Leben/Religionsgemeinschaften in Kleinasien/dem Nahen Osten - 11. - 13. Jahrhundert

Dieses Thema im Forum "Alltag im Mittelalter" wurde erstellt von A-shih-na, 26. Oktober 2008.

  1. A-shih-na

    A-shih-na Gesperrt

    Hallo Leute....

    ich interessiere mich seid neuestem sehr für das Leben in Kleinasien zwischen dem 11. und 13. Jahrhundert.
    Für die Bevölkerung Kleinasiens war es keine schöne Zeit, da es viele Kriege untereinander gab. Dies führte dazu, dass Sie sich gegenseitig schwächten, was den Kreuzzüglern Ihr Vorhaben erleichterte.
    Was diese Zeit in dieser Region in meinen Augen sehr interessant macht ist, dass es da zu der Zeit viele ethnische Gruppen gab wie die Türken, Armenier, Perser, Araber, Byzantiner usw... Es gab verschiedene Religionen, die wiederum untereinander gesplittet waren. Die islamische Mystik ( auch Sufismus genannt), was mich auch sehr interessiert, hatte Ihren Höhepunkt unter Moulana.
    Mich interessiert das alltägliche zusammenleben oder das alltägliche Leben allgemein in Anatolien.
    Was die Leute erfreute, wie sie aussahen, was sie anzogen, was damals als schick und fortschrittlich galt....usw...
    Würde mich freuen, wenn Ihr mir da weiterhelfen könntet.
    Vielen Dank im Voraus:)
     
  2. A-shih-na

    A-shih-na Gesperrt

    versch. Religionen in Kleinasien

    Zusammenleben verschiedener Religionen und deren weiterer Fortschritt in Kleinasien ab demm 11- Jahrhundert bis zum 14. Jahrhundert...


    Würde mich freuen, wenn Ihr zu diesem Thema euer Wissen beitragen würdet:)
     
  3. lynxxx

    lynxxx Neues Mitglied

    da haben wir schon in dem Thread: "Ethnogenese der Türken" einiges geschrieben, also zum Prozess der Islamisierung und Türkisierung Anatoliens. Auch gibt es den Thread "Sprache, Macht, Übernahme" oder so ähnlich, wo allgemeiner darüber sinniert wurde, wie eine Mehrheit durch eine Minderheit und andersrum beeinflusst werden kann.
     
  4. A-shih-na

    A-shih-na Gesperrt

    ich danke euch für eure Anteilnahme....
    was ich vielmehr versuche herauszufinden ist, das Leben von damals, nicht woher die einzelnen Gruppen stammen. Da habe ich mir schon einiges beibringen können, vor allem was die Türken angeht.
    Stellt euch eine kleine Stadt damals in Anatolien vor. Sagen wir unter seldschuk. Herrschaft. Eine Stadt in der es eine kleine armen. Kirche gibt in einem armen. Viertel. Eine Synagoge in einem jüdischen Viertel. Eine Medresse, eine Moschee und das Haus des Sultans usw... Ich bin mir sicher, dass Ihr euch so ene Stadt besser vorstellen könnt als ich, weil Ihr über mehr Wissen verfügt als ich.
    Wie könnte das Leben ausgesehen haben. Das alltägliche Leben!
    Was sie von einander Unterschied, was deren Gemeinsamkeitenkeiten waren.
    Ich hoffe ihr versteht was ich meine
     
  5. lynxxx

    lynxxx Neues Mitglied

    da gibt es kaum Quellen drüber. in späterer osman. Zeit ist jedoch z.B. die frühere historische Auffassung obsolet, dass die Bevölkerungen immer oder meistens religiös oder sprachlich separiert in eigenen Stadtvierteln lebten. Neuere Archivarbeiten ergaben, dass es durchaus solche Städte gab, es gab aber auch auch völlige Durchmischung der Stadtteile oder z.b. ein "kurdisches" Viertel in Aleppo, ohne einen Kurden darin. Anscheinend war ein größerer Grund in eine Nachbarschaft zu ziehen, nicht die Sprache, nicht die Religion, sondern die soziale Schicht. Ich habe aber keine Ahnung, ob dieses auch für die früheren Jahrhunderte gilt. Kannst du englisch? Dann könnte ich dir ggf. einen Ausschnitt eines Buches hier einfügen, welches den Flickenteppich Anatoliens zu seldschukischen Zeiten beschreibt, indem z.B. es z.B. byzantinische Enklaven gab, umringt von seldschukischen Nomaden...
     
