The Ottoman empire and the Christians

[Prince Cobra]

I decided to make a new thread just because the nice thread of 553 years ago was going to go off its theme.
Wow, is this a coalition against me? So I will retreat here to fight to the last knife...
Enough jokes.

Wizard,
Yes, most of the convertions that ahppened in the empire were forced in one or another way. Of course, the Ottoman government did not have any interest to convert all christians to the true faith. Yes, jizie (but not only it) gave good money to the sultan... Yes, devshirme good janissaries ( but not forever)... But do not forget that Christians tempt to rebel more than the Muslims in a Muslim theocratic empire. That's why people who were converted to the Muslim religion were tolerated and that process was encouraged because the Ottomans knew few of the Christians would voluntary change their religion ( which was very very important for the person at that time). Now I talked about the Christian nations with tradition like Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs. But others like Albanese and Bosnians were either heretic or just not with so firm traditons in the Christianity. The fact they are Muslim now proves my point. The sultan wouldn't mind if there are some areas which are loyal to death to their master... Who would? The Rhodope problem is connected with this in a different way. Rhodopes are a big strategic mountain near to the Egean sea. While fighting at sea or sending armies to a distant places like Hungary (poor Hungary, it gave many victims) the sultan needed secured rear. Imagine how would the Ottomans defeat rebels in a big mountain while fighting at other fronts ( yes, they would but the victims... and the sultan could have a heart attack by these problems). That's why a large part of the Bulgarians in the Rhodopes were converted to Islam. You will say its because of a strategic purposes? Yes, but that was one of the reasons the Spainish government to kill many morisks (christened Moors) who were believed to help to the Muslim pirates.
The second thing it was not better than its contemporaries. This is my point. Yes, in a different way. The religious wars ended in XVI- XVII century. The descrimination (in one form or another) of the empire continued to its end. There were no effective reforms, the empire was rotting together with all the Christians there. And what is more important- it made the Southwestern Europe the backyard of Europe. In this way it prepared all these prettyy ethnic conflicts that occured in Macedonia (poor Macedonia) , Jugoslavia... and Minor Asia ( why do you ignore the Armenians and the Greeks who died).
Third point... I DO NOT AGREE. First the Turkish problem came from Minor Asia. When the Byzantines lost it everything went to hell. The Dusan death made the things worse and the stupidity and blindness of the Balkan rulers... Yes, it cost too much. The alternative- many. The Byzantine empeors (esp. Michael VIII and Cantacuzenus) should have been more careful, the Balkan rulers wore glasses. And everything would be fine. Byzantium would have survived, the same is for Serbia and Bulgaria and the others. catholic countries? We had withstood to their ambitions and so it would be. The Balkan people would be in Europe ( like Denamrk, Portugal, Italy) in the full sense of the word. And the culture of Europe richer ( look Palaelogian Reanissance).
How dangerous are the Catholic... Austria was not. Although fanatic in some ways in its territory lived Orthodox ( in Transylvania and other areas), Protestants... About the ethnic Balkan picture- without the goodness of the Ottoman conquest- Bulgarians would not have lost their lands in Dobrudja, Macedonia and some parts of Tracia which population was the Bulgarians until XXth century. Some unpleasant things happened ot the Bulgarians there after some wars(1913,1918)... Or the byz would have never lost al of Minor Asia...
Reen Roink,
If Constantinople fell in 717 maybe the Central Europe would be Muslim now.
Any of the charges are historically accurate. Ask the Armenians and the Greeks. And Bulgarians ( just PM me ) .
Watchman,
Let's take yor child and your life and to live in a corrupted system ... You will be happy?! ( just my rethoric, nothing personal).
Akanji were really terrible they were looting the lands and killed and enslaved the population. So the undisciplined troops never disappeared ( although there were many proffessional). Although I agree this troos did not pillaged the conquered territories ( at first but after XVIII centry everything changed ).


Everybody is free to discuss. More point of views the better!

[Watchman]

Might I point out the Akinjis' assorted Balkan Christian colleagues (or for that matter the equivalent Ottoman and Russian irregular border fighters off in the Caucasus) were no less dreadful scourges of defenceless civilians ? Heck, even in the Thirty Years' War, which made something of an European record in the sheer scale, thoroughness and horror of devastation pre last century, irregular light mercenary cavalry from the Balkans (dubbed collectively "Croats" in contemporary sources) enjoyed a dubious reputation as particularly cruel and fearsome ravagers...

