Ottoman Empire

The Ottomans took Adrianople in 1365!

They lasted about 600 years; from the 14th century to the early 20th century.

The Ottoman Empire was officially a SUNNI ISLAMIC STATE, and the place where the Caliph, the head of the Sunni Islamic World, resided. Shiite Islam suffered repression, sometimes quite severe, under Ottoman rule.

After the First Siege of Vienna, Austria. They stopped expanding, stagnated, and went into decline soon after. I don't know the exact dates of the siege, you're going to have to look those up.

Some of the conquered provinces of the Aztec Empire rebelled because of repressive rule. The Aztec overlords actually sacrificed many of the outlying tribes people in ceremonies in the capital city.

There was a strong and entrenched Islamic clergy in the Ottoman Empire that resisted any reforms and Westernization, such as came through the Tanzimat Reforms. Acts of modernization caused serious problems in the Ottoman Empire for those clergy, so they resisted them and fought back. The issues they were afraid of are those below:

Loss of Political Influence: Many of these political reforms were done to increase the secularization of the Turkish and Iranian States, as a result, the Muslim clergy, which had historically had a large role in governance had their political roles threatened. As a result, they rose to defend their interests in maintaining political power.

Loss of Religious Education: Less self-centered than the previous one, the clergy lamented that the focus of education would now be to learn secular knowledge and sciences as opposed to religious education. These clerics feared that a whole new generation of Muslims would grow up without their religion or with a minimal understanding of it. They saw what modernization had done to religiousity in Europe and wished to prevent this.

Westernization Values: Westernization imparts different social values than the ones that Islamic clerics considered valuable. For example, Westerners value a person more often by his productivity than by his character and humility. The clerics saw the reforms as a slow creep of Western-style thinking, which they considered backwards and pejorative, into Muslim people's minds.

Traditionalists: The Muslim clerics, like most religious leaders have been, were traditionalists and as traditionalists they would oppose change merely because it is change. (This is as opposed to progressivists who actively seek out change and development, usually in a liberal direction.)

Christian Ascendance: The Ottoman Empire had a social structure where Muslims were first-class citizens and non-Muslims were second-class citizens, ensuring Muslims a number of political and social benefits over non-Muslims such as public offices and heading large companies. These reforms made for a more meritocratic playing field. Christians, who were, on average, better educated than Muslims began to pull ahead of their Muslim cohorts, leading to a reversal in society with the Christians being dominant in a majority-Muslim state.

Nationalism over Pan-Islamism: Turkish Reforms strengthened a nationalist ideology that supported the uniqueness of Turks by discussing their particular history and values. Most clerics were Pan-Islamists, believing that all Muslims should be under a single united Islamic government. Therefore, they stressed the commonality of all Muslims, preferred Arabic as opposed to more local languages for governance and instilling the idea of a unified Islamic world. These two world views clashed quite strongly.

A padded footstool is called an ottoman.

Ottoman empire was dissolved at the end of World War1. Although the Ottoman empire had won many wars, the country called as defeated because of the defeated ally , Germany. then country occupied by the countries such as England, France, Greece.. the resigned Ottoman soldier whose name is Mustafa Kemal saved the country from being occupied and created a modern country whose name is Republic of Turkey. Turkish society called him Atatürk which means father of Turks in Turkish.

There was no only one, but perhaps the most famous one was Prince Faisal.

Trying to locate an email address for Dr. Mehmet Oz, the physician that appears on Oprah,

Dr. Oz. I have watched some of your programmes on Oprah and i have a problem which disturbs me so much. I have a low SPERM COUNT, THAT ONLY 40percent of my sperms are active. So the chances for my wife to conceive naturally is very small according to gynaecologist. What can do to have a high sperm count?

Walt

No. However, the man who designed it, Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, originally wanted to put the statue at the entrance to the Suez Canal, in Egypt. However, the Ottoman Empire couldn't come up with the financial backing, and so the statue was built in New York City instead.

Sources: see the Related Links below.