  6. Rimpler

    Rimpler Neues Mitglied

    Zu Kleinasien im speziellen kann ich dir nichts sagen,nur zum Orient im allg.

    Eugen Wirth schreibt in seinem Beitrag "Privatheit und Abgeschirmtheit als prägende Elemente der Wohnviertel", der in "Die arabische Welt im Spiegel der Kulturgeographie" aufgenommen wurde, u.a. folgendes.

    Falls Interesse besteht - das Buch gab es mal bei der Landeszentrale für pol. Bildung. Evtl. könnte ich auch ein paar bessere scans versuchen, aber Bildbearbeitung ist nich gerade meine Stärke.
     

    Anhänge:

  7. A-shih-na

    A-shih-na Gesperrt

    das hört sich gut an. wäre dir dankbar, obwohl mein english nicht perfekt ist:)
    vllt. weisst du ja wie das leben in der alhambra aussah, ich könnte mir denken, dass es da mehr informationen zu holen gibt als in anatolien.

    Respekt über wieviel wissen du verfügst!!!
     
  8. A-shih-na

    A-shih-na Gesperrt

    Interesse besteht auf jeden fall.
    ist genau das was ich suche

    ich danke dir:)
     
  9. lynxxx

    lynxxx Neues Mitglied

    Danke schön. :) OK, dann mal hieraus:
    http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f171/ottoman-empire-early-modern-europe-21581/
    S. 29 f.:

    "
    Imagined beginnings​
    Religion permeated the Mediterranean world during the age of the Crusades
    (1097 – ​
    c. 1453). It helped produce the separation between West
    and East, and it justified and excused war, massacre, and murder. Both
    Catholicism and Sunni Islam jealously guarded their orthodoxies. These
    stubbornly conventional and monotheistic religions left little room for
    adaptation or revision. Indeed, Crusaders remain even today a symbol
    of religiously excused ruthlessness. Nevertheless, even in this ideological
    sphere the lines between the Islamic and Christian European worlds –
    especially along their frontiers – were porous and the contacts were often
    symbiotic. Islamic societies surrounded the small states that Crusaders
    established in Syria and Palestine, and these new settlers soon learned
    to coexist with their neighbors. The Arab chronicler Usamah explained
    the ignorance of newly arrived crusaders: “Everyone who is a fresh emigrant
    from the Frankish lands is ruder in character than those who have
    become acclimatized and have held long association with the Moslems.”
    He then relates the following tale as evidence:

    Whenever I visited Jerusalem I always entered the Aqsa Mosque, beside which
    stood a small mosque which the Franks had converted into a church. When I used
    to enter the Aqsa Mosque, which was occupied by the Templars, ​
    . . . who were my
    friends, the Templars would evacuate the little adjoining mosque so that I might
    pray in it. One day I entered this mosque, repeated the first formula, “Allah is
    great,” and stood up in the act of praying, upon which one of the Franks rushed
    on me, got hold of me and turned my face eastward saying, “This is the way thou
    shouldst pray!” Ag roup of Templars hastened to him, seized him and repelled
    him from me
    . . . They apologized to me, saying, “This is a stranger who has only
    recently arrived from the land of the Franks and he has never before seen anyone
    praying except eastward.”
    7

