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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival
    Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 09:06
We know that there was a hard press from catholic world to the orthodoxy begining fromk 11 th century. Medieval Hungaran state, Venetians, crusades and Anjou Kingdom.  My opinion is by the rise of ottomans,  the orthodox world had saved from a religous pressure by the catholics. What is your opnion, which hegemony would be worse for Balkan Orthodoxy. Muslim or Catholic ? 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 09:28
Ottoman rule was undoubtly more preferable for Orthodox Christians than Catholic yoke. In the countries with Orthodox population and Catholic rulers, Orthodox Christians were usually harldy pressed to the union with Rome and were discriminated in all the available ways.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138 		  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 09:43
It is hard to answer, because from your given states I don't see for example Hungary being a zealous catholic state. For Venetians religion wasn't an issue. As a merchant nation their conquests and rule would focus on maximizing profit and controlling trade hubs.
Crusader states set up in Levant were inherently weak, because of manpower issue, majority had different religion and they were surrounded by enemies.
For large catholic states like France and Spain conquering orthodox Balkans was not possible and also they never wanted it.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 10:11
For 14-15th century Hungarians had major desires for Balkans. There were relatively weak states in Balkans and as a major power Hungary tried his chance.When we come to Venice they were the primary participant to the fourth crusade. Charles of Anjou also planned to vitalise the Latin empire in Constatniople. Let us look , do you think that Balkan states could survive to the modern era if the ottomans were defeated?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 10:13
What happened to the Orthodox population under the Latin Empire after 1204?
 
PS: posted that before I saw the last post.


Edited by gcle2003 - 03-Aug-2008 at 10:14
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778 		  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 10:19
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

For 14-15th century Hungarians had major desires for Balkans. There were relatively weak states in Balkans and as a major power Hungary tried his chance.When we come to Venice they were the primary participant to the fourth crusade. Charles of Anjou also planned to vitalise the Latin empire in Constatniople. Let us look , do you think that Balkan states could survive to the modern era if the ottomans were defeated?
 
 
For sure if the Balkans were not for centuries under the Ottoman yoke they would not be the most backward part of Europe as they unfortunely are.
 
 
 


Edited by Leonardo - 03-Aug-2008 at 13:45
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 10:19
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

For 14-15th century Hungarians had major desires for Balkans. There were relatively weak states in Balkans and as a major power Hungary tried his chance.When we come to Venice they were the primary participant to the fourth crusade. Charles of Anjou also planned to vitalise the Latin empire in Constatniople. Let us look , do you think that Balkan states could survive to the modern era if the ottomans were defeated?
 
Don't see why not. It looks inevitable they would always have been carved up (formally or informally) between the central European powers, the Russians, and whatever power held Asia Minor and the Levant.
 
That the Croats are Roman Catholic, the Serbs Orthodox, and the Bosnians Muslim is the result of the historical carve-up, not its cause.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 10:24

Wake up Leo,The Balkan states have been independent for nearly 200 years and got no where. Korea in the 1950s was in a worse shape than even todays zimbabwe and yet look where they are now. Don't put everything on the Turks.

 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138 		  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 10:27
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

For 14-15th century Hungarians had major desires for Balkans. There were relatively weak states in Balkans and as a major power Hungary tried his chance.

They couldn't even conquer and control Moldavia and Wallachia for a reasonable time. I fail to see how they could conquer all Balkans. And even if they did that - they wouldn't convert all orthodoxes on masses. I see similar state like Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

When we come to Venice they were the primary participant to the fourth crusade.

Which only strengthens my words. Venice didn't participate in the fourth crusade because of religion. They did that because they wanted to destroy their trade rival and control its assets.

 Charles of Anjou also planned to vitalise the Latin empire in Constatniople.

Anyhow he failed after all.

Let us look , do you think that Balkan states could survive to the modern era if the ottomans were defeated?

Yes, I can see Bulgaria and Serbia surviving. Not so sure about Byzantines.
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778 		  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 10:55
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Wake up Leo,The Balkan states have been independent for nearly 200 years and got no where. Korea in the 1950s was in a worse shape than even todays zimbabwe and yet look where they are now. Don't put everything on the Turks.

 
Al-Jassas
 
 
The only Balkan state indipendent for nearly 200 years is Greece. Read again your history book.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 12:58
I think that finally the balkans would be a part of the catholic world. At least with the rise of Habsburgs at the 16th century the balkans would be a part of the empire. I dont know how could they manage but the catholic states would force the people for conversion much more than ottomans.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 13:02
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

For 14-15th century Hungarians had major desires for Balkans. There were relatively weak states in Balkans and as a major power Hungary tried his chance.When we come to Venice they were the primary participant to the fourth crusade. Charles of Anjou also planned to vitalise the Latin empire in Constatniople. Let us look , do you think that Balkan states could survive to the modern era if the ottomans were defeated?
 
 
For sure if the Balkans were not for centuries under the Ottoman yoke they would not be the more backward part of Europe as they unfortunely are.
 
 
 
Confused
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 13:07
Well the Ottomans encouraged Orthodox "nationalism" early on in order to unify their majority Orthodox state against their enemy majority catholic state. I mean they didn't want all the christians to gang up against them.

