 |
| |
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
The Ottomans wanted an Armenian-free Ottoman province of Armenia, and as much as possible, an Armenian-free set of eastern provinces.
In Martin Gilbert's 'First World War' he notes:
On the former Caucasus front, Germany's ally Turkey was driving the Armenians out of what was left of their homeland, occupying ther former Russian city of Kars (which had been Turkish until 1878) and pressing eastward into the Armenian heartland, occupying Alexandropol on May 15 and defeating more than 6 000 Armenians three days later. For another ten days, the Armenians fought tenaciously, at one point pushing the Turkish back thirty miles, but on May 26, at the Battle of Karakilise, the Turks were victorious, and 5 000 Armenians made their escape over the mountain passes. On May 28, Armenia declared her independence. It was a short-lived culmination of long-held aspirations: within two weeks, hundreds of Armenians were being massacred by Tatars south of the Georgian capital of Tiflis. The Turks, advancing three months later into the former Russian Caucasus, and in due course reaching the Caspian Sea, murdered more than 400 000 Armenian civilians, townsmen, villagers and children.'
PP 422-423
It should be remembered that the Russian Czar had visited the Caucasus Front early in the war, and had said to the head of the Armenian Church that 'a most brilliant future awaits the Armenians.' Not a move designed to enamour the Ottoman Empire to its large population of Armenians, who had fellow Christians and relatives across the border in Russia. |
I believe the year Gilbert’s talking about is 1918. Turkish forces entered Baku on 15 September of that year, and just 15 days later Ottoman Empire surrendered unconditionally by the Treaty of Mudros, which stipulated that the Turkish army units in the region be replaced with British ones. Turkish troops left the region under the supervision of the latter by November 1918. Therefore, they should have been quite industrious to have “massacred 400.000 Armenians” in such a short time. Even if they tried the challenge in the months before and during their arrival in Baku, the British military personnel who were in the region for years to observe this front of the Great War would certainly take note. That note is conspicuously absent in British sources. They note otherwise; and just to give you an idea, I quote from declassified British Foreign Office files, as quoted in a book by Turkish historian Salahi Sonyel (“Great War and the Tragedy of Anatolia”, Turkish Historical Society Printing House; 2000, p.165):
[This is by the British officer in the field to the Director of Military Intelligence, forwarded to the Foreign Office in the file no FO/371/3404/158226, dated 16 Sept 1918]
“The Armenians joined the Bolsheviks and restarted [sic] their blood feud with tha Tartars instead of continuing to fight the Turks. Over 8.000 Tartars were killed in Baku, over 18.000 unarmed Tartars were ruthlessly murdered in the Elizavetpol district, mainly by Armenian rebels and Bolsheviks. Evidence as to the needless aggressiveness of the Armenians is also contained in [British Charge d’affaires in Istanbul] Sir C. Marling’s [communication] no 76 of 30 April 1918 and [British Consul in Georgia] Wardrop’s no 452 of 29 April 1918”
Other observers note that there were 60.000 refugees from 420 Muslim villages destroyed by the Armenians (p.495).
I’m not trying to engage with you here in a quoting match, of course  I just mean to make the point that Armenians themselves were engaged in what you might call ethnic cleansing for some time, both in the Caucasus as our discussion brought us, but also in Eastern Turkey, where they lost their overall majority in the region centuries ago and hence more incentive to do so (and here I’m not trying to create an image of bad faith just for the sake of the arguement. Armenian nationalist literature was well established concerning Eastern Turkey decades before the WWI).
Another point concerning the 400.000 Armenians quoted in Gilbert: I probably can claim to have a fairly good idea about the Armenian perspective on the “genocide” issue but frankly I never heard about this before, or saw this in Armenian sources. If you consider the overall number they claim to have been killed in Turkey to be 1.5 million, an omission of 400.000 in Caucasus in their primary arguement is rather curious to me. Is there a footnote in Gilbert’s book where he gives a source for this extraordinary claim?
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
In Poland and Eastern Europe, the Russians used the Jews as scapegoats for the defeat by the German army: it was said that 'were it not for the Y ids -traitors- the Prussian army would have been utterly routed.'
In October 1914, the Jews of Vilna, Grodno and Bialystok paid the price at the hands of their gentile fellow townsfolk.
