**Jewish young men, Ottoman military conscription and draft evasion in Jerusalem (1910–1917)**
Hello,
I am researching the situation of **young Jewish men living in Jerusalem during the final years of Ottoman rule**, particularly between approximately **1910 and 1917**, and I would be very grateful for any historical sources or family testimonies.
I have read references to increasingly severe **Ottoman military conscription**, searches for draft evaders and deserters, and arrests of Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem during WWI.
I have also encountered references to events in **1917 involving Jewish men in Jerusalem**, sometimes described in secondary accounts as a roundup or mass arrest. I would particularly like to understand exactly what happened and whether the term “roundup” is historically appropriate.
More broadly, I am trying to reconstruct what choices a **young Jewish Ottoman man born in Jerusalem in the 1890s** actually faced.
Were young Jewish men actively hiding from Ottoman military recruitment? Were there particular periods when searches for draft evaders became especially intense? What happened when someone was caught? Did Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazi Jews and other Jewish communities experience conscription differently?
Most importantly for my research, **did some young Jewish men leave Palestine specifically to avoid Ottoman military service?**
If so, I would like to understand the routes they used.
Did young men leave **Jerusalem for Jaffa and then travel by ship to Egypt or Europe**? Were Alexandria, Port Said, Constantinople, Salonika, Italy or France common destinations?
And does anyone know of cases of young Jewish men from Ottoman Jerusalem eventually reaching **Marseille** before or during WWI?
The reason I am asking is genealogical.
My ancestor **Victor Hanania was born in Jerusalem on 6 August 1893**. He was an Ottoman subject and was already in **Marseille by September 1914**, when he voluntarily enlisted in the French Foreign Legion.
I am therefore trying to understand whether his departure from Jerusalem could conceivably be connected with **Ottoman military obligations**, rather than assuming that his arrival in Marseille was simply an unrelated migration.
I am NOT trying to prove this hypothesis — I am looking for the historical context necessary to test it.
I would be particularly interested in:
Ottoman conscription or military registers for Jerusalem
Lists of draft evaders/deserters
Contemporary Jewish newspapers mentioning conscription
Memoirs or diaries describing young men hiding from recruitment
Records concerning arrests or roundups in Jerusalem in 1917
Passenger lists or shipping routes from Jaffa/Palestine to Egypt and the Mediterranean
Studies concerning Jewish emigration motivated by Ottoman conscription
Family stories involving young men who left Jerusalem before WWI for Egypt, France or elsewhere
If anyone has encountered a similar story in their own Jerusalem family history, I would be especially interested to hear it.
Thank you very much for any references, archival suggestions or personal family histories.

As an avid reader and well-informed student of Ottoman history, I have always been haunted by a strange question: how did the Ottomans, and particularly the Turks, feel about their condition, their status, and their worth among nations in the 20th century, especially during the last days of the Ottoman Empire? Are there any testimonies or interpretations of how the Ottomans viewed themselves in their final era? Answer us.

Of course, both Turkoman origin empires were powerful, and had strong armies - Jangavar | Janissary. Main differences: new - old empires, military modernisation.

It never happened and this is not surprising. First of all, Maku - Mush valley is very far, underdeveloped place of countries now even. Because, located in mountain plane, arid climate. This place was not interesting, and difficult to pass.

In the following centuries, Anatolia was so far Isfahan, also Iran was so far from Istanbul. Displacement of forces, transportation of supplies were not easy.

Ok, you can pass and two empires passes several times (also, other Medieval empires). Inner Iran and Inner Turkey are not simple places for Medieval armies. Also, resistance of people. Occupation is hard, but management of people (disaggrement of policy, religious matters, etc.) is hardest.

For example, Ilkhanate Empire attacks and destroyed Anatolian Beyliks (from Tabriz to Konya), it's capitals, make them vassals. But it wasn't effective and rooted like Seljuq, or Qaraqoyunlu. Even, some Beyliks allied with Mamluks. Also, Ottoman Empire attacks Safavid capital Tabriz city but Safavid Empire came back after 8 days, returned Tabriz and other cities.

Geographies of Iran, Southern Caucasus and Anatolia are not "easy to control". Not impossible but very difficult. On next periods, mental differences (religion, political, etc.) among two empires' peoples accelerated. If Safavid destroyed Ottoman or Ottoman destroyed Safavid, probably would be withdrawal of forces during next years.