    Usamah recounted this anecdote not only to express the ignorance of
    the crusaders, but also to show how thoroughly exposure to the Islamic
    world had changed (or, in his thinking, “civilized”) the barbarians from
    the West. In other words, even in this brutal milieu personal contact
    refined and complicated perceptions of the “Other.” Stereotypes based
    upon fear and ignorance dissipated through contact. In the process, the
    very characters of the conquering Crusaders as well as their local victims
    became altered.
    Usamah concretely describes processes that typify frontier societies.
    However brutal the immediate effects of the Crusades may have been,
    some of their long-term consequences were to educate the adversaries
    about each other and to establish commercial and cultural relations between
    them. The American frontier has been portrayed similarly as a
    “middle ground.”​
    8 Just as our memories of European history privilege
    the butcheries of the crusaders, such as the “rivers of blood” that flowed
    down the streets of Jerusalem after its capture in 1099, over other aspects
    of their sojourn in the Middle East, so do we tend to hark back to the wars
    and massacres that punctuated relations between native Americans and
    colonists, and forget the decades of coexistence, identity switching, and
    “engendering” that prefaced and even attended the demographic blitz of
    European colonization in the Americas.
    The Turkoman push across Anatolia should be recalled similarly. The
    almost 400-year history of Turkoman–Byzantine relations between the
    Seljuk defeat of a Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071
    and the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 was more than a
    series of bloody military campaigns. It also was a period of compromise,
    accommodation, and mutual learning in which a frontier society in the
    process of formation endured and eventually flourished only by adapting
    to and assuming the structures and strategies of those civilizations that
    surrounded it.
    The political system out of which the Ottoman state emerged certainly
    constituted such a frontier society. To its east lay the successor states of
    the Mongol wave that had crashed across the Middle East in the early
    thirteenth century; to its west lay the Byzantine Empire, whose eastern
    frontiers, now in western Anatolia, served, as they had for some 600 years,
    as a bastion against Islam. Aser ies of semi-independent principalities lay
    nestled between these two behemoths. Their titular head was the Seljuks
    of Rum (weakened by defeat at the hands of the Mongols), whose capital
    was in Konya. Nevertheless, a series of relatively small emirates – among
    them the Mente¸seo˘glu, the Aydıno˘glu, the Saruhano˘glu, the Karasio˘glu,
    and of course the Osmano˘glu (the “Ottoman son”) – had by the early
    fourteenth century emerged to challenge both Seljuk sovereignty over
    them and Byzantine control over western Anatolia.
    This frontier was in many ways a military march between two civilizations:
    the Byzantine and the Islamic. Such borders, however, tend to
    be fixed and unbending, which this frontier emphatically was not. The
    presence of these buffer emirates created a sense of “middle ground,” of
    a world whose propensities toward compromise, adaptation, and heterodoxy
    might give birth to innovative institutions and worldviews. It seems
    likely that the very foreignness of these “statelets” stimulated this condition.
    Their leaders were recent arrivals from Central Asia who were
    Turkic-speaking pastoralists. Some probably retained their animistic beliefs,
    but even those who were Muslim (or Christian) had converted only
    recently. Furthermore, their political as well as religious practices remained
    more central Asian than Middle Eastern. This actuality is most
    tellingly revealed in local customs of inheritance: rulers divided their
    realms among sons, brothers, and other relatives, a practice which may
    have worked in nomadic societies, but which now repeatedly led to the
    quick collapse of both Mongol and Turkoman states and to political
    fragmentation within the Anatolian frontier zone.
    9

    The emergence of the Ottoman state is incomprehensible unless one
    understands that this frontier society must have engendered cultural as
    well as political fractures. An emirate such as the Aydıno˘glus, for example,
    whose principality included the port town of Smyrna, quickly shrugged
    off its nomadic past, took to the seas, and became a naval power in the
    Aegean. It took the Ottomans, whose early state in Bithynia was landlocked,
    centuries to realize such a leading maritime presence. Similarly,
    a state such as the Ottoman one, which not only abutted Byzantium
    but also for long periods of time controlled the countrysides around
    Byzantine cities such as Nicaea and Bursa (and later Adrianople and
    Constantinople), must have been far more influenced by Christianity
    and the institutions of Byzantium than were the Aydıno˘glus, who shared
    only the seas with the eastern Roman empire. In other words, although
    these emirates probably all were originated by charismatic chieftains, the
    particular qualities of their successors and their locations led them in
    different directions and toward divergent values.


    6 ​
    On which see Benedict Anderson, Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread
    of nationalism
    (London, 1983).
    7 Usamah Ibn-Munidh, An Arab-Syrian gentleman and warrior in the period of the Crusades,
    trans. Philip K. Hitti (Princeton, NJ, 1987), pp. 163–64. Arab attitudes toward the
    Crusades are imaginatively recreated by Amin Maalouf,
    The Crusades through Arab eyes

    (New York, 1984). They are strongly fictionalized by Tariq Ali, ​
    The book of Saladin: a
    novel
    (New York, 1999).

