Military Review

Ottoman Empire - the kingdom of justice and tolerance

38
Ottoman Empire - the kingdom of justice and tolerance

The brilliant Port has become the first multi-national state in the world

For almost five centuries, Turkey was the number one enemy of Muscovy and the Russian Empire. From 1568 to 1918, these countries conducted 13 major wars, of which only two — the Prut campaign of 1710 – 1711 and the Crimean War — were lost by the Russians. Moreover, from the beginning of the 16th century to the 1769 year, Russia reflected the regular, often annual, raids of the Tatars - vassals of the Ottoman Empire. And from the beginning of the XIX century to the year 1864, Russian troops fought continuous battles with the mountaineers of the Caucasus, who were supported by Turkey - with money, weapons and military instructors.

Under Tsarism, everyone, from Westerners to Slavophiles, reviled the Ottomans, considering them wild barbarians, unworthy of existence in the civilized world. Soviet historians also added a “class view”: “The Turkish state took shape as a military-feudal, predatory state; the terrorist regime established by the conquerors fixed all the worst sides of the feudal system for a long time. ”

CREDIT CROSS HALLS

The Ottoman Empire owes its birth to ... crusades. For a long time in Russia, the Crusaders were portrayed as noble, albeit naive knights, sacrificing well-being and lives for the sake of their convictions. Alas, the crusades were not a movement of humanists who wanted the liberation of the oppressed peoples from the barbarians who were infatuated, but, on the contrary, the invasion of ignorant, savage robbers into Arab countries whose culture and science had been ahead of the West by several centuries.

The overwhelming majority of the population of Europe and America is convinced that Byzantium perished under the blows of the Turks. Alas, the cause of the death of the second Rome was the fourth crusade, during which in 1204, the Western European knights stormed Constantinople.

In the same year, 1204, the Crusaders in the part of the territory of the Byzantine Empire founded the so-called Latin Empire with its capital in Constantinople. Russian principalities did not recognize this state. The Russians considered the emperor of the Nicene empire (based in Asia Minor) to be the legitimate ruler of Constantinople. Russian metropolitans continued to submit to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived in Nicea.

In 1261, the Nicene emperor Michael Paleologue threw the crusaders out of Constantinople and restored the Byzantine empire. Alas, it was not an empire, but only its pale shadow. In the empire, as in the colony, the Genoese ruled. Incidentally, they colonized the entire Black Sea coast from the mouth of the Danube to Batum. The weakness of the Byzantine Empire was exacerbated by internal instability. The agony of the second Rome came, and the only question was who would be the heir.

Soon, the Crusaders lost all enclaves in Asia. In 1268, the Egyptian sultan conquered Antioch, in 1289, in Tripoli, in 1291, in the last crusade fortress in the East, Acre. King of Jerusalem moved to the island of Cyprus. The Venetians seized two dozen of the islands of the Aegean Sea, the island of Crete, the Ionian Islands, as well as the strategically important fortresses on the Peloponnese - Coron and Modon.

In 1492, the Reconquest ended, that is, the war of Castile, Aragon and Portugal against the Moors in Spain. The last enclave of the Moors collapsed - the Emirate of Granada. And even earlier, in 1479, the unification of Castile and Aragon into the Spanish kingdom took place.

Alas, neither the Portuguese nor the Spanish knighthood satisfied the ousting of the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula. They needed new lands, money and slaves. At first, this could only give an invasion of North Africa. In the second half of the 15th century, the Portuguese captured most of Morocco.

But the main areas of expansion of Portugal were the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Official Soviet historians explained Portugal as the following: “By the end of the 15th century, due to the Turkish conquests, the main flow of Eastern goods to Europe and European goods went to Asia through Alexandria.

The Arabs were the only resellers, and the Europeans overpaid them in 8 – 10 times more expensive than the price of oriental goods on the spot. ”

As you can see, here, and in many domestic and Western publications, it is alleged that the Turks allegedly blocked the "main flow of Eastern goods to Europe." It’s impossible to call it a blatant lie. Here I take in hand "Atlas stories Middle Ages ", on the pages 17 – 18" The economic map of Europe and the Middle East in the XI – early XIII centuries. " There are no land (caravan) routes in the western or central part of Asia Minor. All trade was only through the Straits. But, alas, not to Arabia and India, but only to the ports of the Black Sea.

As in the XII century, goods from the Near and Middle East and India went through the ports of Tripoli, Beirut, Akra, Jaffa and Alexandria, and went at the beginning of the XVI century, and later, after the Ottoman conquest.

Has there been an overpayment in 8 – 10 times for land and sea transit? Yes, it did. But the pirates-knights from Cyprus and Rhodes, as well as Venetian pirates from Crete and other islands are to blame here.

And so Vasco da Gama arrives in India in May 1498. After that, the Portuguese energetically began to master the Indian Ocean and began every year to send there large squadrons, sometimes to 20 ships, well armed with artillery, with thousands of sailors and selected soldiers. The Portuguese decided to oust the Arabs from the Indian Ocean and take over all the sea trade there. Due to the superiority of weapons, they succeeded. But the Portuguese became much more brutal exploiters of the population of the coastal regions of India, and later lying further to the east of Malacca and Indonesia. From the Indian princes, the Portuguese demanded the expulsion of the Arabs and the cessation of all trade relations with them. The Portuguese began to attack all the ships they encountered, both Arab and native, to plunder and destroy their teams.

13 February 1502, Vasco da Gama, for the second time goes to the shores of India. Now he has a squadron of 14 ships. Here is just one episode of his sailing off the coast of India, described in the logbook: “At that moment we met a large ship with pilgrims from Mecca, it was heading to Kozhekod. Upon learning of this, the admiral ordered to fire the ship from guns and set it on fire. Then a horrific massacre followed ... Distraught by fear, the Moors seized burning coals and threw them at the Portuguese, and they responded with muskets. ” The shooting of the ship lasted four days. In the end, the surviving Arabs, fleeing the flames, rushed into the sea. “The sea is red with blood. Of the three hundred passengers of the vessel, only twenty children remained alive, whom Don Vasco removed from the burning ship and which our priest baptized this morning. ”

Not content with the Indian Ocean, the Portuguese completely seized control of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. At strategically important points, they captured the fortress and mercilessly drowned all Muslim ships, good, others were not there.

