Jump to content

Talk:Ottoman Greece

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ali Pasha

[edit]

Guys, 20,000 Ottoman troops were fighting Ali Pasha. That's is lot of them and could have strangled the newborn revolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Ottoman Makedonia, and noble, sober Turks, Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes

[edit]

see link

The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konya, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia . At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration

The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups:

Propagandistic Paintings???

[edit]

in 1821 the greek revolution started. Greece declared its independence in 1928.

Acording to Adam Carr the paintings which were in the “Ottoman Greece” article are propaganda and insists that they be removed, now Adam Carr please explain how in your eyes these paintings [1] [2] [3] [4] which are all authentic and were painted during or shortly afer the Ottoman Occupation of Greece are Propaganda, and why they should be removed from the article? Brastite 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images are highly romanticised version of the events, or alleged events, of Greek history, and were clearly commissioned to present the Greeks as martyrs to the evil Ottomans or else in a heroic light. They are in that sense propaganda. Since there are no images presenting the Ottomans in a positive light, they are a violation of NPOV. Now I look at them closely they also appear to have copyright warnings on them so they are probably copyright violations as well. Adam 11:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think romanticized paintings are problematic in articles so long as they're identified as such, with a caption clearly indicating it's a romantic-era painting by a Greek nationalist. We have plenty of those paintings in our articles on other 18th- and 19th-century revolutions. --Delirium 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loan words

[edit]

"The Greek language absorbed a considerable number of Turkish words, and Greek music and other elements of Greek folk culture were heavily influenced by that of the Turks." period. No need to extend this simple sentence to a long and obscure paragraph that carries less information. "Many Greeks during the Ottoman period were multi-lingual and utilized words from the various cultures they came into contact with through trade", yes, this is true, of course. But this is true for every single population in this world, and this is an article about Ottoman Greece. Also, I can bet that the French language or the Romanian folklore didn't had the same influence on Greek language, no matter how many Greeks spoke French or Romanian because they traded with French people or Romanian people. GhePeU 18:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point Ghepeu, but all I am doing is providing a social reason as to why the Greek language has acquired Turkish loan words in the first place (let alone foreign loan words during Ottoman times). To say merely that the Greek language has Turkish loan words explains the overall process on only a linguistic level. However, when one includes the sociological reasons that led to this linguistic process, then it actually enriches one's understanding of the Greek language through those who spoke it in its many various forms.
I am not saying that maintaining simplicity is a bad thing when it comes to explaining how one language acquired foreign loan words. However, to explain things only on a linguistic level is not good enough even if it can be presented in a simple fashion. You can go ahead and present any linguistic process in any simple fashion you choose. Yet, you need to provide some sociological reasons nowadays to help verify (to some extent) the validity or even the existence of a particular linguistic process. In short, it helps. Societies create, use, modify, and destroy languages. You could say that languages are socially constructed. Though, one should never assume that a language perfectly mirrors a society (sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't).
The reason why I altered the statement "Greek music and other elements of Greek folk culture were heavily influenced by that of the Turks" was because history shows that the Greeks of Anatolia were already exposed to eastern cultural norms prior to the advent of the Turks. Trust me on this one if you think I am pulling your leg. Social reality dictates that during the age of the Greek Byzantine Empire, the Isaurian Dynasty orientalized the empire in order to prevent a future conflict with Islam. Why? Well, this "orientalizing" effect (which included trade and the sharing of cultural ideas between Byzantium and Islam) was very beneficial for the Byzantine Empire being that it was geopolitically closer to the Arabs than the empires of Western Europe. This, in the end, extended the overall life of the Byzantine Empire. In other words, maintaining peace with your (very large) neighbor provides an added plus to any empire's attempts at maintaining internal stability. So, the Turks were not responsible for orientalizing the Greeks of Anatolia culturally. If anything, the Greeks of Anatolia were already aware of eastern cultural norms whether they were provided by the Turks or not.
Keep in mind that what I have stated so far are reasons based on historical, sociological, and geopolitical research. They are not merely excuses to supposedly "hide the dirty truth" of whatever Turkish influences exist in the Greek language and culture. If you feel or think that what I have provided is nothing more but unadultered gibberish then that is fine (it would not be the first time I provided historically accurate reasons for something and was considered a "fool"). Also, I am not altering the overall sentence just to merely annoy you or to waste your time. All I am doing is making certain that information is properly presented in an historically accurate fashion (does not matter if the information is shown in a simple or convoluted way).
Just so you know, I am going to change the sentence again. Respond to this at your best convenience. Over and out. - Deucalionite 1/24/06 6:19 P.M. EST

