| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Muslim successes and failures
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Muslim successes and failures

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 07:06
Keep to your time lines, Sarmat, by the time of the Turks the Genoese were an appendix of the Spanish Habsburgs. I can very well assume that your reference actually revolves around the entrepot of Sudak in the Crimea and we are discussing the years between 1365 and 1475. However the Crimea is hardly the Eastern Mediterranean and, frankly, the search for cavils is getting tedious. After all, the Genoese were also in the Western Mediterranean and as about as loved by the locals as a lice infestation! The point is that a merchant would bed the devil for the sake of a few ducats so trade continued in the normal course of things until politics created its own whores.
 
Al Jassas is correct in his summation of the channels of trade persisting despite all muddle and the plethora of sumptuary laws during the course of the 15th and 16th centuries is ample evidence of such. As for the insistence on "Muslim" even the word in contemporary usage is of modern coinage. You'd be hard put to find its equivalent in Spanish archives of the 15th and 16th centuries, where the enemy is always identified by "nationality" hence moros and turcos--p.s. you will not find "Italians" either! Admittedly, I do find this revival of the "Wars of Religion" quite quaint in a provincial sort of way...
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 07:37
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Read Halil Inalcik's "an economic and social history of the Ottoman empire" about the subject of the silk road, trade and the Ottoman empire.
 
The author uses statistics from original Ottoman and Italian government document that proves that trade was never cut between Europe and the east, in fact what the Ottomans did was reduce the middle man by one empire (Mamelukes) which actually lead to a large increase in the volume of trade.
 
What really distroyed the silk road was the colonisation of America, the availibility of cheap linen clothes that were far more profitable than silk and much easier to clean (which is actually what spices were all about, they were the first deodorants) and of course the mercantile policies of western european countries.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Of course, the trade never stopped. But the thing is that it wasn't controlled by Europeans any more. Before the Ottoman conquest Genoeses could conduct all the transactions themselves and even tax foreign merchants after the Ottoman conquest they lost all the control, they had to comply with all the requriements of Ottoman authorities, were taxed, payed customs duties and all their commodities were usually confiscated in times of crisis.
There simply were not any Italian trading settlements in the Ottoman Empire compare to what the situation was like during the Byzantine times.
In other words, the trade via the old routes became much less profitable for the Italian cities, at the same time, Portuguese controlled all the trade routes themselves through the well established system of military forts and trading posts throughout the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
That's one of the reasons why Portuguese won the competition.
 
Again read the book, its a heavy read I'll grant you that but its is written by the best and is probably the best on the subject.
 
Italians (and Western europeans for that matter) did have their own quarters in every major customs post in the Ottoman empire (Aleppo, Bursa, Istanbul, Izmir, Rashid (Rosetta) and Cairo). These were kept intact even during the wars and continued to function until the end of the Ottoman empire (indeed Izmir had more foreigners  that citizens starting from early 17th century). The Ottoman empire used until the end a free market startegy to promote trade, customs were much smaller than what the Genoese imposed and the trade volume was much higher (especially after the Ottomans moved alot of the silk industry with them to Bursa).
 
Finally the people who really broke the Ottoman monopoly on spice trade were the Dutch and English not the Portuguese. They were better organised, had better relationships with the sources of the trade (only nation allowed to trade in Japan was the Netherlands) and had much better ships. The Portuguese had Brazil to take care of and that was more than enough for them.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11687
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 08:39
Look up Inalciks articles (makaleleri) and click onto:

The Question Of The Closing Of The Black Sea Under the Ottomans

http://www.inalcik.com/turkish/mainpages/makaleleri.htm


Here you can find a few conclusions. First off before getting to that trade in the Ottoman Empire was secured only after lands were safeguarded. An example of this would be securing the Crimea and environs in order to make the ports of Azov and Jaffa safe.


