Fall of Constantinople 29th May 1453
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12293
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 17:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Fall of Constantinople 29th May 1453
Posted By: dorian
Subject: Fall of Constantinople 29th May 1453
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 07:42
|
Today, it's the 553rd anniversary of the Fall of Constantinople,
the worst day of Hellenism. The defeat of Hellenism and Christianity by the Turks and Islam. The greek nation mourns every year this day, when Constantinople fell. This city was built in 657 BC by Greeks from Megara (a city near Athens) and it was given the name “Byzantion” by Byzas who was the leader of them. The capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the city that was identified with the life of Byzantine empire, was founded by Constantine the Great, in the place where was the city of Byzantion. The city was founded on 8 November 324 and it was inaugurated on 11 May 330. The capital was named “Nea Romi” (New Rome) and later was renamed “Konstantinoupolis” (Constantinople) which means “Constantine’s City”. After the fall in 1453, the Turks changed its name. Now the city is universally known as “Istanbul” which is greek too and comes from the phrase “ Is tin Polin” which means “to the City”, as people called it “Polis”. ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Replies:
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 10:54
|
The Turkish sultan, Mehmed II, advanced on Constantinople on the beginning of 1453. Troops came from every region of the Empire, including thousands of irregulars, from many nationalities, who were attracted by the prospect of looting. His army included finally 200000 soldiers (29000 of them were Europeans). Constantinople was defended only from 10000 soldiers (3000 of them were Europeans mostly Italians).
One most remakble think was the half moon sign.The sultan show in front of many houses the symbol of half moon. He asked why was this symbol everywhere, and they told him that this symbol was dated from the time of 340 b.c. when Philipos Macedonian did not manage to take Byzantium. Ancient Byzantines has since that victory, preserved this symbol.The half moon was a sign that dedicated in Dimitra, an ancient Olympian God.The founders of the Byzantium City were the Megarians as Dorian mention and had as main worship God the Dimirtra. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 10:55
|
The end of the Byzantine Empire, which was nothing by the time Constantinople fell, and the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, which was everything the Byzantine had once been. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 11:52
|
If this post is deemed too irrelevant to the issue, please feel free to delete it. Do you all feel that the Church--the Orthodox, and specifically the Ecumenical Patriarch--is more or less able to present Christianity authentically and live according to Christian principles since it lost the backing of a secular entity?-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 11:57
I don't think there is any single church which satisfactorily caters for and is representative of every form of Christian belief, if there were there would only be a single church. What do you mean by losing the backing of a secular entity? Do you mean, the Orthodox church had the backing of the Byzantine government to the very end of the Byzantine Empire, to the extent that the government was extinguished and the church lived on? If anything, that would then make it more receptive to the needs of its flock as it is not constrained as it once was by the control of the Emperor. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 12:04
|
That is what I had in mind when I said "the backing of a secular entity". I think I agree with you in part. The Church is definitely not pressured by those from within in the same way it was (Florence, Lateran IV, etc.). Still, with the fall of Constantinople, the Patriarch took on an increasingly ethnarchic role, which spawned much of the ethnophiletism that is now plaguing the church. Leaving out recent events, which would only inflame debate, I guess my question would be "Which form of pressure was less harmful to the integrity of the Church?"
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 16:51
I usually don't have much sympathy for any kings or sultans since they are tyrants in the end but Mehmed II is special. Thanks to him that today I can drink my raki by the Bosphorus
EDIT: See my sign  ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 17:03
|
and the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, which was everything the Byzantine had once been.
In terms of territory yes,but not in terms of culture. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 17:44
|
did i posted too much? Anyway i wanted to share those a long time ago, but forgot to share. I thought now its the time for it and shared with y'all. ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 17:55
Yes, you did, very difficult to read, but nice pictures, and mentioning your sources would have been nice as well.
Anyway, I moved your posts to a new thread here:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12314 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12314 ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 06:16
|
I found some interesting stuff about the omens of the Fall and I post it here.. Portents of DisasterThe people of the Middle Ages held the belief that the physical world, particularly the stars, locations of the planets, and other astronomical occurrences, had a strong influence on their daily lives. In April and May, the city had faced unseasonable weather including heavy rains and hailstorms. Although these signs did not bode well, the defenders held firm and concluded that the city would fall only when the moon gave a sign. On May 22nd, the moon did just that by phasing into a long and dark eclipse. One can only imagine the overwhelming sense of dread Constantinople's defenders must have felt as the moon turned a deep crimson color with a slim crescent -- the image of the Turkish standard flying over Mohammed's camp. Conversely, the Turkish army certainly would have viewed this as a sign of imminent victory and their morale must have increased dramatically. However, the portents of disaster did not stop there.
On the 26th, a dense fog rose over the besieged city. By nightfall, the fog lifted and the defenders were horrified to see the windows and rooftops of the city flickering with ominous shades of red. Even the enormous copper dome of the Hagia Sophia, the main cathedral of the city, appeared to be engulfed in flames. This final event certainly would have had a profound effect on the defenders of Constantinople, and Mohammed may have realized it -- for three days later, he began to incessantly pound the city with his cannons, threw his entire force into the fray, and had control of the city by the end of the day. So what exactly happened at Constantinople in May of 1453? Some scientists claim that the strange phenomena were the result of volcanic activity in the Pacific (at Kuwae) earlier in the year. The volcanic particles which were spewed into the atmosphere contributed to the inclement weather, the unusually dark eclipse, and especially the red skies at twilight. It is probable that when Mohammed II witnessed these events, he used them as a way to rally his forces. Their several attempts to take the city had all been rebuffed and morale amongst the Turkish army must have been low. Mohammed could have very well pointed to each event claiming that they were all portents of victory. The timing of the final attack on Constantinople certainly lends credibility to this idea. ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 09:42
Cheers, kotumeyil!
