Cyprus-Forum.com

[magikthrill]

what places prospered under the ottomans?

the places that had already been prospered before the ottomans had conquered them. what is the biggest city in turkey and who had originally founded (hint: he wasn't turkish)

[Khan]

magikthrill, Istanbul was a decaying mess before Ottomans conquered it. It was hardly prospering.

[MicAtCyp]

1)Allowed religious freedom
2)Abolished serfdom
3)Granted conquered cypriots citizenship of the ottoman empire.

1.Yeah as much relegious freedom as you want. Quote from Nivet Keit British consul 1846: A young Greek from Nicosia was accused by the Turks and brought before the judge.He denied the accusations, but the Mouslims brought witnesses.He brought witnesses too but the testimony of Cristians was not allowed. He was offered the choice either to become a mouslim or lose his head.
2.Not exactly.At stages young Cypriots male and female were shipped to Constantinoupolis/Instanbul to be sold as slaves. We even have the incident when a young woman called Maria Singlitiki blewed up the ship by setting fire to it's expolissive powder-keg, to escape from this dishonesty.
3.You mean third or 4th class citizenship rights? Do you any idea why they were called "raya"=servile? If not look at their civil rights in 1 above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom)

Wikipedia again? Come on! Can’t you find a more serious link?

*****************************************************
Why the Ottoman Era was 100 times worse? Quote from Cobman D., Exerpta Cypria, Cambridge 1908:

The atmosphere was filled up with crys .Poor women were separated from their husbands, little children were grabbed from their mothers’ arms, miserable parents were begging, young girls were taken away from their parents and raped.And while they had their hands tied up they were still hit with swords and sticks.The conquerors were continuously cutting heads of elderly women.Many of them -to prove that their swords are still sharp- were opening the heads of already surendered men in two..If anyone would try to escape they were cutting his feet. And while he was still alive every yanissar would still hit him with his sword.A known aristocratic woman was forced to put her head on the knees of her maid and they cut it off in one strike.They would tear in pieces infants taking them away from their mothers, or they would throw them down to brake like water melons. Other babies were held by the feet and struk forcibly their heads on the walls.......
Then they settled in our homes and palaces dispersed the wheat on the floors, the beans, the cotton... whatever they could not carry or eat they just dispersed on the floor.

Anything above sounding familiar to anyone?

Regarding the conquering of Famagusta:Supposely the town surrendered after signing an agreement. The agreement was that a) The Venetians would be transfered to Crete b)The Greeks would stay in their city.
After this old version of Anan Plan was signed the Turks entered the city killed all the Venetians devasted the city and threw out all the Greek inhabitants.All those Greeks who survived the killing settled outside the city in the Varos(varos=a Turkish word meaning suburb).

In conclusion yes the previous rulers were oppressing too, but they did not kill, they did not rape, they did not do as many attrocities as the Ottomans.The Greeks and other Christians were constantly exposed to the greediness and peremtoriness of the pasas.Their personal honour, dignity,safeness, and property was always under the absolute juristiction of the Turks.

[gabaston]

magik

i suggest one day you actually go there. Dont be put off by all the turkish barbaric nonsense you read here. greeks are made very welcome there as are all tourists. There is a prosperous greek community there espeically on one of the islands........many greek shops with greek writing on, no cars or vehicles allowed only horse drawn carriage. you there there by ferryboat -

amazing place well worth the visit.


there is nil repeat nil anti greek feeling - biggest threat now appears to be terrorist bombing probably pkk.


go n enjoy it re.

[erolz]

1.Yeah as much relegious freedom as you want. Quote from Nivet Keit British consul 1846: A young Greek from Nicosia was accused by the Turks and brought before the judge.He denied the accusations, but the Mouslims brought witnesses.He brought witnesses too but the testimony of Cristians was not allowed. He was offered the choice either to become a mouslim or lose his head.

Where as under the Venitans he would have just lost his head summarily without any trial or any option to not lose his head.

2.Not exactly.At stages young Cypriots male and female were shipped to Constantinoupolis/Instanbul to be sold as slaves. We even have the incident when a young woman called Maria Singlitiki blewed up the ship by setting fire to it's expolissive powder-keg, to escape from this dishonesty.

Any evidence that supports this claim?

Why the Ottoman Era was 100 times worse? Quote from Cobman D., Exerpta Cypria, Cambridge 1908:

Here you supars yourslef in deception (either intentional or unintnetional). You make it look like your source is D Cobam (not a GC) published by Cambridge Press. In reality Excerpt Cypria is a collection of papers printed between 1892 and 1895 as a supplement to the Owl, a newspaper published at Nicosia by GC. D Cobam collected and translated these papers but did not write. This is like me in a 200 years times proving the barbarity of GC against TC by quoting Anon Brit's work called Excerpta Cypria 2, which is in fact a collection and trnaslation of articles by Volkan (TC newspaper). Do you think such a source would give a fair view of how GC treated TC. So why do you think Cypria Exerpta is any more an accurate view of how the ottomans treated GC?

In conclusion yes the previous rulers were oppressing too, but they did not kill, they did not rape, they did not do as many attrocities as the Ottomans.

So you claim, but given the way you have used totaly one sided accounts and presented them not as one sided, makes me doubt your version of history. The fact is most historians would agree that the Ottomans as rulers of Cyprus were not as barabric as the Venitians - unless of course they have a reason to villify ottomans / turks / TC.

[MicAtCyp]

Where as under the Venitans he would have just lost his head summarily without any trial or any option to not lose his head.

Thank you for accepting my point that a)a Christian had no chance to find justice b)He could be excecuted for the slightest offense c)he could lose his life if some Mouslims perjured against him and d)his only choice to save his life according to the Ottoman system of "relegious freedom" was to become a mouslim.

For your information the Venetians had a juridical system as well where the judges called "visconti" had also some kind of police duties.All viscontis were cypriots and this court was dealing with the civil and some penal cases.The viscontis could decide for all sort of punishments excluding death .Appeals to that court were judged by the 3 administrators of the country....Also the 3 administrators were the judges for cases between the aristocrats.For the foreigners there was a special court called Rais.

Any evidence that supports this claim?

Charshee McIntyre ( The Continuity of the International Slave Trade and Slave System):
The Ottoman empire was a notable purchaser of slaves from the fourteenth century, relying on slaves to serve as janissary soldiers, to man their ships, produce commodities and run their households, as well as, more luridly, fill their harems.

In fact compared with 33% of slaves in Greek and Roman society,there were 20% of slaves in the Ottoman empire.

So why do you think Cypria Exerpta is any more an accurate view of how the ottomans treated GC?

Because the account was written by an eye witness.For me eye witnesses are those who write history, and any historian who turns their testimonies down because of "bias" is biased himself. As to who the eye witness was, he was not a GC but a Dominican monk called Angelo Callepio.
To draw an analogy of what you said it's like telling me to turn down the testimony of the one and only survived eye witness of the Tochni massacre, just because he is a TC and might be biased. Your analogy with Volcan is incorrect....

The fact is most historians would agree that the Ottomans as rulers of Cyprus were not as barabric as the Venitians

Even if you claim they were equally barbaric (which I don't accept) you have to remember that between the begining of the Venetian Era (1489-1571) and the end of the Ottoman Era (1571-1878) there is a time span of almost 400 years.Although things were no so rapidly changing then just consider how much the social system changed in Europe in that period.The Venetians ruled here for less than 100 years yet left marvels behind in civilisation and architecture during that short period. They had to rule with the feudal system they were already ruling in Europe by that time.However thats the exact same ruling system they were initially ruling the Ionian islands in Greece yet those islands by 1871 did not have less freedom than Italy itself let aside the fact they had Univerities by 1790!! So I understand the convinience of your history books to compare the Ottoman Era in Cyprus with previous eras even going back comparing it with the Roman Empire, while at the same time they hide any comparison to the Venetian or other rulings of identical historic times.