Bozur
Amicus
Posts: 5,515
|
Post by Bozur on Dec 2, 2009 2:35:13 GMT -5
The Western History of Turkey
In his review of "The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire" by Edward Luttwak (Bookshelf, Nov. 23), Eric Ormsby highlights the longevity of the empire for 1,000 years after the destruction of the Western Empire, ending in 1453 with the conquest by the Ottoman Turks. However, it is interesting to note that while the nominal rulers and their official religion changed, the conqueror, Mehmed II, saw himself as the heir to the classical Roman Empire and its Christian successor. As Lord Kinross so ably described in his "The Ottoman Centuries," this was Byzantium reborn in a new idiom.
The new Turkish rulers enthusiastically adopted all variety of Roman (as it was then called, though now called Greek) culture in music and dance; they rebuilt and restored the city of Constantinople. They took over Constantinople's state apparatus and bureaucracy and the Byzantine approach to strategy and government. Their millets—self-governing communities—were adapted from Byzantine practices. They even recruited Christians for the civil service (albeit technically as slaves). The patriarch of Constantinople had an excellent relationship with the sultan, echoing a common sentiment of the time, "Better Turks than Latins!"
So, in another sense, Byzantium survived for an additional 400 years after the Turkish conquest, until the waves of modernization and liberation of the 19th century. In this sense Turkey had always been more Western than we realize, even before the Ataturk revolution.
Robert Altabet online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574556052817189822.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 9, 2009 13:11:55 GMT -5
"The new Turkish rulers enthusiastically adopted all variety of Roman (as it was then called, though now called Greek) culture in music and dance".........
" Their millets—self-governing communities—were adapted from Byzantine practices"
See that Turks? Your stuff is Greek or has lotsa Greek!
Anyway,in other words,the Byzantine Empire didnt really die:it transformed into the Ottoman Empire,it was taken over by Turks and blended together with their culture.
But what say others? Scholars,ordinary folks and the like?
This is also what makes Turkey so intresting! It's blend of cultures:Perso-Arabic-Anatolian(Caucasian & Anatolian IE)-Greek-Armenian
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 9, 2009 15:42:17 GMT -5
Sultanate of Rum ("Roman Sultanate") *Byzantines referred to themselves as Roman Empire "The society and economy of the Anatolian countryside were unchanged by the Seljuks, who had simply replaced Byzantine officials with a new elite that was Turkish and Muslim. Conversion to Islam and the imposition of the language, mores, and customs of the Turks progressed steadily in the countryside, facilitated by intermarriage. The cleavage widened, however, between the unruly gazi warriors and the state-building bureaucracy in Konya." www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-13911.htmlWith no Byzantine force to stop them, the Seljuk Turks flooded into Anatolia, taking control of most of Eastern and Central Anatolia. They established their capital at Konya around 1150 and ruled what would be known as the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum [ROOM, Rome]. Alanya, Erzurum and Sivas were other important Seljuk cities. The small Seljuk ruling class governed a population that was mostly Greek-speaking Anatolian Christian, with a significant Jewish minority. Seljuk rule was tolerant of race, religion and gender. Churches and synagogues flourished, and some of the finest examples of Seljuk architecture, including huge mosques, theological seminaries, hospitals and caravanserais, were built on the orders of empresses and princesses. www.turkeytravelplanner.com/details/History/Seljuks.html
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 9, 2009 20:23:03 GMT -5
when will those Turks learn? Gosh! They are so stubborrrrrrrnnnn!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 9, 2009 22:23:26 GMT -5
Being stubborn is practically a trademark of Balkanic (and for that reason I would assume Anatolian, Caucasian and middle eastern populations) populations as far as their behavior pasterns are concerned together with being
-family oriented, -upfront -serious demeanor (without much if that fake smiling seen in the west) -in some cases at least somewhat crude in expression (ex angry) -at least somewhat conservative, -temperamental -proud of ancestors -self-centered or ego-centered (feeling superior to others) -sarcastic -loves to poke but not necessarily to be poked at -knows it all and the "other side is always" wrong attitude -at least somewhat aggressive demeanor -boasting -answering question with a question -inpatient -detests stupidity or makes fun of it -propensity to cuss and exasperate (ex when emotional) -getting even more upset when someone grins at you for no reason (mongol-like behavior) -propensity to to raise voice when talking (ex emotional)
etc etc etc
Simply put what I like to call Balkanoid
bellow is a funny version of such behavior pattern ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 9, 2009 23:42:27 GMT -5
Guys, have alook at the people called the Karamanli, they preserved themselves well except for their language.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 10, 2009 4:17:14 GMT -5
The Karamanlis? the Turkish speaking Greeks of Cappadocia?