Centuries of tit-for-tat feuding tends to do that. The main difference would be that the sheer power of the Ottoman regular forces on campaign just allowed their irregular terror troops to cover more ground than was normally the case with their opponents'.

And East and Central Europe went their happy way to socioeconomic stasis and decreptitude chiefly on their own efforts (as for that matter did the Ottomans) - the Ottoman and Tatar threats merely providing the feudal aristocracy with convenient excuses to hang onto their antiquated priviledges. Most scholars seem to consider the critical break point the one where they hung on to serfdom while Western Europe abolished it...

[kataphraktoi]

A common method is to always argue that Christianity treated its minorities worse than Muslims, no doubt about it, Christianity was worse but is that suppose to say that because of relativity, living under Muslim rule was good? The bottom line is that in either society, it would still be crap as a religious minority. Isn't that really the case? Saying someone else is worse does not make you any better, you would just as bad but to a lesser degree and yet it is still BAD is it not?

People will undoubtedly qoute to me the words:

"Better the Sultan's Turban than the Pope's Mitre" spoken by an Orthodox Christian.

However, how many people know that this same Orthodox Christian was Lukas Notaras who was executed by Mehmed the COnqueror and whose wife and daughters were taken into the SUltan's harem?

For crying out loud, I'd be peeved if someone took my wife and considered their right because I was an "infidel".

[Watchman]

Reality check - back in those days it kinda sucked to be a commoner and/or noticeable minority everywhere. The Muslims just get brownie points for overall tolerance which they took a *really* long time to shed.

However, how many people know that this same Orthodox Christian was Lukas Notaras who was executed by Mehmed the COnqueror and whose wife and daughters were taken into the SUltan's harem?

I'm willing to hazard the guess most folks would actually find that preferable to, say, getting tortured and murdered by Catholic "crusaders" who on the side also rape your womenfolk before murdering them...

AFAIK those royal harems were incidentally pretty cushy places to live in. The chief problem would be that all the ladies in there intrigued against each other pretty intensely for the Sultan's attention.

For crying out loud, I'd be peeved if someone took my wife and considered their right because I was an "infidel".

I'm guessing that had more to do with Mehmed being the Sultan than Lukas being Christian, though.

[IrishArmenian]

Well, the Ottomans, near the end oif their reign we brutal to Christians. In the late 1800's many Armenian Christians were killed for no apparent reason, but that was not enough. From 1917-1925, about 1.5 million Christian Armenians were either burnt, starved, shot, or beaten to death. All because they would not convert to Islam. They were exiled to the Syrian desert where, if they had not been killed by the constant death-marches, starvation, or cruel soldiers, were exiled to and left to die. I, in fact, had relatives that lost many family and escaped, but many more were not as lucky. If that were not enough, the Turkish Government to this day still say that no Genocide ever happened and the "Great" American leader sides with them because he does not want to lose favor with them, also, the Turkish Government disagrees with this depite many Turks that acknowledge the Genocide.

[Watchman]

Although you forgot to mention the part where a lot of understandably angry Armenians joined the Russian Reds, got trained and armed and formed into their own regiment or division or whatever, invaded Turkey, and massacred every Turk they could find...

Sort of how like Greeks conveniently seem to forget the way they treated Turkish civilians during their little revolution, or how they right after WW1 went and massacred one Turkish coastal town across the Aegean mainly out of sheer spite so far as I know.

AFAIK the Bulgarians can file valid one-sided grievances, however.

I do agree Istanbul should owe up and just admit the Armenian genocide, though. The way they keep denying it annoys me already on general principles.

Around the dawn of the 1800s there is however a major paradigm shift in the form of nationalism bursting onto the scene bigtime. I would suggest people think of the time before it as a period largely separate from what came after, as things in general were getting fairly different everywhere.