That all may or may not be true, but it is not really relevant to the point being made in this article, which is simply that during the centuries when the Greeks lived under ottoman rule, they borrowed some Turkish words and acquired some Turkish habits. This does not need a great "historical, sociological, and geopolitical" explanation. It's a simple fact which can and should be stated simply. More complex discussion belongs in the History of the Greek Language article. Adam 03:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statements I have made are actually true, but I do understand if they are irrelevant within the specific context parameters of the article. Yet, would it not be more accurate to state that Greek folk culture from Anatolia was influenced by the Turks to an extent as opposed to it being "heavily influenced." To acquire some Turkish habits (as you would say) is not exactly something that falls into the category of "heavy influence."
I assure you that the only change that I will make now is on the sentence pertaining to the "heavy" Turkish influence on Greek Anatolian culture. Don't get me wrong on what I intend to do. For the sake of taking the actual historical events I have stated into consideration (without having to go against the context parameters of the article) would it not be prudent to actually allow this minor change in order to maintain some semblance of historical accuracy? Again, the only change that should at least be made is the whole Turkish "heavy influence" thing. Influence, sure. "Heavy influence," not really in light of previous historical and social trends. Respond at your best convenience. - Deucalionite 1/25/06 10:14 A.M. EST

Anatolia is not part of Greece, in case you had forgotten. Adam 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not forget that geographically Anatolia is not a part of Greece. However, Greeks have been living in Anatolia for many millenia prior to the advent of the Turks. Moreover, the statements I have made pertaining to the Greek Anatolian culture (and how it was orientalized in the medieval age) are in fact true. So, for you to imply that I had all of a sudden forgotten (as if I was some sort of dope) that Anatolia is not geographically a part of Greece is kind of rude. Yet, text communications over the Internet possess no inflection (except if you use the classic Caps Lock for flaming). Thank you inhibition effect.
Gee, I wonder if you were mad when you said this: blanket reversion is not "updating text". i am not a newbie here so don't try tricks like that on me, katalaveneis? First of all, you spelled "katalaveneis" wrong. If you are going to point the finger at me and pretend to scold me by using Greek, then get it right the first time (it is spelled "katalavaineis" since you forgot the "ai" part in the word). Nice try, but no cigar. Second, I never assumed that you were a newbie. If I wanted to call you a newbie or act as if your experience is at a novice level, then I would have done it already. Of course, doing so is absolutely counterproductive.
You state that my "blanket revision" is nothing more but a bag of "tricks" meant to fool you. What's in the bag Deucalionite? Nothing? No tricks? Damn. Just when I was ready and armed to the teeth to point out your shortcomings. No, the updating of the text was not just some blanket revision meant to irritate you. In fact, whatever revisions I made were in accordance to what I stated earlier. Of course, I did disagree with some of the statements you removed or altered in your "I need to tidy things up" campaign.
Your assumptions overall are not true. Though I do commend you for trying. Would you care for an applause? Wait. Let me lift up the "Applause" sign to our audience. Believe it or not (I have a feeling you won't believe me), I am not here to trick you or make you feel as if you are newbie. If you have a problem with what I wrote or stated, then simply tell me honestly (and in a nice manner without the "katalavaineis" Greek rhetorical scolding maneuver).
Just so you know, I am going to change the article text again (so you don't think I am playing "tricks" on you). If the article is going to talk about the Greeks under Ottoman rule, then it should at least take into consideration certain things pertaining to the Greek social mentality. Otherwise, people will assume that events occurred without much of a reason (or at least a sociological reason). Again, if you feel that there is a problem with what I wrote, then talk in a nice and honest manner. No need for the attitude (or the use of the "katalavaineis" Greek scolding rhetorical maneuver). Have a nice day. Over and out. - Deucalionite 1/25/06 1:16 P.M. EST
All right, there's no need for long offtopic rants. Everyone knows that there was a strong Greek element in Asia Minor until the so called Turkish War of Independence, when it was literally rooted out. At the time of the Ottoman Empire, there was a large Greek population in Asia Minor. Deucalionite, αν έχεις πρόβλημα με τον Adam, πες του τα στη σελίδα συζήτησης του όχι εδώ - εδώ είναι να συζητάμε το άρθρο μόνο. Latinus 18:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me Latinus. Over and out. - Deucalionite 1/25/06 2:13 P.M. EST
  • This article is about (part of) the History of Greece - the territory comprising the modern Greek state. It is not a history of the whole Hellenic world, ancient or mediaeval. What happened or did not happen in Anatolia is not relevant to this article.
  • Even if it was, I would delete your pretentious crap about sociological and geopolitical whatevers. As I said above, the sentence about Greek borrowings from Turkish is simple, correct and to-the-point, and doesn't need your long-winded waffle.
  • I made extensive copyedits to this article, fixing numerous errors that various people have made to it since I wrote it, and you have twice blanket-reverted my edits out of pure spite because I won't accept your edits about Anatolia. If you do this again I will report you for vandalism. Got that?
  • Spare me your infantile sarcasm. I have been editing here a long time and it no longer impresses.

