 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 24-03-2004 at 04:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Oh or anyone else for that matter.
The crude guidelines are so conveniently included in molly bloom's post. :
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I never doubted you would be quick to label me something like that. Typical looser attitude. Well too bad about that.
*sigh* predictable
In any case,
You have so graciously given the crude guidelines so you're of some use. People who are interested can look them up at the internet and the libraries. Finding sources on the internet for facts is not my idea of losing my time. Anyone interested is more than welcome to find the sources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I know for a fact that the British occupied Istanbul for awhile at the end of WW1. Since the Greeks were allied they may have participated in the occupation. IIRC the greeks occupied much of the Aegean coast of Turkey too. Turkish outrage over these indignities helped propel Ataturk's career. By taking a strong stance against the occupation and driving out the allies he was able to win approval by the people for his reforms, many of which required that the people accpet the loss of features of Turkey that had once been sources of national pride. |
Doc- I mentioned the Allied Powers were in occupation of Istanbul, and that there was an Allied Fleet in Istanbul, at the end of hostilities between the major powers-
'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?'
Unfortunately, paiktis was unable to come up with a date (or any evidence for that matter) to support his assertion that 'the Greeks' reoccupied Istanbul in 'the 1900s'-
(such as when greeks did recapture constantinople in the early 1900's but i bet you didnt know that either).
you'll notice the vagueness of '1900s' but he does say 'the Greeks', not the Allied Powers, which is curious, because the British occupied the 'Zone of the Straits' from 1919-1922, and the Graeco-Turkish War ended with the defeat of the Greeks by the Turks in 1922, when, coincidentally, Great Britain evacuated Istanbul and the Straits.
Interestingly, at the Paris Peace Conference, the Allies tried to get America to accept mandates for Istanbul and the Dardanelles and the former Ottoman province of Armenia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
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. |
I can point personally to something similar that happened to Jews in Catholic countries. If a Christian servant secretly Baptised the family's child and then reported this fact later to church authorities, including through confession, the Church or secular authorities would order the child seized from the Jewish family's household and kept permantly seperated from them. The child was then raised as a Christian, since the act of Baptism under any circumstance was enough to make someone Christian, and it was not acceptable to have a Jewish family raise a Christian child.
In fact, as late as 1858, police under the orders of the Catholic Church burst into a Jewish household in Italy in the middle of the night to seize their child!
quote:
Bologna, 1858: A police squad, acting on the orders of the Inquisitor, invades the home of a Jewish merchant, Momolo Mortara, wrenches his crying six-year-old son from his arms, and rushes him off in a carriage bound for Rome. His mother is so distraught that she collapses and has to be taken to a neighbor's house, but her weeping can be heard across the city. With this terrifying scene--one that would haunt this family forever--David I. Kertzer begins his fascinating investigation of the dramatic kidnapping, and shows how this now obscure saga would eventually contribute to the collapse of the Church's temporal power in Italy. As Edgardo's parents desperately search for a way to get their son back, they learn why he--out of all their eight children--was taken. Years earlier, the family's Catholic serving girl, fearful that the infant might die of an illness, had secretly baptized him (or so she claimed). Edgardo recovered, but when the story reached the Bologna Inquisitor, the result was his order for Edgardo to be seized and sent to a special monastery where Jews were converted into good Catholics. The Inquisitor's justification for taking the child was based in Church teachings: No Christian child could be raised by Jewish parents. |
http://www.davidkertzer.com/books_edgardo_a.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
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. |
First than 8 year old boy isnot than baby. You inply that the Ott took newly born baby from they mother breast. First there was no bottle feeding of baby with baby formular you buy at the Christian Fundie fravor store Walmarket. In fact the Ott didnot never excute than woman nurseing than baby until the child was 2 or 3 year old and many time the Sultan pardon just womans as than act of kindness. Christian state execute woman nurseing baby all the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
At last concrete examples. We are starting to get somewhere.
And as I am sure you see none of what you've pointed out even compares with the status of horrour that prevailed under the Ottomans in the largely christian populated areas.
The christian mothers had no choice. They had to see their babies taken away from them simply because they were christian in their (former) own lands.
Can this systematic, all encompassing torture be paralleled to one or two secluded cases such the onces you described? I doubt it can be.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with the text of the application for the Greeks to retain control of Constantinople (for the shake of accuracy let's just call it like it was called at tha time and not whatever anyone fancies). Plenty of your fog will be dispelled if you do find that text.
Thank you for your contributions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
1) Baby snatching: Here's a primer for you on the devshirme system:
Devshirme was not a haphazard method to terrorise the population but rather was done with a view to creating not only a loyal element in the Ottoman army, but also a loyal bureaucratical high level of officials for imperial governance.
Janissary ‘recruiters’ toured around the Balkan provinces of the empire at regular intervals (I don’t remember exactly how regularly, but something like every 5 to 10 years or so) and ‘recruited’ the healthiest and brightest looking kids from the villages they visited in a proportion, no more than say 5 percent (IIRC) of the number of youths in any given area.
Therefore, nobody snatched ‘babies’ from the embraces of anybody, to give a direct reply to the phrasing of your assumption (please read on before exclaiming ‘but snatching kids or teenagers are not any better!’) 
After they were taken, the healthiest looking ones would be sent to ‘Janissary hearths’, where they were raised as Muslims, acquired the Turkish language, and were trained in all aspects of warfare (shooting, sword skills, or any given weapon of the time as well as a Spartan physical training) for around 10 years. At the end of that long period, they would join the Janissary regiments, and as such Janissaries were an unmatched fighting force in discipline and skill for at least 200 years. They had no match in Europe and they were the elite that formed the core of the Ottoman Army. They were usually thrown in the battle as a coup de grace, and their presence almost always determined the outcome of any battle they took part in once they were introduced in the battle field.