|
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 11:43
|
Cheers! ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 12:33
Its like saying Edison isnt that speciall at all, thanks to him i can see at dark... Well he is maybe "tyrant" to you, but a hero for millions... ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 13:10
A hero? Superman is a hero-He beats up the bad guys and saves the day. He doesn't kill thousands and destroys cities! (PS1:well,ok in some episodes maybe) (PS2:Anyway,i prefere Batman of course)  ------------- |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 13:45
Cheap or not, I'm really thankful  He's a very good sultan but the equivalent of Edison in the Ottoman Empire is the famous inventor Hezarfen Ahmet Chelebi, who flew across the Bosphorus in the 17th Century and he is a real hero of mine------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 13:54
Your confusing alexander with him i think, remember Mehmed didnt entered Persepolis, it whas alexander self... ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 14:43
|
Alexander destroyed one city,and built one hundred others..... ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 15:44
|
1.Which city? -Constantinoupolis. 2.As for Alexander: cities destroyed: 0 (the palace of Persepolis burnt) cities built: 1.Alexandroupolis (near strymon river) 2.Alexandria Troas 3.Alexandria by the Latmus 4.Alexandria near Issus 5.-6.Tyros+Gaza rebuilt and repopulation 7.Alexandria in Egypt 8.Alexandria in Aria (Herat- Afghanistan) 9.Alexandria in Dragiana (Farah-Afg.) 10.Alexandria in Arahosia (Kandahar-Afg.) 11.Alexandria in the Caucasus (Charicar-Afg.) 12.Alexandria Eschate (Khodzent-Tajikistan) 13.Alexandria on the Oxus (Termez?) 14.Alexandria in Margiana 15.Arigaeum (Nawagai-Pakistan) 16.Nicea-Bucephala 17.Alexandria on Hyphasis river 18.Alexandria on the Indus river(Uch-Pakistan) 19.another town on the Indus 20.Patala-Xylinepolis (Bahmanabad-Pak.) 21.Rhambakia (Bela-Pakistan) 22.Alexandria in Carmania 23."Six cities north of the Oxus river" 24.Alexandria Susiana ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 15:48
| how did he sustain that much cities with people? Not arguing but curious about it. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 16:00
|
That's always been a question of mine too, Mortaza. I've seen it cited before, but I always wondered how, with an army on the march, he was able to disperse some of his soldiers as colonists in conquered areas.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 16:06
| If I am not wrong, his army was not so big. He can put some general to lead cities, but he cant sustain cities, with his soldiers. |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 16:13
|
I believe that it was very necessary for Constantinople to fall. It is a good thing in many respects actually.
My reason for saying that is because if Constantinople did not fall, then the christian merchants of Europe wouldnt try a dashing way to find another route to Asia (i.e the Atlantic Ocean!) and Europe might not have discovered for itself the New World for many more generations! |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 19:14
Some of the cities were the classic "polis" = cities. Some started as military garissons -"katoikiai" And some other as temporary military settlements -"phrouria"which became permanent. The cities were populated by: 1.Veterans of his army (reinforcements were being sent from Macedonia to substitute these veterans) 2.Emigrants from Greece..Some went to the cities after the foundation,but the vast majority was coninously populating the cities for the years after the foundation. 3.Native population-Living in the surrounding areas. ------------- |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 03:35
Thebes, Gaza, Tyre and countless others in the East.
Keep in mind that most of the "Alexandrias" were not build from scratch (as e.g. the one in Egypt), most of them were simply renamings of already existing cities...
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 06:07
|
I don't think Alexander was an idealist hero ! Such a view of the man could be a result of: -his own propaganda -the legend about his name in every corner of the known world after his death -new Greek silly nationalism It just out of historical reality comparing him (despite the kills he caused) with nomad warlords (or even Mehmed II) Either by propaganda or by good purpose,his campaign included except conquests of cities and massacres an aspect of providing civilization too. Back to the topic. ------------- |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 11:04
Sure, he was just a friendly, peaceful guy, who provided civilisation to barbarians. He had to burn barbarians and their inferior civilisation in order to colonise and assimilate, and rape, and pillage and so on. What a peaceful gay!
Com'on, he lived two millenias before Montaigne, nationalism wasn't even invented yet...
Because he was a Turk and Alexander was a great, wise Greek (actually Macedonian) warior who "liberated" Persia?
Yeah, I see what you try to mean. Fall of Istanbul was a great disaster for the great Greek nation and bad Muslims captured the city you mean, right? But sorry dissappoint you again, after thousands of topics on the same theme! The fellow Rums of Istanbul greeted Mehmed as their sultan basileos... And it had nothing to do with modern Greeks who actually have nothing to do with Byzantines except their language. Face it...
And kotumeyil,
That's one of the greatest gifts of our ancestors to us. Thanks Mehmed Khan that I can have my Tekirdag (it's not a commercial BTW)with my melon and peynir near the bosphorus after a delicious meal of kalamar and fillet fish! And Diegenis, you can do nothing about it! Muhahaha... ------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 15:54
1.Actually i was writing about superman at this point ! 2.I m sorry to disappoint any racist feelings of yours,but Mohamed II was not heterosexual at all  see : http://www.posh-uk.org.uk/gay_lesb_figures.html - http://www.posh-uk.org.uk/gay_lesb_figures.html
Time to visit your eye-specialist.
Time to read texts some historians of the time. ex:Georgios Frantzis mentions the smash of the heads of the women in churches floors,the enslavement and massacre ,after the entry of Turks. But..this want help much,you are pretty sure ,everyone was really happy! and things like historic sources cannot change your mind ,of course.
