When Ottomans were learning Greek

A couple of interesting quotations:

a)"As Ahmed Mithat Efendi, a noted writer of the Hamidian period mentions in one of his books "European children have to learn foreign languages in school, but Ottoman children, Armenians and Greeks of Istanbul pick up their languages by playing with others.."

An Ottoman book called "Tuhfet' ul Uşşak Fevzi" teaches Greek vocabulary in a poetic form to the Turks:

Nam-i Hudadır Teos ademe de antropos

Devri_e der asketis evliya adı ayos

(The name of God is Theos and of man is anthropos; Dervish is askhetis and evliya is agios)

Source: Ilber Ortayli, "the Greek and Ottoman Administration during the Tanzimat period", available online at:[URL=http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume2/June-August1997/volII2THEGREEKANDOTTOMANADMINISTRATIONDURINGTHETANZ%C4%B0MATPERIOD.pdf]

b) This one from Iordanidou's Loxandra:

«Μουχαλεμπί και γκιούλ σερμπέτ ο αναστεναγμός σου
Και του Χατζή Μπεκίρ λοκούμ ο τρυφερός λαιμός σου.
Ο κάθε λόγος σου γλυκός, σαν ραβανί αφράτος,
Και σαν Αιβάν – Σεράι λοκμάς με μέλι μυρωδάτος»

"Your shying is like muhallebi and gul serbest
and your tender throat like a lokum from Haci Bekir,
Your every word is sweet and tender like ravani
and smells of honey like an Ayvan Saray lokmasi"

Those were the days to live at Istanbul.....

A Greek poem in divan form.... Wooow man. Just woow!!!

Thanks fo sharing

Sklavia, mousoulmanoi pasades, Alvanikoi basibazoukes, paidomozama, foros synthikologisis, krifa scholia; alithina megales imeres gia ton Ellinismo. Ti auxaristoi eimastan.

To biblio ths iordanidou leei mia allh istoria twn Ellhnwn ths Polhs ws afentes. Auta pou aneferes einai mono mia apo tis polles pleures ths O8wmanikhs istorias.

In any case I am not an apologist of the Ottoman empire. I m just saying that Istanbul was a really exciting place to live at the time, partly because of the impressive presence of non-Mulsims.

Oi phanariotes ta eixan kala, alla stin Peloponiso den etian toso tuxeroi. Os giati i othisi gia eleftheria kai autodiathesi itan pio isxurotero na exontan ta pronomia mono liga 8a mporousan na apolausoun.

But you're right, while the Rum.... ....remained obediant, the Phanarites by the end of the 18th century did hold several high offices, including the governorship of the two Romanian provinces of Wallachia and Moldovia. But after 1821 we Peloponesias ruined it for them. That's when the Armenians became the Porte's favourite....and we know what happened to them less then a hundred years later when they tried to follow our example.

Unless you were not rich and powerfull, in which case you would be subject to persecution because the Greeks in Morea revolted...again.

That non-mulsims were harrassed occasionally whenever some revolt happened in Morea is of course true. But this was in time of war not all the time dude. When one reads anykind of historical documents from the life of the Christians of Istanbul especially in the 19th century, he gets an image of a peaceful and prosperous existence.

Even in relly lumpen neighbourhoods, such as Tatavla (Kurtulus), a neighborhood with prostitutes, pimps and magkes. A main source for this sentiment is rembetika/traditional songs such as:

a) "Karotserh traba na pame sta Tatavla, posa talara gyreueis na mas pas ka na mas fereis" (Anon)

or the famous

b) "Sto Galata 8a piw krasi sto Pera 8a me8ysw, kai mesa ap' to Yedikule gynaika 8'agaphsw, Yedikule kai Galatas, Tatavla kai Nihori auta ta tessera xwria omorfainoune thn Polh"(Anon)

One wonders: If indeed Greek life in Istanbul was nothing more than persecutions at the hands of the "bad" Muslims, why do their songs celebrate life so much, and after 1922 why do they demonstrate so much nostalgy for the life the left behind? Were they mazochists?!?!

This post has been edited by Polites on November 30, 2007 02:09 pm

Or why did Tatavla Heraklis Gymnastic Club's athletes Aleko Mulos and Yorgo Alibrantis walked under the Ottoman flag in the Olympics. Were they traitors?

What they sing about is not living side-by-side with the Muslims writing poems to each other but of nostalgia of the Polis. That’s why they remained there until finally being intimidated or then outright deported during the 50’s and 60’s.

From David Brewers "The Greek War of Independence"

There also followed the hanging of the Patriach Gerasimos, whose body was dumped in the Bosporus. So please, polities, don't play with words to prove your point.

And just to clear it up this has nothing to do with the natural blood instinct of the Terrible Turk but it shows the unpredictability ruthlessness and oppression of the Ottoman government. And need I remind the Turks why Ataturk rejected the Sultan and then abolished it.

I have no idea why that quote is interesting. I have heard it before, though. It is just plain wrong and it displays the unique kind of chauvinist alleged tolerance shown by muslim Turks. What makes that arrogant Efendi think that in other countries children did not pick up languages with interaction?

Second, Polites is a very ideologically motivated fellow. In the Ottoman Empire no non-muslim could testify in a muslim kadi court. During Abdul Hamid's reign in a city like Constantinople there was a large European presence, influence and pressure which tempered traditional Mohammedian fanaticism and Sharia inspired justice. I recommend to consult the book The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam by Bat Ye'or. She says that many Christians or Jews if they had money would buy the protection of the foreign embassies of the Great Powers if they had an opportunity. Often Great European Powers would send their navies in a show of power to Constantinople to send a message to the fanatic Ottoman muslim populace and ruthless bureaucracy to temper their constant harsh treatment of minorities.

Opti file mou,

Where did this come from?!!??!

How am I playing with words? I am fully aware of all of the atrocities you mentioned and If I had time I could add a hundred more. I never claimed they did not happen. But to say that any muslim that wanted could pick up a scimitar anytime he wanted and go and butcher Christians is simly not historically true.

A Jihad/fatwa had to be issued, and of course the being also a religious leader the Sultan would use this whenever there was trouble with a particular millet.

All I am saying is that the image we have of Tourkokratia is too black-and-white to have been true. In saying this I do not mean to diminish the drama experienced by the countless victims of atrocities. I AM NOT PLAYING WITH WORDS. I am just avoiding generaliziations.

where are you polites?

That's a very interesting topic, it's a pity that was not discussed a lot before. Thanks Blis, for bringing it on the surface again.

I think Polites is right, if I understand him well. The greek nationalist mythology, which we are taught in school and which is imposed to us by mass media, paints a very black picture of the Ottoman time (in contrast to the Byzantine period), as if it was a period of slavery in which nothing important happened, something like a break of 4 centuries in the glorious greek history.

That's of course reasonable from the point of view of the greek state, as this state derives its legitimization exactly from the rejection of the Ottoman Empire. But I think, two centuries after the greek revolution, and now that nobody questions the right of the greek state to exist, it's about time that we speak about this subject openly without distorting it with a nationalist ideology.

I believe, the Ottoman period is a part of our history, which we should respect in a similar way that we do with the byzantine period, recognising both its positive and its negative aspects. I think it's a important for people living in acountry to learn to respect their own history. Of course this doesn't mean that there wasn't a need to make radical changes.

I think it's wrong to describe the Ottoman Empire as Turks enslaving Greeks, these two nations didn't even exist in that time in the same way they exist today. The Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic Empire run by a muslim dynasty of Turkish origin, in which the muslim subjects had some privileges compared to the christian and jewish subjects. I really doubt it a lot, that an average peasant in what is today Greece would feel more free under a Byzantine ruler than under an Ottoman.

For example, I'm reading a book about the history of Turkey, and I realised that I had a wrong impression about the term "raya". I thought that it was used to describe the non-muslim population of the Empire, but it seems it applied to all the subjects who had to pay taxes, if Muslim or not. Is this correct?
That's important, since we use this term as a symbol of our "enslavement" by Turks.

Another interesting fact is, it seems that over the Ottoman history there had been more Grand Viziers with a greek origin than with a turkish.

Ottomans were cosmopolitan cunts.

no problems mate, I've enjoyed this post of yours thoroughly.

looking back on some of his posts(this was before I was here) Polites seemed like a decent chap and I was wondering where he is now(I think he was a Greek in Istanbul which made his contribution even more worthwhile as oppose to a certain person here writing drivel despite the fact that he's never been to Turkey or Greece. You know who you are!!!).

would be good to have him back here again.

this section of the forum is almost completely dead now apart form the few wanky threads starred it up by the forum racist.

shame really. there were some good topics here.

..and you're a Turkish cosmopolitan cunt who resides in cuntly NYC.

