Erdogan orders Hagia Sophia to be converted back into a mosque

[Murfield]

The Greeks called themselves Romans as it was synonymous with Christians, but they acknowledged their pagan past. See people such as Anna Comnena. Westerners routinely called it 'empire of the Greeks', as did the Vikings. That other guy is intent on downplaying the Greek character of the Byzantines and is obsessed with referring to them as classical Italian Romans. I don't know his agenda.

Click to shrink...

According to wikipedia:
"Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileía Rhōmaíōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum),[2] or Romania (Greek: Ῥωμανία, tr. Rhōmanía), and to themselves as Romans. "

"The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern Istanbul, formerly Byzantium). It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

Not claiming that they are classical Italian Romans, but it was a continuation of the Roman empire but run out of Greece. It didn't have anything to do with Christianity and a connection the the papacy in Rome (whereas the Holy Roman Empire did). The Byzantine empire was Orthodox, with their own locally administered church.

 

[Bad Advice]

well turkish airlines cancelled my flight so I am definitely not seeing the Hagia Sophia this year. I hope they don't restrict it any further in the coming years. Still planning on going to Turkey one day. Too much history there.

 

[Wordballoons]

The concept of Ummah really aggrevates me because of its gatekeeping and exclusionary nature, but also because it's pan-ethnic, Muslims try and frame it as some beautiful noble act of solidarity among ethnic and racial groups. Why not extend that towards non-Muslims top? Lol.

One of the steps in Islam's progress will be the day Ummah is reframed as a Humanistic context that applies to all living creatures and all Humans regardless of religion.

Click to shrink...

probably shirk

 

[Rosenkrantz]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm surprised by the amount of people who stan Ataturk in the Turkey related threads. I mean, as far as I know the guy was a Turkish nazi and ethnic minorities were treated (still are) like a complete garbage during his rule. Turkification (i.e. forced assimilation) was started during his rule and you can see its seeds even today with the whole Kurdistan debacle. So, it's a little bit weird to see so much praise to such figure here of all places.

 

[spineduke]

Just learned, that in the majority of mosques women get a smaller separate room to pray in, so they are not distracting the men.

Click to shrink...

thats a seperate conversation, yes it's usually the case. Women are often sidelined in public spaces.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm surprised by the amount of people who stan Ataturk in the Turkey related threads. I mean, as far as I know the guy was a Turkish nazi and ethnic minorities were treated (still are) like a complete garbage during his rule. Turkification (i.e. forced assimilation) was started during his rule and you can see its seeds even today with the whole Kurdistan debacle. So, it's a little bit weird to see so much praise to such figure here of all places.

Click to shrink...

He was responsible for the secularization of Turkey and enabling a progressive attitude within Islam. Erdo has done nothing but imprison free thinkers, academics and anyone who doesn't bow down to his party think. Not hard to see why people have a positive view on Ataturk. There's always been a dubious line between patriotism and the ethnostate and I don't believe that can be pinned on a specific leader.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

He was responsible for the secularization of Turkey and enabling a progressive attitude within Islam. Erdo has done nothing but imprison free thinkers, academics and anyone who doesn't bow down to his party think. Not hard to see why people have a positive view on Ataturk.

Click to shrink...

I'm not defending Erdogan, I just don't think Ataturk is some kind of role-model to follow either. Unless, of course, people are fine with stuff like forced assimilation as long as it's done by a secular leader.

 

[Hollywood Duo]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm surprised by the amount of people who stan Ataturk in the Turkey related threads. I mean, as far as I know the guy was a Turkish nazi and ethnic minorities were treated (still are) like a complete garbage during his rule. Turkification (i.e. forced assimilation) was started during his rule and you can see its seeds even today with the whole Kurdistan debacle. So, it's a little bit weird to see so much praise to such figure here of all places.

Click to shrink...

No historical figure from that era is going to be perfect but the good vastly outweighs the bad.

