Cyprus-Forum.com

[garbitsch]

It is regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces of Islamic architecture.

Yeah right. Taken straight out of the Instabul tourist guide.

If that was a masterpiece, then you must tell me why? Because it copied the architecture of Ayia Sophia which was built 1000 years before? Give me your reasons, not quotes from a tourist guide!

Look I am not saying it is not an impressive building. I am not saying it has no "oriental air, or it is not good. It is a worthy piece, and if I would ever go to Constantinoupolis I would love to visit it, after I visit Ayia Sophia of course.

However everybody here seems to forget our original points. Our points were NOT if the Ottomans made buildings but how they contributed to civilisation as we define it being poetry,sciences, literature, architecture etc etc... by advancing it

********************************

Learn about blue mosque.

Keske ayni bildiysen Partenon icin.
I think it's time for you to understand what you read. Go back in this thread and see what I first wrote.Then you maybe in a position to reply correctly.

Who said the Ottomans did not copy the Architecture, the kitchen and muzic and even most of the ruling system of Byzantium? The original question was not whether they made equal buildings.
The question was whether they moved civilisation forwards or stagnated it to the 500 AD period by taking it back 1000 years.

Well I wish I could give the answers to you as you wished, but you will never understand it. But if this is going to satisfy you, then OK Ottomans did nothing but destroying... They were not advanced as Byzantines. They all stole what Byzantines did. They didn't have poets. Mevlana was just copying the poems of ancient Greeks. "Come whoever you are" - the famous Mevlana quote was plagiarised. When Piri Reis was drawing a perfect world map (including Antarctica which wasnt even discovered at that time), we were all daydreaming...
Sorry I will not continue to discuss this topic with you. We Turks cannot reach the high standards of the Greek civilisation.

P.s: You should study more Turkish

[erolz]

The logical aspect of my criticism against the Ottoman empire, is that it was a militaristic empire, and I generally dislike militaristic empires. Not all civilizations / empires have been like this you know, others have focused on agriculture and trade, others on art and science, others on war and conquest.

I understand what you are saying here and respect your opinion. For me personaly all empires by definition have had (and do have) a military aspect and are about power and dominance by one group over another. You simply can not build and maintain an empire without this imo. Certainly there are degrees along a spectrum with some empires being more based on trade (domination) than militiary expansion but to me trade and miltary expansion are totaly intertwined phenomenon. In this sense I dislike the concept of 'empire' all togeahter rather than your approach of disliking some empires but not others based on the degree to which they leaned towards economic (trade) based domination and control vs pure military domination and control.

One further thought I would throw into the pot is that actually the Byzantine empire (as opposed to Greek empire that preceeded it) was very 'atypical' as far as empires go from my understanding. In a way the exercised domination and control (a common feature of all empires imo) primarly through a kind of 'awe and wonder' appraoch and secondarily through trade and military means. I am not sure of any other empire that used this approach with such success as the Byzantine with perhaps the USA today as another example (though also amply back up with trade an miltary approach as well).

[Alexandros Lordos]

I understand what you are saying here and respect your opinion. For me personaly all empires by definition have had (and do have) a military aspect and are about power and dominance by one group over another. You simply can not build and maintain an empire without this imo. Certainly there are degrees along a spectrum with some empires being more based on trade (domination) than militiary expansion but to me trade and miltary expansion are totaly intertwined phenomenon. In this sense I dislike the concept of 'empire' all togeahter rather than your approach of disliking some empires but not others based on the degree to which they leaned towards economic (trade) based domination and control vs pure military domination and control.

One further thought I would throw into the pot is that actually the Byzantine empire (as opposed to Greek empire that preceeded it) was very 'atypical' as far as empires go from my understanding. In a way the exercised domination and control (a common feature of all empires imo) primarly through a kind of 'awe and wonder' appraoch and secondarily through trade and military means. I am not sure of any other empire that used this approach with such success as the Byzantine with perhaps the USA today as another example (though also amply back up with trade an miltary approach as well).

Erol, thank you for responding to the "rational part" of my post - and I find your arguments valid and interesting - but what do you have to say concerning the "emotional aspect" of what I expressed, i.e. my personal grief concerning the wave of destruction and subjugation that overwhelmed the Byzantine/Greek civilization?

You know, this grief I experience is something that most Greeks share, even today. Even though I personally make a sharp distinction between the Ottomans and the modern Turks, I do not think most other Greek people make the same distinction. Much of the Greek dislike towards Turks and Turkey stems from this "historical anger", if I may use such an expression. I am not saying that there is not also an element of arrogance in the Greek attitude towards Turks, but this element of anger - not as unjustified as arrogance - is definitely there as well.

What you say about Byzantium is very interesting, and true to an extent. It was definitely a civilization which used cultural achievement as a means to regional supremacy (in this sense the Hagia Sophia was just as much an instrument of foreign policy as it was a place of worship), coupled with a strong focus on diplomacy and trade. Militarily, Byzantium was always on the defensive, since it was conceived at the height of Roman glory and then lived through a thousand years of gradual attrition by the many new civilizations that were springing up in Europe and Asia.

