Well, difficult and controversial question.

There is two type of history writing and history books.

Official historiography and official history books ( School books are the best example of these sort of books. ) and scientific historiography and scientific history books (Unfortunately, because there are few historians with strong literary aspects, even the author have this aspects the states do not want the facts here to be known by the ordinary people. By this reason these are very rarely reach to ordinary people. ).

So you have understood, official historiographers and those who based on science and wrote history differ from each other. These people have completely different purposes and methods. Of course, in official historiography the facts cannot be completely turned upside down. However, the following can be done, that subject is either not mentioned at all, or it can be arranged so that its weight in the total text is less than its actual value. Oh, aren't there texts in which the truth is completely reversed? As much as you don't want!

Why might the issues I mentioned in the previous paragraph exist? States need the relative tacit support of their own peoples in any policy implementation, whether they are democracy or not. In addition, its people must have a sense of legitimacy for the state. If all the facts are explained to the public with plain nakedness, the feeling of legitimacy may be lost or the necessary tacit support may not be provided in the policy decision taken. You don't think states act rightly and legitimately every time they do, do you?

In every society, there is a group that approves of what the state says and does everything, and there is a group that opposes everything the state does and says. States do not care about these two groups at all. Their rhetoric is always to direct the silent majority outside of them, around 90%. Official history is just for this silent majority.

After this long entrance i can write my oppinion about your question.

It is completely about my entrance. No nation or state is all bad or good. There are both good things and bad things. Of course, this is true except for extreme examples like the Nazi regime that I am talking about. States must create an enemy for their own reasons of existence. Throughout long history, Turks have been an existential threat to both China and most European states. For this reason, both China and the European world have made every effort to make Turks enemies in the eyes of their own people, and never hesitated to turn history upside down in this way.

And at this point reality has been completely removed. Ottomans founded by the Turks, and for a long time was the dominant force in Middle East, North Africa, the Caucasus, Ukrainian steppes and the Balkans. In our case, that only legitimate heir to the means of Ottoman; unfortunately Turkey as a state and its people of Turkey are also facing more intensively with these campaigns. Because the states that left the Ottoman Empire are national states and they do not think that they can explain their reasons of existence better than the oppression and evil that the Ottoman applied to them.

If the person is concerned with the truth, he/she can only reach the truth through multi-directional readings.

There are historians who write realistically. There are also those who repeat official discourse.

So if the people cannot reach to reality, it is due to the laziness of those people or the fact that the truth itself will hurt. Because there are many mutual crimes committed in the last century of the Ottoman Empire. And in most of these crimes, the crimes were committed by the peoples. Why did peoples commit crimes? For economic benefits. For example, destroying a local family and seizing its wealth. And unfortunately, many peoples who left the Ottoman Empire committed this crime. Did the Turks commit this crime? Sorry, but whose hand is clean in this world. As I said, the crimes were committed mutually. What did St. Jesus say about a Jew to be stoned for adultery? Let the first stone be without sin, right? Unfortunately, there are no innocent people in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I hope my answer satisfy you! The truth is hurt and its colour is gray, not white nor black.

So i am asking you? To the people who are descendants of so-called “ Liberty Warriors “ of your existing countries who were before governed by Ottomans; are you ready to hear the voice of truth? If you ready put your laziness out and search what happen in 19th and 20th century with your ancestors and Ottomans. You will find the gray truth which may hurt at the beginning. But may bring you in a level to give your empathy to Turks.

Yes we the Turkish people are proud of the fact that we had never been colonized by anyone.
Why?
Because there are only 2 countries in the world that completely escaped colonialism.

Turkey and Japan.

Yes Japan (and Korea too) escaped European colonialism sure but in the end they nuked Japan and divided Korea into two. Thailand too was spared when the British and French Empires decided to let it remained independent as a buffer between British-controlled Burma and French Indochina. Japan, however, colonized both Korea and Thailand itself during its early-20th-century imperial period.

Almost every corner of the world was either completely colonized or brought under domination under various names like 'protectorate' or 'mandate, This includes all of the Americas (French Guiana is incorrectly labeled as part of Europe due to a technical issue, but make no mistake, it was colonized) and all of Africa except for small Liberia. which European powers gave up on due to the support of the United States for the state established by freed American slaves who decided to move to Africa in the early 1800s. Americans who moved there ruled as a privileged minority, and the US and European powers sent former slaves there instead of accounting for their enslavement – but nevertheless it escaped European domination.

In China, European powers established parts of coastal cities or trade ports as “concessions,” which they occupied and controlled. Some, such as Shanghai, were divided into multiple European concessions. Others, like British-controlled Hong Kong, were fully absorbed into the European empires. This is why China was partially dominated by Europe.

Modern-day Saudi Arabia came under partial domination; in the early 1900s, most of the Arabian peninsula transitioned from the Ottoman Turkish Empire to the British Empire.

So of course we are proud.

For the rest of the assertion, the questioner seems to be confused about the difference between colonization and conquest.

Turks had multiple conquests throughout history but not a single colony.

Conquest refers to the act of taking possession of a territory by force. It involves military might, warfare, and the subjugation of the resistance. The primary goal is to establish control over the land and its resources. In conquest areas under an empires control are made citizens of the Empire.