Inalciks conclusions
http://www.inalcik.com/turkish/files/makaleler/Makale-002.pdf

1) Control the Dardanelles first and foremost then do so for the Bosporus

2) Secure the black Sea
- The Ottoman motives were: A) to establish a complete safeguard on the passage between Anatolia and Rumeli and to protect their capital from a surprise attack; b) to secure the provisioning of Istanbul; C) to put an end, in favor of the indigenous populations, to the economic and political dominance of the Italian Maritime States, which exploited and diverted the wealth of the region as alien colonial powers.

3) The Ottoman State was concerned with maintaining the commercial and fiscal benefits of the Black Sea International trade as long as the above objectives were not impaired. However, in the area of the International trade too, native and tribute-paying nations were given preferential treatment.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 09:01
Hey, Al, those "italians" even had their own "quarters"  in the major ports of the Iberian peninsula, France and England as well! In Sevilla, the street known as Genoa still survives as a reminder of such. A "foreigner" was a foreigner be he "Christian" or otherwise. However, I am afraid the you too are coflating time as much as Sarmat. Perhaps you need to brush up on Antwerp in the 16th century, which as far as spices were concerned was the major entrepot for disposal. The period 1510-1610 is not the same as 1610-1710. The Portuguese did do a successful end-run in spices long before the Dutch launched a single vessel. As for the Dutch and Japan recall it came after the expulsion of the Portuguese (1606-1610) and its Christian missionaries at the rise of the Tokugawa Shogunate. The point to remember about the distinctions between the 16th and 17th centuries is that there no longer existed any monopoly over trade, period. Hence, the reaction was to control territory so as to ensure the terms of trade.

Edited by drgonzaga - 07 Aug 2010 at 09:02
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 10:18
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Again read the book, its a heavy read I'll grant you that but its is written by the best and is probably the best on the subject.
 
Italians (and Western europeans for that matter) did have their own quarters in every major customs post in the Ottoman empire (Aleppo, Bursa, Istanbul, Izmir, Rashid (Rosetta) and Cairo).
 
I think it's obvious that before the Ottomans Italians were complitely independent and conducted the trade in their own cities, just like the Portuguese in Macao or Goa out of the reach of any foreign sovereign's jurisidction.
 
Of course, they continued to trade even after the establishment of the Ottoman empire. But that time the trade was in the hands of the Ottomans.
 
And the former was obviously worse than the latter. You don't need to read extra books to get that simple truth.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 10:26
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Keep to your time lines, Sarmat, by the time of the Turks the Genoese were an appendix of the Spanish Habsburgs. I can very well assume that your reference actually revolves around the entrepot of Sudak in the Crimea and we are discussing the years between 1365 and 1475. However the Crimea is hardly the Eastern Mediterranean and, frankly, the search for cavils is getting tedious. After all, the Genoese were also in the Western Mediterranean and as about as loved by the locals as a lice infestation! The point is that a merchant would bed the devil for the sake of a few ducats so trade continued in the normal course of things until politics created its own whores.
I think, I clearly singled out "Black Sea" region in my previous posts. Sudak wasn't the most important city in the region for Genoeses at all. Their most important colony was Caffa and they had a several colonies throughout the whole Black Sea region. If you want to get a better grasp of the situation please take a look.
 
 
This piece summarizes very well the difficult siutation of the Italian merchants in the Ottoman empire, heavy taxation and complete dependence of the good will of sultans.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 10:37
This entire piece is about Genoa, there is nothing about Venetians who had a far larger share of trade than Genoa. Plus as the Doc mentioned earlier there was a pretty good reason why Genovese were treated this way by the Ottomans back then.
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 11:31
 I was talking about Genoeses from the very beginning. The Venetian situation was of course better but still much worse then it had been before they lost much of their Mediterranean possessions to the Ottomans.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 13:59
Don't pick at mites, Sarmat. Sudak was the principal Genoese trade fortress in the Crimea (it's walls still stand) for most of the 15th century and Kaffa was essentially untenable once it fell and as your own article points out, that eventually took place in 1475 on the heels of the capture of the Soldaia Fortress at Sudak. Further, you are playing fast-and-loose with the meaning of "colony". As for the fate of "merchants" at the hands of the Ottomans, much the same may be said of their fate at the hands of any other 15th century government: hefty taxes and the good will of the sovereign! Why one sovereign cut them out altogether as "chief merchant" and that was Manuel I of Portugal!

