Of Greeks and Turks
- Thread starter Crayton
- Start date
SweetBoy19
Chieftain
what about changing the name of the "country" (civilization) during the game???
it would be great, for example changing civics could mean a new dinasty or government
then we could start being greeks, the bizans, then ottomans, and then Turkey or the name we want to give to our state
it would be great, for example changing civics could mean a new dinasty or government
then we could start being greeks, the bizans, then ottomans, and then Turkey or the name we want to give to our state
MrMosquito
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2
I'm horrible when it comes to arguments but i have to disagree with the statement of unifying Greeks and Turks into one culture. I do not dispute the impact Hellinisme had on the world but to put them together as one would be the same as putting America and Britain(or Europe).
riskbreaker86
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 26
actually it would be more ridiculous than that, britain and the USA share a similar background, the Turks are entirely different from the greeks, they just happen to centre around a region which used to be hellenistic/byzantine, the 2 cultures could not be more different.......its like linking the french and the english, or the germans and the russians.
I'm Turkish and I loveGreeks because we are similar in culture,foods,dance traditions,people(married during the Byzan. and Ottom. times,also still..) Only different thing is religion. I just don't care the politics..We should make an union by our self like Greek-Turkey...
I'm sure this will make happy the both side because both side will get the lands that they want.
I'm sure this will make happy the both side because both side will get the lands that they want.kutlu
Chieftain
I want to finalize this topic with a small historical event.
In 9 September 1923, when Greek Army was chrashed and shot to the Agean Sea by the heroic(you know the bad economic conditioıns of the Turkish Army after ww1) Turkish Army in İzmir, The Great Commander Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said that: "We took the revenge of Hector and all the Tojans."
I think that's the summary of the Türk and Greek relationship.
In 9 September 1923, when Greek Army was chrashed and shot to the Agean Sea by the heroic(you know the bad economic conditioıns of the Turkish Army after ww1) Turkish Army in İzmir, The Great Commander Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said that: "We took the revenge of Hector and all the Tojans."
I think that's the summary of the Türk and Greek relationship.
gianluca790
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 89
Timeeee4 said:
Persia = Iran.
gianluca790
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 89
In order to address your question ("To what degree was Asia Minor Hellenistic after the Turks brought in their own culture?"), we'll first need to identify what constitutes a "Hellenistic culture".[/QUOTE]
Hellenism = Greco-Roman Civilisation, Culture and Ideals. Certainly not Turkey. Turkey = NATIONALIST SOCIALISM with ISLAMIC roots, such as the regime of Kemal Ataturk, which had principles similar to those of Egypt under Nasser - a modified form of Communism that took both Nationalism and Religion into account. Turkey is not a Theocracy for this very reason, the split between Religion and the State due to the State trying to control Religion for fear of being overthrown by the proponents of that Religion. This has led to modern age conflicts with Islamic extremists currently residing in Turkey today. This concept is not the same as ISLAMIC NATIONAL SOCIALISM, such as that of the Iraqi Baath military regime under Saddam Hussein, the Iranian Islamic Republic under Khomeini or the sectarian Wahabism of the Saudi Arabian Monarchy under Saud and Faisal, which all border on a cult of personality that results in modern-day Theocratic Ceasaropapism, which is why they can be called Arab Muslim National Socialist countries.
Hellenism = Greco-Roman Civilisation, Culture and Ideals. Certainly not Turkey. Turkey = NATIONALIST SOCIALISM with ISLAMIC roots, such as the regime of Kemal Ataturk, which had principles similar to those of Egypt under Nasser - a modified form of Communism that took both Nationalism and Religion into account. Turkey is not a Theocracy for this very reason, the split between Religion and the State due to the State trying to control Religion for fear of being overthrown by the proponents of that Religion. This has led to modern age conflicts with Islamic extremists currently residing in Turkey today. This concept is not the same as ISLAMIC NATIONAL SOCIALISM, such as that of the Iraqi Baath military regime under Saddam Hussein, the Iranian Islamic Republic under Khomeini or the sectarian Wahabism of the Saudi Arabian Monarchy under Saud and Faisal, which all border on a cult of personality that results in modern-day Theocratic Ceasaropapism, which is why they can be called Arab Muslim National Socialist countries.
I'm trying hard not to go into the politics of our two nations and must assert my complete condemnation of any such discussion. I'll try not to get dragged into one since it'll be completely counterproductive. Both Turks and Greeks have particularly macho and aggressive tendencies (the fanaticism of their football fans and their love of wrestling are just some examples) and naturally confrontations are inevitable especially with the bloody history between the two nations.