Colonizers on the other hand, establish political, economic, and social systems that are tied to their homeland often follows conquest, but not necessarily. It can also occur through other means, such as trade or diplomacy. Colonization, involves the exploitation of the people and resources. And settlement of a territory by people from a different region which are considered privileged.

For example, the Roman Empire conquered many territories but didn't always establish large-scale settler colonies. Roman Empire while favored citizens of Rome at first later gave proper citizenship to the people of their conquered territories.

On the other hand, the British Empire, while using military force to expand its territory, often established extensive colonial administrations and encouraged settlement by British citizens.

The Ottoman Turkish empire was very loose with local administration, had a millet system where conquered territories retained their own law, and their own ways. Contrary to the European colonies the people who lived under Turkish rule continue to speak their own languages and were able to practice their own religion. Ottoman Turkish empire did not take over their businesses and natural resources. There was no Ottoman Turkish nobility or privileges to exploit the local folk. They were even recruited into the Ottoman State via devşirme system, given the best education to be placed as great generals and government officials of high rank as high as grand vizier. They sometimes even ruled the empire.

The Turks could not invade as they had no navy…Greece still did. In addition, the Allies would not have supported the Turks moving out of the shores of Asia Minor.

The British were still belligerent ,and could not accept the Turks winning, but had to give in as the Italians and French made separate peaces and gave up . Of course the British were very war-fatigued after so many years ,but their pride was salved as they already had large stretches of Ex -Turkish land to themselves in Iraq and Palestine.

The Turks played the game of brinkmanship masterfully with the Chanak Crisis ; and browbeat the Allies and especially the British into giving up all the conquered International Mandate Land along the Straits. Greece ,even left all of Eastern Thrace it didn’t have to as that was never won by the Turks with force of arms. Hitler notices this and did exactly the same thing with the Remilitarising the Rhineland and the Saar Plebiscite in the mid -1930s.

Remilitarization of the Rhineland - Wikipedia

This is why Turkey was not able to invade the Aegean Islands.

To conduct what would amount to an amphibious assault, transports and warships to protect them are needed.

The Balkan Wars and subsequent WWI took a terrible toll on Ottoman merchant and passenger shipping with most vessels being either seized or sunk.

Even Bosphorus passenger steamer ferries of Haliç Vapurları Şirketi, Şirket-i Hayriye and Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi had suffered many losses, their steamers not being capable for open sea operations, anyway.

When the Republic of Turkey was established on 29 October 1923, the former Ottoman vessels remaining under Turkish control were as follows:

-Out of service (badly needing repair): 2 battleships (Yavuz Sultan Selim, Turgut Reis), 2 cruisers (Berk-i Satvet, Mecidiye), 4 destroyers (Muâvenet-i Millîye, Nümune-i Hamiyet, Basra, Samsun), 6 torpedo boats (Sultanhisar, Yunus, Akhisar, Dıraç, Musul, Berk Efşan), 1 gunboat (Sakız).

-In active service: 2 cruisers (Hamidiye, Peyk-i Şevket), 2 yachts (Ertuğrul, Söğütlü), 1 destroyer (Taşoz), 4 gunboats (Burak Reis, Hızır Reis, Kemal Reis, İsa Reis), 1 minelayer (Nusret), 1 aviso (Galata), 4 tugs and 7 motorboats, which were no match to their opposing numbers in the Aegean Sea.

Under the terms of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, the new Turkish Republic regained possession of its fleet. Hamidiye was the first Ottoman warship to be transferred to the Turkish Navy in 1925.

At the War of Independence’s end, Turkish revolutionaries naval forces consisted of just 2 torpedo boats, 2 gunboats and 2 mine layers, totalling 2400 tons.

The SE Aegean was under the control of the Italian Navy while islands from Samos northwards to Imroz (renamed Gökçeada in 1970) under the control of the Greek Navy.

Obviously, Ataturk not only lacked the means to lead a successful assault of nearby Aegean islands but also the intention as he had much more pressing goals (Daily Mail interview September 15th):

"Our demands remain the same after our recent victory as they were before. We ask for Asia Minor, Thrace up to the river Maritsa and Constantinople... We must have our capital and I should in that case be obliged to march on Constantinople with my army, which will be an affair of only a few days. I must prefer to obtain possession by negotiation though, naturally I cannot wait indefinitely."

Lastly, it is doubtful that Ataturk would have been interested in launching an invasion on islands with 95% Greek population while he had already come to terms with Italy -and France- in 1921. Removing them from the conflict was a great military, diplomatic and financial success, even at the “cost” of Syria, Lebanon, Libya and the SE Aegean islands.

It is often forgotten that the Ottoman Empire was plagued by a humongous foreign debt, which the successor state needed to settle in order to regain access to international finance.

If in 1914 the Ottoman’s Empire’s financial situation was already dire, in 1923 Turkey, it was simply disastrous.

For each Ottoman territory that Ataturk “conceded”, corresponded a fraction of that debt, reducing the final bill the new Turkish Republic would need to settle.

After all, during the Lausanne negotiations Ataturk was willing to concede the “Edirne triangle” to Greece if the latter had been able to pay for war reparations.

