Greece, History, Truth

[Serdarot]

it is the same system, "they are primitive", "they are barbarians", "they are unbelievers", "let baptize them or kill them"...

used from the "democratic" Ancient Greeks, up to the nowadays Americans

today they use the word "terrorist" or simply they "want to spread the values of the democracy"

At least Aleksander was honest, he wrote to Darius III Kodoman that he simply wanted to rule with the Persian Empire

Btw, i am also proud on him couse he tried to make fusion between the 2 cultures, without the "primitive" crap.

Only the idiot greeks are still jerking on some idiotic stories that Aleks wanted to destroy Persia couse they were Barbarians, drn drn, bla bla...

In their ignorance, they forget that Aleksandeer received the Persian Ambasadors in his youth, and was enough clever to ask the right questions to make his own conclusions who and what were the Persians.

btw, SOM, you might not like the art how i express myself, but that doesnīt mean i donīt know what i write

i also donīt like the way how you express yourself, but that does not effects the truth and the knowledge in most of yur posts.

[George S.]

Serdarot good points,the greeks only know half the story that alexander according to them simply wanted to destroy the persian empire.That is not true as the people were happier than before as alexander did not beleive in slavery whereas the greeks did.The macedonians wanted to conquer the world but not to enslave the people.He gave them religious freedom
& he ebncouraged inter marriage of macedonians & persians.So the greeks don't have an inkling of what alexander was doing & trying to accomplish.

[Onur]

Serdarot good points,the greeks only know half the story that alexander according to them simply wanted to destroy the persian empire.

This is just a modern conception also adopted by modern Greeks of today. We have a lot of monuments in Turkey which shows cultural interaction and mutual cooperation between Persians and ancient Greeks from pre-Alexander era and after Alexander, ofc this interaction has been increased a lot.

So, ancient Greeks was perfectly fine with cultural interaction and thats how they produced and developed their culture. It`s the modern Greeks who aren't like this. It is the post renaissance western European conception of Greek world who indoctrinated this ethno-centric and ego-centric neo-Greek philosophy. In reality, this new neo-Greek conception contradicts the philosophy of ancient Greeks who mostly had lived in harmony with other cultures.

Besides that, we already know that modern Greeks have absolutely no relation with the ancient one.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Nope, it wasn't exactly like that. In the Turkish system, young rulers was being taken from the palace and given to the scholars in to another city and then getting education `till their father(king) dies. It was like today`s boarding schools and like janissary system of that era.

Onur, such examples are hardly unique, and in my opinion, don't warrant a label such as the 'Turkish system' because it is misleading, ie; it sounds as thought the Turks invented such practices, when in actual fact, most were adopted during their westward travels.

I think you need to remember some basic facts about medieval Europe. Yes, Vatican meant "everything" for whole western Europe `till reform and the born of protestants in Germany. Pope was simply the ruler of whole Europe except the places under Turkish domain. Even after the reform era, pope still reigned supreme in most of Europe `till the end of renaissance. So, the filth, diseases, ignorance was in whole western Europe.

That doesn't corroborate your generalisation. There is no evidence that the whole of western Europe had adopted such extreme practices.

I didn't even give all extreme examples. Did you know that in the 2nd crusade, sometime around early 12th century Latins even ate the Turkish children in Antakya(Antioch)??? Yes it`s true and known fact cuz they even sent a letter to the Pope and asked if it would be OK to eat Turks, sin or not!!! So, they were even OK with cannibalism.

You seem to be selective in your examples for the purpose of magnifying a particular stigma resulting from extreme religious practices by the Vatican and outrageous behaviour by Crusaders during wartime. There is little with regard to the actions of commoners in western Europe.

......there was toilets in whole Ottoman era too.

Where, in Topkapi palace? Come on Onur, let's not get ahead of ourselves here, when was the last time you visited some villages in the Balkans to see how efficient their canal system is? It's a joke in many areas - and that is a direct remnant from the Ottoman period (perpetuated by subsequent idiot governments from Yugoslavia and others).

[Soldier of Macedon]

btw, SOM, you might not like the art how i express myself, but that doesnīt mean i donīt know what i write

i also donīt like the way how you express yourself, but that does not effects the truth and the knowledge in most of yur posts.

Serdarot, I never implied that you don't know how to write. I would be monumentally happier if you could corroborate many of the things you say with some logic and sources, rather than making claims and failing to subsequently back them up (like Iljov does). For example, you started a thread about Russian sources concerning Macedonia, you followed up with attachments, links, sources, etc. More of that style.

[Onur]

Onur, such examples are hardly unique, and in my opinion, don't warrant a label such as the 'Turkish system' because it is misleading, ie; it sounds as thought the Turks invented such practices, when in actual fact, most were adopted during their westward travels.