Yes the modern Greeks sprung form the soil in 1821! Face it -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its out of historical reality to compare Alexander and Mehmed II.Not because Alexander was a wise Greek that liberated Persia. Not because Mehmed was Turk. Because: Scientists followed Alexander in his campaign in Asia: SCIENTISTS A.Philosophers: 1.Kalisthenes 2.Anaxarchos from Abdera 3.Pyrron the "skeptikos" 4.Aischrion the Samian B.Historians 1.Aristomenes Aristocleus 2.Marsyas 3.Kleitarchos C.Poets 1.Agis from Argos 2.Choirilos 3.Python from Catania D.Geographers 1.Nearchos from Creat 2.Androsthenes 3.Xenokrates 4.Aristoboulos E.Architects Deinokrates the Rhodian or Macedonian F.Mechanics 1.Diades from Thessaly 2.Charias G.Metal Engineers Gorgos ARTISTS A.Actors -Tragic 1.Athenodoros 2.Aristocritos -Comedians Lycon's team B.Guitar players 1.Aristonikos 2.Aristocrates 3.Heracleitos C.light-guitar players 1.Aristonimos 2.Athenodoros 3.Kratinos D.Pipers 1.Euios 2.Dionysios 3.Hyperbolos E.Orchestras F.Magicians I wonder if among the 80.000 of the main body of Mehmeds army,as well as the 200.000 in total(the other came mainly for looting and plundering), there are mentioned philosophers and poets.... I was expecting some arguments rather than blind nationalistic yelling- but you cannot expect from a chicken to fly  ------------- |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 16:27
Mehmed was interested in and supported science, too... ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 16:31
Well I am sure someone(Fatih) who know 6 different langauge at his 20, cannot become an intellectual but only a barbarian.
|
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 16:37
Interesting kotumeyil  At last some arguments.. Thnx for the knowledge ------------- |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 16:39
I wonder why such things are not discussed, and the forum is flooded by silly threads as "the best turkish generals", "best turan's empire" ,"how much brave we ,turks are.." ... ------------- |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 10:56
I couldn't get how you got that impression from my sarcastic nationalist statements but I've never had any statements against any races, unless you consider Alexander as an individual race of his own. And BTW, the list is baseless, without any historical reference...
What a joker you are...
Please, never ever let him "mention" in AE. I guess your past statements about the conquest were also based on his theories. I founded some article of him in a "nationalist" history forum which you may be a member of:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=67661 - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=67661
I am used to be teased/insulted in this forum but this's the first time that I'm blamed with racism by a stormfront member. And Frantzis is a wrong name, his real name is Frantzoglu I guess...
The rebellions occured in the former backwoods of the Byzantines. How does it prove anything?
Such topic names just sound funny in every sense, and can fit the amusement forums. But when blaming the other side, lets check the total number of topics of AE that you'll find out one fifth of them are about how Turks even massacred native iguanas and how did the great city fell to Muslims. See? I believe we should just blacklist all these kind of crap and just ignore the ones who open such threads.
And Diegenis, I wasn't serious about the "you can't do anything" part. You may come to Istanbul by a low price and we may all have our raki together near the bosphorus mate. You see, we aren't as bad as you are told.....:D
------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 11:25
What on earth are you mumbling???
George Frantzis (or Sfrantzis) was a Secretary (Great Logothetes) of Emperor Constantine Paleologus, born in Constantinople 1401 and died in Corfu in 1480. he was also a prominent writer and historian.
He was captured by the Ottomans when Constantinople fell in 1453. His son was killed by sultan Mehmet himself (along with many prominent Greeks) and his daughter was killed in the Sultan's harem one year later. Soon afterwards he managed to buy his freedom and escaped to the peloponnese, close the the Mystras Despot, Thomas Paleologus.
He later became a monk and wrote his famous "Chronicon" which survives to this days under two forms, Minus and Maius. It is consisted of 10 books and covers the period 1258-1477.
The rest of your post, I won't bother answering...
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 12:20
Aren't we both talking about Sfrantzis, that's why i didn't want him to mention here. An article about his so called memories were mentioned in that website also. You consider him a neutral historian, after his son was killed during the conquest?
He calls Turks Asian barbarians, and he exaggerates every historical fact in his chronicles. And that's had to call "prominent". His chronicals are his "theories". He says:
"the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted, on the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed. The sultan asked for the young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the pervert sultan."
"The barbarians were vandalizing, stealing, burning, killing children, the elderly, the young girls."
And these memoirs were later compiled by Makarios Melissenos. Do you think he did a neutral, rational compiling job?
------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 14:40
|
1.Try spelling well my nick.-i won't go on such cheap indirect taunts. 2.I am not a member of this forum.I have read "To chronicon tis Aloseos" of Georgios Frantzis.Maybe it sounds strange to you,reading from the sources.You see,history is something more than stupid nationalistic dogmatic ideas,taught in school U got your answer by Yiannis about Frantzis. The man was an eye-witness of the siege and conquest. Can you provide any sources about the peacfull entry of turkish troops in the City? Plz do it or else , keep your mouth shut,to avoid being a joker mate ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 14:46
|
is this makarious same with holy makarious of cyprus? |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 15:10
He isn't worth to be mentioned because he described his experience which is not pleasant for someone? That's a new historical tool or something? ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 16:29
|
Look, my Greek and Turkish friends out there, ( yes, you!) if you think you can just take any old topic and turn it into a battleground, like in the good old days of AE, you have another thing coming.
We are not going to start this all over again. I already had to close a thread on "Pan Iranism" today because you hijacked it, and this will be the next one, if it carries on like that.
------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 16:44
|
Well...we ll be waiting for historical sources claiming that "..the fellow Rums of Istanbul greeted Mehmed II as their sultan basileos.." -(Bash) on 29th May 1453. For historical sources...not flamme-war. ------------- |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 17:55
|
I think this picture is relevant with the subject:
 ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 18:36
|
Yep Kotumeyil also i think this is a good source: http://imageshack.us/">  ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 04:15
|
The above is a typical capitualtion treaty. It's almost a standard document for the cities who would surrended. It was intended to the Latins, mainly Genoveze and Venetians.