    8 ​
    On which see Richard White, The middle ground: Indians, empires, and republics in the
    Great Lakes region, 1650–1815
    (Cambridge, 1989).
    9 These characteristics are more fully explored in chapter 3.

     
  10. lynxxx

    lynxxx Neues Mitglied

    @Mods: legt mal bitte beide Threads zusammen, Danke schön.

    aus: http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f171/ottoman-empire-21410/
    "
    Origins of the Ottoman state​
    Great events demand explanations: how are we to understand the rise
    of great empires such as those of Rome, the Inca, the Ming, Alexander,
    the British, or the Ottomans? How can these world shaking events be
    explained?
    In brief, the Ottomans arose in the context of: Turkish nomadic invasions
    that shattered central Byzantine state domination in Asia Minor;
    a Mongol invasion of the Middle East that brought chaos and increased
    population pressure on the frontiers; Ottoman policies of pragmatism
    and flexibility that attracted a host of supporters regardless of religion
    and social rank; and luck, that placed the Ottomans in the geographic
    spot that controlled nomadic access to the Balkans, thus rallying additional
    supporters. In this section follows the more detailed story of the
    origins of the Ottoman state.
    The Ottoman Empire was born around the turn of the thirteenth and
    fourteenth centuries, in the northwestern corner of the Anatolian peninsula,
    also called Asia Minor (map 1). Extreme confusion – political, cultural,
    religious, economic, and social – marked the era and the region. For
    more than a millennium, this area had been part of the Roman Empire
    and its successor state in the Eastern Mediterranean world, the Byzantine
    Empire, ruled from Constantinople. Byzantium had once ruled over virtually
    all of today’s Middle East (except Iran) – the region of modern-day
    Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and parts of
    Iraq, as well as parts of southeast Europe, north Africa, and Italy. In the
    seventh century CE, however, it had lost many of those areas, mostly to
    the expanding new states based in Mecca, Damascus, and Baghdad. With
    some difficulty, the Byzantine state then reinvented itself and managed to
    retain its Anatolian provinces. In its reduced form, the Byzantine Empire
    faced three sets of enemies. From the Mediterranean, the Venetian and
    Genoese merchant states fought between themselves and (usually separately)
    against the Byzantines to gain strongholds and economic concessions
    on the rich Aegean, Black Sea, and eastern Mediterranean trade
    routes. To their north and west, the Byzantines faced expansive and powerful
    land-based states, especially the Bulgarian and Serbian kingdoms.
    And, beginning at the turn of the first millennium, the Turkish nomads
    (called Turcoman) appeared on their eastern frontiers. Turkish peoples
    with their origins in central Asia, in the area around Lake Baikal, began
    migrating out of these ancestral homes and, c. 1000 CE, started pouring
    into the Middle East. In their Central Asiatic homes, theTurcomanway of
    lifewas marked by shamanist beliefs in religion and economic dependence
    on animal raising and social values that celebrated personal bravery and
    considerable freedom and mobility for noble women. The Homeric-style
    epic, named
    The Book of Dede Korkut, recounts the stories of heroic men
    and women, and was written just before the Turcoman expansion into the
    Middle East. This epic also shows that the Turcoman polity was highly
    fragmented, with leadership by consensus rather than command. This set
    of migrations – a major event in world history – created a Turkic speaking
    belt of men, women, and children from the western borders of China
    to Asia Minor and led to the formation of the Ottoman state. The nomadic,
    politically fragmented Turcoman way of life began causing major
    disturbances in the lives of the settled populations of the Iranian plateau,
    who bore the brunt of the initial migrations/invasions. As the nomads
    moved towards and then into the sedentarized Middle East, they converted
    to Islam but retained many of their shamanist rituals and practices.
    Hence, Turkish Islam as it became practiced later on varied considerably
    in form from Iranian or Arab Islam. As they migrated, the Turcomans
    and their animals disrupted the economy of the settled regions and the
    flow of tax revenues which agriculturalists paid to their rulers. Among the
    Turkish nomadic invaders was the Seljuk family. One of many leaders in
    charge of smaller or larger nomadic groups drifting westward, the Seljuk
    family seized control of Iran and its agricultural populations, quickly
    assimilated into its prevailing Perso-Islamic civilization, and then confronted
    the problem of what to do with their nomadic followers who were
    disrupting the settled agricultural life of their new kingdom. A solution
    to the Seljuks’ problem was to be found in Byzantine Anatolia.
    The provinces of Byzantine Anatolia had two sets of features that seem
    important here. First, they were productive, heavily populated agrarian
    settlements and thus for the nomads appeared as very attractive targets
    of plunder. In a word, the Anatolian provinces were rich. They also were
    Christian. Therefore they offered doubly justified targets of warfare for
    these Turkish nomads recently converted to Islam and under the influence
    of popular preachers who had fused shamanist beliefs with Islam.
    Was Anatolia attractive to the nomads mainly because it was rich or because
