[Cid]

On the Road to EU

The Tourkokratia - Was it Really That Bad?


Athens News

Was the 4-century-long Ottoman rule of Greece a burdensome legacy for the nation's overall development? In the first of three articles, historian David Brewer reviews the Tourkokratia at the heights of its power and explains how it was not that bad and even brought some benefits to the Greeks

THE PERIOD of the Tourkokratia is reckoned as lasting from the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 until the formal recognition of Greek independence in 1833.Many Greeks passionately believe a commonly found version of Greek history that paints the Tourkokratia as a period of unrelieved awfulness.

The Greeks are described as enslaved - ipodhouli or en dhoulia. Their children were taken away to serve in theTurkish army or at the sultan's court. The Greeks suffered under constant pressure to abandon their Christian Orthodox religion and convert to Islam. To keep the Greek language alive they had to educate their children secretly.

Any protest or revolt was ruthlessly suppressed. Heavy taxation made their lives miserable. The Tourkokratia cut Greece off from the artistic developments of theRenaissance and the intellectual developments of the Enlightenment. Furthermore the Turks in four hundred years failed to bring any improvements to Greece and left nothing of value behind them.

Given that picture, it may seem ludicrous to ask if the Tourkokratia was really that bad. But a closer look at the history provides some unexpected answers.

Five conflicts, one in each century, immediately or indirectly affected the conditions of the Greeks and provide the framework of the Tourkokratia story. The first, of course, is 1453, the Turkish capture of Constantinople, the end of the Byzantine Empire, and the Turkish annexation of most of the Balkans including Greece. In the next century, the battle of Lepanto in 1571 brought the crushing defeat of the Turkish navy by a combined fleet from some of the powers of Europe. In 1669 the Turks finally won Crete from her Venetian rulers, and consolidated Turkish dominance of the eastern Mediterranean.1770 was the year of the short-lived Orlov revolt in Greece, instigated by Catherine the Great and named for its Russian leaders, which was quickly and ruthlessly crushed. Finally, in 1821 the Greek war of independence broke out, ending 12 years later with the establishment of Greece as an independent state.


The early years
The Turks were not the only rulers in Greece during the so-called Tourkokratia. It was not until the mid 1500s, a century after the fall of Constantinople, that the Turks acquired Cyprus from the Venetians, Chios from the Genoese, and Rhodes from the crusading order of the Knights of St John. It was another hundred years before Turkish rule replaced Venetian in Crete.

What were conditions in Greece like before the Turks arrived? On 12 April 1204 Constantinople had fallen to the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade, who looted the city and established the so-called Latin empire there. This Latin empire lasted only fifty years, and Byzantine rulers returned to govern a diminished empire for another two centuries. For Greece the Fourth Crusade brought a radical upheaval- the division of the country between rival despots.

After 1204 the Peloponnese was ruled for 60 years or so by a crusading family from the Champagne region of France, theVillehardouins, who brought stability and prosperity with them. But this golden age was not to last. The restored Byzantine rulers drove the Villehardouins out of the Peloponnese, and the next two centuries until the Turkish conquest were ones of constant conflict, as invaders from Anjou in France and from Cataluna and Navarra in Spain tried to wrest control of the Peloponnese from the ever-weakening Byzantine empire.

Salonika had no golden age, and it was the scene of constant warfare. Salonika was the biggest commercial prize in Greece, lying on the old Roman Via Egnatia linking Constantinople with the Adriatic coast and the west, and also having a fine harbour. After1204 the city was held by one of the leading crusaders, Boniface of Montserrat. Twenty years later it was seized by the despot of the neighbouring region of Ipiros; and then by theByzantines. In the following century it was besieged by Catalans, governed briefly by chaotic commune at the time of the Black Death, taken by the Turks and then taken back by the Byzantines. The Turks finally captured Saloniki their first lasting Greek possession, in 1430, and held it for nearly 500 years.

Moreover, the crusaders brought their Catholicism with them. The schism between the Catholic west and Orthodox east had rumbled on for centuries, nominally over doctrinal issues such as the famous filioque controversy - did the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son? But it was really about whether or not the Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople was subject to the rule of the pope in Rome. No longer a remote dispute, the schism had now physically arrived in Greece. Catholic Latin clergy were installed in the cathedrals, though not in the countryside. The former Orthodox archbishop of Salonika wrote of "the stupid and discordant cries of a Latin service ... disturbing good order and holy harmony."

This then was the Greece which the Turks acquired in the series of conquests which began in 1430: a once prosperous land, people whose religion was under threat, and a scene of constant and bloody turmoil.


The fateful year 1453 and its aftermath
It was on Monday, April 2 1453, the day after Easter Sunday, that the first Turkish troops appeared outside Constantinople to begin a two-month siege. The city was the capital of a now shrunken empire, reduced to the despotate of Mistra in the Peloponnese, a few outposts such as the Black Sea port of Trebizond, and the city of Constantinople itself.

Constantinople was walled all round, and without these walls the defenders could not have held out for two months. They were heavily outnumbered - 7,000 against 80,000 attackers. One of the besieged wrote, "We are an ant in the mouth of the bear." These defenders were not only, or even mainly, Byzantine Greeks. There were also Genoese under their captain Giustiniani, Venetians, Cretans, and even Turks loyal to the exiled Ottoman prince Orhan. The Byzantines were led by their last emperor, Constantine XI.

On 6 April, four days after the Turks first appeared, they began to bombard the western land walls of the city, and the bombardment continued intermittently for six weeks. On the Golden Horn to the north the Turkish fleet tried first to force its way past the protective boom but without success. They then resorted to the fantastic idea of dragging their ships overland over a 200 foot high ridge to relaunch them inside the boom. This amazing operation succeeded, and on 22 April some 70 Turkish ships slid into the waters of the Golden Horn. But skirmishes there between the transported Turkish fleet and the defending Genoese and Venetian ships were inconclusive, and the walls along the Golden Horn were not breached.

At this point Sultan Mehmed might have withdrawn and Constantinople might for the moment have survived. The sultan's grand vizier, Halil Pasha, argued that the siege should be abandoned. But more hawkish members of the sultan's court prevailed. The attack was intensified, and Halil Pasha paid for his rejected advice with his life.

The end followed two small mischances. Giustiniani, the Genoese captain commanding the defence of the land walls, was lightly wounded. When he went back behind the walls to be treated, his men thought he was running away and they began to flee. Also the smallest gate in the walls was accidentally left unbarred.

On 29 May 1453, a date still remembered with sorrow, the Turkish troops poured in, and the three-day sack began, sanctioned by both Christian and Islamic codes of war for a city taken by assault. The emperor Constantine died in the fighting, but his body was never recovered. In the late afternoon of that day the sultan entered Ayia Sophia, the greatest church in the city. A Muslim cleric proclaimed that there was no God but Allah, and the sultan himself made obeisance to the God of his faith.

One might have expected that Christianity would now be suppressed, but exactly the reverse happened. The first patriarch under Ottoman rule, Yennadhios, was enthroned within a year of the conquest, and Sultan Mehmed himself handed Yennadhios the robes, staff and pectoral cross of office. The Greeks,like other Christians in the Ottoman empire, were left completely free to practice their religion, under the patriarch's spiritual leadership. The patriarch was now the political as well as the spiritual leader of the Christian Ottoman subjects, responsible for the good behaviour of his flock, and for ensuring that they paid their taxes to the state.

All this promised well. But the church was soon undermined for two reasons: Turkish manipulation and money shortage. Intrigues by the Turks led to repeated changes of patriarch: 61 elections from 1595 to 1695. This signifisantly impoverished the church since the patriarchate had to make a substantial payment to the state at each election. State taxation of the patriarchate also - stead increased. By the beginning of the nineteenth- century the church seemed practically moribund, and a disgruntled traveller maintained that orthodoxy was no more than "a leprous composition of ignorance, superstition and fanaticism."

Though the church was in a shocking state, it was highly valued by the Greeks. Like any other church, it baptised, married and buried, and provided, a social meeting point. It was a link to the saints, especially the Virgin Mary, their frescos and icons decorated the church walls, and the saints were seen as ever present. In daily life and continuing to work miracles the local priest, the pappas, was. probably the literate person in the community, and represented the villagers to the authorities. A prime value church membership was as a badge of difference from the rulers. Church teaching though did not shape personal behaviour. Morality was governed by traditional codes of honour - on theft, adultery, or killing...rather than by Christian precepts.

Some traditional Greek histories suggest that there were forcible or mass conversions to Islam. But the Turks had no incentive to force conversion on Christians and, as a result, lose the poll tax, paid only by Christians. Nor was avoidance of the poll tax a sufficient incentive for the Greeks to convert. They would, it was said, be "selling their souls for a penny worth." Large scale conversion of Greeks seems to have happened only once,and for special reasons, in Crete.