Adam 16:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisks. How nice. Either you're serious or your shopping list needs work. Let me try.
  • This article is the History of Greece and as such should include (to an extent mind you) information pertaining to the Greek social mentality (events don't just happen by themselves).
  • Long-winded waffle is not how you explain the actual events that transpired in Anatolia. Moreover, I already stated that I would only place a very minor edit about the Greek Anatolian culture (without all of the information I provided earlier here regarding the Isaurian Dynasty).
  • Pretentious crap is not how you explain well-researched sociological and geopolitical trends in previous historical eras. I suppose that what they taught you back in the day was "divine truth," right?
  • You may have made extensive copyedits to the article and fixed numerous errors, but it does not entitle you the right to assume that you own the article or whatever information it presents. Greek history should be presented honestly and not in your image.
  • Sarcasm is not only a Greek word, but it is also a part of the Greek character. You of all people should know since you supposedly know everything about Greek history and how it "should" be presented. Moreover, I am not trying to impress you. You just love making false assumptions, don't you?
I do not mind if you ban me on false grounds of "vandalism" (not the first time I was blocked for false reasons). If anything, your little "tidying up" campaign is no different from the "blanket revisions" you point the finger at me for doing. The article lacks honesty and it lacks certain sociological reasons about Greek activities in the Ottoman Empire. I don't know if you favor or dislike sociology, but it is not a field you can simply throw into the trashbin just because you have a Ph.D and others don't.
You need to realize Dr. Carr that Greek history is bigger than either you or me. If you want to ignore how my ancestors thought and acted in an article that specifically talks about their place in a certain historical era, then what is the whole point of your edits? If you are going to ignore potential information that can help enrich the existing information in the article, then you sir are not an academic. You denounce anyone who you think is an amateur or is below your status as a holder of the glorious Ph.D diploma. Well sir, academic honesty and knowledge is not measured in how many diplomas you have. That is a fact of life whether you are aware of it or not.
Again, go ahead and ban me. However, last time I checked you are the one who instigated this whole argument with your unnecessary attitude and comments. Does the word "katalavaineis" ring a bell? Respond as soon as possible. Or don't. - Deucalionite 1/26/06 12:46 P.M. EST

A humble suggestion

[edit]

Hi folks, may I make a small suggestion: could you stop edit warring and instead invest your time in finding good references for this article? I do think that both sides have a point about some of the edits they've been making, and at the same time, a lot of the material in question needs NPOV streamlining. But you guys seem to be locked in a conflict that makes it a bit difficult to discuss these things and stay WP:COOL right now. I'm too busy to try my hand on the article myself right now, but I might give it a look during the weekend. Take care, Lukas (T.|@) 10:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite happy to have anyone edit this article to make it better. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about Greek history, as I have demonstrated at numerous articles over several years editing on this subject. However I will continue to revert the off-topic, long-winded, pretentious garbage that this person has been adding to the article. Adam 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you refer to me as "this person" as if I never existed. Still think that sociology is prententious and long-winded? Well, I have to say that so far the article is coming along quite nicely. Also, Happy Groundhog's Day. - Deucalionite 2/3/06 7:55 P.M. EST

The Greeks' cognizance of being under foreign rule

[edit]

Deucalionite, I have reverted your last edit that read like this:

However, these benefits did not alter the Greeks' cognizance of being under foreign rule.

I did this because I think it sounds apologetic, like "yeah ottoman beys were at times and at places kinder to peasants than the former greek roman nobles, but the peasants were ethnically minded, don't worry about that!". Also it sounds "Paparigopoulean" if you excuse the neologism (to "ignorant Franks" ;) Paparigopoulos is a classical modern Greek historian, who wrote the (IMHO too ethnically correct) "History of the Greek Nation"). I mean, it is a blanket statement that says that all Greeks thought that way. We both know of large Greek populations that converted to Islam and their descendants are considered Turks. Yes there were (many) places where the Greeks clung to their ethnic and religous (mostly the latter) identity and did acknowledge the power of the Sultan as foreign rule. But that was not the case in many instances such as the above. I could also remind you to the preaching of st. Kosmas Aitolos, who went under all that trouble to arouse the national feeling among Greeks. To conclude I'd like to say that I believe that the ottoman era is not the black and white pattern our official history says it is, rather a greyish (if not multicoloured) hue. And then I step down form the soapbox.

