Search results for query: *

ancalimon said:

Palaiologos said:

The world hasn't conspired against you.

Click to expand...

No?  Someone actually conspired against the Ottoman Empire and plant agents inside to destabilize it so that they can partition and conquer the lands and make the Turks their slaves. If they won't accept it, exterminate them.

Declaring independence from Ottoman Empire did not help any of those nations. For example Armenia has become a rogue mafia country. They talk about genocides but won't stop commiting a real genocide under the nose of you people but since some people are so brainwashed that their brains have become empty, they don't even know anything about Hodjali Massacre.

Armed Armenian forces backed by Russian 366th Regiment raided Hodjali town of Azerbaijan on February 26, 1992 and killed 613 people including 106 women, 63 children and 70 elderly and wounded 487 people.

1275 people were also taken captive and made to suffer severe torture. 800 of those captives were released afterwards however 500 people are still missing.

Click to expand...

Why don't you talk about Armenians killing Turks yesterday? Is it not that dramatic because it happened yesterday and the people who were killed were Turkic villagers?  It's not even disputed! It's clear what they did. Yet you are so arrogant. Shame.

They even made fun of Ottomans by that Agamemnon ship (an indirect reference to Trojan war. During those years, it was accepted Trojans were Turks).

Click to expand...

Do you realize the difference between a military raid during wartime and the systematic extermination of civilians sponsored by the state?. And btw the Russian 366 regiment never took part in the war. Thats one of the excuses the Azeris gave to justify their rapid colapse against an enemy they outnumbered 4 to 1.

And as for the Trojans=Turks argument i think i'll pass.

war300 said:

Yeah, Jesus but nothing in particular in your words. This people think that you're brainwashed. What can you do? Yes we deported them but
remember; relocation is not genocide. It was not by choice but necessity.

Click to expand...

Yes. I actually agree. For the last time the Ottoman goverment didn't "deport" the Armenians because they liked watching people marching around. They deported them because they were causing problems to the Ottoman state. NOBODY is questioning that.

And yes relocation is not genocide. The particular thing about this forced relocation of Armenians was that their destination was the Syrian desert. You moved them in the middle of a desert. I am trying to be as clear as i can here. When somebody forces someone to move to an enviroment that is unable to sustain life that is tantamount to killing him, yes?

Now all you have to question yourself is that if the Armenian uprisings justified "deporting" every single member of that nationality in the Syrian desert. I mean would you be cool if your goverment mass deported all Kurds in the middle of the ocean? You yourself said that only a fraction of the Kurds is in open revot against the Turkish state.

Skellgrimm said:

I'm just going to bring everyone from Gallipoli and mention the viking at Stamford Bridge.

One man, his dane axe and a desire to kill every single one of the Saxons trying to cross the bridge, fighting for his immortality in name, which he got. He's been dead for almost 1000 years and we still talk about him.

That's a worthy cause, to fight for glory and the bloodlust.

Click to expand...

Who he?

You faill to see the point. Nobody claims you killed the Armenians for fun.

People here are claiming that physical extermination on a mass scale of an ethnic minority is unjustified by any standards.

How can the fact that Armenians had risen up in armed revolt justify the extermination of families that took absolutely no part in the revolt?


And btw whatever your school books and state propaganda claim, you didn't start the killings of "thousands" of Armenians because they had risen up in revolt but much, much earlier...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adana_massacre


I'll give you a clue. The first massacre happened in 1894.

And as for the migration law, where Turkish soldiers "guarded them" for their journey...
Jesus,  man how more brainwashed can you be? You deported the Armenians in the middle of the SYRIAN DESERT. That ussually is a terminal destination.

Oh and please do some reading. The official explanation, initially, by your goverment was not that of a denial of the genocide, but rather that the Ottoman goverment hadn't calculated that the march through the Syrian desert would be terminal for the families and children. Miscalculation was the official excuse...

Quite frankly accept that you have a very dark chapter in your history and move along. The world hasn't conspired against you.

war300 said:

I didn't understand why you used such words. These slangs make me sick. Maybe you think there must not be cavalry at castle sieges.

Click to expand...

?

Cavalry forces could be usefull during a castle siege, by patrolling, reconoitering around and limiting any foraging parties on the part of the besieged.

But actually assaulting the walls...

Well yeah you are right, the movie trailer i was talking about was not that. The Byzantines/Greeks/Romans are portrayed rather accurately in this one.
Do not worry, i know fully well what the "Byzantines" were. It was not a matter of national pride but historical accuracy.
Having 15th century "Greeks" dressed up as 3rd century Romans is definetely not accurate. I am glad this movie(from what can be seen in the trailer) has a degree of historical accuracy. On uniforms at least.
Although having Turkish cavalry charging the walls in 00:25 is utter bollocks.