Pedhomazoma - the child collection
Only one part of the Turkish system involved forcible conversion - the drafting of Christian boys for service at the sultan's court or as soldiers in the janissaries. It was called devshirme by the Turks and pedhomazoma, or child collection, by the Greeks. Able-bodied, spirited and good-looking Christian boys under 20 were conscripted, and only one son was taken unless a second volunteered.

The object was to provide the sultan with officials who owed loyalty only to him, andhad no links with any of the Turkish factionswhich were a constant presence at his court. At least one conscripted boy rose to beGrand Vizier, second in power only to the Sultan. Devshirme boys were also needed for the army. An early order for a devonshirme, dated 1601, is expressed in fierce terms: if parents or anyone else resist, they are to be hanged immediately in front of their house-gate.

By 1666 things had changed. Though the devshirme was still described as "one of the most important state affairs", none had taken place "for a long time". The tone had become emollient: "No one is to be wronged or coerced of the villagers". But by 1705 local Greeks were in revolt against the practice. At a devshirme in the northern Greek town of Naousa, three, Turkish officials were killed, and a hundred Greeks took to the hills to rob and murder Muslims. They were captured within a few weeks and their leaders executed. In 1721 the devshirme was officially abolished.

There were some compensations for those conscripted. The boys were lifted out of rural poverty, and some were placed in the Ottoman ruling class and rose to the top of it. The devshirme has been called "the path to glory", and there is evidence of some parents putting sons forward for conscription. But these benefits for a few count little against the anguish of the many who were torn from loving parents, their religion and their language. It is completely understandable that Greeks remember the devshirme with intense bitterness.

Sole responsibility for Greek educati was left to the church and has long been believed in Greece that, because of Turkish oppression, children had to go to school in the church secretly at night. This is a myth. In reality the priest was the only possible teacher, the church the only available school room, and the children went after dark because they worked in the fields all day. The debunking of the myth is slowly working its way down the Greek education system.

Leaving education in the hands of the church brought its own problems. Though apparently there were local schools in most areas, the boys learnt little more than how to read the books of the church services. Until the early nineteenth century, they did not learn secular subjects, and remained ignorant of the scientific and philosophical advances of western Europe.

The bulk of the Greek population, the peasants, benefited from the Turkish occupation because the country was now at peace. A traveller visiting the Greek islands century after the conquest reported that "the inhabitants feel secure under Turkish sovereignty" and that "the land had never been better cultivated or the people richer than now. This must be attributed to the fact that peace has lasted for a long time." Thus the first century of Turkish occupation of Greece brought the unwelcome conscription of boys in the devshinne, but also three considerable benefits - better conditions for the peasants, freedom of religion and education, and the establishment of peace and security.

THE Naval battle of Lepanto, fought on 7 October 1571, was a turning point in the Tourkokratia. The battle pitted a Turkish fleet against a combined navy from Spain, the Papal States and Venice, known as the Holy League. It was commanded by the Habsburg Don John of Austria. The battle was actually fought not at Lepanto, the old name for Nafpaktos inside the Gulf of Corinth, but in open waters just beyond the Gulf of Corinth.

The Holy League won a decisive victory. The Holy League came into being over the Turkish threat to Venetian-held Cyprus. Sultan Selim II succeeded Suleiman the Magnificent in 1566 and it had become almost traditional that a new sultan mark his accession by conquest. Cyprus, held by Venice for the last 80 years, was the obvious target.

It lay within sight of Ottoman territory and across a vital sea-route. Pirates, an increasing menace in the Mediterranean, were seizing Ottoman merchantships and then retreating for safety to the coast of Venetian Cyprus. Thus in February 1570 a Turkish envoy was sent to Venice to demand the immediate handing over of Cyprus. The Venetian Senate rejected the Turkish demand.

The Holy League came together only in May 1571, when it was far too late to save Cyprus for Venice. The Turks had landed there and taken most of the island a year earlier, in July 1570. In August 1571, when the Holy League fleet was still in Naples, the last Venetian fortress at Famagusta surrendered. Though Cyprus had now fallen, Don John, urged on by the pope, used his navy to attack the main Turkish fleet. When he reached Corfu he learnt that the Turkish fleet, commanded by Ali Pasha, was in the Gulf of Corinth at Nafpaktos, under the shelter of the town's massive fortress. Ali Pasha would have done well to stay there, but the sultan had ordered him "to find and immediately attack the iInfidels' fleet". So he moved his fleet westwards, out of the gulf to confront the enemy.

The confrontation brought together the largest number of ships that ever fought in a Mediterranean sea battle. Don John had 238 vessels, while the Turkish fleet numbered 230. At dawn on Sunday 7 October 1571, the two fleets faced each other outside the Gulf of Corinth. The lines of ships stretched for four miles, the Turks facing west and the Holy League east. At noon the first shots were fired. The four-hour battle seemed finely balanced and could perhaps have gone either way, but the tally of losses tells its own story. The Turks lost three times as many men as the League and ten times as many ships.

The Holy League fleet had won a victory at Lepanto but failed in its main objective to prevent the Turkish annexation of Cyprus. The Greeks most directly affected were the Cypriots who, far from resenting Turkish occupation welcomed the change from Venetian to Turkish rule. Turkish policy was designed to ensure that they did. As in previous annexations, the policy aimed to make the new territory prosperous, and so a source of tax revenue. It also aimed to make the new Turkish subjects contented: "The reaya are a trust from God to us," wrote Selim II. This avoided the need for expensive repression. Within a year the conciliatory Turkish policy ended forced labour and reduced or abolished taxes.

There are two contrasting views of the battle of Lepanto. One considers it a non-event. After the battle, the Holy League fleet left the easten Mediterranean and was soon disbanded. Within a year, after a determined rebuilding programme, the Ottoman fleet was back to its pre-Lepanto numbers. The Turkish grand vizier told the Venetians that their victory was meaningless. "In wresting Cyprus from you," he said," we deprived you of an arm; in defeating our fleet you have only shaved our beard. An arm when cut off cannot grow again; but a shorn beard will grow all the better for the razor."

The opposing view celebrates Lepanto as a great victory for Christendom over the infidel marking the end of Ottoman invincibility at sea nd the beginning of Ottoman decline. Chesterton's rollicking poem about Lepanto encapsulates this view: "Vivat 'Hispania/Domino Gloria! / Don John of Austria/ Has set his people free!"
Debate over Ottoman decline.

Those who think Lepanto marked the start of Ottoman decline point to defeats on the battlefield, ostensibly insane sultans, scandals in the imperial household, threats from fundamentalist preachers and other reactionaries, rebellions in the provinces, chronically mutinous janissaries and widespread bribery, and ask: if these were not symptoms of decay, then what were they? They also argue that the Ottoman empire was incapable of adapting because it was hidebound by Islamic tradition. As one of the fundamentalist Islamic preachers put it in the 1630s, "every innovation is heresy, every heresy is error, and every error leads to hell."

Those who don't accept the long-decline theory point out that the empire was a powerful military force for at least another century, taking Crete from the Venetians in 1669 and again reaching the gates of Vienna in 1683. The empire, they say, was simply reacting creatively, if not always successfully, to new circumstances.

The decline theory seems more plausible, and the main reason for decline was economic. After Lepanto, the Ottoman empire was no longer expanding, apart from acquiring Crete, with great difficulty, in the next century. The empire could no longer be financed by new acquisitions. This led to debasement of die Turkish coinage by reducing its silver content. But at the same time huge imports of silver were reaching Europe from Spain's acquisitions in South America. To oversimplify the economics vastly, who would want a debased Turkish silver coin when a Spanish or Italian one of the same weight was pure silver?

In the Ottoman government's drive to generate revenue, everything acquired a money value. The rights to collect state taxes were sold to tax farmers. State offices were bought and sold. Church offices too were effectively up for sale. Widespread corruption inevitably followed.

Perhaps this increasing monetisation had one good effect in Greece as in other Ottoman possessions: that it made possible the rise of commerce. Some Greek towns did become important commercial centres - in the north, Salonica and Ioannina, in the Peloponnese Nafplio and Monemvasia.
Other towns prospered because of demand for a local product: the currants of Corinth, the olives of Kalamata, or the animal furs of Kastoria. But Greek commerce as a whole stayed limited and production remained stuck at the primary workshop level.

Ottoman economic decline also resulted in the introduction of tax farming, undoubtedly a bad thing for the Greeks and other Ottoman subjects. Under this system the tax farmer paid a lump sum to the state treasury and kept for himself all the taxes he could collect. Or to make a quick profit he might sell on the tax farming rights to a subcontractor, who then had to be even more rapacious. It has been well said that "the classes that lived on dues and taxes were engaged during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on a long drawn-out strangling of the unfortunate geese that laid their golden eggs."