TURKI-LIBERATORS

So, a terrible danger looms over the Islamic world. The Portuguese appeared in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, the Spaniards, one after another seized the Arab fortresses on the African coast of the Western Mediterranean. And hordes of "redheads" thugs moved from Persia. The eyes of all the Sunnis were turned to Constantinople. Only the Ottomans could save the Islamic world.

Contrary to the opinion of the majority of domestic and Western historians, the Turkish conquests of the 15th – 16th centuries are due primarily to the support of the masses, more precisely, the majority of the population of the relevant region or at least a substantial part of it.

Attempts to give an objective analysis of the successes of the Turks are extremely rare in domestic and foreign literature. So, N.A. Ivanov wrote: “In the XVI century. Ottoman prestige was very high. Both in the East and in the West there were many admirers of the Turks, especially among the oppressed and exploited part of the population. In the Balkans and in Hungary, in Western Europe and Russia, “they were searched for,” in the words of AE Krymsky, “large groups of people who, by virtue of far from identical considerations and sentiments, thought about the imminent potential of the Turkish invasion without horror and conquest, but even directly desired it. "

In the Arab world, a similar pattern was observed. In the Maghreb, peasants and city dwellers perceived the Turks as patrons and saviors. The Tunisian historian Ibn Abu Dinar (XVII century) happily celebrated every victory of the Ottoman weapon. The Arab anonymous author of the 16th century, the compiler of al-Ghazavat, a heroic account of the exploits of the Barbaross brothers, as well as Ottoman Turks in Kabil folk songs appear as defenders of ordinary people, as courageous and skilled warriors who selflessly fought against the enemies of Islam. In Kabyle folklore, the highest measure of praise was a comparison with a Turk. In the East, particularly in Egypt, the same mood prevailed. Over time, they acquired the character of a thoughtless tradition, deeply rooted in the minds of many generations. Even an Egyptian aristocrat historian like Abd ar-Rahman al-Jabarti (1754 – 1825), who hated the Turks with all his heart, paid tribute to this tradition. “In the initial era of their rule,” he wrote, “they [the Ottomans] were the best of those who stood at the head of the ummah after the caliphs, led by the right path.”

Turkicism in the Arab world, as in Europe, was based on the exorbitant idealization of the Ottoman order. In the coming parish of the Ottomans, the people saw the rejection of all the evils and vices inherent in the Eastern Arab feudal society. In contrast to their own rulers, the Ottomans appeared as champions of truth and justice, as defenders of the Shari'ah, to whom Allah confers victory. The taking of Constantinople in 1453 and the further successes of the Turks were due to the divine providence. It was believed that God himself was directing the weapons of the Ottomans.

On the eve of the Ottoman occupation in Cairo, people often talked about prophetic dreams and visions that predicted the death of the Mamluk sultanate. According to popular rumor, Sidi Makhrez himself - the patron saint of the city, who appeared in a dream to Selim II, asked for the capture of Tunisia in 1574. So, the vast majority of Sunni Muslims believed that the Ottomans carry out the will of Allah. Well, to contradict the will of the Most High ...

What the Arab world! There were fantastic rumors about the kingdom of justice among the Ottomans throughout Europe. Even Turkophile publications appeared, to which, I note, the sultans had nothing to do. Thus, the knightly "Turk" from the same-name drama of the XV century poet Hans Rosenplute protects tortured merchants and peasants. He is always on the side of the poor, who by their work fed the gentlemen, “receiving in exchange for this only new burdens”. The Turk promises to "reform and punish the aristocratic world."

A.Ye. Krymskaya wrote that in the works of Ivan Peresvetov, Sultan Mehmed II "was described with love as a type of king who cruelly dealt with unrighteous grandees, but with his cruelty to them he introduces universal justice into his land". Peresvetov is delighted with Mehmed II, who ordered alive to tear off the skin from negligent and deceptive judges, writing on which: “Without such thunderstorms, you cannot enter the realm of truth.”

And the first utopian socialist Tommaso Campanella (1568 – 1639) advised in every way to imitate Muslims and “introduce a number of reforms in the Turkish manner.”

Even Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) stated: “Many demand the arrival of the Turks and their management ... I hear that there are people in the German lands who want to come and rule the Turks who want to be under the Turks rather than under the emperor and the princes”.

The sea gezas, who fought with the Spaniards for the freedom of the Netherlands, wore hats with a silver crescent and an embroidered inscription: “Turks are better than dad”. The Greeks on the islands of the Aegean Sea hated the Crusaders for persecuting the Orthodox Church and the terrible exactions and saw the Ottomans of their liberators.

Yes, the Turks destroyed part of the Orthodox churches, but in general in the empire there was religious tolerance towards both Christians and Jews. “In the European communities of the XVI – XVII centuries. there was a real attack of the Ottoman euphoria. The Jews of Europe viewed the Ottoman Empire almost as a paradise on earth. After the fifth Lateran Council (1512 – 1517), Ottoman Turks acted as active patrons of the Reformation. They wholeheartedly "supported the Protestant cause and leadership, wherever it was possible." In their messages (name-and humayun) to the "Lutheran beyami of Flanders and other Spanish possessions" the Ottoman sultans condemned Catholicism, "rejected both by Islam and Lutheranism," and called upon the leaders of the Dutch Gezah to coordinate their actions with Spain’s Moriscs and all those who fights against "dad and his madhhab".

JUSTICE UNDER CONCEPTS

No doubt, in the Ottoman Empire, although there was a peculiar, but nonetheless, feudal system, good, there could be no other economic relations then. But Turkish feudalism can with a certain stretch be called "popular feudalism." Turkish dignitaries were mainly from peasants. And everywhere they presented themselves as defenders of the interests of ordinary workers of the land. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent demanded from his pasha "to treat our subjects so that the peasants of the neighboring principalities envied their fate." Selim I, in conquered Egypt, distributed to the poor meat, freed the fellahs and poor citizens from labor service in favor of the army, placing it on the well-off part of the population. And under his poems, carved from the Cairo nilomer, he signed: "Hadim al-Fukar Selim", that is, "The minister of the poor Selim."

