Greece Analysis Greek - Turkish Relations

[Foulgrim]

Osprey, The Janissaries, page 3

View attachment 39925


View attachment 39926

Osprey, The Janissaries, page7

View attachment 39927

Unfortunately in the western states there is the illusion that the Janissaries were the majority of the soldiers of the Ottoman Army. For some reason, many in Greece, including university professors, think this is true, but the historical facts tell a completely different story.
For example, in the Late modern period and specifically in 1609, the following numbers existed as a military unit:
-Timarli Sipahi=>50.000
-Cebelu=>87.000
-Janissary=>36.627(Albanians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Croats, Greeks, and Serbs)
-Kapikulu Sipahi=>20.869
-Other Kapikulu=>55.000
-Fortress guards, Martalos and Navy=>25.000
-Sekban=>10.000
The total number of soldiers of the Ottoman Army in the period 1607-1609 amounted to 240,000.

Greek - Turkish Relations

Greeks were literally much better position than us Turks in the ottoman dynasty they only gave us duties in the army while Greeks or others were running the economy etc don't play the innocent we know what happened to turks in greece Oh and once again thank you for comepletelty ignoring my...

defencehub.live

 

[Akritas]

Unfortunately in the western states there is the illusion that the Janissaries were the majority of the soldiers of the Ottoman Army. For some reason, many in Greece, including university professors, think this is true, but the historical facts tell a completely different story.
For example, in the Late modern period and specifically in 1609, the following numbers existed as a military unit:
-Timarli Sipahi=>50.000
-Cebelu=>87.000
-Janissary=>36.627(Albanians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Croats, Greeks, and Serbs)
-Kapikulu Sipahi=>20.869
-Other Kapikulu=>55.000
-Fortress guards, Martalos and Navy=>25.000
-Sekban=>10.000
The total number of soldiers of the Ottoman Army in the period 1607-1609 amounted to 240,000.

Greek - Turkish Relations

Greeks were literally much better position than us Turks in the ottoman dynasty they only gave us duties in the army while Greeks or others were running the economy etc don't play the innocent we know what happened to turks in greece Oh and once again thank you for comepletelty ignoring my...

defencehub.live

That is, according to you, there is a conspiracy in the West, in order to have this illusion, that the majority were the Janissaries. Of course, whatever book you open, you will not find this view anywhere, because there is no such illusion. Instead, they call them elites and nothing more, except of course that they come from Christian families, violently abducted.
Of course the whole story started with a Turkish member of the forum, who wanted to tell us that the Ottoman army consisted of .... free people and not slaves, forgetting of course that this does not apply at times. In fact, I add that the Ottoman army used also, both mercenaries(Albanians) and foreign armies(Egyptian), as in the Greek revolution of 1821. Also specialist 'topçu' or artillery units were formed mainly of Christians, Kapikulu were converted christian slaves.

 

[godel44]

Let me inform you, then, that the Greeks, from 1453 to 1820, made 123 revolutions against the Ottomans, in order to gain their national freedom. Obviously, these are not taught in your school history books.

Many of those "revolutions" were marginal incidents as you might infer from the number being so high and of course they are not taught in our history books. Turkish history is long and eventful and if we were to learn about every insignificant skirmish started by every minor nation, we would not have time to come to modern times. Also, the source you quoted seems to have a fanatic anti-Turkish bias and is riddled by objective inaccuracies. If you get your information from such nonsense it makes sense why you are so often far off the base.

Your country, Turkey, clearly avoids choosing the path of the UN Security Council, because will bear the burden of proving that it does not pose a threat to Greece in order to legitimizing its preparations for the exercise of its right in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and therefore the inactivation of the obligation to demilitarize, which will be rather difficult......

I have given you an answer about this before but it seems you are still trying to misuse Article 51 of the UN Charter. Here is the relevant part of that article:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Notice that Turkey's incursions into Syria and Iraq, which you called invasions, are a valid use of this article as armed attacks against Turkey have occurred from those areas whereas Greece's use of this article is not valid because an armed attack has not occurred in decades. This is why Greece is afraid of going to international courts for this matter. In fact, what is happening is that Greece, which invaded Turkey in the past, is arming islands that are required to be demilitarized by international treaties and is in a weapons purchase frenzy with the explicit goal of using them against a NATO country. In a neutral diplomatic environment this would be grounds for weapons sanctions on Greece or a pre-emptive strike.