In June 1645 an Ottoman fleet landed troops in western Crete. Within weeks the Ottoman forces had taken Chania, within a year Rethimno, and within two years the whole island except Iraklio.

The siege of Iraklio, lasting until 1669, was, the longest siege ever recorded, and was protracted for a number of reasons. Neither Turks nor Venetians could achieve dominance at sea. There was stalemate at Iraklio on land too; defensive walls had become stronger than the guns used to attack them. Also both sides received support from Cretans, Venetians had ruled Crete for over four centuries since 1 2and Cretans and Venetians had in many ways adjusted to a shared world. Under Venice, Greek and Italian cultures had combined in the Cretan version of the Renaissance, famous for the great verse epic Erotokritos and the paintings of El Greco. Venetian rule had softened since the loss of Cyprus. "[The Cretans]," ran a Venetian report, " must always be treated well so that they will remain faithful and devoted."


Venice and Crete
The next crucial conflict was the final struggle between Turkes and Venetians for control of the eastern Mediterranean. In 1645 the Turks launched their attack on Venetian-held Crete; in 1669 they finally took Iraklio; in 1684, Venice retaliated by landing troops in the Peloponnese; but, in 1715, Venice was driven out of Greece for good.

There was a delay of 75 years between the Turkish conquests of Cyprus and of Crete, mainly due to turmoil at the centre. The sultans who succeeded Selim II (1566-74), conqueror of Cyprus, were woefully incompetent.They were dominated by court factions of grand viziers, eunuchs and women of the sultan's family. Competition between factions prevented the adoption of any forceful and consistent policy.

In 1644 under Ibrahim, the most unstable sultan of the series, there were two opposing fractions, one for war to drive Venice from Crete and one for peace. An incident at sea provided a casus belli. In the autumn of 1644 a raiding of vessel from Malta seized three Turkish ships and took their prizes into Venetian territory at the small secluded port of Kali Limenes on the south coast of Crete. Venice was blamed for sheltering pirates, and the war party had its justification for action.

After a twenty-year standoff, the stakes were raised in 1666, The Turkish grand vizier came to Crete in November 1666 to take personal control of the siege. In response Venice appointed a new commander, Francesco Morosini. Bombardment of Iraklio began in eamest and by the summer of 1669 the town was a shattered war zone, "The state of the town was terrible to behold," wrote a contemporary. "There was not a church, not a building even, whose walls were not holed and almost reduced to rubble by the enemy cannon. Everywhere the stench was nauseating; at every turn one came upon the dead, the wounded or the maimed." In September, peace terms, generous to theVenetians, were agreed, and at the end of the month they left, their centuries-long rule finally ended.

The most remarkable feature of the change from Venetian to Ottoman rule was ,that thousands of Cretans, both during and after the war, converted to Islam. It was the only instance of large-scale Greek conversions during the entire period of Ottoman rule. The reason, it has been suggested, was, that by conversion a Cretan could join the Ottoman military and so become part of the ruling order. Many Albanians took the same route. Like the Cretans, they were a warlike people living in harsh mountainous country where fighting, under whatever banner, was a way of life.

Fifteen years after the fall of Crete, Venice's attempt to recover her position in the eastern Mediterranean brought war to the mainland of Greece for the first time since the original Ottoman conquests.

Venice joined the alliance of powers, another so-called Holy League, that had driven the Ottoman army back from their last siege of Vienna in 1683, and now aimed to push them out of Europe altogether. In 1684, Venetian troops, once again under Francesco Morosini, landed in western Greece aiming to annex Greece.

The Venetians, with intermittent help from the Greeks of the Mani, had immediate and dramatic successes. By summer 1687 they controlled the whole Peloponnese. In the autumn the Venetians besieged Athens, where on September 26 a mortar shot from the besiegers detonated the Ottoman powder magazine in the Parthenon, beginning the Parthenon Marbles saga that arouses passionate controversy to this day. Ironically, the capture of Athens and the unfortunate mortar shot served no purpose; within a few months the Venetians had abandoned Athens as strategically worthless.

The Ottomans, as so often in their history, were now fighting on two fronts, both this time in the west. As well as the Venetian attack on the Peloponnese, the Ottoman forces faced the rapid advance of the Austrian troops of the Holy League, who got as far south as Skopje. At all costs the Ottomans had to prevent the joining of the two arms of the offensive, and in fact they halted the Venetian advance some 30 miles north of Athens. If the two armies had succeeded in meeting, Greece and the rest of the Balkans could have been released en bloc from Ottoman rule by the end of the 17th century, instead of piecemeal in the 19th.

But the Austrian offensive rapidly petered out, and by the end of 1690 Belgrade and all the territory south of it were once again in Ottoman hands. The expulsion of the Venetians from Greece came later. In 1715 a massive Ottoman army of 100,000 drove the 8,000 Venetian defenders from the Peloponnese. In the treaty that followed, Venice retained only the Ionian islands and four towns on the opposite mainland. Venice's days as a major player in Greece were over.


The prelude to independence
The next major event of the Tourkokratia was the Orlov revolt of 1770. It was inspired by Russia and began in one of the most lawless areas of Greece, the southern Peloponnese. Under Catherine the Great, Russia was expansionist and wanted access to the Mediterranean. This was blocked by Turkey's control of the Bosphorus, the only outlet from the Black Sea. Russia saw Turkey as vulnerable, though it was another century before a Russian tsar called Turkey the Sick Man of Europe. In 1768, Russia and Turkey declared war.

Possession of Greece would, of course, give Russia its coveted access to the Mediterranean. Russian agents in Greece reported, with unfounded optimism, that 100,000 armed Greeks, klephts and others, would support a Russian invasion. At the end of February 1770, Count Theodore Orlov, one of Catherine the Great's many lovers, landed at the little harbour of Hilo in the Mani, with five ships and only 500 men. The Greeks were unimpressed, and nothing like the promised 100,000 Greek supporters materialised.

Nevertheless, the revolt had some significant early successes, taking Navarino, Mistra and Kalamata, and further north even briefly holding Mesolonghi. The Turks quickly struck back. In early April, only six weeks after the Russian landing, the Turks and their Albanian mercenaries crushingly defeated the Russians and Greeks at Tripolis in the central Peloponnese.

From then on the Russians retreated. The Albanian mercenaries of the Turks were totally ruthless in suppressing the revolt, plundering and killing. On 6 June 1770, the Russians sailed away ftom their last outpost at Navarino. The revolt had lasted less than a hundred days, and had left the Greeks in a worse condition than before.

Though Russia had failed in Greece she had been overwhelmingly successful in the war elsewhere. In the 1774 Treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji, which ended the war, she was able to dictate her own terms. Russia got her access through the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean. She also acquired the right to protect the Greek and other Christian subjects of Turkey. Even more important for the Greeks was an extension of the treaty five years later, giving Greek ships the right to fly the Russian flag and therefore access to the Black Sea. The door was opened for a huge expansion of Greek maritime trade.

The Orlov revolt, though shortlived and fruitless in itself, was a sign that the world was changing, both in Greece and beyond. The decline of the Ottoman empire was becoming obvious to the powers of Europe, especially to neighbouring Russia. The vultures were eyeing their moribund prey. Also the Greeks themselves were beginning to reach out to the wider world. The treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji and its successor agreements had opened the Black Sea to them, so the Greeks began to build the larger ships needed for long voyages, especially in the naval Aegean islands of Hydra, Spetses and Psara. The agreements had also given Greeks the right to trade in all Habsburg dominions, which included Austria, Hungary and most of Germany and Italy. Greek merchants therefore became established in cities throughout Europe, and this stimulated the flow of European ideas into Greece.

The so-called Greek Enlightenment, it has to be said, did not amount to much as an intellectual movement. Unlike the Scottish Enlightenment, which contributed new ideas to the debate, it was purely and haphazardly derivative.

Greek thinkers were too wedded to the ancient masters Plato and Aristotle and to conservative church doctrine to be truly innovative.

There was, however, one important message of the Enlightenment which did reach Greece. The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 had proclaimed as self-evident that if any form of government, becomes destructive of the rights of man, "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it." In Greece, Kolokotronis, former klepht and then military leader in the war of independence, saw the same principle in the French Revolution and expressed the idea more pithily. "The nations," he said, "knew nothing before the French Revolution. The people thought that kings were gods upon earth, and that the people were bound to say that whatever the kings did was well done." The scene was set for the Greek rising of 1821.

So how bad was the Tourkokratia?
Let's look at the charges against Turkish rule:

1. That the Greeks were enslaved. No. Some Greeks were taken as slaves by Turks and others. But the Greeks as a whole were not slaves; they were not the property of an owner who could buy and sell them.

2. That Greek boys were fordbly conscripted. Yes, even though some benefited from this system, and it was abandoned around 1700.

