Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 3456> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Seko 
Emperor 
Spammer Joined: 01-Sep-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8595 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survivalPosted: 07-Aug-2008 at 20:26 |
|
So now we are blaming others?
Since you do not have 100 posts to your name that means you cannot post in Current Affairs. What does this mean? That you hold your tongue till you reach that magic number. No exceptions. Nor will we allow you to turn the forum into a jousting match. |
||
 |
||
|
Majkes
Chieftain 
Imperial Ambassador Joined: 06-May-2006 Location: Poland Online Status: Offline Posts: 1144 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 20:45 |
|
|
**edited comments about another member**
Going back to the subject which is Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival if I'm not mistaken that's obvious Ottomans were better for Orthodox religion than Catholics. It is muc easier to convert someone from Orthodox to catholic than to Muslim. Besides eg in Middle ages Muslim were much more tollerant than Christians. Catholics would for sure try to convert Orthodox. Edited by Seko - 07-Aug-2008 at 20:49 |
||
|
||
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer Joined: 01-Sep-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8595 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 20:47 |
|
|
The three passionate posts after my last one will remain hidden from view. W.W. and HEROI, again, to stick to the topic otherwise it will be closed or an official warning will be given.
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 20:49 |
|
|
The thing is we are trying to avoid ethnic battles - so the this Balkan country or ethnic group is better than the other - simply does not have a place here at the forum.
|
||
|
||
|
HEROI
Baron 
Joined: 06-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 468 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 20:54 |
|
|
thats right es_bih but you are coming always late on the scene.go back in thread and check what was allowed for WW and Leonardo to get away with,before i interfered.
|
||
|
Me pune,me perpjekje.
|
||
|
||
|
Władysław Warnencz
Pretorian 
Suspended Joined: 28-Jun-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 175 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 20:55 |
|
I am not nervous,i simply didn't know there is such rule and thought there is a technical problem or something...
Knowing the medieval catholic methods of "converting" people i rather think this would make the orthodox christians just hate the catholics more and keep even harder to their faith.Muslims were more tollerant in medieval times,so they could win the trust and simphaties of orthodox christians and thus convert them easier.That's why we have so many examples of orthodox christians converting to muslims (bulgarian pomaks) and very little examples of orthodox converting to catholic (mainly ukrainians converted by poles in the Rzeczpospolita).
|
||
|
||
|
Beylerbeyi
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Location: Cuba Online Status: Offline Posts: 1355 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 19:06 |
|
|
As you all know the Nazis made many propaganda movies which featured pretty blondes and ugly Jews and Gypsies, most famous of which is the 'Der Ewige Jude'. I would expect this kind of shit in the Bulgarian section of Stormfront org, but not in All Empires. Mods please be of some use for once and remove that crap.
And back to the topic, I think what is being written here vindicates what I have written about the West having overrun the Balkans. Just look at how they are parroting Western propaganda:
Let's compare Bulgaria to Greece and Turkey, and also to Britain (a developed country) to see how they performed at 1938 (before the world war), 1990 (at the end of communism) and today.
GDP per capita comparisons:
1938 (in international dollars with 1990 prices, source Mark Harrison) - 1990 (source CIA) - 2008 (today's prices with ppp, source CIA)
Year: 1938 - 1990 - 2008
Britain: $5983 - $14300 - $35100
Greece: $2727 - $5605 - $29200
Bulgaria: $1595 - $5710 - $11300
Turkey: $1359 - $1350 - $12900
In 1938 Greece was much richer than Bulgaria or Turkey which were similar. In 1990, when Bulgaria had hard times, and Grece had been in the EU for almost a decade, what do we see? Bulgaria was richer than Greece! How is this possible? We all know Communism makes you poor! CIA must be lying, they are pro-communist, aren't they? And Turkey? After 50 years of capitalism and democracy, they are worse than they were in 1938! This shows for sure capitalism works great and communism sucks. In 2008, after 18 years of capitalist so-called 'development', Bulgaria is now behind both Greece and Turkey, when it used to be richer than both! Great performance, praise be to the God of markets!