With all these paranoia and figments of imagination like Neo-ottomanism, it doesn't seem to occur to you that Turkey might not want to have Greece even if it could. Don't take it personally but in the Ottoman Empire, Greeks were, with a few individual exceptions, one of the least useful people in the empire. Now it is a deadweight for the EU instead. You are living on the money from Germany and France, effectively turned in your sovereignty over your own state budget to them, made your country a US military base but still make a show of protecting your non-existent sovereignty against Turkey due to a historical inferiority complex.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Returning to the true meaning of the thread, I add the following:

Your country, Turkey, clearly avoids choosing the path of the UN Security Council, because will bear the burden of proving that it does not pose a threat to Greece in order to legitimizing its preparations for the exercise of its right in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and therefore the inactivation of the obligation to demilitarize, which will be rather difficult......

• given the existence of the casus belli,
• the Turkish Aegean army,
• the existence of the 125 amphibians boats,
• the so called "gray zones"

I am glad that you finally admitted that the Greek side armed these islands in violation of the treaties. In fact, your obligations were clearly stated in the Paris, Lausanne and Lausanne Straits agreements, and everyone knows that you acted contrary to this. I am glad that you have found the right path, but such violations of international law will have consequences in the geopolitical arena. We will live and see this result.

An example from treaty Greek side should respect

The second issue is trying to justify the violation of international agreements by the Greek side. According to you UN Chapter-51 gives you this right and that's why you violated the Lausanne and Paris agreements. Such attempts to find excuses are actually the most important evidence of the Greek side's inability to defend their arguments, and I'll tell you right away how empty your dreams are.

Question: Does UN Chapter-51 give the right to arm the islands?
Answer: No, UN Chapter-51 is a right of self-defense and is the most absurd and useless excuse I've ever heard of as an excuse to arm the islands. In order for Article-51 to be used, there must be a systematic armed attack from across the border. The UN should be informed on the basis of re-establishing the peace and security of the country, and the threat across the border is eliminated by taking military steps in this regard. Turkey has used this right to eliminate ISIS and PYD in Syria. In this regard, there can be no nonsense saying "I armed the islands according to Article-51". Until now, the Greek side has not informed the UN about Article-51, nor does Article-51 give any state the right to act contrary to the legal establishment agreements it has signed. As usual, you have misinterpreted any law that comes into your hands to serve your own interests, without even knowing what it serves.


The other justification given by the Greek side for its illegal and violating international law actions is the existence of Turkish military threats and the need to protect the so-called islands. This excuse is so absurd and forced that I do nothing but laugh while writing these texts. Let me tell you why.

1- Turkey has not guaranteed in any treaty that amphibious boats, landing crafts, naval bases or military bases will not be located in the west of Anatolia, and therefore Turkey can manufacture as many vehicles as it wants or can open bases wherever it wants but Greece can't arm islands according to treaties.
This is a situation related to our national sovereignty. If this issue had been banned in Lausanne, then it could have been put forward as an excuse for the illegal activities of Greece, but now it stands as a very funny justification. You cannot violate international law with intent readings or night dreams.

An remind from treaty Greece should respect

2- At the time when Greece started to arm the islands illegally, there was neither a casus-belli, amphibious fleet nor an Aegean army. It was 1969 when Turkey gave the first official notation to Greece. Greece has been actively arming these islands since the 1960s, despite all warnings and diplomatic attempts. Greek side has closed its ears to all warnings in order not to fulfill the requirements of the agreements it has signed in this regard and it carries out illegal activities in the Aegean, almost like a pirate state. In order to prevent the illegal activities of Greece, to prevent the extension of the continental shelf to 12 miles by even violating the UNCLOS you have signed, and to guarantee its sovereignty in the Aegean, the Turkish parliament announced that it would declare war against the next increase in the continental shelf.

A remind from UNCLOS-15

It is not the Turk side that is trying to expand here, but the Greek side. Casus-Belli is to protect Turkey's own sovereignty against Greek expansionist ambitions. These are not decisions taken for no reason at all. Currently, Greece is still trying to pacify Turkey in order to carry out its own expansionist actions by violating international law, it wants to continue breaking the agreements by seeking political support, and in this way it tries to declare the Aegean as its own lake and the Eastern Mediterranean as its own Economic area. Greece is trying to create a false perception by treating Turkey, which stands against these illegalities and reminds Greek side of international law, as a provocateur and war-loving. Such actions and perceptual games mean nothing against a state like Turkey. Greece is free to take any step, but these games of perception are only a gamble to mitigate the consequences that will arise from international law and that you will have to endure. You will live and see that trying to hide illegal acts by traveling from country to country seeking political support for violations of law will yield no results in the international arena.

 

[Akritas]

I am glad that you finally admitted that the Greek side armed these islands in violation of the treaties. In fact, your obligations were clearly stated in the Paris, Lausanne and Lausanne Straits agreements, and everyone knows that you acted contrary to this. I am glad that you have found the right path, but such violations of international law will have consequences in the geopolitical arena. We will live and see this result.