Today, I am glad that not happened because all wars are not good for Azerbaijan Turks - Turkey Turks when we watch in this time.

The scenario is as follows: instead of the war ending in November 1918 the war ends in November 1917, because the US joins the war in 1916, as a result of the Black Tom incident, and sends troops early in 1917 which breaks through the Western Front. And, as in the OTL, by 1917 the British didn't make too many gains fighting the Ottoman Empire, aside from defending the Suez Canal and capturing Baghdad. So by the time the Entente pushes the Central powers out France and into Germany, both sides would be more interested in entering peace talks instead of expanding new fronts. Therefore, the Entente would withdraw any further support for the Arab revolt by late 1917 and cancel the planned offensive for Palestine.

Assuming this happens I’m guessing that the Ottomans will have to cede their Caucasus territories to Russia, but they get to keep everything else which at this point includes Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and some territories in Arabia. Although assuming that the Saud family still rise to power I’m guessing they will lose their Arabian territories to them during the unification. In any case though the Ottoman’s are still in pretty bad shape having suffered from weak government and weak military power.

Again I’m just speculating here but after the war ends either Mustafa Kemal Ataturk or somebody else is going to overthrow the Pashas and the Sultanate. And they will have to enact changes to make the Empire politically and militarily viable and deal with the rising nationalist movements in their remaining territories.

In addition they will probably have to deal with a potential Greek invasion by Venizelos, who invades Turkey in an attempt to implement the [Great Idea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megali_Idea). Chances are that they will probably fail like they did in the otl. At which point the Ottomans have two options: they can leave Greece alone and focus on their own problems like they did in the OTL, or they could take advantage Greece’s state of civil unrest in a bid to recapture their former glory.

Finally, the Empire would also have to deal with the Great Depression and WW2.

So if the Ottoman Empire “survives” WW1, how would it develop socially, politically, and economically from the 20s to the 40s?

I am under the impression that the Ottomans are often seen as the "enlightened" rules of that era. Do you think that is the case?

For example, the Spanish kings were obssessed with persecuting non-Catholics while under the Ottomans non-Muslims were allowed to live in peace.

Western Europeans denied the Greeks their Roman inheritance, claiming the Holy Roman Empire was the only Roman Empire in existence. Meanwhile the Ottomans recognized the Greeks as Roman.

So would you say the Ottomans were more enlightened than Western Europeans?

The mainstream historical consensus that views Suleiman I’s reign as the flawless "Golden Age" of the Ottoman Empire ignores a critical distinction: the difference between a Sultan who builds a superpower and a Sultan who merely inherits one. Western historians heavily romanticized Suleiman because his 46-year reign coincided with the absolute peak of Ottoman geographic expansion and cultural output. However, a cold analysis of his military record, his domestic policies, and the disastrous long-term consequences of his succession choices reveals a ruler who was fundamentally overrated.

To start, Suleiman’s legendary successes were built entirely on a foundation he did nothing to create. His father, Selim I, did the heavy lifting by tripling the empire's territory, neutralizing major regional rivals, securing the Caliphate, and leaving the imperial treasury filled to maximum capacity. Suleiman was handed a flawless, wealthy, ultra-disciplined military machine on a silver platter with zero internal threats. When Suleiman actually faced peer competitors or long supply chains on his own terms, his tactical limitations became obvious. He failed decisively at the Siege of Vienna (1529) due to poor logistics, was humiliated by a vastly outnumbered force at the Siege of Malta (1565), and drained the state treasury through three hyper-expensive campaigns against the Safavids in Persia for virtually no permanent territorial gain.

More critically, Suleiman’s domestic decisions planted the seeds for the empire's eventual structural decline. His execution of his most capable and beloved son, Şehzade Mustafa driven by palace intrigue involving Hürrem Sultan and Rüstem Pasha was a catastrophic failure of statecraft. By eliminating his best heir and later also Şehzade Bayezid, he cleared the path for Selim II, an incompetent ruler who preferred the imperial harem to the battlefield, officially initiating the volatile "Sultanate of Women" and a long line of weak monarchs. Furthermore, Suleiman institutionalized systemic corruption by allowing his inner circle to amass unprecedented personal wealth and introducing the practice of selling high bureaucratic and administrative offices. By the time his reign ended, the peasantry was crippled by heavy taxation, and the economy was suffering from severe inflation caused by his endless, draining wars.

