1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Of Greeks and Turks

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Crayton, Aug 9, 2005.

  1. Crayton

    Crayton Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    698
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    How about the Aztecs and Mexico?
    The Aztecs (Byzantines) ruled there Empire unitl the Spanish (Turks) conquered Tenotchitlan (Constantinople). The result was Mexico (Ottoman Empire), who traces her roots back to the Aztec (Hellenistic) culture.

    You are right, Texas and Mexico are like Greece and Turkey. I was a fool to encourage the belief that these two nations are alike.

    However, Asia Minor and the Balkans c.1821 were ruled by one country and shared both Turkic and Hellenistic traditions.

    My proposal was/is to keep these two traditions in separate civilizations as it applies to the game (Hellenes, Turks), but to point out that the Ottoman Empire was not a complete displacement of Hellenistic Civilization. Afterall, the Byzantine Empire was revitalized in 1830, if only for a short period of time.
     
  2. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    54,090
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    i am not sure, i havent ever spoken to anyone from turkey (apart from the internet that is) ; i suspect that the majority of people there are (like the majority of people of most- or even of all- countries) not very well educated/ not very intelligent. It follows that they will mostly be sticking to their own tradition + also share the current universal tradition, which is the american. Same in greece.
    The other countries in the balcans have slavic traditions too, they arent just made up of an amalgam of greek + turkish culture. Also albania isnt slavic, nor greek or turkish.
    1830 wasnt the rebirth of the byzantine empire; in 1830 Greece was a lot smaller than today, and was just another poor european country, influenced mostly by the major western powers.

    I do not think that it is logical, nor fair, to see the ottoman empire as the new byzantine empire. Ofcourse in rhetoric it was mostly that, but culturally i doubt that it had any real likeness. Try to imagine the byz empire fighting wars in vienna ;)
     
  3. Crayton

    Crayton Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    698
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    The Byzantine Empire fought wars in Italy; but, I see your point.
    What about all of those Hellenized people living in the Byzantine Empire? I doubt they gave up and decided to start wearing saris or turbans (okay, over simplification).

    Greece was still Hellenic after the Romans confiscated authority. The Romans may be more Hellenized than Turks to begin with but I prefer to differentiate Roman and Hellene.

    Eastern Europe is mostly, Hellenic, Turkic, and Slavic. Roman culture has also found a home this side of the Adriatic (Romania). Pockets of smaller ethnicities (most notably the Magyars) exist everywhere, think Basques.

    Oh... and by 're-birth' of the Byzantine Empire, I mean that the Greeks overthrough the Ottomans and named their newly-founded nation the 'Byzantine Empire'. I'd have to re-read a history book but I think the name was good for about 2 years.
     
  4. HourlyDaily

    HourlyDaily Man-o-Mercy

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I imagine it will be possible to mod a map that changes the base hostility of one civ towards another, rather than just overall aggressiveness or preset Military pacts.

    Now that I think about it, not having this feature in Civ 3 annoyed me quite often.
     
  5. Crayton

    Crayton Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    698
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    Yes, that would be supremely useful in scenarios. No more locked wars that force the civilizations to stop building infastructure.

    Okay, the Hellenistic civ has been explained away. The Turkish civ, I am sure, has already been speculated greatly in this forum....

    The Turks have come from South Central Asia (north of India, of course) after the Mongols swept through SW Asia. Eventually, three empires were set up: the Mughal, the Safavid, and the Ottoman. The Turks have historically been linked to the Aryans (that is if they really did invade India) and the Parthians. Most of the territory spanned by the three big empires is today, composed of mixtures of many cultures, like Egyptian, Arabian, Persian, *Hellene*, and Indian; but, many other countries (mostly those ending in -stan) are still predominately Turkish. The proposal is that the Turkish civ represent the entire Turkic Culture.
     
  6. Crayton

    Crayton Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    698
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    It looks like I'm joining the ranks of those who think the Turks should be in the original release of Civ 4. Regardless of being in the first release or an expansion, should the Turks be in as was discussed in the previous post, or as one of the 3 great empires (of which the Ottomans were arguably most powerful)?
     