Ataturk’s willingness to settle those debts was rewarded by several restructuring by its creditors (mostly France and Great Britain), after the signature of the Treaty of Lausanne.

During the Paris Conference of 1925, the Turkish Republic agreed to pay 62% of the Ottoman Empire's pre-1912 debt, and 77% of the Ottoman Empire's post-1912 debt. With the Paris Treaty of 1933, Turkey decreased this amount to its favour and agreed to pay 84.6 million liras out of the remaining total of 161.3 million liras of Ottoman debt. The last payment of the Ottoman debt was made by Turkey on May 25th 1954.

In conclusion, to quote a British admiral (famously answering Churchill in 1941) : “yes they can invade, but not by sea.”

YES. Turkification or Türkleştirme (in Turkish) happened and it was the primary way that Turks became the majority of Anatolia.

On Indigenous Anatolians

Türkic peoples never became a majority in Anatolia, even up to the present day. The Turks of today are the historic Anatolians who have simply taken on a Turkish identity as they had previously taken on a Greek identity. Prior to the Roman Empire and the Empire of Tigran the Great, most of Anatolia did not identify as Greek or Armenian either, but as from Bithynia, Lydia, Phrygia, and numerous other Anatolian nations. Each time a conqueror swept in, the population’s culture converted.

See the map below for the various Anatolian peoples prior to Hellenization in the 3rd Century B.C.E.

Similar to how these people “Hellenized” and “Armenified”, they would later “Turkify”.

On Genetics

The Türkic contribution to the Anatolian genetic pool is minimal. Genetics performed on the Turkish population put it around 15%. This means that the vast bulk of the genetics in the current Turkish population is from somewhere else. When the genetics of Turks are compared with other local, non-Türkic peoples (like the Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians, etc.) there is much more similarity than with the Türks of Central Asia (Uzbeks, Turkmens, etc.) This is indicative of conversion, not population replacement.

The reverse, when there is population replacement, can easily be seen in the settlement of Anglo-America. When the genetics of the populations of the United States and Canada today are tested, there is rarely any genetic overlap between the current American populations and the Native American or First Nation populations. One population replaced the other. We would expect a similar outcome if the Türks simply arrived in migratory waves as suggested by other Answers. The results may not be as stark since there are more genetic similarities even between indigenous Anatolians and Türkic peoples than between Native Americans and British immigrants, but you would still see Türkic DNA being a higher percentage. This situation is more apt to describe modern Azerbaijan which does have more genetic influence from the Türkic tribes than Turkey.

On Conquest

Historically, it is very rare that an invading people replaces an indigenous people unless (1) they simply outnumber them during initial contact or (2) there are large massacres that effectively remove the indigenous population. Often these two go in tandem. In the case of the Türkic Conquest of Anatolia, neither happened.

Anatolia at the time of the Battle of Manzikert was part of sedentary civilization for over 2000 years. The population in Constantinople was one of the largest west of India. The Anatolian population was incredibly large. By contrast the Türkic tribes were a nomadic people, a condition that does not allow for large population growth. While nomads can often make war more easily than sedentary people since they grow up mobile and alert, they are not effective at replacing the population of the places that they conquer.

Additionally as Turks often promote, when the Seljuks conquered Anatolia, they were initially greeted as liberators by Assyrians and Armenians whose versions of Christianity were banned by the Byzantines. This positive view would belie any claim that the Turks became the primary population in Anatolia prior to the 1600s through massacres. Taken in tandem with the much smaller size of the invading Türkic forces, it is hard to imagine Türks having replaced indigenous Anatolians.

By contrast, if we look at the Anglo-American situation we have the exact reverse. A sedentary civilization with a much larger population (Britain) conquered much smaller nomadic groups (Native Americans or First Nations) and both disease outbreaks and British-led massacres severely diminished the Native American and First Nation populations. This is very different from the Türkic case.

On Mass Conversion

There is no singular moment when all of the Anatolians just “became Turks” and so that requirement from the opposition to show such a moment is as ridiculous as when Creationists ask for a “crocoduck”; it is something that the actual claims that they are contending with do not support. Turkification was gradual, taking centuries as individual families made the decision to convert to Islam and begin to speak Turkish based on local economic, social, or religious needs.

We can begin to guess when this came to the fore, but the dates are hazy because of the slowness of the process. We can notice that a number of Anatolian cities (which previously had Greek names) started to take Turkish-language names by the mid-1300s, which would indicate that a significant segment of the population had Turkified by that point. By the 1520 Census of the Ottoman Empire, there was a Muslim majority, but considering that this would include Kurds, Laz, Pomaks, and other Non-Turkish populations and exclude Christian Turks like the Karamalides, it is also only a signpost to this transition. The 16th century, though, would appear to be the main turning point.

The Turkish people are the result of many ethnic groups coming together and forming the Turkish ethnic identity sometime in the 19th-20th century. Among these people are the original Turkic people who were the initial core of what would become the Ottoman Empire. The Turkic people did spread around and settled Central Asia, Asia Minor and Europe in the early medieval times, oftentimes through warfare, but that process is quite different from the concept of colonisation that we use today and those Turkic people were very different from the later Turkish people of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans Turks did not have colonies. Instead the Sultans made the conquered people within the Empire the main driving force of it's expansion.