PS. Is "cognizance" really a word?? -- Michalis Famelis 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you had added some more stuff that I felt needed fixing. Here I will give my reasons. Firstly, you don't have to be apologetic again for "why didn't the Greeks revolt against the paidomazoma". You don't have to say "that happened because...", you just need to state the facts and the reader will draw their own conclusions. I changed that part to reflect this idea. Then, I removed all that "ethnical, cultural, linguistic and racial" prefix about the church preserving the Greek culture. I doubt there are such things as "racial heritage" or "ethnical" heritage". What could anyone mean by those? Is not cultural, linguistic and religous heritage the very idea of what an Ethnos is? Anyway, exactly because we can disagree forever about this, I just left "heritage" there, as I think it covers them all and does not need to be at all clarified, as it has a strong meaning on its own. I also remove the prefix "Greek" from "Orthodox Church". This is rather POVish of me, but the truth is I never quite understood that prefix (understood in a christian manner I mean). The Church is universal, "there exists no Jew or Greek" say the scriptures. If I callmyself Orthodox I cannot tolerate any ethnic prefix before the Body of my Lord, eh? Off the soapbox again. -- Michalis Famelis 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a last one: that story with the behadings in Thessaloniki? Please cite the resource. That's why we got that blue tag over the article! -- Michalis Famelis 03:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work explaining what you have altered. It is hard to find people that actually take the time to honestly express themselves even if I disagree with them. Anyway, the word "cognizance" is in fact a word that can be utilized to express how people thought or witnessed while functioning in a certain environment. Also, it is not apologetic to state that the Greeks were aware of being under foreign rule because it allows for a person to see if the Greeks were overly supportive of the Ottomans, somewhat supportive, somewhat resilient or compeletely resilient toward the notion of being under a foreign banner. To say that the Greeks were cognizant of being under foreign rule implies that they were not necessarily pleased with a foreign empire imposing its will on them and that they did not have much of a choice in the overall matter. Of course, the modern interpretations of what Greeks actually thought and felt during Ottoman times ranges ad infinitum. However, the point I am trying to make is that one should never ignore how the Greek populace thought and felt during a tumultuous period in their history. If you want to re-word the phrase so that it sounds more clear, then that is fine with me.
There is nothing Papparigopoulean about the statement pertaining to Greek cognizance of Ottoman rule (though I am flattered that you would interpret it as such; thank you). Anyway, granted that Papparigopoulos is deemed as the classic Greek historian, his work is not necessarily something one should dismiss being that it is based solely on providing a continuity in Greek history. If anything, Greek continuity has existed prior to Papparigopoulos and its overall existence gave, if you will, the ammunition Papparigopoulos needed in order to coherently provide literature about specifically Greek historical events.
I do not mind if you see the phrase about Greek cognizance toward foreign rule as a blanket statement. Indeed, many Greeks did convert to Islam and were "Turkified." However, there was another majority of Greeks that did preserve its ethno-religious identity (and not just a religious identity being that it sort of flies in the face of the powerful influences the autocephalous concept of Christian Orthodoxy had on medieval populations in the Haimos Peninsula). Of course, why many people do not know of this other Greek majority is because Ottoman censuses of mountain populations were not taken. Yes, there were people that tried to arouse the national sentiments of the Greeks even prior to the Greek Revolution. Some succeeded and others failed. Greeks have been revolting against the Ottomans for many years way before the 1770's or the 1820's. Some revolts succeeded, and others failed. Many Greeks in the plains (Orthodox Greeks and Crypto-Christians) wanted freedom from oppression, but at times were reticent in fighting against their oppressors for fear of having to die for a cause that may end up being a complete fiasco. It is not easy to revolt all the time even if you have nothing to lose.
I have to disagree with you on one thing. The Ottoman era was more of a black-and-white pattern than a multicolored one. The reasoning behind this is more based on medieval social and historical trends than just on what one classic Greek scholar stated. One should never forget that the medieval world is not the same as the modern world (I am sure you are already aware of this). A modern interpretation of medieval life is different from the actual social dynamics of medieval peoples. In the modern world, one could never apply a blanket term on a population being that people today (even within the same ethnic group) have different opinions, different mentalities, different philosophies, and different ways of life. You could place a blanket term today if you want to, but it will be very difficult. However, people in the medieval era did not have many choices that we in the modern world have and take for granted. Blanket statements can be applied to medieval peoples being that they themselves were subject to having to put up with invaders, diseases, famines, etc. Such cataclysmic events (even on the local scale) forces people to cling on to their identity more strongly not so much for the mere sake of identity, but for the sake of maintaining their chances of survival through their maintaining of symbiotic relations with other fellow individuals that are housed within a specific commonality. Of course, the opposite has occurred where a medieval populace, under constant pressure, joined their oppressors in order to avert severe difficulties and severe punishment for resisting. The only thing that is grey in the black-and-white pattern of Ottoman life is the Crypto-Christians. Just like the Jews in the Iberian Peninsula that secretly maintained their religion, the Crypto-Christians maintained their Greek ethno-religious identity. Being a Crypto-Christian is a sort of tightrope experience where any overt expression of being a Greek Orthodox Christian when you have been converted into a Muslim is punishable by death. Harsh. That was life back then. Harsh, painful, and miserable. Not all the time mind you, but enough to make us in the modern world realize how good life is today in comparison to back then (of course, you know that already).
Also, I was not apologetic toward how the Greeks felt toward the paidomazoma. I was stating a social fact. They were not exactly giddy over the concept. Sometimes, a social explanation of an historical event is necessary so that people better understand in detail what happened in the past. A factual event is a factual event. No point in going against it. However, why did an historical event happen is something that should be answered (of course to a limited extent). Also, the concept of ethno-racial heritage is not something one can dismiss so easily. The concept of "race" (a socially-engineered and politically-engineered concept that could very well be based on actual physical/genetic evidence) is not merely a modern construct. If anything, "race" did exist conceptually in ancient times (I have to look up in my book where Plato stated something about how humans should be raised to a pedigree standard like domesticated animals or something of the sort). "Race" (or "eugenics" if you will) also existed in terms of socio-political implementations within Spartan society. Throwing babies off cliffs because they did not fit a physical standard of what a Spartan should be is deplorable to modern standards. Yet, it happened. No point in anyone trying to deny it or trying to fluff it up with political correctness. The Ethnos and the Genos are intertwined concepts in the Greek social mentality. One needs the other in order for both to be defined within the overall context of Greek identity. The Ethnos focuses on language, culture, local customs, and even religious rituals. The Genos is focused on ancestry, tribal affiliations, heredity, etc. The Orthodox Church is a Greek institution (being that Greeks influenced Christianity at many significant levels) that is deemed a universal institution based on the power the Orthodox Church had over the different peoples that lived in the Byzantine Commowealth. However, this universality does not override the roots of the Orthodox Church (and its place in the heart of the Byzantine Empire; a Greek empire even prior to Emperor Heraclius and not a multicultural one) being Greek. Also, quoting the Scriptures does not exactly mirror how people conducted themselves during medieval times. In the Bible, Jesus said "turn the other cheek." What did Western European Christians do? They fought against the Arabs in the Crusades in the name of God. So, it would not be wise to assume that documentation of any sort be literally taken at face value without some social analysis.
As for the beheadings at Naoussa, I will go and seek any pertinent citation necessary in helping to update the article text. Overall, it was nice talking to you (even if you were on top of a soapbox). Over and out. - Deucalionite 2/6/06 12:44 P.M. EST

