Talk:Orlov revolt

Inappropriate link on section top

Obviously this kind of addition [[1]] is both geographically and chrologically wrong. Nothing more than wp:point I assume.Alexikoua (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please consult the article Islamization of Albania. In the section on Southern Albania, the events of the Orlov revolt impacted the situation of Orthodox Albanians vis a vis the Ottoman state and is referenced (For one the monk Kosmas' death). The revolt was one event among others that led to the emergence of Muslim Albanians from the Orthodox Albanian speaking population through conversion to Islam. The See also link is relevant. This article overall is slim on the events of the Orlov revolt and impacts on adjacent areas. Much work needs to be done. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

For future reference Wikipedia should not be used as a reference. In particular this uprising occurred in another region and Albania had only an indirect impact. The specific section is completely irrelevant with the link, as the current text of this section reveals.Alexikoua (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

AlexikouaUsing your line of reference, if its indirect as you state then why does this article have a sentence about Kosmas? Would that not constitute wp:undue and wp:POV if that bit on Kosmas continued to be in this article considering that his death occurred in another region that today is Albania?Resnjari (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good notice. Kosmas death occurred at 1779 nine years after the uprising. It would be interesting to know if a reference exists to link the uprising with his (nine years later) death. Alexikoua (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I added the link to the article because of the Kosmas sentence to the aftermath section. The ramifications of the Orlov uprising were wider and continued for a long while. In Albania and what is today Greek Epirus retributions were carried out on local Orthodox Albanians that further swelled the numbers of the Muslim Albanian population through conversion (just read Giakoumis for one). Kosmas' activities were in part to stem the tide and he was killed because authorities thought he was a Russian agent looking to instigate or was connected to with these events. Anyway instead of me sounding like a broken record you can consult the Islamization of Albania and further sources. Thing here is, if the Kosmas bit stays then my link goes back to. Otherwise, if its a no and the Aftermath section is meant to be more of a immediate aftermath thing then my link and the Kosmas thing goes. So which is it ?Resnjari (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Very generally speaking the Orlov revolt was one of several Russian supported 18th century revolts triggered during the various Russo-Turkish 18th century wars. This doesn't connect the uprising with Islamizations in Albania. Ramet and Giakoumis for example don't mention the specific uprising.

On the other hand there was Albanian participation to suppress the uprising since Albanian mercenaries were employed by the Sultan for this job. However, this is not related with the article you point.Alexikoua (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Skendi does. The Kosmas sentence gets removed. Its inclusion here then is not warranted. Otherwise its POV. Muslim Albanian participation indeed did occur in the context of defending Ottoman sovereignty from foreign powers (i.e Russia). Resnjari (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to slightly disagree on the reasons of this Muslim Albanian (or Turkoalbanian in contemporary bibliography) intervention. Ottoman sovereignty was restored nine years later due to the general anarchy created by the specific groups.Alexikoua (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The Ottoman state felt it was within its bounds of protecting its sovereignty and asserting it. It used Muslim Albanian troops to go after Russian backed Orthodox Greek speaking (Romioi) and Arvanite (Orthodox Albanian speaking people) insurgents who threatened the stability of the state.Resnjari (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the definition of Romioi included both groups. Not to mention that there was not a distinct Arvanite unit, at least in this revolt.Alexikoua (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The concept of Romioi as a catch all designation for all Orthodox is from the Greek perspective. ther deisngationsued by Orthodox people in the Balkans existed pre-nationalism era. Arvanites as a Albanian speaking group did not emerge from after the Orlov revolt but much earlier. They used the self appellation of Arberesh, a term used by all Albanian speaking people regardless of religion, from which the word Arvanites comes from. Commonality between both groups was found on Orthodoxy which was a much more important identity marker then language or localised identities like Arberesh.Resnjari (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What's important about this revolt is that the invading bands attacked people that belonged to a different nation. They didn't face co-nationals and committed the same kind of atrocities against Greek (per 18th century century definition) communities. Albanian identity was virtually non-existent in social terms, both in the Ottoman and the Greek perspective. An Albanian identity began to be present in historiography from the second half 19th century, some decades after Ali Pasha.Alexikoua (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