Havoc said:

Gosh. Is there anything Turks didn't invent/discover/build?

Click to expand...

Jews.

war300 said:

Palaiologos said:

Your "permanent" conquest of Anatolia was seriously challenged in the campaign of 1919-22.

Click to expand...

As if we lost our independence. Look at the results. I think you intend to keep title of winner for yourself.

Click to expand...

? Your independence was never at stake dude. You did win the war, no doubt about that. But you can't consider something "permanent", with that "permancy" being challenged to the point of total colapse of the Turkish state less than a century ago.

war300 said:

Palaiologos said:

And well quite frankly it still is by the Kurds.

Click to expand...

Not Kurds. It is obvious that you're really foreign to our leading issues and on political lines. It's not as it appears from the outside.

Click to expand...

Well what do you mean? Its pretty clear there is a sepperatist armed movement in eastern Anatolia. If it is succesfull(doubtfull) it will mean you people loose a chunk of Anatolia to the Kurds. Again if they are terrorists or sepperatists or freedom fighters or whatever is non-essential. Please don't dwell on the subject, i don't particulary care about the Kurds. Unless you somehow imply
that there is no sepperatist movement ongoing at all.

war300 said:

Palaiologos said:

About the movie, i've seen the trailer. It was horrible. Nearly everybody had a wrong uniform and the evil Greeks were portraited as classical era Romans. I'd love a decent movie about the siege of Constantinople, but i fear this is not it. Thats propably something to satisfy a low-class nationalist fan base.

Click to expand...

You're so fast. When have you seen it? Now just a teaser 46 s longer we have and it's been two days. Also it's vague what you mean by saying ''evil greeks portraits''? Just an only arena scene teaser had and it doesn't indicate that everything is wrong. And for the record, some Byzantine emperors watched the gladiator fights in hippodrome.( Today it's Sultanahmet Square, near the mosque) They are just Romans. So, it is not weird.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?I saw the trailer more than a year ago. But as i see it has now been removed. Anyway the date of the video said Jan 2010. I do remember a scene with Byzantine soldiers on the ramparts.
Saying they are just Romans means total ignorance. So if i portray Janissaries fighting Kurds in 2010 will it be ok?. After all they are simply Turks.

Don't be afraid, maybe Hollywood will make a decent movie about Constantinople. (I don't think so) As if you've a lot of decent movies about history in an objective way. You remember 300? What a realistic movie it was, right? At least you were supposed to see the visual effects of movie. It can keep up with 300 the movie with this low budget. This is about cinema, not nationalism or something another. You're so biased.

Click to expand...

Since when was 300 supposed to be a historical movie? It is based on a comic for god's sake, and it explicity said so. I've actually read the comic back in 2001 and found the movie to follow it very closely. As for the cinema and nationalism part, i wouldn't even normally comment on that. Yes, its true that nationalism has never been a part of cinematographer. Very true. Not...

So you mean that a Turkish movie that glorifies the last siege of Constantinople, seen from the Turkish perspective is un-biased?
But you are right in saying that generally movies are biased. Just look at Braveheart.

No i simply ignored your criteria because...well... it was this:

Ule said:

and heres a ******** defination, an empire constitutes any number of lands ruled by a central land power, so the HRE was an empire,

Click to expand...

I didn't think it was meant to be taken seriously, since that definition practically includes any political entity. Anywhere. Ever.

I do agree that actuall legitimacy to the Roman Imperial title is irrelevant to a state being considered an Empire. The Abbasids had none yet they were an Empire. And so did the Sassanids etc.

I really fail to understand how the HRE(name aside) could be considered an actuall Empire by anybody. They had little political power and limited geographical extent. And they had no ability to project that power beyond their immediate borders. They were a regional power, not an Empire. At least not in the sense that the Eastern Roman Empire, the Abassids, the Sassanids, the Achaimenids or whoever before them was. The Sassanids undertook expeditions to Yemen, the Caucasus, Afghanistan etc. The Achaimenids did equally and certainly did the Eastern Romans.
The HRE identifies itself with the medieval Kingdom of Germany. The HRE part refers to their hierarchical structure and administration protocols.

Even if my criteria for considering someone an Empire are wrong, i'm still waiting to read anybody else's criteria for "Empireness".

FrisianDude said:

And I can understand not recognizing Nicea as an Empire but the HRE? Definitely was. Simply because the majority of those Emperors went to Rome to get themselves crowned by the Pope using the Imperial Regalia to crown them Emperor. That is the difference between Emperor (in the Western Medieval sense) between King and Emperor.

Hence why the Eastern Roman Empire was displeased when Pope Leo III made Charlemagne Emperor; this promotion was a direct hit to their legitimacy.

Click to expand...