3. That Greeks were under pressure to convert to Islam. No. The relatively few conversions were for personal advantage. There was no pressure to convert.

4. That Greek education had to be in secret. No, not true at all.

5. That Greek revolts were ruthlessly suppressed. Yes, but that was true for most of
Europe.

6. That Turkish taxation was unbearably oppressive. Yes and no. Probably not true of the earlier period, but increasingly true later, as the Ottoman economy declined.

7. That the Turks cut Greece off from Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. No. The main barrier to Greek artistic and intellectual development Was the conservatism of the Greek Church, and of the education for which it was responsible.

8. That theTurks failed to develop the country and left nothing of value behind them. Yes, broadly true. They could have done much more to stimulate productive agriculture, drain swamps, prevent soil erosion and build roads and ports to encourage trade.


Next, what can one say on the plus side?

1. There was no official interference with Greek religion. In many cases the Greeks preferred the tolerance of Turkish rule to the proselytising Catholicism of the Venetians. Greece was, spared the religious conflicts that, racked much of Europe: the St Bartholomew's Day massacre of Huguenots in france, the Inquisition in Spain.

2. There was no interference with education, and there was no threat to the Greek language or to Greek culture in general.

3. Greek territory, once acquired by the Turks, was not fought over. The one exception was the Venetian attempt on the Peloponnese in the 1680s. The Turkish conquests of 1453 had saved Greec from the battles of Crusader barons and Turkish occupation spared Greece the horrors of later European conflicts. Greece had no Thirty Years' War.


On balance, therefore, the Tourkokratia was not that bad, and brought benefits as well as disadvantages. But this is to treat a people's history as a matter of accountancy. It would be a better conclusion to recall two things said about the Greeks by Yorgos Seferis, diplomat, poet and the first Greek to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.

On the Greeks' own responsibility for their misfortunes, he quoted approvingly an old Cretan saying: "The fate every people makes for itself, and the things its own madness does to it, are not things done by its enemies."

And on reconciliation, Seferis wrote of the destruction by fire of his beloved birthplace Smyrna in 1922, at the end of the Asia Minor catastrophe. Greeks and Turks, he said, blame each other for the fire, but he concluded: "Who will discover the truth? The wrong has been committed. The important thing is, who will redeem it?"

LINK

Double posting is not allowed, so I merged all your posts into one. -TAL

[Thunderhawk]

This then was the Greece which the Turks acquired in the series of conquests which began in 1430: a once prosperous land, people whose religion was under threat, and a scene of constant and bloody turmoil.

Incorrect.
Parts of modern Greece were racked with constant invasion and chaos, but not all of Greece was under such a situation. Further more, as horrible as interopping Westerners were, some regions were stable under them. Rhodes under the Knights was not nice, but reasonably stable and peaceful untill it was taken.

Furthermore, the Byzantines were not limited to Greece. At the end their territory was mostly Greek, but they still had other populations in their empire, and Greek territories existed under foriegners aswell.

Though apparently there were local schools in most areas, the boys learnt little more than how to read the books of the church services. Until the early nineteenth century, they did not learn secular subjects, and remained ignorant of the scientific and philosophical advances of western Europe.

And how exactly could the churches afford to pay for books and secular resources, after being mined by the Ottoman government?

The bulk of the Greek population, the peasants, benefited from the Turkish occupation because the country was now at peace.

The people knew peace when they were under the Byzintines too, untill their peace was interrupted by outsiders.

Thus the first century of Turkish occupation of Greece brought the unwelcome conscription of boys in the devshinne, but also three considerable benefits - better conditions for the peasants

Conditions that would have been fine if not for medling interloppers.

freedom of religion

Did the Ottomans rule Catholics in predominately Orthodox territories could stay where they were and not to be treated any differently then the Orthodox subjects? Did they protect the Catholics from Orthodox harm in equal measures to the protection of orthodox communities from Catholic interloppers?

and education

What education?
The article points out it was done by the Church.

and the establishment of peace and security.

A peace and security they had before hand when they had the might to enforce it.

1. That the Greeks were enslaved. No. Some Greeks were taken as slaves by Turks and others. But the Greeks as a whole were not slaves; they were not the property of an owner who could buy and sell them.

Some were enslaved, others were taxed, later they were taxed even more so, and rights to collect those taxes sold. Slaves are given shelter and food in exchange for their labour, its much more profitable to simply take the fruits of their labour without giving them food and shelter.

2. That Greek boys were fordbly conscripted. Yes, even though some benefited from this system, and it was abandoned around 1700.

Conscription take adults fit for combat. No medieval military took children for war purposes - they were too weak. Children were taken to force certain views/policies onto them. Calling kindnapping "conscription" is belittling the crime.

Also, lets review the period.
1453 to 1833, and the forced "conscription" ends around 1700s. So, for half of the rule, "conscription" was ok. Was the switch over out of benevolence, or because it was causing to much of a problem?

3. That Greeks were under pressure to convert to Islam. No. The relatively few conversions were for personal advantage. There was no pressure to convert.

Except the Janisaries.
Except those seeking political or high government positions.
Except those who didnt want to be taxed unruley.
Yeah, if the Greeks were willing to stay irrelevent, there was no pressure.

4. That Greek education had to be in secret. No, not true at all.

Out of curiosity, why was the influx of Renaissance ideas so, oddball? If Education was not hindered then why was it new? Why didnt modern industry develop?
Limiting education indirectly by hindering movement and access is in effect just as bad as forbiding higher education.

5. That Greek revolts were ruthlessly suppressed. Yes, but that was true for most of Europe.

When hiding evil it is always best to place it next to other things of evil, allowing the specific to blend away and be lost. But it is still evil.

6. That Turkish taxation was unbearably oppressive. Yes and no. Probably not true of the earlier period, but increasingly true later, as the Ottoman economy declined.

So, when rule was new and tenuous, the Ottomans didnt gouge. As time passed they sold the rights to gouge. This is better?
Acceptable? Not as bad?
How so?

7. That the Turks cut Greece off from Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. No. The main barrier to Greek artistic and intellectual development Was the conservatism of the Greek Church, and of the education for which it was responsible.

So why did it take a Russian Victory to allow Greek movement? Where is the Ottoman era industrial growth and general development the rest of Europe (re)discovered?

8. That theTurks failed to develop the country and left nothing of value behind them. Yes, broadly true. They could have done much more to stimulate productive agriculture, drain swamps, prevent soil erosion and build roads and ports to encourage trade.

Sounds like the Ottomans didnt allow the locals to develop much, hampering them by taxes after the threats of war and destruction had abated.

Next, what can one say on the plus side?

1. There was no official interference with Greek religion. In many cases the Greeks preferred the tolerance of Turkish rule to the proselytising Catholicism of the Venetians. Greece was, spared the religious conflicts that, racked much of Europe: the St Bartholomew's Day massacre of Huguenots in france, the Inquisition in Spain.

Poland-Lithuania didnt have religious wars.
I believe the Swiss didnt either.
Until the fall of Byzantium religious conflict between the two sides of the schism was rather minor.

2. There was no interference with education, and there was no threat to the Greek language or to Greek culture in general.

Indirect is enough. No need to get heavily involved when you can keep it irrelevent indirectly

3. Greek territory, once acquired by the Turks, was not fought over. The one exception was the Venetian attempt on the Peloponnese in the 1680s. The Turkish conquests of 1453 had saved Greec from the battles of Crusader barons and Turkish occupation spared Greece the horrors of later European conflicts. Greece had no Thirty Years' War.

If all of Greece fell under French or Habsburg control, they would have been spared just as much.




This article does not condemn nor defend the actions of the Ottomans dirrectly, it attempts to negate the evils of the past by admitting to certain issues and trivilizing them, and ignoring others.
It is revisionism under the subterfuge of 'historical ballance'.
It has failed.

[noemon]

The article has not failed: On education it is true that education was committed straight up from the Church which enjoyed a relatively special Status(within the Ottos), funded by the Phanariotes(Prominent Ellines in the City) in the Polis, mostly and various other prominent Ellines around the Diaspora. Generally the Ottoman government was a pretty much moderate(relatively) Imperial Power, with all its accompanying negative Imperial features, much more moderate than the ultranationalistic Kemalist Hyper-regime and more moderate than various Western Imperial powers(.ie UK)

I think that the Turks in general have much more to feel pride about their Ottoman past than their Kemalist present, in more or less every aspect, both in the nationalistic domain as a Power to be reckoned but also as a government that made use of its resources(Ellines, Jews), rather than kill them at sight(Kemal), and drain the State from its entrepreneurial abilities and the City from its vibrant and cosmopolitan Society of Ellines, which were indeed magnificent citizens inside the City of Cities for centuries.