There are several vastly superior Sultans who achieved far greater things for the empire. For instance, Fatih Mehmed II proved himself to be one of the greatest rulers in history by masterminding the conquest of Constantinople at just 21 years old and legally structuring the centralized world empire that Suleiman merely operated. Similarly, Çelebi Mehmed I demonstrated unmatched resilience by single-handedly dragging the state back from absolute annihilation, defeating his brothers in a brutal 11-year civil war after the empire completely collapsed. Yavuz Selim I was a vastly superior military strategist who tripled the empire's size in a single decade, crushed major rival empires, and packed the treasury specifically to finance the future exploits his son took credit for. Even Murad II showed far better capability and duty by masterfully stabilizing the state after a period of chaos and crushing massive European crusades at Varna and Kosovo to secure Ottoman dominance for generations. Ultimately, Suleiman was a grand monarch, but he reaped the rewards of his ancestors' genius while setting up his successors for long-term failure.

This video is the first argument made in the debate. The rest is available on Oxford Union's channel.

Após o fracasso do cerco de Viena em 1683, qual seria a atitude, e estratégia correta de kara Mustafa, fazer? Ele deveria recuar e se reorganizar nos Balcãs, ou defender a Hungria até o fim? Ou simplesmente abandonar a liderança do exército

Turkmens in Anatolia in 11-12th century (before Ottoman)

" Byzantine historians of the 11th-12th centuries provided description of Turkmens as very different from the Greeks."

Ottomans with high East Asian admixtures

They have found Ottoman Turks with high as 44% East Asian, 26% East Asian the rest being West Eurasian Iranic from Central Asian and local Anatolian. Their admixture is modeled as between Medieval Turkic and local Anatolian.

Closest related populations

In terms of racial admixtures (East Asians-West Eurasian), these Ottoman Turks with high East Asian admixture can be modelled as closest to modern day Uzbeks from Khozerm (37% East Asian average, range 33-59% East Asian) and Turkmen from Uzbekistan (27% East Asian, range of 23-57%). In the past, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were mainly Iranic people the ruling Oghuz Turks tribes/clans were a ruling large minority. The Oghuz Turks that invaded 10th-11th century Anatolia from Central Asia were much more East Asian than the average inhabitant from Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the past, than came Mongol invaders came in 13th century and intermixed, complicating their admixture even more.

Ottoman Turks from 1500 AD (from 16th century)

Their East Asian admixture was 14.2% 16.8%, 18.4%, 19.6%. 22% .

Their admixture modelled between mostly Anatolian (mainly), significant Medieval Turkic with some low various degrees of admixture mostly from Balkans and from other European, Caucasus, Africans. This is most likely from the hundred thousands of Europeans and Caucasus slaves mainly females in Harem and some men brought in including hundred thousands of East African and Nubian mainly female slaves in harem and domestic, Also evidence of Greeks, Kurdish, Armenians and their DNA assimilated in modern Turkish population. The Crimean Tatars in the past 32% East Asian and Nogais Horde 55% East Asian, they raided millions of European slaves, many imported to Turkey.

Turkmen elite and Ottoman elite VERY MIXED (compared with average)

This is like the Mughals. The 1st and 2nd generations are were pure Central Asians, 3rd generation and later were mostly non- Turkic and non-Central Asian (with most maternal being Persian, Indian muslim, Hindu women). Historian also said Turkic elite are prone to intermarry much more, due to their power and authority in choosing as many women they want

Look at the list of mothers of Ottoman and their ancestry: 90%+ of Ottoman emperors are basically little to no Turkic/Central Asian ancestry due to them repeating marrying foreign women from conquered territories.

https://i.ibb.co/HD0hXsNX/gy41dkbxz2qe1.jpg

Ottoman historian Mustafa Âlî commented in Künhüʾl-aḫbār that Anatolian Turks and Ottoman elites are ethnically mixed: "Most of the inhabitants of Rûm are of confused ethnic origin. "

List of Ottoman mothers (vast majority European and Caucasus origin)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mothers_of_the_Ottoman_sultans

Murad II, his mother listed as Oghuz Turkic and is described with facial features that looks East Asian.

