Do you personally think that Ottoman rule or European rule was more beneficial for the Arab world?

May 2014
16,647
SoCal
#22
The Ottoman rule resulted in long term stagnation

The European rule radically changed the Arab countries forever
To be fair, though, the Ottoman Empire hadn't actually industrialized much by the time of WWI, had it? I mean, had the Ottomans kept all of their territories as far west as Algeria, then eventually they could have industrialized and relatively flourished.
 
May 2014
16,647
SoCal
#23
Gandhi springs to mind - I suspect the arabs - though that phrase is a little bit like the dreaded 'the europeans' - would rather be governed badly by themselves than well by others. Or maybe not governed at all!

Besides if you could quantify 'the arabs' I'm sure they saw the Ottoman Turks as another European invader
The Ottoman Turks were originally Asian rather than European, though. Also, they were Muslim just like the Arabs were.

Interestingly enough, had the Ottoman Empire kept its 1829 borders in the southwest (with it extending all of the way up to Algeria), and had the Ottomans eventually democratized, then it's entirely possible that Arabs would have dominated the democratized Ottoman Empire due to their sheer numbers.
 
Mar 2016
870
Australia
#24
The Ottoman Turks were originally Asian rather than European, though.
Sure, but since the 14th century they were a predominantly Balkans-centric empire, with large amounts of their manpower and taxation coming from these provinces, not to mention many Grand Viziers and members of the Imperial Harem (which consequently meant that future sultans were increasingly diluted in their initially Turkish bloodline). From a desert tribal perspective, the Ottomans were just as decadent, corrupt and modern as Christian Europeans.

Also, they were Muslim just like the Arabs were.
Sharing the same religion doesn't count for much beyond a certain point. The relatively homogeneous Roman Catholic countries of Europe did not let sharing religion get in the way of constant wars for centuries, even before the advent of large-scale heresies. Remember, the Arabs eventually allied with the Christian British to help overthrow their Muslim Turkish masters. Politics is often more important than religion, even centuries ago in history.
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2015
482
Middle East
#25
Definitely none..... Turks ruled the region for almost 900 yrs w/o producing a single scientist... at least no one I know of. Turks being nomads from Central Asia had no culture and so everything they had they adapted from the existing middle eastern culture. For instance, Turks are among the only ones who converted to a religion of their subjects. The romans being the only other example i can think of.
 
Apr 2015
4,311
India
#26
He is Pakistani though.
Self-respecting Indian people despise Mughal rule.
Except for leftist, people in India see Mughals as foreigners and uncivilized barbarians from Central Asia. Although British economically exploited India, Hindus and Sikhs had great extent of religious freedom under British rule unlike rampant persecution and iconoclasm under Mughal rule.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
16,647
SoCal
#27
Except for leftist, people in India see Mughals as foreigners and uncivilized barbarians from Central Asia. Although British economically exploited India, Hindus and Sikhs had great extent of religious freedom under British rule unlike rampant persecution and iconoclasm under Mughal rule.
Why do Indian leftists like Mughal rule?
 
Apr 2015
4,311
India
#28
Why do Indian leftists like Mughal rule?
They want to prove Mughals were one of our own. Many are even sympathetic to cruel kings like Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan. Aurangzeb committed a widespread persecution of Hindus and Sikhs while Tipu Sultan committed similar persecution/massacre of Hindus and Christians in South India.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
16,647
SoCal
#29
They want to prove Mughals were one of our own. Many are even sympathetic to cruel kings like Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan. Aurangzeb committed a widespread persecution of Hindus and Sikhs while Tipu Sultan committed similar persecution/massacre of Hindus and Christians in South India.
What exactly is the incentive to associate Mughals with Indians, though?
 

Similar History Discussions