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 10, 2009 5:57:49 GMT -5
The only connection of Ottomans Empire with Byzantion is that got the same place and had the Greeks within... Palaiologos would turn in his tomb if he heard that Mehmet is his heir....
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 10, 2009 6:03:00 GMT -5
The Karamanlis? the Turkish speaking Greeks of Cappadocia? The Karamanlides are seperated in two groups, around 100.000 in 1914, both orthodox: the greek speakers or Kappadokes, speaking a dialect simiral to pontic with big influence from the surrounding turkish due to isolation for more than 7 centuries... and the less numbered turkish speakers that we seen themselves as the same with the greek speaking neighbors that turkified linguistically through the centuries...
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Dec 10, 2009 16:56:17 GMT -5
The Selcuks themselves were not enough to change the demographic. However, the wave after wave of Turkic tribes who migrated from central asia to Anatolia during Selcuk and Mongolian conquests sure as hell did. In fact these tribes destabilized the Selcuks themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 10, 2009 18:18:53 GMT -5
"The Karamanlis? the Turkish speaking Greeks of Cappadocia?"
Hellboy, what l want to say is the karamanlides shows proof of Greek presence in Anatolia. Many turks today who self identify as Turkish are in fact turkified Greeks. Don't get me wrong l agree with you that the turks comprise of many nations (Balkan, native anatolian, caucasian, middle eastern, persian, central asian and east asian).
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 10, 2009 22:10:19 GMT -5
The Selcuks themselves were not enough to change the demographic. However, the wave after wave of Turkic tribes who migrated from central asia to Anatolia during Selcuk and Mongolian conquests sure as hell did. In fact these tribes destabilized the Selcuks themselves. wave after wave?
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 10, 2009 22:12:43 GMT -5
"The Karamanlis? the Turkish speaking Greeks of Cappadocia?" Hellboy, what l want to say is the karamanlides shows proof of Greek presence in Anatolia. Many turks today who self identify as Turkish are in fact turkified Greeks. Don't get me wrong l agree with you that the turks comprise of many nations (Balkan, native anatolian, caucasian, middle eastern, persian, central asian and east asian). not just Greeks.Armenians and Kurds as well I have to add that among the Anatolian Greeks,there were regional varieties.Like Bythynian Greek,Pontic Greek. Anatolian Greeks are largely Hellenized Anatolians,so no suprise some pre-Hellenic cultures were still present.Just blended together with the the new Greek one ;D
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 11, 2009 0:30:22 GMT -5
^ Well, your not wrong. The Armenians and Kurds, could be lumped into the Persian division.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 11, 2009 3:51:09 GMT -5
Yes indeed, the anatolian population, if you exlcude the coasts,Ionia, Aiolia, Doris, Propontis, Pontos, Pamphylia(where the Greek element was very strong) were a mix between Greeks and local people who had been hellenized since the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochoi. In Kappadokia, the birthplace of many important medieval Greeks like the three Greek Fathers, Fokas dynasty, Digenis Akritas etc i believe that the Greek element was preserved because of their strong connection with the chalkedonian orthodox dogma which make them not easy target for total assimilation in the way it happened in the hinterland of Minor Asia were always the populations were viewed in some way " mixobarbaroi" by Polis and tended to create and accept heresies in great scale like Pavlikians, and tens of others. Check this map, its from Ierocles Synekdemos, in 6th century and it shows clearly the urban density in western Anatolia(about the area that Empire of Nicaea contained) and the small number of cities in the eastern part where the Armenian, Lazogeorgian, Syrians, Kurd element was very very strong and in a way dangerous for the safety of the empire as it was proved in the battle of