Turks pointedly severely punished for any disrespect for peasant labor. The chronist Bartolomeo Georgievich during the 1533 Persian campaign of the year "saw spahia, who was beheaded along with his horse and servant, because the horse, left without a leash, wandered into someone's field." I will note that even warlords were executed for spoiling the extreme crops of peasant crops in the Ottoman army. So it was during the conquest of Egypt, Hungary and other countries.

For the first time since the time of the Roman Empire, Turkish sultans attempted to create a multinational and multi-religious state. Moreover, this state was to be based not only on strict punishments, but also on the structure of society, which is fair, according to the Turks.

Turks almost cleared the Mediterranean Sea of ​​Christian pirates. They drove the crusaders from Cyprus, Crete, the main pirate nest - Rhodes and dozens of other islands. The Turkish fleet knocked the Portuguese out of the Red Sea. Turkish squadrons went to the shores of India and even Indonesia. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent concluded a treaty of military alliance against Portugal with the Sultan of the Principality of Ace on the island of Sumatra. The Turks set Ace ships and artillery, fleet Ace was commanded by Turkish officers.

Despite a number of victories of the Portuguese in sea battles, the Ottomans seized the Asian and African coasts of the Red Sea dealt a heavy blow to the claims of the Portuguese to the monopoly of trade in exotic goods in the Indian Ocean. The “ancient way of spices” was revived by the Turks in 1550 – 1570. All of Western Europe, with the exception of Spain, Portugal and the western provinces of France, again began to be supplied with spices from the countries of the Arab East, which now became part of the Ottoman Empire. The French historian F. Brodel wrote: “As many peppers and spices have come in the Red Sea as there have never been before.” Thus, in the 1554 – 1564 years, the Turks, through their Red Sea ports, imported into Europe along the 20 – 40 thousands of centners of spices per year. And only in the 70 of the XVI century, the Portuguese were able to somewhat improve their position.

In Europe, the name of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520 – 1566) was associated with successful campaigns to Venice, Austria, the Western Mediterranean, Persia, etc. But the Turks themselves called him Kanuni - Legislator.

The French traveler, after the death of Suleiman, wrote: “The Turks are in all such lovers of order that they observe it in trifles. Since economics and product distribution constitute one of the bases for maintaining order, they pay special attention to this, making sure that there are many products and they are distributed in a reasonable proportion. They will never sell cherries or first-class fruit worth their weight in gold, as is done in France ... If their wardens who make daily rounds find a merchant weighing buyers or selling their goods at an inflated price, they will immediately be punished or delivered to court. Therefore, there even a child can be sent to the market without fear of being deceived. Often, the wardens of the market, meeting a child, ask him for what price he bought the goods. They even weigh them to see if the child has been deceived. I saw a merchant who hit his heels for selling ice five dinars a pound ... A merchant who hangs around a buyer may be dishonored by sticking his head into the hole in the board hung with bells. Over the merchant in this form, all around laugh. "

I note that Islam forbade the faithful to engage in usury, and Kanuni strictly followed this. However, the Sultan allowed Christians to engage in usury and various financial transactions. Therefore, already in the XVI – XVII centuries, a number of Greek and Armenian clans made a huge fortune for themselves.

Of course, fierce executions were used in Turkey. But let's not forget that there was the 16th century in the courtyard - the century of the oprichnina, St. Bartholomew's night, auto-da-fe in Spain and the Netherlands, etc. And if we compare Turkish legislation not with the modern “liberal” right, but with the laws or, more precisely, the lawlessness that the western and northern neighbors of the Ottoman Empire practiced, then Turkey under Suleiman Kanuni seems to be a state of law and, I’m not afraid to say, an oasis of justice in Europe and Asia.

Proud Slaves of Sultan

Important state posts in the Ottoman Empire were received not because of titles, but because of merit and intelligence. European leaders were amazed at such a rapid flourishing of the Ottoman Empire and wanted to know the reason for such success. “Do you mean a simple shepherd can become a grand vizier?” - exclaimed the Venetian Senate, when the ambassador told them what was happening in the empire, where everyone was proud that he was a slave to the sultan. - A high state person of low descent? Is the power of Islam growing at the expense of second-class people baptized and raised by Christians? Incredible! ”Indeed. The eight great viziers of Suleiman were Christians and were brought to Turkey by slaves.

In the XV – XVII centuries, the Ottoman Empire was the only large state in the world in which full tolerance was established in peacetime, and people of any denomination could not only freely use their faith, but also had the opportunity to own land, a flotilla of merchant ships, a bank, and more. .P. The administration of the Gentiles in the Ottoman Empire was conducted mostly not directly, but through the leadership of their confessions. Take, for example, one of the main accusations made against the Turks: "blood tax", that is, the selection of Christian boys to schools that prepared janissaries and officials. So the process was not led by the sultan's officials, but by the Greek priests. The funny thing is that they sometimes took bribes from Muslims to their children, writing in the Christians, sent to learn.

Imagine for a moment the Russian village, not even in the XVI, but in the XVIII century. An official from Petersburg arrives to select the children of the serfs in the Guards military school or in the Lyceum. The crowd would immediately run together, and the case would inevitably end in a fight between the parents of the applicants.

No domestic author attempted to compare the position of the peasants (Muslims or Christians) in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th – 17th centuries and the peasants in France, the Commonwealth and Russia. What were their rights and how many gentlemen and the state were taken from them? Alas, everywhere is a comparison in favor of the Turks. There is evidence of contemporaries that the peasants of many German, Hungarian and Polish lands were waiting for the arrival of the Turks. In 1668, hetman Peter Doroshenko surrendered with most of the Little Russia under the rule of Sultan Mehmed IV. Only in September 1683, after the defeat of the Turkish troops near Vienna, did Mehmed IV relinquish power over Little Russia. And then the orange ones in 2018 in Kiev would solemnly celebrate the 350 anniversary of the “reunification of the Ukrainian people with the great Turkish”.

Well, in the 1708 year, many thousands of Don Cossacks, led by ataman Ignat Nekrasov, went under the auspices of the Turkish sultan, fleeing from the massacre arranged by Peter's warlords. Almost simultaneously and for the same reasons, the Zaporozhian Army almost completely went to the Turks. In 1733, Anna Ioannovna allowed the Cossacks to return to Russia. But in 1775, Catherine II defeated the Zaporizhian Sich, and again a significant part of the Cossacks moved to the sultan. I note that both the Nekrasovs and the Cossacks received fertile lands in Turkey, and no one forced them to change their faith or customs.

