The khopesh (closest thing you’ll see to a Dothraki arakh) wasn’t steel, when it was in use, and it wasn’t used against heavily armored opponents. It was handy for slashing an opponent while one was in a chariot and moving at a good pace. Scimitars and samshirs operate on a similar principle, using a single edge for greater efficacy when riding past an opponent to slash at them or their mount.

It is a true generalisation that the idea of the Prophetic example has had an ongoing importance for religious observance amongst Muslims, however your characterisation comes across as an ideological narrative rather than a reflection of the historical reality. Even if we assume that the beliefs/practices of the majority of Muslims are accurately shown by fiqh/aqidah texts: and were universally and prescriptively followed even such discussions vary widely in their understanding of the Sunnah itself.

Your analysis is being dunked on because it seems uninformed. If you read many texts of this period in the region you will find them arguing for the submission to a singular authority in the form of the Caliph, yet even a cursory survey of Muslim history shows that this was rarely even close to the case. That alone shows that it took more than an Alim to make a ruling to define something so complex as strategies of governance.

Living amongst Muslims doesn't equate to historiographical training. If this is a topic that interests you I would suggest reading scholarly works more widely.

Another good one is “Uncommon Wealth: Britain and the Aftermath of Empire” by Kojo Koram

Thanks for that answer! As a follow up, was the Monroe Doctrine a challenge to that narrative? Just curious if the US was solely concerned about European power being in Latin America or if the US also was incredulous about Europeans being better suited to run those countries too

Turks also had sagas and myths. But neither those or the Caucasian ones you mentioned were comparable to the ancient Persian or Greek cultures.

Ottoman empire was a bit of a weird phenomenon in history. In many ways because they were originally a nomad empire and the core Turkish population was not that big. While the empire was huge and it had a large population it wasn't really that big after all. Large part of the area of the empire was basically desert. At its height the whole population was a bit larger than population of France and a bit smaller than that of the holy roman empire. And most of the population was not Turkish, which is why it was probably a good move to strongly include the other ethnicities in the government and adopt their ways rather than trying to impose their own. At least in the beginning.

The Turkish nobility wasn't very loyal to the sultan and the sultans themselves were often quite weak. The sultans secured their positions by recruiting "Devshirme", who were mainly boys from Balkan Christian cultures recruited to the army or government offices as a child. These "foreigners" basically ran the empire from military generals to bureaucrats. They were mostly loyal to the sultan but also pushed the Turkish nobility out of power weakening the influence of the Turkish culture and creating a degree of resentment among the Turkish nobles. The Devshirme also grew to be very powerful in the weakness of the sultans and they created their own political factions which started to control the political appointments to further their own ends rather than those of the empire. For times the Sultans were basically powerless when this political machine (again comprised entirely of people who were neither Turkish nor Arab) did all the decisions.

What made the empire so strong around the times of Suleyman the magnificent and some time after was that hey were fabulously rich and could therefore more easily afford to raise massive military forces without going bankrupt like most European powers did many times. This was because of their control of all trade to east. All the gold and silver in Europe flowed to ottoman empire to buy luxury goods like silk and spices (like almost literally all, much faster than more could be mined, which caused a major economic crisis). And this was also the key to their downfall. The Portuguese found a route around Africa and built trade depots along the way. The Spanish on the other hand came to a new continent with all its riches in their effort to find a way around the ottomans. Italians built domestic production of things like silk. The old monopoly position was broken more and more as sea routes developed and they were left with an empire that was used to being fabulously rich but was no longer actually quite that rich. An empire with a political structure built to secure the Sultan but which left him almost powerless while concentrating in infighting and political squabbles rather than efficient ruling.

All in all the empire, after its rise to power, was never really Turkish. They never drove a clear distinct culture because the government simply didn't have one. The government was largely a hodgepodge of people from the Balkans who were taken as a child and raised in the Sultan's court and had their own weird culture disconnected from the reality of any of the peoples of the empire.

Writing has nothing to do with cultural literacy. The Adyghe/Circassian Nart sagas are as old, if not older, than the Greek mythological origin stories of the Caucasus region they share. They were not recorded in a written Kabardian language system (non Indo-European) until the 19th century.