Edited by drgonzaga - 07 Aug 2010 at 13:59
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2010 at 14:02
As an aside: What ever happened to the Muslims (either in success or failure)?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2010 at 02:59
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Don't pick at mites, Sarmat. Sudak was the principal Genoese trade fortress in the Crimea (it's walls still stand) for most of the 15th century and Kaffa was essentially untenable once it fell and as your own article points out, that eventually took place in 1475 on the heels of the capture of the Soldaia Fortress at Sudak. Further, you are playing fast-and-loose with the meaning of "colony". As for the fate of "merchants" at the hands of the Ottomans, much the same may be said of their fate at the hands of any other 15th century government: hefty taxes and the good will of the sovereign! Why one sovereign cut them out altogether as "chief merchant" and that was Manuel I of Portugal!
My simple point was that it was better for them under the Byzantines...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2010 at 05:57
The way Constantinople, the medieval Roman Empire, etc. has been talked about in this thread is enough to make one wish that the history of Late Antiquity had gotten off the ground as a field of study to a degree that would have allowed it to filter into entry level textbooks when a few of us were in college...

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2010 at 08:04
I am having a ROTFLMAO momentLOL!
 
Sarmat wrote:
 
My simple point was that it was better for them [the merchants] under the Byzantines...
 
For goodness sakes, the Venetians sacked (or got the Crusaders to do so) Constantinople. How do you think those Roman horses over the portico of Saint Mark got from the old Hippodrome of Constantine to Venice!
 
 
From 1204 to 1261 the merchants had it easy, not so the Byzantines. Fortunately, there is good "jumping-off point on the Internet:
 
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2010 at 08:52
So what?
 
Looks, like you're not getting it, Dr.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2010 at 13:25
Sarmat, in essence you do not understand the economics of the 14th century and the consequence for mercantile activity in the 15th century. The dominant theme revolved around the manipulation of currency through the course of Venetian activity that essentially placed the Western Mediterranean on a gold standard so that Europe's silver production could be used to manipulate the flow of trade in the Easten Mediterranean. The great fiscal crisis of 1345-1347 was the ultimate result, which witnessed the collapse of the Florentine banking houses and the primacy (not to mention the profit) of Venice, which channeled its silver surplus East, not through Constantinople but through the Northern routes to Tartary and South through Mameluke Egypt. It was not by coincidence that European monarchs caught in this vise took it out on the Italians:
1403, Henry IV of England prohibits the taking of any "profits" out of England by "foreign" merchants; 1409, Martin I of Aragon expells Venetian and Genoese "banker-merchants" from his realm; in that same year the Duchy of Flanders (Antwerp) imprisons and then expels all Genoese from the Duchy; and in 1410 the city of Paris bans all Italian merchants from the Ile de France. So if you are going to imagine the Ottomans as some sort of barrier to trade, then you might as well include all of the Atlantic realms of Christendom in a similar mood.
 
Now, if you have noticed I do not make any nonsensical analogy on Muslims nor underscore that it is just at this time that the Portuguese begin their thrust along the coast of Africa to cut out the traditional Trans-Saharan gold traders of the Western Mediterranean. We will not even go into the growing consolidation of control over specie by the emerging nation-states of the Atlantic world, which also paralleled this time frame.
 
