Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:27:17 EDT
From: <PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu>  Andronikos Romanos
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.turkish
Subject: To M.Hubey (About the "genocides" & "Ottomans")


Dear Mark,
I read your analogy and if I may ask you now:  Which of the four "bott-
les" did YOU "drink" from?  :-)
I guess I could also contact you privately - as in the past -  but then
again there is nothing here worthy to be hidden.  Actually, some things
should be said, and it would be nice if the rest read them. I'll tackle
your issues one by one.

                                  -1-

--> I'll try not to include your numerous texts for this posting is go-
    ing to... explode!  :-)

--> I do not think that the source  I used on the behavior of the Turks
    in Constantinople towards the Jews is erred..Several other accounts
    seem quite accurate. In contrast to KELLY  I am not saying it was a
    genocide but I'll acknowledge that the Turks were quite brutal. And
    this is my position. I checked the issue with the Jews of Thessalo-
    niki with KELLY's accusations and despite the answer I already gave
    I am considering comparing it to  "several other events"  that took
    place in this second important city of the Ott.Empire by the Turks.
    Actually they appear better with CELLY's title that the "Greek" (!)
    case.
    (I was told that HM "blustered" me with KELLY's text.. the very one
     I argued! Amazing!!  There is no comparison between you two...
     In our personal  "case"  with the Bulgarian Church I remember and
     I appreciated the fact that you even suggested to... explain some
     things -since I took it so seriously.  But anyway...)

--> I sincerely thought that KELLY was targeting a dialogue going on on
    the Cyprus issue where I had some hopes on Besime Erin's approach..
    but not any more. :-(

--> If you say that KELLY & H.Mutlu aren't the same person I'll believe
    you, but one must admit that the texts were identical..with that of
    the notorious rude oppressor.

--> The problem with  KELLY  was not entirely  for using the particular
    book BUT for ignoring my initial criticism on certain parts,  argu-
    ments that completely discredited the  TITLE of the posting as well

--> I strongly believe that I did not exaggerate in my initial postings
    and that I deserved an answer before  KELLY  moved on using new ex-
    tracts from this particular source.  If there were from a different
    book I could at least  perceive  the new text as a response/attempt
    to support the position against my arguments.That was very much the
    issue and please do not read more in it.


                                  -2-

--> You say the "abuse" still continues from the Balkan peoples.. Well,
    they've lived WITH (and actually "under") the Turks & know the cur-
    rent record of the neigbor.. Doesn't this attitude infer something?
    They have certainly not forgotten the behavior of the conqueror and
    they may even get angry when they are treated in a way that... "no-
    thing  happened" <HM ltd>.

--> Actually, HM is a disservice to the rest for he constantly provokes
    the "reminding abuse" when he attacks with all possible insults the
    rest of us. You should know this by now! So, please BE CAREFUL when
    you DIRECT your anger. My discussion of the Trojan War was not even
    remotely close to the issue of Cyprus 1960...but yes, boisterous HM
    stroke again!

--> The conquest and certain different manners of the Ottomans may have
    a great deal to do with the details the  ex-subjects  bring up when
    HM tries to convince them (us) on the "contagious national Amnesia"
    they all have... What do you expect then? They will repeat with ALL
    POSSIBLE SOURCES what he dismisses & advertises in so many groups..
    If this has degenerated to a "war" then do not expect to hear other
    than the cruel Ottoman behavior..even if you aren't responsible for
    them... (both Mutlu and the bad sides of the Osmanlis)..  No?
    Anyway, we most probably have to put them behind us,  but Mark  and
    "you people" (as Perot would say)  do not  deny them or be insulted
    whenever we (the rest) are even forced to mention them again & aga-
    in. At least try. We are provoked to repeat them...
    It seems that we'll not be able to escape from the past but HM ins-
    ists.. My best advise is: Contain Mutlu! Or KELLY, for they torpedo
    everything. If you feel otherwise then there is no need to go on in
    this topic. I tried to say somrthing here, I hope it is clear.

                                 * * *

--> No Mark! Many original sources confirm the "descriptions" and I can
    resort to Greek archives without the need of a translation.  Do not
    attribute them to a "Sion" book.. at least in the Greek case!  Anna
    Comnene did not need such contributions (probably produced later).
    Nor G.Gemistos in Monembasia etc. or Tertsetis much later...
    Many are plain descriptions by people on the spot and  have nothing
    to do with "Sion".  What kind of stories/beliefs the Europeans had,
    that is a different issue.Convince them! Greeks don't need them for
    they had first hand experiences  (unfortunately)  and the one thing
    they preserved is these records.
    European publication were not that popular in Greece and Asia Minor
    for several centuries... And the anger towards the Europeans was at
    times, "more" than the one against the Osmanlis (Remember Notaras).