Kotumeyil, nice icon, where is it located? Patriarch Gennadios was appointed by the Sultan, in an effort to cut Orthodox church ties with the Pope.
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 05:05
|
It's located in the Patriarchate. ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 12:10
I don't have any ideas about what "diegenis" may mean, but I have never intended to insult you by wrong spelling, take it easy.
Ok then, no problem. And it actually sounds strange to learn that you read from sources.
Of course you cannot expect a conquerer army to deliver honey cups and flowers after a battle but what I meant is that he didn't have bad relations with the locals. He just let them have whatever they needed to.
He allowed the Rums have Hagia Sophia as a sanctuary forever, even if it was turned into a mosque. He left the patriarch alive, and he formed the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul himself. Have you ever heard of his berat or Ahdname? I guess no. Since I'm fed up with repeating myself, to remind other examples of his tolerance, and since you always need a http://link - link ... ------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 15:17
|
1.Mohamed II first let his men to loot ,massacre ,rape and destroy. Then he co-operated with the "anthenotikoi" part (anti-unification part -with catholic church). Patriarch Gennadios was one of them (@Kotumeyil). It was a rational and clever politic action since he was counting on the hate of orthodox zelots againgst catholics,giving them privileges and aliance with them,(puting them on the head of the Greeks),assured less posibilities for help by the West.-this could be a headache for him. But any serious person (i said serious) cannot deny that the entry in the city was followed by large scale slaughter. @Day In 1453 Galata was not controlled by Byzantines.It was a colony of the Genoese and (although other Genoese did) Galata didnt helped against the Turks during the siege. I wouldnt expect to be accused as a member of nationalistic forum ( i have already expressed my opinion for this stupidity in the thread: "stormfront") by someone who called the massacre of Chios (1822-35.000 killed civilians recorded)-"so called massacre"(!) Anyway-the topic is 29 May 1453,and the facts of this day. ------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 18:20
What are you talking about? He allowed the Rums (Greeks I assume you are refering to) to "have" Hagia Sophia as a "sanctuary forever"? The intolerant Mehmet stole the most important religious building of the Orthodox faith from them and modified it (ruined it actually) into a mosque. Only muslims were allowed into the building until it was changed into a "museum" about 100 years ago. I don't see how you can even try to claim Mehmet's outrageous actions as acts of tolerance. Mehmet was a thief who stole an entire city from its rightful inhabitants.
|
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 06:39
|
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 13:27
Are you really that naive ?
What is so outrageous about " Mehmet's outrageous actions"?
That's what conquerors do, they will do as much as possible as to integrate the conquered territory into the the political, social and cultural identity of their own country.
To convert the most important religious building of the conquered faith into a place of worship of one's own, was the most natural and logical action to take. Any self-respected conqueror would do the same. What else was he supposed to do ? To enter the Hagia Sophia and in view of its magnificence convert to Christianity?
Get real.
Of all major religions, the Christians have surely the least right to complain about acts of intolerance suffered and the East-Roman Empire with its long history of intolerance against other faiths or heresies is no exception.
------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 16:06
Like who? ------------- |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 19:02
That's true.
Why some people deny these actions? ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 19:37
Ferdinand and Isabella with the Muslim mosques in Spain. The old Aztec temple in Tenochtitlan was torn down to build a Catholic Cathedral after Cortes took the city. The English were happy to expel the Celtic clergy from their churches when they conquered Ireland and replace them with ones who adhered to the Latin liturgy. The Venetians coveted the Haghia Sophia for themselves when they took Constantinople in 1204, making it a Catholic place of worship. It was a pretty standard thing to do, not very nice to have to suffer but you only suffered such a dishonour if you weren't strong enough to protect your nation from such actions. The Byzantines had a somewhat similar habit of making the Bulgarian church subordinate to their own when they had the power to do so. In the medieval era, might meant right. ------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 11:03
Your statement regarding Ferdinand, Isabella, and the muslim mosques of Spain is wrong. The muslim mosques were built by muslim invaders after destroying Christian churches and cathedrals (in many cases, being built directly over the ruins). The Church of Cordoba (built as a mosque) is a good example of this (it was originally a Visigoth church before the muslims tore it down and built their mosque on top of it). Ferdinand and Isabella were simply restoring the sites to their previous condition, before intolerant invaders destroyed the original churchs. This is equivalent to when the Byzantines reconquered Constantinople from the crusaders and converted Hagia Sophia back to an Orthodox church (from a Catholic cathedral).
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 11:20
I see, so in your opinion Mehmet (an evil, perverted person) is a "self-respected" conqueror and therefore allowed to subject conquered Constantinople to pillaging, destruction, and the stealing of sacred places of worship (Hagia Sophia, Holy Apostles, etc.) from Christians for muslim use. However, when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and subjected the city to pillaging, destruction, and conversion of muslim monuments for Christian uses (Al-Aqsa mosque, dome of the rock, etc) it is a terrible crime that can never be forgiven. Why is Mehmet so respected and exonerated by you while you demonize the crusaders for doing the same thing? The things he did were far worse than anything the crusaders ever did. Interesting double standards you have here on AE.
How about build his own mosque and leave Hagia Sophia alone? Or was he simply not capable of building a monument as awesome as Hagia Sophia?
|
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 13:31
|
Old temples all over Anatolia have faced the same fate also. For example in the southeast, we have may Assyrian churches which were once pagan temples. Many churches left from the Byzantine era all over Anatolia are actually old, carved stones and caves used by earlier Anatolians. For example the most famous churches of Cappadocia, were actually Hittite towns from centuries ago. Many churches in Western Anatolia are either built with the stones left from the early inhabitants like Lydians, Lycians and Phrygians.
And in southern Turkey, we have mosques which were once Cilician temples, later converted by Persians, and later converted into churches by Christians, and later converted to mosques by Arabs, and later reconverted into churches by Armenians, and finally reconverted into mosques or cervansarais by the Seljuks. See the similarity, or lets say, evolution of civilisation?