[LeftEyeNine]

Well, the Ottomans, near the end oif their reign we brutal to Christians. In the late 1800's many Armenian Christians were killed for no apparent reason, but that was not enough. From 1917-1925, about 1.5 million Christian Armenians were either burnt, starved, shot, or beaten to death. All because they would not convert to Islam. They were exiled to the Syrian desert where, if they had not been killed by the constant death-marches, starvation, or cruel soldiers, were exiled to and left to die. I, in fact, had relatives that lost many family and escaped, but many more were not as lucky. If that were not enough, the Turkish Government to this day still say that no Genocide ever happened and the "Great" American leader sides with them because he does not want to lose favor with them, also, the Turkish Government disagrees with this depite many Turks that acknowledge the Genocide.

An Armenian who feels blunt enough to talk about Armenian Issue being a "genocide", should be able to give answers to who Taşnak Sütyan and ASALA were, and how 500.000 Turks were tortured and murdered before what you call a "genocide".

I can't still imagine how those gangs were so brutal enough to open wounds on Turkish soldiers' shoulders calling that "they have promoted". I still can't find an answer how humanistic it is that Turkish women were raped in mosques for so long that they couldn't walk just "right". I have read how Russians were left speechless with what Armenian gangs had done, and tried to prevent them as long as they were there with those gangs.

Take of your goggles with which you are playing the innocent to the whole world. If Armenians are really looking for answers to some murders, they will find so many questions in their very own history. Whole world may be dumb enough to watch the play on the stage -what's more anything against the Turk is generally favorable-, but Armenians should not forget that it is not as it was a year ago. We are not sitting on our lazy arses any more.

One will hear the truth in the time to come, if his hands are not on his ears.

[Reenk Roink]

A common method is to always argue that Christianity treated its minorities worse than Muslims, no doubt about it, Christianity was worse but is that suppose to say that because of relativity, living under Muslim rule was good? The bottom line is that in either society, it would still be crap as a religious minority. Isn't that really the case? Saying someone else is worse does not make you any better, you would just as bad but to a lesser degree and yet it is still BAD is it not?

Here's the thing:

Under the Ottomans, the Jews prospered. They were given positions in the government, they were left semi-autonomous, and best of all, they weren't harassed much. That in itself is 'benevolence'. It's not as much of a matter that "the Christians treated the Jews worse than the Muslims, who also treated them badly, just not as badly". It's a matter of "the Christians on general treated the Jews badly; the Ottomans on general left them alone, sure there were atrocities, but there were also golden years...".

Oh and like Watchman said, much of the Ottoman atrocities against the Armenians and Greeks was preceded by pretty good will.

This is telling that while Bulgars and Serbs were assigned to the Orthodox Patriarch, the Armenians got their own separate millet, due to their early interaction with the Ottomans.

As for the Greeks, it's quite telling that some Greeks opposed the Greek War for independence, as they were so prosperous under the Ottomans. Of course the atrocities on the Ottoman side during the war reduced this sentiment.

[L'Impresario]

As for the Greeks, it's quite telling that some Greeks opposed the Greek War for independence, as they were so prosperous under the Ottomans. Of course the atrocities on the Ottoman side during the war reduced this sentiment.

That's somewhat inaccurate. Excessive administrative corruption, mostly at the local level and the institutionalisation of the "çiftlik", led the greek peasantry to a very miserable state. "Free" farmers would become extinct, as most taxes were not to be paid in product and they were a heavy burden that turned the majority of the population practically into serfs, even during the 18th and 19th centuries. Rebellions did occur, esp. after nationalism came around.

The fact that a small but important percent of Greeks had vertebral positions in the Ottoman state or were successful traders doesn't show general contentment. The same persons would be the ones advocating and propagating the "modern" nationalistic trends.

Without a doubt, the Greeks who enjoyed thoroughly Ottoman rule were the clergymen, esp. the higher ranks. They had everything to lose if a national state appeared.

Furthermore, the attrocities were not the decisive factor for the general dissent, even though actions like the Chios Massacre did motivate even the more reserved ones.

Sort of how like Greeks conveniently seem to forget the way they treated Turkish civilians during their little revolution, or how they right after WW1 went and massacred one Turkish coastal town across the Aegean mainly out of sheer spite so far as I know.

Also, it can be safely said that atrocities were not tit for tat during the greek uprising. One side could - and did- inflict disproportionately greater damage in many different regions. The majority of the greek population was living even after 1830 outside the national state.

