Re-establish Byzantium?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Istanbul is so thoroughly Turkish that the only way the Greeks could hold it would be to exterminate the existing population and supplant it with Greek colonials. Not exactly approved of in this day and age.

Actually, genocide is still implicitly approved of by virtue of passive inaction and indifference, such as when the world community failed to act decisively against the Rawanda crisis in the 1990s.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I restore the Byzantine Empire all the time... In Europa Univerlis 2.

That's fun.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Also molly bloom, I'm not so sure where you get the idea that the Ottoman empire was "well governed" or tolerant.

Well, I had the idea that the Ottoman Empire was 'tolerant' from the way it 'tolerated' Jews, Christians of different denominations, Muslims from different Muslim sects (dervishes, Ismailis, Sunnis, Sufis, Shi'ites) and people from three different continents in a way that European Christian states (such as the ones I mentioned) didn't.

I didn't mention a date for the renaming of Constantinople- so I didn't make 'another' error. It could of course have been referred to as 'Istanbul' or 'eis tan pulin' in corrupted or misheard Greek, by its new inhabitants, from the year of the Ottoman's occupation of the city- in much the same way as the Romanies of Great Britain could call London 'Romeville'.

You're also squeezing eras into one another, in order presumably to make it seem as though the Ottomans were worse than they were- there is a detailed description, for instance, of the public execution of a man who tried to murder the French king Louis XV- he was tortured and pulled apart by teams of horses, in the 'Enlightenment'.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap2b.html

There were of course public executions by hanging all across Europe in the 'Enlightenment' and people could be transported and exiled or killed for stealing as little as a handkerchief's worth of lace, or a scrap of food, all in Enlightenment Europe.

Is the Europe that saw the mass drownings of French Huguenots during the reign of Louis XIV really better than the Ottoman Empire of the same era?

Or are the Highland Clearances and mass starvation of Catholic Irish during the Potato Famine really any worse than what Ottoman Turks did?


I hardly think so.

As for your constant repetition of the nature of themiddle classes in the Ottoman Empire, I can only direct people to the book I mentioned in my post, which gives a much better idea of what Ottoman society was like than your somewhat polarised view.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I didn't mention a date for the renaming of Constantinople- so I didn't make 'another' error.

You said that in istanbul "everyone was living harmoniously" (that's a very nice joke )"

So unless you meant from 1920's and afterwards, where everyone didn't because they were being expelled/killed I guess you meant before that when they still did not as already said.

So yes errour one on your part.

You're also squeezing eras into one another, in order presumably to make it seem as though the Ottomans were worse than they were- there is a detailed description, for instance, of the public execution of a man who tried to murder the French king Louis XV- he was tortured and pulled apart by teams of horses, in the 'Enlightenment'.

So you equate the savagery to an attempted murderer of a King to that of everyday folk in Ottoman Empire that did nothing wrong except being christians?

Interesting.

Is the Europe that saw the mass drownings of French Huguenots during the reign of Louis XIV really better than the Ottoman Empire of the same era?

Easily, yes. did they do collection of babies of christians in France? Did the christian communities live in poverty and severe oppression? were they always the "liers" in the eyes of authorities vis a vis muslims?

As for your constant repetition of the nature of themiddle classes in the Ottoman Empire, I can only direct people to the book I mentioned in my post, which gives a much better idea of what Ottoman society was like than your somewhat polarised view.

It's just a book molly bloom. And from what I see it admits itself it's "unconventional" in its methods for assassing data. Also that site has mispelled aisa, I think it's asia

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And of course in Europe, Muslims couldn't even exist in society... at least anywhere not named Poland.

Mongols and Huns weren't especially welcomed either. Folks tend to be leary of others who nearly succeed in wiping them off the face of the earth. Blame it on human nature. Perhaps if the muslims had stopped trying to overrun Europe relations might have been different.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Mongols and Huns weren't especially welcomed either. Folks tend to be leary of others who nearly succeed in wiping them off the face of the earth. Blame it on human nature. Perhaps if the muslims had stopped trying to overrun Europe relations might have been different.

Muslim didnot never try to wipe Christian off the face of Earth. Do you comdem Israel illegal murder of Palestinian leader and people by Israel gunships fireing missiles at than old blind man in a wheelchair that was no threat to Israel. It you cannot answer it then you are incapable mortal question. God sent me a vision a few month ago of Israel being destory by Him for not okeying International laws.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by molly bloom
In short- the Ottomans were no more cruel than any other state in the area.

Hence my sig by George Carlin.

BTW, Turks committed genocide against the Armenians back in early 1900s.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DataAeolus


Hence my sig by George Carlin.

BTW, Turks committed genocide against the Armenians back in early 1900s.

I know. At the same time the German Empire was engaged ina genocidal war against the Hereros in Namibia.

The Americans had attempted genocide against Indian tribes in California.

The Chinese had wiped out the Zungar and Bo peoples.