In Palestine, Jemal Pasha ordered 500 Russian Jews deported, too. He also hanged members of the Arab national movement in Beirut, just to be even-handed though. He strangely disbanded an anti-Entente Jewish Zionist militia in Jerusalem, and expelled David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, which had the effect of making them set sail for the United States, and raise a Jewish Legion to fight within the Entente's military forces. |
Sorry, I miss the connection here, molly
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Ancyrean- while I agree that it is dangerous to apply a modern label to events that happened in the past, it seems only fitting to describe what happened in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire as a 'genocide' or at the very least, 'ethnic cleansing'. It should be noted that Assyrian Jacobite and Nestorian Christians were also affected.
I admit that forced marches through deserts are not the most efficient way to kill off populations, and Russian encouragement of Armenian national aspirations didn't amount to direct aid for Armenians, but undoubtedly did account for mounting suspicion and eventually action, against what we might see as the equivalent of Japanese Americans in WWII, except mass slaughter and hunger marches took the place of relocation camps and detention centres.
Destruction of cultural centres has little to do with detaining suspected fifth columnists, or military strategy, but in helping making an area 'Armenian-free' or reducing the incentive for Armenians to stay there, are a good tactic. |
I see your point. The addition I have to your point is that ethnic cleansing, if we might call it that for a moment, was at least mutual. Armenians started the whole thing in the fisrt place in the urgency of creating a majority in where they were not. None other than Bernard Lewis agrees with this point (I have with me his “The Middle East: 2000 years of history”, for example at pp. 339-340). Besides, they were indeed directly assisted by the Russians, who had been providing them with arms and money for quite a while and even further employed them as regiments in their own Tsarist army.
As for the destruction of cultural centres, this happened to both communities: Armenians did this to Turks, Turks to Armenians. Because of this and the bloodshed, by the time government intervention there was a very thick and deep hatred between the two communities in the region.
It is of course true that the area became “Armenian-free” by the end of the war, but it was as a result of this kind of a chain of events, not out of the blue and not because of a long-brooded over plan put into action.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
That was a label affixed to the Eastern Roman Empire by some Brit Historian. The label seems to have become fixed in our minds. The people themselves were Romans. Their nation was the Roman Empire or Romania.
|
Well, though Eastern Roman Empire is quite acceptable name in our days I can't really think of any reason why the Byzantine Empire isn't a suitable name too or even better. The transformation of the Roman Empire - the eastern part - into something different from Constantine the Great and after with a monotheistic religion playing a major role in society and state affairs, the aboption of the Greek language and being a trully multinational empire with no national discrimination and no dominant nation - for the first time in history - are strong reasons to name it to something different, and why not after its center, Constantinople - Byzantium as originaly named - a city that in an essence was the empire itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Some were killed, some were not- a Venetian eye-witness (Barbaro) said that quarters of the city that voluntarily submitted to the Turks avoided death:
'According to Islamic tradition the Sultan, before the beginning of hostilities, demanded the surrender of the city, promising to spare the lives of its inhabitants and respect their property. In a proud and dignified reply the Emperor rejected Mehmed's demand.'
Then:
'The Sultan swore to distribute fairly the treasures found in the city. According to tradition the troops were free to loot and sack the city for three days.'
and
'The excesses which followed, during the early hours of the Ottoman victory, are described in detail by eyewitnesses. They were, and unfortunately still are, a common practice, almost a ritual, among all armies capturing enemy strongholds and territory after a prolonged and violent struggle. '
but:
'In some distant neighborhoods, especially near the sea walls in the sea of Marmora, such as Psamathia, but also in the Golden Horn at Phanar and Petrion, where local fishermen opened the gates, while the enemy soldiers were pouring into the city from the land gates, local magistrates negotiated successfully their surrender to Hamza Bey's officers. Their act saved the lives of their fellow citizens. Furthermore their churches were not desecrated. '
http://www.greece.org/Romiosini/fall.html
Lest it be thought that this was a particularly odious 'Asiatic' practice, the same thing happened in Europe, as the fall of Rome to Charles V's Lutheran mercenaries illustrates, or the sack of Magdeburg, or the fall of Munster.
http://www.strategypage.com/cic/docs/cic66c.asp
Of course the city was rebuilt, refortified and repopulated, Greek subjects allowed to maintain their faith, and a new Patriarch, Gennadius elected, who lost no time in accepting control of the Orthodox churches of Serbia and Bulgaria, and finally repudiating union with Rome.