So let us have no more talk of Byzantine hegemony or mercantile benevolence as contrasted to the Ottomans because to put it in the vernacular it just ain't so. We will not even go into the disastrous civil wars of 1321-1329 and 1341-1354 that racked the Byzantine world but simply utter the name John Kantakouzenos.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2010 at 13:31
Hey, Zagros, your reference to the Massacre of 1182 disappeared?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2010 at 13:46
I deleted it.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2010 at 15:26
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Sarmat, in essence you do not understand the economics of the 14th century and the consequence for mercantile activity in the 15th century. The dominant theme revolved around the manipulation of currency through the course of Venetian activity that essentially placed the Western Mediterranean on a gold standard so that Europe's silver production could be used to manipulate the flow of trade in the Easten Mediterranean. The great fiscal crisis of 1345-1347 was the ultimate result, which witnessed the collapse of the Florentine banking houses and the primacy (not to mention the profit) of Venice, which channeled its silver surplus East, not through Constantinople but through the Northern routes to Tartary and South through Mameluke Egypt. It was not by coincidence that European monarchs caught in this vise took it out on the Italians:
1403, Henry IV of England prohibits the taking of any "profits" out of England by "foreign" merchants; 1409, Martin I of Aragon expells Venetian and Genoese "banker-merchants" from his realm; in that same year the Duchy of Flanders (Antwerp) imprisons and then expels all Genoese from the Duchy; and in 1410 the city of Paris bans all Italian merchants from the Ile de France. So if you are going to imagine the Ottomans as some sort of barrier to trade, then you might as well include all of the Atlantic realms of Christendom in a similar mood.
 
Now, if you have noticed I do not make any nonsensical analogy on Muslims nor underscore that it is just at this time that the Portuguese begin their thrust along the coast of Africa to cut out the traditional Trans-Saharan gold traders of the Western Mediterranean. We will not even go into the growing consolidation of control over specie by the emerging nation-states of the Atlantic world, which also paralleled this time frame.
 
So let us have no more talk of Byzantine hegemony or mercantile benevolence as contrasted to the Ottomans because to put it in the vernacular it just ain't so. We will not even go into the disastrous civil wars of 1321-1329 and 1341-1354 that racked the Byzantine world but simply utter the name John Kantakouzenos.
 
That's doesn't relate to the very simple things I have repeated many times.
 
Italians were doing OK during the late Byzantine Empire.
 
Italians were doing much worse after the Ottoman Empire had been established.
 
The peculiarities of the economy of Italian city states and fiscal policies of European monarch do not fit in the very narrow topic to which my comments belong.
 
Also, I didn't discuss any of those you mentioned, so it's impossible for you to judge what I do and what I do not understand in essense.
 
What I see, is that in essense you're trying to divert the topic from the points I highlighted.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2010 at 02:01
Sarmat wrote:
 
That's doesn't relate to the very simple things I have repeated many times.
 
Italians were doing OK during the late Byzantine Empire.
 
Italians were doing much worse after the Ottoman Empire had been established.
 
What is the "late Byzantine Empire" if not the years between 1265 and 1453 and if you do wish to get technical Venetian trade through the Eastern Mediterranean actually increased during the course of the 16th century so much so that the highest and most sought after diplomatic post in the Venetian Republic was ambassador to the Sublime Porte, and the written record left by these is very illuminating so much so that one "ambassador" wrote in 1553: "Being merchants...we can not live without them." Sure they, as states, had intermittent wars over territory but when it came to trade (and the money it made), the modus vivendi was business as usual. A visit to the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice would prove most informative.
 
The simple fact here, Sarmat, is that your "narrow topic" is an ephemeral chimera. The historical fact in question does touch upon Venice and the Ottomans and the resurgence of Venice's Eastern Trade once the Ottomans consolidated political control over the Levant and the Aegean.
 
As for the topic itself, Muslim Successes and Failures, everyone is in agreement that such a descriptive is a non-starter. Futher, as I iterated long, long ago when it came to merchants the Ottomans behaved no different than their European contemporaries and in fact, when it came to Venice one can easily understand that as far as the Doges were concerned the Turks "were a people they could do business with"! And did!


Edited by drgonzaga - 09 Aug 2010 at 02:03
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2010 at 14:11
The Venetian ambassador in Istanbul is not a proof that Venetian trade with the East was doing better after the Ottoman onslaught than before it.
 
You, however, won't be able to produce any numbers that would support the idea that the Ottoman rule was a blessing for Venetians compare to what it had been before the Ottomans, because such numbers do not exist!
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2010 at 16:25
Sarmat, have you forgotten the old adage: "Be careful what you pray for, you might receive it!"
 