    itwas Christian? Like their crusading Christian contemporaries, the
    nomads’ motives were a mixture of economic, political, and religious factors.
    The lands of Anatolia were rich and they were inhabited by (mainly)
    farmers of another, Christian, faith. For the vast numbers of nomads already
    in the Middle East, pressured by waves of nomads behind them in
    central Asia, these were powerful incentives. And so, not long after their
    entry into Iran, the Turcoman nomads began plundering and raiding the
    eastern provinces of Byzantium, pulled there by economics, politics, and
    faith, and pushed there by the centralizing Seljuk rulers of Iran. After
    enduring the raids for several decades, the central Byzantine state moved
    to crush the new threat. In 1071, however, the imperial army under the
    Emperor Romanus Diogenus decisively was crushed at the epochal battle
    of Manzikert, not far from Lake Van, by the combined military forces of
    the Turkish nomads temporarily allied with the army of the Seljuk Sultan
    Alp Arslan. This spelled the ruin of the imperial border defense system
    in the east, and Turkish nomads, now nearly unchecked, flooded into
    Byzantium.
    For the next several centuries, until the mid-fifteenth century, the history
    of Anatolia, east and west, can be understood through the metaphor
    of islands of sedentarized life under Byzantine imperial and feudal lords
    struggling to exist in a flood tide of Turkish nomads whose leaders, in
    turn, came to form their own small states. In the short run, Turcoman
    principalities rose and fell and Byzantine control ebbed and flowed.
    Anatolia became a patchwork quilt of tiny Turcoman and Byzantine principalities
    and statelets, expanding and contracting. At times, Byzantine
    leaders, imperial and feudal, resisted more or less successfully. But inexorably,
    in the long run, Byzantine Christian, predominantly Greekspeaking,
    Anatolia underwent a profound transformation and over time
    becameTurkish speaking and Muslim. This general atmosphere of confusion,
    indeed chaos, played a crucial role in the emergence of the Ottoman
    state. In the midst of the Turcoman invasions, the beleaguered Byzantines
    also were fighting against the Italian merchant states, losing to them
    chunks of land and other economic assets such as trade monopolies.
    Between 1204 and 1261, moreover, Constantinople became the capital
    of the erstwhile Crusaders, who instead of marching to Palestine, seized
    and sacked the riches of the imperial city and established their short-lived
    Latin Christian empire. Historians agree that the 1204 sack of the city
    struck a blow from which Constantinople never recovered.
    The specific context in which the Ottoman state emerged also is linked
    to the rise of the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan, its rapid expansion
    east and west, and its push into the Middle East during the thirteenth
    century. As the Mongol state expanded, it often accelerated the
    movement of Turkish nomads, who fled before it into areas that could
    support their numbers and their livestock. In the middle of the thirteenth
    century a Mongol general warred on a Seljuk state which had been established
    at Konya in central Anatolia. This Mongol victory wrecked
    the relatively large Seljuk sultanate there, which, before the Ottomans,
    had been the most successful state founded in post-Byzantine Anatolia,
    and triggered the rise of a number of small Turcoman principalities in
    its stead. The Mongol presence also prompted the flight of Turcoman
    nomads who sought pasture lands in the west. These were the border
    regions of the collapsing Seljuk state on the one hand and the crumbling
    Byzantine world on the other. This was a changing world, full of Serb
    and Bulgarian, Genoese and Venetian invaders and of Turkish Muslim
    nomads and Byzantine Greek Christian peasants. In these Anatolian highlands
    to the south and east of Byzantine Constantinople, the Ottoman
    Empire was born.
    Historians who are Ottoman specialists like to argue about which was
    the most important single variable explaining the rise of this extraordinary
    empire. The question is a fair one since the founder of the dynasty after
    whom it was named, Osman, was just one of many leaders and not the
    most powerful, among the various and sundry Turcoman groups on the
    frontier. Looking down on this world in the year 1300, it would have
    been impossible to predict that his would be among the most successful
    states in history. At the time, Osman was in charge of some 40,000 tents
    of Turcoman nomads. Some of his Turkish-speaking rivals in other parts
    of the frontier were vastly more successful and commanded 70,000 and
    100,000 tents (with two to five persons per tent). There were scores
    of other Turcoman principalities. All were part of a larger process in
    which Turcoman nomads of the Anatolian highlands pressed upon and
    finally occupied the valleys and the coastal plains. Alone among these,
    the dynasty of Osman triumphed while the others soon disappeared. ...
    The emerging Ottoman dynasty, that traced descent through the
    male line, was Turkish in origins, emerging in a highly heterogeneous
    zone populated by Christians and Muslims, Turkish and Greek speakers.
    Muslims and Christians alike from Anatolia and beyond flocked to the
    Ottoman standard for the economic benefits to be won. The Ottoman
    rulers also attracted some followers because of their self-appointed role as