I'm half Turkish and tbh I have indeed encountered racism from Kurds online a lot (most PKK or YPG sympathizers). Infact I mostly see Kurdish ultra nationalists being racist to Turks rather the other way. Most of their arguments are that Turks have no culture or everything is stolen from glorious Kurdistan or what ever the f*ck. Unlike Turkish ultra nationalists they always seem to play the victim at every possible thing and then start throwing insults and say how they are glorious fighters. But as a person who has lived in Turkey İstanbul, I know for a fact that most Kurds are just like Turks and usually just mind their own business.

Before 1400s …it was their nomadic lifestyle that gave them a huge edge . Nomads are natural warriors…they can ride horses for days on end ,can shoot arrows while galloping,are used to living in the open exposed to elements in every season and know how to live off the land therefore less constrained by logistical worries .

After 1400s …it was their early use of artillery on the battlefield. Selim and Suleiman devastated the armies of the Safavid Persians,Mamluk Egyptians and the Serbian and Hungarian kings by mobilizing cannons into battle.

After 1600s …once they got settled down and lost the technological edge on the battlefield they became more or less like their adversaries. So, winning here losing there…

After 1800s…they were consistently on the losing side. Their adversaries had the upper hand in almost every military aspect . Ottomans’ only slight edge was in diplomacy …they survived by playing on the political divisions among their adversaries…

1. Ottoman Empire was “the Sick man of Europe” because it was behind in every way but officers in army was not behind. In every Turkic state or empire, the modernization starts with army and Ottoman officers were not unskilled, ignorant soldiers. That army raised leaders who founded the Republic of Turkey. Mustafa Kemal was one of them. Ismet Inonu, Kazım Karabekir, Fevzi Çakmak. These are the names that everyone knows in Turkey. Greek General Metaxas knew those officers and he warned his own country to not go deeper from Izmir. They didn’t listen him.
2. The only thing that Turkic armies don’t know about war is “ricat”,in other words “retreat properly”. In 1683, when the siege of Vienna failed, Ottoman army was slaughtered. That was the beginning of the end for the Ottoman Empire. In the War of Independence, these qualified officers did it properly.
3. It was a defensive war. Defensive wars are always advantageous for the defenders.
4. Rauf Orbay, “the Hero of Hamidiye”, a man fought in lots of places. Tripoli, Afghanistan, Yemen,Balkans, Blacksea,Mediterranean. He became the Minister of Navy in 1918. He was one of the heroes of War of Independence. And, do you know what he said about Atatürk? “He could save the country without us but we couldn’t do it without him. He was the greatest of us. ” You can see how great he is, even in the eyes of his close friends and great leaders. Rauf Orbay, a man who spent all his life in wars, said that himself and all his friends can’t do the things Atatürk did.
5. It was an all out war for Turkey Turks. If we lose, we lose all. Even the kids and women helped as much as they can. There were some women heroes. I believe this made Turkish soldiers more “efficient” than enemy soldiers.

It was largely due to the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who led the Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence. While ending the Ottoman empire and having established a provisional government in Ankara, he defeated the forces sent by the Allies in every encounter. Ataturk was one of the greatest military leaders of the 20th century, never losing an engagement whether against the British, French, Italians, or Greeks. The Aussies and Kiwis highly respect Ataturk despite being defeated by him at Gallipoli.

He then served as Turkey’s first president from 1923 until his death in 1938, implementing reforms that rapidly secularized and westernized the country. Under his leadership, the role of Islam in public life shrank drastically, European-style law codes came into being, the office of the sultan was abolished and new language and dress requirements were mandated and women were given the right to vote. Today, Turkey is the only true democratic Muslim nation in the world (Indonesia is still working out the kinks after Suharto), with the highest literacy rate, and it’s due mainly to Ataturk.

Three things come to mind:

1. A change in leadership. Instead of the exhausted Ottoman sultan who had picked the wrong side in WWI, Turkey had a new leader: Ataturk. He was young, motivated, and had a clear idea of what he thought Turkey should be.
2. Turkey was now fighting for a much smaller area, not the sprawling empire. This meant that the lines of communication were shorter and were all internal to the country. This makes it much easier to quickly move troops and supplies to where they're needed. In other words, the fighting becomes simpler.
3. Ataturk called upon the Turks' own sense of identity and nationalism to fight what he portrayed as aggression and occupation. He didn't have to solicit the support of a dozen different ethnic groups and try to convince them to fight for something that may not have been to their own benefit.

With the exception of Arabia and parts of North Africa (the Mamluks were also Turkish rulers), Ottoman expansion already included areas where the Turks had already spread. Before the emergence of the Turkish name, eastern Europe and the north of the Crimea were already Turkified under the name Hun in a cultural sense.

I think there is a very wrong perception of Turkishness in the world today, including the perception which Turks themselves have. We forget that the Byzantines called Hungary Türkiye long ago. Turks are not equal to East Asians, not limited to them. Turks already existed in Rome for a long time, both as soldiers and merchants.

Also, factors such as famine and drought are forgotten. Turks are seen as blood-drinking, wild, maniacal people in the west. There are also political reasons for this. That's how westerners wanted to present the Turks to their children. They were right in their own way.

There was a serious drought factor in the collapse of the Göktürk state. Horses that were previously well fed were now dying.

Remember, people fight well when they are helpless. When you have no land to live on, you no longer care about international relations. Such was the migration of tribes, and this situation repeats itself today.

Look at Central Asia, either desert, taiga or tundra. It's a tough place to live. But it didn't look like this 1500 years ago.

I don't know much about how the Turks are recorded in Western history.Let me tell you something about the Turks in Chinese historical records.

I've been to Turkey and the local perception of Turks is that they are pan-Turkic. In The historical records of China, the various nationalities of the pan-Turkic race are strictly distinguished. In Chinese historical records, the word "突厥" is used to describe the Turkic people in a narrow sense.The word first appears in historical documents dating from 540 AD.In 745 AD, after the Allied forces of the Tang Dynasty and the Uygur conquered the Tukui Khanate, some Turkic people immigrated to the central plains of China and integrated into the Han nationality.The other moved west, out of China's sphere of influence.The word “突厥” has since faded from Chinese historical documents.

As for the Turks' performance on the battlefield, it is well documented in Chinese history that at least a few Of the Turkic generals who served during the Tang Dynasty had a good record.

Nomads have the flexibility to move in response to climate shifts, unlike settled peasants who aren't willing to leave their traditional lands.

Nomadic people’s’ mobility was a huge advantage when a series of catastrophic events hit established sedentary agricultural kingdoms and empires from 1200 in the Near East and Europe.

The Mongol invasions, significant in terms of disruption and depopulation, were interrupted by the 1258–1260 volcanic winter (the single largest sulfur injection of the Common Era) event which drastically reduced agricultural production as well as grasslands’ availability in the Eurasian steppes.

In the years 1265, 1277 and 1297–1298 Byzantine sources reveal extreme cold weather. There were also harsh winters in 1298/1299 in the Middle East. This was followed by a drought which took place in Asia Minor in 1302-1304.

Death & famine were alleviated by cereal imports from the Black Sea region which however triggered the Bubonic Plague pandemic (1346–1353) severely depopulating regions dependent on these cereal imports. The trade disruption eventually led to the collapse of the Mongol Empire and annihilation of the established Ilkhanate of Persia. Even wheat-producing Egypt lost 40% of its population to the plague. The Eastern Roman Empire, already economically weakened by the loss of Anatolia to the Seljuks, saw its population reduced by 60%.

Another episode of volcanic winter occurred between 1453–1460, ushering the Little Ice Age which lasted until the 19th Century.

From the 14th to 15th century, the Ottoman Empire transformed from a small group of soldiers into a major world power.

Ottoman Turks reached their largest territorial expansion in 1566, but like the Spanish Empire, experienced severe economic & societal decline from the 17th century.

With territories stretching across three continents, the Ottoman Empire’s economy was based on agriculture and trade, and while it had a diverse range of climates and ecosystems was greatly affected by the Little Ice Age phenomenon.

The effects of the Little Ice Age on the Ottoman Empire were significant, leading to changes in agricultural practices, increased food prices, and social unrest. During the 1590s the beginning of a wave of extremely cold winters began and the Middle East experienced the longest drought in six centuries.

Due to the expansion of the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th century, the population of the empire reached around 30 million people which led to a shortage of land and an increase in tax. The second half of the 16th century included inflation and rising cost in both the Middle East and Europe. The effect of this large population and lack of supplies created a strain on the Ottoman economy.

The cooling climate disrupted agricultural production, leading to food shortages and famines. The Ottoman Empire did not often have a shortage of grain due to its location, close to the Danube, Nile and the Black Sea, however, once the Little Ice Age began that all changed, and grain was rare due to the cooler temperatures which led to a shorter growing season, resulting in lower crop yields and decreased food production. The effects of the colder climate were exacerbated by extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods, and storms, which further reduced crop yields.

The General Crisis of the 17th century in Western Europe was a period of inclement weather, crop failure, economic hardship, extreme intergroup violence, and high mortality linked to the Little Ice Age. Episodes of social instability developed into armed conflicts.

Reference Little Ice Age - Wikipedia

Ottoman 16th century inefficiencies, economic failures and rising imperial expenses meant that success -and ultimately survival- was tightly dependent on constant expansion. The moment territorial growth stopped, the Empire’s fate was sealed.

It took a while for the Ottoman Empire to be declared Europe’s sick man, but the signs were ominous since the 17th century as it simply could not compete anymore with Western Powers.

How did the West overtake its Eastern & Southern rivals? Historian Niall Ferguson argues that beginning in the fifteenth century, the West developed six powerful new concepts, or “killer applications”—competition, science, the rule of law, modern medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic—that the Rest lacked, allowing it to surge past all other competitors.

Reference Georges Gritsis's answer to What led to the decline of the Ottoman Empire?

Climate data from Volcanic winter - Wikipedia

Northern Hemisphere volcanic cooling following major eruptions in 535, 1257, 1452, 1815. The temperature reconstructed from tree-ring data, are from NVOLC v2 (Guillet et al 2020). The sulfur injection data are from HolVol v.1.0 (Sigl et al 2022) :

If you’re talking about WWI, for the previous 100 years the Russians had been chipping away at Ottoman territory little by little. By the early 1800’s the Russians had acquired cannons and muskets in quantity and learned how to use them. They’re greater manpower and technology allowed them to take on the Ottomans and have a better than even chance of winning. It was only the actions of the British that kept the Russians from taking the entire Balkan Peninsula and Istanbul, the Russians major prize. So by WWI the Ottomans were very much afraid that the Russians would do just that, take Istanbul. At the beginning of the war the Ottomans were actually trying to avoid the war but keep Russia at bay but an incident happened that changed everything. As part of their program to keep the Russians at bath the Ottoman government had contracted the Vickers Co. in Britain to build the Ottomans a battleship, which Vickers did. But then Winston Churchill, the First Sea Lord at the time, ordered it’s seizure. The Ottomans were naturally hopping mad over it. The German Ambassador made the Ottomans the offer of a large German Warship in it’s place. The SMS Goeben, a battle cruiser then off Tunisia shelling the French. The Ottomans took them up on it. So the Goeben made one of those storybook dashes the length of the Mediterranean, just ahead of the two British battle cruisers sent to sink her and made it to Istanbul hours ahead of the British warships. The British Ambassador immediately demanded the Ottoman Government order the vessel out of Ottoman waters. The Ottomans refused, and kept the warship. The British declared war.

Fairy tales and lies.

The idea of Turkification goes against science and historical facts

East Eurasian ancestry in Turks:

The weight for the migration event predicted to originate from the branch ancestral to East Asia into current-day Turkey was 0.217 (21.7%). Although this implies a major population event from the East to West Asia, we note that these weights are not direct estimates of the migration rates. First, the original contributing populations to the ancestral population in Turkey are not known. For instance, we do not know the exact genetic relationship between current-day East Asian populations and the Turkic speakers from Central Asia who migrated into Anatolia about 1,000 years before present. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/

Look at these PCAs:

Look at these charts:

Historically speaking:

Therefore, as early as the 12th century, Western Europeans began to describe the Anatolia region as “Turkey-Turchia”, meaning “the land of the Turks”. ( — Agoston, Gabor / Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire — )

Around 2,000,000 million Turkic migrants settled in Anatolia during the 12th & 13th centuries (— Peter B.Golden. An introduction to the history of Turkic peoples: Ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and Early modern eurasia and the middle east, 1992 S. 224–225 —)

Opened the way for several million Oghuz tribes to settle in Anatolia (— The new Enclyclopaedia Britannica: Volum 12 Jacob.E Safra - 2003 —)

First, elections are coming in both countries! A standard Turkish is not engaged with international politics and Greece-Turkey relations as Greeks citizens do, even though they know little. For middle-class Turks, Greece a place where they could do holidays. I am sure there are many Turks on the Greek islands at the moment. Turks don’t want a war with Greece but want to eat fish and drink ouzo on the Aegean sea shore. In my opinion, the ‘status quo’ is first changed by the Greek side. In the attempt to unification of Cyrus and Greece, Lausanne says Mytilene, Chios, Samos, and Nikaria couldn’t be militarized (article 13, but it happened) and claims that 10 square km of an island (Kastellorizo) has 40.000 square km EEZ zone in the Mediterranean (English islands close to France have no such right), 12 miles problem (Turkish ships couldn’t sail without passing Greek waters). Most Greeks will say that these are Greece's natural rights without considering what this will cause on the other side. The response of Turkey is sometimes unproportional. I only list problems; I would like that Quora writers not to respond to the issues already discussed. In 1994, after visiting Acropolis, there were a group of English tourists at the Acropolis stairs. The Greek guide said that ‘Acropolis exploded by Turks. Do you imagine how they are barbar?’ In reality, it is bombed by Venetians.

Not a hidden reason. From the times of the Roman empire; there has been valuable trade between Asia and Europe - with Asian products ( silks, fine cottons, spices , timber) being greatly prized.

After the fall of the Western part of Europe into divided warring kingdoms, this trade had dwindled- till the exposure of Western nobility fighting the Arabs in Palestine during the Crusades ( a period of about 200 years) renewed the demand for spices.

The trade till then was overland through Egypt/ the Levant/ Venice. Around the beginning of the 15th century , Europe beyond Italy started to protest the high prices charged by the intermediaries. The fall of Constantinople gave an edge to their misgivings. The Spanish and Portuguese courts wanted to find a sea route to the sources of spices ( mainly south India and parts of Indonesia) avoiding the Arab/Muslim world totally. So the initial explorations along the west coast of Africa/ across the Atlantic were an attempt to find a way to Asia avoiding routes controlled by the Ottomans.

England/ Holland and France followed suit after noticing the enormous wealth flowing into Spain particularly from their colonies.

Because of how the Ottoman Empire was socially and economically organised.

There was not one dominating ethnic group. The Turkish subjects did not occupy a special place in the society of the Empire. Indeed, Turkish people were one among many otherwise equal ethnic groups.

The Society of the Ottoman Empire was not divided into classes. Virtually, every subject of the Ottoman Empire, from every ethnic group, had the potential to rise to the highest positions of power and richness.

The Ottoman Empire was already an empire. The sublime Porte gathered taxes and tributes from all corners of the empire. Furthermore, it was also the central hub from where Asian and African goods flowed to Europe. So instead going to the source, the Ottoman just had to wait there for the stream to reach them.

