Oooooh, nothing like a good old-fashioned Armenian Genocide discussion to plague the forums of a strategy game. Before I get into the thick of things, I think I ought to make it clear that neither side will concede a thing. No Turk, at least not one who adheres to the Kemalist principle of Nationalism (Ulusçuluk), will bow down to what he/she sees as an attempt to compromise the borders of the Turkish Republic established in the Treaty of Lausanne. No Armenian, at least not one living outside the relevant part of the world, will forget what he/she sees as a barbaric blow to the Armenian race. Therefore, I'm essentially admitting that a continuation of this discussion (which I'll take part in) will be entirely futile and will achieve
nothing but rage, hurt and confusion if you're not familiar with the subject.
The matter of whether Van can be claimed by the Turks (wow, I'm talking about something directly pertinent to the Scenario - maybe this isn't entirely off-topic) is an interesting one. A Turk would say if an Armenian can lay claim to Van, then a Turk can lay claim to much of Eastern Europe, most of the Middle-East and a fair chunk of North Africa. It certainly doesn't help that the Scenario starts in 3900BC, since this gives us no historical point when we can say who was ruling Van at the time. Since the final decision is up to the creator of the Scenario, what the rest of us think is really quite irrelevant. If he wants it to stay as Turkish it will stay as Turkish - if you don't like it, use WorldBuilder.
Onto the 'Armenian Question'...Historians arguing that a genocide happened cite the high death-toll
(the figure mentioned here, 1.5 million deaths, is amongst the highest estimates made by any historian, the number is probably closer to 500,000 - whatever the figure presented by someone, including my own, you can be sure it's merely an estimate), Western observers' recordings
(journalists and diplomats) and anecdotal evidence from displaced Armenians. Then, of course, there's the matter of displacement - many Armenians were forced to leave their homes and were 'resettled' in Syria.
Historians arguing against the definition of 'Genocide' often explain that the death-toll was merely a combination of famine
(due to war-time shortages in a remote part of the Empire), the killing of terrorist/insurgent groups
(various Armenian Nationalist groups were rebelling against Ottoman rule) and the inflation of estimates by those with alterior motives
(to demonise the Ottomans and Muslims or to 'make a camel of a mouse'); that the Western observers were coming up with racist propaganda
(Muslim Ottomans presented as evil, corrupt and vicious Easterners attacking the poor, helpless, (and importantly) Christian Armenians - inspiring hatred of the enemy and invoking a sense of moral duty); that the anecdotal evidence provided is unreliable exaggeration. The matter of displacement is explained as the Ottoman administration's 'evacuation' of the Armenian populace from an area under threat from the Russians.
The first group of historians argue that denial of the Armenian Genocide is merely revisionist history, employed by Turks to deny their guilt - the second group of historians maintain that any genocide claims are engendered by racism, Islamophobia and Armenian aims of building a 'Greater Armenia'.
Although this discussion is typically represented as Armenians vs Turks - both sides attract historians outside these ethnic descriptions; notably Ragıp Zarakolu, Ali Ertem, Taner Akçam, Halil Berktay, Fatma Müge Göcek and Dr. Fikret Adanır - are all Turkish intellectuals who belong to the 'Armenian' side. On ther hand there are many non-Turks who dispute the claims of a genocide; notably Bernard Lewis (Princeton University), Heath Lowry (Princeton University), Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), Gilles Veinstein (College de France),Stanford Shaw (UCLA, Bilkent University), J.C. Hurewitz (Columbia University), Guenter Lewy (University of Massachusetts), Roderic Davison (Central European University), and Rhoads Murphey (University of Birmingham).
As is apparent this is a matter of ongoing historical debate - I have tried to present both views in an unbiased manner. I personally believe the events in the region during the 10s and 20s did not constitute genocide. However I agree that what happened was a terrible thing, causing great pain to both Armenians and Turks. Turkey's borders should (and will, if the army has anything to say about it) remain the same as those established in the Treaty of Lausanne. The 19th and 20th Centuries were bloody centuries for the subjects of the Sultan - across the Balkans, the Middle-East and Anatolia millions of Christians, Muslims and Jews died in decades of civil unrest and famine. Nationalism tore apart the Ottoman Empire, the nation-states established on the foundations of that Empire should learn to live together in peace and harmony in a world of co-operation - if we do so nobody, whether Muslim, Christian or Jew, will have to go through the pain our ancestors did.
--------------------
The mainstream view is that the Magyars have Finno-Ugric roots (based on the language), although there are also theories that they have Turkic, Hun, Scythian, Avar or Sumerian roots. Check out the following link for confirmation of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Ethnic_affiliations_and_origins_of_the_Hungarian_people
I guess
tahnkout's argument is that Hungarians prefer the Finno-Ugric explanation since it indicates relatively Western heritage, in line with the country's high proportion of Christianity. On the other hand, the linguistic influence of the Finno-Ugric Languages on the Hungarian Language is undeniable - although this is often explained away as the assimilation of an original Hungarian language with Altaic roots into a new Finno-Ugric language, as a result of heavy cultural influences. Both theories are in no way concrete - especially since the evidence is far from conclusive.
That's funny. But you are correct (not about the scared thing). Today's barbarians are some of the Western civilizations. I was just pointing out that at that particular moment of history, The Ottomans under Talaat took the cake for meanness. Inever said they were the most barbaric now, in 2006. I said they were in 1895 and 1915.
You don't need to love us but you need to atl east respect us cuz for more than 300 years under the Ottoman power you lived without any stress. When Turks were fighting in AFrica or in Europe you were sitting in your houses and planting tomatoes to your gardens. Ottomans even prepared laws to protect minorities including Armenians.... So what do you want more? It could be a massacre but not genocide. Armenians clashed with Turks and there were lossses for all sides. IN war time there can be situtations like that but then you founded a country full of hate which has only purpose : Destroying Turkey