In reference to the original subject of the thread (before it was highjacked). We share the same food (kebabs, mezes, ouzo/raki, etc.), have similar taste in music, are both very patriotic (guilty of being militarily minded too) and even look somewhat alike. Despite these numerous similarities, we posess very different religious beliefs (this also means that Turks are comparitively Conservative) and speak different languages (Turkish belongs to the Altaic language family whereas Greek is an Indo-European language). Turks, especially middle/upper-classed ones, dress in the same manner as Greeks; although the peasantry and certain working-class elements dress in a more traditional manner (this is a result of Turkey's weaker economy caused no doubt by its comparitively immense size).
Throughout history Turks and Greeks have been played off against eachother by outside powers. The most easily manipulated have always been ultra-nationalist groups due to their prediliction for demonising the opposing nation, and as a result there exists a plethora of conflicts between the two. I have no doubt that if we were left alone, we would probably sit down, pop open a bottle of aniseed liquor (whether it would write ouzo or raki on the label is irrelevant), munch on some mezes for starters (I personally have a penchant for cacik/tzatziki, dolma/dolmades and kalamari), have a kebab (I personally am a fan of the Iskender Kebab) and perhaps finish it off with some Lokum/Loukoumi while having animated discussions on a variety of topics (possibly Civilization might be mentioned).
To conclude, as I awake from my gastronomical reverie (can you tell I miss my country's cooking?), a Greco-Turkish Civ is a brilliant idea, one that I'd be overjoyed to see in real life, but GreekStud wearing a Turkish football team's shirt (Fenerbahce, Galatasaray or Besiktas would be good choices in case he's had a change of heart) is more likely than that. A little thing called politics means that our two nations will continue to glare at eachother from opposing sides of the Aegean, while the only people seeing any benefits are neither Greek nor Turkish.
I hope, one day, our nation's will come together and eat at the same dinner table, sharing mezes and drinking from the same bottle; and this time there won't be a hangover in the morning.
In reference to the original subject of the thread (before it was highjacked). We share the same food (kebabs, mezes, ouzo/raki, etc.), have similar taste in music, are both very patriotic (guilty of being militarily minded too) and even look somewhat alike. Despite these numerous similarities, we posess very different religious beliefs (this also means that Turks are comparitively Conservative) and speak different languages (Turkish belongs to the Altaic language family whereas Greek is an Indo-European language). Turks, especially middle/upper-classed ones, dress in the same manner as Greeks; although the peasantry and certain working-class elements dress in a more traditional manner (this is a result of Turkey's weaker economy caused no doubt by its comparitively immense size).
Throughout history Turks and Greeks have been played off against eachother by outside powers. The most easily manipulated have always been ultra-nationalist groups due to their prediliction for demonising the opposing nation, and as a result there exists a plethora of conflicts between the two. I have no doubt that if we were left alone, we would probably sit down, pop open a bottle of aniseed liquor (whether it would write ouzo or raki on the label is irrelevant), munch on some mezes for starters (I personally have a penchant for cacik/tzatziki, dolma/dolmades and kalamari), have a kebab (I personally am a fan of the Iskender Kebab) and perhaps finish it off with some Lokum/Loukoumi while having animated discussions on a variety of topics (possibly Civilization might be mentioned).
To conclude, as I awake from my gastronomical reverie (can you tell I miss my country's cooking?), a Greco-Turkish Civ is a brilliant idea, one that I'd be overjoyed to see in real life, but GreekStud wearing a Turkish football team's shirt (Fenerbahce, Galatasaray or Besiktas would be good choices in case he's had a change of heart) is more likely than that. A little thing called politics means that our two nations will continue to glare at eachother from opposing sides of the Aegean, while the only people seeing any benefits are neither Greek nor Turkish.
I hope, one day, our nation's will come together and eat at the same dinner table, sharing mezes and drinking from the same bottle; and this time there won't be a hangover in the morning.
Xenophonos
Chieftain
Kemal Ataturk's statement "We took the revenge of Hector and all the Tojans." could not be more false in meaning.
The city of Troy was a Greek city-state. They spoke Greek, worshipped Greek gods, and their culture was Greek. So, infighting amongst the Greeks 2500 years ago constitutes revenge? Typical Turkish thought.
I'm not even going to try to present the Greeks as some far superior culture that has never done any wrong in history. Far from it.