    gazi​
    s, warriors for the faith fighting against the Christians. But the power
    of this appeal to religion must be questioned since, at the very same moment,
    the Ottomans were recruiting large numbers of Greek Christian
    military commanders and rank-and-file soldiery into their growing military
    force. Thus, many Christians as well as Muslims followed the
    Ottomans not for God but for gold and glory – for the riches to be gained,
    the positions and power to be won. ... "

     
  11. A-shih-na

    A-shih-na Gesperrt

    Danke dir..... sehr interessant!!!!

    Jetzt bin ich schon um einiges weiter.
    Gibt es irgendwie beschreibungen wie die leute damals aussahen
     
  12. lynxxx

    lynxxx Neues Mitglied

    Wahrscheinlich ähnlich wie heute. Dunkelhaarig, einige rothaarige und blonde dazwischen, verschiedendste Gesichtszüge, dabei auch welche, die zentralasiatische Gesichtszüge besaßen. Eben so wie heute.

    Hier einige moderne künstlerische Phantasien einige hundert Jahre später:
    http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4213/zwischenablage01uc1.jpg

    http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4091/zwischenablage03mb6.jpg

    http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/989/zwischenablage04wh5.jpg

    aus: Armies of the Ottoman Turks. 1300-1774. Men-at-Arms (Osprey-Verlag).

    schaue auch im Forum nach dieser von mir verlinkten Arbeit nach:
    Katharina Winckler: Frauen bei den mittelalterlichen Steppenvölkern Eurasiens.

    Hier habe ich dir den Seldschuken Artikel der autoritativen Encyclopaedia of Islam mal zur Verfügung gestellt:
    RapidShare: Easy Filehosting
    Er kann 10 mal downgeladen werden, wenn mehr interesse daran besteht, Piep sagen und ich lade ihn woanders nochmals hoch.

    Es gibt auch Ausstellungslinks im Bereich Osmanisches Reich, welche bis in die Zeit der Seldschuken reichen und einige künstlerische oder kunsthandwerkliche Erzeugnisse jener Zeit zeigen, oder die große Byzanzausstellung in London, mit einem Link dahin in dem Ausstellungsthread.
     
    Zuletzt bearbeitet: 28. Oktober 2008
  13. Rimpler

    Rimpler Neues Mitglied

    Da das Einstellen von Buchseiten scheinbar rechtlich problematisch ist, muß ich wohl oder übel tippen. :motz:

    Zum Straßennetz läßt sich sagen, daß die Hauptverbindungsachsen ein relativ weitmaschiges Netz bildeten und die Tore mit dem Stadtzentrum verbinden.