Why refound Byzantium anyway? The Byzantine Empire was markedly less tolerant than the Ottoman Empire.
|
They also burned around 1.500.000 books of Constantinople's library to simply warm their soldiers when the winter came. Possibly the worst crime against history...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
I'd prefer Hellenistic Alexandria- a tolerant multi-faith city, with scientists, theorists and inventors of the calibre of Hero of Alexandria, a library unmatched anywhere in the world, at the junction of Africa and Asia, open to the Mediterranean and Northern Europe- and they even had women scientists and mathematicians, and emancipated women- beats Athens, hands down.
5th century Athens- a place where a woman's age was calculated from the day she was married? I wonder how civilized YOUR wife feels it may have been, Aggie?
Let us know when the kantheros stops beating on your head.  |
I won't debate wich city is better, I bet both Athens and Alexandria and other cities had their share in world history but if there was no Athens then maybe dramma and philosophy would be different...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ancyrean
Actually, at the time of the conquest the population of Constantinople was tiny already.
|
Estimates rise it to 50.000 people that most of them were killed during the fall of Constantinople. The Turkish had to force people from the surroundings, especially Thrace, to inhabit Constantinople.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
May-be you need to grow up all blah blah
writer of book have than bias of some sort. I wasnot even than Muslim when the Book the Satanic Verses came out. First there was never any Satanic Verses in the Muslim Holy Book it pure fiction of Mr Rushdie's Zionist he was working for. attack on Islam. outright lies and this book isnot Israel called Arm of Salvation.
blah blah
Islam doesnot have that
blah blah
Also we donot have asset to the media in the west as our enemy do and which they use to spead lie about Islam. The Imam gave me than copy of the Koran written in both Arabic and English. |
Lay off the coffee, the speed, and the fantasy trips, and don't inhale fumes from burning linoleum.
I might then take you seriously.
I find conspiracy theorists tedious at the best of times- when their sentences and words telegraph into each other with the force of high speed railway accidents, they become illegible and dull.
At least you're not writing in all upper case and turquoise, so that's a small relief.
You've omitted the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', by the way, and the Zionist-Bolshevik-Capitalist conspiracy, and Holocaust revisionism, and the Jewish Blood Libel, but in your zeal to show that Islam never killed nobody, nosirree, Bob! I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Lay off the coffee, the speed, and the fantasy trips, and don't inhale fumes from burning linoleum.
I might then take you seriously.
I find conspiracy theorists tedious at the best of times- when their sentences and words telegraph into each other with the force of high speed railway accidents, they become illegible and dull.
At least you're not writing in all upper case and turquoise, so that's a small relief.
You've omitted the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', by the way, and the Zionist-Bolshevik-Capitalist conspiracy, and Holocaust revisionism, and the Jewish Blood Libel, but in your zeal to show that Islam never killed nobody, nosirree, Bob! I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually. |
The Book Satanic Verses was total false which will make any Muslim anger especical you have the media saying it acturate infro. The life of the Founder of Islam is well doc compare to Christ whom there is very little doc evident for his existance. I never said Islam never kill anybody but books can be misleading. In WWI the Brit press and government accuse the Germany army of rapeing very woman and baynet to death very pregeant woman in Belgium. Some Germany soider did break into than Cath month and rape some nuns and rape and baynet to death than pregeant woman staying there. Those men where seem doing this record, arrest than excute for they crimes. After the war was over the truth came out about the brit lies that harm England reput around the world. When WWII came than England knew about and try to report the Death Camps nobody believe then as they remember the Belgium rape stories told by the brit government and media. The Auther of that book on WWI you qoutes might haven bias toward the Armin side. Like trhe other person said there was no evident that the Ott murder 400,000 Armin in they last military campagion they fought. Soilder in front line unit in combat rarely rape woman compare to rear line units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Keygen
They also burned around 1.500.000 books of Constantinople's library to simply warm their soldiers when the winter came. Possibly the worst crime against history... |
Any proof of this. It is easy to say than they ate babies for dinner also.
The Roman actural believe that the early Christian ate human meat and drank human blood in their religious practive that what the jew told then. To the Roman eating human fleash and drinking human blood was one of the worst crime any person can do, and they fellt it was they duty to crack down on the Christian Religion in the persuteion of Christian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's what the histories say. Consider you're a poor peasant. Your son has an opportunity to go and be part of the imperial bureaucracy, which is a good job with perks, power, and money. And he's gonna help his parents. Damn right they woul have wanted their kid to become a janisary.
|
That is what some histories say - according to you - and although I've never read of such histories I can't decline it either due to no knowledge of the specific theories. However from some stories it can't be possible to generalize it to the majority of the Christian families or the entire duration that the children taking practice lasted. And how sure are you that the Janisaries were permitted to see their families again or at list before they had completed their long training?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Any proof of this. It is easy to say than they ate babies for dinner also.
|
I read a printed article about it long time ago and unfortunatelly I can't remember where exactly. There was a large library in Constantinople and its content - around 1.500.000 manuscripts - was used in fires set to warm the large Turkish army. They lasted for 6 months. That is what was written in the article...