HOWEVER,
One only has to take a glance at Turkish history from a critical perspective to see the many loopholes and falsehoods it holds. From the moment the Turks arrived in the Middle East, they were warlike.
They declared war on the Byzantine Empire, and between the Persians, the Mongols, Varangians, Bulgars, Arabs, the Crusades, the Seljuk Turks and the Ottoman Turks, the empire finally fell. Thanks to the Seljuks and Ottomans and their warlike endeavors, the Empire that lasted 1000 years came to an end.
Now, there's a lot of history in between, but I want to fast forward to Smyrna 1922. The early 1900's saw a great amount of genocide committed by the Turkish state against not only Greeks, but Kurds, Armenians, Jews and other non Turkish groups.
Genocide by the government of Turkey is STILL an issue, namely against the Kurds and is one of the main reasons why Turkey won't be in the EU for a while.
Now, when did the Greeks commit Genocide against the Turks? The shortlived, ridiculous and embarassing Greco-Turko War, when Greece invaded Turkey was wrong, ill prepared and doomed from the beginning, but Greece had a Terrible Monarch who served as a Pawn of the Western Powers. The Greeks didn't burn and destroy villages that were not military targets, They didn't have the time nor the supplies to!
Now, the Turks have a Loooong history of genocide. From the moment they came upon the borders of the Byzantine army, they committed acts of genocide to wipe away Hellenic influence in the Middle East.
They have murdered millions of innocents based on ethnicity and continue to do so to THIS DAY! The Turks even had the institution of the Janissaries throughout Ottoman history.
Now, compare all this with the Greek story, war of independence, slow reclamation of former Greek lands, WWI and WWII, terrible civil war, American staged coup de etat, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, THEN finally, political stability, economic upsurge, a fair and racially mixed modern day democracy with infrastructure improvements. Greece hasn't had the time NOR the resources to genocide, like the Turks say. Greece wants the Cyprus issue to come to a fair end, and they are not in favor of REWARDING Turkey for invading Greece's closest ally.
Turkey invaded Cyprus to prevent a Union between the two. Now, while I dislike the politics of Turkey, every Turkish person I have met have been awesome people. Turkish people as a whole seem pretty okay, but maybe they are those I have met are smarter ones who know the propaganda put out by the Turkish state.
The city of Troy was a Greek city-state. They spoke Greek, worshipped Greek gods, and their culture was Greek. So, infighting amongst the Greeks 2500 years ago constitutes revenge? Typical Turkish thought.
I'm not even going to try to present the Greeks as some far superior culture that has never done any wrong in history. Far from it.
HOWEVER,
One only has to take a glance at Turkish history from a critical perspective to see the many loopholes and falsehoods it holds. From the moment the Turks arrived in the Middle East, they were warlike.
They declared war on the Byzantine Empire, and between the Persians, the Mongols, Varangians, Bulgars, Arabs, the Crusades, the Seljuk Turks and the Ottoman Turks, the empire finally fell. Thanks to the Seljuks and Ottomans and their warlike endeavors, the Empire that lasted 1000 years came to an end.
Now, there's a lot of history in between, but I want to fast forward to Smyrna 1922. The early 1900's saw a great amount of genocide committed by the Turkish state against not only Greeks, but Kurds, Armenians, Jews and other non Turkish groups.
Genocide by the government of Turkey is STILL an issue, namely against the Kurds and is one of the main reasons why Turkey won't be in the EU for a while.
Now, when did the Greeks commit Genocide against the Turks? The shortlived, ridiculous and embarassing Greco-Turko War, when Greece invaded Turkey was wrong, ill prepared and doomed from the beginning, but Greece had a Terrible Monarch who served as a Pawn of the Western Powers. The Greeks didn't burn and destroy villages that were not military targets, They didn't have the time nor the supplies to!
Now, the Turks have a Loooong history of genocide. From the moment they came upon the borders of the Byzantine army, they committed acts of genocide to wipe away Hellenic influence in the Middle East.
They have murdered millions of innocents based on ethnicity and continue to do so to THIS DAY! The Turks even had the institution of the Janissaries throughout Ottoman history.
Now, compare all this with the Greek story, war of independence, slow reclamation of former Greek lands, WWI and WWII, terrible civil war, American staged coup de etat, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, THEN finally, political stability, economic upsurge, a fair and racially mixed modern day democracy with infrastructure improvements. Greece hasn't had the time NOR the resources to genocide, like the Turks say. Greece wants the Cyprus issue to come to a fair end, and they are not in favor of REWARDING Turkey for invading Greece's closest ally.