    Daneben gibt es viele, oft abwinkelde Sackgassen, die laut islamischen Recht den Anwohnern gemeinsamer Privatbesitz sind. In diesen Sackgassen, die in gewisser Weise den Innenhof der Häuser vorwegnehmen, gibt es eingeschränkte Nutzungsrechte. Das gab es weder in der Antike, noch in den Städten des europ. Mittelalters.

    Die Häuser sind meist um Innenhöfe herum gebaut. Die Häuser sin "nach innen" gerichtet, nicht wie in Europa mit Fassadendekoration, Balkons etc.

    Es wird also in drei Bereiche gegliedert, den öffentlichen (Durchangsstraßen, Moschee öffentliche Plätze, Bäder, Süq, den halböffentliche (Sackgasse) und den privaten (nach außen abwehrendes Haus).

    Das habe ich noch gefunden.

    http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...ch&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=de&client=firefox-a
     
    Zuletzt bearbeitet: 28. Oktober 2008
  14. lynxxx

    lynxxx Neues Mitglied

    oder scannen, Rimpler.

    Hier noch ein letztes kurzes interessantes Zitat zu den mächtigen Frauen der Seldschuken aus dem Herrscherhaus:

    "
    The women of the Seljuk ruling house were very powerful,
    owing to the continuation of the Turkish nomadic custom.
    They were active in courtly politics, and acted as patrons
    of religion and learning. Many of them had their own wazirs
    even under the Great Seljuk sultans. Their power increased
    further as queen mothers under the atabeg system after the
    fragmentation of the Seljuk territories, and a few of them
    ruled in their own right after the death of their husbands, as
    did Zahida Khatun, who ruled Fars in southern Iran for over
    twenty years in the mid-twelfth century."

    aus: Richard C. Martin (Hrsg.): Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world. 2003. S. 666.
     
  15. El Quijote

    El Quijote Moderator Mitarbeiter

    S.a. http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f51/vgl-der-entwicklung-christlicher-islamischer-st-dte-18500/
     
    1 Person gefällt das.
  16. A-shih-na

    A-shih-na Gesperrt

    echt super....

    das bild von meiner fantasiestadt aus dieser zeit nimmt immer mehr konkretere formen an. DANK EUER HILFE!!! Vielen Dank nochmal, ihr habt alle n riesen kuss verdient:)

    wenn es in dieser stadt ein Ereignis geben würde, in der das leben still steht. Sowie das Endspiel der Fussball-WM bei uns oder Gladiotorenkämpfe bei den Römern oder Olympiade bei den Griechen.

    Welches Eriegnis wäre das?
    Es kann auch Regionalbezogen sein!
     
  17. lynxxx

    lynxxx Neues Mitglied

    Mittagshitze im Sommer? ;)