But GDP per capita is not all, let's look at other factors, starting with population in millions:
Year: 1938 - 1990 - 2008 Britain: 47.5 - 57.4 - 60.9
Greece: 7.1 - 10 - 10.7
Bulgaria: 6.6 - 9 - 7.3
Turkey: 17 - 56.7 - 71.9
It seems Turkey has a possible excuse for its poor performance, as it's population exploded from 17 to 57 millions between 1938 and 1990 and later to 72 millions. It is no longer comparable to Bulgaria or to Greece due to its vast size and population. Bulgarian population, however, actually fell greatly since 1990 thanks to capitalist progress, which is good for pro capita GDP!
What about life expectancy:
Year: 1990 - 2008 Britain: 76 - 78.8
Greece: 77.5 - 79.5
Bulgaria: 72.5 - 72.8
Turkey: 65.5 - 73.1
In 1990, in communist Bulgaria, the average Bulgarian lived 7 years more than the average in the capitalist paradise called Turkey. After 18 years of capitalist 'development' in Bulgaria, the average Turk now lives longer than the average Bulgarian...
What about other factors? Let's look at the UN development index, which takes into accounts more factors. Bulgaria in 1990: index 0.794. After the first five years of capitalist 'development': 0.785! One of the few countries in the world to have its index worsened, together with the ex-communists now enjoying the benefits of capitalism (some of them still haven't reached their pre-1991 development levels), and likes of Iraq and Afghanistan... Today (index of 2005) Bulgaria has recovered and its index is 0.824. An increase of just 0.029 points in 18 years of 'capitalist development', despite declining population and small country. In the same period (1990-2005) Turkey's index increased by 0.092, more than three times Bulgaria's and Greece's increased by 0.049...
So the verdict is clear for all those with brains, Bulgaria benefitted greatly from communism, and it was ruined by the introduction of capitalism. Now if Bulgaria behaves, the imperialists will throw them a bone or two. But don't expect it to be like Greece, the German cow is no longer so willing to be milked. Edited by Beylerbeyi - 08-Aug-2008 at 19:15 |
||
|
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke 
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 19:28 |
|
|
Beylerbeyi, again I am speechless! Al-Jassas
|
||
|
||
|
Władysław Warnencz
Pretorian
Suspended Joined: 28-Jun-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 175 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 20:31 |
|
In 1990 Bulgaria was not rich,because all those money you posted were in fact foreign loans.Bulgaria had NO working economy at all and all was keeping together thanks to foreign loans.Why don't you post that kind of statistic?And why don't you show how Germany,Italy or France developed in capitalism?In 1944 Germany was totaly destroyed by war and so was Czechoslovakia for example.Why don't you compare how those two countries rebuld their economies with communism and capitalism?Which system is better...
And you are mistaken,that there is capitalism in Bulgaria...There is just anarchy here,corruption and very strong mafia - no true democracy or capitalism.Bulgaria can't transform into democratic country because of the old communists,who still run the it.As one bulgarian professor said - another 40 years need to pass,in order for the shade of communism to die...You can make statistics after 40 years have passed...
|
||
|
||
|
czarnian
Pretorian
Joined: 06-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 151 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 08:55 |
|
|
Muslims or Chatolics for Orthodox survival - I would say neither. In the end of the late 14th and in the begining of the 15th century the Bulgarian Orthodox church already has a couple of centuries behind it's back. With the fall of Turnovo(1393) and the еxile of patriarch Evtimius(1394) the Bulgarian Patriarchate ceased to exist. In the end of the 14th century the Constantinople's Patriarchate "consumed" all of Turnovo's eparchies(1414-1415). So we can ask ourselves a few questions. The first one is, what was the status of the Constantinople's Patriarchate in the ottoman political system, as it was the only representive of the non-muslim population of the new easter-despotic empire? The status of the non-muslim population was regulated according the reglamentations of the so called "Pact between caliph Oman and the jews of Jerusalem". This document gave the legal right to Sultan Mehmed to nominate all of the patriachs and to guarаntee the existance of the Ortodox church. The whole orthodox church found itself in one very curious situation. At one hand, we have the personal dependency of the patriarch to the sultan -> a direct/legal ottoman interference in the highest of levels of the Orthodox church. At the other hand we have total absence of any kind of finantial support, furthermore the patriachate is restricted, by any means necessary, of gaining wealth. The Patriachate was subjected to the needs of the Ottoman empire and the sultan himself. Here is a list of some of the more important/enormous taxes: "peshkesh"(gift) - tribute in gold, paid by all new patriachs personally to the sultan; "haradz" - tribute in gold paid each year by the patriarchate(the tax is introduced in 1474). We also have a bunch of curious taxes such as: a tax for the ascending of the new sultan, а tax for the circumcision of the sultan's sons, taxes for victories, taxes for the army, for the viziers and the janissaries etc.
The total absence of "goverment funding" and the constantly rising taxes condemned the Constantinople's Patriarchate to poverty, which parried every tendencies toward self-perfection or any kind of reforms. The situation, in which the Patriarchate found itself is a precondition leading to corruption. Everyone had to pay - from the simple monk to the patriarch hilself, a certain "tax/fee" in order to gain or level up in position. The corruption rose in the centuries that followed - in the time between the 17th and the 18th century we have 88 different patriarchs, 88!
All the non-muslim christian populations had to pay "ispenche" - 25 akches, and aslo the mass tax "djizie". In the 15th century those both taxes combined estimated to 2 gold coins(7.14gr. of gold) per family. For example in the year 1500 the christian population of Anatolia, according the the ottoman documents, was 894 432 households which equals 2.8 tons of gold every year, only by those two taxes.
Тhere are couple of speculations about the fate of the former Turnovo's Patriarchate. It was either transformed to а metropolia or preserved some kind of autonomy - evidence about that, we can find in certain documents.
In the diocese of the new-formed metropolia of Turnovo, we can find 6 eparchies: Lovech, Cherven, Preslav, Starazagora, Kazanluk, Vratza. It's diocese covered most of the teritories of Vidin tzardom, and became the bigest metropolia on the Balkans.
After the liquidation of the first serbian patriarchate in the 15th century, it's lands were incorporated in the vast territories of the archbishopric of Ochrid - the other bulgarian cultural and religious center. The archbishopric of Ochrid contained 22 eparchies. It managed to preserve and rebuild it's monasteries and churches, and for the first decades of the ottoman rule, they concidered the conqueror to be favourable, because the ottomans stood against the union with the Roman church from 1439. The situation in the former bulgarian territories kept on changing. After Mehmed Sokoli "rebuild" the serbian patriarchate(in the second half of the 16th century), part of Ochrid's eparchies were incorporated in the new orthodox patriarchate.
In the next century the Oecumenical Patriachate seized control over the whole Balkans.
The serbian patriarchate was destroyed in 1766, and one year later 1767 the last autocephalous archbishiop of Ochrid - the bulgarian Arsenii was forced to resign. Тhe ceaseless rearranging in the oraganization of the Eastern church, in the period of the Ottoman rule, was а result of old and new conflicts in the church itself, mostly between it's slavic/bulgarian and greek wings, dating form the 8-9 century.
The first struck in the heart of the eastern orthodoxy was thrown by non other than Samuil and Vassili II. By reaching his ultimate goal, the combining of the bulgarian and roman empires, Vassili weakend "Pax Ortodoxa" by destroing the second largest orthodoxal empire. The crusades simply finished what those two started a couple of centuries ago.
As for the chatolic church and it's influence in the bulgarian territories. According to the decisions taken at the Trident synod (1545-1563), pope Grigorii XVth created the so called "Congregation for spreading the faith" in 1622. The main goal of that institution is to spread the chatolic influence over the Balkan region of the Ottoman empire.