Noteworthy remark: In the beginning of the 1900's the newspapers published per day in Istanpolis were about 300.000 in total, 200.000 were published in Ellinic. And up until the Balkan Wars, the City was a European super-centre, certainly top 5 urban cities on the Planet.

As for the Ottomans being pretty much backward in technology and very harsh on the taxation system, this is ultimately true. And there isn't any argument arguing otherwise.

In conclusion:

"Who will discover the truth? The wrong has been committed. The important thing is, who will redeem it?"

Something interesting:

Possession of Greece would, of course, give Russia its coveted access to the Mediterranean. Russian agents in Greece reported, with unfounded optimism, that 100,000 armed Greeks, klephts and others, would support a Russian invasion. At the end of February 1770, Count Theodore Orlov, one of Catherine the Great's many lovers, landed at the little harbour of Hilo in the Mani, with five ships and only 500 men. The Greeks were unimpressed, and nothing like the promised 100,000 Greek supporters materialised.

It is said very popularly in Mani that the Maniots converted to Christiniaty when the Ottomans conguered Byzantium and the Emperor moved its seat a few km away from Mani that is in the Mystra fortress.

Mani is divided in to 4 sectors

Mesa Mani=Inside Mani
Ekso Mani=Outer Mani
Dytiki Mani=Western Mani
Anantoliki Mani=Eastern Mani

The Maniots are very interesting individuals, if one examines their customs, they still follow a bulk of Pantheist rituals(.ie Maniot Moiroloi, during funerals), and they have a negative tendency towards the rest of the Ellines, towards the Church, and towards pretty much everything, they have never been taxed all of them, there has never been a taxation enforcement in everysingle part of Mani(even though there have been brief taxation enforcements in parts of it, through collaboration or betrayal, but generally they have never been forced alltogether to pay taxes not even once, especially the Mesa Mani(Inside Mani) area.

Well, I happen to be one of them from Koita(The Capital of Mesa Mani, literal translation Koita=Source, cradle).

[Cid]

This article does not condemn nor defend the actions of the Ottomans dirrectly, it attempts to negate the evils of the past by admitting to certain issues and trivilizing them, and ignoring others.
It is revisionism under the subterfuge of 'historical ballance'.
It has failed.

Yeah hate creating conscience must be much better and productive then attempting to take a ballanced look at it.

I think that the Turks in general have much more to feel pride about their Ottoman past than their Kemalist present, in more or less every aspect, both in the nationalistic domain as a Power to be reckoned but also as a government that made use of its resources(Ellines, Jews), rather than kill them at sight(Kemal), and drain the State from its entrepreneurial abilities and the City from its vibrant and cosmopolitan Society of Ellines, which were indeed magnificent citizens inside the City of Cities for centuries.

And when did Kemal Ataturk kill Greeks and Jews or drain the City from its Greek community. In fact the population exchange of 1923 excluded the Greeks of Istanbul, and Kemal Ataturk was keen on a peacefull aegean relationship, marked by the friendship and respect between Ataturk and Venizelos. He also changed the Aya Sophia which was used in those days as a mosque into a museum, so that both the muslim and christian communities could enjoy and share its beauty. The pogroms of 1950's have little to do with Kemal Ataturk or his vision.

Noteworthy remark: In the beginning of the 1900's the newspapers published per day in Istanpolis were about 300.000 in total, 200.000 were published in Ellinic. And up until the Balkan Wars, the City was a European super-centre, certainly top 5 urban cities on the Planet.

Well Istanbul is still one of the most urban cities in the world and the cultural and economic centre of Turkey. With a population of around 10 million it is still one of the largest metropolises cities of Europe.

In conclusion:

Quote:

"Who will discover the truth? The wrong has been committed. The important thing is, who will redeem it?"

Something interesting:

I agree that is why I have bolded it together with the Cretan saying: "The fate every people makes for itself, and the things its own madness does to it, are not things done by its enemies."

Sadly enough there are many who are captured by "their" history and live in it, rather then to redeem by learning from history and not to make the mistake again. I believe, to be at peace with others, you first need to be peace with yourself.

[Doomhammer]

I think that the Turks in general have much more to feel pride about their Ottoman past than their Kemalist present,

The Ottoman Empire was a theocratic one and become a beacon for bigotry and weakness after the 17th century. Personally, I feel little for the Ottomans.

rather than kill them at sight(Kemal)

Fail. The Only Greeks Ataturk was responsible for killing were Greek soldiers. As Cid pointed out, the Greeks and Turks had excellent diplomatic relations at the time of Ataturk, this continued until... well the 50s (well after Ataturk's death).
As for teh Jews, many prominent Jewish scholars were invited to Turkey (after an exchange between Ataturk and Albert Einstein) to escape Nazi Germany and to continue research. Turkey benefited from this, especially because Turkey was reforming its higher education institurions at the time.

The pogroms of 1950's have little to do with Kemal Ataturk or his vision.

QFT. Same thing with the wealth tax. It was that Inonu bastard.


Basically, neither Ataturk nor Kemalism is to be blamed for any abuses done to infidels. The events in Istanbul are unfortunate but it's a bigotted response to the events at Thesseloniki (even if some claim it was done by Turks, for what reason I can't image. But this is irrelavant).

I have two observations I would like to share. One is that you guys either don't know about or misinterpret Kemalism. The second is that you guys make the false assumption that Turkey has been pursuing this non-stop for the past 80 years (which it has not).

[Thunderhawk]

Yeah hate creating conscience must be much better and productive then attempting to take a ballanced look at it.

"ballanced history"

=> Most groups around the world enslaved people at one point in time or another, therefore Europeans enslaving Africans wasnt bad.
=> In times past various societies would be indifferent about indescriminate murder of strangers. Therefore, indiscriminate murder of strangers isnt bad.

Why must historic views be reballanced so that both views of a conflict are equal? Sometimes one side is far more at fault then another, or commits hanous actions on a much larger scale then others.

[noemon]

And when did Kemal Ataturk kill Greeks and Jews or drain the City from its Greek community. In fact the population exchange of 1923 excluded the Greeks of Istanbul, and Kemal Ataturk was keen on a peacefull aegean relationship, marked by the friendship and respect between Ataturk and Venizelos. He also changed the Aya Sophia which was used in those days as a mosque into a museum, so that both the muslim and christian communities could enjoy and share its beauty. The pogroms of 1950's have little to do with Kemal Ataturk or his vision.

Cid, Kemal and his vision spawned a State that its ruthlessness is established whether you admit to it or not, it is indeed a historical fact, and totally independent from any Ellinic nationalistic coronas. Kemal had no vision of a peaceful Aegean, cause if he did his creation wouldnt have taken the Islands of Imvros and Tenedos which were ultimately Ellinic and turn Imvros into an open prison. Cid, your State is a Deep State, which has a lot of blood on its hands, blood repeated not just similar to Hitler once and out, but with repetition, your State is what inspired Hitler as stated by Hitler himself, and your State is in this continuing pursuit of continuing its policies and hiding behind its fingers, like an elephant in front of a tooth pick.

Well Istanbul is still one of the most urban cities in the world and the cultural and economic centre of Turkey. With a population of around 10 million it is still one of the largest metropolises cities of Europe.

When i get some time and some broadband internet cause am in dial-up, ill post some pictures of the Istanpolis i am talking about, and i think you will see the difference yourself.

Sadly enough there are many who are captured by "their" history and live in it, rather then to redeem by learning from history and not to make the mistake again. I believe, to be at peace with others, you first need to be peace with yourself.

Certainly so, in order to redeem the History one first must accept it, acknowledge it and perform the ultimate goal of realization, as you say, with thyself.

-In brackets (see first paragraph).-

P.S.: DOOMHAMMER, i shall leave you in the hands of others, and your Thessaloniki "BUT" is in one single word: DISGUSTING and PATHETIC.

[Cid]

"ballanced history"

=> Most groups around the world enslaved people at one point in time or another, therefore Europeans enslaving Africans wasnt bad.
=> In times past various societies would be indifferent about indescriminate murder of strangers. Therefore, indiscriminate murder of strangers isnt bad.

Why must historic views be reballanced so that both views of a conflict are equal? Sometimes one side is far more at fault then another, or commits hanous actions on a much larger scale then others.

Your assumption on my views or the reasoning of this article is incorrect. It is not to support of revisioning history in order to make historical acts look minimal.

The reasoning of my posting of this article is actually more down to earth, the historical perspective is limiting current relationship because it generates a conscious on hate. The article is not to idealize about the Ottoman empire, but puts very bluntly that there is no different of it from any other empire. Relation among modern nations bonded by past Imperial relationships, like for example the US-UK and India-UK or not strained at all while that between Greece and Turkey heavily is. This is partly due to current political development but even so, a lot of it can relate back to the past. The collective historical conscience of both the modern Greek and Turkish nations are build on viewing the other Aegean side primarily as antagonists. This is historical conscience is basically very narrowed down perspective and even somewhat anachronistic. The point is made excellently clear by the author in adding his last quotations which basicly brings the message that we have to move along, make progress if we expect to change.