So, for Christian unity the Ottomans were a bad thing, but for keeping the orthodox separate and distinct they did the best they could.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 13:18
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Well the Ottomans encouraged Orthodox "nationalism" early on in order to unify their majority Orthodox state against their enemy majority catholic state. I mean they didn't want all the christians to gang up against them.

So, for Christian unity the Ottomans were a bad thing, but for keeping the orthodox separate and distinct they did the best they could.
That is the point. The ottoman state was the protector of the orthodox patriarch. May be the ottomans are the major reason for the less advancement in the balkans but they helped orthodox people to preserve their identity 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 13:38
There seems to be an assumption that if the Ottoman Empire hadn't existed there would have been a power vacuum there. Seems unlikely to me.
 
If the Byzantines also hadn't survived (I don't think the would have) then there could have maybe been a Moghul empire in west asia, or the Abbasids wold have made a comeback, or something similar. But the Balkans would always have been pulled three ways. It follows from the geography.
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 03-Aug-2008 at 13:39
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 13:49
Hello leo
 
You need to get your facts straits, Serbia and Montenegro was under full autonomy since the 1820s. The only vestiges of Ottoman rule in Romania was a couple of mosques here and there, some garissons and settlers all of them were limited to a certain part of the country. Only Bosnia and Bulgaria were under direct rule and all this ended after 1877, almost 130 years ago. After that oil was discovered in large quantities in Bulgatria and Romania and it was squandered all over the place. Korea on the other hand only got independence from Japan in 1945 and throughout the occupation the Japanese did things worse than even the French did in Algeria and that rule was the standard for brutality. Look now how they are and how is Romania and bulgaria. And if you are going to play the communism card look where China was 17 years ago and where it is now.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778 		  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 14:03
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

I think that finally the balkans would be a part of the catholic world. At least with the rise of Habsburgs at the 16th century the balkans would be a part of the empire. I dont know how could they manage but the catholic states would force the people for conversion much more than ottomans.
 
 
The only developed part of Balkans is that which was under the Habsburg Empire, I mean Slovenia and Croatia (I know, moderndays Slovenians don't like to be considered as Balkanic and I can understand why ...) and Habsburgs didn't force people to change religion, orthodoxes and muslims (from Bosnia) were recognized in their religious rights. So Austro-Hungarian Empire was not less tolerant than Ottoman Empire and far more developed, as we can easily see in their modern heirs.
 
 
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778 		  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 14:18
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello leo
 
You need to get your facts straits, Serbia and Montenegro was under full autonomy since the 1820s. The only vestiges of Ottoman rule in Romania was a couple of mosques here and there, some garissons and settlers all of them were limited to a certain part of the country. Only Bosnia and Bulgaria were under direct rule and all this ended after 1877, almost 130 years ago. After that oil was discovered in large quantities in Bulgatria and Romania and it was squandered all over the place. Korea on the other hand only got independence from Japan in 1945 and throughout the occupation the Japanese did things worse than even the French did in Algeria and that rule was the standard for brutality. Look now how they are and how is Romania and bulgaria. And if you are going to play the communism card look where China was 17 years ago and where it is now.
 
Al-Jassas 
 
 
The full indipendence of Serbia and Montenegro were recognized only after the Congress of Berlin (1878)  ... anyway my point was that the European regions which fell under the Ottomans are today the most underdeveloped in Europe and I have no reason up to now to change my opinion.
 
 
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175 		  Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 14:19
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Wake up Leo,The Balkan states have been independent for nearly 200 years and got no where. Korea in the 1950s was in a worse shape than even todays zimbabwe and yet look where they are now. Don't put everything on the Turks.

 
Al-Jassas
You're the obe,who should wake up and read some history - in 1939 Bulgaria was the number six most developed economy in Europe.Rusevelt for example called Bulgaria "an economical marvel".It was communism that made balkan and all eastern-european countries poor and undeveloped.
 
 
And Ottoman rule brought not simply economical but CULTURAL backwardness,because people under Ottoman rule didn't live through their own Renaissans,Enlightment age and other periods in European history...They were cut off of the christian world,not being able to produce their own great artists,writers,politicians and scientists (at least not as much as other christian countries).
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810 		  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 14:23
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello leo
 
You need to get your facts straits, Serbia and Montenegro was under full autonomy since the 1820s. The only vestiges of Ottoman rule in Romania was a couple of mosques here and there, some garissons and settlers all of them were limited to a certain part of the country. Only Bosnia and Bulgaria were under direct rule and all this ended after 1877, almost 130 years ago. After that oil was discovered in large quantities in Bulgatria and Romania and it was squandered all over the place. Korea on the other hand only got independence from Japan in 1945 and throughout the occupation the Japanese did things worse than even the French did in Algeria and that rule was the standard for brutality. Look now how they are and how is Romania and bulgaria. And if you are going to play the communism card look where China was 17 years ago and where it is now.
 
Al-Jassas 

This is frankly a bad comparison. South Korea had tremendous economical support from the US. And you seem to forget North Korea...


Edited by Styrbiorn - 03-Aug-2008 at 17:34
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

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 0.109 seconds.