  7. Tunch Khan

    Tunch Khan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Williamsburg, Brooklyn
    I just couldn't resist my urge to comment in this slowly fading thread when i read all the posts... :) First things first, Greeks and Turks should be seperate in the game (expansion that is) for a variety of reasons; and secondly, Greek culture should include Byzantines, just like Turkish including Ottomans (Mameluks, Safevids, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Karamanids, Danishmendis etc.)

    Now going back on the interesting topic, Turks and Greeks surprisingly have a lot in common (as long as the reader is aware of the distinction between Eastern and Western Turkey), let it be food, music, traditions, attitudes, Mediterraneanism, machoism, folklore, games etc.

    I have to disagree with some of you here that claim Turks and Greeks have been together for only 400 years. That comment only includes Greeks originally of modern Greece but excludes Greek citizens who have migrated there after the population exchange treaty of 1924. Oghuz Turks began colonizing Asia Minor at the beginning of the 11th Century (due to climate changes in Central Asia, heavy drought and Mongolian raids) and this migration gained sharp momentum after the Manzikert Battle in 1071. (The reader has to bear in mind the fact that Greeks were also colonizers in Asia Minor who happened to settle earlier.) Thus, Turks have been living together with Greeks (as well as Armenians and other indigenious peoples of Asia Minor) for about a thousand years. They have not only lived peacefully together -save brief periods of later conflicts- but also along with the natural course of humanity have exchanged their cultures. They married eachother, traded with eachother, learned from eachother and blended together in the Anatolian pot for one thousand long years.

    Just because of modern nationalism and imperialist foul games, the peoples of Anatolia have been drifted apart from eachother superficially in the last century and unfortunately the new generations have been thought to hate eachother for quite some time now.

    One young and unbiased mind could study the history of these people for a thousand years back and notice the past harmony that once existed.

    Turks did become partially Hellenized indeed and on the other end, Greeks and Armenians got exposed to Turkish culture, which contrary to the public belief in this forum is quite a remarkable one. :) [See. Samarkand, Tashkend, Bukhara, Merv, Transoxiana, Silk Road eg.] Unlike barbaric conquerors who just pillage, loot and dissolve, Turks, throughout history have established strong centralized states, most of them turning into powerful and dominant empires. [See. Gokturks, Khazars, Uygurs, Karakhanids, Ghaznavids, Mameluks, Seljuks, Crimean Khanate, Safavids etc.]

    It is simply unfair to assume Turks as ignorant nomadic tribesmen who just happen to ride horses and shoot arrows. It is the intention of biased western ideological teachings to portray Turks as such, which has it roots in the beginning of the last century to justify their imperialistic demands on Ottoman held vast and rich territories. It was the kind of a justification west proclaimed as the CIVILIZED man to tame the un-civilized, let it be Chinese, Turk, Arab, Indian, Native American or African. (Unfortunately this is still the same education system where Firaxis developers, along with many others base their games, blinded by biases.)

    In the case of a relatively modern and established Ottoman Empire this goal was achieved by monstrifying Turks as opressors of the noble Greeks, as Western European romantics were long idealizing. Thus they began spreading their ideology and nationalism among non-Turkish citizens of Ottoman Empire. Within a very short period of time, all Ottoman coutryside including distant mountainous rural communities were covered by foreign schools, missions and orphanages to pollute young minds. Please don't think that I am here to advocate that Greeks and other minorities of Ottoman Empire should be deprived of their rights of self-determination. No, that's not my intention. I am only trying to point out how and under which circumstances these people were thought to hate eachother. In this case the Turkish subjects of the Empire were only observing the sudden change in their Greek and Armenian neighbors' radical behaviours but soon they became similarly organised as Turkic nationalist sentiments began to arise in reaction to Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian and Armenian secessive movements, which were almost always violent and in most cases terrorist [See. IMRO(VMRO), Tashnak, Hinchak].

