Propaganda ist wohl eher unpassend wenn man auch im Westen durchaus Menschen findet die diese Auffassung haben. Aber ich weiß ja jetzt wie du dazu stehst Dieter.
Nochmal deinen Gedankengang aufgreifend, dass die osmanischen Herrscher mit den Kaisern von Rom dynastisch verbunden waren, habe ich heute zufällig noch diesen Abschnitt gelesen:
Aus diesem empfehlenswertem Standardwerk:
The Ottoman Empire and early modern ... - Google Bcher
"Since identities
are historical and social constructs, however, one can argue that what
is historically most significant in this case, as in others, is not whether
Osman actually swept out of Central Asia, or whether his first language
was Turkic, Indo-European, or Semitic, but that those who came later
understood him to have done certain things and acted in certain ways.
In other words, a central tenet of Ottoman identity was that the dynasty
came out of Central Asia, an essential aspect of identity in the Republic of
Turkey is that Osman was Turkish,
and an imperative in other Ottoman
successor states’ perceptions of self is that Ottoman rulers were Turkish –
as they emphatically are not.
Common sense also suggests that although Ottoman lineage (at least
in its male line) may have been Turkic, the ideological and political shape
of the Ottoman emirate owed a great deal to Persia, the Arab lands, the
Byzantine Empire, and Italian city-states. After all, during its early centuries
the polity drew upon the civilizations of the Middle East and Islam.
Furthermore, it not only abutted Byzantium, but also was entangled physically
with that Greek Orthodox state, and its emirs quickly established
commercial relations with both Genoa and Venice. Living in such middle
grounds, the Ottomans proved adept at learning about and borrowing
from Christendom and its institutions. Ottoman brides and concubines
often came from European states and dynasties, the polity’s bureaucracy
and administration owed much to Byzantine sources, and its commercial
and economic policies were built upon Genoese and Venetian models.
If an early fifteenth-century concept of Europe as a civilizational entity
had existed, this state surely would have had a place in it.
Of course, “Europe” as a unifying notion did not exist in the early modern
world and religion remained a potent divide between the Christian
and Islamic ecumenes..."
weiter oben im googlebook-link
Ich verstehe irgendwie den
grün eingefärbten Satz nicht, besonders nicht den letzten Abschnitt.
Könnte ihn mir jemand erklären?
Danke schön. :winke:
