Tronic

Amen to that!

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

phillip

__________________
Sir...my point was and is that Big K stated that the turks were tolerant religiously. St. Sophia certainly puts the lie to that statement. You don't
go into someone elses church and paint over all their religious paintings and then build minarets around it. Also stated was that the orthodox prefered to be Ottomans rather than Catholics. How can you seriously believe that?
While I have this window open let me also comment upon another gem from Big K...namely that Greece had imperialistic expansionist aims in 1923...well sure, they wanted Constantinople back. When the Turk took that city wasn't their aim imperialistic and expansionist? The Greeks were looking to get back what was theirs whereas the Turk was looking for more land and converts, more young kids from the Balkans to fill their Jannisery (?) corp.
Regarding the reinforcing of the church to keep it from collapsing, better that it had collapsed than remain among the Turk. The paintings were saved by being plastered over...how nice of the Turks to think that far ahead.

Ironduke

Like I said, it was standard practice back then. Christian churches were built on top of pagan temples, mosques were built on top of churches, and vice versa.

Mezquita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catholicism was notoriously intolerant at this time. Remember, this is the age of the Inquisition, in which any deviation from the Catholic faith saw you inside an iron maiden, being twisted on a rack, etc. The Turks were were extremely tolerant compared to the Latins (Catholics).

''I would rather see the Muslim turban in the midst of the city than the Latin miter.'' - a Byzantine Grand Duke

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Big K

i wish you (and every WAB member too) can visit Istanbul to see this and other cool stuff...i can take you for a tour and show the city...

btw. yes and many other things that Sinan made to protect it...infact Sinan was adoring St. Sophia and his lifes masterpiece Edirne Selimiye Mosque was a try to reach the worlds biggest dome...St. Sophia...

__________________
I'm not willing to remain silent even there will be no effect when i say.

phillip

Those who built over others churches and mosques did not claim to be religiously tolerant though, did they?
Perhaps, Iron Duke, you are a descendant of the above Byzantine Grand Duke?
In fairness, I have read where the Turks were more tolerant than others but,
as far as I know, they had different standards for the Orthodox than the Jews, who they treated well. The Armenians were Orthodox, for example.

neyzen

Good example. Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul was built by Mehmed's order. Armenians religious freedom had increased after Turkish conquest.

phillip

Courtesy of
The British Orthodox Church
Web site: Uk-christian.net - Uk christian Resources and Information.


How's this for Armenian Religious freedom incrasing after the Turk conquest?
What say you?

Kansas Bear

Have you read Taner Akcam's "A Shameful Act"? It paints a clear and concise picture of what happened during 1914-1918 in eastern Anatolia.

Ironduke

When compared to European religious freedom during the identical time period, I'd say the Turkish track record is much better until the events of 1914-1918. What we don't see in Ottoman history is an equivalent of the Inquisition, a 30 Year's War, the persecution of the Huguenots, or the flight of Puritans to North America.

The massacres perpetrated by the Young Turks are clearly deplorable, but we cannot blind ourselves to the remarkable tolerance displayed by the Ottoman Empire to its religious minorities throughout its rule. Such tolerance is conspicuously absent in contemporary Europe. To completely denigrate and demean the entire history of a people because of this one event displays extreme ignorance. Furthermore, this was of a nationalistic nature, rather than religious.

troung

Too bad the Uighur Empire has not been mentioned.

They were very successful in extorting Tang China for decades. In fact in a way they were too successful as they were forced to make cities to hold all the trade goods and money they were making. The Uighurs were key in putting down An Lushans rebellion - and made a lot of money. As the Tang began to lose control they were forced to pay the Uighurs to show up and pay them to leave. The Uighur's did turn extortion into an art.

They were in the end defeated from an internal defection and a Kyrgyz invasion (they had repeatdly defeated the Kyrgyz's but it only took one lose and the sacking of their city to end the state) and ended up setting up shop in East Turkistan.

======
The Timurids were successful under the reign of Timur - looting across Central Asia, the Middle East and sacking Delhi.

The Golden Horde (which had Turkic as a language of the court and army - as it was created by a handful of Mongol officers and a lot of Turkic soldiers) also failed to make the list. Having control over Russia for several centuries and their successor states remaining important for quite some time.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

phillip

I've already stated that the Turks were somewhat tolerant of other religions. My contention was that they were selectively tolerant and also that they were not as tolerant as you make them out to be. (St. Sophia).
Extreme ignorance?...ouch sir! I'm not one of your students and I don't deserve your pedantic remark.
But more on the Turks. During the occupation of the Balkans they treated their subjects rather inhumanely...for 400 years or so. This part may not be from religious differences, although they must have played some part. They were brutal occupiers in all the countries they ruled. How many people like the Turks? Given a world wide vote, how many Turkophiles, including yourself, would you find? Ever wonder why? Why do you suppose there is so much animosity against the Turk in the Balkans? Why it has lasted so long? It is still there and in time it will flare again, bet on it.