 

[vaderise]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm surprised by the amount of people who stan Ataturk in the Turkey related threads. I mean, as far as I know the guy was a Turkish nazi and ethnic minorities were treated (still are) like a complete garbage during his rule. Turkification (i.e. forced assimilation) was started during his rule and you can see its seeds even today with the whole Kurdistan debacle. So, it's a little bit weird to see so much praise to such figure here of all places.

Click to shrink...

Ffs Ataturk was NOT a Turkish nazi. First and foremost he had absolutely no part in the any actions decided against the Armenians. In 1915 Atatürk was solely an army commander serving in a compltely different region. Actions were taken by the Ottoman Republic which Atatürk REBELLED against 4 years later.

There was no systematic racism or a targeted assaults against ethnicities during his rule. While you are absolutely right about the treatment against some ethnic miniorities in the history of Turkley, putting the blame on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is just objectively wrong.

Also the whole "Ataturk was against the Kurds" debacle comes from the Dersim Rebellion incident.

The local chieftain rebelled against the Turkish government and Ataturk ordered the march of the army to the area in November 1937. Also i must definitely point out that these rebels were strictly pro-caliphate and anti-republican.

Ataturk was diagnosed with a terminal disease in January 1938 and after that time he was naturally slowly moving away from state matters.


Rebellious leaders were killed in the first part of the assault in early 1938 and during that time Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was already very sick and his illness was proliferating.

Killing of civilians started in late-1938, the time when Ataturk was no more able to attend the state matters as the order was most defintely not given by him.

While Ataturk was mostly unable to leave his recovery home it was the prime minister Celal Bayar who had agreed to an another attack on the Dersim rebels which lead to the slaughtering of the civilians. While Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was dying of cirrhosis.

The whole Dersim Incident is a complete fuckery and a very unfortunate turn of events. However, can you blame a leader who orders the state military to march against an Anti-Secular Sharia rebellion?

Spoiler: From Wikipedia article

Following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, some Kurdish and Zaza tribes became discontent about certain aspects of Atatürk's reforms aiming to modernise the country, such as secularism (the Sheikh Said rebellion, 1925)[22] and land reform (the Dersim rebellion, 1937–1938),[23] and staged armed revolts that were put down with military operations.

 

[Midgarian]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm surprised by the amount of people who stan Ataturk in the Turkey related threads. I mean, as far as I know the guy was a Turkish nazi and ethnic minorities were treated (still are) like a complete garbage during his rule. Turkification (i.e. forced assimilation) was started during his rule and you can see its seeds even today with the whole Kurdistan debacle. So, it's a little bit weird to see so much praise to such figure here of all places.

Click to shrink...

As much as I adore Atatürk, it is true. His views towards ethnic diversity was abhorrent. He hanged Islamists and ordered bombings of Kurdish Islamist rebels (his adopted daughter piloted a bombing plane) and non-combatants were killed as well.

But this wasn't out of a sense of mindless racial superiority.

It was because of a (not unfounded) fear of Turkey being divided and conquered just like the Ottoman Empire was, if all Turkish citizens didn't have a common sense of identity. That civic idea of Turkishness has unfortunately been manipulated over years into a sense of Turkish racial superiority and under AKP a sense of Sunni Islamic religious superiority.

 

[Mar Tuuk]

I'm not defending Erdogan, I just don't think Ataturk is some kind of role-model to follow either. Unless, of course, people are fine with stuff like forced assimilation as long as it's done by a secular leader.

Click to shrink...

The issue is that within Turkish history he was the most progressive while also forcing assimilation into his agenda of secularization but the majority of Turks agreed with this after the devastation and destruction under the Young Turk Regime and the failed sultanate of the Ottomans. The loss of their own sovereignty was too much so that they needed a hero like figure to push back against foreign imperialism. Ataturk was no angel and the religious ulema despised him as well but it was a step in the right direction for women and the development of a secular society.