OK, lets call it, simply an "education style" present in Istanbul in that time but you are wrong again with saying"in actual fact, most were adopted during their westward travels"

That particular building built in 1454 AD. Then, tell me from who we might get that system from west b4 1454 AD? You cant tell cuz there was simply no education in western world besides catholic religious education in that era.

Turks and other eastern cultures had practically nothing to learn, nothing to adopt from western world b4 16th century, let alone 1454 AD. Everything started to change after they invented printing press and when it became widespread in western world.

That doesn't corroborate your generalisation. There is no evidence that the whole of western Europe had adopted such extreme practices.

I can give you 100s of examples but i don't have time to dig in to the internet atm. I can give you laters when i see those. Or i can suggest you to read some books about the ordinary life in medieval Europe. I suppose you might be surprised.

You seem to be selective in your examples for the purpose of magnifying a particular stigma resulting from extreme religious practices by the Vatican and outrageous behaviour by Crusaders during wartime. There is little with regard to the actions of commoners in western Europe.

Crusaders was simply whole western Europe at that time. There was men, women and children, priests, peasants, nobles etc. from London to Rome. Those "extreme religious practices" as you called it, was some kind of norm at that time. Well, maybe war situation might lead to some extremism but those stuff was not that extreme in that era.

[Pelister]

The Turkish system was different than the previous one in the terms of toleration, Mehmed II tolerated other religions.

Jews suffered a lot in Europe but were allowed to live their lifes on Ottoman grounds.
The whole western world was working this way, burning down heretics, Jews, witches and cats, dont fool yourself.

In other words we brought humanity back to the Europeans, we gave Europe so many things, Serdarot just explained it nicely.

There were things about the Turkish system of rule that were unique to them I think, but much of its wasn't - the Janniseries the Devshirme, although uniquely Turkish in style, were things that were practiced by the Romans. The style of colonisation, mass movement of people was also a Byzantine thing. I think all colonial empires engage in such practices. The Turkish system of rule started to rot, or break down I think at about the same time the it started recruiting Albanians enmass into its ranks.

[Soldier of Macedon]

.......you are wrong again with saying"in actual fact, most were adopted during their westward travels"

Can you show me similar examples exhibited by the Turkic people in central Asia prior to their interaction with the Roman Empire(s)?

That particular building built in 1454 AD. Then, tell me from who we might get that system from west b4 1454 AD? You cant tell cuz there was simply no education in western world besides catholic religious education in that era.

The Turks didn't arrive in Anatolia and the Balkans in the 15th century, Onur, they arrived much earlier, and they did adopt several practices from the former ruling systems previously in place. Again, if you choose to deny this then show me the examples of such practices by the Turks of Central Asia prior to their westward migrations.

Turks and other eastern cultures had practically nothing to learn, nothing to adopt from western world b4 16th century, let alone 1454 AD. Everything started to change after they invented printing press and when it became widespread in western world.

By the 16th century the Turks had already learned plenty from the (east) Romans in the Balkans and Anatolia, much of which was developed previously during their common life with the (west) Romans. As for Turks adopting practices directly from the west itself, I would agree that little of this took place.

I can give you 100s of examples but i don't have time to dig in to the internet atm. I can give you laters when i see those. Or i can suggest you to read some books about the ordinary life in medieval Europe. I suppose you might be surprised.

Do me the honour and provide the 100's, because I am still yet to find one source that refers to the whole of western Europe in the manner which you have described.

Crusaders was simply whole western Europe at that time.

The Crusaders were a movement, and not a collective of all people in western Europe. You simply cannot compare an invading army such as the Crusaders with the commoners from where they descend. Not all Mongols in Asia were blood-thirsty killers during the reign of Gengis Khan and his descendants in Europe, just like not all Turks in Anatolia were cold-blooded murderers during the attack and aftermath on Krushevo led by Omer Ruzhni Pasha in 1903.

[Onur]

Can you show me similar examples exhibited by the Turkic people in central Asia prior to their interaction with the Roman Empire(s)?

The Turks didn't arrive in Anatolia and the Balkans in the 15th century, Onur, they arrived much earlier, and they did adopt several practices from the former ruling systems previously in place. Again, if you choose to deny this then show me the examples of such practices by the Turks of Central Asia prior to their westward migrations.

I think we got difference in the cultural borders of eastern and western world. Ofc Turks adopted many things from eastern Roman Empire, like the Ottoman vilayet system of Balkans was pretty much same with Byzantines.

The thing is, i don't consider eastern Romans in "western world". To me, neither ancient Greeks nor eastern Romans was "western" in terms of culture.

Besides, we had no relation except hostility with the western Roman world `till 17th century. Turks had friendly time with eastern Romans from time to time but never with western Romans `till 17th century. So, i can say that we didn't adopt anything from them for so long.

[Ottoman]

http://toilet-guru.com/imperialottoman.php

Toilets in the Ottoman era, just click the link to see it yourself.

