I read that the Japanese were considered imperialists, mainly for their occupation of Manchuria and Korea. Would it be correct to say then that the Ottomans were also imperialists? They did occupy most of the Balkans, parts of North Africa and the Arabian peninsula.

  • 1
    Welcome to History:SE. What has your research shown you so far? Where have you already searched? What did you find? Please help us to help you. You might find it helpful to review our Help Centre and, in particular, How to Ask. – sempaiscuba Mar 5 at 1:29
  • Yes, thank you justCal. I was not aware of that post. Thank you for linking it. – Dantheanimator Mar 5 at 2:30
  • I don't think the link directly addresses this question. It asks whether the Ottoman Empire was a colonial power, this asks whether they were imperialists. Colonialists intend to settle in the lands they conquer (perhaps displacing natives); imperialists just rule them. For instance, the British Empire was colonialist in e.g. Australia & New Zealand, but imperialist in India. – jamesqf Mar 5 at 4:24
  • With @jamesqf on this one. There's an answer in there (sadly under-voted) that directly addresses this: "An imperial power perhaps, but not a colonial one." However, this site generally isn't kind to "What does word_x mean to you, and does country_y qualify as one?" questions, so I'm not sure rescinding this closing would take. You can certainly vote to give it a try... – T.E.D. Mar 5 at 14:06
  • Comment for OP: While the questions might not be identical, my personal opinion is that this answer is a really good answer to your question. Its also the only answer in there I see that uses definitions consistent with what I see used in Social Sciences academia. The low vote total on it IMHO is entirely due to it having been posted 2 years late. – T.E.D. Mar 5 at 14:16