Talk:Ottoman Greece

message: Guys, 20,000 Ottoman troops were fighting Ali Pasha. That's is lot of them and could have strangled the newborn revolution   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ali Pasha

message: see link
The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konya, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia . At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration
The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups: 
*the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek. 
*The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht. 
*The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race.-- 3210  (T) 05:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Ottoman [[Makedonia]], and noble, [[sober]] [[Turks]], [[Yuruks]], [[Kailars]] and Konariotes

message: in 1821 the greek revolution started. Greece declared its independence in 1928.
Acording to Adam Carr the paintings which were in the “Ottoman Greece” article are propaganda and insists that they be removed, now Adam Carr please explain how in your eyes these paintings     which are all authentic and were painted during or shortly afer the Ottoman Occupation of Greece are Propaganda, and why they should be removed from the article? 
Brastite 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think romanticized paintings are problematic in articles so long as they're identified as such, with a caption clearly indicating it's a romantic-era painting by a Greek nationalist. We have plenty of those paintings in our articles on other 18th- and 19th-century revolutions. --Delirium 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propagandistic Paintings???

message: Palaion Patron Germanos did no such thing as proclaim the beggining of the Revolution. It started a good two weeks before the 25th of March, and Germanos was opposed to it anyway. It has been claimed repeatedly that in fact, no one was at Lavra monastery on the 25th of March. Any association to that date was brough in later, to connect it with the religious ceremony. In fact, the only reason the rebellion started in March was that it was the beggining of spring. You don't normally make war in winter. 
On another note, it is misleading to say that the church was responsible for the Greeks. In fact, it was responsible for all Romioi (Romans), that is all Orthodox people, whether they were Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian or anything else.Druworos 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, even Germanos admits he was elsewhere on the 25th in his memoirs. Pls fix Simanos (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

text: "Il capitano d’ una nave partita da Patrasso il di otto aprile, reca che quella sgraziata citta e stata consunta dale fiamme. I ribelli, condotti dall’ arcivescovo Germano, si sollevarono il primo d’ aprile, e I turchi incendiarono la citta. ... Il 7 Aprile [March 26, old calendar], l’ arcivescovo Germano, gran fautore s’ Ali Bascia di Janina, dal quale ebbe danari ed armi, entro in Patrasso." 
Source: Giornale della provincia Bresciana, 11 Ιουνίου 1821, p. 1 
One more Italian source: "Ne' primi giorni d' Aprile [new calendar]...  I greci presero le armi ... Poco dopo comparve il loro vescovo con 3 a 4 m. contadini armati. La bandiera bianca colla croce greca fu inalberata sulla piazza maggiore, ... ". 
Source: Gazzetta de Milano, 17-6-1821 (new calendar)
For the rest of us (as the last user said), the case is of minor importance. Germanos was just one of the many priests military commanders, and the Revolution was mainly ethnic-religious.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanos 

message: "The Orthodox Church assisted in the preservation of the Greek heritage."
Well I removed that because it is not quite true. The orthodox church for many years before and at the time of the ottoman empire hunted the "ethnikoi" that is greeks who still believed in the ancient twelve gods. So the orthodox preserved only what was in accordance with the orthodox religion or distorted many things to its favor.
:The worshippers of the ancient greek religion had all been converted to Orthodoxy until 1453. those who claim to be "ethnikoi" nowadays as just 20th century converts from christianity. prove me wrong by naming a population group that continued to worship the olympian gods without stop in Greece. --Hectorian 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Ancient Greek religion had been dead long before the downfall of the empire in 1453. One could say that Julian the Apostate was the last echo of the pagan past into the christian present of the empire, and that Theodosius I gave it the final blow. Certainly by the time of Justinian I, ancient greek religion was already only a memory. So, from circa 500AD (Justinian's time) to circa 1500AD (Ottoman rule in Greece), we have like a thousand years of evolution for Greek civilization from a pagan to a christian one. And, naturally, this evolution did not happen overnight, but gradually through centuries so that greek christianity cannot be seen as a break from the antiquity, but rather its evolution. Ergo, the chrurch did preserve what was Greek heritage. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Edward Dodwell has a good picures about ottoman greece.Thanks-- 3210  (T) 08:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Greece and best pictures 