The advantage of this system is, as kids grew up, many of them, in theory, had no memory of their homes or families, they were not allowed to marry, so in theory they had no attachments to worry about. Their only bond was to the Sultan. Therefore, once they were on battlefield, after a lifetime of training and motivation with no personal attachments, they fought with the frightful combination of skill, ferocity and discipline.
As for the brightest kids, they were sent to the palace instead of the hearth. There, instead of physical skills, they received training for 10-12 years maybe more in maths, accounting, literature, history etc, again most of them forgetting or losing track of their roots. They also did some more years of practice in the palace. Then, they were sent to the various provinces of the Empire to work their way up the bureaucratical ladder, even to become Grand Vezirs (the legendary Mehmet Pasha of Sokol, comes to mind as a spectacular example). Due to their intense training in the palace, they were extremely loyal to the Sultan.
Such opportunities were what made many Christian families to volunteer their sons to the Janissaries, as Molly Bloom pointed out.
But I also must underline that the Janissaries (and the devshirme) were gone by the time when Enlightenment were bearing progressive political fruit (French revolution?), after which time Ottoman tolerance gradually fell behind the expectations unleashed by nationalism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
But what about the cruelty of taking kids from families? Here we go into (2): For a take on comparative cruelty, let’s look at Europe during the time of practical application of the devshirme system, which is between early 15th century till mid 18th century (even by then the system was not applied as stringently as before) after which hearths gradually were no longer filled by boys from Balkans but by Muslims who turned the institution into a nest of conservatism and corruption (Janissary core was abolished officially in the early 1820s).
So your time frame is roughly 1400s-1770s by the latest (with some stretch). During this period, Europe saw many bloodbaths like 30 years war (a high point of religious intolerance among Christians, let alone towards other religions), inquisitions, pogroms for Jews, witch trials and what not. The chances of having a Muslim community in Europe was virtually nil, having a Jewish one was a dance with death. As compared to these, saying that the devshirme system is a sign of more cruelty on the part of Ottomans compared to their contemporaries is plainly ludicrous. Never mind the other fact that the Ottomans actually permitted communities to keep their languages, churches and traditions at this same time. It didn’t treat them as good as you’d have it today, but with regard to their contemporaries, you have no basis rather than a subjective contempt of things Ottoman.
3) Daily horror: What do you imply with that? Even the most horridly anti-Turkish contemporaries of the Ottoman Empire bring out their worst when there’s a rebellion somewhere in the Empire and there are stories of Ottoman excesses in response to these, which by the way, does not start in the earnest until the decline of the empire. None other than Martin Luther was in such awe of the order, harmony and functionality of the Ottoman Empire at its height that he admonished his fellow Christians for not being able to emulate the Ottoman system but instead succumb to petty squabbling among each other.
“Daily horror” of Christians throughout unending centuries is not a concept that takes root outside Balkan folklore (which took its final shape through the turmoil and excesses during each nation’s war of independence). There was such a thing as Pax Ottomana, you know, pax in the full sense of the word, in which trade and commerce flourished in a unified market and universal order and security of a world empire.
As for any preference to live in another Christian country, in those times the chances of any non-Orthodox kingdom/empire showing the same degree of tolerance to the predominantly Orthodox Balkan peoples were not much really 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
Now, let’s come to side issues.
-.The issue of the name change from Constantinople (hopefully without offending anybody ) :The name “Istanbul” is of Greek origin to begin with, and was from the Greek slang anyway. So it was actually from the daily repetitions of Greeks that the Turks got the idea that the name of the city is Istanbul, instead of the cumbersome Konstantinoupoulis. So we didn’t invent the word. What’s more, before the conquest of the city, in many cases Turks referred to the city as “Kostantiniyye”, the Arabic corruption of the original word. So, in Turkish minds, it was always Istanbul increasingly after 1453, thanks to Greeks that is. What happened in the 1920s is that foreigners were demanded to acknowledge a practical reality. Just like we don’t call it Bombay anymore today in respect to the Indians who call their city Mumbai now. Therefore invoking a date for the name change might be misleading for many guys who know less about our Turkish-Greek mind games
- Speaking of Istanbul, Greeks never captured Istanbul after WWI. This was in the sense that it was always under the joint allied authority of the British and the French until it was turned over to the nationalist Turkish forces. If Greek troops marched in the city as part of an allied victory parade in 1919, under no time they exercised authority of any kind even in the Greek quarter of the city. But standing on the edge of realization of dreams of untold generations, this was quite a point of injury to the Greek government. So much so that, after having annexed Eastern Thrace up until the town limits of Istanbul, and in the face of sagging public support for the occupation of “Asia Minor” after 3 long years of enormous national exertion there, the Greek govt demanded a council with the Allied Authority to secure the handover of the city to Greece. The Greek Army of the Thrace simultaneously threatened to march on the city in July 1922. Greek and Allied troops briefly faced each other on the edge of the neutral zone, greatly embarrassing the Allies, who had no plans to go that far in their alliance with Greece. Greece even moved some regiments from Anatolia to Thrace as a show of determination, marginally weakening the defences of the Asia Minor front on the eve of the Turkish general offensive in the making. The Allies didn’t budge. Greece didn’t press further. In one month, the Turkish general offensive began and the issue was moot.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-03-2004 08:27
-
|