What killed the Great Ottoman Empire? The degradation of rulers, corruption and separatism of officials, as well as aggression from the west and east. It is curious that the Turks themselves claim that the empire was destroyed by a woman - Hurum - the beloved wife of Suleiman the Magnificent, better known in Europe under the name of Roksolana.

Prior to this, the Turkish sultans were warriors and visited the harem (a detached palace) for only a few hours to get pleasure. But in 1541, Suleiman the Magnificent moved Horam to his palace. Huram slandered the eldest son Suleiman Mustafa, and his father executed him in anger. After Suleiman, the son Hurum came to the throne - the harem hermit and drunk Selim II.

Since then, the harem has ceased to be only a place of pleasure, and has become part of the Sultan's palace, where the lord and his wife lived. From the warriors, the sultans turned into hermits, constantly living in a harem.

In my opinion, the bureaucracy did much more harm to the empire. Before Suleiman the Magnificent, all major local officials were appointed by the Sultan. Over time, the governors of remote regions became rich and began to seek from Constantinople the transfer of power to their children. Thus, North Africa, Egypt, and a number of other regions in the east of the empire gradually turned from integral parts of a unitary state into semi-independent territories with weak ties to the metropolis. Well, after three centuries, France seized Algeria and Tunisia, Italy - Libya, England - Egypt, and it went away ...

TURKEY, RUSSIA AND THE RESTRUCTORS

The wars of Russia and Turkey are the result of the short-sightedness of the rulers of both countries, who misjudged the situation both in the region and in the world. Russia could not tolerate the raids of the Crimean brigands and could not develop without access to the Black and Mediterranean seas. The Turkish government equally rightly wished to preserve the security of the country in the north and in the Balkans.

The situation could only be tackled by a military alliance between the two powers, in which Russia would guarantee the inviolability of all the borders of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey - the free passage of Russian trade and military ships through the straits and a reliable guarantee against penetration into the Black Sea of ​​any foreign fleet. If necessary, Russia should have the right to build fortresses in the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.

The desire of our kings to expel the Turks from Europe prevailed. The rulers of the West were of the same opinion, but they wanted to do this without strengthening Russia, but on the contrary, trying to bring maximum harm to it.

I am afraid that someone will accuse the author of turkofilii, so, they say, Shirokorad does not write about the atrocities of the Ottomans in the XIX – XX centuries. Indeed, during these two centuries, millions of Greeks, Armenians and Turks became victims of interethnic and interfaith conflicts, unleashed by the fault of the West and native nationalists.

Here is a typical example - the famous Chios Island massacre in 1822. 10 March 1822 th 2500 Greek pirates from the island of Samos landed in the bay of Megas on the island of Chios, where previously there were no ethnic or religious clashes. Pirates and local Greek lumpen massacred the Turks. Well, March 24 Turkish squadron came with troops, and at the same time returned several thousand Turks, who fled from the island to the mainland, crossing the strait width 5 km. And the massacre began again, but this time the Greeks.

I will note that five hundred "infidel" Zaporozhian Cossacks frolicked at Chios under the command of the ataman Semyon Moroz and the military foreman Loha. By the way, Frost is a native of Kiev, and Lough is a noble Polish gentry, a native of the Right Bank. In the battle of Chios, the cat-fiend and folded his lush head.

The events on Chios caused a huge resonance and a wave of philoellism in Europe. They claimed that the Turks killed about 20 thousand islanders and rebels from other islands. Well, how many Turks were killed by the corsairs and the local mob, it was simply not accepted to speak. Yes, in fact, the reaction of the West to various conflicts over the years 300 practically has not changed. Recall the assessment by Western media of Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia in 2008 or the civil war in Libya in 2011.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru
38 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexey Prikazchikov
    Alexey Prikazchikov 1 February 2012 10: 28
    +5
    Ottoman Empire angry yeah and Hitler was so kind, well, so fair. Let these monkeys get away from where it came from. It’s not their land that Byzantium is the legal successor of Russia (why I hope there’s no need to explain) and we will return Constantinople to us sooner or later, but this land will be ours and these monkeys will come and go and let them go to our army look.
    1. sas
      sas 1 February 2012 11: 55
      -2
      "the legal successor of Byzantium is Russia (why I hope there is no need to explain)"
      Because of the coat of arms and flag?
  2. skullcap
    skullcap 1 February 2012 11: 06
    +8
    It remains only to regret again and again that at the critical moments Russia was ruled by kings with limited governors and was not at that time as “I.O. Tsar "of Shirokorad.
    Then, in 1572, stupid Russians would not have made a historical mistake in the battle of the Young, defeating the vast Turkish-Crimean army and, thus, undermining the Ottoman Empire’s ability to spread the ideals of freedom and justice further around the world. I am sure that if Shirokorad was in power then, he would have been able to overcome the short-sightedness of Russia, which "could not tolerate the raids of the Crimean brigands." Our great scientist - if only the authorities would give the giant of thought and a person close to science - probably found a way to make it reconcile with the progressive process and would drive the most stupid and slave people into the happiness with an iron hand.
    And so, without outstanding scholars, stupid Russians once again made a mistake, which they then committed at least twice.
    At first - during the Patriotic War 1812 of the year, not allowing itself to be defeated by the progressive nation, as dreamed of by the best minds of Russia of that time, widely known for its outstanding representative - Smerdyakov.
    Then - during World War II. After all, all free and progressive individuals living according to democratic ideals are long and indisputably clear: if it weren't for ours, expressed in the blunt defense of the totalitarian Stalinist regime, now we would all have been driving Mercedes and Germans on trays to deliver our German beer and the same sausages.
    And an absolutely weak consolation is that all these, also stupid, Balkan peoples like Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks for centuries resisted Turkish freedom and justice, revolted or fled to the “prison of nations” - so hateful for all progressive minds - Russia.
    PS Already seriously: if anyone is interested in how Russian peasants of this period lived and Russia as a whole - high-quality research material can be found in the book by V.Ye. Shambarov “Tsar of the Terrible Russia”. It can be downloaded in the internet.
    1. Krilion
      Krilion 2 February 2012 07: 57
      0
      I support ... I have always been interested in the question - in what kind of underground passage did all these "scientists" -historians buy their diplomas? .. They proliferated like dogs not cut, and judging by the style of presentation, this body barely finished high school ...
  3. 755962
    755962 1 February 2012 11: 17
    +2
    The history of the Ottoman Empire is interesting to a certain extent. On my own note, while serving in Nagorno-Karabakh, I asked about the translation of its name, it turned out that the word "Karabakh" was composed of Turkic "kara" - black and Persian "bag" - garden, Armenians also call the burnt garden, they say this more correctly and reflect the essence of the events of that time.
  4. marmon
    marmon 1 February 2012 11: 46
    +4
    Something about the Turkish lying article. The mere fact that the Arabs excelled Europe in science. Arabs excelled, but that was before the advent of Islam. So Hitler can also be justified.
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 24 September 2018 16: 06
      0
      Arabs appeared in Europe AFTER Islam. Read the story of the Cordoba Caliphate. The University of Cordoba was the scientific capital of the world at that time. They say that if it weren’t for Cordoba, we would fly into space in the 16th century. And after the fall of the Cordoba Caliphate and Islam in Spain, the Inquisition came there. And .... Well, you know for yourself - right the lights of science, headed by the dogs of the Lord and Torquemada, headed by the pack. Right intellectuals.
  5. nonsense
    nonsense 1 February 2012 12: 15
    -8
    Alexey Prikazchikov,
    Let these monkeys get away from where it came from. It’s not their land that Byzantium is the legal successor of Russia (why I hope there’s no need to explain) and we will return Constantinople to us sooner or later, but this land will be ours and these monkeys will come and go and let them go to our army look.