message: I've rewritten the lead sentence, not to make any historical or political point, but to clarify some potential confusions.  The old version read:
"Most of the territories today within modern Greece's borders were at least once part of the Ottoman Empire from the mid-15th century until its declaration of independence in 1821, a historical period also known as Tourkokratia..."
The problems with this are 1)"at least once" makes it sound like some areas were Ottoman only once and others more than once, 2) the antecedent of "its" is unclear, and 3) it should be made clearer that the term Tourkokratia applies to Ottoman rule specifically in Greece, not in all the other areas of Ottoman rule.  My version may not be perfect and I won't object to revisions, but I hope editors will keep in mind what I've said about clarity. Littlewindow (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking a little more I've made two further revisions there, one to clarify further that Tourkokratia refers to Greece, and the other to distinguish the revolution of 1821 from the official establishment of the Greek state in 1832, two related but separate events.  It probably could still be made a little better. Littlewindow (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: I agree that the "Inconclusive fighting ..." passage should stay, though I also agree that a citation is needed.  "Amongst" I think while not wrong is now increasingly considered unidiomatic even in British English -- the situation was never as simple as "among" = American and "amongst" = British, despite what some books will tell you -- but leave it if you want to. Littlewindow (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: a minor point and not relevant to the article, but I'm yielding to the temptation to report here that some recent research I've done on an unrelated topic has revealed that Shakespeare uses the form "among" about three times as often as he does "amongst." And then of course there is "Among these dark satanic mills" (Blake,) "Breaking the silence of the seas Among the farthest Hebrides" and "She dwelt among the untrodden ways"(Wordsworth,) "Among bride’s-men, and kinsmen" (Scott,) "Though link’d among a fetter’d race" (Byron,) "Among the flowers and grass, which screen it from the view" (Shelley,) "Or may I never leave my grave among the dead" (Keats,) "Among the Guests Star-scatter’d on the Grass" (Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat,) "among these barren crags" (Tennyson,) "Still we find among the river-drift" (Kipling,) etc. etc.  But I've noticed that Oscar Wilde does regularly use "amongst," which is testimony for, I think, rather than against arguing that it sounds rather affected even in British English. Littlewindow (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history edits 

message: The section on "Administration" is full of problems. First of all, it relies on several inappropriate sources. Woodhouse, the main source for the section, was not a scholarly historian. He shouldn't be relied upon for an encyclopedia article - we should use books written by modern professional historians. Robert Waterfield is a scholar of Classical Greece, not a specialist on Ottoman Greece. It is not good to rely on him either, but perhaps slightly better than Woodhouse. In any case, this section is filled with inaccuracies. For instance, the notion that the Ottoman cavalry was entirely "Turkish" (whatever that means); in fact Christians were serving as cavalrymen as late as the sixteenth century. The statement that "No Greek's word could stand against a Turk's in a law court" is just plain false, and that "there were many repressive laws" is too vague - the reader should know what exactly is meant by this. Otherwise it amounts to nothing more than an NPOV statement that "the Ottomans were bad." I've tagged the section as having problems and will try to find the time to fix some of it shortly. Chamboz (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 'Administration' Section 

message: Much of this article reads like Greek Nationalist history. There are vague claims characterizing centuries of Ottoman rule as burdensome and oppressive, citing national histories of Greece rather than the work of historians who study the Ottoman Empire, as well as a lot of other features one expects to see in nationalist histories, such as references to the desire of the "Greek people" to be free - as if all Greeks shared in a collective national consciousness, or were some sort of hive-mind. Some examples:
"The Greeks with the one hand were given some privileges and freedom; with the other they were exposed to a tyranny deriving from the malpractices of its administrative personnel over which the central government had only remote and incomplete control."
"There were many repressive laws, and occasionally the Ottoman government committed massacres against the civilian population."
"The economic situation of the majority of Greece deteriorated heavily during the Ottoman era of the country. Life became ruralized and militarized. Heavy burdens of taxation were placed on the Christian population, and many Greeks were reduced to subsistence farming whereas during prior eras the region had been heavily developed and urbanized."
"Greeks heavily resented the declining economic situation in their country during the Ottoman era."
All the above quotes characterize hundreds and hundreds of years of Ottoman rule in simple negative statements with no nuance whatsoever. This is unsurprising given the tendency of nationalist historians to see the Ottoman period as a dark age. And of course, the segment on the independence of Greece is longer than the segment actually covering Greece in the Ottoman Empire, which is what the article is ostensibly about. Chamboz (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to add info on the universities established by Ottomans, lilbraries, press  and books publishing, astronomic observatories, great Ottoman scientists, discoveries etc.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalist history - POV 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion