Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


View Poll Results: Which was the most successful Empire?
The Romans 141 82.46%
The Ottomans 30 17.54%
Voters: 171. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 3rd, 2017, 07:52 AM   #501

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 4,170
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianMaster View Post
The demographic displacements caused by the Germanic invasions in Europe, the Anglo-Saxon invasion in the British Islands, the Arab conquest of the Near East and North Africa, the Turkish conquest of Asia Minor, the European colonization of the Americas and the Antipodes, ... the list is pretty endless.
None of those were complete, wholesale displacements. Anglo-Saxons hv not totally displaced earlier Celtic peoples in Britain. Neither hv Arabs in Near East & North Africa, although they hv Arabised the locals culturally & linguistically. And neither hv the Turks in Anatolia. Today's Turkey 'Turks' are in fact easily 80% Anatolian by ancestry, even if their Turkic ancestors hv imposed the Turkish language in the land that they hv conquered.

Not even the Americas hv been completely demographically altered. There are still sizeable & substantial indigenous populations still surviving to this day, especially in Central & South America.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; March 3rd, 2017 at 08:00 AM.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 3rd, 2017, 07:55 AM   #502

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,429

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Everything I said in that post is true. One sign of progressing Turkification is that by the 14th century, most place names were in Turkish while in the 12th century, they still had their original names. Turkish conquests were violent yeah and they caused a lot of deaths but they didn't wipe out entire Anatolian Greek population and suddenly allowed the Turks land to settle.
True. Back in those days 'Turk' was a rude term for a Muslim, so as soon as some Greek or Armenian village coverts to Islam, those villagers automatically becomes Turks. And Language shift follows, that may took two or three more generations.
mnsr is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2017, 08:43 AM   #503

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,346

It is a fact that Anatolia was transformed from a Greek-speaking Orthodox land into a Turkish Muslim land. Turkification did happen, seeing how even today many placenames in Turkey are simply Turkified versions of Byzantine names (Konya, Malazgirt, Trabzon). It doesn't imply a violent transition, and it often wasn't. It was a matter of social advancement to adopt the religion of the conquerers. And while many raids did strike Anatolia, before 1071 the Byzantines always managed to recover it. Turks were not numerous enough to displace the entire Anatolian population, only other way is Turkification. Btw. Greek was widely spoken in Anatolia during the Roman times, before Christianity became dominant. Greek cities existed along the coast since the Classical period and Hellenism allowed for a spread of Greek culture in the interior.

Also Kapetron was not a great victory, the Turks were repelled but still left with spoils and prisoners. Not the level of Manzikert. Most of the cities you mentioned were captured after Manzikert. Antakya (Antioch) and Konya in 1084, Kayseri in 1074 for example. There were raids like the Konya one in 1069 but not until after Manzikert did the Seljuqs truly take these cities.

Last edited by Maki; March 3rd, 2017 at 09:15 AM.
Maki is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2017, 09:17 AM   #504

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,346

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuKue View Post
I am afraid your "facts" are all fabricated with no historical value and repeating is not a valid argument either.

As soon as the region was liberated from Roman domination as a result of Arab incursions, the artificial Greek linguistic elements in place names, enforced by the superficial Hellenization, were replaced with Semitic and Aramaic origined words, just like in the past. The approx. thousand year period from Alexander to Arab incursions (333 BC-650 AD), Cilicia and northern Syria partially, but Anatolia has never been Hellenized.
Examples of these Semitic names? Examples of Turkified names: Iconium-Konya, Caesarea-Kayseri, Ancyra-Ankara, Constantinople-Konstantiniyah.
Maki is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2017, 09:19 AM   #505

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 4,170
Blog Entries: 1

Don't forget, ancient Anatolia was also inhabited by Hittites, Hatti, Trojans, Phrygians, Thracians, Lydians, Luwians, Achaeans, Assyrians etc. etc. etc. Their imprints cud not hv all simply disappeared without a trace. Some of them are still in there, among many present inhabitants of Turkey.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2017, 09:32 AM   #506