Germanos

[edit]

Palaion Patron Germanos did no such thing as proclaim the beggining of the Revolution. It started a good two weeks before the 25th of March, and Germanos was opposed to it anyway. It has been claimed repeatedly that in fact, no one was at Lavra monastery on the 25th of March. Any association to that date was brough in later, to connect it with the religious ceremony. In fact, the only reason the rebellion started in March was that it was the beggining of spring. You don't normally make war in winter. On another note, it is misleading to say that the church was responsible for the Greeks. In fact, it was responsible for all Romioi (Romans), that is all Orthodox people, whether they were Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian or anything else.Druworos 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, even Germanos admits he was elsewhere on the 25th in his memoirs. Pls fix Simanos (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Germanos did proclaim the revolution in Patras on the 25th and was not opposed to it. But this is of minor importance in this article.

Germanos is the constant target of some Greek-speaking marxists who are trying to re-write a history of the Revolution as a .... "conflict of classes". However, the Italians who had a good contact with Patras, knew first-hand that Germanos was the local leader of the Revolution:

"Il capitano d’ una nave partita da Patrasso il di otto aprile, reca che quella sgraziata citta e stata consunta dale fiamme. I ribelli, condotti dall’ arcivescovo Germano, si sollevarono il primo d’ aprile, e I turchi incendiarono la citta. ... Il 7 Aprile [March 26, old calendar], l’ arcivescovo Germano, gran fautore s’ Ali Bascia di Janina, dal quale ebbe danari ed armi, entro in Patrasso."

Source: Giornale della provincia Bresciana, 11 Ιουνίου 1821, p. 1 [5]

One more Italian source: "Ne' primi giorni d' Aprile [new calendar]... I greci presero le armi ... Poco dopo comparve il loro vescovo con 3 a 4 m. contadini armati. La bandiera bianca colla croce greca fu inalberata sulla piazza maggiore, ... ". Source: Gazzetta de Milano, 17-6-1821 (new calendar)[6]

For the rest of us (as the last user said), the case is of minor importance. Germanos was just one of the many priests military commanders, and the Revolution was mainly ethnic-religious.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

paidomazoma

[edit]

the legend of the first picture might be somehow misleading. according to some sources,in some cases, the parents wanted their children to become janissaries because this could guarantee their social ascension.--Greece666 15:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is revisionist History, it didn't 'guarantee social acscension', if you were a Christian, there was never any real chance of becoming a powerful figure within the Ottoman admin or court. At the most it could guarantee you a bit of a tax break or something. Most of the time however, they were tributes which were forceful.

Religion

[edit]

"The Orthodox Church assisted in the preservation of the Greek heritage." Well I removed that because it is not quite true. The orthodox church for many years before and at the time of the ottoman empire hunted the "ethnikoi" that is greeks who still believed in the ancient twelve gods. So the orthodox preserved only what was in accordance with the orthodox religion or distorted many things to its favor.