    Going back to the topic once more, Turks and Greeks of Anatolia and Roumelia (an old term for European Turkey), before all the mess and unfortunate events of the 19th and 20th centuries were like flesh and blood. Greeks were the most rich of all the peoples of the empire [while Armenians were nicknamed as the loyal subjects of the empire and Turks were considered second class paesants since they payed less taxes due to religion] and were extremely influential in the ruling elite, becoming ambassadors, statesmen and even ministers.

    Sultan Mehmed II, having conquered Constantinople, had himself crowned as the Caiser [Kayzer, Caesare, Sezar] of ROMAN EMPIRE and protector of all Moslem and Orthodox peoples of the world, which is remarkably universalist and expresses the continuity of Byzantine Empire. Following the conquest, he preserved and empowered the Orthodox Church and adopted most of the the Byzantine administrative, criminal and legal systems as his own along with Sheria. In his famous portrait by Bellini, Mehmed II is seen under two sets of crowns painted in the background to symbolize eternally the unification of two peoples. This was basicly what the Seljuks tried to accomplish earlier, but failed due to incoming Crusaders. Having established their capital in Ikonium, Seljuk rulers named themselves as Sultans of Rome, as the lands they have aquired were previously known as Roman Empire, thus their country was called Seljuks of Rum [Rome in local].

    One of the best verses that summarize my ideas here belong to the people of Karaman region as presented by the Metropolite of Caeserea (Kayseri) in 1896:

    Though we are Romans, we don't know any Roman, we speak in Turkish,
    We don't read or write in Turkish, neither we say it in Roman,
    Such is our unique affiliation,
    We feel something very Greek, but can only express it in Turkish.


    These verses (please excuse bad translation here) belong to one of the thousands of literature written in Turkish language but with Greek letters in Karaman. Thus, what is said above in a riddleish verse is in fact very true as they didn't read or write in Turkish (Arabic) alphabet, nor they used Roman letters. They were Christian Turks (or Turkisized Greeks) who spoke in Turkish but wrote in Greek.


    The Archbishop of Thessalonike states with a gentle smile: "We would be practising the same religion, had we agreed on a formular plane" commenting on the theological discussion of Nicaea. "A day will become when we do agree" replied one of the Turkish Imams. "I believed in this and prayed that this day will arrive soon"

    This was the atmosphere where Imams were preaching of Isa bin Meryem (Jesus of Mary) and Bishops were praising the "light of forgiveness" in Islam. Humanism, science and arts have flourished during this period and enlightened people of all races flocked to Asia Minor. [See. Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi (of Rome), Yunus Emre, Molla Fenari, Gorgios Amirutez, Kadizade-i Rumi, Cyriacus of Ancona, Gentile Bellini, Gennadios, Francesco Berlinghieri, Roberto Valtoroio, Ali Kuscu, Haci Bektas Veli etc.]

    It was such a tolerant and receptive society that inspired Mehmed II to conquer Rome and once and for all unite all three religions; Islam, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic under one unified universal religion. Could he have achieved such a Herculesque task, we can never guess, as he was poisoned by Latins shortly after the beginning of his campaign to invade Italy. The castles occupied in Southern Italy and Taranto were soon to be abandoned forever.

    I have mentioned all the above historic facts, perhaps a little too long [with apologies] to point out the Greek - Turkish relationship which was the topic, but while doing so, i have not turned a blind eye to the facts of our days. I have personally travelled across Turkey, Cyprus and Greece, including the Greek Islands and have witnessed first hand all the aformentioned particules that form our joint culture. Aside from their names, we eat the exact same food, we dance to the exact same rhythms and we curse or blow a whistle to the exact same emotions. Today, living far from home, whenever I hear a familiar tune coming out of a tavern while walking down Astoria Boulevard, I immediately rush in without checking the name, knowing that I will find my own food wether the name in the menu is Dolmathes or Dolma.