[noemon]

The article is perfectly fine as stated already, your denialist mentality which cancels your beautifications, as posted in the quoted paragraph is NOT, nor is Doomhammer's crap about Thessaloniki.

As stated see the quoted paragraph and follow your own advice Cid.

[Doomhammer]

P.S.: DOOMHAMMER, i shall leave you in the hands of others, and your Thessaloniki "BUT" is in one single word: DISGUSTING and PATHETIC.

as posted in the quoted paragraph is NOT, nor is Doomhammer's crap about Thessaloniki.

What? There was an attack on Ataturk's house in Thessaloniki that sparked off the events in Istanbul. The questionable identity of the attackers notwithstanding, what did I say that could be deemed as "crap"?

[noemon]

So Doomhammer you stand by your words, dont you?

OK, lets us take this to the logical domain.

Let us assume 2 possibilities:

Possibility 1 the Ellines bombed the House of Ataturk in Thessaloniki.

Possibility 2 the Ellines did not bomb the House of Ataturk in Thessaloniki.

Now let us examine assumption 1.

The Ellines bomb the House of Atatturk in Thessaloniki which was the Turkish council in Ellas, there are no victims because for some weird reason it had been evacuated some days ago, but hey that is in possibility 2 well go there in a bit. Let us say that we did bomb the consulate. Is this event which had no deaths morally enough to destroy the whole Ellinic community in Istanpolis, to destroy the cemeteries, the graves, the shops, burn the houses, to arm an whole angry mob of citizens to plunder, destroy and burn their fellow citizens? You know it came into 3 waves, first wave breaking inside the houses, second wave stealing the houses, third wave setting fire on the houses. For some reason the only event that your government took full responisibility and came out and admitted that they organized the whole thing and promised to pay everything back, which ofc never happened. but its ok. Do you consider your pathetic argument that this is justified because someone put a bomb inside the Turkish consulate, and for some strange reason, there was nobody in there, because the consulate, wife and children had all gone by bye, the day before?

Are you so pathetic? Or is it my ellinic paranoia, Doomhammer?

Now lets go to Assumption number 2.

The Istanbul Pogrom (also known as Istanbul Riots; Greek: Σεπτεμβριανά (Events of September); Turkish: 6–7 Eylül Olayları (Events of September 6-7)), was a pogrom directed primarily at Istanbul's 100,000-strong Greek minority on September 6 and 7, 1955. Jews and Armenians living in the city and their businesses were also targeted in the pogrom, which was orchestrated by the Demokrat Parti-government of Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes. The events were triggered by the false news that the house in Thessaloniki (Turkish: Selânik), Greece, where Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was born in 1881, had been bombed the day before.[source^ Dilek Güven, “6–7 Eylül Olayları (1)”, Radikal, 6 September 2005]

A Turkish mob, most of which was trucked into the city in advance, assaulted Istanbul’s Greek community for nine hours. Although the orchestrators of the pogrom did not explicitly call for Greeks to be killed, between 13 and 16 Greeks (including two Orthodox clerics) and at least one Armenian died during or after the pogrom as a result of beatings and arsons.[2]

Thirty-two Greeks were severely wounded. In addition, dozens of Greek women were raped, and a number of men were forcibly circumcised by the mob. 4,348 Greek-owned businesses, 110 hotels, 27 pharmacies, 23 schools, 21 factories, 73 churches and over a thousand Greek-owned homes were badly damaged or destroyed.[2]

Estimates on the economic cost of the damage vary from Turkish government's estimate of 69.5 Million Turkish lira (equivalent to 24.8 million USD[3]), the British diplomat estimates of 100 million GBP (about 200 million USD), the World Council of Churches’ estimate of 150 million USD, and the Greek government's estimate of 500 million USD.[2]

The pogrom greatly accelerated emigration of ethnic Greeks from the Istanbul region (the former Constantinople), reducing the 200,000-strong Greek minority in 1924 to just over 5,000 in 2005.[4]

Further evidence and Turkish orchestration:

Since 1954, a number of nationalist student and irredentist organizations, such as the National Federation of Turkish Students, the National Union of Turkish Students, and Hikmet Bilâ's (editor of the major newspaper Hürriyet) Cyprus is Turkish Party, had protested against the Greek minority and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.[2]

In 1955 a state-supported propaganda campaign involving the Turkish press galvanized public opinion against the Greek minority.[2]

In the weeks running up to September 6, Turkish leaders made a number of anti-Greek speeches. On August 28 Prime Minister Menderes claimed that Greek Cypriots were planning a massacre of Turkish Cypriots. In addition to the Cyprus issue, the chronic economic situation also motivated the Turkish political leadership into orchestrating the pogrom. Although a minority, the Greek population played a prominent role in the city’s business life, making it a convenient scapegoat during the economic crisis.[2] The pogroms were sparked by an alleged arson attack at the Turkish consulate (and birthplace of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk) in Greece’s second largest city, Thessaloniki.

Doomhammers VOMIT:

Planning

The 1961 Yassıada Trial against Menderes and Foreign Minister Fatin Rüştü Zorlu exposed the detailed planning of the pogrom. Menderes and Zorlu mobilized the formidable machinery of the ruling Demokrat Parti (DP) and party-controlled trade unions of Istanbul. Interior minister Namik Gedik was also involved. According to Zorlu's lawyer at the Yassiada trial, a mob of 300,000 was marshalled in a radius of 40 miles around the city for the pogrom.[2]

The trial also revealed that the fuse for the consulate bomb was sent from Turkey to Thessaloniki on September 3. Oktay Engin, the MAH agent, who was then in Thessaloniki under the cover of a university student, was given the mission of installing the explosives.[2]

In addition, ten of Istanbul’s 18 branches of Cyprus is Turkish Party were run by DP officials. This organization played a crucial role in inciting anti-Greek activities.[2]

In his 2005 book, Harvard-trained Byzantine historian Speros Vryonis documents the direct role of the Demokrat Parti organization and government-controlled trade unions in amassing the rioters that swept Istanbul. Most of the rioters came from western Asia Minor. His case study of Eskişehir shows how the party there recruited 400 to 500 workers from local factories, who were carted by train with third class-tickets to Istanbul. These recruits were promised the equivalent of US$ 6, which was never paid. They were accompanied by Eskişehir police, who were charged with coordinating the destruction and looting once the contingent was broken up into sub-groups of 40–50 men, and the leaders of the party branches.[2]

Further:

Execution

Municipal and government trucks were placed in strategic points all around the city to distribute the tools of destruction; shovels, pickaxes, crowbars, ramming rods and petrol; while 4,000 private taxis were requisitioned to transport the perpetrators.[2]

A protest rally on the night of September 6, organized by the authorities in Istanbul, on the Cyprus issue and the alleged arson attack in Thessaloniki at the house where Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was born, was the cover for amassing the rioters. At 17.00, the pogrom started and from its original centre in Taksim Square, the trouble rippled out during the evening through the old suburb of Pera, the smashing and looting of Greek commercial property, particularly along Yuksek Kaldirim street. By 18.00, many of the Greek shops on Istanbul's main shopping street, Istiklal Caddesi, were ransacked. Many commercial streets were littered with merchandise and fittings torn out of Greek-owned businesses.

According to the account of one eyewitness, a Greek dentist, the mob chanted "Death to the Gavurs", "Massacre the Greek traitors", "Down with Europe" and "Onward to Athens and Thessaloniki" as they executed the pogrom.

The riot died down by midnight with the intervention of the Turkish Army and martial law was declared. Eyewitnesses reported, however, that army officers and policemen had earlier participated in the rampages and in many cases urged the rioters on.

Personal violence

While the pogromists were not instructed to kill their targets, sections of the mob went much further than scaring or intimidating local Greeks. Between 13 and 16 Greeks and one Armenian (including two clerics) died as a result of the pogrom. 32 Greeks were severely wounded. Men and women were raped, and according to the account of the Turkish writer Aziz Nesin, men, mainly priests, were subjected to forced circumcision by frenzied members of the mob and an Armenian priest died after the procedure. Nesin wrote[citation needed]:

A man who was fearful of being beaten, lynched or cut into pieces would imply and try to prove that he was both a Turk and a Muslim. "Pull it out and let us see," they would reply. The poor man would peel off his trousers and show his "Muslimness" and "Turkishness": And what was the proof? That he had been circumcised. If the man was circumcised, he was saved. If not, he was doomed. Indeed, having lied, he could not be saved from a beating. For one of those aggressive young men would draw his knife and circumcise him in the middle of the street and amid the chaos. A difference of two or three centimetres does not justify such a commotion. That night, many men shouting and screaming were Islamized forcefully by the cruel knife. Among those circumcised there was also a priest.

