1570 Cyprus Capaign, Modern Greek Military Plans:Odd similarities

Baracuda, you're full of it, and you miss no opportunity to show it to the world.

You mention a foolishness that you cannot even substantialize and you present it in such a manner, that the uneducated reader will assume that it's a real plan drafted by the Greek military. Even if it's true (but I won't take your word for it) you should clarify that these map exercises include all kinds of scenarios. If you search hard enough, you'll find one suggesting Greece attacking Turkey via China.

At the moment, the only real Greek military dogma is that of defencive war against any aggressor. The rest is... whatever... I'm waisting my time.

PS

Did you know that Baracuda is written with 2 Rs? 

No actually all that isnt really what I meant I belive the excersize is called Nikiforos or something, it basically is from the joint defence protocol Greece and Cyprus signed, in the plan of the excersizes i.e. the playout it is similar to the map above part some cases as it plays out direct attacks on land support and nullify Turkish threat coming from inland and water... basically its defence excersizes but with Turkey in the role of 'attacker' on Cyprus, Crete, Rhodos.. was saying that its a funny coincidence, from looking at the map above.
and I wasnt attacking anybody but I suppose the forum is a place for 'flame, blame and bad manners' even from the moderators.

I dont remmember but our military does TOROS or some other similar operations in the Aegean just to show metal.. its supposedly main goal is 'Search and Rescue'.

'Yiannis', I couldnt careless about your blaint accusations and bad manners, but you can look at every single greek excersize you like, or Turkish one's, it isnt a war between Greece,Turkey, Cyrpus. No,its just excersizes which have the oppressor as the other country in some case of war, what can be done, what should be done etc..
And a drafted plan being similar to a a campaign plan that was played out 434 years ago which resulted in the destruction of the Turkish fleet I would call 'a good one'

And I know how 'barracuda' is written, I dont use it that way as when written this way it has a couple more meanings its my nick.

Edited by baracuda

Well yeah, Nikiforos-Toxotis, is a combined naval and air support exercise in the mentality of what you describe. It was actually formed as an answer to the Turkish, 'Toros- Barbarosa' that plays out an invasion senario on Cyprus, in which the occupation forces play an active role.

Edited by Phallanx

No offense to my modern Greek colleagues, but I would have much rather read about the 1570 Cyprus campaign alone than its similarities (or lack of) with any modern military exercises. 

Wasn't Ottoman naval power waning by 1570 as well as Venetian?  After the naval advancements of Suleiman the Magnificent's reign, Ottoman domination of the Mediterranean gave way to the Spanish and the Portuguese.  And of course the Spanish and Portuguese went on to explore the Atlantic while the Ottomans remained fixated on the Mediterranean. 

It would seem that the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus could have been a stepping stone to taking the Suez and the Red Sea.  I know that the Ottomans made it into the Indian Ocean, but why were they pushed out by the Dutch and the Portuguese, if they had the key island of Cyprus to use as a base?

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor No offense to my modern Greek colleagues, but I would have much rather read about the 1570 Cyprus campaign alone than its similarities (or lack of) with any modern military exercises.  Wasn't Ottoman naval power waning by 1570 as well as Venetian?  After the naval advancements of Suleiman the Magnificent's reign, Ottoman domination of the Mediterranean gave way to the Spanish and the Portuguese.  And of course the Spanish and Portuguese went on to explore the Atlantic while the Ottomans remained fixated on the Mediterranean.  It would seem that the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus could have been a stepping stone to taking the Suez and the Red Sea.  I know that the Ottomans made it into the Indian Ocean, but why were they pushed out by the Dutch and the Portuguese, if they had the key island of Cyprus to use as a base?

This thread is probably dangerously close to being closed.  I tried to salvage it, at least.

Taxim, (partition in Turkish) of the island was always in Turkey's plans. In 1956 the Turkish Cypriot leader F. Kutchuck submitted on a map Taxim proposals dividing Cyprus to North and South (Hitchens "Cyprus: Hostage to History"). In 1974 the Turkish troops divided the island to north and south deviating from the 1956 plan only in minor details. It is therefore clear that the 1974 invasion was a part of a plan and not the result of any actions of the Greek-Cypriots in the sixties

More than 110,000 Turkish settlers have been transported to the occupied areas, in an attempt to change the demographic character of the island. These settlers, while Turks, they are completely different culturally from the Turkish-Cypriots whose culture is very similar to their Greek counterparts. The Turkish-Cypriots are becoming a minority in the occupied areas and are migrating to other western countries. On the other hand their leaders, under Turkey's direction, continue to bring the negotiations in the UN to a deadlock. The reason is simple: they are satisfied with the status quo.

Oh and I do not mind Jalisco, your a good guy, from time to time/

Edited by strategos

During the course of 1957, TMT pressured the Turkish Cypriots into withdrawing from any co-operative ties they had with the Greek Cypriots and, on the whole, they were successful; this policy later became known as the `from Turk to Turk policy�. Such encouragement was entirely alien to the co-operation and quiet existence which had always prevailed between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, but was necessary to sow the seeds of partition. A similar policy was followed in Istanbul, organised by the Turkish National Student Federation, which had worked closely with Kibris Turktur in its planning of the anti-Greek riots there back in 1955.

During the course of 1957, TMT pressured the Turkish Cypriots into withdrawing from any co-operative ties they had with the Greek Cypriots and, on the whole, they were successful; this policy later became known as the `from Turk to Turk policy�. Such encouragement was entirely alien to the co-operation and quiet existence which had always prevailed between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, but was necessary to sow the seeds of partition. A similar policy was followed in Istanbul, organised by the Turkish National Student Federation, which had worked closely with Kibris Turktur in its planning of the anti-Greek riots there back in 1955.

"Byzantine Emperor" - if they faught, in 1571 with the ammounts of ships. I dont think that their sea power was so bad, plus adding to that 2000 new ships were constructed, although haphazardly and so on.. taking Cyprus was for preventing raids coming and being supported from it as they did a lot of damage.

...1574 Murat III becomes sultan, Tunus is re-occupied, 1576 Morroco becomes a vassal (temporarily), 1576-79 Conquest of Georgia and Abhazetti, 1578-87 Conquest of western Iran, 1586-89 Occupation of southern Somali and Kenyan ports, 1591 Occupation of Gulf Coast of Arabia.. 1591 - Mehmet III becomes Sultan... they didnt stand still as you see..

A similar naval warfare was in 1654-1669 Cretean War 1657 - (although it didnt have the ship count of Lepanto) in the Dardanelles the Ottoman navy again faces the Venetian, Papal and Maltese (knights of st.John) fleets which were attempting to blockade the straights from the venetian held, Limnos and Bozcaada Imroz) they were forced out of these islands, and the blockade ended... (1821 the Greeks revolt in the Aegean and Pelopenese islands.)

In the 17th century the navy goes into a decline, but is somehow revived by foreign advizors, and converts (French) the navy see's a lot of action in the Napoleonic wars, well and it survives up to the end, even though technologically the navy stays pretty inferior to other nations.


Anyway my post was just for similarities of the 1570 Cyrpus Campaign, and war of Lepanto as its pretty similar on the map, maybe of course its the best naval way, but coincidence's are always interesting..
As for ottoman history goes, if you dont look a the smear and read it from almost neutral sources then its pretty interesting.. as it lasted for a long time, and the foreigners that converted and modernized the army and fleet made sure that the death of the empire lasted another 150 years.. Osprey Publishing has some good books on various periods of the Ottomans and the war of Lepanto which includes the campaign I was talking about. ..
I would post many more articles on the Ottomans, but not in this forum/site as one can see from the things writen above..

Originally posted by Oguzoglu   I wont get into the procedure of taking out the truths out of your posts as I always do, but believe me, seperating the north to Turkish Cypriots is much more civilised than uniting the whole island (ENOSIS) with Greece. Anyway, stick on the topic and dont cause any other topics to be closed please.

Removing peoples from the North and placing them in the south is really civilized.

This is related because it was said this is similar to greek plans of invasion of cyprus, and while greece never did or never will unless extreme case, takism did prevail on the island.

If the island was of such importance to avoid the raids, the question that comes up is, since they (Ottomans) finally did conquer it (even though they lost the battle) why would they hand it over to Venice in a treaty just two years later (1573) ???

No they didnt, you must have read it wrong where you looked, Venice gave the control of the Island to the Ottomans in that treaty March 7, 1573

And at a later date in 1669 Crete was taken from the Venetians.

Here's a link for you..