Turkey invaded Cyprus to prevent a Union between the two. Now, while I dislike the politics of Turkey, every Turkish person I have met have been awesome people. Turkish people as a whole seem pretty okay, but maybe they are those I have met are smarter ones who know the propaganda put out by the Turkish state.
cyrusIII85
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 111
gianluca790 said:
Perhaps you didn't mean it the way you typed it, but Iran isn't an Arab country!
Also, while we are on the subject of Hellenism, I would like to mention that it has been long dead. Persians basically stopped its spread and eventually destroyed by reverting to pure Iranian culture. And, last time I checked, Hellenism was meant as a primary cross of Persian and Greek cultures. To say that the Byzantine Empire is Hellenistic is completely wrong as well. The Byzantine Empire was not marked by a pure blend of Eastern and Western cultures, but was Roman and was always geared to more Greek culture. Of course, if someone could please tell me how it wasn't, it actually had equal representation of Eastern cultures as well, and then I'll back off.
Hey Xenophonos,
This thread was started in order to discuss whether the two races shared a common cultural heritage or not. You happily dedicate 9 paragraphs to bringing disrepute to Turkey yet barely mention Greek wrongdoings. I didn't want to get bogged down in this type of argument, yet you've provoked me into action with your biased version of history, carelessly making broad assertions without supplying any evidence. You said Ataturk's thought was "typically Turkish", yet your own unwillingness to talk about your own country's history - denying Greek atrocities in Western Turkey during the Greco-Turkish War; completely ignoring the acts of the ultra-nationalist group EOKA in Cyprus, which planned and begun the genocide of the Turkish Cypriot community (well documented in Harry Scott Gibbons' The Genocide Files) in order to achieve Enosis (union with Greece); completely bypassing Greek massacres of Turks in the Balkans during the 19th Century; I could go on, but would prefer to keep this as short as possible.
"Now, the Turks have a Loooong history of genocide. From the moment they came upon the borders of the Byzantine army, they committed acts of genocide to wipe away Hellenic influence in the Middle East."
You imply that the Ottomans did nothing but massacre Christians throughout their history. Yet you ignore the fact that until the late 19th century, the Armenians were referred to as "millet-i sadika" (loyal nation) by the Ottomans. This meant that they were living in harmony with other ethnic groups and without any major conflict with the central authority, at least until the late 19th Century. In fact, aside from having to pay heavier taxes, religious minorities were treated very well in the Ottoman Empire, especially in comparison to the rest of Europe (just look at the continent's history in relation to the treatment of Jews to see how tolerant the Ottomans were as well as strife between Catholics and Protestants). Indeed the Ottoman Empire accepted Jewish refugees from Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey is a good source if you want to learn more about Jews in Turkey) in the 17th Century, and their descendants inhabit Istanbul and Izmir to this day. There is broad consensus that the Ottomans ruled their non-Muslim subjects in a most applaudable manner from their foundation to the end of the 18th Century. The downfall of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century led to its atrocious actions against its minorities, something no Turk is proud of. As the nation lost more and more land to nationalist uprisings, it responded with an oppressive backlash, trying to stop any more bids for independence. The biggest and most infamous is the Armenian Massacres comitted by the Ottoman Government as it tried to maintain control of that region while it was under threat from the Russian Empire. The atrocities Turkey comitted were terrible, in no way justifiable, and remain a stain on Turkey's history to this day. The fact that the Ottomans only carried out atrocities as a defensive measure in order to maintain control of land (this is no justification though) is confirmed by the fact that Jews escaped persecution, since they didn't display any nationalist feelings that may have threatened Ottoman borders.
I already made my views clear on the thread's actual subject on my initial post and I hope you all realise I posted this in order to clear some matters of history up. Our nations' history may have been bloody and full of conflict, yet its plain to an outsider who visits both countries how much we have in common. I hope Xenophonos can actually produce a post which contributes something to the discussion, rather than continuing a historical debate where it is irrelevant.
This thread was started in order to discuss whether the two races shared a common cultural heritage or not. You happily dedicate 9 paragraphs to bringing disrepute to Turkey yet barely mention Greek wrongdoings. I didn't want to get bogged down in this type of argument, yet you've provoked me into action with your biased version of history, carelessly making broad assertions without supplying any evidence. You said Ataturk's thought was "typically Turkish", yet your own unwillingness to talk about your own country's history - denying Greek atrocities in Western Turkey during the Greco-Turkish War; completely ignoring the acts of the ultra-nationalist group EOKA in Cyprus, which planned and begun the genocide of the Turkish Cypriot community (well documented in Harry Scott Gibbons' The Genocide Files) in order to achieve Enosis (union with Greece); completely bypassing Greek massacres of Turks in the Balkans during the 19th Century; I could go on, but would prefer to keep this as short as possible.