I'm also interested in learning about the massacre of that coastal town, as I might be missing something from the relevant bibliography. Naturally, it's not very hard to find wrongs perpetrated by the Greeks, but this single case I haven't heard of.

[kataphraktoi]

Reality check - back in those days it kinda sucked to be a commoner and/or noticeable minority everywhere. The Muslims just get brownie points for overall tolerance which they took a *really* long time to shed.

I already said the first part. And as for overall tolerance, as far as I'm concerned the Ottomans were just like other states. Come to think of it, relativity is a fragile concept to use when it comes to comparison. Positions on tolerance and intolerance are dynamic and inconsistent in every empire's timeline.

I'm willing to hazard the guess most folks would actually find that preferable to, say, getting tortured and murdered by Catholic "crusaders" who on the side also rape your womenfolk before murdering them...

Relativity does not make the alternative better either. Its still sexual slavery.

AFAIK those royal harems were incidentally pretty cushy places to live in. The chief problem would be that all the ladies in there intrigued against each other pretty intensely for the Sultan's attention.

Agreed on that part. Cushy but not exactly a glamorous life either. Although the alternative of poverty makes for an equally unglamorous life too.

I'm guessing that had more to do with Mehmed being the Sultan than Lukas being Christian, though.

I'd say both. Mehmed being...well Mehmed and the added fact that of taking an infidel's wife is an equally satisfying act against an infidel.

[DukeofSerbia]

But others like Albanese and Bosnians were either heretic or just not with so firm traditons in the Christianity.

I don't have time to write a lot, but I will write only this - Bosnians didn't exist in history. The nation under that name came in 90' of XX century when Slavic Moslems sheltered their religion.

Inhabitants of medieval Bosnia were Orthodox Serbs and partly Romancatholics Croats. So called "Bogumils" were only small religios minority.

Albanians were mostly Romancatholics and partly Orthodox Christians.

[Watchman]

Relativity does not make the alternative better either. Its still sexual slavery.

That could be said of the better part of historical (and not a few modern) takes on marriage, though.

At least the women in the harems had only the intrigue to be afraid of.

AFAIK the Ottomans really were the ones to "throw the first rock" in those about three ugly cases I know of (ie. the Greek revolution, the Bulgarians and the Armenians), although in the two latter cases the actual Ottoman adminstration wasn't looking for anything such in the beginning but eventually pretty much had its hand forced by circumstances, or rather unrest and secessionist ideas brought about by factors they had little control over. Namely, the Circassians. Those happy folks were one bunch of those seminomadic border fighters the Ottomans' border regions bred on both sides, displaced by territory losses to Russians and for lack of better alternatives resettled in Bulgaria and the Armenian areas. Now, three guesses what happens when you drop such a cheerful bunch of career ravagers A) away from enemy borders B) still armed C) amongst essentially unarmed and defenceless "infidel" civilian populations ?

Nothing pretty, that's for certain. Naturally the populaces subjected to their depredations weren't exactly happy about it, but when the push came to shove the Ottomans seem to have preferred eradicating the "troublesome infidels" rather than trying to rein in the Circassians (probably a cold cost-efficiency analysis that - they may well have figured they needed the latters' guns more than the formers' taxes and goodwill), with well-known results. I'm quite willing to bet early nation-state antipathies against such relatively well-off minorities of rather different ethnic and religious bent also played a part.

In the case of the Armenians at least this also led to a pretty predictable vicious circle of counter-atrocity (the second the Armenians could manage it, anyway) and counter-counter-atrocity ad nauseum or until both sides were spent and got better things to think about, and I'd be really surprised if the Bulgarians didn't lynch some hapless Muslim civilians on general principles too.

As for the Greek revolution, by what I've read of it if the rebels didn't surpass the Ottomans in viciousness it certainly wasn't for a lack of trying. The two sides seem to have tried to beat each other in sheer barbarism. The Ottomans may have won in scale, though, since they could also pick on Greeks outside the actual combat zone whereas the Greeks had to settle for murdering Turks and Muslims they could get their hands onto.

I'm also interested in learning about the massacre of that coastal town, as I might be missing something from the relevant bibliography. Naturally, it's not very hard to find wrongs perpetrated by the Greeks, but this single case I haven't heard of.