Anyway, I am very glad to be discussing history with you, I believe that the disagreements between Greek-speaking people and Turkish-speaking people have deep historical roots, and to truly reconcile we must seek to understand and lay to rest all these ancient disputes that had made us enemies for a thousand years.

[erolz]

Erol, thank you for responding to the "rational part" of my post - and I find your arguments valid and interesting - but what do you have to say concerning the "emotional aspect" of what I expressed, i.e. my personal grief concerning the wave of destruction and subjugation that overwhelmed the Byzantine/Greek civilization?

You know, this grief I experience is something that most Greeks share, even today.

To be honest to my cold blooded UK sensibilites (rather than hot blodded mediteranean ones) I am somewhat mystified by this. I can certainly understand the basis for this 'dislike' but can not really understand or relate to the intensity or long levity of it. I do not think the British carry the same intensity of 'historical anger' as the Greeks apparently do. Not to the Germans or French or to the desendants of the Vikings (now there was a race of violent plunderers!). We (British) just do not seem to carry the same amount of historical emotional baggage as Greeks do and I really have no good idea why this is so. One possibility is that (like Turkey in many respects) Britiain is a country still closely related (time wise) to the fall of it's empire and is today more charterised by rejection of empire than dreams of reacreating it. Maybe this greater tendency og Greeks to not let go of the past (if such a tendancy exits) is related to the time distance between modern Greece and the glory of the ancient Greek empire and creates a kind of subconsious tendency to let the past colour their present outlooks more than others? Like I say I do not really know.

Anyway, I am very glad to be discussing history with you, I believe that the disagreements between Greek-speaking people and Turkish-speaking people have deep historical roots, and to truly reconcile we must seek to understand and lay to rest all these ancient disputes that had made us enemies for a thousand years.

As I always find discussion with you interesting, thought provking and a thouroghly enhoyable experience. I would just re emphasise that I personaly am not a Turkish speaking person. I am an english speaking person with Cypriot (TC) desent on my fathers side

[MicAtCyp]

The question was whether they moved civilisation forwards or stagnated it to the 500 AD period by taking it back 1000 years.

I dont even take care of this question.
They did good think, They helped civilizations.

Murtaza, you are one of a kind! All you know is to accuse people they know nothing, should go learn blah,blah,blah. Why don't you try to learn some things yourself for a change rather than "not caring".
All I care to know is how the Ottomans took the Greek civilisation back 1000 years, and not how they developed Karagoz, and I do know that very well.So far you did not provide me any evidence to the contrary.Yes they built the Blue mosque the various Palaces etc, but those were not signs of advancing civilisation!

But anyway can you substantiate your statement that the Ottomans "helped civilisations"? I am really curious. I know very well how they "helped" the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots go to heaven faster and in a fascinating way by the way....One of the methods they used to ‘help" was to put a wooden pole going through their arse and getting out of their throat.

PS. Oh, I forgot: Yes bre, I am an Architect never you heard?

****************************************

I would like to learn why do you think ottomans took it 1000 years back.

That was in reply to Murtazas claim that the Blue Mosque was a proof that the Ottomans advanced civilisation. And I told him that the Blue Mosque is just a copy of the Architectural Principles of Ayia Sophia which however was built 1069 years before!

[Murtaza]

The question was whether they moved civilisation forwards or stagnated it to the 500 AD period by taking it back 1000 years.

I dont even take care of this question.
They did good think, They helped civilizations.

Murtaza, you are one of a kind! All you know is to accuse people they know nothing, should go learn blah,blah,blah. Why don't you try to learn some things yourself for a change rather than "not caring".
All I care to know is how the Ottomans took the Greek civilisation back 1000 years, and not how they developed Karagoz, and I do know that very well.So far you did not provide me any evidence to the contrary.Yes they built the Blue mosque the various Palaces etc, but those were not signs of advancing civilisation!

But anyway can you substantiate your statement that the Ottomans "helped civilisations"? I am really curious. I know very well how they "helped" the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots go to heaven faster and in a fascinating way by the way....One of the methods they used to ‘help" was to put a wooden pole going through their arse and getting out of their throat.

PS. Oh, I forgot: Yes bre, I am an Architect never you heard?

****************************************

I would like to learn why do you think ottomans took it 1000 years back.

That was in reply to Murtazas claim that the Blue Mosque was a proof that the Ottomans advanced civilisation. And I told him that the Blue Mosque is just a copy of the Architectural Principles of Ayia Sophia which however was built 1069 years before!

I didnt see any proof related with your claims. (At least I linked some cite)
Without proof I dont care anymore about your claims.
I am sure you even didnt read the link I posted.
If you support your words with proof I will answer, Other way I dont reply you.
Have a nice day.