Of course, the islands have also been militarized because they are threatened by your country. The Greek side never hid it. Personally, I want to see fortifications and naval bases.
Greece maintains that the militarization of its islands should be regarded as countermeasures.
The countermeasures do not include acts of violence.

The second issue is trying to justify the violation of international agreements by the Greek side. According to you UN Chapter-51 gives you this right and that's why you violated the Lausanne and Paris agreements. Such attempts to find excuses are actually the most important evidence of the Greek side's inability to defend their arguments, and I'll tell you right away how empty your dreams are.

Question: Does UN Chapter-51 give the right to arm the islands?
Answer: No, UN Chapter-51 is a right of self-defense and is the most absurd and useless excuse I've ever heard of as an excuse to arm the islands. In order for Article-51 to be used, there must be a systematic armed attack from across the border. The UN should be informed on the basis of re-establishing the peace and security of the country, and the threat across the border is eliminated by taking military steps in this regard. Turkey has used this right to eliminate ISIS and PYD in Syria. In this regard, there can be no nonsense saying "I armed the islands according to Article-51". Until now, the Greek side has not informed the UN about Article-51, nor does Article-51 give any state the right to act contrary to the legal establishment agreements it has signed and illegally. As usual, you have misinterpreted any law that comes into your hands to serve your own interests, without even knowing what it serves.

First, the term ‘armed attack’ requires the attacker to have the intention to attack. An attack must be intentional. Moreover, it must involve the threat or use of fore. In the case of a threatened attack, there must be an actual threat of an attack against the defending state itself, whether directed against that state or by an indiscriminate attack.This is an aspect of the criterion of necessity. It addresses the question whether it is necessary for the target state to take action, a force in self-defence.
Force in self-defence may be used only when....

• ...the attack consists of the threat or use of force
• ....the attacker has the intention and the capability to attack
• ...the attack is directed from outside territory controlled by the state.

So the view that states have a right to act in self-defence in order to avert the threat of an imminent attack, often referred to as ‘antisipatory self-defence’, is widely, though not universally, accepted.

So the question is: Is Turkey using threatening attacks against Greece?
Yes, and I repeat them since you deliberately avoided them.

• given the existence of the casus belli,
• the Turkish Aegean army,
• the existence of the 125 amphibians boats,
• the so called "gray zones"

Turkey in 1976 as I wrote and you overcame it , went to the UN Security Council on the issue , and it broke its face.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Of course, the islands have also been militarized because they are threatened by your country. The Greek side never hid it. Personally, I want to see fortifications and naval bases.
Greece maintains that the militarization of its islands should be regarded as countermeasures.
The countermeasures do not include acts of violence.


First, the term ‘armed attack’ requires the attacker to have the intention to attack. An attack must be intentional. Moreover, it must involve the threat or use of fore. In the case of a threatened attack, there must be an actual threat of an attack against the defending state itself, whether directed against that state or by an indiscriminate attack.This is an aspect of the criterion of necessity. It addresses the question whether it is necessary for the target state to take action, a force in self-defence.
Force in self-defence may be used only when....

• ...the attack consists of the threat or use of force
• ....the attacker has the intention and the capability to attack
• ...the attack is directed from outside territory controlled by the state.

So the view that states have a right to act in self-defence in order to avert the threat of an imminent attack, often referred to as ‘antisipatory self-defence’, is widely, though not universally, accepted.

So the question is: Is Turkey using threatening attacks against Greece?
Yes, and I repeat them since you deliberately avoided them.

• given the existence of the casus belli,
• the Turkish Aegean army,
• the existence of the 125 amphibians boats,
• the so called "gray zones"

Turkey in 1976 as I wrote and you overcame it , went to the UN Security Council on the issue , and it broke its face.

Article 51 of the UN Charter regulates the conditions for applying to the right of self-defense. The first of these conditions is that the right of self-defense can only be used when an armed attack is made. Therefore, arbitrary use of the right of self-defense with imaginary excuses is out of question in international law. Moreover, the scope of the right of self-defense necessitates it to emerge in the form of an armed response to an armed attack. Since the right of self-defense is effectively out of use without such an attack, it is not possible to consider arming the islands as an act of self-defense.

On the other hand, in order for a state to benefit from its right of self-defense pursuant to Article 51, it is not sufficient to perceive a threat only, it is necessary to have an actual attack. Even in the event of an actual attack, the right of self-defense ends when a situation in which an armed response is not required is reached. In this regard, the following obligations are imposed on the parties under Article 9 of the Lausanne Straits Convention.

"If, in the event of war, Turkey or Greece, by exercising their belligerent state rights, bring about a change to the demilitarized state set forth above, they will have to re-establish the regime envisaged in this Convention as soon as peace is made."