This is completely incorrect. In fact, the Ottoman empire came to power as the last vestiges of the old Roman empire disintegrated. Neither ever had a parliamentary government.

The Romans once had a republican form of government where their leaders were elected by the citizens. But this practice came to an end around 45 BC with the rise of Julius Caesar.

The Ottoman Empire always had as its head of state an hereditary Sultan. However the Sultan usually designated a Grand Vizier as his head of government. The Vizier had what could be described as cabinet called the Porte that resembled the cabinet of a Parliamentary democracy. But the ministers were never chosen by an elected parliament.

Equality is a concept born out of the European Enlightenment and American self-government and was not a concern of either the Roman or Ottoman empires.

The Ottoman Empire spanned much more than just the city of Bethlehem. Bethlehem was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 to the early 1900s.

Islam. Peace.

Of course, everyone's view is going to be different on this question, so take my view into consideration, but do not necessarily brand it as the right answer.

I would say that it would be possible, but highly unlikely.

Both could have become federal republics in much the same way that Switzerland is a federal republic or similar to the European Union structure, i.e. a united government with numerous highly autonomous and distinctive parts. A singular nation-state, a la Germany, would be impossible with so many different ethnic cultures and languages. However, the implementation of such a policy of creating a federal republic would have to come rather early in the timeline of both empires, such as in the 18th century, following a strict policy of increasing liberalization and recognition of ethnic distinctions and historical territories. For example, the recognition of an Austro-Hungarian federation only in 1867 as the result of several Hungarian uprisings against the Austrian Imperial Authorities, was far too late to be anything substantial. Or in the Ottoman Empire, the passage of the minimally effective Edict of Gulhane in 1839 and the Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856, were similarly too little too late.

They would have needed to be forward thinking and innovative long before protests had reached such a fever pitch that tens of thousands of commoners became nationalists arguing for the dismantling of these empires. It would require the Austrians to grant Hungarians autonomy in the mid-1700s, the Rumelians and Romanians in the late-1700s, to support the Polish Liberation movement in opposition to Czarist Russia and Absolutist Prussia, to engage Poles, Croats, Slovenes, Czechs, and Slovaks in the empire and create local administrations that would provide local information in their language. The Ottomans would be required to do the same for Non-Turkish Ottomans, such as Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Kurds, Georgians, Jews, and Lebanese Christians. Both regimes would have to become open quickly to religions other than the official religion, treating them all equal. The Austrian Empire would have to embrace Protestantism, Judaism, and Eastern Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism. The Ottoman Empire would have to embrace the various flavors of Christianity, Judaism, Yazidi, Yarsanism, Druze, Alawite, Alevi, Shiite Islam, Baha'i, and numerous other religions throughout the empire as opposed to exclusively Sunni Islam.

In contrast to this imagined reality, the Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were ultra-conservative states that made little political progress towards liberalization that was not forced on them by the more powerful and liberal Western European States.

The Ming and Qing dynasties practiced neo-Confucianism, while the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires practiced Islam

Mecca fell to the invasions of Ottoman Sultan Selim I Yavuz in 1517, in the aftermath of a wider invasion of the Hejaz territory.

Because, of the mixture of ethnic groups in the land. Control of land and ethnic groups moved back and forth between these empires.

In 1600, Constantinople - Istanbul, had an estimated population of 500,000. This was far greater than any city in Europe at that time.