It is not a rare thing that written knowledge get burned.
The Arabs - according to a theory - burned some hundred of thousands of manuscripts in Alexandria in the 7th century. The Spanish burned over 40.000 Mayan manuscripts back in 16th century.
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
The Roman actural believe that the early Christian ate human meat and drank human blood in their religious practive that what the jew told then. To the Roman eating human fleash and drinking human blood was one of the worst crime any person can do, and they fellt it was they duty to crack down on the Christian Religion in the persuteion of Christian.
|
I am refering to crimes against history. That is destroying works of the past - buildings, sculptures, manuscripts etc. - that could help us learn about our ancestors and their contribution to civilization.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Keygen
On the other hand Turkish seems to dream of a new sort of Ottoman Empire and desire Greek lands up to our times |
quote:
Well, though Eastern Roman Empire is quite acceptable name in our days I can't really think of any reason why the Byzantine Empire isn't a suitable name too or even better. The transformation of the Roman Empire - the eastern part - into something different from Constantine the Great and after with a monotheistic religion playing a major role in society and state affairs, the aboption of the Greek language and being a trully multinational empire with no national discrimination and no dominant nation - for the first time in history - are strong reasons to name it to something different, and why not after its center, Constantinople - Byzantium as originaly named - a city that in an essence was the empire itself. |
But wouldn't it also be true if one says that Eastern and Western parts of the Empire were both monotheistic after Constantinus the Great and that there was also no dominant nation or national discrimination in the Roman Empire proper, anyway?
If the extra qualities became the gradual dominance of Greek over its Latin counterpart and the Orthodox interpretation of Christianity that necessitates a renaming, would that not be an attempt to distinguish the Eastern Roman empire as a Greek one? So can we say the Byzantines were Greeks?
quote:
They also burned around 1.500.000 books of Constantinople's library to simply warm their soldiers when the winter came. Possibly the worst crime against history... |
Mehmet the Conqueror was one of the most enlightened rulers of his time, maybe not paralelled in Ottoman history. He was profoundly interested in Europe and European culture as well as Christianity (when the last Orthodox Patriarch of the "Byzantines" became also the Ottomans' first, he ordered him to write a treatise on Christianity to explain in detail its theme and tradition, for example). By empathic deduction, I'd say burning of such a treasure would run contrary to his character.
If we leave aside empathy, AFAIK such an event is also not widely mentioned in the mainstream history of "Byzantines" and Ottomans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
quote:
I hardly beleive that the Christian families would gladly give away their children to grow and live as Turkish and muslims. What you've got here is probably an exemption to a rule and in later times. Use some common sense... |
Well common sense of this day and year, (particularly if one agrees with a sense of history that highlights an epic struggle against Turks who were the epitome of evil) is what exactly would lead one to be abhorred by the suggestion here (I'm not implying you do agree with such a perception).
Instead, to the extent possible, it's better to try to imagine the context of the time. It's not that everybody got in line to turn over their kids, but that it was more than an exceptional situation for Christian families to volunteer their kids to the Janissaries, with reasonable reasons, as was mentioned here before.
quote:
And how sure are you that the Janisaries were permitted to see their families again or at list before they had completed their long training? |
Many kept in touch, over years as they rose in rank and office. Here’s a striking example (I quote from "Constantinople: the City of the World's Desire", by Philip Mansel, p. 18-19):
"The presence of the Janissaries meant that many of the soldiers-and the great mosque builders and viziers- in Constantinople were Slavs. In 1542, according to a French traveler, in the palace 'Sclavonian' (Serbo-Croat) was the language 'most used and understood of all…all the more since it is common to Janissaries'. Contrary to what historians used to believe, slaves of the Gate [the devshirme, that is] were also able to straddle two worlds, maintaining contact from the capital with their family in the provinces. The Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha, for example, conducted negotiations with Serbia in 1457. If they led to a favourable peace and a higher tribute for the Ottoman Empire, it was no doubt because the highest official in the Serbian court, the Grand Voivode Michael Angelovic, was his brother"  .