Actually the Nicean "Empire" had more legitimacy in being an Empire than HRE. The only legitimate Emperor was the one in Constantinople, and the Nicean aristocracy came from the same stock.
The Pope had no authority to name anybody Emperor. You do understand that the church actually forged documents claimg that Emperor Constantine, in his death bed, left the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope, in order to thank the Christian god? Its not a conspiracy theory, but rather a recognized fact by the Catholic chutch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Thats how Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by the Pope. The pope was supposed to have inheritted the western part of the Empire, along with the title.

The wiki source is not reliable. I only used it to show to Catpurse13 that i am not the only one who defines Empires by their pollitical power.

For the last time Ule. For a political entity to be considered an Empire a geographical extentsivness is required. Being simply multinational and ruled by a single authority is not a criteria alone.
So yes the British were truly an Empire. The Holy Roman Empire or the Korean Empire or the Mexican Empire were Empires in name only.

I didn't even understand your point about the wiki regarding Britain as a non-Empire. It certainly does. India, North America, Australia, Africa etc. make the British state certainly a multinational state with a great geographical extent. They are the definition of Empire. It doesn't need every province of said Empire to be a different culture from the central authority.

The HRE(I hope we do agree that post 11century HRE was not an Empire because they had turned into a federation, yes?) when under the Ottonians and ruled as a central state was not an Empire simply because they didn't even come close to the political power of the already established and extended Empires of the era. You could say that the Carolingian realm can fall under the Empire category, but not the HRE.

But, Austria was an Empire. When did i say they weren't?

Christ.
Yes there was an ancient Macedonian language diiferent from the Koine attican Greek language. There was also a Dorian dialect different from the Koine attican dialect. The Cypriots also spoke a different version of the Koine attican dialect. Nevertheless these were all forms of the same language family. In the 4th century however the ancient Macedonian dialect(which linguistically belongs to the north Dorian language group) was replaced in the Macedonian kingdom by the Attican Koine Greek.
Perdicas and other members of the aristocracy spoke in Attican Greek while the lower ranks did not, yet.

My friend i fear our missunderstanding is because of your bad command of the English language-i don't mean this as an insult. I never said the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia was part of any federation or republic of the Greek city-states.

What do you mean by this:

"So if modern FYROM was not included in that time Macedonia- Philip conquested many lands and later Alexander III has his own conquest to north. Thing is that all this peoples accepted both of rulers and Greeks when was conquested was very against both of rulers. What that can tell you? "

Ancient Macedonia was an enclave around modern Pella. Philip and Alexander expanded that enclave, by conquest, to the north and reached the Danube. The modern region of Macedonia is based on the Roman province of Macedonia which was in turn based on the expanded Kingdom of Philip, not the original Kingdom. Ancient Macedonia did not include modern FYROM. I never said that the Paenonians/Illyrians that lived near the Danube and conquered by Philip were any sort of Greeks. I am not saying that the inhabitants of modern FYROM are Greeks. I think we've established they are racially aking to the Serbs and culturally to the Bulgarians.

I don't understand your argument about the Romans. These names you mention did not overlap. They didn't call Illyrians as Thracians or Dacians. I fail to see the connection with what we are arguing here. I am actually not sure what we have ended up arguing here generally. Modern inhabitants of FYROM are not in any way connected to the Greeks or ancient Macedonians. They are surely connected with the Slavic migrants that came in the Balkans. I have not understand what your point is.

war300 said:

So? Conquest of Anatolia by Turks for example. It's been over 1000 years...
And yes, you can say; Ottomans were not an empire in Medieval ages. They conquered Constantinople. So, it was the end of Medieval age and the beginning of Ottomans being an empire. Of course I know that the Ottomans were not empire until 1453. Leave and let me know my history.

Spoiler

By the way, a new movie named ''Fetih 1453'' ( Fetih means Conquest) which is about conquest of Constantinople is going to be released on 17th of February, 2012. I suggest that you watch it. It will be huge.

Click to expand...

Your "permanent" conquest of Anatolia was seriously challenged in the campaign of 1919-22. And well quite frankly it still is by the Kurds.
About the movie, i've seen the trailer. It was horrible. Nearly everybody had a wrong uniform and the evil Greeks were portraited as classical era Romans. I'd love a decent movie about the siege of Constantinople, but i fear this is not it. Thats propably something to satisfy a low-class nationalist fan base.

FrisianDude said:

Funny, last Friday in one of my lessons our class was asked to define what an emperor is ('keizer' in Dutch) because our class is studying to become history teachers. It was rather hard. By far most suggestions can apply to a king or even as low as barons as much as to an Emperor. Officially one might say an Emperor is above a king, but that doesn't mean an emperor is necessarily stronger than contemporary kings or even have more territory. Not even necessarily due to hostiles trying to preserve a balance of power, but also often because certain kings are simply more powerful. Especially kings of France have often been as powerful or more so than HR Emperors.

