Countries� contributions to European civilisation

Isk..

Richard XIII

I think Ottomans put Greeks over you? Am I wrong?

And I remember they did same thing to Hungary too.

am I wrong? So It looks like greeks were not the one treated bad.

By the way, I dont think ottomans have enough power and enough time to convert Romania, but they had realy realy enough time for greeks and some other ethnic groups.

So exactly what are you trying to prove Murtaza? That the Ottomans were oh so merciful not to exterminate the Romanian population? How can you take pride in that?

Pretty much every christian population that was under your rule resents the Turks to this day, so that you should give you an idea of how beloved the Turks were in Europe. Yes, the Ottomans could have done worse, but that doesn't mean that they did everything well.

Oops, sorry Murtaza.

And by the way, to respond to one of your comments, the Romanians were under Ottoman control almost as long as the Greeks, the Bulgarians or the Serbs. Wallachia was under their control from 1462 to 1877 and Moldavia from 1504-1877. The key difference was the type of rule: as opposed to the other mentioned countries, in the Romanian principalities, the Ottoman rule was indirect. The Romanians would pay tribute and the Ottomans had a say in who was their respective voievod, who was usually local anyway. Otherwise, the countries were autonomous. The Greeks were put in charge from about 1711 to 1821: Greeks from Fanar, a neighborhood in Istanbul would bid for the crown of one principality or another. With the exception of some key fortresses, the Ottomans didn't usually have troops stationed in Wallachia or Moldavia, which may account for the the lack of muslim converts over there.

Isk..

On this boards are some Turks who got manners much more european than some Greeks.

We are all attracted and excited by the new and the mysterious. The public of eighteenth-century Vienna turned to the East to satisfy its appetite for the unusual. Over the centuries, there had been ample opportunities, most of them military, for cultural interaction between the Austrian Hapsburg Empire and the large and powerful Ottoman Empire, of which Turkey was a part. When the dust from their hostile skirmishes had settled, more civil relations were established. Viennese cuisine smacked increasingly of Eastern spices, fashions hinted at an Eastern look, and the city's music took on a distinctly martial sound, derived from the Turkish Janissary, or military, bands.

The Janissary band originated in Turkey in the fourteenth century as an elite corps of mounted musicians composed of players of the shawm and bass drum. (We have already noted the introduction of these instruments into western Europe as a result of the Crusades and the establishment of early trade routes.) In the seventeenth century, the trumpet, small kettledrums, cymbals, and bell trees were added to this ceremonial ensemble, producing a loud and highly percussive effect. The Turkish sound captured the imagination of the Viennese masters, who attempted to re-create it in their orchestral and theatrical works. Haydn wrote three "military" symphonies, Beethoven composed three orchestral works with Turkish percussion (including his monumental Symphony No. 9), and Mozart and Haydn, among others, used this military sound in their operas. The influence was felt even in piano music�notably in Mozart's appealing Rondo alla turca from his Sonata in A major, which we studied. So popular was this style that some nineteenth-century pianos featured a "Janissary pedal" to add percussive effects.

Although the fascination with Turkish music proved to be a passing fancy, it nevertheless affected the makeup of the Western orchestra by leading to the establishment of percussion instruments of Turkish origin (bass drum, cymbals, bells) as permanent members of the ensemble. It's hard to imagine an orchestra today without them! The Turkish Janissary ensemble also had a significant impact on the development of the military band in the West and is the direct antecedent of the modern Shriners' band (Ancient Arabic Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine), frequently seen in parades today.