Check this out, from p.19 again:
"Some slaves of the Gate formed a Serb lobby in the capital, often in conflict with the Greek-dominated Patriarchate. The most prominent Constantinople Serb, and one of the most prominent figures of Ottoman history, was born Bajica Sokolovic in 1505, fifty years after the conquest, in the small town of Visegrad on the Serbian Bosnian frontier. A man of imposing presence, with black beard and a hawk nose, he rose swiftly through the ranks of the devshirme, occupying successively the posts of falconer, Grand Admiral, vizier, Viceroy of Europe. Finally, from 1564 to 1579, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, as he had become Grand Vizier. Courteous, prudent, avaricious, he was a stateman with a world view. From his palaces in Constantinople he planned canals between the Don and the Volga and the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, in order to help Muslim states against Russia and Portugal respectively, sent munitions to Sumatra, helped select a new king for Poland, ordered pictures and clocks from Venice and arranged a successful peace with Spain, Venice and the Papacy, despite the Ottoman naval defeat in Lepanto in 1573.
Yet he kept links with his Serbian roots. He placed relations in the Ottoman central government and in 1557, at his insistence, the Serbian archbishopric of Pecs was revived, against the wishes of the Patriarchate, his brother was the first Archbishop. Himself destined for priesthood when 'gathered' for the Sultan, he is said, on occasion, to have accompanied his nephews to church, on their visits to Constantinople."
He was not an exception. Compare this with the folk tales around .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Keygen
I read a printed article about it long time ago and unfortunatelly I can't remember where exactly. There was a large library in Constantinople and its content - around 1.500.000 manuscripts - was used in fires set to warm the large Turkish army. They lasted for 6 months. That is what was written in the article...
It is not a rare thing that written knowledge get burned.
The Arabs - according to a theory - burned some hundred of thousands of manuscripts in Alexandria in the 7th century. The Spanish burned over 40.000 Mayan manuscripts back in 16th century.
I am refering to crimes against history. That is destroying works of the past - buildings, sculptures, manuscripts etc. - that could help us learn about our ancestors and their contribution to civilization. |
When the Arab conquest Alexandria there where not hundred of thousand of manuscripts in it libary. In the 5Th century than framous female pagan philopher was murber by than Christian mob in Alexandrria which burn down the library which never recover from this fire. Only one scource ever mention the Arab destory the library there. Than reliabilty of that scource is very questionable as it was said by than person in Europe in the 11th century.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
In fact fire breaking out in the cities of the ancient world was very hight an they abilitity to fight fire was not that good. Fire can break out acidently too. In fact even to day it hard to fight than big fire or firestorm with our moderm equipment to fight fire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
To have than Holy War the Church want against Islam in the 11th century thought 9 crusade you must whip the people up into than frenzy. You get than questionable scholar to claim they burn the Libarary of Ales destorying all these books, they nothing but book burner, then you say they eat baby meat and drink baby blood, then you say they convert people to their hearthen faith by the sword and so on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:34
|
|
Again, when it comes to Armenian question - even if Armenians did some harm to rhe Turkish people, they didn't do it to the extent that happened to them later. It's hard to say Armenian started the spiral of murderings then - mass killings of them date since end of XIX century and have to do with anger of Muslims for defeats of hand of Christian europeans and losses in Europe. Turks were afraid that after Greeks, Serbs, Bulagarians, the Armenians would be next - and they made it happen.
I don't say Armenians were faultless. But they weren't an organised state, and Turks were. Turks had natural advantage here, and when I'm able to agree that it's rather a result of kind of a civil war or riots on these grounds, blaming it on the owner of this land is imo more right than blaming it on Armenians. Also, the result is that all the disputed lands were annexed by Turkey, and it's the Armenians that had much larger losses. If a marriage would quarrel and eventually the wife would get thrown out of the house severly injured, and the husband scratched, who'd you rather blame? While it's wrong to blame the Turks ONLY, it's not right to blame Armenians to the same extent as Turks. Oh, and calling those actions in Baku ethnical cleansing is not quite right. You see, e.c. occurs when You get rid of citizens of some land to claim it. Armenians never had any claims towards Baku or Gandza. If such facts occured they were result of outbirst of anger or revenge for earlier persecutions, not e.c. it's the same wrong, but important when it comes to discussing the political side of conflict. The same I wouldn't call massacres of Armenians in lands never claimed by it by a name of e.c.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-03-2004 21:40
|