    wink Yes, let the Turks "look" at our army, and I'll sit at the computer here ...
    In general, sometimes you need to turn on the brain. Most of the ancestors of modern Turks did not "come" from anywhere - they lived in Asia Minor since the time of mammoths. They (the Turks) are the legal successors of Rome-Byzantium. It's just that at some stage they absolutely correctly (as history has shown) decided to convert to Islam. This kept Turkey (formerly Byzantium) the strongest state in the world of the century until the 19th. And the fact that Russia adopted orthodox Byzantine Christianity did not contribute to its strengthening in any way - except for wars with the whole world without allies, this did not lead to anything ... Until now we hang out like a city in an ice hole and are looking for "our way", in vain wasting resources ...
    PS: why did you need the land of Asia Minor? - We have nowhere to put our own, uncultivated! Help yourself!
    1. Force 83
      Force 83 1 February 2012 12: 26
      +5
      What are you talking about? Turks do not have such a nation — they are the people of Central Asia. Before them, Byzantium was a prosperous state. As for Islam, this is the road to nowhere.
      1. nonsense
        nonsense 1 February 2012 13: 45
        -1
        And what are you talking about? ”“ Under the Ottomans, the Empire almost reached its former Byzantine borders and prosperity. And the population of the "prosperous state of Byzantium" itself opened the gates of their cities to the Turkish troops. And it itself adopted Islam - no one forced it. Apparently they got the Christian rulers and all sorts of Genoese-Venetian-crusaders ...
        As for Islam - I agree. But do not confuse the Islam of that time and the present ... Religion is clearly progressive in comparison with Christianity. I will say more - any religion as a state / state-forming is the way to nowhere. What we observe in Russia, where the fooling of the population with various religions (especially priests are energetic) has reached just a medieval level.
        1. Force 83
          Force 83 1 February 2012 17: 27
          +3
          Who is progressive? The facts speak for themselves by comparing modern Europe, Russia, America - Christianity and the Middle East and others like them - Islam. If you take the equalization in the UAE, then in vain everything that was built there was designed not by them but by the same Europeans, Americans, Koreans, they paid only with oil, but when it ends then we'll see. In China, Buddhists adopt Christianity because they also compared what is progressive, not in vain.
          1. nonsense
            nonsense 1 February 2012 18: 08
            +1
            Confuse warm with soft? - I repeat, Islam is a religion significantly advanced in comparison with Christianity. For example, there are simply no idols for worship and kissing in Islam ... But it’s ridiculous to compare the wild Arab nomads and the urban inhabitants of Europe with their mental abilities. And their descendants too ... Genetics ...
            Incidentally, wink judging by the ability to use these very revenues from the sale of oil, the Arabs of the Emirates stand at a significantly higher intellectual level of development than the Russians eReFii ...
            PS: and according to my observations, Europeans are much more likely to accept Buddhism than the Chinese Christianity. And since the fascination with Chinese shamanism (such as horoscopes, years of various animals, wushu karate, fen shu and other billiards), Christians have long surpassed Buddhists ...
            1. Force 83
              Force 83 1 February 2012 18: 30
              +2
              Idols in Christianity also have no images. And in Islam they are not because it is impossible to draw. In general, Afghanistan is where pure Islam is. Go there live understand. Everything is relative.
              1. nonsense
                nonsense 1 February 2012 19: 29
                +2
                Quote: Force 83
                Idols in Christianity also have no images.

                The difference eludes me ...
                And it’s cool to tell me where to live. Moreover, your brain volume is clearly insufficient for this. For example, he doesn’t have enough to understand that if Buddhism was widespread in the same Afghanistan or Christianity wouldn’t be better off living there ...
                1. Force 75
                  Force 75 1 February 2012 19: 46
                  -1
                  I see you have enough volume once you write any garbage.
                2. Force 83
                  Force 83 1 February 2012 19: 58
                  +1
                  I think better. The education system would certainly become better.
                  1. nonsense
                    nonsense 1 February 2012 20: 20
                    +1
                    Quote: Force 83
                    I think better.

                    Religion is not to blame for the current standard of living in Afghanistan. As in the level of education. I somehow came across pictures of Afghanistan in the 60-70s (times of the monarchy) - I don't even believe that this is Afghanistan! Not "Las Vegas" of course, but pretty decent ... Even hijabs are not visible ... This is what a civil war for 2 generations means ...
        2. Punch 2011
          Punch 2011 1 February 2012 21: 21
          +1
          Yes, progressive in some countries - to live according to Sharia law and cut heads wrong
      2. Bakht
        Bakht 24 September 2018 16: 09
        0
        Was Byzantium a prosperous state? Maybe. But who destroyed Byzantium? The article clearly states
        After the capture of the city began mass looting. About 2 thousand people were killed in the first days after the capture. The city was raging fires. Many monuments of culture and literature that were kept here from ancient times were destroyed in the fire. The famous Constantinople Library was particularly affected by the fire.
        In the fall of 1204, a committee of 24 representatives of the occupying forces signed the Treaty on the Partition of the Byzantine Empire (Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae), which marked the beginning of a long period of francocracy.
        The Greek population massively left the capital. By the end of the crusader power, no more than 50 thousand inhabitants remained in the plundered city.