Material damage

The physical and material damage was considerable and over 4,348 Greek-owned businesses, 110 hotels, 27 pharmacies, 23 schools, 21 factories, and 73 churches and over 1,000 Greek-owned homes were badly attacked or destroyed.

Church property
Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in the ruins of the church of Saint Constantine




In addition to commercial targets, the mob clearly targeted property owned or administered by the Greek Orthodox Church. 73 churches and 23 schools were vandalized, burned or destroyed, as were 8 asperses and 3 monasteries. This represented about 90 percent of the church property portfolio in the city. The ancient Byzantine church of Panagia in Veligradiou was vandalised and burned down. The church at Yedikule was badly vandalised, as was the church of St. Constantine of Psammathos. At Zoodochos Pege church in Balıklı, the tombs of a number of ecumenical patriarchs were smashed open and desecrated. The abbot of the monastery, Bishop Gerasimos of Pamphilos, was severely beaten during the pogrom and died from his wounds some days later in Balıklı Hospital. In one church arson attack, Father Chrysanthos Mandas was burned alive. The Metropolitan of Liloupolis, Gennadios, was badly beaten and went mad. Elsewhere in the city, Greek cemeteries came under attack and were desecrated. Some reports also testified that relics of saints were burned or thrown to dogs.

Witnesses

An eyewitness account was provided by journalist Noel Barber of the London Daily Mail on 14 September 1955:
“ The church of Yedikule was utterly smashed, and one priest was dragged from bed, the hair torn from his head and the beard literally torn from his chin. Another old Greek priest [Fr Mantas] in a house belonging to the church and who was too ill to be moved was left in bed, and the house was set on fire and he was burned alive. At the church of Yeniköy, a lovely spot on the edge of the Bosporus, a priest of 75 was taken out into the street, stripped of every stitch of clothing, tied behind a car and dragged through the streets. They tried to tear the hair of another priest, but failing that, they scalped him, as they did many others. ”

One significant eyewitness was Ian Fleming, the James Bond author, who was in Istanbul covering the International Police Conference as a special representative for the London Sunday Times. His account, entitled "The Great Riot of Istanbul", appeared in that paper on 11 September 1955.

Pics:



From wiki

How pathetic is YOU DOOMHAMMER?

Do you consider the vomit they feed you about that bomb even if we did fucking placed it, do you consider this as enough to perform the above actions? Blah, hftou!

How CID, are your citizens gonna ever redeem their actions?

HOW? And you also have the nerve to preach us about our education, and about our History?

You have a Turkish community in Ellas that thrives, you have a Turkish community that goes by equally under the Law and even with more benefits than us because they are a minority and a religious one as well(which means that we pay for the Mullahs, through our taxes and we pay for the Mosques and everything, me and my family and all the Ellines, and we do not even ask you to pay for our schools in Turkey, we only ask you to allow us to build them ourselves, and you want to enter the EU without granting equal rights to the Ellines, and if asked you will also argue for it.) And let us not even mention the funding the Turkish minority receives by the Turkish Government in order to ask various little things and press political muscle from time to time. Let us not even go there.

Where will the Turks come to terms with themselves?

When? How much evidence do they need to realize that you live in a third world country that preaches the Gazi-state ideology, and supplies with vomiting arguments its people in order to celebrate their butchers as national heroes and the butchering days as national Holidays?

But you know what, i do not care any more, because i am certain philosophically that

"ola edo plironon te"= everything is payed in this lifetime.

I have not messed around with the Turks ever since i've been here, because i feel sorry for you, and all that you go through the past 2 months in Turkey. I feel you in a way because all that you go through from the Americans has become my daily routine by YOU, ever since i can remember. I am sure that now you know how it feels as well. But when you raise such denialism(see Doom hammer's vomit=Thessaloniki bomb), i shall retaliate. Nothing more nothing less.

[Vanasalus]

You have a Turkish community in Ellas that thrives, you have a Turkish community that goes by equally under the Law and even with more benefits than us because they are a minority and a religious one as well

Wrong. According to Greek state, there are no Turks in Greece but some Muslims. As a matter of fact, elected religious leaders of these “Muslims” are either ignored or imprisoned.

[noemon]

Source!

According to Greek state, there are no Turks in Greece but some Muslims.

The treaty that the Kemal and Venizelos signed writes clearly Muslims, ofc their schools are Turkish and they learn the Turkish language as they have requested, hey and we pay for the schools, the teachers and their books.

In 1922, the Muslim minority left in Thrace numbered approximately 86,000 people,[2] and consisted of three ethnic groups: Turks, Pomaks (Muslim Slavs who speak Bulgarian) and Muslim Roma (Gypsies), each of these groups having its own language and culture, yet all espousing the same national identity. For this reason, the Treaty defines them as one Muslim minority, rather than three minorities: a Turkish, a Pomak and a Muslim Roma minority.[2] According to the Greek government, ethnic Turks form approximately 50% of the minority, Pomaks 35% and Muslim Roma 15%.[2]

The minority enjoys full equality with the Greek majority, and prohibition against discrimination and freedom of religion are provided for in Article 5 and Article 13 of the Greek constitution.[3] In Thrace today there are 3 muftis, approximately 270 imams and approximately 300 mosques.[4]

Politics

The minority is always represented in the Greek parliament,[4] and is currently represented by ND member Ahmet S. Ilhan [1]. During the latest local elections (2002), approximately 250 Muslim municipal and prefectural councillors and mayors were elected, and the Vice-Prefect of Rhodope is also a Muslim.[4] The main minority rights activist organization of the Turkish community within the minority is the "Turkish Minority Movement for Human and Minority Rights" (Greek: Τούρκικη Μειονοτική Κίνηση για τα Ανθρώπινα και Μειονοτικά Δικαιώματα, Toúrkiki Meionotikí Kínisi yia ta Avthrópina kai Meionotiká Dikaiómata, Turkish: İnsan ve Azınlık Hakları için Türk Azınlık Hareketi).


In Thrace today there are 235 minority primary schools, where education is in the Greek and Turkish languages,[2] and there are also two minority secondary schools, one in Xanthi and one in Komotini, where most of the minority is concentrated.[2] In the remote mountainous areas of Xanthi where the Pomak element is dominant, the Greek government has set up Greek language secondary education schools in which religious studies is taught in Turkish and the Koran is taught in Arabic.[2] The Pomak language (which is essentially considered a dialect of Bulgarian), however, is not taught at any level of the education system.[5] The government finances the transportation to and from the schools for students who live in remote areas, and in the academic year 1997-98, approximately 195,000 USD was spent on transportation.[2]

There are two Islamic theological seminaries, one in Komotini, and one in Echinos (a small town in Xanthi Prefecture inhabited almost exclusively by Pomaks), and under Law 2621/1998, the qualification awarded by these institutions has been recognized as equal to that of the Greek Orthodox seminaries in the country.[2]

Finally, 0.5% of places in Greek higher education institutions are reserved for members of the minority.[4]

All the aforementioned institutions are funded by the state.[6]

As a matter of fact, elected religious leaders of these “Muslims” are either ignored or imprisoned.

They are paid by my taxes according to Ellinic law.

Your arguments are pathetic, disgusting and ofc without any sources.

And you despicability because i see where you are going at is the following:

The main minority grievance regards the appointment of muftis. The Greek government started appointing muftis instead of holding elections after the death of Mufti of Komotini in 1985 (which is a failure to implement Law 2345/1920 according to Cultural Survival [7]), although the Greek government maintained that as the practice of state-appointed muftis is widespread (including in Turkey), this practice should be adhered to in Greece, and as the muftis perform certain judicial functions in matters of family and inheritance law, the state ought to appoint them.[2]

Double standards, maybe? Stupidity? Which one of the 2?

The muftis exercise authority inside our borders, we pay them as we pay our mayors through our taxes.

[Vanasalus]

Source!