Beethoven was fascinated by another Turkish musical tradition�this one a mystical religious ceremony to which he alluded in his incidental music for the stage work The Ruins of Athens (1811). The ceremony derives from one of the sects of Islam, that of the Mevlevis, who were famous for their whirling dervish ritual: dancing in a circle with a slow, controlled spinning motion as a part of their religious experience. This ceremony was sung to the accompaniment of flute, lute, and percussion, including kettledrum and cymbals. Beethoven's Chorus of Whirling Dervishes, a pale imitation of the original, is an example of exoticism that has been filtered through Western culture. Both the Janissary band and the whirling dervish ceremony are obsolete in modern-day Turkey, except as tourist attractions. The term "whirling dervish"�implying one who twists and turns, like a restless child�has, however, endured in the West.

http://www.wwnorton.com/enjoy/index/cultural/perspec8.htm

After All Europea is our enemy, and our culture is different. But there is still some effect.

Come on guys....

Dont start again. All nation has put something to what we call European civilazation. Greeks got some things from the Arabs. They made it even better putting also new ideas. The Romans made a copy of the Greek civilazation and made it even better adding new ideas... and history goes on......

I think we should focus into what NEW each nation added to the proggress of mankind. Noone can now invent the wheel again. Nothing is new. All "new" ideas are a remake from the past adjusted to nowdays.

About the Greeks... We have many achiements to athetics worldwide in comparison with our population. Many scientists are Greek or Greek-American or Greek - whatever as metioned before here.

I believe the most important thing that Greeks gave to this world is the Greek language. I wont say why and how. Im sure it is allready posted in other therads.

Dont also forget that many books from library of Alexandria were stolen by the Romans and gone to Vatican. Noone knows what these books talk about and what knowledge is in there. Maybe many "New" ideas and invetions are not so new.  There are many things that we dont know about our past and we will never learn.

P.S I recently heard that Bill Gates told his partners to learn ancient Greek because it opens your mind and train your skills for better managment. I also heard that the same request was made by English bussinessmans. I dont have any proofs about it. I will let you know as soon as i find something.

this is a great topic.

However I don't find it right that Bulgaria is in the 'somewhat' category. The thing is that the nation is not well known for its contributions.

in the 700s the Bulgarian land army along with Byzantine naval forces saved Eu. from probably the biggest invasion (Arabs) hostile to Eu. of those ages. (which, I guess means Eu. history was let to develope the way it has)

Also, a great civilazion (Thrace) lived in that area from around 7000 years ago to when the Roman army invaded it. These people made the oldest gold, oldest use of bricks, and are sometimes classified as the oldest civ. of Eu. They did many other things as well.

plus, the earliest realist paintigs were created in the country 100 years before the rennicanse.

And, Cyrillic alphabet was turned into reality there as mentioned earlier.

The nation is third in number of archeological findings (Eu.) after Italy, greece.

Kotumeyil wrote :

Hi to you too . I am glad u brought this up from the start. So what is "nationalism" for you ?? According to Wikipedia :
### Nationalism is an ethno-political ideology that sustains the concept of a nation-identity for an exclusive group of people. It is the discrete or implied doctrine which holds the preservation and independence of its distinct identity, in all its aspects, and the "glory and wellbeing" of the nation as core aspects of its fundamental ethos.

Appeals to a deeper cultural mythos are often a part of nationalist doctrine. Nationalists may base their concept of "nation" on certain varied concepts of political legitimacy. These can derive from the Romantic theory of "cultural identity", the liberal argument that political legitimacy is derived from the consent of a region's population, or a certain combination of the two.

The modern vernacular use of nationalism refers to the political (and military) exercise of ethnic and religious nationalism, as defined below. Political scientists usually tend to research and focus on the more extreme forms of nationalism typically related with militarism and separatism, etc..###

So , nationalism , in itself is NOT something to be considered bad. How can it be bad , either for u or me , when both of us are trying to serve our countries best interests ??? The extreme forms of nationalism , are what we have to avoid. So , please , dont start form the begining  acusing me for being nationalist or anything , What i do is to protect my country's interests , as i understand them , the best way . Which is exactly , what you try to do yourself.

In here , i disagree.....As u may see , the topic is NOT about culture , but about civilisation.Civilisation , usually speaking , is exactly the scientific and philosophical achievements , on which , nations take as a base , for their advancement and progress. Of course there are different levels of culture , like worshipping , like food , like trading ...but these levels , always existed between people and commerce , was the tiding bond that existed for all people of the known world. But , food , or music , hardly ever influeced a country towards its political , philosophical , or industrial evolution....