The reason that drove the pope to this action was the presence of small chatolic groups living in remoted regions, like those in Chiprovec. After a couple of franciscan missionary missions, pope Kliment VIIIth nominated Petar Sulinat for the first chatolic bishop of Sofia, and his residence became the city of Chiprovec.
His flock grew in rancks, and in a short period ot time he won-over 800 people from the local villages. Under his guidance churches and monasteries were build. A grand church and a franciscan monastery was build in Chiprovec. Тhe franciscan mission in Bulgaria gain a sort of independence, and Vlachia was incorporated into it's diocese.
The most noble of the bulgarian chatolics was Petar Bogdan Beshkev - archbishop of Marcianopolis(Preslav). Tha chatolic influence grew, Ochrid chatolic archbishopric and the episcopate of Nicople were created over his guidance.
After the chatolic rebellion from 1688 in Chiprovec, the bulgarian chatolic church was in ruins. Тhe mojaority of the bulgarian chatolics fled to Vlachia, Transilvania and Banat. ps
If any one wants to know more about archbishop Beshkev and his pro-bulgarian/national politic or the chatolic rebelion, please pm me.
The orthodox church self-preserved itself in a way. Christianity survived the Ottoman rule thanks to it's local institutions - the monasteries. Еаch monastery was a center of religious and spiritual activities. Edited by czarnian - 09-Aug-2008 at 17:50 |
||
|
||
|
Bernard Woolley
Pretorian
Joined: 11-Jun-2008 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 154 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 18:08 |
|
|
Very interesting. These numbers seem to speak to a phoenomenon that I couldn't help but notice when I was in Istanbul earlier this year: Turkey has probably been one of the primary beneficiaries of the end of the Cold War. Communist states were definitely not the only ones whose economies were choked by the Cold War. Turkey (and Istanbul in particular) naturally serves as an entrepot for trade between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. For the duration of the Cold War, that trade was artificially truncated and the country was economically marginalized. Add to that the fact that, as NATO's most exposed partner, Turkey had no choice but to latch itself to American interests (without even the consolation of having to be 'bribed' with development assistance of the kind given to many European clients) even at the expense of domestic interests, and you have a fairly good explanation for the political and economic stagnation in Turkey from the 1940s through the 1980s - a better explanation than population growth, in my opinion, because population growth is only a negative when the economy lacks the growth potential to accomodate it. I consider this a good demonstration of how widely destructive the Iron Curtain (regardless of which side of it one found oneself on) was to the countries of South-East Europe (as well as to many other regions). Just my two cents. As for how this relates to the original topic, power ebbs and flows. This entire region has been at a relatively low ebb for most of the 20th century, completely overwhelmed by the Soviet and American spheres. Both those spheres have now contracted, and there is now more room for Balkan countries to succeed or fail on their own. Fifty years from now, it's entirely possible that nobody will even be bothering to ask "what's wrong with the Balkans" at all. |
||
|
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:46 |
|
|
Hello czarnian I have some comments on your post: 1- The treaty of Jerusalem was between Omar and the Patriarch of the city not the jews, the treaty contained nothing of the coditions now known as the Omari conditions about the relationship between muslims and non muslims, it was simply a surrender treaty by which the city became under Islamic rule but jews were not to settle in the city and christian holy places were kept intact under their supervision. the treaty was between the city and omar only and each city had its own treaty, some made half the churches into mosques, others left all churches intact, others allowed for the building and repare of churches while some dissallowed it. but all in all the church was to be autonomous and not under any direct rule of the caliph. Later during the Abbasid era these conditions were changed and bishops became appointees from the caliph. 2- The power to appoint patriarchs actually came to the Ottoman sultan because legally he was in the church's eyes the empror and he wore the crown if I am not mistaken so he became the de facto head of the church, I may be wrong but this is what I read.