Watch your language kid. I guess you're passing the limits of criticizing.
------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 14:20
I am afraid( ) i have to agree with R_Ak That's a general attitude in the West-The confrontationof anti-muslim feelings ,and glorification of the West ,guides many people on the other side: to purify the acts of the "ex-evil" (such Mohamed) For the examples:i would agree only with the spanish and muslim spain.The other examples are either not changing religion or destruction of temples. I would add also the Parthenon's convert to Church of Mary. As for the churches in Asia Minor. Unfortunately there is almost nothing left of them.And the fact that Cppadocia's underground churches survived is due to the fact that they are underground-and so not destroyed. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 16:18
| If you try more harder, you will persuade us, how barbaric evil is Mehmet 2. Just try a little more. |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 17:13
|
what you all say or do you cant convince some people even with historical documents. Even if mehmet II and his army entered constantinople with tulip in his hands im dead sure it gotten told whole different then it whas by Greeks self. What do you expect of some Greeks who say they lost ww1 because of the emperialist forces.... So i'll say save your time and move on. ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 17:26
Please .A n y sources? A n y historical documents? A ny historians?
Greeks lost WW1?  Till now i thought ,that in the end of WWII in 1918, the Ottoman Empire was on the side of the loosers,and Kingdom of Greece on the side of the winners. ------------- |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 17:27
| CANT WE JUST ALL AGREE THAT IN THE END IT WAS A GOOD THING THAT CONSTANTINOPLE FELL? |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 18:19
Not really wrong at all. Most Christian churches in the early medieval period were not Christian to begin with. They typically started out as pagan places of worship, before the intolerant Christian church decided to steal these places and kill their followers. Guess your argument falls flat on its face. The Christians never had a God given right to these places, they took them through sword and thievery like any medieval people. So my example is even more valid than I supposed originally, the churches of early medieval Europe simply being another example of places of worship being stolen, Christians taking them from pagans who had worshiped at them for perhaps thousands of years prior.
Not really equivalent. The Byzantines actually constructed Haghia Sophia from the ashes of a previous church which burnt down during a riot, a building of ultimate pre-eminence to the Greeks. Ferdinand and Isabela captured a building their people had neither constructed nor which held any particular spiritual pre-eminence for the Spanish. Also, the Haghia Sophia had been lost barely two generations before being recaptured. The Cordoba mosque had been constructed 8 centuries before the Spaniards had taken it. You cannot equate a reconquest of land lost less than 60 years before to land lost 8 centuries before. This is an example of your lack of equitable thinking. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 18:26
I think all the examples I mentioned are good examples of how conquerors stole the places of worship from the losers. The Aztec temple was destroyed and its worshipers were forcibly converted to Catholicism. In the medieval period, a heretic was almost considered as foreign as someone of a different strain of the Abrahamic faith. The Byzantines in particular were rarely more merciless than when crushing heretical Christians such as the Paulicians (it goes without saying the Paulician places of worship were converted or destroyed). For the Celts of Ireland the destruction of the Celtic hierarchy was as good as replacing it with a different religion, instead they had to attend church services conducted in a language they did not understand (Latin) and saw many of their traditions of worship banned. The Greeks could hardly have felt the Latins to be Christian brothers, the Crusaders having desecrated Constantinople (see Nicetas Choniates) in such a way to make Nicetas declare that even the Saracens would not inflict such damage. The crushing of heretical religions in the medieval era was not as bad as crushing another religion entirely, usually it was far worse (the ecclesiastic hierarchy usually felt more threatened by heresy). ------------- |
Posted By: BlindOne
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 06:35
For the Turks .. perhaps
For the people that lived in Balkans and central Europe... just a nightmare ------------- That I am stricken and can't let you go When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know That I am crippled by all that you've done Into the abyss, will I run |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 10:05
|
Never a conqueror can be good or bad. He is a hero for his people, but the evil for the conquered. The same goes to Mehmet II.
Probably Ponce de Leon wants to say that our modern world couldnt exist if those historical events wouldnt happen. And we dont know if it would be better or worst. Anyway, the wars brought terrible results, thats for sure, but we shouldnt deny that some of them brought an end to decaying civilisations, and a beggining to new ones. This is history. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 23:06
That statement was in reference to an incident where Mehmet attempted to molest the son of Lucas Notaras and then executed Notaras and his son when they refused. You should read the link below about the incident and perhaps then you will understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Notaras - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Notaras
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 23:20
Your argument here is not really relavent. A population changing religion and therefore adapting its existing religious buildings for the new religion is different than a conquering enemy invading their territory, converting religious buildings for their own uses, and settling their own people in the conquered territory to use the buildings. The pagan places of worship you speak of where still being used by the same people when they were converted to Christian places of worship. When the Turks converted churches into mosques they were converting them to worship in themselves, Christian Greeks were not allowed into the buildings. That is why the buildings were stolen. I highly doubt the resident Greeks were very supportive of Hagia Sophia becoming a mosque.
Equitable thinking has nothing to do with it. It was just as wrong and illegal for the Turks to sieze Hagia Sophia as it was for other muslims to sieze the land that the church that originally occupied the site of the Cordoba mosque was built on. Theft is theft. Just because it took 8 centuries for the Spaniards to take back Cordoba and return the site of the mosque to its original use (as a church) does not mean that they did not have a right to do it. The site was originally a Christian place of worship and they therefore restored the site and righted the wrong that the muslims had committed 8 centuries before. Hagia Sophia was never a mosque or associated with Islam in any way before it was taken and converted by the Turks. Example: If someone steals your car and you find it many years later and take it back from the thief, does this mean that you stole the car from him? Of course not, because it was originally stolen from you, you therefore would have a right to reclaim it. You guys are using very strange logic in a desperate attempt to exonerate Mehmet's actions, but they are wrong no matter which way you look at it.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 05:42
My argument here is perfectly relevant and equitable thinking has
everything to do with it. Your argument has a number of flaws which
demonstrate your clear pro-Christian agenda, an agenda you follow while
paying no heed to things such as weighing of evidence or examining both
sides of a story.