Surely Kurds and other minorities despised him because he was the face of the government but by the Dersim Rebellion he was less involved. I'd think they despise Erdogan more if you put them side by side. I wrote my thesis/ dissertation on the terrible effects the Young Turks had and Ataturk's nationalistic wave gave Turks something to look forward to.

By the way I like connection you have to Ataturk and the Nazis since out of much of my historiography many people overlook the fact that Ataturk's Regime was an example for Hitler to follow in terms of forced societal change. Many Turkish historians and even American historians focusing on Turkish history overlook it because it makes Ataturk look bad and gives him a bad rep.
Here's some good reading on how some Nazi's did analyze and borrow some of Ataturk's methods.

Click to shrink...

First and foremost he had absolutely no part in the any actions decided against the Armenians. In 1915 Atatürk was solely an army commander serving in a compltely different region. Actions were taken by the Ottoman Republic which Atatürk REBELLED against 4 years later.

Click to shrink...

While Ataturk was an army commander in the Ottoman army he may not have been directly involved in the Armenian Genocide but there were many officers wondering why resources were being spent more so on forced deportations than the actual war effort. He may not have been aware of the deportations but he certainly was complicit in defending the Ottoman government during the war effort that committed the acts. Obviously it was Enver Pasa and the government planning the genocide but Ataturk fought for the cause nonetheless during the war. Ataturk also grew disillusioned with the Committee of Union and Progress after the final coup d'etat of 1913 but agreed with the 1908 coup against Abdulhamid II.

Obviously when he became aware after becoming head of state he denounced the genocide as being savage.

 

[Steiner_Zi]

Not claiming that they are classical Italian Romans, but it was a continuation of the Roman empire but run out of Greece. It didn't have anything to do with Christianity and a connection the the papacy in Rome (whereas the Holy Roman Empire did). The Byzantine empire was Orthodox, with their own locally administered church.

Click to shrink...

I think you have this mixed, the Byzantine Empire has a huge history with Christianity. Othodox are Christians (not to be confused with Orthodox Jews) and both them and Catholics were part of the same Church until 1054 with the East-West Schism (basically priests fighting who would be no1). The whole history of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire starts with Emperor Constantine legalising Christianity before moving the Roman capital to Byzantium naming it Constantinople. Hagia Sophia was built a few centuries later as the largest church ever at the time and to symbolise Constaninople's legacy as the centre of Christianity in the world.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

Ffs Ataturk was NOT a Turkish nazi. First and foremost he had absolutely no part in the any actions decided against the Armenians.

Click to shrink...

I didn't claim him to be a part of Armenian genocide. However, Armenians might feel a bit different about his involvement.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the Armenian Genocide

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) was the founder of the Republic of Turkey and the consummator of the Armenian Genocide.

www.armenian-genocide.org

There was no systematic racism or a targeted assaults against ethnicities during his rule.

Click to shrink...

While not a systemic racism, Turkification wasn't a benevolent process for minorities. From the Wiki:

"On the 18 March 1926 a Civil Servants Law came into effect, which allowed only Turks to become civil servants and explicitly excluded Armenians and Greeks to become such."

"The Law 1164 from September 1927,[55] enabled the creation of regional administrative areas called Inspectorates-General (Turkish: Umumi Müfettişlikler), where extensive policies of Turkififaction were applied.[56] The Inspectorates Generals existed until 1952"

"Citizen, speak Turkish! (Turkish: Vatandaş Türkçe konuş!) – An initiative created by law students but sponsored by the Turkish government which aimed to put pressure on non-Turkish speakers to speak Turkish in public in the 1930s.[58][59][60] In some municipalities, fines were given to those speaking in any language other than Turkish."

"The Law 2007 of 11 June 1932 reserved a wide number of professions like lawyer, construction worker, artisan, hairdresser, messenger etc. to Turkish citizens and forbade foreigners also to open shops in rural areas. Most affected by the Law were the Greek"

"1934 Resettlement Law (also known as the Law no. 2510) – A policy adopted by the Turkish government which set forth the basic principles of immigration.[69] The law was issued to impose a policy of forceful assimilation of non-Turkish minorities through a forced and collective resettlement."