British settlers had tried to exterminate (unsuccessfully) Tasmania's aborigines.


Where are the Guanches who used to inhabit the Canary Islands? The Spanish saw to them.

Everybody does it, unfortunately.

Paiktis:

'You said that in istanbul "everyone was living harmoniously" (that's a very nice joke )"'

I said nothing of the sort.

'So you equate the savagery to an attempted murderer of a King to that of everyday folk in Ottoman Empire that did nothing wrong except being christians?'

I'm comparing methods of punishment- as I did in the other part of the post. Acquaint yourself with European crime and punishment of the Enlightenment and earlier- it's really no different from the supposedly 'barbaric' Turks- as the extreme punishment for the king's would be assassin illustrates.

'Did the christian communities live in poverty and severe oppression? '

Where? In Ireland, or Scotland?

Yes, they did.

German Protestants in the Balkans? Yes.

How about Jews in Russia ?- a religious minority discriminated against in ways that didn't exist in the Ottoman Empire.

Still, what we're signally lacking from you is any detailed critique, or facts- just diatribe after diatribe.

Understandably, of course. It can't be easy to have been a subject people, bailed out by Western powers.

[Bereta_Eder]

molly bloom, I doubt you have answered any of my points about the cruelty suffered as a norm by the christians under the ottoman empire. what u do is simply giving me odd examples of aggression elsewhere and somehow think that makes things "easier" for the ottoman empire.


However I believe that even you realize the situations under which christians lived but your ill perceived pride won't let you admit it.

That's ok, you haven't really answered any of my points so untill you decide to do so, I have nothing further to add.

about "western powers" saving us, I think that's just part of youre delusions of grandeur of the british empire who was simply acting out of its own benefit and has sometimes helped other times obstracted (such as when greeks did recapture constantinople in the early 1900's but i bet you didnt know that either).

I always find such notions of benevolent "saving" entertaining. especially by an english?

in any case i can't see how england's role positive or negative in all of this somehow should alter the reality under the ottomans. strange logic.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by paiktis22
molly bloom, I doubt you have answered any of my points about the cruelty suffered as a norm by the christians under the ottoman empire.

...your ill perceived pride won't let you admit it.

That's ok, you haven't really answered any of my points so untill you decide to do so, I have nothing further to add.

about "western powers" saving us, I think that's just part of youre delusions of grandeur of the british empire who was simply acting out of its own benefit and has sometimes helped other times obstracted (such as when greeks did recapture constantinople in the early 1900's but i bet you didnt know that either).

Your points aren't backed up with any examples- as I said, you have signally failed to show with facts, as opposed to diatribes, that the lot of ordinary everyday minorities in the Ottoman Empire was necessarily worse than a religious minority in any other Empire of the time- from the exiled Jews and Moors of Spain, to the persecuted Protestants of France and Germany, to the persecuted Catholics of Ireland and England, to the persecuted Jews of Russia.

In fact the everyday religious tolerance of the Ottoman Empire had to wait until the 18th Century, under Joseph II of the Habsburg Empire to be shown in the dominions of the Ottoman's old adversary.

As to Western powers saving Greece- I think the Treaty of London guaranteeing Greek independence speaks for itself:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1827gktreaty.html

My knowledge of European history in the 19th and 20th centuries is fairly extensive- please post details of this Greek 're-occupation' of Istanbul in the '1900s' so we can see whether or not it coincides with the occupation of Istanbul by the victorious allies (Britain, France) at the end of WWI, or the last stages of the earlier Balkan War when Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Greece invaded Macedonia and drove Turkish forces back to Istanbul.

As for ill-perceived pride- I'm neither Turkish nor Muslim, so I'm not defending any 'pride' ill-perceived, misplaced or otherwise. The constant unsupported criticism of the Ottoman Empire from you would seem to indicate that someone feels their pride to be at stake, and I don't think that someone is me.

[Bereta_Eder]

I think I have given you plenty of facts of severe and cruel oppression. If you chose to disregard them as diatribes, it's your choice.

You OTOH have so far failed to present cases of similar cruelty elsewhere, you simply say what a murderer of a King would have to pay and try to equate it. That's just an example of course but you really haven't provided anything else to grasp on.

England played in and against greek independence as its interests dictated.

About Constantinople, since that's what it was still called at that day, maybe you can search your "Extensive knowledge" and come up with the application to retain that City in the early 1900's by the Greeks which was actually captured by them on the side of the Allies of course.


As for pride, you don't have to be a muslim to have it contrary to what you may think. I also fail to see how am I defending anything but the truth against tricks and retreats one after another by you.
Starting from the "benevolent ottoman empire" onward...
:shrugs:

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I think I have given you plenty of facts of severe and cruel oppression. If you chose to disregard them as diatribes, it's your choice.

You OTOH have so far failed to present cases of similar cruelty elsewhere, you simply say what a murderer of a King would have to pay and try to equate it. That's just an example of course but you really haven't provided anything else to grasp on.