    I would like to end my posting here with a quote from a Sufi Dervish from those golden days: "My heart is open to all forms: the temple of pagans, monastery of the Christian monk, Ten Commandments of Moses or Qur'an of the Moslems, as my religion is the religion of Love."
     
  8. Crayton

    Crayton Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    698
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    I feel obligated to thank you for injecting some much needed history into our rather artificial debate. History is to a Civilization as blood is to the body. Thanks.
     
  9. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    54,090
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    I dont think that post 1821 Greece was ever called "the byzantine empire", but greeks also called themselves "romioi", which, although not very common today as a name, still is used and has an understandable meaning. The "megale idea" (great idea) was also existant, as an ultimate end to retake constantinople, which climaxed in 1920 and the Sevres treaty, where greece effectively owned a largish part of western asia minor (smyrna and areas around it) and eastern thrace. Although i havent read the history of the 1920-1922 war (mostly because i fear that i would be very irritated by reading about it) it seems that due to various reasons, from backstabbing from italy and other westenr powers, to the pathetic division in greece between monarchists and repuiblicans, the end was disaster. Post 1922 there is no serious notion of re-isntituting the byzantine empire, as it is unrealistic.
    At 1950 (iirc) constantinople still had almost 1/3 of its population being greek, but due to violent turkish pogroms the original number of greeks lessened from 200.000 (or something like that) to less than 5000 today. Also the city was re-populated by asia minor turks, and today has over 10 million people, so the 'megale idea' ended as far as taking the city itself as well. The other part of the megale idea, which was retaking parts of asia minor, as was mentioned, ended in 1922.
    I personally dont care about orthodoxy, and find it really a cheap political trick that politicians here stress the theological school of chalke (in constantinople) as being of importance. It would seem to be a lot more logical if they were asking for the return of lost property for those who were kicked out in the 1950 pogroms. Also the sad truth is that only turkey threatens war, and has at times created serious incidents where war could have happened (1996 imia island crisis). Living in a country which can go to war isnt very pleasant, and retards development. Moreover a real war between greece and turkey would mean ariplane bombings on both sides of the aegean, with probably little to naught advance on land, due to the river border and minefields surrounding it. The only outcome would be needless destruction.
    That said it is at least strange that turkey seems to be treating its european union bid as some kind of favour that turkey itself is doing to europe, when it is the other way around (as is with any member state). I think that the only viable solution to how things are would be if the educational ministers of both countries agreed on a common effort to depict history in a less hatred-provoking manner in the history books, as has happened for example in the case of france and germany. Greece will not get to become again the byzantine empire, but at least if things are stable in the region it will (along with tukrey as well) become even richer, and so the people can have a higher standard of living.
    The 'greek-turkish friendship' as is attempted today (i mean politically) is rather cheap and not particularly productive; steps have to be taken which would be of a lot more serious nature, like the history books example. Also a general rise in the level of education itself would guarantee the end of extreme right parties functioning in both countries, with turkey having this problem in a far larger extent (eg the 'grey wolves' party). That said it is true that a considerable part of (ofcourse the least educated, and unpleasant anyway) people in greece still view turkey as inferior, mongolic, unworthy of having 'greek' lands etc, but i suppose that there is a similar attitude in the analogous part of the population in turkey, which just uses different arguments but the emotional background isnt probably a very different one.
    What is, though, truelly against turkey is its record of human rights, with the country seeming to be not at all a clearly democratic one, but a fragile amalgam of democracy and military elitism, which i guess is part of the legacy of ataturk. Also atatuk himself, as a cultural icon, can be very difficult in the attempt to form a good relationship with tukrey, since in greece he is seen as a murderer. In my view though if turkey had a less dependance on its military (which would have to happen after it had solved other issues, like the kurdish issue) it might be able to slowly move on, and not consider ataturk as so important for its existence. For example i doubt that anyone in greece would view alp arslan (matzikert 1071) or even mehmet ii, as so offending; but ataturk is certainly seen as something vulgar and peasant-like, and barbaric, and even i who am at any rate a person who views things in a more logical manner still feel that if someone was to identify himself as a person who held ataturk in high esteem i personally wouldnt really want to have much to do with that person. This is also psychologically-oriented.