This is yet another example of a combination of either your historical ignorance or your sheer incapacity to see the deeds of Christians in a negative light thanks to your shameless bias. If you were better informed, or had the impartial qualities of the historian, you would know that the majority of pagan places of worship in the Western Empire were not peacefully turned into Christian places of worship. Instead, the newly Christian elites confiscated pagan property, tortured pagan leaders, excluded pagans from high positions and blatantly stole places of worship which had been pagan for centuries. In the Western Empire Christianity was often forcibly imposed, only after overwhelming violence and pressure against pagans did a majority of people convert to Christianity. Christians used violent means to alter religion in society. My earlier argument stands.
In reference to my first answer, the Cordoba "church" was originally a pagan temple. The Christians briefly stole it from the pagans for two to three centuries, before the building was levelled to make way for a much improved and architecturally stunning complex. Your claim the Christians were taking back what was rightfully theirs falls on its face, they simply re-stole something they earlier on had not been strong enough to defend. I'm not exonerating Mehmet, simply saying his actions were typical of the bulk of medieval conquerors, Christian and Muslim alike. Equitability IS important. Your silly analogy makes me pose this question: would it be ok for your decendents 8 centuries into the future to steal the vehicle or something important from the descendents of a guy who stole your car yesterday? No, of course not. The passage of time makes a huge difference, you saying that it is ok to steal from others EIGHT CENTURIES after their ancestors stole from your ancestors is simply further proof of your lack of equitable thinking. You use the flimsiest of excuses to excuse Christian aggression, yet the moment a non-Christian is guilty of the same aggression you think they should be utterly condemned. Also your claim that Mehmet's actions were illegal is baseless. In the Middle Ages the conqueror gained the right to do with conquered property what he wanted. Just like Ferdinand in Spain, Henry II in England, Emperor Constantine I and the anti-Paulician Emperor Michael III, Mehmet was exercising his power in exactly the same way as any other medieval conqueror. His actions were not illegal, because in the Medieval world, might meant right. ------------- |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 05:51
I can't help but find this a little petty, by your logic R_AK47 anything taken no matter how long has passed ought to be returned. It goes without saying the implications that would have on Americans and the land they now inhabit  i'm sure that'd go down well.
These events took place centuries before you were born in places you yourself probably have little or no association with yourself. Unless i'm very much mistaken the Romans were less than gentle themselves when they stripped pagan temples and sites in Greece and Egypt to enrich Constantinople, a Christian city.
In basic terms when a people conquer a territory and establish a permenant presence then they can do whatever they wish to it, as it is now their land. These sites wernt stolen, the land was conquered and everything within it became the property of the conqeueror whether the population liked it or not, a simple fact of life.
I have absoutely no idea where you got the idea of the Turks taking Hagia Sophia as being "illegal", your judging 15th century people with a 21st century mindset. Which is utterly ridiculous.
I doubt anybody here revels and likes the fact that as a result of Mehmets conquest of Constantinople many people were slaughtered ettc, but I think everybody also understands that you cannot look at the past as you do at the present. There is by the standards of the 15th century, nothing to exonerate Mehmet of, in this instance he merely added more territory to his empire, the fact it was Constantinople is the only thing that makes it stand out.
I personally don't see a problem with Hagia Sophia having been converted into a mosque, at least this way it could be preserved and maintained, something the late Byzantines were unable to do. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 13:42
?Do you know that the mosaics were covered with plaster? Today only fragments survived.. Any relics,and religious ornaments left by 1204,vanished. As for preservation ,you can check the horrible condition that Haghia Sophia is today...Ready to collapse after a great earthquake... ------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 21:10
You are not getting the point. You are trying to compare the actions that took place when a population changed its religion (and therefore modified its places of worship) to a foreign power invading a nation (and forcibly converting the inhabitants and their places of worship). These are two completely different types of historical events. The pagans and Christians you speak of in your argument were both part of the same empire and often of the same culture/population. This is completely different from the situation that took place in Constantinople in 1453. Your argument collapses once again.
What makes you think that the mosque that was built in Cordoba was "much improved and architecturally stunning complex" in comparison to the original church/pagan temple that occupied the site? Do you have drawings or plans of the original structure that you have compared with the current one to determine this? I have never seen any. According to your flawed logic, it is okay for someone to steal, murder, etc as long as the person is able to avoid capture for a long length of time. I still argue that your argument of "equitable thinking" has nothing to do with it. The fact is, no matter what you argue, Mehmet's actions were still wrong and would be considered intolerant and illegal by nearly every standard. If might means right in the medieval world and conquerors have the right to do what they want with conquered buildings, then why do you claim that it was wrong of the Spaniards to convert the Cordoba mosque into a church? You are using a flimsy argument involving the Roman Empire changing religion to support your claims? Doesn't sound like you are being very "impartial" in your examination of the situation.
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 21:17
Digenis is correct, many relics and mosaics were destroyed by the Turks within Hagia Sophia and the building is in terrible condition today. There is a UNESCO report on the structure on the internet you can read. It speaks of dirty/crumbling plaster, broken windows, and other problems. The building has not been preserved very well and is in fact neglected. If it were returned to Orthodox control I am sure that the Orthodox community would be happy to fund a complete restoration of the structure.
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 08:53
Not only Hagia sophia, most of the Ottoman remains are in terrible condition as well. There isn't a special situation about the byzantine buildings. Guys, Keep in mind that Turkey is a poor country.