Central asia obviously and persia and entire caucauses and all of north africa except for morroco and all of middle and arabia, land not controlled derictly were vassal states, and all of balkans and crimea and big parts of east and central europe and parts of china and all of indian penisula and afghanistan except for a bit in the south and sri lanka.

This is by both turkic dynasties and leadership and by population.

In terms of population it would be anatolia and much of north caucauses around volga river and central asia and rumellia and some parts of hungary and large areas and lands in today’s russia and ukraine including siberia and a little bit in northern levant.

In regards to holding land without actually living in it in large numbers to become majority like central and eastern europe they had them for quite a long time from 150 years to 400 years, and for balkans where more turks lived and formed majority in many areas like macadonia they were there from 400 to 500 years.

In egypt they ruled as two dynasties being the mamluks who were turkic slaves and ottomans who took over the mamluks but kept them as rulers of egypt as a province rather than completely remove them.

Egypt lost it’s mamluk leadership in 1800s by mohammad ali pasha who eliminated their power and position and rebelled against the ottomans and disobeyed the caliph.

There is lot of reason but let me start with basic ones.

Lets think about Constantine. You wake up, there is some soldiers you have other ones are not professional generally they just came from money or some feudal lord sends. Then you look after your walls and there is an actual army. Why I am saying actual you might ask, the reason is Turks were using todays modern army ranking system and professional soldiers since Attila the Hun maybe before that.

Diffrence is accually quite big in terms of that. Vikings were raiders, so they were battle forged but wasnt soldiers. Same goes for most of the knights. Their rankings were unclear, they had soldiers but in a greater scale of war this… just not enough.

On the other hand there is Turkish soldiers who are professional soldiers. Their job is not volunteerly join wars or under a feudal lords command send as a mercynary. They were soldiers, only job they had was being a soldier. Before Ottoman and Seljuk’s you can think Turk’s are quite close to Mongols. They were horse riders since age of 5, also living at steppe so they were hunters; just like mongolian horse archers. Their belief system was similar also they were using military ranking systems.

If you want to check Turkish army/ battles you need to cut it into 2 half. Before and After Seljuks.

Before Seljuks it was like vikings most of the time but under one who had kut. Kut is simply Sky God( Gok Tengri) gives governing to a family; and all the soldiers who follow will find glory, in their belief system. So, we got a gods chosen commander who is need to command the army himself. If he is not attending thats a problem. But the commander/hakan/king attends as a supreme general. Then there is bannerlords (Also their family leaders need to command even some times wife of Khan will joinaswell If she is already arranged governing while war goes on) Banner lords are located as minor generals. Khan’s most trust worthy Banner lord will take back line and logistics since its the most important mission. Then Khan will make a plan, minor generals will contribute this. Plans will be delivered to banner lord’s son,brother, who ever will control the charge. He will act as kün, wich means Senior Liutanent/ captain. The captain will pick 10 people wich are also professional soldiers among other soldiers. They will act as Sergeant’s. Sergeant’s job is not charge with Captain’s they will be a messangers if the charge is appropriate. The charges were generally on horsebacks so if soldiers follow their leaders they will act as one under khans control.

After Seljuks esspeccially at Ottoman things goes wild. Ottoman army was almost fully professional at 14th centrury. Wich european countries was still using Feudal Armies. By professional army I mean soldiers who is combat trained, was able to read maps. Knows basic survival skills, field medics, fire arm specialists, logistics specialists and list goes on. Most known soldiers shoud be Janisaries. They were directly under Ottoman Emperors command. Emeperor had his responsibity to them such as paying wages, feeding them, giving them a place to live in return he coud use his elite special palaca army under his command. This army was raised as Soldiers. Taken as 10 year old boys (non muslim) converted into muslim then educated as soldiers. Not only combat training but also writing aswell. If they found smart enough they were attending to enderun(royal school) some of them was accually raised for şeyhzade’s(princes) speccially to be their adwiser. One of the known of them is pargalı İbrahim who used to be non muslim then converted into muslim and studied at enderun then governed(princes of ottoman was used to govern a state before rising to throne) with Suleiman untill he becoms Sultan; after he become sultan Suleiman gave him the role of grand wiser even İbrahim married with Suleiman’s sister(princess). But royal academy was only about this, there were also canon workshops, blacksmiths, military engineers.

Besides of Military academies there is also wiser’s pasha’s armed forces called as Sipahi aswell. They were under command of Pasha or Wiser but ultimately under command of Emperor aswell. In Ottoman the land only belongs to Emperor, but Emeperor Favors Pasha’s(Generals) Wisers(Politicians) Kadı’s(judges) with land. They do not own the land but they can use the land as they want. Wich means Emperor still have the right for lands but he lets you to use the land inexchange of tax and soldiers. Those soldiers were called Sipahi’s. They were close call to old Turkish soldiers. Light armed cavalary units with signature wings(they had wings on their armors, when they charges their cloths on back woud look like wings). They were also professional soldiers. In war time they acted as soldiers and cavalary unit, in peace times they generally used as a police force.