What a big time Neo-Ottoman. But what else to expect from the descendant of AKEL commies. The party that adopted the utopian worker brotherhood of false internationalism from structural Marxism, while the USSR which inherited the Russian imperialism, guided such useful idiot traitor parties through the Comintern and other methods.

Always with the "against nationalism" rubric to come to the preceding (for Greeks) Ottoman domination and to the encroaching present Turkish expansionism(Neo-Ottomanism).

This post has been edited by Nikephoros on August 03, 2009 06:51 am

Do you care to challenge his statement or just keep jerking off to anti-communism?

This coming from a guy who perpetually complains that posters keep resorting to personal insults instead of proper dialogue. What a feeble piglet you are, Niki.

Piglets are deceptive Turkish toads like you who in one instance pretend to be great atheists then by proxy defend the Ottoman Empire's false image of tolerance(just like modern Turkey has its false images) when it was a theocratic system under Sharia law. Since Islamic civilization is built on contradictory dualism(see below), maybe you are not quite the atheist you imagined. A system which had all non-muslims to obey a dhimma contract to exist as conquered inferiors, was *NOT* a benign "multi-ethnic" Empire that Greeks choose to be a part over Rhōmanía, despite what all the imbecile, a-historical ideological Greek posters to this forum believe. If the dhimmi even pushed for equality or independence jihad and violence was to be renewed on them, muslim mobs and armies were free to kill, enslave, rape and plunder them until they were back under Islamic(in this case Ottoman-Islamic) subjugation. This has happened to the ancestors of many Greek posters here that are Asia Minor and Cyprus refugees as they have revealed and they still kiss Turk ass like dhimmis because of stern ideological obligation and historical amnesia.

Deceptive piglets are Greek leftards who pretend to be wise progressive sages and *neutral* with their anti-nationalism. There is no independent arising of ideas or phenomenon, everything is dependent on causes and conditions, on something preceding it. What preceded nationalism for Greeks was Ottoman subjugation. Turk butt-kissers like Polites and Afroasiatis are big time Neo-Ottomans since their stupidity only aligns themselves into present Turkish expansionism.

This post has been edited by Nikephoros on August 03, 2009 09:02 am

kaya abi don't judge nyc based on this guy.

NYC .


Ottomans .

LOL , ace

Once again you fail to observe relativity. That the Ottoman Empire for a long time was more tolerant than the Christian world is a fact, which is followed and strengthened by important historical events (like the Spanish persecution of moslems and jews which found safe territory to practice their continued existence - however taxed that might have been). This is not to say that by today's human rights standards the "dhimmi" status is in any way morally legitimate. Does this really have to be pointed out to you?

The contradictory dualism of Islam is directly plagiarized from other abrahamic religions, i.e Christianity and Judaism. It's not even a different religion per sè, just a revised and self-proclaimed "truthful" version of its archaic predecessors. Hence it's derivative civilization is the product of similar and equally ignorant origin. Your argument falls short on this very point, although you state many facts about the many shortcomings of Islamic society, you fail to recognize the equally brutish and sinister nature of its counterpart. Since you have this biased pro-christian stance, it becomes prevalent (even to a fierce opponent of Islam such as myself) that you are nothing but a Christian apologist and a hypocrite. On top of that, there is the all-too-clear undercurrent of Turkophobia (the reactions to that you quite comically mistake for all kinds of dark leftist/islamist conspiracies) even from your own ethnic brethren. It's sad, but funny.

If you would be so kind as to explain the moral difference between brutally suppressing a revolt during the DARK AGES and any other similar events perpetrated by Christian counterparts of the same age? Let's take that a bit further, how is this example (exaggerated as it is) different from what the "brave" Israelis are going in their occupied territory? What Christian missionaries did in South/Middle/North America? The hypocrisy shines yet again. If you're observant and morally aware enough to object to one wrongdoing, you should be able to do the same for others. The tell-tale sign of a feeble piglet apologist, which is what you are.

Again, without consistency or real argument, you fail to provide any REASON for you bitterness toward anti-nationalism. Instead you aimlessly point towards a half-philosophical statement which does not relate to your point at all. What little rationale can be weeded out from your chaotic mind is that you see nationalism as a natural proceeding effect of centuries of subjugation, and that this "enslavement" is testament to the moral credibility of that backward ideology. It's true that when nationalism swept Europe and the then half-dead introverted Ottoman government (now no longer a real power with its former glory long lost in memory) was an increasing threat to the rise of democracy in the region, nationalism acted as an adhesive for fighting an archaic way of life, a society which had no place in the 20th century. This wasn't just resisted by its Christian subjects, but as you very well know, Turks themselves were well aware of this fact. Hence the turbulent and violent transformation from a caliphate to an eventual republic.