--> I'm not sure that the Greek sources refer to this Sion book  (befo-
    re or after 1821),  so your   s u s p i c i o n   that the attitude
    s p u r s   from the "infamous book" which still "poisons minds" is
    most probably WRONG.

                                  -3-

--> Tell me though Mark, (if we resort to your other analogy):
    Why should one "buy" that the  "zillion" other committed historians
    were biased and the exceptional,let's call him/her (S), escaped the
    evil cycle?
    This, may apply in a crowd but not to searchers that scrutinize the
    evidence they get.  (Not probably all, but certainly quite a lot in
    certain institutions would write about the Armenians,Greeks or Bul-
    garians committing "genocides" against the Turks and the Jews... if
    there such things as KELLY wrote.)
    Already sutin@helios.ucsc.edu(Brian Sutin) seems to agree that Shaw
    was not very accourate -at least- in one occasion. I simply pointed
    parts that dealt with the Greek element.KELLY was wrong and that is
    what I said with all sort of arguments.
    (All you have to do is to read the initial postings.)

--> As far as the rest of the staff you presented is concerned,I under-
    stand that there exist definitely many books that are NOT favorable
    towards several or all aspects of the Ottoman & Turkish life.

--> I also understand that there is a particular category of people (as
    you say)  that "repeats" the same misconceptions (sic!)   about the
    Turks for the last 500 hundred years! I guess these people that we-
    re NEVER in any contact with the Turks must be either the Armenians
    or the Greeks... ?!?!

--> No Mark, the Ottomans were not the object of loathing and fear ONLY
    in Central Europe.  As you very well put it: The relations with the
    Asia Minor & Balkan subjects started in the worst possible way sin-
    ce they met only in vice.  As for the.. "fundamental lack of sympa-
    thy", see the two new/recent wounds!

--> The Greeks  g o t  to know the Turks VERY WELL and NEVER NEEDED the
    Pope of the Hapsburgs, myths & paintings of the devil to have a fe-
    eling of the Osmanlis as you say. Other northern nations maybe. Not
    the Greeks. I don't think you can trace anything to the "elderly of
    Sion". It was probably directed to other, more distant nations.

--> Let me alleviate one more of your perseptions though...  right here
    in this network: Contrary to what you or some others believe.. your
    account of events was  very close  to what  the Greek History books
    teach.  Perhaps, if you missed less paragraphs I would "accuse" you
    of copying one of them. Keep this paragraph in mind.  (I'm sure you
       :::::::                                             will.)

--> I've seen several fanatic Turks  (that idiot M is a category of his
    own discrediting the rest even more) so I don't bother with them at
    all but -well- I may stand a better chance with YOU this time.  Yet,
    I have several comments. Here they  are:   (I won't be abused once)


                                  -4-

--> The Selzouks that appeared in 1045 C.E.  (using a Turkish reference
    for this date)  brought desolation, not to them but to others . You
    are correct though, that particular standards in (Arab) hygiene/me-
    dicine were superior to those in Europe. There are a lot of contem-
    porary archives surviving. I do not know if you had time to copy e-
    verything, but they were hardly the educated representatives of the
    Medieval era.

--> As far as the springs in Asia Minor are concerned,  were they some-
    thing new? Be careful: I am not arguing that "Over two hundred spas
    are mentioned in surviving records". OK?

--> Definitely big portions of Selzouk income were supplied by raids &
    slave trade.

--> The Byzantines had not simply.. "allowed the roads in Asia Minor to
    deteriorate". They could nor take care of them under the raids...

--> You write:  "Then for the  first time  in the long history of these
    ancient highways,they provided them with a network of rest-houses,"
    Almost unacceptable! Everybody knows about the famous system of ho-
    tels & stations of the Royal Road that led to Susa (Herodotus V,52-
    4).If I jump in time (10 centuries) I distinctly remember the young
    second-class Roman tribunus militaris, Claudius Valerius Constanti-
    nus traveling/racing  through the successive stations  to reach the
    Aegean and embark to the destination of Marseilles... Centuries la-
    ter  I remember these stations during the Macedonian dynasty of By-
    zantium...