To claim that for Greeks Albanians 'didn't exist' when they employed the term "Tourkoalvanoi" at that time during the Orlov events is a bit orwellian. Otherwise those Alvanoi would just be Tourkos. And Tourkos was a synonym for Muslim, and that is documented in scholarship if you want me to substantiate it. Lets not sideline that Greeks also employed (and people in Greek Epirus still do) the term Arvanites for a Albanian speaker regardless of religion until WW2 (Baltsiotis, footnote 9.[2]). On the assertion that the Ottomans were not aware of Albanians, Anscombe who has looked at this matter and notes otherwise (http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/578/1/578.pdf p.88). I should note that in Greek circles the idea that Albanians don't constitute a people in any sense has been prominent from the 19th century [3], so i am not surprised. Ottoman Muslim Albanian Albanians troops did not invade as the territory was sovereign Ottoman land. They were sent there by the Ottoman to restore that status quo after anarchy had gripped the region due to a Russian backed insurgency aimed at challenging the sovereignty of the state. During that process they acted violently as with many situations of asymmetrical warfare against insurgents.Resnjari (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The hypothesis that Arvanite communities played some kind of distinct role in the uprising is complete science fiction (no url above mentions that, there is not even the slightest mention of this uprising). In general one of the defining characteristics of (quite later) Albanian nationalism, is the lack of the of the use of religion as a mark of identity. (The conceptualization of an Albanian nation, Stark Draper, Ethnic and Racial Studies) Vol. 20, (1), 1997). Off course the atrocities committed by the specific (unreliable) Ottoman mercenaries for nine years were quite typical for the Ottoman world. For example, impalement was a typical way of execution in Ottoman reality, though it sounded cruel for a Western country. The way these groups vanished from Pelepones occurred also in the typical Ottoman fashion with the erection of pyramids from their heads. No wonder genocide became an official policy some 1+1/2 centuries later in this "state".Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your reference to Albanian nationalism is a different thing from Albanian identity (Anscombe does NOT refer to Alb. nationalism of the time period he looks at as affecting Alb. identity). Same like Greek nationalism and identity. Pre-nationalistic Greek identity categories where Romioi, the advent of nationalism transitioned them to Hellenes when the conceptualisation of modern Greek identity came into being through the Philihellenism movement and nationalism (there is much written on this, by Greeks among others). My point of the Arvanites matter was not about Christian element per se or their contribution or not to these events and frankly i don't care if they did or did not. My comment was in relation to your comment regarding the inference about Albanians being "virtually non-existent in social terms". As for violence, the Ottomans did as others did during the times. Its easy to sideline that the West was busy colonising the world with violent methods that made impalement look insignificant. If you want that discussion i am all game for that. There are those today for various nationalist or contemporary nationalist histriographical reasons who may not recognise that the Ottoman state once had sovereignty over the area, but other states of the time did acknowledge that reality. If the Ottomans didn't those foreign powers would not sign treaties with it ordering them to relinquish it after war. The Ottomans reacted during World War One after 5 million Muslims had been driven out of their homes as refugees and another 5 and half million were casualties due to Russian "interventions" and through its allies in the Balkans and Caucasus during the 19th and early 20th century wars of "liberation" and "independence". Everyone's experience was different. Depends what perspective one wants to focus on.Resnjari (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Resnjrari, before making any uncorresponding to the topic irrelevant assumptions please reasearch a bit more the term Rum or Rhomios. It is not an identification based on linguistics but based on the Orthodox religion and Roman heritage. Rum or Rhomioi were Arvanites, Slav-speaking Greek Orthodox people, Greek-speaking people, Vlachs and any Orthodox people that were part of the Byzantine Empire. The classification goes back to the times of the Byzantine Empire, and then the Turks used it Rûm. Have a look at the Rum Millet. The modern Albanian identity did not exist at that time. I think you need to stop confusing demonyms with ethnonyms. Albanian at that time was a demonym since Albania and/or Epirus collectively Arvanitia was one of the Ottoman provinces in what is now Greece and south Albania along with Morea and Rumelia. This is why we have Arvanites, Roumeliotes and Moraites. Thanks. Othon I (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The above editor made claims in response to me and i have replied. To you Noel Malcolm states this on p. 80. "That Albanian writers felt the need to argue in this way was easily understandable at a time when Greek propagandists were claiming that the Albanians were not a proper people at all, that their language was just a mish mash of other languages and that any member of the Greek Orthodox Church was 'really' a Greek. At the same time, Slav publicists were insisting either that the Albanians of Kosova were 'really' Slavs, or that they were 'Turks' who could be 'sent back' to Turkey." This view about Albanians being not existent originates from a specific time (19th century beyond) that was propagandist in Greek circles [4]. Either you can read peer reviewed scholarship or be dismissive and continue as you wish.Resnjari (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why there are no activities in Macedonia?

.... when there are almost everywhere in real Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.223.128 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The article covers an incident about the participation of Greek revolutionaries from Macedonia and Olympus. There was also an operation against Kavala.Alexikoua (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)