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,346

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
Don't forget, ancient Anatolia was also inhabited by Hittites, Hatti, Trojans, Phrygians, Thracians, Lydians, Luwians, Achaeans, Assyrians etc. etc. etc. Their imprints cud not hv all simply disappeared without a trace. Some of them are still in there, among many present inhabitants of Turkey.
Of course. The Hellenization also didn't wipe out previous inhabitants. Even the Greek Macedon conquerors adopted the practices of the East. These -ization processes never delete the original culture.
Maki is offline  
Old March 5th, 2017, 08:04 AM   #507

MughalMuse's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: Toronto
Posts: 64

I think the cool thing about both, and their resiliency for as long as they existed, was again, adaptability. In my mind, I have a bias for the Roman empire just because of being more knowledgeable.

However, the Ottomans adapted quite well in their existence, creating systems like the millet and the Dardanelles guns.

But ultimately, those points are very superficial. I don't really know much about the Ottomans.

The Romans on the other hand, I could say, were adaptable down to the individual military unit and also brought this over to other spheres of society.
MughalMuse is offline  
Old March 5th, 2017, 09:03 PM   #508

The General's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: wish it was Constantinople
Posts: 842

Oh Rome. sure ottomans were good, but what Rome did for society and civilization is more than a hundred times more important. Ottomans main importance was that they defeated the weakened byzantines. the Romans lasted more than 2000 years while the ottomans soon became the sick man of europe and died before 1000 years old. they failed to keep advancing and fell behind VERY soon. they were never the most dominant power that controlled the known world and were continouslly rivaled or beaten. Afterall there is no pax-ottoman for a reason
The General is offline  
Old March 6th, 2017, 10:04 AM   #509

Tsar's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Serbia
Posts: 1,584
Blog Entries: 2

I'm back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
But again: why in 1392? What was different that year that lead to the closing of Ohrid.
The Ottoman conquest, perhaps? While Christian rulers were de facto obliged to respect established ecclesiastical institutions, the Ottomans were not. Seeing that we have a mention of Archbishop of Prizren in 1401 (what you nonchalantly left out of your reasoning), whose authority will be later transferred to new archbishops of Ohrid, it is quite obvious that there was some kind of disruption of the hierarchy.

The supposition that Ohrid was revived during the revolt for reestablishment of Bulgaria around Vidin and the fact that Ohrid kept those bishoprics after 1408 gives a quite possible cause for revival: counter-propaganda. The Ottomans were well known for manipulation with Orthodox sentiments: let us not forget how acceptance of the Union with the Pope was a "game over" for many Orthodox rulers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Except that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the most important Orthodox patriarch. Remember the controversy surrounding Dušan's crowning and the elevation of Serbian Church to Patriarchate. Constantinople did recognize Serbian Church in 1375 though.

У процесу измирења које је годинама трајало, најпре је постигнуто делимично измирење (партикуларно јединство), које је остварено са делом српске државе деспота Угљеше Мрњавчевића (1368), који је владао у области Сера. Она је била прва на удару Турака. Идеја пак коначног помирења потекла је од светогорских монаха који су заједно живели и заједно се подвизавали. Делегација монаха, са српским монахом старцем Исаијом и јеромонахом Никодимом Грчићем на челу, дошла је најпре у Србију код кнеза Лазара и патријарха Саве IV, а потом се 1375. год. упутила у Цариград. Преговори су успели, добијена је писмена одлука, којом се признаје каноничност Српске патријаршије и брише међусобни раскол. У Србију су упућена два представника Цариградске патријаршије, који су у Призрену, у манастиру Св. Арханђела са Сpбима одслужили Свету литургију. Тако је скинута анатема и Цркве су се помириле.
Jesus Christ, yet another example of incompentence of Serbian historians. Serbian Patriarchate was declared against the rules (even though it was autocephalous, Serbian Church had to mention names of Constantinopolitan Patriarch on liturgies; that was disestablished in 1346 - see S. Troicki, Suština i faktori avtokefalije, Beograd 1933, p. 10).