    So, in conclusion, steps have to be taken to improve relationships, and those steps have to be a lot different than the semi-steps that are being taken today.
     
  10. Greek Stud

    Greek Stud Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Westlake Village, CA
    I do appreciate the article that Tunch Khan wrote, although some key parts can be disputed.

    _____
    The first Seljuk Rum Kingdoms, were accepted by the Rums (Greek: Romanioi). They looked to their leadership to thwart the strongly conservative and oppressive Byzantine Government. But then these 4 Kingdoms had their own power struggles. When Osman took advantage of these disputes, he conquered the other 3 Kingdoms and united all Seljuks as Ottomans. The Ottomans successfully captured more of Asia Minor and moved their capital from Iconium (Turkish: Konya) to Bursa (Turkish: Brusa). From here, Turks and Greeks were at peace for 20 years. And as the Byzantine Empire had crumbled to the Venetian and Latin efforts and 4th Crusades, the sub-Empires of Byzantium were going through power struggles. When the Empire of Constantinople was restored to the Greeks by the Royal family of the Empire of Nicea (below it), the Constantinoplian Emperer died and left the throne to his 9 year old son. The Ottoman's were enlisted to support Adrianople in a Civil War of power with the Constantinoplians. The Greeks led the Seljuks to power by suppressing the people of Asia Minor and bringing it war. The Greeks of Adrianople brought the Ottomans into Europe for their own selfish endeavours. Up to this point Greeks and Turks (at the civilian level did not hate each other). But when Murad took over after Orkan's death, he declared Jihad (Holy War) on all those that were not Muslem. The division between Greeks has always been there. The Byzantine Empire brought division between the Romans (Latins) and the Greeks.

    Jihad is the reason why there is divide today between Greeks and Turks. But would Turks have declared a Jihad had there been no Crusades in Asia Minor? The Crusades that not only divided Christians and Muslems in Asia Minor, but also weakened the Byzantine Empire to be vulnerable to the Turks.

    _____
    Going back in time, to the orgins of Greeks and Turks, Turks make claims to the Hun Empire, to Sumeria, to the Gokturks, and to the most structured of them all the Ottoman Empire (which is appropriate for the ethnic group, because they used such a title in legal documents; whereas the name Byzantine Empire only came into play in modern times, the Empire was always refered to as Eastern Rome.) The Greeks make ethnic claims to the Ionians, Dorians, Minoans, Aeotolians, Macedonians and Achaians. For Greeks, Alexander the Great united all these ethnic groups into one group called the: Hellenes (Greek: eh-lee-nes). Modern Greece had the dispute of its legal authority over the Greek speaking world, as they still existed in the Ottoman Empire (Pontus, Macedonia, Thrace, Ionia, Cilicia, Cyprus, Crete, Chios, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt and Lybia). The legal authority of the Kingdom of Greece in the 1800s, had to consider his title not just because of the Turks, but also because of the Greek communities in Crimea, Georgia, and Moldova (Maldavia) which felt threatened from a King in a foreign country calling himself the legal authority of people in their countries (specifically just Russia-USSR).

    The threat of Hellenistic expansion today is actively being supressed by giving legitimacy to the Communist claim to Slavic Macedonianism as the sole heir to Macedonianism. Without the Union of Greeks by Alexander the Great, the super powers can contain the modern Hellenic World to Classical Greece.