        The Turks are not at all involved here ...
  6. Arc76
    Arc76 1 February 2012 12: 32
    +6
    Shirokograd forgets to mention that all of Christian Europe was moaning about the pirate enclave in Algeria, and what are the constant raids of Crimean faithful Turkish vassals on Russia. A silly article from Muscovy and then from the Russian Empire there was no more dangerous enemy than Port, which threatened generally the existence of our state.
    1. 755962
      755962 1 February 2012 13: 12
      +4
      Alexander Borisovich Shirokorad write better about the glands, you do it better.
    2. Prometey
      Prometey 1 February 2012 13: 20
      -1
      I do not agree with your point of view radically. The Ottoman Empire never threatened Muscovy, either culturally or politically. All wars between Russia and Turkey were borderline. The Ottomans never put forward large-scale plans for the conquest and invasion deep into the territory of Russia. Yes, and the expansion of the Turks always went to the Balkans, and not to the north, and they did not advance beyond the Transcaucasus.
      And about Algeria, of course, they were pleased, but from the groaning of poor Christian Europe I am "shocked". The crafts of the Algerian pirates pale before the acts of filibusters and conquistadors in the New World. And Europe groaned more from the deeds of the Christian "holy" Inquisition, instruments of torture and executions that even "Muslim barbarians" could not invent.
      1. skullcap
        skullcap 1 February 2012 13: 35
        +3
        Read at least in Wikipedia about the Battle of Molody - how "The Ottomans never put forward large-scale plans for conquest and invasion deep into the territory of Russia."
      2. Arc76
        Arc76 1 February 2012 13: 58
        +1
        The Crimean Khan Divlet-Girey burned Moscow to the ground in 1571. According to some historians, up to a third of its population was taken prisoner. Frightened Ivan the Terrible offered to give Astrakhan to the Crimeans, but inspired by the success of the Khan, Istanbul strategists developed a new plan for the full occupation and dismemberment of the great principality. The next year, the Crimean raid was repeated again, and only the employment of Turkey in European affairs saved Grozny, who had become stuck in the Livonian war, from complete defeat.
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 1 February 2012 18: 04
          +3
          The fact that the Crimean hijackers reached Moscow says not about the aggressive doctrine of Istanbul, but about the rotorism of the Moscow rulers. By the way, after that they began to build the so-called. the boundary line, and the Crimeans already deep into the territory of Russia could no longer penetrate.
          Kosopuz
          The raids of the Crimean Tatars cannot be perceived as a serious threat to Russian statehood, just like the once replicated legend about the "great threat" of Ancient Russia from the Pechenegs and Polovtsians. And there is another point of view that it was not Turkey that had a hand in Devlet-Giray's raid on Moscow in 1571-1572, but the enemy of Ivan the Terrible in the Livonian War - the Polish king Stefan Batory. Then it was from the West that there was a real danger for Russia. The Ottomans themselves at that time were busy with the war with Catholic countries (1572 - the battle of Lepanto). Therefore, the involvement of Russia in the war with the Turks at that time looks absolutely absurd.
          If we talk about the real possibility of the Turks to create a threat to Russia - this is the Prut campaign of Peter 1, when 35 thousand. The Russian army with Peter himself was surrounded by 120 thousandth Turkish army. And then the Russians were more likely to die, not even from Turkish sabers, but from thirst and dysentery. But then the Ottomans, having real chances to dictate the most severe conditions of surrender, limited themselves to quite modest requirements (based on the situation).
          1. skullcap
            skullcap 2 February 2012 11: 22
            +2
            I can not agree with the fact that the Poles used the Turks as allies in the wars against Russia. However, this cannot rule out the aggressive nature of Porta’s policy towards Russia, especially after Selim-Pyanitsa came to power.
            Many researchers consider the campaigns of the Crimean-Turkish troops against Moscow in the 1569 and 1572 years were not predatory, but precisely conquering.
            This is also undeniably evidenced by the conditions that the Turks put up on the peace offer of Ivan the Terrible: Selim II agreed to peace only if the tsar ceded Kazan and Astrakhan, and he himself became “a henchman of our high threshold”, that is, he acknowledges himself a vassal the sultan.
            1. Prometey
              Prometey 2 February 2012 18: 28
              +2
              And how many Turks were in the army of Devlet Giray? The Crimean Khanate throughout its history acts as a semi-nomadic raider political entity, the main source of income of which was the raiding system. Naturally, the Turks used Crimeans to weaken their neighbors, but the Tatars themselves did not seem to set ambitious goals such as the revival of the Golden Horde, they were just happy with the possibility of systematic raids to enrich themselves. By the way, why under Tsar Ivan 3 there were cordial and allied relations between the Moscow kingdom and the Crimean Khanate? And since Ivan the Terrible is Russia constantly in political isolation? Also a lot of questions.
              As for Russian-Turkish relations under Ivan the Terrible, to be honest, I don’t know the breadth of coverage of the material. Requirements for citizenship and the cession of Kazan and Astrakhan were a "routine" measure. But the appearance of Russians in the North Caucasus worried the Turks, so they insisted more on the demolition of the Tersk town. Only now they could not seriously reinforce their threats even during the period of maximum weakening of Russia - the Time of Troubles.
  7. dok
    dok 1 February 2012 12: 33
    +5
    Ottoman Empire - the kingdom of justice and tolerance

    And who arranged the Armenian Genocide?
    1. nonsense
      nonsense 1 February 2012 13: 56
      0
      And who arranged the Armenian Genocide?