Thus leaves me with why you're deluded. To perpetuate nationalism, you need an outside enemy. It was the Ottomans a century ago and now it's leftists. In order for your ideology to work, you need to hate (or at least find despicable) something that must act as a threat to commonwealth. You work solely under this premise and will go to extreme lengths to fulfill this ideological demand. When your own people disagrees with you, they're either traitors or stupid. Most of us in here are well aware of how nationalism functions, and most of us in here have rejected this BACKWARD way of thinking since dialogue and friendship with the only threatening adhesive force your kind have fed upon for decades didn't turn out to be the big bad monster you painted us up to be. In fact, many have noticed, we share many things. This is something that burns your very being since it directly challenges your political and philosophical convictions. This I am glad about. And thusly I spit on your right-wing face and call it a minor victory for the left.

Your reaction to my post was the most predictable, Nikephore - even the exact words you would use, like these Neo-ottoman stuff.

I'll try once more to explain to you my stance on the Ottoman Empire, although without having many hopes that you understand it.

The Ottoman Empire was a conservative backward, partly theocratic muslim state, and the inequality between groups with different religion was a basic part of its structure, at least until Tanzimat. It used brutal tactics in many areas. There was clearly a need for a revolution against it (even if in my opinion it may have been better if it was not carried out on ethnic lines).

Greeks (if you refer to the average peasants, who were the great majority of the population) were not part of the Ottoman Empire because they chose it, as they had not chosen to be part of the Byzantine Empire or to be a colony of Venice before. Generally at that time it was not expected from people to choose themselves who their rulers would be. There are just a lot of indications that many Greeks (from the upper social layers as well as from the lower) preferred for various reasons the Ottoman over the Western rulers, at least at the beginning. One of these reasons was the greater tolerance of the Ottomans towards the Orthodox Churh.

The Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic one, like the Byzantine. It consisted from various ethnic groups, and it was not that important to which you belonged if you wanted to have an important position in the state. For example, over the Ottoman history there were Grand Viziers with a greek, albanian, slavic, arabic origin; the ones with a turkish origin where a minority among them actually. The only thing that mattered was the religious group, as this was supposed to be a muslim state. A greek Muslim didn't have a disadvantage compared to the turkish Muslim. But even many wealthy greek Christians were integrated in the ottoman system in various important positions, and of course the Greek Orthodox Church always had considerable power. So, the Greeks were a part of the Ottoman Empire, if we like it or not.

I'm not saying that everything was perfect in the Ottoman Empire, and I certainly don't want to return to it. I only said that we must respect our Ottoman past in the way we respect our Byzantine and our ancient Greek past too. It's an important part of our culture.

And about these stories with "violating dhimmi contracts", which you like so much:
The expulsion of the Greek population from Asia Minor, and later from North Cyprus, has nothing to do with Islam, it's clearly a result of nationalism. You forget that the Muslims in Greece had a similar fate. And also the Greeks in Bulgaria, and Bulgarians in Greece. Which "dhimmi contract" did they break?

For my opinions on the rest, you can just read Westy's last post. I agree with him completely.

A well rounded and balanced post, Afro. Cheers.

You will need to elaborate on what you refer to as Greek nationalist mythology, and use examples to support it. And AFAIK nothing important actually did happen to the Greeks…well, not until 1821 when the southern Greeks fought and got our independence.

You keeping harping on about Greek nationalism and yet seem to have a symbiotic thing happening with an imbecilic Turkish nationalist in this forum. That makes you a hypocrite, especially since you see yourself as some kind of anti-nationalist socialist, don’t it?

As a FYI, Polites is just a self-loathing Greek. And just like you, he went on and on and on about Greek nationalism blah, blah, blah. And he made a lot of ridicules claims, including modern Greeks were a Bavarian invention, none which he could support with sources. And you will probably be devastated to learn that he ran out of this forum not because the Greek nationalists bullied him, but because he was exposed as the fool that he is by two Greek leftists, that being razurdor and Mavrogenides. Follow his threads and you will see it. btw another one of his absurd claims was that Greeks always referred to the polis as Istanbul, that the term Constantinople was imposed by the Junta during the 60’s. Come on, the guy is obviously an idiot.