What happened at the battle of MaritsaThe battle of Maritsa was a successful campaign by an outnumbered Ottoman garrison which won due to the bad commanding by King Vukašin Mrnjavčević and his brother Despot Jovan Uglješka
Had Mrnjavčević's forcces been better positioned or not so easy ambushed ( less then 100 guards & on low ground flanked by 3 high points ) , the Serbs could have won the battle .. Furthermore his forces are estimated to number around 60,000 , opposing a mere 800 Ottomans . In the initial ambush Mrnjavčević was killed , so 2nd in command Jovan Uglješka ordered his troops not to fight but to charge over the river abandoning all but a weapon per person , Over 20,000 drowned , and a 25,000 Serbs was killed in the battle . After the failure , around 2 thirds deserted , and the rest retreated . Those who stayed joined onto the forces of King Lazar of Serbia , and would fight at the battle of Kosovo .
How the Serbs could've won the battle of Maritsa
There are many ways that the Serbs could've won the battle of Maritsa . One would be for the 60,000 troops to stay and fight the 800 Ottomans . This would result in a casualty rate of around 1 Ottoman death : 5 Serbian deaths , but this would not only mean victory but a significantly lower casualty rate .
Another way would've been more guards patrolling , which would have inevitably intercepted the Ottomans and woken the army .There are many other ways to ensure a Serbian victory also .
what would've happened if the Serbs won .
Had the Serbians achieved victory at the battle of Maritsa , it would not be known as a significant battle but an extremely overrated failed Ottoman raid . Mrnjavčević's aim was to recapture Adrianople , and to get revenge for the Ottoman surprise attack at the battle of Sırp Sındığı , in which the Ottomans captured Thrace and blockaded Constantinople ( of the Byzantine Empire ) . Therefore , the bulk of the Ottoman forces would've engaged Mrnjavčević's army , and both sides would likely have taken heavy casualties . Had the Serbs also won this battle ( either side would have had about a 50 % chance of wining ) they would have captured Thrace , and that would be it for them . This would open the way for pro-byzantine crusades ( especially helped by Hungarians and Walichians ) , and the Ottoman Empire would fall . Mrnjavčević would continue on his original intentions after this , to capture Skoder . In later years , him and his ally Lazar the Serb would probably re-unite the Serbian Empire . The empire would conquer the small states in modern day norther Greece & possibly Bulgaria . They instead of the Ottomans would contend with Austria-Hungary over Bosnia/Croatia/Vojvodina . The Balkan wars wouldn't happen , the Russians would have uncontested control of the Caucasus and north-east turkey , Crimea would also be owned by the Russian Empire and the Crimean war would never happen . WW1 would still happen , because of the clashes between the West European powers , and the tensions between Serbia and Austria-Hungary & Germany and Russia would still exist . History out of the Balkans & black sea would remain the same until the build up to WW1 . The Serbian Empire would be easy to hold together as all ethic groups are south slavs with similar cultures , and the Serbs would be preferred by slavs over Austria-Hungary . The tensions and border disputes that the Balkans and Caucasus are famous for would not exist either . Russia , with no Ottoman Empire would be without contenders after the great northern war ( until Germany in the 19 hundreds ) . This would allow them to grow and modernise , and not be so was against Germany in WW1 , and there would be no February and October revolutions , and no Brest-Litovsk treaty . The central powers would suffer an even heavier defeat , and a Versailes treaty with an occupied Poland & Rhineland , some of or even all of Austria-hangary ( apart from Czechoslovakia ) occupied by Tsarist Russia , The Serbian Empire and Italy . Finland would not be independent & Japan would be able to run wild across Asia . China would be harder to take as without communism there would be no civil war . America wouldn't even be involved in a first world war with no Ottoman Empire and an overpowerfull Russia and Serbia . The wars quick success would prevent need for the league of nations and imperialism would continue , probably into the 21st century .

If the Ottomans won , then history would go the same until the battle of Kosovo , in which the Ottomans would be significantly weaker . It is probably safe to say , that even if history in the Balkans went unchanged ( they still won at Kosovo & Varna ) , the Ottomans would be weaker and face problems due to this either in the caucasus , Crimean or North African conquests . The majority of history however , would remain unchanged .

they mainly used arrows, and they invented the cannons, and normal swords etc.

they used the cannons to bring down castle walls. and they were very good at archery so they used that more than they used swords.

Karamani Mehmet Pasha died in 1481.

Countries took over by the ottoman empire in the 19th century include Moldavia, Somalia, Hungary, Egypt,

Storage Ottoman's sells basically hassoc's that also have storage in them. Frequently made of leather, this furniture piece is useful for propping up the feet and eliminating clutter.