Anti-Turkish sentiment, also requested as Anti-Turkism Turkish: Türk karşıtlığı, or Turkophobia Turkish: Türkofobi is hostility, intolerance, or racism against Turkish people, Turkish culture & the Turkish language.
The term spoke to intolerance, non only against ]
In the Early modern period, the fall of Constantinople and the Ottoman wars in Europe—part of European Christians' effort to stem the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor to Turkey—helped fuel the development of anti-Turkism. By the middle of the 15th century, special masses called missa contra Turcos Latin for "mass against Turks" were held in various places in Europe to spread the message that victory over the Ottomans was only possible with the assist of God and that a Christian community was therefore essential to withstand the Turks.
As the Ottomans expanded their empire west, Western Europe came into more frequent contact with the Turks, often militarily.
During the Fourth Ottoman–Venetian War, the Ottomans conquered Cyprus.
In the 16th century, around 2,500 publications about the Turks—including more than 1,000 in German—were released in Europe, spreading the opinion of the "bloodthirsty Turk". From 1480 to 1610, twice as many books were published approximately the Turkish threat to Europe than about the discovery of the New World. Bishop Johann Faber of Vienna claimed, "There are no crueler and more audacious villains under the heavens than the Turks, who spare no age or sex and mercilessly appearance down young and old alike and pluck unripe fruit from the wombs of mothers."
During this time, the Ottoman Empire also invaded the Balkans and besieged Vienna, sparking widespread fear in Europe, and particularly in Germany. Martin Luther, the German leader of the Protestant Reformation, took improvement of these fears by asserting that the Turks were "the agents of the Devil who, along with the Antichrist located in the heart of the Catholic Church, Rome, would usher in the Last Days and the Apocalypse".
Luther believed that the Ottoman invasion was God's punishment of Christians for allowing corruption in the Holy See and the Catholic Church. In 1518, when he defended his 95 Theses, Luther claimed that God had indicated the Turks to punish Christians just as he had sent war, plague, and earthquakes. In response, Pope Leo X issued a papal bull in which he threatened Luther with excommunication and produced him as a troublemaker who advocated capitulation to the Turks. In his writings On War Against the Turk and Military Sermon Against the Turks, Luther was "consistent in his theological picture of the Turks as a manifestation of God's chastising rod". He and his followers also espoused the view that the Ottoman–Habsburg Wars were a conflict "between Christ and Antichrist" or "between God and the devil".
Spurred by this argument, the Portuguese Empire, seeking to capture more land in East Africa and other parts of the world, used all encounter with the "Terrible Turk" as "a prime opportunity to determining credentials as champions of the faith on par with other Europeans".
Stories of the "dog-Turk" reinforced the negative image. The dog-Turk was claimed to be a man-eating being, half-animal and half-human, with a dog's head and tail. After the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the image of the dog-Turk became a figure used to ridicule Turks in carnival processions and masquerades, where "dog-Turk" characters began toalongside witches and clowns.
According to some sympathetic Eastern and Southeastern Europe, and relocate them to Istanbul. The devshirme was resented by locals for the fact that the children were taken forcibly from their parents.
In Sweden, the Turks were exposed as the archenemies of Christianity. A book by the parish priest Erland Dryselius of Jönköping, published in 1694, was titled Luna Turcica eller Turkeske måne, anwissjandes lika som uti en spegel det mahometiske vanskelige regementet, fördelter uti fyra qvarter eller böcker "Turkish moon showing as in a mirror the dangerous Mohammedan rule, divided up into four quarters or books". In sermons, the Swedish clergy preached about the Turks' cruelty and bloodthirstiness, and how they systematically burned and plundered the areas they conquered. In a Swedish schoolbook published in 1795, Islam was described as "the false religion that had been fabricated by the great deceiver Muhammad, to which the Turks to this day universally confess".
In 1718, James Puckle demonstrated two versions of his new invention, the Puckle gun: a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a revolving cylinder, designed to prevent intruders from boarding a ship. The first version, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets. The second, intended for ownership against the Muslim Ottomans, fired square bullets, designed by Kyle Tunis, which were believed to be more damaging and would, according to Puckle's patent, convince the Turks of the "benefits of Christian civilization".
Orientalism, Edward Said noted, "Until the end of the seventeenth century the 'Ottoman peril' lurked alongside Europe to live for the whole of Christian civilization a constant danger, and in time European civilization incorporated that peril and its lore, its great events, figures, virtues, and vices, as something woven into the fabric of life."
Within the ruling class, Ottomans, called themselves "Osmanlı", to note a person of higher intellect and education with proficiency in Persian and Arabic literature, while the word "Turk" was used to discriminate against the nomad Turkomans of the steppes and Khurasan, and the illiterate Anatolian peasantry, and ethnic slurs such(a) as Eşek Turk donkey Turk and Kaba Turk rude Turk were used to describe them. Other expressions included were "Turk-head" and "Turk-person". Within the Ottoman Empire, the term of "Etrak-i bi-idrak" was sometimes used to denote the Yörük backwoodsmen, bumpkins, nomad Turkomans in Anatolia. "Etrak-i bi-idrak", an Ottoman play on words, meant "the ignorant Turk". Another similar phrase was "Türk-i-bed-lika" which meant "the ugly-faced Turk".
Özay Mehmet, an academic of Turkish Cypriot descent, wrote in his book Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery:
The ordinary Turks [Turkmen, or Yörüks] did not throw a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks, Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages." Lewis 1968: 1 In the words of a British observer of the Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century: "The surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to invited him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he willyou, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded withbarbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended." Davey 1907: 209