Ottoman Cyprus

Ok, let us see what you got here:

"... The Greeks over whom throughout this land the Latins have dominion, have
thirteen Bishops, of whom one is an Archbishop..."

Why would I care about 1211 AD? Let me again bring you back closer to our era. Just before the Ottomans took Cyprus, here is what the thirteen Bishops looked like:

"After the establishment of Kingdom of Cyprus the catholic kings gradually reduced the number of orthodox bishops from 14 to 4 and forced those away from their towns. The archbishop was moved from Nicosia to the region of Solia, near Morfou, the bishop of Larnaca was moved to the village of Lefkara etc. Each orthodox bishop was under the catholic bishop of the area. The catholic church tried on occasion to force the orthodox bishops to make concessions on the differences in doctrine and practices between the two churches, sometimes with threats and sometimes using violence and torture, as in the case of the 13 monks in Kantara."  Source Link

Also:

"After doctrinal controversies split Christianity between East and West, the church survived 400 years of attempts by Roman Catholic rulers to force recognition of the authority of the pope in Rome. After Cyprus's conquest by Ottoman Turks in the sixteenth century, the sees of the Orthodox bishops were reestablished, according to the Ottoman practice of governing through a millet"  http://www.ciaonet.org/atlas/countries/cy_data_loc.html

"...'They were singing in the Greek tongue, so we could not understand them,
because all the people in Cyprus speak Greek..."

Speaking the same language does not mean Orthodox cohessiveness.


"...'The people in Limassol are Greeks and so are all the inhabitants of Cyprus,
and they speak Greek..."

Same goes for here. If they spoke the same language, shared the same culture, it does not mean an Orthodox cohesiveness. In fact:

The conquest of Cyprus by the Ottoman Empire led to the recognition of the Orthodox church as the only legal christian church. The church was considered by the ottomans to be the political leadership of the christian population (Rum millet) and was responsible for collecting taxes. Because of the different policies of the ottoman empire towards muslim and non muslim citizens, certain christians converted to Islam. These are known in Cyprus with the name "Linopampakoi".  Source

Also this strengthening of the Orthodox Cohesiveness is observed over many other Orthodox territories that came under the Ottoman Empire even in Romania and the Balkans:

"The Ottoman system tended not to submerge national languages and identities, and encouraged a sense of identity based on religious community, the millet, perhaps working to strengthen an Orthodox cohesiveness which was lacking in the wars of the pre-Ottoman period"

Also:

"The imposition of the Ottoman rule fostered cohesiveness among the island's populous, a cohesiveness that eventually led to the first faint stirrings of a form of nationalism...The Church of Cyprus, a separate branch of the Greek Orthodox " http://www.ndu.edu/library/n3/SSP-85-020.pdf

These facts you deny are well documented. Not by Turkish sources as you expect always but by independent sources including the US congress report of "Crisis on Cyprus 1975: One Year After the Invasion" Hearings. Washington DC, 1975. Page 72 of the report.

Well what do you say if most of my sources were Turkish authors? I think it is a common sense and reasonable point for me to bring up that you heavily emphasizes on Hellenic authors.

If the quotation mark was not there, I would have accepted that. However, I would ask you if you seriously read without your glasses. This is your second time quoting me wrong. The quote of "co-founder of Hellenic nationalism" should have been quoted correctly to "co-founder of Greek nationalism" and the explaination I provided following that, explains I'm only interested in modern nationalism of Greece.

Yes, it would have been a correction if I said it was a Graham's quote. All what I said that it was a publication of the University of Pennsylvenia. The book was copied and pasted as the initial source and the whole review of Mr. Stephenson had its own link.

Of course it will mean nothing to you especially he is your main source.

Yes, can't say no. However, think of the receiver as yourself. Would you prefer a direct link ot the same information or a random book name that doesn't even have a page number? Sources are mainly for verification purposes. So, make it easy too if you can.

If you waited a second and thought about what you typed, you would have found too that you are stalking every post I posted. Anyhow, I hope I won't see more of these fillers to our discussions. Focus please.

Sorry I had to cut this quote from the middle. It is 6 lines talking about nothing and at the end no source. If it is so well known and a basic knowledge, then it is available everywhere online and offline. So, quit your fillers and go find that source.

 

You mean: I'm honestly starting to lose any interest in this discussion.

They need to be humbled and equaled. While Muslims are obligated to pay Zakah and taxes to the government, they have to be equalled. Especially if they are not serving the military (which is encouraged at that time since most wars were carried with religious banners, so it will be unfair to draft them in the army both, for them and the army). Why would they fight with those who conquered them? Simple, money, avoiding the taxation, and fighting those they hate (Orthodox joining the Ottoman armies in the their battles against the Hungarian-Austrian Kingdom). Many reasons and incentives that exist even in any military today.

Congratulation on your findings. Yes, English is not my first language. Does this discredit my participation? Anyhow, I really have no problem making English mistakes and i ALWAYS do if you went back to my previous posts. No one comment on these mistakes because we are all focusing on the information. Focusing on such issues shows you run out of words probably. By the way, a suggestion for you. Before you look into other's shortcomings, look for that in your own self. Go back to the section where I corrected you in grammer and spelling:

I'm honestly starting to loose any interested in this 'discussion'

If you had made that without your silly comment, I would have not even bothered myself commenting on it. However, I think you like to embarrass yourself.

 

Ok, I really don't care what you meant by such and such or your intention, as long as we both agree at the end that both of the Greek and Turkish population of the island experienced the heavy taxes laws and both rebelled as early as the island came under the Ottoman domain and not only after 1668. 

 

First source, its link does not work. Go back and copy it again Please. Also, the original webpage is www.aspsa2005.net, an Asian Planning School Association Conference of 2005



 

If I weren't mistaken, it is actually "Du Voyage de Jerusalem". Anyhow, I see the quote, but no the source. Im still interested. 



 

Ok, an Itlaian Catholic theologian visiting Cyprus in 1598, since the island fell to the Ottomans in 1571 and writing about the cruelty of the Ottomans, how objective?


 

Originally posted by Phallanx Yeah you're right, it's all about pride...but who's ??? ::..

Ask Mila.

Regarding Kotumeyil post and your refuse to accept that the feudal system was minimized and extracted out of Cyprus, I present to you this:

"The second important result of the Ottoman occupation benefited the Greek peasants who no longer remained serfs of the land they were cultivating.  Now they could acquire it against payment, thus becoming owners of it.  At the same time the Orthodox Church was liberated because the Turks were afraid of the presence of the Catholic Church as it might instigate an attack of Western Europe against them.  Gradually the Archbishop of Cyprus became not only religious but ethnic leader as well, something the Turks promoted wanting to have somebody responsible for the loyalty of the Greek flock.  In this way the Church undertook the task of the guardian of the Greek cultural legacy which is partly carried on even in our days, although diminished after independence"

Though I disagree with a lot of comments in the article that I brought my quote from, however, Im suprised that they agreed with the fact that the Orthodox Church was liberated and the Ottomans rule over Cyprus ended the serfdom and started the ownership of lands by local peasants. That article came from the Cyprus government Historical Encyclopedia of Cyprus. Source.

If you are still disagreeing even with the Cyprus government over thier OWN history, then I cannot find anything to classify it except pure arrogance.

Anyhow, our posts are growing larger and larger with less information and more of "fillers" and "rubbish". Try to respond focusing on the issue instead of busying yourself with my English.

O yes i nearly forgot. I gave my word to explain the origins of the Turkish Cypriots to Leonides.

Sorry for the late reply.

The Turkish Cypriots were not from Turkoman areas, as you mentioned. They were mainly from the Karaman region of Anatolia. Although many are also noted to be from other regions of Asia minor. All being of Turkish ethnicity, many were forced to live in Cyprus. The initial migrants however were the Mujahids, the soldiers the won the war in Cyprus.

^The above depics my ancestors. In their conquest of Limassol castle. They later settled in a village near Limassol. Known as BiNATLI, or the 'thousend horsemen' in their memory. They later called their families from Anatolia to settle with them. These are my ancestors. The village although mainly Turkish also had Greek Cypriots too. they called the village Polemitya. If iam right in saying'Pole' or 'Bole' means war in Greek, although i would appreciate a translation.

^above Lala Mustafa Pasha, first Ottoman govener of Cyprus

I would like to add that on the issue of Jizya and Zakat, the Jizya is less and can be avoided while the Zakat cannot be. Also Jizya was often used for the community in question itself, in addition it ought to be perceived as any tax of which in return the protection and services of the state are offered.  

If one wonders how it is possible for the conquerer to treat the conquered "better", one has to make sure this "better" is not limited to solely one perspective which in this case it is. In the Islamic state, there were many freedoms for non-Muslims that Muslims did not have, and there were many obligations for Muslims that non-Muslims did not have.

I'll give a few examples:

A Muslim was obligated to pray 5 times a day, yes punishment followed when this whas neglected. A non-Muslim had no obligation in this. A Muslim was obligated to fast during Ramadan, a non-Muslim was not. A Muslim was forbidden drinking alcohol, a non-Muslim was not. A Muslim was forbidden eating porc, a non-Muslim was not. A Muslim was forbidden to have icons, crosses and engage in religious matters that Islam forbids, a non-Muslim was not. There are numerous other examples to mention which are obligated or forbidden for Muslims, and not for non-Muslims.