What is mentioned as "anathema" appears only in a source fabricated by Pantelija Srećković (Kralj Vukašin ubio cara Uroša, Beograd 1881, p. 33). Every other work mentions "αφορισμος και επιτιμιον" (in the text of Archbishop Danilo's Second Continuator it says "отлученије и запрештеније" - see: Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih, ed. Đ. Daničić, London 1972 (reprint of Zagreb 1866), pp. 381-2). The terms "αφορισμος" and "επιτιμιον", when used together, denote excommunication of the top of ecclesiastical hierarchy (not of "Serbian people" as Pantelija Srećković and probably some school textbooks today say).

One also has to note that the excommunication happened only in 1350, some 4 years after the declaration of Serbian Patriarchate. While the official cause of the schism was the declaration of Patriarchate, the real reason is mentioned in the document of reconciliation between Despot Jovan Uglješa and Constantinopolitan Patriarch Callistos I in 1368 (Grčke povelje srpskih vladara, ed. A. Solovjev, V. Mošin, Beograd 1936, p. 33): he took Constantinopolitan bishoprics and put them under jurisdictions of Serbian Patriarch and Archbishop of Ohrid.

In 1375 Serbian and Constantinopolitan Churches did reconcile, but Serbian patriarchs remained "αγιωτατε αρχιεπισκοπε πεκιου και πασης σερβιας" (a document from 1386; G. Ostrogorski, Sabrana dela III, Beograd 1976, pp. 405-407). The Γραμμα συνοδικον from 1693 also mentions only four legitimate patriarchs (N. Milaš, Crkveno kazneno pravo po općim crkveno-pravnim izvorima i posebnim zakonskim naredbama koje važe u pojedinim samoupravnim crkvama, Zadar 1890, pp. 338-9).

That leads to supposition that Serbian Church abandoned the (modified) translation of Syntagma Canonum of Matthew Blastares written before the declaration of the Patriarchate and adopted original form which says that there are 4 Patriarchates and 3 autocephalous churches (Ohrid, Cyprus and Iberia).

And I don't know why is this claim of yours relevant to our discussion at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Which only supports the theory that Ohrid archbishops also controlled Serbian Church.
Yes, but in meantime it goes contrary to your claim that Serbian church didn't exist at all in this period. If the theory is correct, it means that we have simple transfer of throne of the Serbian Church, much like the transfer from Žiča to Peć.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
I won't deny that the Serbs were in contact with other countries because they were, but the Serbs wanted some foreign power to back them. Is that so unreasonable? They just helped the Sultan by ousting the renegade Dahije from power, they wanted some gains from that. The Ottomans weren't too keen on peace either. I gave you sources for that. Bećir Paša also wanted the Serbs to disband and basically restore the status quo ante bellum. This was hardly a good deal for the Serbs. The Serbs needed guarantees.
You didn't give sources, you gave a book. There is quite a difference between a source and a book. Anyways, in January 1804 Bishop Petar I of Montenegro informed the hegoumenos of the Dečani that both Montenegrins and the Serbs prepared to fight for independence (S. Ristić, Dečanski spomenici, Beograd 1864, pp. 23-24). In 1804 Count Sava Tekelija issued a memorandum to Emperor Napoleon I, asking for creation of independent Illyria. In 1805 he printed 2000 copies of "Geographic Map of Serbia, Bosnia, Dubrovnik, Montenegro and Neighbouring Regions". (D. T. Bataković, A Balkan-Style French Revolution? The 1804 Serbian Uprising in European Perspective, Balcanica XXXVI (2005), p. 118). Metropolitan Stratimirović issued a memorandum to Russian emperor, asking for independent Serbia in 1804 (St. Dimitrijević, Stevana Stratimirovća mitropolita karlovačkog plan za oslobodjenje srpskog naroda, Beograd 1926). In 1805 Karađorđe styled himself as "Lord of the Serbs" (S. Hadžihuseinović-Muvekkit, Tarih-i Bosna III, in Gazi-Husrevbegova Library, p. 33). Even in 1798 there were news that the Serbs were planning to introduce independence (S. Gavrilović, Građa bečkih arhiva o Prvom srpskom ustanku I (1804-1810), Beograd 1985, p. 4) As it can be seen, they didn't ask for autonomy, they were asking for independence.