The worshippers of the ancient greek religion had all been converted to Orthodoxy until 1453. those who claim to be "ethnikoi" nowadays as just 20th century converts from christianity. prove me wrong by naming a population group that continued to worship the olympian gods without stop in Greece. --Hectorian 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Ancient Greek religion had been dead long before the downfall of the empire in 1453. One could say that Julian the Apostate was the last echo of the pagan past into the christian present of the empire, and that Theodosius I gave it the final blow. Certainly by the time of Justinian I, ancient greek religion was already only a memory. So, from circa 500AD (Justinian's time) to circa 1500AD (Ottoman rule in Greece), we have like a thousand years of evolution for Greek civilization from a pagan to a christian one. And, naturally, this evolution did not happen overnight, but gradually through centuries so that greek christianity cannot be seen as a break from the antiquity, but rather its evolution. Ergo, the chrurch did preserve what was Greek heritage. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested rename

[edit]

The following was first editted in Talk:Kalymnos: [...] sometimes, when trying to be "politically correct", some wikipedians fall in unhistorical traps: there is the article Ottoman Greece, named after a term that is in fact not used. a simple google search (by using Google.uk and not Google.gr for obvious reasons) reveals that Ottoman Greece gives just 623 hits, but "Ottoman occupation" Greece gives 21,900 hits... Same thing appears in a Google Book search 52 and 235 hits respectively... In addition, "Turkish occupation" Greece gives 107,000 hits!. Thus I propose the rename of the article into "Ottoman Occupation of Greece" or "Turkish Occupation of Greece". Hectorian 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not particulary unhappy with the current title :-( especially since Greeks were quite active and very influential as Ottoman subjects - despite the harshness and (as Malraux said) the stupidity of the regime. In Greek, the term 'Tourkokratia', has an interesting pedigree and might make an interesting article. Politis 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That's the problem with Google counts: they don't distinguish high-quality academic publications from crap. A very large proportion even of the Google books results are either non-academic sources (travel guides and the like), or they are simply referring to the "Ottoman occupation" as an event in history (which undoubtedly happened, but whose existence is irrelevant to the titling of this article). If you must google, you'll also find that the more neutral "Ottoman rule" gives more and, crucially, higher quality results on Google books than "Ottoman occupation". Ottoman Greece is fine; Greece under Ottoman rule would be a wordier but equally acceptable alternative; Greece under Ottoman occupation is quite unnecessarily and wantonly non-neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x2) Isn't there something else to start the New Year with? :) Nhahaha, "Turkish occupation" gets hits nearly all from Greek web-sites, take a closer look.. Besides, some of them refer to Cyprus. How about "Greece under Ottoman rule"? And take a look at hits from Google Books [7]. I can clearly see references to "Ottoman Greece":
  • "...became King of the newly inde-pendent, post-Ottoman Greece..." by Markella A. Callimassia.
  • "Medieval and Turkish Greece" by Great Britain Naval Intelligence Division, Henry Clifford Darby etc.
Plus, ""Ottoman rule" Greece" [8] gets three times more hits than ""Ottoman occupation" Greece" [9] on Google Books... So how about renaming it to "Ottoman rule of Greece"? But, it is simply simpler as is I think, and more matter of factly.Baristarim 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting.. We were looking at it from the same angle FPAS. :) Baristarim 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links Baristarim. The term Ottoman or rather, Turkish occupation, is a litteral translation from the Greek 'Tourkokratia' which dominates in the Greek language. It is understandable that Greeks use it because the perception of those years has not been updated by historical research. The term 'Tourkokratia' contains the inherited frustrations and fears felt by Greeks during the various massacres and pogroms. But it also fails to convey the power and influence which sections of the Greek population held, as Ottoman subjects. When we Greeks decide to learn our history (as a people) during those Ottoman years, we will, no doubt, be happy with the term Ottoman Greece. I would argue that, if anything, the 'Greekness' of Macedonia is substantiated during the Ottoman years. For comparison, the Bulgarians use, 'Ottoman yoke'; that is also understandable since Christians were labled 'raya' (cattle) byt the Porte, and cattle have to carry a heavy yoke. As for the Muslims of the empire, they broke out of the 'Ottoman grip' and became bonafide Turks, in 1922. Politis 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Moreover, the Christians were called "giaours" by the Ottomans, and we all know what this term means... Under the currect circumstances, and since been politically correct is considered "trendy":), "Greece under Ottoman rule" would be better than the current title. I agree with Politis that "Tourkokratia" could form a separate article, even if it was just about the history of the term. as for the google hits and the book searches, and about which of them can be considered reliable, academic and of high quality, and distinguishing them from those that are just garbage, it