo/status/1604431993063751681

Did you get any response? I find Twitter generated little unless you had a blue tick #ClosedShop
That reminds me of Ignacio Olague and his investigation into "Islamic Spain" pre 1492:
https://mergueze.info/the-arabs-hav...-never-invaded-spain-ignacio-olagues-revenge/

Short history of Bogomils in Bosnia
The heretical Bogomils and the Balkans.

I came across an old text: by L P Brockett
[Projekat Rastko] L. P. Brockett - The Bogomils of Bulgaria and Bosnia: The Early Protestants of the East. (1879)

So much of the history has been hidden away or simply destroyed. What really was going on back then, Popes, Crusades, Schism ...
Did you get any response? I find Twitter generated little unless you had a blue tick #ClosedShop
So my post achieved null response.

Says much- even on this platform...
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top