"Surname Law – The surname law forbade certain surnames that contained connotations of foreign cultures, nations, tribes, and religions.[59][71][72][73] As a result, many ethnic Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds were forced to adopt last names of Turkish rendition.[72] Names ending with "yan, of, ef , viç, is, dis , poulos, aki, zade, shvili, madumu, veled, bin" (names that denote Armenian, Russian, Greek, Albanian, Arabic, Georgian, Kurdish, and other origins) could not be registered, they had to be replaced by "-oğlu."

And that's just Wiki, not a specialized literature.

 

[SofNascimento]

According to wikipedia:
"Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileía Rhōmaíōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum),[2] or Romania (Greek: Ῥωμανία, tr. Rhōmanía), and to themselves as Romans. "

"The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern Istanbul, formerly Byzantium). It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

Not claiming that they are classical Italian Romans, but it was a continuation of the Roman empire but run out of Greece. It didn't have anything to do with Christianity and a connection the the papacy in Rome (whereas the Holy Roman Empire did). The Byzantine empire was Orthodox, with their own locally administered church.

Click to shrink...

I think you have this mixed, the Byzantine Empire has a huge history with Christianity. Othodox are Christians (not to be confused with Orthodox Jews) and both them and Catholics were part of the same Church until 1054 with the East-West Schism (basically priests fighting who would be no1). The whole history of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire starts with Emperor Constantine legalising Christianity before moving the Roman capital to Byzantium naming it Constantinople. Hagia Sophia was built a few centuries later as the largest church ever at the time and to symbolise Constaninople's legacy as the centre of Christianity in the world.

Click to shrink...

The difficulty in discussing the Roman identity in the medieval times stems from a couple of sources, but the most relevant here is that it conflicts with western view of history. That is: our view of history. Which is so deeply embedded in our heads that we come to see it as natural, and any alternative to it as wrong or lesser. And I'm not even talking about how the entire concept of the "Byzantine Empire" was a western invention, an outside view forced on another state that utterly disergarded their own view of themselves (go read any primary "Byzantine" source and you'll have no doubt they are Romans).

Take language, for example. We came to see it as close knitted with the concept of national identity. If they are french they must speak french, if they are english they must speak english, and so on... and when we applied to Ancient Rome: if they are Romans they must speak latin. The thing is, there is nothing natural about this. And if it feels natural it's only because the western project of nation building was extremely successful.

For the Romans, the connection between language and national identity was different, indeed, those very concepts (language and national identity) were different. Which is to finally say that, in the context of the Roman Empire is medieval times, there was nothing "wrong" about a Roman speaking greek. Just like there wasn't in any period of history. You didn't need to pass a "Latin test" to become a roman citizen. And someone like Odaenathus was as much a Roman as someone born in the city itself. Which is not to say there wasn't a shift in the center of power of the empire, but it's to say that it doesn't change the empire itself.

And this movement can be applied by many other aspects. Like when Byzantine history begins. It wasn't with the reign of Constantine, nor with the change of capital (the very concept of changing capital is a erronerous one). It wasn't because Byzantine history and Roman history are the same, so they have the same beginning. There is only a convention that was constructed over centuries of western historiography to see them as different.

Same thing with Christianity. It's extremely wrong to say it had nothing to do with Christianity. Indeed, Christianity was at the very core of the Roman Empire when the Hagia Sophia was built. But again, our own western views tend to put the Christianity as was practised in the East as something different, particularly something not Roman. Of course, there was schisms and divisions, but for the Romans theirs was the legitimate one. Even when the Hagia Sophia was built there was more than one view of what was the right Christianity, but the "correct" one tend to be the one sponsored by the state.