Enjoy your reading: LINK

The main minority grievance regards the appointment of muftis. The Greek government started appointing muftis instead of holding elections after the death of Mufti of Komotini in 1985 (which is a failure to implement Law 2345/1920 according to Cultural Survival [7]), although the Greek government maintained that as the practice of state-appointed muftis is widespread (including in Turkey), this practice should be adhered to in Greece, and as the muftis perform certain judicial functions in matters of family and inheritance law, the state ought to appoint them.[2] Human Rights Watch alleges that this is against Lausanne Treaty which grants the Muslim minority the right to organize and conduct religious affairs free from government interference [8] (although it is unclear whether issues such as inheritance law are religious matters). As such, there are two muftis for each post, one elected by the participating faithful, and one appointed by Presidential Decree. The elected Mufti of Xanthi is Mr Aga and the government recognized one is Mr Sinikoğlu; the elected Mufti of Komotini is Mr Şerif and the government recognized one is Mr Cemali. According to the Greek government, the elections by which Mr Aga and Mr Şerif were appointed were rigged and involved very little participation from the minority.[2] As pretension of (religious) authority is a criminal offence against the lawful muftis under the Greek Penal Code, both elected muftis were prosecuted and on conviction, both were imprisoned and fined. When, however, the case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, the Greek government was found to have violated the right to religious freedom of Mr Aga and Mr Şerif.[9]

Another controversial issue was Article 19 of the Greek Citizenship Code, which allowed the government to revoke the citizenship of non-ethnic Greeks who left the country. According to official statistics 46,638 Muslims (most of them being of Turkish origin) from Thrace and the Dodecanese islands lost their citizenships from 1955 to 1998, until the law was non-retroactively abolished in 1998.[10]

The final grievance is the Greek government's restrictions on the usage of the terms "Turk" and "Turkish" when describing the minority as a whole. A number of organizations, including the "Turkish Union of Xanthi", have been banned for using those terms in their title.[3]

They are paid by my taxes according to Ellinic law.

Well, where are the tax revenues paid by these "Muslims” then?

Your arguments are pathetic, disgusting and ofc without any sources.

[noemon]

INCLUDING IN TURKEY!

Pathetic.

So you accuse us of ignoring the elected muslims when you yourselves do the same and appoint them yourselves.

And what are you comparing Turk?

What is your thesis? That what? Fucking Greeks they replaced 2 muftis in the Minority that they have offered full rights? Lets accuse them, and pray that some one in here is dum enough to consider the Ellines the same as us?

HHHHHFTOU!

[Vanasalus]

So you accuse us of ignoring the elected muslims when you yourselves do the same and appoint them yourselves.

Wrong. Holy Synod elects every new ecumenical patriarch since early days of the Patriarchate till now. The republic has interfered neither the election process nor the outcome so far.

...to consider the Ellines...

What does 'Ellines" mean anyway? A kind of fish..?

[Cid]

Dear noemon,

You havent even made peace with the English language, calling Greeks Ellines Ellinades or whatever. If your want to preach peace, make shure you are at peace with the language in which you preach.

How CID, are your citizens gonna ever redeem their actions?

You miss the point of the article, read again!
On the Greeks' own responsibility for their misfortunes, he quoted approvingly an old Cretan saying: "The fate every people makes for itself, and the things its own madness does to it, are not things done by its enemies."

And on reconciliation, Seferis wrote of the destruction by fire of his beloved birthplace Smyrna in 1922, at the end of the Asia Minor catastrophe. Greeks and Turks, he said, blame each other for the fire, but he concluded: "Who will discover the truth? The wrong has been committed. The important thing is, who will redeem it?"
If you expect to be at peace you have to redeem yourself first. You speak about Turks (always plural) are like this and like that and that you are not holding yourself back anymore. Why bother to hold yourself back, if you are hidding and suppressing your biased thougths.

HOW? And you also have the nerve to preach us about our education, and about our History?

Where will the Turks come to terms with themselves?

But you know what, i do not care any more, because i am certain philosophically that

"ola edo plironon te"= everything is payed in this lifetime.

When will you realize your eyes are clouded by hate and bigotory. I have never hated Greece or Greeks or expressed such thoughts, yet you have attacked my personality in every aspect, despite the fact I have never shown you aggression.

I have always loved the saying:
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free.
by Nikos Kazantzakis.

Free your mind, get rid of this hatefull and phobic thoughts that have stressed your soul and being and then come back and we can discuss as free man.

[noemon]

Wrong. Holy Synod elects every new ecumenical patriarch since early days of the Patriarchate till now. The republic has interfered neither the election process nor the outcome so far.

Disgusting! Is your reply.

You accuse us of disposing 2 elected muftis when in Turkey the Muftis are not elected they are appointed by the State. The Ellines did the same to 2 muftis, they appointed them as does Turkey and we were found guilty in the European Court of Law and charged for our appointment of muftis and abandoned the one and only practice that took place ONCE.

CID: the ridiculiosity of you, and your compatriots is mind-bending. If you think your beautifications and your quoting of Ellinic masterpieces is enough to save you from ridiculiosity, you have misjudged the whole situation.

My reply came when your side blamed Ellas for an alleged bomb that somehow provides you with moral ground to perform the above events...I prove it wrong, and you accuse me?

You make fun of my name ELLAS? You dare? You deny your crimes unlike many other nations, when the sources are numerous in regards, you reject the peace move that I made towards you and you rejected it, you accuse me of bigotry?

You are the same as your compatriots. Unworthy of discussion and dialogue. The only thing that you are worthy for, is to have someone like me around and observe every single lie of yours, and make you feel sorry that you even typed it.

What is your opinion on the Turkish denialism?

This is for my part the last time i will ask this question.

Afterwards i shall only be here to observe, and don't tell me to read Seferis and Kazantzakis because i live in their poems, i have nothing to apologize to you, Nothing to come to terms with.

yet you have attacked me in every aspect, despite the fact I have never shown you aggression.

I do not attack you, i attack the ridicule of your government as expressed, illustrated and proven beyond any doubt by your compatriots, and since you are the only reasonable Turk in here, it is you that i choose to address, because only then the other children will eventually come to terms.

And P.S.: I can sit here and analyse to you all with exhaustive pure real arguments why the Ellines are so careful about their History, and Cultural heritage, but i am not a beggar, i only respond to lies, i do not initiate.

If you wish to find out the what all of our neighbors in collaboration with the Western Unesco, encyclopedias, and various organizations are doing to us, ask me.

Why are the Ellines stuck with their History?

Because it is in danger. And if any of you want proof ill give you proof. The same proof that the wikipedian fuckers are deleting. The same proof that nobody wants to know.

But enough, enough is enough,

OUR HISTORY IS WRITTEN DOWN INSIDE OUR BLOOD AND BONES, AND NO FUCKER SHALL BE ALLOWED TO DENY NOT EVEN ONE INCH OF IT.

LOGOS ALWAYS PREVAILS.

[Vanasalus]

You accuse us of disposing 2 elected muftis when in Turkey the Muftis are not elected they are appointed by the State. The Ellines did the same to 2 muftis, they appointed them as does Turkey and we were found guilty in the European Court of Law and charged for our appointment of muftis and abandoned the one and only practice that took place ONCE.

I presume we were discussing about the religious rights "Muslim" minority, described by Lausanne treaty. Accordingly, "Muslim" minority has the right of electing its religious leader as the ecumenical patriarch is being elected in Turkey. And, Greek state has been trying to undermine it since 1985 by appointing an irrelevant mufti in spite of the will of the community.

[Doomhammer]

Hi. What I miss?

Do you consider the vomit they feed you about that bomb even if we did fucking placed it, do you consider this as enough to perform the above actions? Blah, hftou!

Idiot. How you managed to twist my words in that mind of yours to think that I approve of these killings in Istanbul is beyond my comprehension. And are so petty as to make a big deal out of this? I was being neutral by saying the identity of the attackers are questionable. That is to say it could have been Turks or it could have been Greeks, but it doesn't matter. I think you are looking for an excuse to fight; either that, or you are extremely touchy, sensitive and slightly illiterate.



About your constant use of "Ellines". Frankly, I don't care. But this is an English forum and the rules say that we must adhere to the "English" language. Aside from that, when you use words like "ethos" and "Ellines" etc. some people don't understand what you say. Perhaps you should use more English and a little less Greek (aside from the Greek words in English).

You make fun of my name ELLAS? You dare? You deny your crimes unlike many other nations, when the sources are numerous in regards, you reject the peace move that I made towards you and you rejected it, you accuse me of bigotry?

Oh who cares about the names of countries. Will you stop being so petty? Greece, Hellas, Ellines... who cares? This is an English forum so just say Greece. In English, my ountry shares the name of a poultry animal. Do we care? No. Do we keep saying Türkiye everywhere and consider the word Turkey as an insult? No. This is not a rational discourse.

You accuse us of disposing 2 elected muftis when in Turkey the Muftis are not elected they are appointed by the State.

Good, at least we have less religious terrorism in Turkey and neither do we provide a safe haven for terrorism prone individuals to train and recruit members.

You are the same as your compatriots. Unworthy of discussion and dialogue.

You yourself are not a real prize either.

The only thing that you are worthy for, is to have someone like me around and observe every single lie of yours, and make you feel sorry that you even typed it.

Good for you. Does your ego feel better?

Stop flattering yourself.

I do not attack you, i attack the ridicule of your government as expressed,

No, Noemon. You are wrong. You've been doing this since day one. Infact, I first answered your post because I was irritated by you insulting forum members. You never learn and you never cease. Now who's in denial?

since you are the only reasonable Turk in here, it is you that i choose to address, because only then the other children will eventually come to terms.

Divide et impera