"Now, the Turks have a Loooong history of genocide. From the moment they came upon the borders of the Byzantine army, they committed acts of genocide to wipe away Hellenic influence in the Middle East."
You imply that the Ottomans did nothing but massacre Christians throughout their history. Yet you ignore the fact that until the late 19th century, the Armenians were referred to as "millet-i sadika" (loyal nation) by the Ottomans. This meant that they were living in harmony with other ethnic groups and without any major conflict with the central authority, at least until the late 19th Century. In fact, aside from having to pay heavier taxes, religious minorities were treated very well in the Ottoman Empire, especially in comparison to the rest of Europe (just look at the continent's history in relation to the treatment of Jews to see how tolerant the Ottomans were as well as strife between Catholics and Protestants). Indeed the Ottoman Empire accepted Jewish refugees from Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey is a good source if you want to learn more about Jews in Turkey) in the 17th Century, and their descendants inhabit Istanbul and Izmir to this day. There is broad consensus that the Ottomans ruled their non-Muslim subjects in a most applaudable manner from their foundation to the end of the 18th Century. The downfall of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century led to its atrocious actions against its minorities, something no Turk is proud of. As the nation lost more and more land to nationalist uprisings, it responded with an oppressive backlash, trying to stop any more bids for independence. The biggest and most infamous is the Armenian Massacres comitted by the Ottoman Government as it tried to maintain control of that region while it was under threat from the Russian Empire. The atrocities Turkey comitted were terrible, in no way justifiable, and remain a stain on Turkey's history to this day. The fact that the Ottomans only carried out atrocities as a defensive measure in order to maintain control of land (this is no justification though) is confirmed by the fact that Jews escaped persecution, since they didn't display any nationalist feelings that may have threatened Ottoman borders.
I already made my views clear on the thread's actual subject on my initial post and I hope you all realise I posted this in order to clear some matters of history up. Our nations' history may have been bloody and full of conflict, yet its plain to an outsider who visits both countries how much we have in common. I hope Xenophonos can actually produce a post which contributes something to the discussion, rather than continuing a historical debate where it is irrelevant.
Panther_GR
Chieftain
I want to return in the original topic's issue which was written by someone (American Holywood film history learner I guess) and because this is a CIV P/C game board I'd like to post my view on this matter.
Greek and Turkish are two different CIVs. Completely different.
Greeks (Hellens) are in the same spot form around 3.000 BC. The Greek races (Aeolians, Dorians, Achaioi, Iones etc.) formed the city-states and then united under Alexander ruled almost 80% of the known world those days. One of these races Iones were based in the west coast of the present day Turkey. Greek ruins are still there and every tourist can see them. And I am talking 3.000 years before today...
Byzantium is a Greek-Roman Empire that ruled the area for 1.300 years. All Emperors had Greek names and the religion was Orthodox Christians. They were the first empire that denied the Pope and the Catholic church. So there is no similarity with the Ottomans who won and practically destroy them at 1453.
Greeks today are mainly (almost 93%) Orthodox Christians
Turks came from the east organized by the years formed an empire and later under Kemal managed to rule all the present day Turkey. They are mainly Muslims and they have a different culture than Greeks.
I am not going to analyze modern history and who invaded whom. I accept the facts as are today. Still we are talking for two totally different CIVs and cultures. And this is the topic of our conversation here. ...I think
Greek and Turkish are two different CIVs. Completely different.
Greeks (Hellens) are in the same spot form around 3.000 BC. The Greek races (Aeolians, Dorians, Achaioi, Iones etc.) formed the city-states and then united under Alexander ruled almost 80% of the known world those days. One of these races Iones were based in the west coast of the present day Turkey. Greek ruins are still there and every tourist can see them. And I am talking 3.000 years before today...
Byzantium is a Greek-Roman Empire that ruled the area for 1.300 years. All Emperors had Greek names and the religion was Orthodox Christians. They were the first empire that denied the Pope and the Catholic church. So there is no similarity with the Ottomans who won and practically destroy them at 1453.