The fact that the autonomy of the Serbs was quite big is best illustrated by the fact that attempts to introduce similar framework in Bosnia were followed by rebellions of Muslims (1802-1803, 1805). The abovementioned Baqir-pasa broke the Bosnian rebellion of 1802-1803 and reintroduced the old-new order (without ciftliks), aiming to do the same in the Sancak of Smederevo.

One also needs to remind himself that a good number of Serbs was forced to take part in the revolution after their houses were burnt or dead Turks were hanged in front of dead houses (M. Ekmečić, Stvaranje Jugoslavije (1790-1918) I, Beograd 1989 ,p. 101).

As far as the commitment of Baqir-pasa goes, one needs to remember that it was exactly Baqir-pasa who forced the Dayi to move to the Adakale and that it was exactly him who let Milenko Stojković execute them (Vali of Bosnia - to the bas-kadi of Bosnia and the rest of the kadis in the Eyalet of Bosnia, July 16th 1804, Sicilli mahfuz, pp. 55-56. In Gazi-Husrevbegova Library; also: The Sultan's ferman - to mutesellims of Niš and kadis of kaza's around the Pasalik of Belgrade, Sicilli Mahfuz, p. 108). The Serbs have promised not to wage further wars to Baqir-pasa (Baqir-pasa - to kadis and naibs of the Kadiluks where there's reaya of the Pasalik of Belgrade, in Vilayets to the left and right to Niš, Novi Pazar, Bosnia, Sicilli Mahfuz, p. 102). It is interesting that Serbian historians save for few bright examples (M. Ekmečić, ibidem, 108) somehow do not know of this document. Baqir-pasa accepted the proposition of 20 Serbian bas-knez's and giving the towns to them. Here he made a grave mistake, legalizing the rebellion.

It is also interesting how Serbian historians skip to mention that Karađorđe entered Belgrade in March 1805, by agreement with Baqir-pasa (Kadis of kazas of Krupanj, Loznica and Zvornik, Sicilli Mahfuz, p. 208). Baqir-pasa also gave judicial autonomy to Serbs in towns (ibidem). The vojvode were introduced in towns as police force.
Tsar is offline  
Old March 6th, 2017, 10:28 AM   #510

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,346

Will respond to a few points now: you first said that the Ottomans reestablished Ohrid, but now you say they were the reason for its destruction. Isn't that contradictory? Also, once again on the matter of the Serbian Church: yes, I say it didn't exist at a time. Was it an independent, autocephalous Church like under the Nemanjić? No, it was controlled from Ohrid by non-Serbs who took the title Patriarch of the Serbs. The same way Mehmed took title Kaysar i Rum. It doesn't mean the Roman Empire existed. Also, of course Bećir paša would help the Serbs, they had a common enemy. He did everything to pacify them afterwards. You yourself said he wanted to restore the old order. Why would the Serbs want this? Especially since the Porte was now turning against them and the war with the "official" Ottomans was pretty much inevitable by this point. Karađorđe wasn't stupid. The Serbs needed help hence the diplomatic missions. The Ottomans could never tolerate any semblance of autonomy in Serbia. War was inevitable from the start.
Maki is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
ottomans, romans



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Romans vs Persians Nick Speculative History 6 November 27th, 2009 05:47 AM
A discussion about the Romans Solidaire Ancient History 58 November 22nd, 2009 07:40 PM
how far did the Ottomans came in Africa? TTW Middle Eastern and African History 6 June 15th, 2009 05:59 AM
Little Romans ? PADDYBOY Ancient History 12 March 22nd, 2009 06:12 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.