You might begin by perusing this interesting compilation with plenty of archival references:
 
Simonetta Cavaciocchi, ed. Relazione economiche tra Europa e mondo islamico, seccoli XIII - XVIII. Firenze: LeMonnier, 2007. 
 
In particular, and despite the traditional terms and items of trade, the link between the Venetians and the Ottomans formed the basis of Venice's own domestic  fine quality textile woolens during the 17th century. The fact's here are simple, the purported commercial benefits of the moribund Byzantine state after the 13th century were insignificant when juxtaposed to the interaction with the Muslim Levant and even the Safavids! By the year 1350 both Alexandria and Beirut were far more profitable entrepots than any activity premised upon Constantinople and when these cities passed under Ottoman hegemony, one could say the only difference in the trade picture was the standard over the Customs House. In fact Alexandria was a far more significant trade center for Asian spices than Constantinople by the 15th century and through close contact with the Ottomans, the Venetians survived the impact of Portuguese intrusion into the Indian Ocean after 1520.
 
Perhaps you should get your hands on John H. Munro. "South German silver, European textiles, and Venetian trade with the Levant and the Ottoman Empire, 1370-1720"  published in  Atti delle “Settimana di Studi” e altri convegni, Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “Francesco Datini”. 1:38 (2007), pp. 907-962. You can download it here:
[img] PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
 
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 10 Aug 2010 at 06:31
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2010 at 19:39
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Not really true. Before the Ottoman conquest. A large large part of Eastern Mideterranean and Black Sea region was covered with Italian trade colonies which benefited greatly from the Silk road trade and basically contolled the Western part of it.
 
The Ottomans simply destroyed all these colonies and closed the whole enterprise.
 
Yes, because the Ottomans wanted to control - ie profit as much as possible on - trade within their sphere of influence. This does not amount to preventing Europeans from trading in Ottoman space altogether, indeed why would they? Trading with rival powers is beneficial to both sides, but letting them dot your empire with autonomous colonies is likely to enable them to keep more of their profits and in times of war you wouldn't want potential enemies both inside and outside your borders.


Edited by Reginmund - 09 Aug 2010 at 19:39
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2010 at 22:16
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I still have trouble figuring why people would call all of this 'Muslim' conquests and failures. Or 'Christian' for that matter.

Because these conquests were carried by Muslims or christians and not by single ethnic group.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2010 at 23:47
Originally posted by azimuth azimuth wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I still have trouble figuring why people would call all of this 'Muslim' conquests and failures. Or 'Christian' for that matter.

Because these conquests were carried by Muslims or christians and not by single ethnic group.


But why is that important? Why is it any more important than that the Turks conquered the Arabs or the 'Franks' conquered the 'Greeks'?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2010 at 00:33
I too think "Muslims" is too broad a category in this context. It enforces a false sense of shared identity and purpose where there was only shared religion, as if the Arab conquest of Persia, the splendours of Al Andalus and the Turkish victory at Gallipoli somehow all belong in a single category. Applying the same logic one would have to bag the battle of the Milvian Bridge together with the Crusades and Russia's expansion eastward. It's not incorrect, it's just unwieldy and useless for a historian to operate with.
 
I just went with it in this thread though, as I'd rather have a debate over actual history than another nitpicking contest over which terms and definitions are most precise. We tend to end up there since people carelessly fling ambiguous words around when making their point, leaving it to the more methodical minds of vets like gcle and drgonzaga to tidy up after them.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2010 at 01:18
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Not really true. Before the Ottoman conquest. A large large part of Eastern Mideterranean and Black Sea region was covered with Italian trade colonies which benefited greatly from the Silk road trade and basically contolled the Western part of it.
 
The Ottomans simply destroyed all these colonies and closed the whole enterprise.
 
Yes, because the Ottomans wanted to control - ie profit as much as possible on - trade within their sphere of influence. This does not amount to preventing Europeans from trading in Ottoman space altogether, indeed why would they? Trading with rival powers is beneficial to both sides, but letting them dot your empire with autonomous colonies is likely to enable them to keep more of their profits and in times of war you wouldn't want potential enemies both inside and outside your borders.
 