I would have to say that I agree with you AK 47. Istanbul sahipsiz bir handır, Istanbul şehr-i perişandır. ------------- |
Posted By: BlindOne
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 09:12
If Turkey is a poor country then why it spent so much money for millitary equipment???
------------- That I am stricken and can't let you go When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know That I am crippled by all that you've done Into the abyss, will I run |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 10:04
|
from what i heard, the miltary set the budget not the government, Hidden Face is right, it is relatively poor, military get first take on the money. I will repeat myself, but (i normally dont agree with you AK) but the orthodiox community would look after those buildings better. It is theirs in the first place and im sure it would do wonders for breaking down walls.
------------- 
|
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 10:15
|
Even though Turkey is poor, she (the Turkish oligarchy) likes acting like a powerful country. Furthermore Turkish citizens also like it even If they are hungry. But I share the same opinion that Turkish budget for her military is a big taboo in Turkey. ------------- |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 11:05
We are a secular country, and as we don't use the structure as a mosque today, we shouldn't let it be used as a church after more than half a millenia. And since we should spend our limited budget on social welfare, education and related things, we shouldn't just waste it by restoring ex churches or mosques. We should either use Hagia Sophia as a museum as we do today, or we may convert it to a shopping mall or maybe demolish it and build a swimming pool on the ruins, just like Lenin did once. It might be a nice way to respond people still with stupid religious obsessions.......
I wish we wouldn't be in such a threatening, dangerous, and unstable region with hostile enemies, so that we could have spent our worthy income on more schools and railroads instead of more F-16s to deal with daring Greek kamikazers. ------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: BlindOne
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 12:06
I shouldn't expect anything else from a person that have such nick and see warehouses as mosques. It is starting to because hilarius.
You know that one of the symptoms of Histeria is to see all the others as enemies....
------------- That I am stricken and can't let you go When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know That I am crippled by all that you've done Into the abyss, will I run |
Posted By: sultanfatih
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 15:16
|
you are totally wrong i think because its name is don't come from Is tin Polin” İSTANBUL comes from İSLAMBOL which means that the city is full of islam |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 15:47
|
Most probably this offer would be refused, do you have any idea why It would be refused RAK 07?
|
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 15:54
I didn't know ex mosques are used as warehouses in your country.
BTW what's wrong with my nick, the great nicked "blind one"? ------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 17:20
That's the funniest thing I've ever read.
 No more attention to this aspect..Of course the Turks wouldn't destroy something that brings a lot of tourists to Turkey and is one of the most wonderful sights in their country...
 Daring greek F-16? The turkish aircrafts fly over the greek territory every day and we lost a pilot recently during his attempt to stop this, but the greek F-16 are daring? Nice try! ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 18:37
|
I believe that Istanbul comes from Constantinopolis, as Edrene comes from Hadrianopolis, Trabzon from Trapezonda etc etc.But this makes no point, todays name is Constantinopolis, because that was a Very decisive battle ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 03:32
Maybe. But I guess there was a Thracian city in the same area where Hadrian built his new city on the remnants. ------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 03:53
as also and the Sinop from the Sinopi
As about the Greek claim is that Istanbul or Stambol (both the Turkish people use these terms) came from the Stin Polin(In the City). The Greeks residents in the every day language call the city as the City(h Poli)
But also there are Turkish influence in the Greek territory. Great example the places that call Derveni.
-------------
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 15:28
Actually, it is you who is "totally wrong". The word Istanbul has nothing to do with islam.
|
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 15:31
Perhaps you could explain to all of us what you mean by that statement?
|
Posted By: BlindOne
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 15:51
They don't, that's why i laught at you.
I choose my nick from a metal bant, while you choose you nick from a military unit that it is know for it pure Barbarosity...... yes compare to your's my nick is great ------------- That I am stricken and can't let you go When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know That I am crippled by all that you've done Into the abyss, will I run |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2006 at 04:05
And Sinopi from Sinuva (Hittite). And Miletos from Milawata, and Ephesos from Abassa, and Halicarnassos from Alikarnassha, and the list goes on for Greeks too...
Well, metal bands are no better than wariors anyway. And bad sense of humor BTW... ------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Greek Hoplite
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 06:30
|
About the name Istanbul there are to opinions which are the most importants. According to the first oppinion Istanbul comes from "εις την πόλιν"(is tin polin, to the city) Is tan=tin bul=pol=poli
According to the second oppinion Istanbul its not coming from "is tin polin" but is an arab phrase. For example the Arabs say "Nabuluz" and because Turks can not sayor its difficult for them to say the full name Istanbuluz they say simple Istanbul. ------------- My blog http://mankap.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 15:40
You must've missed all the mosques that had been converted into churches in Spain before Hagia Sophia then. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 22:36
|
Islambol actually was used and this is documented, the name is mentioned in "City of the World's Desire" Mansell. Your so lucky that you had the tolerant Mehmed II, so lucky that you don't realise it, if you happened to be a Jew or Muslim in Spain then you'd realise what intolerance was.
Count your blessings, would you take a look at the hilarious nature of some of these comments. Greeks obviously didn't have it that bad if their whining about how and for what purpose building's should be used.
Usually conquered people have far greater worries than the state of old buildings, in the middle-ages being conquered meant being obliterated just look at Spain, the America's and area's of Europe and Russia, some of the conquered people don't have anything left today some nations have even been erased into the history books.
If instead of the Turks a European power had conquered the Byzantiums today's Greeks would be latin speaking Catholics whose land would be owned by wealthy European land-owners while the Greeks made to work the land and left as a backwards third-world country today.
A film should be made out of the conquest of Constantinople, its one of the greatest millitary feats and strategies of the past millenium, I mean pulling all those boats over land in the midst of darkness jeez that's genius. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 01:04
Whether "Islambol" was used or not is irrelevant. The word Istanbul does not come from "Islambol" regardless of whether or not that word was ever used.