 

[Murfield]

I think you have this mixed, the Byzantine Empire has a huge history with Christianity. Othodox are Christians (not to be confused with Orthodox Jews) and both them and Catholics were part of the same Church until 1054 with the East-West Schism (basically priests fighting who would be no1). The whole history of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire starts with Emperor Constantine legalising Christianity before moving the Roman capital to Byzantium naming it Constantinople. Hagia Sophia was built a few centuries later as the largest church ever at the time and to symbolise Constaninople's legacy as the centre of Christianity in the world.

Click to shrink...

Not sure what you are trying to say here, the person I was responding to claimed that people only associated the byzantine empire with the roman empire because of Christianity. My point is that orthodox Christianity no longer had any direct connection to Rome, so why would the name association be asserted because of religion?

My main point was that the eastern roman empire was called the roman empire in its day because it was a continuation of the roman empire. The term byzantine empire is an entirely modern term.

 

[Noodle]

I admire Erdoğan for many things but this isn't one of them.

Click to shrink...

Nah, afraid I don't need to explain myself to anybody.

Click to shrink...

Translation: I stan for repressive murderous regimes but don't have the spine to do so publicly.

 

[Delicate Genius]

According to wikipedia:
"Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileía Rhōmaíōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum),[2] or Romania (Greek: Ῥωμανία, tr. Rhōmanía), and to themselves as Romans. "

"The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern Istanbul, formerly Byzantium). It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

Not claiming that they are classical Italian Romans, but it was a continuation of the Roman empire but run out of Greece. It didn't have anything to do with Christianity and a connection the the papacy in Rome (whereas the Holy Roman Empire did). The Byzantine empire was Orthodox, with their own locally administered church.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure why you're showing me this. I understand that it was the eastern half of the Roman Empire. I'm saying that westerners didn't call it 'the eastern empire', and i'm also I'm saying that it had and evolved a distinct Hellenic character, which makes sense as they spoke Greek, and had a hellenised population, and people try and downplay that, as is evidenced in this thread.

We are getting off-topic, however.

 

[SofNascimento]

I'm not sure why you're showing me this. I understand that it was the eastern half of the Roman Empire. I'm saying that westerners didn't call it 'the eastern empire', and i'm also I'm saying that it had and evolved a distinct Hellenic character, which makes sense as they spoke Greek, and had a hellenised population, and people try and downplay that, as is evidenced in this thread.

We are getting off-topic, however.

Click to shrink...

By people you mean me? I guess so judging from your previous post which I must say it's a very interesting second post for a member...

Anyway, I don't think I am downplaying the hellenistic characters of the Roman Empire, which was present long before it lost its western half. A lot of the Roman Elite in the late Republic and Early Empire learned Greek, for example, and would have no problem debating most aspects of hellenistic culture a Roman 500 or even 1000 years after would be aware of. To say it was a greek empire, or any other non-roman name is, however, to downplay the Roman aspect of it (which is what those westerners yo mentioned were trying to do, it was often, if not always, meant as an offense), an aspect which is very easily seen. As you yourself mentioned, just read Anna Comnena, who speaking of her father Alexius:

the picked men among the Romans considered him to have reached the acme of military experience, and regarded him as that famous Roman Æmilius, or Scipio, or Hannibal the Carthaginian, for he was quite young, and had still "the first down on his cheeks" as the saying goes). This young man captured Ursel as he rushed with might against the Romans, and restored the affairs of the East within the space of a few days; for he was quick at discovering what was expedient, and still quicker in executing it. The manner of his capturing Ursel is told at length by the Caesar in the second book of his history of his own times; but I will relate it too in as far as it concerns my history.

Click to shrink...

Which is an interesting passage because she access a distinctively Roman general (and other relevant to the "classic" Romans). Of course, she does the same for more hellenic and hellenistic figures (just like many previous Romans did), it's not about this or that, it's about things coming together.