[deleted]

It's the example set by the initial holy wars fought by the Prophet and his companions. The tradition in Islam is to as closely imitate these and other little details of the lives of the earliest Muslims. It's stupid from a Christian perspective but it was and very much still is a thing in the Muslim world. Everything has to be referenced back to the way the Prophet did things, or it is illegitimate.

I know it's not fashionable in the West to make any generalizations at all, and this is why my analysis was being dunked on, but living in an Islamic culture, I have firsthand experience of this

It’s because these people were nomads prior to that. They simply didn’t have written literature or architecture prior to getting settled. And creating a unique literature architecture takes centuries of work. Writing was invented in the Middle East in 3400 BC, the first time Turkish writings appeared was in 700s, almost 5000 years later.

"Not given much choice in strategy, because you're supposed to follow the Sunnah in everything"... what does this mean?

How is "the Sunnah" a strategy?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Probably helped them hold sway over such a large population as conquerors.

[removed]

Id have to disagree. The weimar republic had inherint problems that meant it was inevitable that the weimar republic was either going to collapse or have to face huge reforms. The problem that the reforms scenario has is that any leader that takes power isnt going to want to make those reforms, and even if they wanted to they wouldnt be capable to. This is due to 2 factors. Artical 48 of the constitutions means that the chancellor can inact laws without the approval of the reichstag, this would be abused in the later years by people like von papen and brüning, this shows that the people in power wont stop the rise of dictatorship. But hypothetically if someone came to power and wanted to change things, theyd need to change the constitution. The problem with this is that in order to change the constitution you needed 2/3 support in the reichstag, which was hard to gain due to the fractured nature of the reichstag due to the proportional voting system that was used in the republic. The nazis only managed to alter the constitution with the 'enabling act' after the center party agreed to vote in favour for act because the nazis said theyd protect catholic interests. In few scenarios will 2/3 of the vote be found to alter the constitution. So it can be concluded that the weimar republic was doomed from the get go and that it would always either end up in a dictatorship or regime change

[removed]

[removed]

After everything I've learned about the Ottoman empire it really feels like they were a hermit crab empire. Turkish nomads invade Persia? They become Persianized. Turkish tribe conquers the former Byzantine lands? They adopt Byzantine regal ceremonial culture and many aspects of governance. Ottomans spread from Anatolia throughout the Arab world? Don't spread Turkish culture, just reinforce the Arab dominated culture that already existed, including literature. I've even heard this metaphor extended to Ottoman architecture, which mostly tried to maintain what has been built previously without a strong push to make something new and distinctly Turkish/Ottoman.

It was certainly in a terrible state. I can hardly remember the name of a prominent Arabic piece of literature between the Ottoman conquest of the region and the Arab renaissance of the 19th century. Most Arabic texts from the time were religious in nature and this was a result of the decline in urbanism and literacy at the time. The trend technically started ever since the Mongol conquest but there was a small attempt at an Arabic revival by the Mamluks.

The thing is, it wasn't "rescued" by the West. The Arabic renaissance was mainly due to the rise of Mohammed Ali Pasha who was a great patreon of Arabic literature (ironically, despite speaking little to no Arabic). He helped create a network of writers and artists that linked the Levant, Arabian Penisula and North Africa from various religious backgrounds allowing Arabs from various parts of the Arab world to produce great artistic and literary works. His succesors weren't as interested as he was but the network he created continues (arguably) to this day.

When it comes to Western influences, it is undeniable there existed many. Basically, the form of literature that arose was intended to merge medieval Umayyad/Abassid styles with modern Western styles. They saw themselves as a continuation of the Medieval style after centuries of decline which can be seen in their continued use of a modernized and revived form of Classical Arabic (MSA) but they still were inspired heavily by styles from the West after they got exposed to them in their travels. For instance plays and novels entered the Arabic literary tradition at this period.

[removed]

You're confusing the attitude for the command structure, they're reverse of each other.

[removed]

It's the exact opposite, things are over-centralized and far too top-down. Everyone from sergeants to NCOs to generals are given much less operational freedom and need to ask permission for things that they'd be expected to just do on their own in the US military.