About Constantinople, since that's what it was still called at that day, maybe you can search your "Extensive knowledge" and come up with the application to retain that City in the early 1900's by the Greeks which was actually captured by them on the side of the Allies of course.

Do you comprehend the difference between a fact and an opinion?

Fact: the French executed the would be assassin of Louis XV.

Opinion: it was a barbarous state murder!

In your case, it would be:

Paiktis’s opinion: The Ottomans were beastly horrid Turks, uncivilized savages, et cetera.

Paiktis’s supporting facts: None as yet.

As to the occupation of Istanbul- I note you’re still being a little vague about the exact date.

I wonder why.

Could it be because you’re thinking of when, after August 1920, the Treaty of Sevres between the Ottoman Sultan and the victorious Allied Powers saw Istanbul occupied by an Allied Powers fleet?

And Italians occupying the southern coast of Turkey, the French in Cilicia, separatist Kurds and Armenians occupying areas of eastern Turkey, and the Greeks Thrace and Izmir?

Following the failure of the last Ottoman parliament to ratify the Treaty of Sevres (as required) the Supreme Allied Council in Paris ‘invited’ the Greeks to fill the power vacuum and restore order in Anatolia (the original idea had been to award the Straits to Russia, but the Bolshevik Revolution put paid to that).

The outcome of the Graeco-Turkish War of 1920-1922 is reasonably well-known to regular posters in these forums- Kemal Pasha (later Ataturk) held the Greek forces at the River Sakarya in Anatolia, then beat them back to Izmir, driving them into the sea.

Greeks were expelled from Asia Minor and Pontic Greeks from the shores of the Black Sea were also expelled, in exchange for the Turkish population of northern Greece.

The negotiated (rather than imposed) Treaty of Lausanne established in 1923 the birth of the Turkish republic, a demilitarized Straits, overseen by an International Commission and an extensive exchange of civilians between Greece and Turkey.

A bit more detail (facts) there, than you’ve provided so far.

In case you still don’t get the point about my citing the case of the would be assassin of the French King, I’ll simply direct you Chapter 6 of the book ‘Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Europe’ by Michael R Weisser.

It details judicial torture of suspects in 17th century Milan for instance, in a case in which the two defendants were being compelled to confess to a crime when they did not know the nature of the charges against them.

In fact throughout Continental Europe, torture like this was employed indiscriminately against suspects because in many instances, the court represented the sovereign, and therefore the criminal law became a way for applying and extending centralized state power into private affairs and at local, municipal levels.


Opinion: you state the Ottomans were cruel

Fact: Given the state of penal codes in other countries at that time, the Ottomans cannot be shown to be more cruel than Spain, the Habsburg Empire or France, for example, nor particularly or exceptionally cruel.

Opinion: you state the Ottomans plucked Christian babies from their families to serve as janissaries.

Fact: The devsirme levy system took (at first) only Christian males between the ages of eight and twenty in irregular levies every three or five years. Soon, Christian families volunteered their sons to serve in the Janissaries, and in the highest offices of state- as the many Greek viziers and magnates of the Ottoman Empire showed.

Of course, slavery was also widespread in Continental Europe and European states were happy to provide European slaves to the Sultan, so why this is less reprehensible than the Ottoman devsirme levy, I fail to understand.

You say the Greeks reoccupied Istanbul ‘in the 1900s’, but are unable to give an exact date, or to provide a detailed description of this campaign, or provide an external reference.

You say Greeks and Armenians were the ‘middle class’ of the Ottoman Empire, but again provide no supporting evidence.

You see, there is a difference between saying something, and then buttressing your statements with facts, rather than wishful thinking and wounded national pride.

[Bereta_Eder]

I was under the impression we were talking about how much people suffered.

Let's take it one by one:

A fact which I provided was the snatching of babies from their mothers' embraces, a thoroughly barbaric act to do on a conquered peoples in large numbers and on regular intervals.


Do you:
a) deny that?
b) think it's not barbaric?
c) can point me out anything more barbaric than that?


Let's take it one at a time, shall we if you insist.

[SKILORD]

I think that could be fun.

I think that a small confederation of Eastern European powers could bind themselves together under a leader of charisma and sweep through Asia Minor and most of Southern Russia (basically own the Black Sea) and mebbe even shove their way around through the Eastern world.

At least I hope so.... or else my life's ambition is gonna be shot

[Bereta_Eder]

And while you keep trying to protect your pride (which is rather amusing in such intensity) do me a favour and include the date of the application by Greeks for Constantinople to remain under their control in your next post.

BTW also denying the Greek Armenian middle classes in Constantinople and Izmir of all places simply verifies my suspicion of a very superficial knowledge on your side. This is a point to whoever is a shall we say connaiscer of the era and place, is a self proven fact. But research it if you must. Using good sources which you'll provide here.

Bon courage Obsessive behavior at its finest I presume