I'm not sure who Bulldog is referring too when he says that "Greeks obviously didn't have it that bad if their whining about how and for what purpose building's should be used". If he is referring to me, that does not make much sense, as my acestory is western european, not Greek.
Bulldog says that if a european power had conquered Byzantium, they would be worse off than under the turks. Perhaps he has forgotten that Constantinople was conquered by europeans during the 4th Crusade. While they did indeed pillage the city, the Greeks of today are not all "latin speaking Catholics" as Bulldog said they would be.
A film about the fall of Constantinople? Yes that would be a good movie, with Mehmet as the villian of course.
|
Posted By: Greek Hoplite
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 01:58
The truth is is that western crusaders behave worst than Turks at the conquer of Constantinople.When they first saw the city they stayed astonished by its glory and magnitude,it was the first time that have seen such a city. This was because western cities have no nothing common with byzantine s cities, in front of them were like villages without beautiful buildings and full of muds.Crusaders as carriers of the cruse and "good christians" entered into Saint Sofia and as barbarians they were destroyed and steel the most valuable from the church,also they stealed and the horses form hypodromus which nowdays are placed in Saint Markus in Venice, and Venice does not has a feel of shame,but has still this statue and does not return it( not in Greece) in Constantinople.In other word crusaders behave like the worstern thieves and like crusaders and in the name of cruse killed Christian brothers.Byzantines were feeling such a hate for the west that reached the point to say that they were prefering to be conquered by Turks than Westerns!!!These all do not mean that Turks were innocent angels.
------------- My blog http://mankap.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 03:56
Islambol obviously derives from Istanbul.-an obvious wrong etymology.
Sometimes ,before u write ,u should stop and think:"Do i know anything about the subject or i ll become silly (again)". Several parts of Greece were under western european occupation. ex: Crete was under Venetian rule till 1669.Did the Cretians loosed their identity? eCrete's civilization bloomed in 16th and 17th century.:Cretan school of iconography( do u know El Greco?He started from Crete),poetry and theater. The Ionian islands.Under Venetian and English then,occupation mainly. These parts were undoubtly the most developed in Greece. A look to the architecture of 15th-18th cent ,and a comparison with this of mainland makes the comparison clear. Of course there was opression too,from time to time...but Turkish yoke caused several steps backwards for Greece-and that is obvious.
Well an army of 200.000 with cannons...against 8000 men....Doesnt seem like a genious strategy. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 07:12
|
Whether "Islambol" was used or not is irrelevant. The word Istanbul does not come from "Islambol" regardless of whether or not that word was ever used.
How do you know, it might have done, as the conquerors of the city were devout Muslims its pretty logical aswell.
Digenis
Crete was under Venetian rule till 1669.Did the Cretians loosed their identity?
The Venetians had no interest in changing the identity of their slaves and worker of the land, what would be the point, Venetians were interested in aquiring wealth and power not in building a huge Empire.
The Ionian islands.Under Venetian and English then,occupation mainly.
Your loosing the plot now.
The rest is just a figment of Greek education, Venetians treated you far worse than the Turks did.
I mean look what happened when the Turks took Cyprus, the Greeks saw it as liberation and being cast free of being the local slave boys, the church was really pleased it was finally free to worship as it liked and even greated the conqueror with flowers.
Now obviously due to years of brainwashing you'll try to deny this but you cannot change what happened, your ancestors quite liked the Turks in comparison to the Venetians anyway
p.s The conquest of Istanbul was an amazing feat of its own, the city had survived so many conquests due to the fact of its huge walls and strategic position.
Simply going with a load of men was not going to get you pass that wall.
And the part of pulling the ships across the land in the black of night was an epic strategic move, common man just admit it. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Greek Hoplite
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 07:20
Yeah sure,
 they were like close friends!!!!Read some Greek history english friend and dont say foolishnesses
 ------------- My blog http://mankap.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 08:22
There seems to be no doubt amongst historians that there were factions at the Byzantine court in the 14th and 15th century who facing the inevitable demise of the Empire, prefered it to be ruled by the Ottomans rather than by some Western and Catholic power.
It wasn't only the experience of 1204, but mainly the idea that the, in their view, heretic Catholic Church and its head, the Bishop of Rome, would assert their power and force the Orthodox Church to adopt Catholic rites and doctrines. So rather than accept Western help for this price, many Byzantines argued to reject it and to await the unavoidable.
The fact that the Orthodox Patriarchate survived under Ottoman rule, seems to vindicate the Anti-Westerners, it's doubtful if that would have happened under Papal and Western European domination.
There is of course the famous saying that allegedly circulated in Constantinople in the last days of the Empire: "Rather the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the Pope." Don't know if its apocryphal or not, but if it isn't , who can blame the Byzantines for that. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: BlindOne
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 09:30
The Byzantine society at that time was in 2 "factions". Anti-westerns: those who hated latin for their acts at 1204 and Western-lovers: those who was ready to sucrifice their religion in order to save their country (and for me the true patriots of that time).
it's doubtful if that would have happened under Papal and Western European domination.
Is it? I think no. As Greek hoplite mention crete and othr greek lands was under latin occupation, didn't they remain Horthodox? So they only differend that may happens propably would be by better.
"Rather the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the Pope."
The strange is that these people that sayed that fought to death side by side with the Italians. So it is propably a phrage that used as a mock or insult to the latins and didn't have a true meaning. ------------- That I am stricken and can't let you go When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know That I am crippled by all that you've done Into the abyss, will I run |
Posted By: BlindOne
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 09:33
Pfff
 if you had the basic knowledge about metal you would never wrote somethink so stupit... And i never liked black humor..... ------------- That I am stricken and can't let you go When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know That I am crippled by all that you've done Into the abyss, will I run |
Posted By: Greek Hoplite
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 09:45
You have right, because we know that in many greek islands Greeks fight with Venetians, against the Turks. ------------- My blog http://mankap.blogspot.com/ |