It always seemed curious to me that the Turkish language didn't take root in more places. I was curious if there were specific reasons as to why the Ottomans didn't enforce language/culture rules on the populations they controlled like other occupying powers?
If you look at former colonial states controlled by European powers, the language was many times changed and left behind after the fact.
This theme runs throughout history.
Meanwhile, Arabic maintained its foothold culturally even with Turkish occupation.
My assumption is Arabic and the religious significance of it acted as a multi-national unifying force much like how the Romans used Christianity as a unifying force. I was just curious if the situation was literally that simple or if the reasoning is more complicated?
Hey there,
Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.
If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!