Greeks today are mainly (almost 93%) Orthodox Christians
Turks came from the east organized by the years formed an empire and later under Kemal managed to rule all the present day Turkey. They are mainly Muslims and they have a different culture than Greeks.
I am not going to analyze modern history and who invaded whom. I accept the facts as are today. Still we are talking for two totally different CIVs and cultures. And this is the topic of our conversation here. ...I think
Panther_GR
Chieftain
SweetBoy19 said:
That's an intresting idea in general. I remember this happening in a game. RON or Empire Earth I think. If you are using English in some part of the game you can choose to become American or stay English.
This could happen ofcourse mainly with English (becoming US or AUS or Canada), French become Canada, Hellenic civ become Byzantines and then Greek, Ottomans become Turks, Spanish become Mexicans etc...
But then some will say that capabilities like these will change the concept of CIV game.
Greek Stud
Prince
Ceritoglu has so far had the common ground values that I expect to meet with Turks from Turkey. You made a reference to me as though I was not able to reach out to Turks without considering the fact that when I posted those posts last year, that the post before mine would provoke me to do so.
Greeks and Turks on Cyprus have always gotten along without interference from foreign governments. The Greek Junta was a CIA government that President Clinton appologized for the CIA, as it was one of many nations victim to the CIA, including Colombia, Nicaragua, failed-attempt at Egypt, Somalia. The CIA loves to plant its own puppet governments and play card games. Im not sure what influences America has on Turkey's policies today, but once the CIA knew it had lost control of the Greek Junta, Henry Kissinger ordered a blockaid against the Greeks from landing on Cyprus while the Turks were free to land. Revenge or not, the Greeks lost because they were prevented from defending themselves from the Treay of Gaurantee that allowed Greece, Turkey, and Britain to intervene. If the Turkish invasion was revenge, it was not from Turkey, it was from Britain. That was how the cards were played, I am not anti-British nor am I anti-Turk (racially).
Now to claim the Greeks did not have their revenge on the Turks is false. The Spartan Greeks in Laconia rose up against the Turks in Peloponessos and rightfully executed military leaders that allowed for any Turkish soldier to rape women young, old and married at their own pleasure leading to group rapings and leading to the suicide of hundreds of Greek Women slaves to Turks in Peloponnesos. But, Turkish innocents also lived in Peloponnessos and the Spartan secret assassin groups were paid money to locate and assassinate Turks that had a price on their head. Local vandetas were handled in a mafia style, pay to kill.
The Greek language might have been documented by the Ottoman Empire as diminishing, only because they had inforced locals to learn Turkish in schools and not study education in Greek. Greeks were in the early Ottoman times known as Rums. The Yunan people were first demarched in Asia Minor and then swiftly demarched as the Greek-speaking peoples of Athens and Peloponnessos. Christianity was considered sub-level to Islam. The freedom of Christianity in Ottoman Turkey was no different than the freedom the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew feels today in Istanbul. Christianity was changed into a racial identification than an actual belief system and way of life. Which at the core, if you set Islam and the Greek Orthodox Church side by side they are very close to the expectations as to how to live a religious life. And when I refer to Greek Orthodoxy, I am refering to the Church at the time of the 1400s when it was the lifestyle. Priests were allowed to govern in the Ottoman Empire, to give the Rums a sense of unity in an Ottoman land. Priests were ordered to speak in Turkish (of that time), and to speak ideas and not read the bible, nor monastic books that spoke about living a Christian life. Turkish local laws had punishments comparable to "honor killings" of Christians practicing in public, taking holy communion, or preaching Christianity in public. This is not much different than the reaction you may receive in Turkey today if you preach Christianity openly in public. Try it. Does this make the Byzantine's any better? No. For one, most Byzantine leaders often swayed away from the Orthodox faith and use to punish its own people in unChristian ways. The most common horendous law was to cut someone's nose completely off so as to warn other Byzantine's that you were a criminal of the State. And sometimes this punishment could be enacted at the descetion of any random official. The Byzantine and Ottoman Empire both had torture chambers, with such evil and sadistic contemplation as to the presice way to torture prisoners. Both Byzantine and Ottoman. And the Byzantine's ordered the Crusades against the Turks, who later on (20years) the Turks responded by ordering a Jihad against the Romans.
The short end of the stick regarding the Smyrna Massacre is not that Greece lost Asia Minor. It is that our blood ran like rivers through the streets, and yet the Turkish Government acts like this was a battle even though Smyrna was a city, not a military, and a metropolis, not a farming community.