Al-Jassas |
||
|
||
|
czarnian
Pretorian
Joined: 06-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 151 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 07:24 |
|
|
Hi Al-Jassas. Yep, maybe your right about the treaty between Omar and the patriarch, but that is what i've read. That the treaty was used just as base on which the sultan published his first document/berat about the patriachate.
So the document was used only as a base, and it explains the different proceses happend to the non-muslim population in Eastern Europe, Egypt and Persia - here we have a massive islamisation of the population by the arabs. ps
Of course the sultan was accepted as the grand sovereign. We both know his abusive attitude towards his own viziers, so whats left for the representitive of a non-muslim establishment such as the Patriach?  A little example, one of the patriarchs was hanged during the greek rebelion in the 19th century as the head of the christian population.Edited by czarnian - 11-Aug-2008 at 09:01 |
||
|
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 09:09 |
|
|
The problem with the document is that contradicts what we know about the early Islamic history. This document, particularly the clauses about dress and language, appeared only in the third century AH. Christians were the basis of administrative service in the Rashidun and early Ummayyads. Read about saint john of Damascus and you will find that he reached a very high position. It is well known that Arab christians didn't have any of these conditions applied to them nor were certain sects, maronites to be specific, and that several churches were actually build during the caliphs incuding both Omars, the Rashidun and the ummayyad. Actually the latter wanted to return Saint Johns basillica, todays grand Ummayyad mosque in Damascus, to the christians but war with the Byzantines changed his mind and he build another magnificent church, demolished by an earthquake or confiscated later I don't remeber what happened.
As for Islamization, well here is an interesting fact. Tax records prove that Muslims were a minority in all provinces except Arabia for at least the first two centuries after the conquest. These records say that the most Islamized province in the 8th century was Iraq and it had some 600k working non muslim landowning males. assuming that there is 3:1 percentage of others this means that there were roughly 2 million and we know that were no less than 1 million Muslim immigrants meaning that in the most Islamised province muslims were just a third of the total population. Only in the 4th century onward, when Turkic and kurdish dynasties took control, did the islamisation process took place in earnest.
Al-Jassas
|
||
|
||
|
czarnian
Pretorian
Joined: 06-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 151 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 09:41 |
|
|
It may contradict with what is known, and there were exceptions no doubt. As I said, it was only used as a base. But the whole "dress code", building restrictions, christian convertion policy etc. were in fact something typical about the european ottoman territories. |
||
|
||
|
Polish rider
Immortal Guard 
Joined: 11-Aug-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 10:56 |
|
Beylerbeyi, could you compare former East Germany to former West Germany? It'll show a real influence of communism and capitalism.
|
||
|
||
|
Polish rider
Immortal Guard
Joined: 11-Aug-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 11:03 |
|
Good answer
 Today a religion and an economy have nothing to do with each other. And modern economical development has nothing to do with pre-WWII history. Until 1970's Catholic Ireland was among the poorest European countries. Today it is almost the richest country in the world. Edited by Polish rider - 11-Aug-2008 at 11:06 |
||
|
||
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph 
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 12:08 |
|
Are you kidding? The only Protestant regions which aren't green is Estonia and Latvia, which happened to have the bad fortune of being occupied by the Soviet Union, and East Germany, which had a similar faith. Even then, Estonia and Latvia have had the most tremendous growth (highest in the world, in fact) the past years and will soon be on Scandinavian standards. And for whatever it's worth, 20 of the 35 dark green areas are Protestant. Of the red areas, roughly 40 are Catholic, 25 Orthodox but only 2 Protestant. Edited by Styrbiorn - 11-Aug-2008 at 12:13 |
||
|
||
|
Polish rider
Immortal Guard
Joined: 11-Aug-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 14:09 |
|
Check again. There is atheism in most of these areas. Edited by Polish rider - 11-Aug-2008 at 14:09 |
||
|
||
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 14:42 |
|
There is atheism everywhere. Or maybe you meant that they are mostly atheistic, in which case you are plain wrong. |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 3456> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
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.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