I also, I should add, never referenced Byzantine Romans as "classical Italian Romans". That would be wrong. In fact, that would be wrong for many and eventually all Romans since a long time before the fall of the West. Trajan, Hadrian, Severus, Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine, Justinian, those are all Romans, but not "classic Italian Romans". In fact, the very fluidity of what means to be Roman is a key aspect in understand the evolutio of the term. What once was used to refer to the inhabitants of a city, came to define an entire empire. It's not about ethnics, never was.

Also, I don't think this is off-topic at all. The discussion surrounding Hagia Sophia is deeply embedded in the concept of cultural herritage and ownership of the past, which was the subject of my first post. When modern days greeks think that they built the Hagia Sophia 1500 years ago their idea of ownership, and thefore the offense takes into the change in the OP, becomes that bigger, and in consequence any negative repercusion of said change. But it wasn't them, just like it wasn't italians that build the Pantheon or Frenchman that build the Pont Du Gard, it was a people with a very different identity and values. Even if they have in common culturals elements and bakgrounds. Of course, so far I'm ignoring the entire religious aspect of the Hagia Sophia, which makes this discussion much more delicate and nuanced. Not to mention make the repercussions of such a change much more far reaching.

 

[Murfield]

I'm not sure why you're showing me this. I understand that it was the eastern half of the Roman Empire. I'm saying that westerners didn't call it 'the eastern empire', and i'm also I'm saying that it had and evolved a distinct Hellenic character, which makes sense as they spoke Greek, and had a hellenised population, and people try and downplay that, as is evidenced in this thread.

We are getting off-topic, however.

Click to shrink...

My point was that what we call "the Byzantine empire" was called the Roman empire, in its time. It was called as such by the very people who lived in it. I will also point out that Greek was the defacto lingua franca in Rome at the time of Julius Caeser, so speaking Latin isn't a defining characteristic of the Roman empire.

The reason this diversion all started was because someone claimed that the Hagia Sophia didn't really have strong Greek heritage because it was built by the Roman Empire.

This might be useful if your interested:

 

[9-Volt]

This shit has backfired as fuck. Erdogan's followers are demanding absolutely insane stuff on social media and this pisses literally everybody off.

From his side of Turkish press, some people suggested Caliphate to return and sharia to be imposed. Note that in Ottoman empire had never had sharia law in its 700 years of rule and calphiate was purely symbolic. Caesardom had more uses than caliphate. This shit is not "neo-ottomanism" at all.

His own moron son suggested that not only that Turkey should bring back Arabic script, Europe also should replace Latin alphabet with Arabic because, you know, Islamic golden age?

People are calling on twitter a jihad against Greece to recover the lost "Ottoman lands". Erdogan has been feuding with Greek government for past few days, I fear for the worst.

He's literally doing his best to polarize the country as possible. He's forgetting one thing, this is still a NATO country and Turkish Army would answer to NATO before a dictatorial maniac. He soon will see how an actual coup happen.

 

[Delicate Genius]

My point was that what we call "the Byzantine empire" was called the Roman empire, in its time. It was called as such by the very people who lived in it. I will also point out that Greek was the defacto lingua franca in Rome at the time of Julius Caeser, so speaking Latin isn't a defining characteristic of the Roman empire.

The reason this diversion all started was because someone claimed that the Hagia Sophia didn't really have strong Greek heritage because it was built by the Roman Empire.

This might be useful if your interested:

Click to shrink...

Don't patronise me you peasant, I'm well aware of the history. As I pointed out, Greeks referred to themselves as Roman as it was synonymous with Christianity.

 

[Cheapstare]

Don't patronise me you peasant, I'm well aware of the history.

Click to shrink...

Delicate Genius

 

[Midgarian]

My point was that what we call "the Byzantine empire" was called the Roman empire, in its time. It was called as such by the very people who lived in it.

Click to shrink...

Adding credence to this.

