![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Just working on a study guide for a history class that has a lot of discussion about the ghazi thesis which states that the original Ottoman expansion was the work of religious fanatics who wanted to bring the true faith to all surrounding areas. While there are several arguments in favor of this characterization including the self-description of the soldiers as gazi and the inscriptions from 1337 - "The great and magnificent emir, the warrior of the Holy War, . . . Sultan of the ghazis, ghazi son of ghazi, hero of the world and of the faith . . . Orkhan son of Osman." - On the other side are the irreligious nature of the Ottomans, the invasion of Muslim lands and the incorporation of a multicultural fighting force including Christians. The Ottomans even made deals with Byzantine governors rather than just killing them.
On the anti-gazi thesis side is the belief that the 15th and 16th century Ottoman historians were trying to make that age-old claim of "we were once noble and proud and pious. Now we are decadent and soft."
Besides reminding me of every Roman history (with the exception of Suetonius who loved the decadence theory but was very gossippy and seemed to favor the later Ceasars over the founders) the gazi thesis sounds like the current American history theory as advanced by annoying evangelical Christians and Tom DeLay who even just said that the Constitution was written by G-d.
Of course, the fact that the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom created a nation where people take their religion seriously to the point of being fanatics seems to be more like an unintended consequence rather than a design. Then again, maybe G-d could have written it that way while blinding the eyes of the deist writers to what they were unleashing.
Ok...should probably stop here. I'm scaring myself.
On the anti-gazi thesis side is the belief that the 15th and 16th century Ottoman historians were trying to make that age-old claim of "we were once noble and proud and pious. Now we are decadent and soft."
Besides reminding me of every Roman history (with the exception of Suetonius who loved the decadence theory but was very gossippy and seemed to favor the later Ceasars over the founders) the gazi thesis sounds like the current American history theory as advanced by annoying evangelical Christians and Tom DeLay who even just said that the Constitution was written by G-d.
Of course, the fact that the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom created a nation where people take their religion seriously to the point of being fanatics seems to be more like an unintended consequence rather than a design. Then again, maybe G-d could have written it that way while blinding the eyes of the deist writers to what they were unleashing.
Ok...should probably stop here. I'm scaring myself.