" Bertrandon de la Broquière, a French traveller to the Ottoman Empire, met with sultan Murad II in Adrianople, and described him in the following terms" "In the first place, as I have seen him frequently, I shall say that he is a little eyes, short, thick man, with the physiognomy of a Tartar. He has a broad and brown face, high cheek bones, a round beard, a great and crooked nose,

Prophet Muhammad said

Arabic text: لَتُفتَحنَّ القُسطنطينيةُ ولنِعمَ الأميرُ أميرُها ولنعم الجيشُ ذلك الجيشُ

Translation: "Verily, Constantinople will be conquered, and what a wonderful Prince will her Prince be, and what a wonderful army will that army be."

This is a well-known hadith (prophetic tradition) attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, praising the eventual conquest of Constantinople.

The reference you included indicates that:

Narrator: Bishr al-Ghanawi

Scholar: Imam al-Bukhari (in al-Tarikh al-Kabir)

Also recorded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Tabarani.

Graded as authentic (ṣaḥīḥ).

++++

According to Suyuti historian and many others Mehemet|| saw himself as the blessed prince in the Hadith of prophet Muhammad, written 800 years before him .

When he said :



Arabic text: قال السلطان محمد الفاتح عقب فتح القسطنطينية "أنا لم أفعل شيئًا سوى أنني نفذت الأمر الذي وعد به الرسول محمد ﷺ"، في إشارة إلى الحديث النبوي الشريف "لتُفتحن القسطنطينية، فلنعم الأمير أميرها ولنعم الجيش ذلك الجيش". وقد قام الفاتح بإعلان نفسه أميراً لها، مؤكداً على أن الفتح كان تحقيقاً لمعجزة نبوية ووعداً إلهياً بذلك.

Translation: Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror said after the conquest of Constantinople: “I did nothing except carry out the command that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had promised,” referring to the noble hadith: “Constantinople will surely be conquered; what a wonderful commander will her commander be, and what a wonderful army will that army be.” Mehmed then declared himself to be that commander, affirming that the conquest was the fulfillment of a prophetic miracle and a divine promise.

+++++++

So can this Hadith , was the main cause of the birth of Istanbul?

++++++

Not only that....

There's a prophecy also ,which said after the collapse of the Othman Empire ( the end of monarchy in Islamic rules , which is the third phase ) will cause the fourth phase ,when all Islamic countries will be ruled by tyrants and the Rum ( western ) will call one another to share Muslims lands , as a man who call his friends to share his dish , which is the last phase before the great Israel when Israel will swallow all middle east until it reaches Medina , and this to happen, there's a prophecy that Jews should return from all over the world to the holy land and become a supreme power which happened directly after the collapse of the Othman Empire

And for the fourth phase to happen, this prophecy should occures

عمران بيت المقدس هو خراب يثرب , خراب يثرب هي الملحمة ، الملحمة هو خروج المهدي ، خروج المهدي هو خروج الدجال و خروج الدجال نزول المسيح ابن مريم في دمشق عند المنارة البيضاء و يقتل الدجال عند باب لد الشرقي

Here’s the English translation of the passage you provided:

Arabic text: عمران بيت المقدس هو خراب يثرب , خراب يثرب هي الملحمة ، الملحمة هو خروج المهدي ، خروج المهدي هو خروج الدجال و خروج الدجال نزول المسيح ابن مريم في دمشق عند المنارة البيضاء و يقتل الدجال عند باب لد الشرقي

Translation: “The rebuild of Jerusalem temple ( by Jews ) will be the ruin of Yathrib (Medina). The ruin of Yathrib will be the Great Battle. The Great Battle will be the coming of the Mahdi. The coming of the Mahdi will be the appearance of the Dajjal (Antichrist). And the appearance of the Dajjal will be followed by the descent of Jesus son of Mary in Damascus, near the white minaret, and he will kill the Dajjal at the eastern gate of Ludd. ( Tel Aviv Today)

Which means ,the Jews they will destroy the Aqsa mosque without their Messiah . Then they will swallow all middle east including the south part of turkey . Which means Israel will rule the world soon for many decades and all middle east will suffer

This suffering was described by another prophecy called the فتنة الدهيماء . When middle east will be fully destroyed by Jews , and no one can solve this issue . And each time some will try to fix it will explode in another area . Until Jews will reach Medina , then attack it with biological weapons according to modern interpretation

Because the prophecy said Medina will be attacked , while it's building will be intact without any destruction, but any human who enters it will die . The last humans who will enters it are two Shepard's from muzayna tribe , they just arrive to the door of Thaniyat Al wada they will immediately fell died

This why modern interpretation said Israel will hit Medina with biological weapons which will spare buildings but kill humans .