    _____
    The troubles between the Seleucian Greeks of Mesopotamia and the Macedonian Greeks of Europe, were power struggles over authority and how the alliances of military leagues would be structured in the Macedonian captial: Corinth. The Romans considered the Hellenic World to be a vital military power threat. The easy defeat of the Hellenic World by the Romans served first by winning all their battles in Thessaly, Boiotea and ending in Corinth, secondly by the surrender by the Pergamon Greeks of Pontus to the Romans. The strongest armies of the Hellenic World were under Rome, and continuous reports of the slaughters by the Romans slapped Greeks into reality, that the superior race complex much adored by the rulers in Mesopotamia and Ptolemic Greece of Egypt.
    _____

    Greeks and Turks cannot be grouped as one group because we come from different groups, most of our historic idols are idolised for successes between or against our two groups, and Firaxis mentioned that the new enthic group name would not be appropriate for game players: Greasy-Turkey.
     
  11. Tunch Khan

    Tunch Khan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Williamsburg, Brooklyn
    I would like to comment very briefly on Greek Stud's article; I don't see where your disagreement is, as your views compliment mines from a different perspective. I don't claim Turks and Greeks to be considered as one cultural group neither. Although they share the same culture today, ideologically Greek and Turkish national identities were born and developed against eachother. I just wanted to point out the superficiality of this distinction.

    I would like to reserve my rights to answer Varwnos' comments when I'm more sober. I enjoyed reading and would agree with most of them, however he gave me plenty of reasons to write about his comments on Ataturk. :)
     
  12. Ares de Borg

    Ares de Borg Norman Knight

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,073
    Location:
    Heart Of Europe
    The Byzantines were called "Griffons" (Greeks) by the Latin Crusaders in the Middle Ages and that was not a compliment. Personally, I kicked out the Byzantines and gave their units to the Greeks in CIV III. This made room for Vietnam because I needed one more asian civilization. I also booted the Sumerians for Syria. Heck, I hate this fricking 31-civ-limit! ;-)
     
  13. Greek Stud

    Greek Stud Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Westlake Village, CA
    I just want to mention I said disputed, not disagree. The argument of intermarriage as it coincides with nationalism. But we Greeks have not been a culture that embrassed intermarriage. Not that I believe it did not occur, but not to the extent that is being portrayed. Even when you look at cities like Smyrna, sectors for Turks, Greeks, Jews, Armenians and then Christians. Or in Koroni, sector for the Greeks, the Venetians and when the Turks kicked the Venetians out, they lived in the Venetian castle.

    No doubt do our peoples have a long history. But look at when Alexander the Great, married a Bactrian princess. What was the reaction of the Greeks that fought for Alexander and the politicians? This isn't about racism, supremacy or trying to separate our two peoples. It is looking at a cultural trend. Such as royality only marrying royality, but did some royals (make love) to people that were not of royal blood, yes it happened, but it is an argument to say that the blood is one, or similar in race. And possibly our close exposure with each other has brought our racial groups closer, including the Janissaries that were enslaved, and the Armenian and Greek women that were forced into marriage during the forced expulsion of non-Turks. I am not trying to swing punches at your culture, but these are realities to our people that need to have consideration. There is a reason much more complex as to why Turks and Greeks still feel uncomfortable together. Just as in the United States, African-Americans cannot fully trust White-Americans. It is a lot more work than to just say we are the same because of our cultural equalities, yet it is still clear that religion is a major cultural difference as is our language and our views on Greek-Turk relations: regarding Cyprus, Greek airspace, and religious-speech freedoms in both our countries.

    So those are some of the subjects that can be discussed, without either one of us being forced to say "We are right! You are liars" because both Turks and Greeks say it. But their has to be the open discussion of both truths.
     
  14. Tunch Khan

    Tunch Khan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Williamsburg, Brooklyn
    We are looking at the same glass. Wether if it is half empty or half full; is a matter of perspective. I'm looking at the matter with the advantage of having spent some time in both countries and having established intimate friendships 'with the other'.

    Haven't I realized any of the differences, or obstacles? Of course I have. I have heard, studied and worst of all, witnessed some things first hand that I won't even mention here. [Equally disgusting and embarassing for both parties.] I am simply making a conscious decision on turning a blind eye over them so that I can see something much better behind.