One could say the non-Muslim is treated better from a non-Muslim perspective, but from a Muslim perspective it is the Muslim that is treated better. People of true faith insist on religious law to be implemented, even if it is in their worldly disatvantage. This is how many Muslims would look at it, and have looked at it when they practiced their religion. Non-Muslims might not perceive it as being humbled on these matters, many haven't due to the experiences they had with others of their own faith in the past; in Syria, in Egypt but also in the Balkans and throught the different eras including that of the Ottomans.

To educate you on issues you obviously know nothing about hell yes, but to avoid.. Hell just for this, crappy comment I'll continue.. (obviously the reason you posted it)

I'll explain this for the very last time.
Every source you've provided mentions that only after the Ottoman rule did they form a sence of strong Orthodox cohessiveness.
"A strong sence" does not mean that it previously never existed nor did I ever attempt to refute this issue.
MY objection is to your stupid remark quoted above (that you conveniently AVOID to address)

""The cohesiveness of the Orthodox and between Greek and Cyprus (again, notice this for the 3rd time, GREECE & CYPRUS) were brought alive by the Ottoman rule."

This is nothing remotely related to what any of your presented sources support. You DIRECTLY have suggested that Hellinic and Cypriot cohenssion (NOT ONLY ORTHODOX) was non-existant prior to the arrival of the Ottomans..

So either PROVE it, since you like playing with sources that there was NO previous cohenssion between Hellas and Cyprus or give me a break.. and accept what you wrote was wrong... You're just arguing for the sake of argument, continuously going in circles...

Had you read the wikipedia article you allgedly quoted, you would have seen that it mentions NOTHING about Gyzis. But instead under the pic it says :

"An oil paintaing portraying a secret school ("krifo sxolio" in Greek), where the Hellenic-Orthodox spirit was kept alive."

You obviously mixed wiki. with the other link..
So when you do quote, do it correctly..

Interestingly enough, none of the Lamprakis group media sources in Hellinic lang. never published anything remotely similar even though it does have a mainly pro-Turkish approach in the issues 'friendship', EU...etc 
Anyway, I find Brewer and all the rest of the so-called historians of our time, revisionists and some what non-trustworthy.

So sorry but I'll prefer, Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, Cambridge University Press, 1968, p. 218

" Even though the 'High Gate' never meddled with the Patriarch's Academy in Konstantinoupoli, the provincial commanders could be as oppressive as they chose. Many of them considered the education of the minority as the most unwanted thing"

-----------------

From : Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, Cambridge University Press, 1968, p. 224

" It is impossible that the Turks would ever allow the Church to obtain enough money in order to construct many schools. And, even if they could raise the ammount needed, it is equally impossible to believe that the provincial Turkish command would allow Hellinic schools preform large scaled education.. While there was never an official order, the existing schools were confiscated and the children sent home, so any further attempts were meaningless..

(the above quotes may not be the exact words used since I've translated it from my own copy which is written in Hellinic)

--------------

George Horton, "The Blight of Asia" (can be read online) quoted Sir Edward Pirs saying :

"Under the rule of its new masters Constantinople was destined to become the most degraded capital in Europe, and became incapable of contributing anything whatever of value to the history of the human race. No art, no literature, no handicraft even, nothing that the world would gladly keep, has come since 1453 from the Queen City. Its capture, so far as human eyes can see, has been for the world a misfortune almost without any compensatory advantage."

Rene Paux in his book "Poor N. Epirus' (probably a mistranslated title) mentions visiting Argyrokastro in 1913, just one year after it's independance. He has recorded that the children told him of going to school in utmost secrecy. If this took place in the later stages of the empire, one cna only but imagine what was going on in the 16th, 17th cent..

Or what about General J. Makrygiannis (see war of Independence in 1821' ) that in his memoirs makes an extent reference to the priests and the 'secret schools' ..

Further proof are the many toponyms in various areas of Hellas like in Ioannina, Mani, Io, Korinth, Crete, Boeotia...etc where we find villages named, (yup you guessed it) "KRYFO SXOLEIO" or the well known little island of 'DASKALEION' just across the shore of Tolo in Peloponessos (outside Nauplio) other areas, have remote caves named so..
note that DASKALEION mean 'place of teaching'.. and local legend has it that the children were either 'smuggled' in small fishing boats or even swam across to be taught..

Here in Volos, we have two areas that were reknowned as 'secret schools' one is the Church of Agios Nikolaos used in the later stages of the empire (right in the center of the city and the other a cave converted into a Church just outside the town (Panagia Trypa) 'Virgin hole'..