Low-tech

I can't help that but notice the term "colonialism" is never applied to Ottoman rule, it was a few centuries before the Imperial age when they whooped everyone and seized their lands but,..............the empire lasted well into that era and the term describes exactly what they had done.

I believe the Turks became cruel later on towards eastern Europe Armenia. It was only at first the Christians/common people preferred their rule. Like when rulers named Dracula and Countess Bathory were the usual for that region in the 13-14th century or so. A large sophisticated government/empire is, of course, gonna be ran more efficiently than a series of small fiefdoms.

The Balkans, Greece, Armenia and so on have a pretty typical attitude and sentiment towards their former Turkish overlords as any people who experienced colonialism usually have to their former masters........despite anything positive that occurred, those countries would rather self-rule poorly than surrender control to a paternal better, no matter how cruel or benign.

So the Turks may not have been as bad as their aggressive/expansionists European rivals, BUT the entire premise of what they all were doing was completely unacceptable in a modern context, looking at it from a modern worldview. So it's no surprise most people who from former holdings of the Ottomans reject the notion of their benevolent paternalism.

Another thing, pretty important thing to note is that the dhimmi laws enforced by the Ottomans and other Islamic nations/empires were greatly influence from Justinian and Theodosian Code.........so in respect to the Balkans the Ottomans looked to Byzantium for a way to rule over it's European holdings.

As for the topic I, of course, would vote for the Ottoman's

Ironduke

How is the conversion of the Hagia Sophia any different than what any other group would have done at the time? You've failed to demonstrate how the Turks differed from other contemporary peoples in this regard. Furthermore, how does this make them intolerant?

Hagia Sophia was one of the largest, most beautiful cathedrals in all the world, occupying and converting it to a mosque speaks more to wanting a large, beautiful mosque than intolerances toward the Orthodox faith.

phillip

If the Turks wanted to allow the Greeks to practice their religion without interferring they would have left St. Sophia as it was without converting it to a mosque. That was really adding insult to injury. As it turns out, the Turks made a mosque out of an Orthodox Cathedral and told the parishioners ...you can worship with us too, even though it may not look like a church anymore, we can share it. No matter how you paint it contemporarily, it still stinks.
I agree that the Catholic church might not have been a very good option but just how does anyone really know how that would have turned out? After all the Catholics might have found it a good opportunity to heal the schism between the churches, if that scene presented itself. I'm beggining to think you will never understand. I keep having to say the same thing to you in different ways. You ask for me to demonstrate. How? Would the Buddhists have tolerated the church and left it as it was? Would the Jews? Would any of the other religions have changed it? Just how do you know what any other group would have done at the time? My original contention was that the Turks were not as tolerant as you paint them. I stand by it. You know what you can do with that "beautiful mosque" stuff.

Ironduke

The fact is they did allow the Greeks to practice their religion without interfering. Would you care to explain how the loss of one building constitutes interference in the practice of a religion?

As far as I know, the Turks did not confiscate the Greek bibles and issue new ones to their own liking. The Turks did not restrict the use of icons, and they didn't demand that the Greeks start disbelieving in the the Trinity and embrace Jesus as a prophet instead of the Son of God.
The Catholic Church was not an option for the Orthodox Christians... Catholic rule meant the subjection of Orthodox patriarchs to the Holy See whom they did not regard as being the universal leader of the Christian Church. There are substantial differences between Orthodox and Catholic doctrine, and the Orthodox were more willing to practice their religion under Islamic rule than be forced to convert to Catholicism.
After the sack and conquest of Constantinople in 1204, and the establishment of the Latin Empire, the Catholics were in no position to heal the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. They were loathed and hated by Orthodox Christians, and all attempts by Byzantine emperors who in positions of political weakness to negotiate a reunion of the Churches were universally rejected by the clergy and common people.
Yes, the Catholics ransacked and desecrated Hagia Sophia in 1204. The damage was extreme, and the church became very dilapidated and it wasn't until the Turkish conquest that it was able to be fully structurally restored. After the Catholic treatment, it's surprising the cathedral is still standing today. All relics and valuables were removed and shipped mainly to Italy.

You should understand that I'm not trying to paint the Turks as happy lovey-dovey people, the most tolerant the world had ever seen. They just happened to be the most tolerant in that region of the world during that time period, whether it was Jews, Christians, or the various Muslim sects.