Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

longest military occupation

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
malizai View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote malizai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: longest military occupation
    Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 20:02

Originally posted by kotumeyil

Ottoman occupation in Balkans lasted about 500 years...

 

i will second that, the occupied never accepted their overlords. when a people accept their occupiers then the occupation ends.

I think there have been instances where a peolpe have invited others to occupy their land to free themselves from tyranical rule. (sorry, dont have references, can't remember too well. maybe someone else can. I think the people were syrians 

To understand the chase, you must learn to run with the rabbit and hunt with the hound.
Back to Top
cg rommel View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 12-Dec-2005
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 244
  Quote cg rommel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 05:21
Originally posted by the Bulgarian

Originally posted by kotumeyil

Ottoman occupation in Balkans lasted about 500 years...

The term "occupation" is inapropriate here.



How is it inapropriate?
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 05:25

isnt occupation a militaristic term?

 

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 05:46
Originally posted by Mortaza

isnt occupation a militaristic term?

 



Basically. By occupation I think most people mean to have a military presence in an area through which the military's government exercises power and influence.
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 06:02
I  think If this militaristic power built political and economical institutions(like collecting tax), It should no more be called as occupation.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 06:07
I think an occupation is an occupation whichever way you look at it. Rome did great things for the development of Western Europe, but that doesn't change the fact that her presence there was an occupation. I think the thing we have to decide is whether it was a "good" occupation or a "bad" one .
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 06:13

If one day greeks returned  to anatolia, is this mean a new occupation? or finishing occupation of  turks? I think If we dont limit occupation with militaristic way, It  would realy turn a bad supprise.

 

 

 

 

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 06:18
Originally posted by Mortaza

If one day greeks returned  to anatolia, is this mean a new occupation? or finishing occupation of  turks? I think If we dont limit occupation with militaristic way, It  would realy turn a bad supprise.

 


I am not quite certain about what you are saying in the second sentence so do excuse me. For the first sentence I would argue that if the vast bulk of the people of Anatolia welcomed the Greeks and Greece need not keep forces in Anatolia to suppress internal enemies, then it would not be an occupation. But if military forces are needed there to keep the area under control, then that is an occupation.

Back to Top
Jotari View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 12-Jan-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote Jotari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2018 at 18:56

Resurrecting a monstrously old thread here, but I think the most accurate answer would be Ireland. It had a nationalistic identity before the Norman Invasion and maintained it throughout the entire 800 years of occupation (which in parts has continued to this day). Unlike most examples the lines are pretty clear cut as both the invader and the invaded were (or are) islands. It was never seen as a mere extension of Britain and the Irish people were always culturally considered a separate people. Granted, it wasn't a united land when the Normans first invaded, but it had been a united land not long before that and the people were considered part of the same cultural heritage.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.051 seconds.