Of course they did ... After all Turks were in the Balcans for almost 500 years.It is normal to influece the people in certain levels , like food , or music. This is not what ia say. What i say is that Turks , have left not one monument of significance , to be admired , ( as Alhambra ) , by all. What they left , were usually low buildings of no importance , other than , the ease of everyday life...roads , bridges , were useful , as were the madrasas , and the mosques. Where are the palaces on which the pashas lived ?? the beautiful gardens , the universities , the great mosques ??. They simply never existed. IF they had once , somebody would have written something of apraisment about them...

I agree , but not completely. Yes it had a strong central power . But the pashas that ruled in all areas , were exactly the equivalent of the counts and dukes in Europe. Maybe the Turkish central power was stronger than the power that the French king had over his counts , but the pashas still existed and ruled absolutely in every corner of the Ottoman empire.

I dissagree on this too. They , maybe , were called reayas , but they were not equal. For example...A greek mounted on a horse, donkey , mule , when cris-crossed with a Turk , mounted also in a horse, donkey , mule , was obliged to dismount , and bow his head , as long as the mounted Turk passed...IF a Turk , killed a greek reaya , he was judged by a Turkish court of law...and there is NOT one written example that a Turkish court of law EVER judged in favor of a greek reaya in a Greek-Turk dispute...So , that they all considered subjects to the sultan , did not gave them equal rights.The people of the occupied nations , were citizens of second class , used in the same way of manner , as the heards of goats and sheep.

The gold and capital that the pashas , had were not put in use as it was put in Europe . In Europe a duke , would built a castle , a great church , a city anything to let his name to be remembered for the following ages. In the occupyied lands , the pashas kept the gold to themselves ... Until today , there are gold findings in wells or buried in ruins here in Greece.

Why ?? Nobody asked from u to make any discovery ....You were in possesion of the Arab Peninsula , and the Red sea was open to u to explore Africa , the Mollucas , China , India , the Indian Ocean .... But u didnt ....What has oppression to do with commerce and the Discoveries ?? Were is , or was your fleet of the Indian Ocean ?? Where are ur explorations ?? Sorry , but this excuse , that u r giving , does not hold.The explanation that holds more ground , is that you were a nomadic people , people of the land , you expanded , you had the human subjects to do as you ordered , therefor you were not interested in anything else.You were satisfied with what u had achieved... a great empire in 3 continets ...

I agree on that. But this was the Ottoman empire at its early stages , lets say until the end of 1500 or the early start of 1600 ,After that ?? Do not tell me that it was Islam who , stopped you from exploring the Indian ocean. You were not only masters of the Balcans....you were masters of Egypt , Libya , the Arab Peninsula , down to Akaba , and so on....Nobody , in no place did anything.And Islam , is also a poor excuse. Arabs were muslims too , but they have left monuments of beauty , they have advanced math , algebra and chemistry , and in general were hundreds , if not thousandsof times more progressive than you.

Destroyed ??? Why ?? What Library was so famous and it had been destroyed ??

Bosnia ??? Only there ??? In Serbia , Romania , Albania , Greece , Syria , Egypt , Libya ??? nothing have been saved there ??? Maybe Konstantinopolis was the centre of studies , but the realisations of these studies was where ???
As i see , your best excuse , or explanation , is that the scholatism of Islam is the reason for all evil that fall upon Turkey , the Ottoman Empire and the subject nations ... A hard to accept explanation , from me at least .As a Greek , and a follower of Greek Philosophy , i do not accept such an influece from religion....Of course it did happen in Europe and in the history of the Byzantine empire , but it was a phenomenon that didnt last long.There were always voices of rebellion and change. And the result was that usually the church ( religion ) was not ruling but rather cooperating with the ruling powers of the European countries..