Turks are taught that the Megali Idea was to invade Lydia and Ankara, but that is false! That was the Royalist's betrayal against the Greeks of Smyrna, who wanted no part of this war. Venezelos was the Western Puppet, he did not want order an invasion of Lydia nor Ankara, nor Pontus. The Royalists did so for (1) their own glory, (2) because they had a different vision of the Megali Idea, and (3) they had found out that the Protectorate of Smyrna was not going to be annexed to Greece, but to Italy to join Italy's Dodecanese islands. Italy had troops planted in Antalya to move to defend Smyrna for itself. This plan was aborted with a new deal between the West and Ataturk to act as a buffer zone between the west and Russia.
Greeks and Turks on Cyprus have always gotten along without interference from foreign governments. The Greek Junta was a CIA government that President Clinton appologized for the CIA, as it was one of many nations victim to the CIA, including Colombia, Nicaragua, failed-attempt at Egypt, Somalia. The CIA loves to plant its own puppet governments and play card games. Im not sure what influences America has on Turkey's policies today, but once the CIA knew it had lost control of the Greek Junta, Henry Kissinger ordered a blockaid against the Greeks from landing on Cyprus while the Turks were free to land. Revenge or not, the Greeks lost because they were prevented from defending themselves from the Treay of Gaurantee that allowed Greece, Turkey, and Britain to intervene. If the Turkish invasion was revenge, it was not from Turkey, it was from Britain. That was how the cards were played, I am not anti-British nor am I anti-Turk (racially).
Now to claim the Greeks did not have their revenge on the Turks is false. The Spartan Greeks in Laconia rose up against the Turks in Peloponessos and rightfully executed military leaders that allowed for any Turkish soldier to rape women young, old and married at their own pleasure leading to group rapings and leading to the suicide of hundreds of Greek Women slaves to Turks in Peloponnesos. But, Turkish innocents also lived in Peloponnessos and the Spartan secret assassin groups were paid money to locate and assassinate Turks that had a price on their head. Local vandetas were handled in a mafia style, pay to kill.
The Greek language might have been documented by the Ottoman Empire as diminishing, only because they had inforced locals to learn Turkish in schools and not study education in Greek. Greeks were in the early Ottoman times known as Rums. The Yunan people were first demarched in Asia Minor and then swiftly demarched as the Greek-speaking peoples of Athens and Peloponnessos. Christianity was considered sub-level to Islam. The freedom of Christianity in Ottoman Turkey was no different than the freedom the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew feels today in Istanbul. Christianity was changed into a racial identification than an actual belief system and way of life. Which at the core, if you set Islam and the Greek Orthodox Church side by side they are very close to the expectations as to how to live a religious life. And when I refer to Greek Orthodoxy, I am refering to the Church at the time of the 1400s when it was the lifestyle. Priests were allowed to govern in the Ottoman Empire, to give the Rums a sense of unity in an Ottoman land. Priests were ordered to speak in Turkish (of that time), and to speak ideas and not read the bible, nor monastic books that spoke about living a Christian life. Turkish local laws had punishments comparable to "honor killings" of Christians practicing in public, taking holy communion, or preaching Christianity in public. This is not much different than the reaction you may receive in Turkey today if you preach Christianity openly in public. Try it. Does this make the Byzantine's any better? No. For one, most Byzantine leaders often swayed away from the Orthodox faith and use to punish its own people in unChristian ways. The most common horendous law was to cut someone's nose completely off so as to warn other Byzantine's that you were a criminal of the State. And sometimes this punishment could be enacted at the descetion of any random official. The Byzantine and Ottoman Empire both had torture chambers, with such evil and sadistic contemplation as to the presice way to torture prisoners. Both Byzantine and Ottoman. And the Byzantine's ordered the Crusades against the Turks, who later on (20years) the Turks responded by ordering a Jihad against the Romans.
The short end of the stick regarding the Smyrna Massacre is not that Greece lost Asia Minor. It is that our blood ran like rivers through the streets, and yet the Turkish Government acts like this was a battle even though Smyrna was a city, not a military, and a metropolis, not a farming community.
Turks are taught that the Megali Idea was to invade Lydia and Ankara, but that is false! That was the Royalist's betrayal against the Greeks of Smyrna, who wanted no part of this war. Venezelos was the Western Puppet, he did not want order an invasion of Lydia nor Ankara, nor Pontus. The Royalists did so for (1) their own glory, (2) because they had a different vision of the Megali Idea, and (3) they had found out that the Protectorate of Smyrna was not going to be annexed to Greece, but to Italy to join Italy's Dodecanese islands. Italy had troops planted in Antalya to move to defend Smyrna for itself. This plan was aborted with a new deal between the West and Ataturk to act as a buffer zone between the west and Russia.