would be better to remember this when we are editing other articles. If everyone agrees, i am going to move this article to "Greece under Ottoman rule". Hectorian 15:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see what is wrong with the current title. At any rate if it absolutely had to be changed I'd go for something like History of Ottoman Greece (compare to: History of Ottoman Serbia, History of Ottoman Albania, History of Ottoman Egypt, History of early Ottoman Bulgaria)--Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what is wrong with the title is that it gives the wrong impression that Greece and its inhabitants were just a part of the Ottoman Empire and considered themselves and their land as integral part of it. U do know Michali, that for the Greeks of that time (as well as for all the Europeans) the Ottomans were considered foreigners and conquerors, and they considered Greece enslaved (there are thousands of sources about that). Apart from the examples u have listed, i would list some others: List of Ottoman Empire dominated territories (note the word "dominated"), History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1463–1878), Cyprus under the Ottoman Empire. In the "Category:History of the Ottoman Provinces", only Greece and Hungary are mentioned as "Ottoman X", although for Greece there is also the "Category:History of Ottoman Greece", and someone would expect that the main article of this category (which, surprisingly, is not included in it) would, at least, have the same name. I cannot really understand why the word "occupation" should not be included in the article's title, though... There are article like Occupation of Izmir and Occupation of Istanbul who clearly express the Turkish POV, and that, not only call "occupation" something that was in accordance to the international laws and treaties, but they also use anachronistic names, names not used in english of the time for these events... (instead of Smyrni and Constantinople respectively). Ironically, google searches were claimed to be the reasons for these titles, something that is deemed as povish here... Hectorian 17:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imho the interpretation you make of "Ottoman Greece" ("Greece and its inhabitants were just a part of the Ottoman Empire and considered themselves and their land as integral part of it") is too far fetched. "Ottoman Greece" describes a situation: Greece as part of the Ottoman Empire. The sociological, nationalist, demographic, political etc aspects of the situation are not something you have to put on the article title, you put them in the article. To phrase it simply: for centuries Greece was part of the Ottoman empire. If that was resented by the Greeks (who were not alone in Greece at the time: count Turks, Jews, Slavomacedonians, Albanians, Aromanians etc etc) is something that has to be told in the article.
Even more simply: The see the article as the story of a land (Greece) during a period, not as the story of a people (the Greeks) during the period. Naturally the two are interconnected, but they are not the same. Greece contained many more ethnic groups than just Greeks, and Greeks lived in many more places than just mainland Greece.
As for the word "occupation", you ask why it should not be in the title. I ask, why should it be? We don't use it even in greek. ("Τουρκική κατοχή"???) Imho "occupation" signifies sort, temporary periods, like the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II. We are dealing with something that spans four to five centuries here.
In short, keep the title simple, elaborate the article.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Hectorian's concerns; in my opinion the current title is quite neutral, like Roman Greece, or Byzantine Greece, or British India. Politis 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michali, "Ottoman Greece" describes a situation: Greece as part of the Ottoman Empire, or another situation: Greece was occupied by the Ottomans; it depends on how someone sees things. Perhaps we should follow the example of the other Balkan nation's articles about that time, id est "History of Ottoman Greece" (meaning when Greece was under Ottoman rule). Afterall, this article should not be treated differently than the others (i have listed examples above, as well as examples concerning Izmir and Istanbul, but no solution can be found for them, since some will not allow that). We may not use the term "Τουρκική κατοχή" in greek but the term "Τουρκοκρατία" is the only one we use for that period, as u, of course, know, and this term has nothing similar to "Ottoman Greece". Lastly, i would like to keep the article simple (despite google searches and book sources that suggest the opposite); thus, i would agree with your previous proposal: History of Ottoman Greece. Sorry Politis, but i believe that a comparison with Roman Greece and moreover Byzantine Greece cannot be established, for well known reasons. Hectorian 18:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, occupation is generally used for relatively short periods. But it is already obvious that it is history we are talking about, right? The article should be about how Greece was during that period. Life, culture etc... Baristarim 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what the rename is, this article needs a major update, describing not the history of 'Greece' (which has always simply referred to a geographical part of the Balkan peninsula - part of the larger 'Greek World'), but rather, the History of Greeks under Ottoman Rule, be they in Antolia or other parts of the Balkans. Perhaps describing the events that led up to the independence struggle as well?