Sorry. Maybe this was the case in Turkey . In here Greece , in Thessaloniki , we had until recently the remains of a "caravanserai"....it was a series of low buildings , built with mud bricks and with the best of will , you could not imagine it as a center of socialization.And IF this was the caravanserai of Thessaloniki , which was always a city of importance cause of its poth , and a commercial city , then the caravanserais of other smaller cities , anyone can imagine what they looked like.

Yes , i agree that the janissary system , shaped the Turkish culture and society. But on the other hand the same system was a reason of emerging hate from the human subjects that Turks ruled.

Sorry , again. The Ottoman threat as u say , was not a threat against religion...It was a threat against land , freedom , and commerse....This was the reason that Malta ( as a military and commercial , crusial point of influence , as it commands all the naval routes in central Med. ) was defended with such ferocity... But in general i tend to agree. The Ottoman empire was a threat...

But i agree....It wouldn't ...it couldn't have been otherwise ... It was a very big empire , nobody could close his eyes and pretend that it didnt exist. It was inevitable to have an influece in Europe ...What we try to examine , is exactly the extend of this influence and that quality of it.

But of course. Until now no Greek accused u for helping the junta , or the Nazi's. Although as i know an agreement existed by then between  Greece and Turkey , in helping of each other in case of a foreign invasion , which Turkey , deccided not to put in action...

I agree again. Greece , is less , in population than London , and its importance in European system lies mostly in trading than culture. I also agree that the ancient Greek culture , belongs to humanity .....BUT ,i do have some objections.Christianity , in the Byzantime Empire , did not attempt to absorb that ancient Greek culture , mainly because the ancient Greek culture had as central point the human being.... The same happened with Islam , and in a lessed point with the Catholic Church...All of then , were God centralized religious philosophies.
As A result , the Western civilisation , is NOT exactly a result of the ancient Greek culture and definitely NOT a result of the ancient Greek philosophy. Upon this i suggest a book , by Hanson " Who killed Homer ". It describes exactly how mutch have , the Western civilisation , deviated from the ancient Greek culture..

I tend to dissagree with this theory .Yes "nation" was a product of the 17th and 18th century , but only as a political instrument. Ancient Greeks were , distinguishing themselves from others , for example in the Olympic Games , where only Greeks were allowed to take a chance to win the cotinos of olive tree...Alexander was the first to unite Greeks under him as he devoted his crossing to Asia Minor , to " All Greeks , except Spartans".But i agree that even in Greeks the idea of a nation , it was mainly a philosophical idea , hardly a political one.

Sorry, but i dont agree with this.... Danemark didnt have to have any "evil" other one ...So is Sweeden , Norway , Netherlands , Belgium , Italy ... as u see i exclude France and Germany because of the rivalry they had on each other... This is more common in the Balcans . In Europe , they had a lot of common things , like religion , and common ancestries...So their disputes and fights were more to be considered as fights in a family , than fights with a neighbor. In the Balcans it was different . There was a gap in between religions , and the "invader" , was a total stranger from another part of the world...There was nothing in common between the oppressors and the oppressed . This is a great difference and a crusial point to today's rivarlies..

This is a question that i often ask ....Wasn't it natural for a number of people with common language , common religion , common history , to revolt against the ( i will not characterise the Turk as "evil" ) "different Turk" , who oppressed them ??
How is possible Turks today to believe that their Greek subjects betrayed them ???
As a proof to this , i always remind that except TurAlbanians , NO OTHER people subject to Turks , do have feelings of likeness , towards them....not Greeks , not Arabs , not Serbians , not Bulgarians , Assyrians , Egyptians .....no one . And this was evedent during the earthquakes , were the greatest help came from a "hating you " neighborn , whom u still threaten with war IF he tries to exercise his rights ....

I agree....Me too. As i have pointed out , History is a series or facts .... Facts can be seen from different angles... All we have to do is NOT to stay in one angle , but try to explore all of them ...

Isk..