Mantzikert and the betrayal of the always heterodox Armenians. img200.imageshack.us/img200/272/harta11.jpgAnd a little detachment by Marino Sanudo's book, (c. 1260 – 1338), one of the most known and influential Venetian, from his "Istoria del regno di Romania sive regno di Morea,": I translated from greek : Istoria tes Romanias, Marino Sanoudo Torsello, eisagogi, ekdosi, metafrasi, sxolia Eutuxia Papadopoulou, 2000, p.164-67. ".... Now we will speak about the oversea kings and what I'm going to say I have collected them from different trustworthy people from different nations. The first is the Emperor of the Greeks (l'imperator de Greci) who holds now lengthy and populous land, as it is known. After him the two kings of the Georgians, by whom the one is subject and faithful to the Tatars of Persia, but not the other who follows the heresy of the Greeks. Georgians are people very grasping, but very skillful warriors, more than any other asian nation- and this doesn't stand only for the men but also for the women. Fourth king is the Komnenos of Trapezous, who comes from the Emperor's family. There are also two kings of dukes in Russia, who follow the greek heresy, and as I’ve informed, are subjects to the Tatars and holds a huge land and in length and in breadth, in this Russia, that one of its part is called Great Russia and the other Small Russia, there the squirrels are born plenteously. Also the emperor of Zagora(Bulgaria) who neighbors with the Emperor of Konstantinoupolis and that extends his kingdom until river Dunabe, that have its own sources in Souebia, cross Bavaria and the Austria of Alamania and Hungary going down to Euxeine Sea, which the Franks call Mar Magiore, and he is the seventh big king who follows the ritual of the Greeks. Eighth is the king of Serbia, that holds lands in the coast of Adriatic, which extend about two hundred miles length and belongs to the Church of Rome, but all the people of the inland, that in majority are with the side of this king, follow the heresy and the ritual of the Greeks. Ninenth is the Despote of Arta. It is true that there are many people dispread here and there, that are subjects to other rulers, and follow the Greek rite, like the nation of the Chazars, which is subject to the Tatars, and to other rulers established in the north of Mar Magiore. And in Hungary, they say that there are more than sixty thousands people who follow the greek rite. In Minor Asia, which is a land larger than Spain, where as we said are four kingdoms, and where the biggest part is subject to the Turks, the most of them follow the greek rite and the most of them are Greeks. Even (Small) Armenia, which in old times was called Kilikia, is inhabited by Greeks. In Mesopotamia there is a not small number of Greeks, and there were much more in the period of the Crusade of Peter the Hermit and Godfrey of Bouillon, whose brother Baldwin, was comte of Mesopotamia and was called comte of Roa. In the Sultanate of Kairo, where now Tatars of Persia dominate, and Greeks and Turks, and the Greeks follow the greek rite, and in the sultanate once there were forty cities fortified with castles. In the islands Cyprus, Crete, Euboia, Rhodes and in other islands, and in the Despotate of Moreas, even though these areas are subject to the Franks and are now under the Church of Rome, almost all the inhabitants are Greeks and follow the same rite(greek) and their heart is devoted to the greek habits and when they will be able to arise freely they wil do it. So it is obvious that Greeks and their coreligionists hold more lands than the Catholic kings do. It is sure, that catholics are much better warriors and abler and more numerous than Greeks. There are also many Greeks in Calabria and in the area of Otranto, who are under the Holy Church of Rome, but are not so devoted as they would be if the Emperor and Patriarch of Konstantinoupolis and the son of this emperor, kyr Andronikos, were also devoted and faithful to the Church of Rome, and not insubordinate, fact with serious consequences...." I highly recommend you this book: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Speros Vryonisifile.it/yljbg8m/vryonis_decline_of_medieval_hellinism_in_asia_minor.pdf
|
|