      But what did the Turks have to do with these Armenians? ”“ Give coupons for increased food? ”“ Or do you think that the Turks took this step for no reason?
  8. Prometey
    Prometey 1 February 2012 13: 36
    +5
    I agree with the author that the confrontation between the Ottomans and the Russians in the 17-19 centuries was not a consequence of Porta's aggressiveness and dogmatism, but the political shortsightedness of tsarism and Turks. The French, British and Austrians, who clashed Russia and Turkey with their foreheads, always won from conflicts. And the whole problem is that the Russian Empire has always been weak diplomatically. But the Bolsheviks for some reason were able to agree with the Turks on the joint use of the straits and the closure of the Black Sea for all foreign military ships - and all this without wars and ultimatums. So draw your own conclusions.
    And about Byzantium ... The Empire was thwarted by civil strife, not the crusaders with the Turks. The crusaders themselves were summoned to Constantinople in 1204 by the Byzantine emperor to retain power, and he gave the city to them to plunder. Yes, and the Turks, during the capture of Constantinople, did not destroy a single Christian shrine (in contrast to the same "enlightened" Christians).
    1. Arc76
      Arc76 1 February 2012 14: 11
      +3
      in the 19th century, as you undoubtedly know, Turkey was called a sick person, and an alliance with it no longer made any sense. In addition, the Russian Tsar was Orthodox and was considered the patron saint of the Balkan peoples, I do not know if this is good or not. An alliance with Austria would probably be more beneficial. after the defeat of Napoleon, the division of Turkey with access to the straits, the eternal dream of the Russian Empire.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 1 February 2012 17: 38
        +3
        Only Emperor Nicholas I called Turkey a "sick person", and you probably know what came of this (based on the results of the Crimean War). An alliance with Austria to dismember Turkey was a fantasy plan - Austria-Hungary would never have gone to it. Well, as events showed, Turkey was written off very early - the war of 1877-1878. Russia cost more than 100 thousand soldiers and very modest results (and the "grateful" Bulgarians became an ally of Kaiser's Germany).
        And the union from a pragmatic point of view always makes sense and it is not known how the events of the First World War would have developed if Turkey had remained at least a neutral state, and not an ally of the Germans.
        1. Arc76
          Arc76 1 February 2012 17: 58
          0
          Russia and Turkey have historically been antagonists, it just so happened. In addition, it always had serious territorial claims - the Caucasus, the Caspian regions. It is unlikely that it would remain neutral in the First World War. Besides, you know at that time about control over the straits and the exit all generations of Russian tsars dreamed of in Middle East, such a national idea.
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 1 February 2012 18: 25
            +3
            So this is the point that aggressive foreign policy was not a typical feature of the Turks, but was no less characteristic of almost all states. Therefore, one cannot speak unilaterally only about Ottoman conquests, without noticing the massacre that Cromwell organized in Ireland, the Swedes and Imperials in the Czech Republic and Germany during the Thirty Years War, the Poles in Ukraine.
            PS By the way, I didn’t minus you ... although it makes no difference.
  9. serge
    serge 1 February 2012 18: 22
    +1
    And why didn’t Russian fools like the good Tatar-Turkish slave traders?
  10. rumpeljschtizhen
    rumpeljschtizhen 1 February 2012 18: 35
    +4
    Yes, poor ... not justly offended Turks ........ sorry for them not all yet .... decided
  11. Igarr
    Igarr 1 February 2012 18: 57
    +2
    Something sounds too beautiful to be true (Shirokorada).
    I agree with many things, but too much with "harmony".
    And, our imperfections (local spill) - all sorts of Cossacks, etc. indeed, they eagerly ran over to the "Turetchina" and this was nothing special for them.
    I emphasize - the Cossacks of that time .... not to be confused with the modern, otherwise they will immediately bite right away.
    And Wrangel’s army partly gave in to Istanbul.
    Religious tolerance was probably in the metropolis, and on the outskirts (in Ukraine) - I think during the massacre - they first cut it, and then they asked about the faith (probably from a corpse). Border territories, however.
    In general ... the truth is somewhere nearby.

    I did not write a word about the point of view in the "new chronology". And she, period. is very close to what A.B. Shirokoradom.
  12. Marat
    Marat 1 February 2012 21: 23
    +4
    Of course, it was a Turkish empire that means there was something good in it that made it possible to create an empire - otherwise it would have disintegrated

    But, excuse me, comrade Russians, you all and we, too, did not live in the Turkish empire and are trying to recreate together our own Eurasian empire - the heir to tsarist Russia and the USSR - and any reverence for the neighboring empires at this moment is extremely inappropriate - especially in blatantly hostile

    I read such japophiles - they admire Japan and are ready to give up the Kuril Islands to them (my grandfather died on the eastern front - my whole family "dislikes" the Japanese, to put it mildly) - the same liberal Westernizers from the same cohort - now we still lacked Turkish lovers ... This is especially dangerous for our republic of Kazakhstan and other Turkic-speaking peoples - Tatars and Bashkirs - and so Turkey spent a lot of money and effort together with the pendostan to get some kind of influence on these peoples, which originally did not belong to the Turkish Empire - but form the core of ours with the Russians
  13. rumpeljschtizhen
    rumpeljschtizhen 3 February 2012 03: 06
    +1
    yes, there’s nothing to comment on .......... the enemy is eternal and .. the opposition of religions of concepts .. generally the opposition of everything ...... as some dad wrote, faith must trample everything under itself the concept of reason ... ....... and the Turks are the basis of Islam and we fought with it
  14. Enoch
    Enoch 24 March 2012 00: 20
    -2
    Alexander Borisovich Shirokorad - a historian? I doubt it. Here: either I sold out or did not study at all. I imagine how the Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Armenians and many other peoples would be indignant, reading this balcony.
  15. kvs45
    kvs45 6 May 2015 15: 58
    +2
    Quote: Alexey Prikazchikov
    the legal successor of Byzantium is Russia (why I hope there is no need to explain)

    It is necessary to explain, it is necessary! It is not clear what this statement is based on.
  16. Head Physician
    Head Physician 30 October 2017 22: 34
    +13
    Yeah
    Protect nothing to add
    To the address of Alexander Borisovich Shirokorad - historian
  17. Scorpio05
    Scorpio05 20 January 2018 00: 58
    +1
    Impressive article
  18. Jmbg
    Jmbg 19 August 2018 21: 01
    -2
    As a Bulgarian, I cannot conceal my protest and indignation. They almost destroyed my people, Greeks, Armenians, etc. Justice and - perhaps, but only among the muslimman. To the Bulgarians and other Christians only terror. And not only from the feudal lords, but with everyone who is not lazy if he is a Muslim. Pomaki forcibly and Islam They bury their dead with an Islamic stone outside and a cross under the earth. Shame, shame for the author. Tell me the next time that the Wehrmacht comprehended its successes because of a humane policy in occupying territories.
    1. Seal
      Seal 24 August 2018 12: 28
      +2
      As a Bulgarian, I cannot conceal my protest and indignation. They almost destroyed my people, Greeks, Armenians, etc.