Volunteer armed forces was also in army. Inorder to gain favor of raiding and glory there were a big chunk of volunteer armies was also present at Ottoman Army. They called as deli(mad lads) their mission was simple. They were foot soldiers, they woud send as first wave and probably will die thats why they called as mad lads. Also there was a Scouting team called as Akıncı(raiders) they were land natives if the land doesnt have any Turks suitable for being scout they were send as nomads before war begins, learn language landscape etc. Professional Akıncı’s are acted as a distruption/shock forces.

This is the basic system of general turkic-turk armies. If your country has been developed around armed forces for a millenia the next generations also will admire the heroes of war aswell. This is also a huge part.

The presence of Turks in Asia Minor did not begin in 1071 but that is another subject. Other than that, Anatolia became a Turkish homeland as a result of migration waves that lasted for centuries, not by assimilation.

The migration of Oghuz tribes to the West occured in two phases. The first one was the Turkoman settlements to Azerbaijan, and incursions into Anatolia during the Seljuk period (1020s and onwards). The second one began following the Battle of Manzikert (1071). The second major Turkoman migration from Central Asia, Iran and Azerbaijan took place as a result of the devastating Mongol incursions (after the 1220s). The Turkoman population in the cities and rural regions became considerably dense. During the 13th century, Anatolia began to appear as a predominantly Turkish country.

Marco Polo, the famous Italian traveler called Eastern Anatolia as “Turcomania” in 1279.

Starting from the 12th century, Western Europeans began to call Anatolia as “Turchia/the land of Turks”. ( Gabor Agoston / Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire )

Diplomats Klavio and J. Barbaro described Eastern Anatolia as “Turcomania/Turkmenistan”. ( Neuste Reisebeschreibung )

Egyptian author Al-Umari noted 200,000 tents in Denizli, 100,000 in Kastamonu, and 30,000 around Kütahya regions, regarding the Turkoman settlements in Anatolia during the beginning of the 14th century.

Western Europeans always described the Turks in terms of ancestry, meaning the land took its name from the ethnicity, not the other way around. In medieval diplomatic letters and maps, they always used the term “Turk”, not “Osmanlı” or “Ottoman”.

The Turkoman population influx from Turkistan and Iran to Anatolia continued until the 16th century. Demography still had a strategic importance for the Ottoman State even after the reign of Sultan I Suleiman (i.e. Don-Volga Canal Project).

We can say that they weren’t. Between 1918–1922 we Turks experienced many serious problems since Ottoman Empire lost the WWI but till 1923 the new nation-state was already established. But this situation actually was a consequence which was related to the soul of the era and it was time for Turks to establish their own nation-state as well.

For the last 700 hundred years, the biggest hardship that Turks faced was indeed the attacks of Timur (Tamerlane) to Anatolia and it resulted a big chaos in the land of Anatolian Turks. But anyway Tamerlane was another Turkic general who comes from Central Asia and in General Turkish history concept his attacks on Ottoman Empire were being regarded as clashes between Turkic empires. Tamerlane was indeed one the biggest generals in the whole world history and this Chagatay Turkic speaking great soldier also was regarded and respected as the best commander by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Türkiye.

Of course it does. Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, Palestine campaign are very prominent in British, Australian and New Zealandean history (and the history of the Zionist movement), and Russia has a long memory of battles with Turks in Caucasus and naval fighting against their German allies in the Black Sea. What is true, however, is that the fighting against the Turks was more sporadic and limited than the carnage on the Western front or massive operations in the East. In addition, after the failure of Gallipoli, there was a recognition that there is no shortcut around the trench warfare, and therefore Turkish campaign was perceived as low priority.

Of course we were, and some of our distant relatives still are.

We can’t just narrow down the Turks to the Ottoman Empire, there are prominent amounts of Turks who live in Western China (grandchildren of Uygur Turks), Russia, Turkistan region (can be deemed as colonized, due to the USSR politics), Bulgars, several Caucasian tribes, Iranian Azeri Turks, etc. are all members of Turkish family.

Ancient Gokturk/Hun Empires were continously having independence wars with Chinese. Timurid Empire may not be counted within this regard, as he was also from Turkish descendant. But Mongolian Empire is another example for “taking Turks under colony”.

As another fact, Turks had constituted the armed forces of various powerful Arab, Kurdish and Mongolian countries throughout history, including the Cenghis Khan empire. This may also be counted as “under colony” issue from a different perspective.

We still do not like the idea of enslavement, though. And we also aggrandize and canonize Ottoman Empire for being the mere only Turkish tribe that did not fall under anyone else’s colony through its whole tenure - including the Timurid invasion era.

Yes.. in a way.. Eastern Nations like China, India and even the Malay Peninsula had trade relations with the Roman Empire. The trade used to happen from Europe to Anatolia (Turkey) to Persia and then to other Asian nations. Towards the end of the Byzantine Empire there were two powerful naval trading nations In Europe.. Venice and Portugal. They preferred naval trade over land trade because it was faster. When the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottomans, the Sea route was controlled by the Ottoman Empire who gave preference to Venice over Portugal. Portugal then tried to find a route to india by going around africa. After finding a route and arriving in India, the decided to secure their route by building military garrisons and ports and factories along the african coast.. over time these became colonies and the other countries copied it