That's exactly what I am saying. I'm not trying to claim that Ottomans complitely closed the trade for the Europeans, etc. Just, they assumed the whole control, while beforehand it were the Europeans who were in control.
 
I also noted, that unlike the Italians who, basically, were dependent on the good will of the Turks, Portuguese maintained their own network of forts and settlements where they were in control but not some Indian or Malay ruler.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2010 at 07:01
Again, we are discussing trade and not political control but in any event this statement is incorrect:
 
Just, they assumed the whole control, while beforehand it were the Europeans who were in control.
 
Such is a clear misunderstanding of the trade entrepots of the 13th through 17th centuries. Fortress posts, be it Saduk in the Crimea or Sao Jorge da Mina in the Gulf of Guinea "controlled" nothing, and their value was little more than security for the warehousing of goods in transport. Access to these sites depended entirely upon the goodwill and commercial desires of the surroundig populations, be they the Tatars of the Cimea or the Ashanti of West Africa. In fact, in terms of dollars and cents, it was far cheaper to trade with a stable state then maintain outposts in areas of political turmoil. Macau was profitable not because the Portuguese exerted any type of military domination or control of customs over China, but because they Chinese set and guaranteed the manner and volume of exchange in a stable setting. In fact, if you know anything about the famed Manila Galleon, you would also understand that often this exchange worked to the detriment of "state" policies within the mercantilistic world. One could even use the Philipines as a case study through the writings of Antonio de Morga (1559-1636) so as to underscore the contradictions. When it came to customs houses, the Turks behaved no different than their Spanish or Portuguese counterparts.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2010 at 07:18
What a bunch of nonsense! If there was no meaning in building posts and fortresses, why bothering builing them at all? Or in your opinion, Italian merchants were just philantropic investors in the development of local defense infrustructure?
 
More so, if those posts and fortresses meant really nothing and all the authority still belonged to the locals why taking control over them at all?
 
Your logic, or more precise, the lack of logic in your "statement" is astonishing.
 
They built their fortresses and posts and conducted their trade there. They were the actual authotities in place not "surrounding populations."
 
 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2010 at 13:49
Ah, yes, the Portuguese controlled all of India from Goa and forced the Hindi to trade with them, or for that matter the Genoese subdued the Tatars from Saduk and forced the Hetmen to bring them their trade goods and actually "collected" duties from them to boot because of their mighty fortress! These entrepots, and such is the correct terminology not "colonies" were a function of the limitations in maritime technology and if you do know your history you should understand the true meaning of the Portuguese term feitoria (that survives in the English term "factor"). So don't play smarmy here on this tipsy chariot that began with a broken wheel from the get go. That you mentioned the Portuguese and then failed to comprehend why they were so easily challenged by the Dutch during the course of the 17th century except in areas where true "colonization" took place (Brazil, whose consolidation made possible the continued presence in Congo) or why outposts such as Macao continued but that in Japan did not, then you've missed the actual point entirely. By the way, you've not shown how the Ottomans were any different than say Louis XI of France when it came to state control of trade and keen control over merchants and coinage.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2010 at 14:30
I'm not saying that that Portuguese controlled the whole India from Goa or that Genoeses controlled all the Golden Horde from Kaffa.
 
But the did control the above named cities and for your information Indians were able to expel Portuguese from Goa only in the last century and only after a small war with Portugal!
 
And again, I'm just saying that it was more profitable to conduct the trade while being stationed in their own bases than being complitely within foreign sovereigns authorities. I'm not claiming that Spanish or English kings were treating Venetians merchants significantly better than the Ottomans.  But the Ottomans did took away their colonies and put all the trade under their complete control which had not been there before.
 
The analogy of that would be, for example, taking of Goa from Portuguese by Indians or Hong Kong from the British by Chinese by force. Having their own trading posts was much better for foreign merchants than being complitely within foreign rulers' jurisdictions.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.