    On a side note, of course only based on my experiences, 'mainstream' Turkish people are more open minded when it comes to improving relations. Greeks that I have met, especially the ones in the diaspora here in the States, are more reluctant and hesitant at first, but once the initial ice is broken they are equally warm and sincere. Again, I am just talking about the mainstream here. There is a big misconception in the majority of the Greeks that I have met, that all Turks hate Greeks (and goes along that line, you can use your imagination). This is simply not true if you should excuse the few marginal 'grey wolfes' as they are reputed in Greece, and even they are much busier hating some 'other' people for the last 15 years due to an ongoing conflict. Greece doesn't take that much part in average Turk's life and most of the information they get are usually related to rivalry in tourism. But during my stays in Greece, I could see Turkey in every single news program on TV or on the papers. Turkey has long stopped regarding Greece as a potential threat to her national security and thinking the opposite is just being a little too obsessed. The few political problems mentioned above as divided Cyprus and Aegean air space are not impossible to resolve. As the last referandum showed in Cyprus, Turkish side is more determined to live together and to compromise than the Greek Cypriots. Annan Plan could have been discussed further if there were any good intentions, but Greek Cypriots simply wanted it all for themselves. Yet, I am still very optimistic about the near-future, but apparently we need a good ice breaker.
     
  15. Greek Stud

    Greek Stud Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Westlake Village, CA
    Do you not see the Cyprus Issue as a land grab? What other country in the world has governing seats by foreign countries? Why should the Annan Plan allow for the Republic of Turkey to have seats in Parliament?

    The Greek Cypriots do want peace, we also want our houses back. The coup failed and then Turkey invaded afterwards. That is a land grab, just as the UN identifies it.
     
  16. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    54,090
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Are you cypriot? (since you said "our" houses)
    Your nickname does not really encourage one to see you as very serius though :p

    btw: this thread should be in an off-topic forum. This forum, as is known, is just for suggestions for civ4, and those have ended in the thread.
    I wouldnt want this to escalate into useless balcan-style "discussion" ;)
     
  17. Greek Stud

    Greek Stud Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Westlake Village, CA
    No, it is more of a response to the statement that Turks are more serious about peace than the Greeks are in Cyprus. Greeks have approved many resolutions; then suddenly the Annan Plan gives Turkey all it wants and they finally vote on a resolution for the first time ever and the Greek Cypriots say no because they do not want to give their island to Turkey, and as the plan also gives part of the island to Britain.

    I am Greek. I own a house in occupied Cyprus.

    This does not have to become an off-topic thread. But I will not listen to someone call the Greeks the instigators of the Turco-Greco disputes. The facts are clearly laid out at the UN of who violated international law.
     
  18. Tunch Khan

    Tunch Khan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Williamsburg, Brooklyn
    Maybe that's the reason behind loosing so much time. Not being open, or "listening to the other side". :(
     
  19. Crayton

    Crayton Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    698
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    Take Cover!!! Run for the Hills!! I'll quote myself

    "It looks like the fate of Cyprus will be decided right here, in this thread!"

    Okay, Greeks and Turks were never really 100% enthused about having to share so many things. Perhaps (as it would be to my liking) we should look to the original proposal of this thread. About which I asked: How Hellenistic was the Ottoman Empire?
     
  20. Tunch Khan

    Tunch Khan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Williamsburg, Brooklyn
    Following the liberation of Izmir (unless you prefer to call it "occupied Smyrna"), on September 10, 1922, Mustafa Kemal arrived to the city and a house to the north side of the harbour was designated as his residence. He left his car to walk to the main gate where he noticed a Greek flag placed on the floor as a door mat. When he asked about it, he was told by his escorts that this residence was occupied by King Constantine of Greece during his stay in Izmir a year ago and that he entered the residence by stepping on a Turkish flag. Mustafa Kemal ordered in anger to have the Greek flag removed from the floor at once and explained to his companions: 'A flag is the symbol of a country's honor and may never be stepped on.'
     

Share This Page