      If you make such loud statements "almost destroyed" - words alone will not be enough. Could you provide an invoice? After all, the term "almost destroyed" means the destruction of 85-90%. Well, when was it supposedly? When out of 100% Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, 10-15% remained ???
      Maybe the Bulgarians lived poorly?
      Read the reviews of our generals, officers, civilian employees ...
      Well-known doctor S.P. Botkin described in his letters that many contemporaries either were silent or did not think about:
      “There was a conversation over tea about how the Turks ruined the Bulgarians; I cannot doubt the validity of these stories, but I must admit that until now I myself could not be convinced of this; here in Belaya the people look very richly furnished: what a mass of cattle, bread, and what! - after all, in one ear you can count up to 50 large grains. In our Mogilev province, peasants, compared with the local people, are poor; what horses, oxen, are here among peasants! ”

      and further:

      "... But ask him for a soldier of wine or bread, so one answer: -" dumb! ".


      Artist V.V. Vereshchagin mentioned in a similar vein:
      “It was great, however, the surprise of our troops when they found comparative satisfaction and prosperity everywhere, and the farther, the more clean and tidy the houses, especially urban houses, were full of granaries, bins filled with all sorts of good! Involuntarily appeared and began to speak out the idea that in vain "we cover someone else's roof when our own hut flows" ... ".


      Famous writer and critic A.V. The amphitheaters left virtually direct mention of the evolution of ideas about the Bulgarians among some contemporaries:
      “When ... our fathers, uncles, older brothers carried their wild heads for Bulgarian freedom ... we know what a surprise, close to disappointment, befell the participants of this crusade upon their arrival in oppressed Bulgaria. Waited to see people naked and barefoot, without shelter, without food, devastated villages, trampled fields, chains, corpses, scaffolds. Instead, they saw fat pastries, vineyards, valleys of roses and a rich peasant-skopidom who looked like a wolf at the liberators and tore at them exorbitant prices for every chicken, for every glass of wine, for every piece of bread ”

      You can continue to continue, or you can end with a quote from the Emperor Alexander II himself:
      “Whom have we come to free? After all, the "brothers" live under the Turkish yoke many times better than the Russian peasants !!! ".
      1. Seal
        Seal 24 August 2018 16: 30
        +2
        Pomaki forcibly and Islam

        Well, let it be once very long ago that part of the Bulgarians was forcibly Islamized and they became pomaks. But the bulk of Bulgaria has been free since 1879. And the pomaks still exist. Moreover, they successfully survived the atheistic period from 1945 to 1988.
        Excuse me, how was Christianity introduced? Look at Pomerania and the Baltic States !!! It was there that was one of the bloodiest plantings of the Christian religion. So what ? Who now recalls that once the ancestors of the present Balts, Poles and Pomeranian Germans were forcibly baptized? No one remembers !!
        And how was Christianity introduced in Central and South America? What, peacefully and voluntarily? But the local Aboriginal people there now have the strongest Catholic faith !!
        1. Seal
          Seal 24 August 2018 16: 48
          0
          So, as our Emperor bitterly stated: "Whom did we come to liberate? After all, the" brothers "live under the Turkish yoke many times better than Russian peasants !!!".
          And how did the mentioned Armenians live?
          There is (was, not so long ago, died) a famous Armenian historian, professor at a number of American universities (lived in America) John Kirakosyan. He wrote a very interesting work; "Young Turks before the judgment of history" in which, like a tank, he ran into a Turk (Young Turk), but at the same time gave a lot of interesting information. For example. "Making up 20% among the 25-10 million population of the Turkish Empire, the Armenians concentrated in their hands 60% imported и 40% of export tradeand 80% of domestic trade"He is talking about the state before the First World War. That is, about 1912 -1913.
          As J. Kirakosyan writes.
          Despite the fact that the Turkish authorities did their best to prevent the education of Armenians, according to 1911, there were 1083 schools in Western Armenia, in which 80 thousand boys and 30 thousand girls were studying (149a, p. 160-170). At that time in the Ottoman Empire there were 1388 Armenian churches and 134 monasteries. Only under the Cilician Catholicosate were 222 churches and 12 monasteries.
          Sapakh-Gulyan noted that “in the provinces, our clubs have acquired the form of offices, legal advice. Not only working Turks, Kurds, Circassians, Avshars, Greeks came there to receive help in their efforts, but also all those who had any complaint about the actions of the Ittihad authorities ”(166, p. 300).


          You and some other wiseacres are trying to exclaim pathetically about the Wehrmacht (Hitler).
          Well, let's exclaim. For example, how do you like this:
          "Making up 10% of the population of the German Reich, in 1941 the Jews concentrated in their hands 60% imported и 40% of export tradeand 80% of the Reich’s domestic trade... Despite the fact that the Germans "obstructed" 1941, the German Reich had 1388 synagogues and 134 large Jewish churches. ???

          And further:
          "In the lands of the German Reich, by 1941, Jewish clubs acquired the form of offices, legal advice. Not only working Germans, Austrians, Poles, Bavarians, Danes, Belgians, Czechs came there to get help in their troubles, but also all those who had any complaint about the actions of the Gestapo "??
    2. Seal
      Seal 27 August 2018 10: 09
      +1
      And another remarkable fact.
      In Europe, Orthodoxy survived only where Russia and the Ottoman Empire were. Where we or the Ottomans did not reach or where the Ottomans failed to gain a foothold (Slovenia, Croatia) - Catholicism is everywhere. Or at best, uniatism.
      But Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, Georgia, Moldova - all almost 100% Orthodox.
  19. Alexander Polidva
    Alexander Polidva 7 May 2019 05: 58
    0
    Well, yes, the parasitic slaveholding state is just perfect as a role model))) This time, the author I respect, carries an utter nonsense and rubbish laughing