boulio wrote:turkcyp i never heard of that the cypriots welcomed the ottomans?do you have any links with that information?
Boulio, I guess Alex summed it up very well. Nobody wants to be ruled by others. But Ottomans were definetly lesser of teh two evils compared to Venetians.
You can for example read from this site the chapters about:
- The Lusignan and Venetian Eras:
http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/6.htm
- and Ottman rule:
http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/7.htm
“The former foreign elite was destroyed--its members killed, carried away as captives, or exiled. The Orthodox Christians, i.e., the Greek Cypriots who survived, had new foreign overlords. Some early decisions of these new rulers were welcome innovations. The feudal system was abolished, and the freed serfs were enabled to acquire land and work their own farms. Although the small landholdings of the peasants were heavily taxed, the ending of serfdom changed the lives of the island's ordinary people. Another action of far-reaching importance was the granting of land to Turkish soldiers and peasants who became the nucleus of the island's Turkish community.
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.
In 1575 the Turks granted permission for the return of the archbishop and the three bishops of the Church of Cyprus to their respective sees. They also abolished the feudal system for they saw it as an extraneous power structure, unnecessary and dangerous. The autocephalous Church of Cyprus could function in its place for the political and fiscal administration of the island's Christian inhabitants. Its structured hierarchy put even remote villages within easy reach of the central authority. Both parties benefited. Greek Cypriots gained a measure of autonomy, and the empire received revenues without the bother of administration.”
Again remember, WE are not saying that Ottoman Rule was a walk in the park, and that GCs did not suffer during those years. Any society who is ruled by other suffer one degree to another.
At times it was quite oppressive at times it granted autonomy, at some times during Ottoman rule island flourished at some other times it went into decline. It all depend on who was the particular ruler of Ottoman empire, and his view toward ethnic minorities in the empire.
And again, no society likes an outside rule, and Ottoman did not capture Cyprus to save GCs. It was simply serving Ottoman interest. But so as Brits, Venetians, etc. etc. That is what imperialism is all about after all. You capture new land to use their resources whatever they may be, be it strategic resources, or material resources. For Ottomans Cyprus was a key to control trade in eastern Mediterranean and ship building.
What we are saying that Ottoman Rule was much more preferred to Latin rule in Cyprus during the middle ages.
The source:
http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/
by metecyp » Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:09 pm 