The original Turks that settled in Anatolia (Seljuks), called themselves Rums (Urban educated Turks were Rum, Turk was for the nomads and village folk) and the land of Anatolia as Rum. So they had a consciousness of the "Byzantines" as Romans and the lands they were settling as "Roman".

The Worldwide recognised name of the renowned poet of the era, Rumi (Known as Mevlana in Turkey) also proves this.

Then later on with the rise of the Ottomans, the European territories that the Turks settled in, were known as "Rumeli" (-eli Turkish suffix means "in the hands of" and basically is used similarly to -land or -stan suffix).

Later on, after mainland and island Greek Christians gained independence, they became known as "Yunanistan" (ironically named after Anatolian region of Ionia which is in modern day Turkey) whereas the Greek speaking Christians living in Anatolia and Cyprus became known as "Rum" and their distinct languages (in some parts of Turkey like Black Sea, this language is unintelligible with modern Greek) became known as Rumca (Roman language) and while most Christians have sadly dwindled in number through exile, assimilation or murder, there are still some Rumca speaking Muslims living in Black Sea, their lineages yet to be fully Turkified to this day.

This shit has backfired as fuck. Erdogan's followers are demanding absolutely insane stuff on social media and this pisses literally everybody off.

From his side of Turkish press, some people suggested Caliphate to return and sharia to be imposed. Note that in Ottoman empire had never had sharia law in its 700 years of rule and calphiate was purely symbolic. Caesardom had more uses than caliphate. This shit is not "neo-ottomanism" at all.

His own moron son suggested that not only that Turkey should bring back Arabic script, Europe also should replace Latin alphabet with Arabic because, you know, Islamic golden age?

People are calling on twitter a jihad against Greece to recover the lost "Ottoman lands". Erdogan has been feuding with Greek government for past few days, I fear for the worst.

He's literally doing his best to polarize the country as possible. He's forgetting one thing, this is still a NATO country and Turkish Army would answer to NATO before a dictatorial maniac. He soon will see how an actual coup happen.

Click to shrink...

I'm done with this moronic country. It's done. I don't give a shit anymore. Any educated persons and persons with means that can migrate to Europe/America, is letting themselves and their lives down by staying. I used to have a rosey eyed image of Turkey due to me projecting Ataturk's progressiveness onto Turkey, but the reality of Turkey is a country largely of and run by morons that don't have a clue about Ottoman History, let alone Ataturk.

And what I say goes for most Secular Turks as well.

 

[SofNascimento]

My point was that what we call "the Byzantine empire" was called the Roman empire, in its time. It was called as such by the very people who lived in it. I will also point out that Greek was the defacto lingua franca in Rome at the time of Julius Caeser, so speaking Latin isn't a defining characteristic of the Roman empire.

The reason this diversion all started was because someone claimed that the Hagia Sophia didn't really have strong Greek heritage because it was built by the Roman Empire.

This might be useful if your interested:

Click to shrink...

A few things: Greek wasn't "the de facto lingua franca in Rome". It was one of the two main languages of the Empire, but that view would be limited to the majority of the East, while in the West Latin was a more universal spoken language. And that was true even before Caesar, It was a process that began some 150 years before, or even further. But you're correct in the assertion that Latin wasnt a defining characteristic of the Roman Empire, it was nothing like we think today of an official language. The Romans did not have that. That's why when people say the Romans after the fall of the West changed the official language is incorrect. First because there wasn't one to change, second because there was no such action that should be called that.

Second, I would be weary in posting John Green Crash Course to explain a situation as nuanced as this. Although he makes some valid arguments in the video, it's full of innacuracies, both big and small (for example, saying Constantine spoke better Greek than Latin, he didn't speak Greek at all) and the overall narrative is questionable to say the least, not that it's necessarily wrong, but limited.