Since when do politicians wright history and how exactly does the Cyprus gov. site refute what is once again common knowledge to everyone but you ???

The EXACT quote I presented was.. :

""Units of villages and farmlands were assigned as timars (fiefs) to cavalrymen according to the expected productivity and tax revenue. The local sipahi (horsemen) then lived on the revenues of his fief, kept order, carried out the sultan's regulations, and gave military service on campaigns. This system was particularly strong in the Balkans; later conquests in the Arab areas were put under administrators who were tax-farmers rather than cavalrymen.""

so what do we get with a simple damn google ???

"Administrative structure strengthened and centralized through elaboration of tahrir-defter (cadastral survey-record books) system based on military fiefs (timars). "
www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ottoman1.html

"The conquered land was parcelled out to the Sultan's followers, who held it as feudal fiefs (timars and ziamets) directly from him. The land could not be sold or inherited, but reverted to the Sultan when the fiefholder died."
www.answers.com/topic/ottoman-greece

"In the Ottoman army, light cavalry long formed the core and they were given fiefs called timars. "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

"They were given fiefs called timars in the conquered lands, and were later......... "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

"A timariot (or timar holder; timarlu in Turkish was an irregular Irregular military that served the Ottoman Sultan and in return was granted a fief called a timar. The timariots had to assemble with the army when at war, and had to take care of the land entrusted to him in times of peace. When at war, the timariot had to bring his own equipment and in addition a number of armed retainers (cebelu). Food was supplied during campaign. "
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/timariots

This could continue forever... all you had to do was write " timars fiefs ottoman" in a simple search engine.. you know how it works

http://www.google.com.gr/search?q=+timars+fiefs+ottoman& hl=el&lr=&start=10&sa=N

All you had to do was copy/paste the first line in a google and BINGO.. but anyway..
www.apsa2005.net/FullPapers/PdfFormat/ Full%20Paper%20(O-Z)/Pinar%20Ulucay.pdf

If it still doesn't work do a google and use :

"According to Gunnis (1973) the earliest reliable reference to Nicosia "

You see it, its the very first result..

What forumers, you are the only one in here, trying to present the Ottoman RULE as some kind of paradise for its SUBJECTS

Wake up calling. You're ALONE on this..

Yup, as I said. Not surprised you came back. Obviously you are struggling with yourself to abide by your own words

Anyhow, as I said. Forumers are always here and we have presented our cases. Insulting, provoking, using "hell", "b.s", "damn google", and "crappy comments", "your stupid remark quoted above " won't help prove your case.

While you are struggling with various resources and tons of Hellenic propoganda sites, I'm proud to say that no single Tukrish, or Northern Cyprus link I've needed to use and all my sources are independent third parties.  In fact, I refuted your statements with a Greek Newspaper and the Cyprus government Website. For some reason, not all greeks agree on your version of the Hellenic history.

I urge you to modify your method of discussion and learn that it is not about winning a discussion and it is no more than presenting evidance and proofs. You won't change my mind, neither I will change your mind.

However, you can continue your extra energy contacting the Cyprus government and tell them they are wrong and correct the severe historical mistake they got of their own history. I myself cannot figure out with all this tention with Turky and the Republic of Northern Cypurs, how did they commit such a mistake that credit the Ottomans 

But hey! you have more than 6 links in your posts  Bravo!

omg this is too much to read now

so far i got complains about some forumers attitude in this thread,

so to all forumers please stop provoking each other and calling others posts as stupid or crappy, if you wish to discuss do it in respecting manner otherwise dont post.

I was asked by a member of AE as to why the Turkish Cypriots dialect is diffrent from that of the Anavatan (Mother land, Turkey) Turks.

The reason for this is mainly due to isolation from Istanbul and the mainland(Istanbul Turkish dialect being the standerd for the Turkish language from Ottoman times). Even areas in Turkey have diffrent dialects and accents, an example of this is the Karadeniz (Black sea) dialect.

Another reason is that the Turkish Cypriots came to Cyprus during the Ottoman Empire. However during the language reforms by Mustafa Kemal Cyprus was a British colony. Thus the Turkish Cypriots initialy did not feel the impact of these reforms, meaning that the dialect has many similarities to the Turkish spoken in the time of the Ottomans.

At present the Turkish Cypriot dialect is used in informal occasions. Thus the Turkish Cypriot dialect is coming to an end, as in the schools the standerd Turkish is tought.

Your Welcome Leonidas!!!

I must say i am enjoying this respect shown by both parties.

Maybe we may even be pioneers for a new era of respect in AE!!!

------