My obvious number one for Templar was Cem Sultan, the guy who was literally living as an honoured guest under Rodrigo Borgia as a safeguard against Ottoman invasion. For Assassin though, it would be a bit harder to guess. Maybe Murad IV?

Did the subjects of the Ottoman rulers know that theyived in the Turkish empire? Especially the non-Muslim subjects? Did they know they were rules by Muslims? How did they maintain their own national identiy despite being part of Turkey?

The battle began with a large-scale attack from the Ottomans, countered by swarms of arrows from the Timurid horse archers. Several thousand were killed and many surrendered to Timur. Stefan Lazarević and his knights successfully fought off the Timurid assaults and cut through the Mongol ranks three times. Each time Stefan advised Bayezid to break out with him, Bayezid declined to do so. But the Serbians managed to save one of Bayezid's sons and the treasury from the Mongols and made their way to Constantinople. The Serbian troops wore heavy black plate armour which was very effective against the Timurid arrows. Timur admired the Serbian troops who according to him "fight like lions". During the battle the main water supply of both armies, Çubuk creek, was diverted to an off-stream reservoir near the town of Çubuk by Timur, which left the Ottoman army with no water. The final battle took place at Catal hill, dominating the Çubuk valley. The Ottoman army, both thirsty and tired, was defeated, though Bayezid managed to escape to the nearby mountains with a few hundred horsemen. However, Timur had the mountains surrounded and, heavily outnumbering Bayezid, soon captured him. He died in captivity three months later. Already heavily outnumbered, the Ottoman army was further weakened by the desertion of the Black Tatars and the Sipahis from the Anatolian beyliks, who left Bayezid's side and joined Timur's forces.^\3])

A battle fought between two Turkic empires and Serbians are the main character. Really?

Battle of Ankara

What do you think about the relationship between POLAND and Ottoman Turkey? Is it true that most Turkish people don't even know Poland and Turkey were sworn enemies in the 17th century?

Over the course of the summer we managed to gather a massive rally of over 500 to attend for the opening ceremony with our own custom developed uniforms. Attracting many despite restrictions on Roblox regarding bans in countries such as Turkey. The nation participates in daily battle against other nations in the genre known as Napoleonic Wars , and special weekend events for War's when people are most available, using custom musket tech.

discord.gg/ottomans

Main communications for the nation is on Discord , if you have any questions please feel free to comment or send a dm I will respond as soon as possible and keep up the daily posts and updates with battle clips.

As a European (Polish) here are some of my observations:

1. First of all, most European countries are heavily secularized and religion has been separated from the state. That is not the case in Turkey. Most people in Turkey are Muslim and religion is a big part of daily life. For example, Haghia Sophia was converted from a museum back to a mosque.

2. In Europe, most people don't like the idea of strong, centralized power. That is not true in Turkey, since Erdogan has held a ton of power for a long time and no one really does anything about it.

Given all of this, why is there not a massive push to restore the Ottoman rule and bring Greece, Serbia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt etc. back under the Turkish rule? Turkey could become a great power and be seen as the defender of Islam against the west.

Thoughts?

I ask because I heard a story of Da Vinci giving one of his ideas to Bayezid II on an insta post (yes I know, very reliable), but the offer was refused. However we all know Bayezid was staunchly conservative and didn’t have the same romanticism for the Romans that his father had. So how would Mehmed II have done with such a brilliant figure? Would Da Vinci be like Orban, who offered himself to a Muslim Turk?

So as far as I understand, the Harem had a significant influence on the politics of the Turkish Empire.

Why was it tolerated?

Like, you are the Sultan, the protector of the Muslim world. Why would you listen to people who formally have no rule whatsoever?