The Ottomans even fixed the shitting problems of the French king.

[Agamoi Thytai]

You Greeks couldn't clear up these contradictions nearly for 200 years. You better decide which one you gonna use as anti-Turkish propaganda; Turks needed christians for taxes OR Turks forced Christians to convert as muslims???? If you claim both, then you contradict with yourself!!!

I don't contradict myself!I said Turks IN GENERAL didn't forced Christians to convert to Islam,but there were many cases of INDIVIDUALS that were forced to do so otherwise they were killed.Since you can't understand it,if there was a town with 10.000 Chrsitian inhabitants,Turks didn't forced them to become Muslims en masse nor it was the OFFICIAL Ottoman policy,but there occured perhaps 5-6 conversions per year as result of ARBITRARY INITIATIVE either of Ottoman dignitaries or of the enraged Turkish mob in some cases.

You really believe this crap??? without a quote, footnote, source from 1453 AD???!

Do you think he invented the story on his own???It was writen by the Byzantine historian Michael Dukas.

I really mean it, you Greeks really believe that Mehmet II conquered istanbul just to fck some 14 year old royal Greek asses??? Whatta stupid story this is; World`s strongest and wealthiest leader of 15th century openly asks for 14 year old Greek boys to fck in the ass at the royal court and poor Greeks suffers, right??!!! You were going to make me cry with this dude, poor Greeks, just like the Jesus Christ, innocent ones, oww, how sad!!!

Bunch of nomadic barbarians invades constantinople, then they rape your pretty asses and destroy beautiful Hellenic culture...These barbarians had no language, no culture, one eyed blood drinking monsters oppressing the innocent ones, just like the story of Jesus Christ.... this is what you have been told since primary schools??? right?


Also, one wonders why Greeks always make up stories like that without a proof and write countless books with it instead of turning back 200 years more to 13th century and write the true story of the siege of constantinople by Catholics. You don't need to make up stupid stories like that either cuz everything is written by Byzantines and Latins themselves; Close to 50.000 people massacred in constantinople and whole city burned by them and then everyone gone exile from there, city turned into a ghost town. Byzantine emperor gone exile and asked for help from the Turks. Whores sat down to throne and crusaders set up gang bang party in Hagia Sophia. Frescoes damaged in the church and all mosaics covered up with human feces. Famous library of constantinople has been burned and several monuments has been stolen and gone to Rome, Venice etc. Then Byzantines took back the city with the help of Turks who also protected exiled monarchy.

Why you guys doesn't write all these events?? It`s 100% truth unlike your stupid stories about Mehmet II. OR this doesn't fit to your current political policy??? so you concentrate on usual "blame the Turks for everything" policy???

Of course we know all these attrocities of the Crusadors,i've read all this in many Greek history books,but you were no better in 1453.

It`s ironic that Greeks now thinks Mehmed II fcked them in the ass while it was the catholics who really raped them 200 years b4 that. On the other hand, modern Greeks gone bankrupt today and they are still getting fcked in the ass by the very same people today!!! and their politicians still blame Turks for that!!!

Onur,we know very well what crimes the Catholic West and the crusadors have commited in 1204,no need for your silly comments that "we hide it" and "blame only the Turks".We don't demonize Turks and personally i am not a Turk-hater if you think so.However i'm pissed off when i see you trying to portray Ottoman rule in the Balkans as a kind of "charitable institution".I also agree with you that things were equally unhuman in Western Europe at that time,but if we should tell a spade spade,Ottoman rule in the Balkans was one of the most oppressive and cruel yokes that people ever suffered anywhere in the world.It was also the main factor for Balkan backwardness

[Agamoi Thytai]

THe only people that were fcking people up the arse is the greeks themselves.

Since you are a proud Macedonian who claims to be direct descendand of Alexander and Philip,do you believe homosexuality existed only in ancient Greece?Do you know WHO killed Philip,and WHY?

Lol Mehmed II was gay and pedofile? whats next? he was also superman?

Why are you so surprised?As if it was an unknown practice in your society!

http://books.google.com/books?id=Kw_BVSVmNsUC&pg=PA80&dq=homosexuality+of+famous+personalities+including+the+founder+of+the+Turkish+republic&hl=el&ei=Ic4sTYSVCoeg4Qa76-C9Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20of%20famous%20personalities%20including%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20Turkish%20republic&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XZL5EeGpW0MC&pg=PA31

[Soldier of Macedon]

Since you are a proud Macedonian who claims to be direct descendand of Alexander and Philip,do you believe homosexuality existed only in ancient Greece?Do you know WHO killed Philip,and WHY?

Elaborate, I want to see your perspective.

[Agamoi Thytai]

Elaborate, I want to see your perspective.

Diodorus Siculus,16.93.3 till 16.94.4:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D16%3Achapter%3D93%3Asection%3D3

[Serdarot]

AT, what word was used in the original, for "beloved"?