I believe Byzantines should be a subset of the Romans, since the Byzantines ALWAYS called themselves Roman, not Byzantine. They were basically Romans in a slightly more eastern location with a changing culture. That changing culture (far more hellenized than Latin-based Rome in the West) actually influenced culture in the middle east, but as a civilization they were still Roman.
I think the Turks make a great civilization (as opposed to just the Ottomans) since they could also include subsets like the Seljuks, Azerbaijani, and all those other Turkish people scattered about Southwest and Central Asia. 'Course, I still think Istanbul makes the most sense for Turkish capital.
I think the Turks make a great civilization (as opposed to just the Ottomans) since they could also include subsets like the Seljuks, Azerbaijani, and all those other Turkish people scattered about Southwest and Central Asia. 'Course, I still think Istanbul makes the most sense for Turkish capital.
Xenophonos
Chieftain
First, there is no rebuttal to what Greek Stud has stated, for it is the truth and the truth can't be denied.
The Byzantines might have referred to themselves as the Romans but I ask this... The Greeks have referred to themselves as Hellenes, yet why aren't they called this by the game and the rest of the world.
This brings up the question of what's more important, how the nation refers to itself or how it's perceived by the world.
The latter tends to take dominance, in this game and in historical context. Since this is the rule usually followed, the Byzantines should be called the Byzantines, their capital, to be historically accurate was Constantinople.
The Turks? They get Ankara as theirs.
Now, you state the Byzantine empire wasn't that much different from the Roman Empire. Noooooo, they only had a different religion, a different language, a different hierarchical system, a different government, a different military, different navy and different issues at hand. C'mon.
The Byzantines might have referred to themselves as the Romans but I ask this... The Greeks have referred to themselves as Hellenes, yet why aren't they called this by the game and the rest of the world.
This brings up the question of what's more important, how the nation refers to itself or how it's perceived by the world.
The latter tends to take dominance, in this game and in historical context. Since this is the rule usually followed, the Byzantines should be called the Byzantines, their capital, to be historically accurate was Constantinople.
The Turks? They get Ankara as theirs.
Now, you state the Byzantine empire wasn't that much different from the Roman Empire. Noooooo, they only had a different religion, a different language, a different hierarchical system, a different government, a different military, different navy and different issues at hand. C'mon.
you make a fair point. but you have also given me
a slightly off topic idea. how about a mod
that refers to the civs in their own languages?
the byzantines could be romaoi, romans, romani,
the french; francaise. i do not wish to distract this thread
from its topic, but what do ye [you plural: anyone who reads this]
think? it would be sort of a mark of respect.
![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
a slightly off topic idea. how about a mod
that refers to the civs in their own languages?
the byzantines could be romaoi, romans, romani,
the french; francaise. i do not wish to distract this thread
from its topic, but what do ye [you plural: anyone who reads this]
think? it would be sort of a mark of respect.
Arslan
Chieftain
cyrusIII85 said:
Cyrus, I partially agree with you. Yes, as an ideal, Hellenism is long dead, but it is misleading to say that Byzantine was non-Hellenistic because of being Roman or that it was geared to more Greek culture.
Hellenism is a modern concept meant to define the spreading and fusing of Greek culture over non-Greek cultures after Alexander's conquests. This happened through the spreading of Greek language and cross-cultural influences. This trend even continued in the Roman period, eastern parts of the empire were still Hellenistic in nature. While Latin culture was destroying the local cultures in the west; in the east, cultural atmosphere was much more tolerative (of course not as much as Persian age
). This tolerance added to the cultural richness and unity of the empire (e.g. you could find temples of Kybele in Britain). But with the official acceptance of Christianity, a new idea replaced Hellenism: Catholicism (universalism). Instead of seeking unity in plurality, people began to find unity in rigid laws of the church. It wasn't important whether you were Greek or barbarian, or you had a sophisticated culture or not, Chrisitianity was at the center of everyone's life, all else was secondary.
So far I've tried to explain why I don't buy Hellenistic->Byzantic/Catholic logic statement. The two are completely separate. I also don't find Byzantine any more Greek than ancient Rome was Latin. In fact, we may claim the opposite.
Similar threads