--> I agree on the uninheritable character of the timar  and the condi-
    tions and opportunities of life in the Jannisary Corps..as you said
      If this is not considered by other nations when they evaluate the
    Ottomans of the era you describe, I do not care!
    Let them remember Lancelots, Robin Hoods, Ivanhoes, Pizaros, and the
    de Gy's erasein the rest that may be less appealing to them...
    (This is no absolution from the child-recruitment.  It was a policy
    really hated by the Greeks, believe it or not.The same sources that
    confirm your "timar" etc,state this.. Wasn't it a taxation in flesh
    & blood, an assimilation policy? )

--> I agree on the comparison to the Europ.missionary passion.Yet,Isla-
    mization took place since  "raya"  was not particularly a favorable
    thing as you say and do not forget that many areas (Morias, Macedo-
    nia)  were partially desolated after the suppression of the resist-
    anse,so that other Muslim populations moved/were transported there.
    It is these sort of accounts that made the Turks & their allies be-
    en considered the "bloodthirsty conquerors" you mention... But this
    was not a reputation of the West European-kind you talked about.

--> The Turks "Liberators rather than feared as aggressors"?
    --> You can not be referring to the phrase preserved in Frantzis as
        expresed by Notaras!
    --> Yes,the GREEK ISLANDERS were subject to severe economic exploi-
        tation by their European masters. No question about it. But let
        us not go to the other extreme position: The "welcoming" of the
        Greeks towards the Ottomans was hardly anything else than "lets
        do our best before the unavoidable hateful prospect. Let's hope
        we'll survive."  I believe that you are  clear when you say how
        the Cretans became Muslims  -probably with few or no clues over
        what this new faith was.  I think that the Greek population re-
        sisted the Turks all over Grece. Which location escapes me?

--> You are probably right about the Western European diatribes against
    the infidel and the  characterization during the period of the Cru-
    sades...  The Arabs of that era were not as savage as the Europeans
    presented. Actually I would say it was the other way round...

--> Bessarion's attitude was not inconsistent with the rest chronicles.
    Was he wrong?  He was an escapee to the west.

--> I'll not argue on Western feudalism. How could I?

--> I'd agree that "Commentators like Busbecq & Bodin were perhaps mo-
    re concerned to  promote reforms  at home than to provide a wholly
    accurate picture of Ottoman customs. They represented nevertheless
    an important section of minority opinion which refused to be stam-
    peded into conventional hysterical abuse".
    You may feel as sorry as you want that I have no translations from
    Greek text books to add... Probably they'll become more accessible
    with the new division of  Greek Studies  in Turkish Universities;
    and the Turks will  convince themselves that:  whenever the Greeks
    strongly insist on aspects of the Ottoman Empire, it does not mean
    that they haven't been exposed to the OTHER information...  NO! Of
    all the Europeans they know it.  On the other hand, understandably
    the issue and the focus is on resisting re - writing everything as
    the Turks want it to do.      ::::::::: ::::::::::::
    I am telling this to YOU.  The fanatics that have given me so much
    abuse, to the best of my knowledge don't get the above distinction:
    I won't repeat Jannisary Policy issues,  but the Greeks NO WAY are
    going to buy that Homeros, Thales from Miletus, or Pythagoras WERE
    Turks!
    Thank God that resently Dr.Ekrem Akrugal reversed even his personal
    attitude or that of Selahettin Salisik, certain Ataturk claims etc.
    (as expressed in A.C.Emre's "Turkish Grammar") which erased someti-
     mes -even completely- the strong Greek presense in Asia Minor.

--> I agree that  "all empires are to some extent plunder machines, but
    few have matched the thouroughness and deliberation with  which the
    Ottomans pursued this objective. And in none has the assimilation &
    employment of alien manpower been carried to such lengths."
    This isn't an excuse but:The Spaniards,British,Americans were pretty
    awful. It is important that you had the courage to include these li-
    nes.  (I gave you what you an important phrase somewhere else).

--> You say: "The Turkish military and economic systems provided men of
    obscure origin with  avenues of rapid social and political advance-
    ment, whereas Europe did not...  To 'turn Turk' did not necessarily
    mean the end of all friendly contact with one's homeland."
    This is VERY WELL KNOWN in this era and the Greeks have been taught
    these things. On the other hand there was a particular "catch" with
    islamization etc... And yes! Even the Grand Vezir was a figure that
    the next day could not have his head steady on his shoulders...

--> I may not have time to post texts etc..  but I AGREE on the neglect
    & the evident  decline in the personal qualities of the line of Ot-
    toman sultans after Suleiman the Magnificent  (Mourad IV left Nero
    been regarded as a simple psychopath!),  the growth of bureaucracy,
    the janissary and other troop's reactions,  the significance of the
    converts in the functions of the Empire  and the apparent state of
    catalepsy, blind conservatism, vanishing social order, of the Otto-
    man world as observed until well past the middle of the 19th ce...

                                   Almost exhausted, Andronikos Romanos

PC: Do not do repeat this "flood" again, or at least give some warning
    (more explicit that the one you gave me).
PC: That was is a joke! I did not expect 6-7 postings!