[Murtaza]

Although their homeland had been dominated by foreigners for many centuries, it was only after the imposition of Ottoman rule that Orthodox Christians began to develop a really strong sense of cohesiveness. This change was prompted by the Ottoman practice of ruling the empire through millets, or religious communities. Rather than suppressing the empire's many religious communities, the Turks allowed them a degree of automony as long as they complied with the demands of the sultan. The vast size and the ethnic variety of the empire made such a policy imperative. The system of governing through millets reestablished the authority of the Church of Cyprus and made its head the Greek Cypriot leader, or ethnarch. It became the responsibility of the ethnarch to administer the territories where his flock lived and to collect taxes. The religious convictions and functions of the ethnarch were of no concern to the empire as long as its needs were met.


As I see Orthodox Christians began to develop a really strong sense of cohesiveness, With the conquest of Cyprus by Ottomans.


I know our history work agains each other.
With The raise of our civilization(In Anatolia), Greeks civilization comes down.
But I dont think reason is Ottomans.(How can 400 house people can destroy a superb civilization)
I think reason is Greeks themself.
Ottomans didnt call Crusaders in Istanbul but A greek noble did.
Ottomans didnt break your systems, But greeks did it.
Ottomans didnt reason civil wars but greeks.
And Ottomans just take the remainder of death empire.

[garbitsch]

Byzantine EMpire was already decaying and it was going to end soon or later. As Murtaza said, it was the Byzantines themselves who were so weak that they couldn't resist to emerging young Ottoman Empire.

[suetoniuspaulinus]

Although their homeland had been dominated by foreigners for many centuries, it was only after the imposition of Ottoman rule that Orthodox Christians began to develop a really strong sense of cohesiveness. This change was prompted by the Ottoman practice of ruling the empire through millets, or religious communities. Rather than suppressing the empire's many religious communities, the Turks allowed them a degree of automony as long as they complied with the demands of the sultan. The vast size and the ethnic variety of the empire made such a policy imperative. The system of governing through millets reestablished the authority of the Church of Cyprus and made its head the Greek Cypriot leader, or ethnarch. It became the responsibility of the ethnarch to administer the territories where his flock lived and to collect taxes. The religious convictions and functions of the ethnarch were of no concern to the empire as long as its needs were met.


As I see Orthodox Christians began to develop a really strong sense of cohesiveness, With the conquest of Cyprus by Ottomans.


I know our history work agains each other.
With The raise of our civilization(In Anatolia), Greeks civilization comes down.
But I dont think reason is Ottomans.(How can 400 house people can destroy a superb civilization)
I think reason is Greeks themself.
Ottomans didnt call Crusaders in Istanbul but A greek noble did.
Ottomans didnt break your systems, But greeks did it.
Ottomans didnt reason civil wars but greeks.
And Ottomans just take the remainder of death empire.

Mr Murtaza

Good Evening

If the Ottomans had not invaded Cyprus, then the Religion of the GC'S would be Roman Catholic. The Lusignians removed the power from the Orthodox Church and established the Roman Catholic Church on the island ca 1192/3

[Murtaza]

Erol, thank you for responding to the "rational part" of my post - and I find your arguments valid and interesting - but what do you have to say concerning the "emotional aspect" of what I expressed, i.e. my personal grief concerning the wave of destruction and subjugation that overwhelmed the Byzantine/Greek civilization?

You know, this grief I experience is something that most Greeks share, even today. Even though I personally make a sharp distinction between the Ottomans and the modern Turks, I do not think most other Greek people make the same distinction. Much of the Greek dislike towards Turks and Turkey stems from this "historical anger", if I may use such an expression. I am not saying that there is not also an element of arrogance in the Greek attitude towards Turks, but this element of anger - not as unjustified as arrogance - is definitely there as well.

What you say about Byzantium is very interesting, and true to an extent. It was definitely a civilization which used cultural achievement as a means to regional supremacy (in this sense the Hagia Sophia was just as much an instrument of foreign policy as it was a place of worship), coupled with a strong focus on diplomacy and trade. Militarily, Byzantium was always on the defensive, since it was conceived at the height of Roman glory and then lived through a thousand years of gradual attrition by the many new civilizations that were springing up in Europe and Asia.

Anyway, I am very glad to be discussing history with you, I believe that the disagreements between Greek-speaking people and Turkish-speaking people have deep historical roots, and to truly reconcile we must seek to understand and lay to rest all these ancient disputes that had made us enemies for a thousand years.

Alexandros Lordos If I dont remember wrong, In sometime Byzantium even take Roma.(I am not sure just asking)

And Yes In ancient Greeks are not agresive to Persian, or other place.
But As I know reason of this is their civil war,
All city-states are agresive to other city-states.

And When they joined one rule, Greak Alexander. I dont thin Egypians and Indians attacked greeks.

I dont want to say they made wrongs.
But In that times, If you were not attacking you were defanding.
Can you show me any race or Empire who didnt want to expand its territories?

(No need to tell)