    Nein, im Ernst, vielleicht, wenn der Sultan/Emir durch die Stadt reitet? Oder wenn es ein Beschneidungsfest gibt? Oder ein Einweihungsfest eines Bauwerkes? Oder eine Hochzeit einer Prinzessin? Oder des Sultans/Emir? (z.B. der osmanische Sultan Mehmet II. der Erober feierte drei Monate lang (1449), bei den Seldschuken weiß ich es nicht) Der feierliche Auszug der Armee konnte auch ein Grund eines Festes sein? Da wurden später zumindest große Handwerkerprozessionen veranstaltet (Muss man sich wie ein Karnevalszug mit zahllosen Wagen vorstellen), bestehend aus 1109 Zünften. Dann, wenn der Herrscher von einem erfolgreichem Feldzug zurückkehrte, konnte vielleicht ein Fest gefeiert werden? Die Geburt eines Prinzen oder Prinzessin konnte gefeiert werden, oder der Geburtstag des Propheten, wobei ich nicht weiß, ob dann bei den Seldschucken bei dem Muhammad-Geburtstag die Stadt "stillstand". Dann wurden zumindest bei den Osmanen Feste gefeiert, um die Mekka-Pilger zuhause Willkommen zu heißen, sicher bei den Seldschuken ein ebenso triftiger Grund für ein Fest. Nicht zu vergessen das Zucker-Fest am Ende des Fastenmonats Ramadan. Ähnliche Umzüge fanden statt, wenn sich ein Christ oder Jude zum Islam bekehrt hatte. (Ich persönlich vermute, dass es aber nur dann über eine Strasse hinausgehend gefeiert wurde, wenn derjenige einigermaßen prominent war.) Dann gab es Jahrmärkte, die Anziehungspunkte für die ganze Stadt sein dürften. Auslöser solcher Jahrmarktsfeste waren manchmal auch Derwischkonvente, bzw. Ereignisse, die damit zusammenhingen (Geburtstag des Derwisch, etc.). Es gab auch Jahrmarktsfeste (bei den Osmanen wohlgemerkt, vielleicht aber auch bei den Seldschuken, deren Islamisierung weniger lang her war), die nicht aufgrund islamischer Gründe, sondern aufgrund einer kirchlichen Zeremonie von den Muslimen und Christen gemeinsam abgehalten wurden, so z.B. im Anschluss an eine Prozession der Ikone zum Patronatsfest der örtlichen Kirche, wobei die teilnehmenden Muslime es als Fruchtbarkeitszeremonie für Vieh und Acker ansahen. Danach wurde kräftig gefeiert, auch mit Sinti und Roma z.B. in Thrakien. Auch wurden Feste gefeiert, wenn Sklaven freigelassen wurden.

    Viele der obigen Festanlässe sind sicherlich auch bei den Seldschuken schon gefeiert worden, während andere evtl. nur unter den Osmanen (nach dem Einfluss von Byzanz und dem Abendland) Anlässe darstellten.
     
  18. Ashera

    Ashera Neues Mitglied

    vielen Dank...

    gibt es vllt. Dokumente oder Augenzeugenberichte aus dieser Zeit, die von so einer Veranstaltung berichten??
     
  19. Ashera

    Ashera Neues Mitglied

    und eine Bitte hätte ich noch....

    ich habe das mit den 3 bereichen einer orientalischen stadt mit öffentlichen, halböffentlichen und privaten bereichen schon verstanden.
    kann mir dies aber bildlich nicht vorstellen, vor allem halböffentliche plätze, die in einer sackgasse enden.
    Gibt es da vllt. eine grundskizze einer solchen stadt oder bilder
    das würde mir sehr helfen

    Bedanke mich im voraus für eure Mühe :)
     
  20. Rimpler

    Rimpler Neues Mitglied

    Klick mal auf die beiden Graphiken (ok, ok, schlechte Qualität, weil schlampig gescannt).


    linker scan:

    Dies zeigt schematisch eine Grobeinteilung der Stadt mit Stadtmauer. Die Braunen Flächen sind privat, die hellgelben öffentlich.

    Links unten siehst du ein Fünfeck, daß ist der Palastbezirk.
    Das hellgelbe Rechteck darüber beinhaltet Maidan, Hippodrom und Mechouar, keine Ahnung was das letzte bedeutet. Die hellgelben Flecken vor den Stadttoren sind Märkte für die Landbevölkerung, die gelb-schwarz schraffierten Abschnitte auf den Hauptstraßen sind Vorstadt- bzw. Quartiersüq.

    Die (hellgelben) Durchangsstraßen führen ins Zentrum, wo sich Zentralsüq und Hauptmoschee befinden.

    Das dunkelgraue Quadrat rechts unten ist eine Zitadelle.

    rechter scan:

    Die obere Graphik stellt ein Stadtviertel dar.
    Hellgelb also öffentlich sind nur die Quartiersmoschee (das eingekreiste Quadrat unten mittig liegend) und die von dort nach oben laufende Hauptachse.

    Die rötlichen (leider nicht zu erkennen, 1. und 3. Gasse rechts, sowie 1. und 4. links) rechtwinklich von ihr abgehenden Zugangsgassen.

    Von den Zugangsgassen oder direkt von der Hauptachse gehen die (dukelgelben Sackgassen (halbprivat) ab.

    Das braune oder ockerfarbene sind die Häuser, die Innenhöfe sind rot.
     
    1 Person gefällt das.

Diese Seite empfehlen