To focus on the Hagia Sophia itself, where he calls it a window to why the Eastern Roman Empire was both "Roman and not". I would say "Well, yes. But actually no". First, he says it doesn't have a focus on engineering and that couldn't be more wrong. In fact, it's in studying the engineering of the Hagia Sophia that we can say decisively it was very much a Roman building. I won't go to far on this, but by looking at the development of roman engineering, particularly during the empire, you can trace the evolution of the techniques that allowed the Hagia Sophia to be built. The arches, the vaults, the domes, bricks, cement, glass, even the pendentive. The thing is: it's different than what we imagine a classic roman temple would look like, but through engineering we can see the connections, and more importantly, by the time it was built the Romans were thoroughly Christians, and that relegion demanded buildings with new forms. (also, he says its dome was equalled for 500 years, that's also wrong. Not only the Pantheon's dome was bigger, but the dome of Florence was built 900 years after Hagia Sophia).

Don't patronise me you peasant, I'm well aware of the history. As I pointed out, Greeks referred to themselves as Roman as it was synonymous with Christianity.

Click to shrink...

Although Christianity was embedded in the concept of what meant to be Roman, they weren't synonyms. Being Roman was a "national" identity, not a religion.

 

[Murfield]

A few things: Greek wasn't "the de facto lingua franca in Rome". It was one of the two main languages of the Empire, but that view would be limited to the majority of the East, while in the West Latin was a more universal spoken language. And that was true even before Caesar, It was a process that began some 150 years before, or even further. But you're correct in the assertion that Latin wasnt a defining characteristic of the Roman Empire, it was nothing like we think today of an official language. The Romans did not have that. That's why when people say the Romans after the fall of the West changed the official language is incorrect. First because there wasn't one to change, second because there was no such action that should be called that.

Second, I would be weary in posting John Green Crash Course to explain a situation as nuanced as this. Although he makes some valid arguments in the video, it's full of innacuracies, both big and small (for example, saying Constantine spoke better Greek than Latin, he didn't speak Greek at all) and the overall narrative is questionable to say the least, not that it's necessarily wrong, but limited.

To focus on the Hagia Sophia itself, where he calls it a window to why the Eastern Roman Empire was both "Roman and not". I would say "Well, yes. But actually no". First, he says it doesn't have a focus on engineering and that couldn't be more wrong. In fact, it's in studying the engineering of the Hagia Sophia that we can say decisively it was very much a Roman building. I won't go to far on this, but by looking at the development of roman engineering, particularly during the empire, you can trace the evolution of the techniques that allowed the Hagia Sophia to be built. The arches, the vaults, the domes, bricks, cement, glass, even the pendentive. The thing is: it's different than what we imagine a classic roman temple would look like, but through engineering we can see the connections, and more importantly, by the time it was built the Romans were thoroughly Christians, and that relegion demanded buildings with new forms. (also, he says its dome was equalled for 500 years, that's also wrong. Not only the Pantheon's dome was bigger, but the dome of Florence was built 900 years after Hagia Sophia).



Although Christianity was embedded in the concept of what meant to be Roman, they weren't synonyms. Being Roman was a "national" identity, not a religion.

Click to shrink...

I suspect I was oversimplifying things a bit, this is a much better explanation of how Greek and Latin were used. As I understand it, both Latin and Greek were widely used in the city of Rome itself.

Crash course does have its flaws, I thought it useful as a summary. You seem particularly knowledgeable of this subject, do you study history in an academic context?

 

[SofNascimento]

I suspect I was oversimplifying things a bit, this is a much better explanation of how Greek and Latin were used. As I understand it, both Latin and Greek were widely used in the city of Rome itself.

Crash course does have its flaws, I thought it useful as a summary. You seem particularly knowledgeable of this subject, do you study history in an academic context?

Click to shrink...

No worries. And yes, by the elite they were, but Latin was the everyday language. And yes, I do. But I'm just a student.

 

[gdt]

As an amateur history buff, the last page has been fascinating. Thanks guys.

I always thought, assumed really, that Constantine and his ilk spoke Greek.

Edit: I gotta get to Istanbul/Turkey, before Erdogan fucks it all up apparently.