In short, I don't think it's really particularly possible to properly define the concept of Emperor and the closest I can think of is that an Emperor has been crowned as such. For whatever reason. Whether they were elected by those who would become their vassals, whether the Pope decided they should become Emperor or for whatever other reason. As such, I have no qualms in seeing the HRE, the Empire of Nicea, and all other 'notsureifEmpires' as Empires.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The definition of Empire is fluid. Nicea, HRE and whoever were Empires in name only.
We are arguing here about what really constitutes an Empire.

Catpurse13 said:

Let's go ahead and use the definition of empire from wiki:
"An empire is a state with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture"

Let's look at another definition of empire:
"a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority"

Neither definition requires any particular power of any sort other than having a supreme ruler.

Click to expand...

Yes i understand. You are correct. Switzerland, Belgium and modern UK are Empires.

Ule said:

no it doesnt, an empire can be made up of a few tiny states. doesnt mean its grest empire but an empire non the less. if a union of several other states is ruled by a central power, its an empire, the dutch south asian empire for instance, was tiny compared to the british of french but it was an empire.

therefore the holy roman empire is an empire because its a union of several smaller underneath a greater ruler.

just because you dont like the holy roman empire doesnt mean it isnt, and you have succesfully argued agaisnt your own points then gone back.

Click to expand...

I really don't care about the HRE. Its not empathy that guides my arguments, but rather common sense. So i guess with your definition you have the Empire of Poland-Lithuania, the Empire of the Templars, The Empire of the Teutons etc etc.

Catpurse13 said:

You are quite possibly the only person to define an empire based on political and military strength.

Click to expand...

?


P.S I am pretty sure i've said several times about territorial extesivness.

P.S2 I have yet to hear your(or the other co-arguers) definition of an empire.

P.S3 I didn't want to bring the wiki up, but here it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

quote:

the largely Germanic Holy Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, yet these states were not always technically — geographic, political, military — empires in the modern sense of the word. To legitimise their imperium, these states directly claimed the title of Empire from Rome. The sacrum Romanum imperium (Holy Roman Empire) of 800 to 1806, claimed to have exclusively comprehended Christian principalities, and was only nominally a discrete imperial state. The Holy Roman Empire was not always centrally-governed, as it had neither core nor peripheral territories, and was not governed by a central, politico-military élite — hence, Voltaire’s remark that the Holy Roman Empire “was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire” is accurate to the degree that it ignores[4] German rule over Italian, French, Provençal, Polish, Flemish, Dutch, and Bohemian populations, and the efforts of the ninth-century Holy Roman Emperors (i.e. the Ottonians) to establish central control; thus, Voltaire’s “. . . nor an empire” observation applies to its late period.


Oh.
It seems i am not the only person to define an empire based on geographic, political and military criteria.

It has be both extensive in its geographical territory and powerfull enough politically. That doesn't necessarilty imply a strong army or state aparatus. A text book example is Peter I's Russian Empire.
Extensive territory yet an antiquated army and archaic state institutions. Yet powerfull politically. An Empire nevertheless. Prussia in the same time frame had a more powerfull army and state aparatus, yet they were no Empire.  The political power of an entity is dependendant on a variety of factors, land, trade, harbours, manpower etc etc.

But deep down the single most crucial factor is territorial extensiveness. The more continents it spread to, the better.

MihailoSRB said:

Wellenbrecher said:

Personally I'm a sucker for the "Hellenistic" ones.
Monophthalmus, Poliorcetes, Nicator and such. They just sound so awesome. Barypous is another favourite.

Click to expand...

Through my limited knowledge of ancient Greek  , and without googleing, I believe that the first one means One-eyed, second means Many-something, third probably means Victor, and the fourth one... I have no idea. Still, I like One-eyed best.

Click to expand...

Monophalmus means one-eyed or cyclops, Poliorcetes means Besieger, Nicator means Victor and Barypous means heavy-footed. There is also Ptolemy Soter, the Savior.

Catpurse13 said:

That WAS the Holy Roman Empire, if it was weak compared to other empires of the time that just means it was a weak empire at that time.

I guess an organised army isn't really an army if it's weak, either. 18th centruy Austria didn't have an army!

Click to expand...

And yes and what you say that would indeed be correct if they used to be a powerfull Empire in lets say 600AD and gradually declined by 962(Otto's reign). But they were only formed in 962 as an entity in the first place. They were a powerfull entity compared to lets say the Viking Kingdoms and the Russ but not when it came to the eastern Roman Empire and the Abassid Empire. Had they remained a unified state under a single monarch by the 13th century they would indeed be considered an Empire. Problem is they evolved into a federation of princes.

The army/no army argument is invalid. I never said they didn't constitute a strong state. We argue here about if they were powerfull enough to be an Empire.