Just read these, sorry that I couldn't find in English

New rename?

[edit]

Applying the 'History of Greece' to = 'History of the Greeks' is a flawed process of historiography as has been demonstrated over at the Byzantine Empire article. Perhaps we should rename this 'Greek Millet' or 'Greek Millet of the Ottoman Empire' or something along those lines so we can have more room to expand this article?--EOKA-Assasin 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article covers the Ottoman rule of what is now Greece; Greek millet wouldn't mean the same thing since it would also include the Ottoman Greeks living in other parts of the Empire. This article is a component of the "History of Greece" series. In any case, any derivitaves should also be avoided in this article.. Baristarim 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly my point though, I would prefer a general over-arching topic from which I could write about respective Greek communities during the period of Ottoman rule in different geographic locales. Also, the history of Greece infobox tends to address mainly the 'History of Greece' (geographic area), but also expands out to cover different areas such as during the Hellenistic Age or the Byzantine Empire.--EOKA-Assasin 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a short reading of greek history under the ottomans not heroes no big fights not cultural rezitence it looks like the greeks did not exist in that time and if they exist were not found in the today greece . the greeks should clarify what did they did 400 years under the turkish invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.6.101 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find anybody claiming that he is a "Turk" during those 400 years?

Ottoman Greece and best pictures

[edit]

Edward Dodwell has a good picures about ottoman greece.Thanks--25px 3210  (T) 08:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The digitalized books of Dodwell are here [10]. Brilliand gravures but mostly landscapes and classical buildings. Some good ones about everyday life.

Lead sentence

[edit]

I've rewritten the lead sentence, not to make any historical or political point, but to clarify some potential confusions. The old version read:

"Most of the territories today within modern Greece's borders were at least once part of the Ottoman Empire from the mid-15th century until its declaration of independence in 1821, a historical period also known as Tourkokratia..."

The problems with this are 1)"at least once" makes it sound like some areas were Ottoman only once and others more than once, 2) the antecedent of "its" is unclear, and 3) it should be made clearer that the term Tourkokratia applies to Ottoman rule specifically in Greece, not in all the other areas of Ottoman rule. My version may not be perfect and I won't object to revisions, but I hope editors will keep in mind what I've said about clarity. Littlewindow (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking a little more I've made two further revisions there, one to clarify further that Tourkokratia refers to Greece, and the other to distinguish the revolution of 1821 from the official establishment of the Greek state in 1832, two related but separate events. It probably could still be made a little better. Littlewindow (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent history edits

[edit]

I agree that the "Inconclusive fighting ..." passage should stay, though I also agree that a citation is needed. "Amongst" I think while not wrong is now increasingly considered unidiomatic even in British English -- the situation was never as simple as "among" = American and "amongst" = British, despite what some books will tell you -- but leave it if you want to. Littlewindow (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: a minor point and not relevant to the article, but I'm yielding to the temptation to report here that some recent research I've done on an unrelated topic has revealed that Shakespeare uses the form "among" about three times as often as he does "amongst." And then of course there is "Among these dark satanic mills" (Blake,) "Breaking the silence of the seas Among the farthest Hebrides" and "She dwelt among the untrodden ways"(Wordsworth,) "Among bride’s-men, and kinsmen" (Scott,) "Though link’d among a fetter’d race" (Byron,) "Among the flowers and grass, which screen it from the view" (Shelley,) "Or may I never leave my grave among the dead" (Keats,) "Among the Guests Star-scatter’d on the Grass" (Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat,) "among these barren crags" (Tennyson,) "Still we find among the river-drift" (Kipling,) etc. etc. But I've noticed that Oscar Wilde does regularly use "amongst," which is testimony for, I think, rather than against arguing that it sounds rather affected even in British English. Littlewindow (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious 'Administration' Section

[edit]

The section on "Administration" is full of problems. First of all, it relies on several inappropriate sources. Woodhouse, the main source for the section, was not a scholarly historian. He shouldn't be relied upon for an encyclopedia article - we should use books written by modern professional historians. Robert Waterfield is a scholar of Classical Greece, not a specialist on Ottoman Greece. It is not good to rely on him either, but perhaps slightly better than Woodhouse. In any case, this section is filled with inaccuracies. For instance, the notion that the Ottoman cavalry was entirely "Turkish" (whatever that means); in fact Christians were serving as cavalrymen as late as the sixteenth century. The statement that "No Greek's word could stand against a Turk's in a law court" is just plain false, and that "there were many repressive laws" is too vague - the reader should know what exactly is meant by this. Otherwise it amounts to nothing more than an NPOV statement that "the Ottomans were bad." I've tagged the section as having problems and will try to find the time to fix some of it shortly. Chamboz (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist history - POV

[edit]

Much of this article reads like Greek Nationalist history. There are vague claims characterizing centuries of Ottoman rule as burdensome and oppressive, citing national histories of Greece rather than the work of historians who study the Ottoman Empire, as well as a lot of other features one expects to see in nationalist histories, such as references to the desire of the "Greek people" to be free - as if all Greeks shared in a collective national consciousness, or were some sort of hive-mind. Some examples:

"The Greeks with the one hand were given some privileges and freedom; with the other they were exposed to a tyranny deriving from the malpractices of its administrative personnel over which the central government had only remote and incomplete control."

"There were many repressive laws, and occasionally the Ottoman government committed massacres against the civilian population."

"The economic situation of the majority of Greece deteriorated heavily during the Ottoman era of the country. Life became ruralized and militarized. Heavy burdens of taxation were placed on the Christian population, and many Greeks were reduced to subsistence farming whereas during prior eras the region had been heavily developed and urbanized."

"Greeks heavily resented the declining economic situation in their country during the Ottoman era."

All the above quotes characterize hundreds and hundreds of years of Ottoman rule in simple negative statements with no nuance whatsoever. This is unsurprising given the tendency of nationalist historians to see the Ottoman period as a dark age. And of course, the segment on the independence of Greece is longer than the segment actually covering Greece in the Ottoman Empire, which is what the article is ostensibly about. Chamboz (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add info on the universities established by Ottomans, lilbraries, press and books publishing, astronomic observatories, great Ottoman scientists, discoveries etc.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_Greece&oldid=1212532929"