As a curio, are you aware of some of the Turkish nationalistic myths. Can you show the Greek equivalent to the Turkish History Thesis, for example. Apart from their ongoing assertion that the Greeks were actually living the “high life” under the Ottomans, another absurd claim made by domestos, for example, was that Greeks were exempted from the paidomazoma. He had a proto-Nazi theory, that the Ottomans only abducted tall, Nordic Slavs, and not short dark Greeks as we would have made inferior Janissaries. Nuff said about that.

I really fail to see your logic. No doubt the Ottoman Empire was one of history’s greatest realms, but it was not our empire. It’s something for the Turks to be rightfully proud of. And for a people to consider a period of foreign subjugation as a black period is not a modern Greek phenomena, as your so ignorantly ascertain.
You do realize, Greek history is a 4,000 year continuum. So going by what really amounts to your narrow-minded idealism, we’re being nationalistic by teaching Greek students…well, our glorious history. Why should we glorify being under foreign domination? Which proud and self-respecting people does this anywhere?

Okay, you think it’s wrong and that’s that. And I bet you also consider your opinion to be infallible? And yeah, the two nations didn’t exist, but the people did. That we were under Ottoman rule meant we were denied a nation until we fought for it. And we were enslaved. The Ottoman Empire was a theocracy. As Christians, we had to pay more taxes, to be alive in the empire was actually a privilege and not a right, and had to endure which by modern standards is viewed as a cruel practice of paidomazoma.

What book are you reading?

In the old forum that was actually brought up by a couple of Greeks, that the Greeks were actually running the Ottoman Empire. And that can actually work for me. But the Turkish response was to call them delusional. So this is something you need to bring up with the Turks and not the Greeks.

This post has been edited by optimaton on October 31, 2009 04:27 pm

As a Turk, I'm not surprised by this. But you need to go further if you support his in an impartian sense. In essence, the Ottoman Empire was a successor state to the Byzantine Empire. Can you seriously see Byzantine history being included in Turkish school curriculum. Because you guys even have a problem admitting the Ionians were Greek.

What the hell do you mean, "that can work for you"? Seriously, what the hell on earth does this mean?

So, if somehow this "new" reconstruction of Ottoman History is accepted (that Greeks were running it), what would happen to all this stuff about the Greek imprisonment, suffering, oppression, etc... in the hands of the Ottomans?

I mean, with all of this obsession you have going with Greek history, aren't you the least bit interested in seeing it as what it really is, instead of jerking off to over-hyped reconstructions of it? And before you point it out as one of your obvious return lines, yes, Turks do the same shit as well.

First off, I didn't know you were a Turk. Welcome.

Second, yes, I can imagine Turks talking, analyzing and viewing with enthusiasm the Byzantine influence on Ottoman civilization.

Third, I thought the word Ionian meant Greek (or at least Ionian Greek) but the former doesn't work without the latter as description - so how could anyone, logically, deny that connection?



Oh yeah, welcome back.

I don't have time now to answer in detail to your post now. But let me first say that of course I don't consider my opinion as infallible. I'm not an expert on greek-turkish history. I just have some views based on what I read, what I heard and what I've seen, which is of course just a tiny part of the reality.

I can't elaborate much now, but with nationalist mythology I mean the version of history which is promoted by a nation-state, in order to justify its existence and for various other reasons. It's not something which exists only in Greece, all nation-states have their own, especially in Balkans. I speak about nationalist mythology, because it is not all lies, it's to a big part an interpretation of real historical facts in a way that it suits this nation-state, while other facts which are not so convenient are omitted.
I hope tomorrow I can elaborate more on how I mean this for Greece specifically. Krufo sxoleio and paidomazwma, which you mentioned, are some examples.

I don't understand what you mean. If you speak about Blis, I just thanked him that he braught this thread back on surface, because it's an interesting one. Why is this a "symbiotic thing"?
I don't hate turkish or greek nationalists personally, altough both of them would probably think of me as an enemy in case of a war, each for different reasons. Most of my relatives and many of my friends are greek nationalists. Of course, as a Greek Cypriot it's natural I'm more concerned with greek nationalism, which I come across more often in everyday life.

It was a german book called "Short History of Turkey", published by the Federal Centre for Political Education, which I think of as a reliable source.




If I have time, I'll answer to the rest tomorrow.

he better bloody not.

since i'm not, i doubt he is talking about me.

love to see him elaborate though.