I don't recall the name of the place and no longer have the book I read it in, but goes so apparently that after what was left of the Ottomans changed its name to Turkey and signed armistice the Greeks apparently saw something of an opportunity and landed in force in the town (which wasn't a particularly small one either, I understand) and spent a while massacring the population. There was an Allied naval contignent (mainly in the area to keep an eye on the Turks) sitting right next to the harbor who simply let the Greeks through and then intensely looked the other way when they ran amuck...
*shrug* Ugly stuff, anyway.

You know, my mother has a habit of somewhat cynically observing the just about exactly only major innocent victims in the world would be the Gypsies, who've been given the boot nearly as thoroughly as the Jews but unlike them have never been in the position to oppress someone else for their part... They also still tend to be somewhat persona non grata in most countries, I understand - I know the general attitude to them here really could use some cleaning.

[L'Impresario]

I don't recall the name of the place and no longer have the book I read it in, but goes so apparently that after what was left of the Ottomans changed its name to Turkey and signed armistice the Greeks apparently saw something of an opportunity and landed in force in the town (which wasn't a particularly small one either, I understand) and spent a while massacring the population. There was an Allied naval contignent (mainly in the area to keep an eye on the Turks) sitting right next to the harbor who simply let the Greeks through and then intensely looked the other way when they ran amuck...
*shrug* Ugly stuff, anyway.

I gather then that you aren't referring to İzmir/Smyrna then, because this would 've been an erroneous account from any point of view. But then again the series of events described here don't point towards any actual historical occurance.

[Watchman]

I looked İzmir up in Wiki (hardly the most reliable source, but usually good for the general idea) and found the appropriate bit rather familiar-sounding. But, as mentioned, I no longer have the book I originally read it in in my possession.

Following the links there incidentally took me to an article on the Great Fire of Smyrna, which laconically notes at the beginning "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
I can imagine, especially as all the main participants in these tugs-of-war tend to be noted for, shall we say, less than unbiased and highly emphatic positions that don't exactly meet in the middle.

There's stuff about Turks slaughtering Armenians and Greeks when they reconquered the place (fair enough; I've not the slightest difficulty believing it), but what I find curious is the almost utter silence and a conspicious absence of all details of what the Greeks were up to after they landed. There's a particularly suspicious line "The resistance started immediately, mainly by small groups of irregular Turkish troops in the suburbs and the Greeks sustained many losses"; given the general mentality of these conflicts in general and the rather festering relations between the two groups in particular I for one find it a wee bit difficult to swallow the idea this wouldn't have led to reprisals against Turkish civilians. The somewhat one-sided curtness of the descriptions of the goings of the war (as Turkish excesses seem to be readily enough brought up) also rings some alarms bells in my head...

It's kind of like staring at a blank white spot in a map and starting to wonder just what the Heck it actually contains.

Well, of course aside from that one cute footnote about the Greeks' scorched-earth policy.

[Rosacrux redux]

Watchman,

Your reference about the Smyrna incidents was primarily a very, very innacurate one (the quote impressario brought up) and when you find an actual account, you still insist that there must be something else... well, this is a period of history I know all too well and I can point out to you that, yes, the Greeks did not hunt down Turkish civilians. Fair enough? No? Then why no Turkish civilian fled the Greek-occupied areas? Greece had occupied at one point 1/3 of Asia Minor in that conflict, it wasn't just Smyrna. But they did not run any pogrom, and that's why no Turks fled the Greek-held areas. Contrary to what the Turks did when they reclaimed the area. Thousands of Greeks were trying desperately to find means to get out of there before the advancing turkish forces came through, because they knew they would be raped and massacred. Alternatively, they fled to non-war zone areas, where they could hide out until the fuss is over, in order to save their lives. The Greek population of Smyrna, were slaughtered to the last man, woman and child. So simple, really.

The Turks were a particularly brutal bunch. Political correctness may not permit you or others to accept that simple fact of reality, and thus you are trying to find similar acts on behalf of the Greek side. Well, sorry, there were none. The massacre of Tripoli in the 1821 revolution is the sole incident of mass reprisals against civilians by the Greeks against the Turks.