Let alone the issues that took place long after you started arming the islands, or interpreting the right of self-defense outside of its scope by utilizing UN Article-51 for fictitious reasons, the Lausanne Article-9 requires the re-implementation of the disarmament rule even if there is a war situation.

Let's see who did what when between the two countries.

1931- Greece declared its airspace in the Aegean to be 10 miles unilaterally. Currently, while the continental shelf is 6 miles, it is the only country in the world that illegally accepts 10 miles of airspace.

1936- Greece announces that it has increased its continental shelf in the Aegean to 6 miles.

1952- Starting from the island of Leros, Greece began to arm the islands in a way that would threaten Turkey in violation of the 1946 Paris, 1923 Lausanne and Lausanne Straits agreements.

1964- Turkey gave a note declaring that the treaties were violated by Greece and that the islands were illegally armed.

1969- Turkey gave a second note, declaring that Greece continued to arm the islands illegally.

1974- As part of the Greek Junta candidate Enosis ambitions, Greek Cypriots tried to stage a coup to connect Cyprus to Greece and massacred the innocent Turks and as a result, Turkey intervened in the island as a guarantor state and to save the lives of the Turks.

1975- Turkey established the Aegean Army Command.

1995- To prevent Greece's expansionist goals, the Turkish Grand National Assembly made a decision that an increase of more than 6 miles of continental shelf to block Turkey's access to Aegean and continental shelf would be a cause of war, as Greece made attempts to unilaterally expand the Aegean continental shelf to 12 miles and ignored Turkey's rights.

1996- Greece provoked Turkey by landing on the island of Kardak, which does not belong to them and is located 3.9 miles from Turkey. A military landing operation was organized against Greece and the Greek side had to withdraw.

2020- As a target of the Greek expansionist idea in the Eastern Mediterranean, Greece accepted most of the Eastern Mediterranean as its economic area and wanted to unite the sea area with the EEZ of Cyprus while cutting Turkey's South access. In order to realize this dream, Greece developed policies, coalitions and political projects that completely ignore Turkey, the country with the longest coastline of the Eastern Mediterranean, with a population of 85 million. In this direction, Greece once again showed their disregard for international laws by defining a sea area of 40,000km2 to a 10km2 island at a distance of 2km from Turkey. Turkey intervened in the situation by sending its navy and seismic research vessel and Greece was forced to leave the region.



When the events are interpreted by looking at this historical sequence, all will understand very clearly who planned what, which issues they used as excuses, who sought political support with lies and what they were trying to do. There is no need for word games, copying and pasting the same texts hundreds of times, or perception games. We are not in a competition where the most copy/paste wins.

But I think it's time to put an end to your copy-paste propaganda style on this forum. I do not even think that you are trying to read and understand the texts I have shared. You have only one problem, and that is to copy/paste the same texts and play games and create a perception based on lies. This behavior profile is just like your current government traveling around the country playing perception games. We are not going to allow this game.

 

[Merzifonlu]

Don't take it personally but in the Ottoman Empire, Greeks were, with a few individual exceptions, one of the least useful people in the empire. Now it is a deadweight for the EU instead.

There can be no statement that better explains the current situation in terms of Turkey. This is exactly why Turkiye is not considering attacking Greece and will not think about it in the future. Because Turkiye has nothing to gain from this.

The situation was different in the Ottoman period, at that time it was a question of a nomadic people to live in an urban life, and the Greek people offered the technical and cultural skills to provide this. For this reason, the Turks kept the Greeks close to them.

The mothers of many members of the Ottoman dynasty were Greek women. (Like 1. Orhan) Likewise, the origins of many Ottoman generals were based on the Greeks. For example, the mother of Barbaros Hayrettin Pasha was a Greek woman.

This is not the case at the moment. Even if you force it, Turks do not want Greeks near them. It is enough for them to visit Greece with a touristic trip. Therefore, it would be better if you give up the paranoia and the desire to expand.

Because Turkiye is NOT the Ottoman Empire, whatever the AKP government may want. For this reason, instead of dominating Greece in any war to be experienced, it would prefer to directly destroy and pass. She doesn't act soft like the Ottomans!

 

[DBdev]

Turkish Misinformation

Greek thesis is clear:
According to customary international law, which is also codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Greece has the right to extend its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles.
This right to extend territorial waters to up to 12 nautical miles is a sovereign right which can be unilaterally exercised, and is therefore not subject to any kind of restriction or exception and cannot be disputed by third countries (Article 3 of UNCLOS, which codifies a rule of customary law, does not provide for any restrictions or exceptions with regard to this right).

During ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Law 2321/1995), our country stated explicitly that it reserves the right to exercise this right at any point in time.

In reaction to this legitimate position of Greece, the Turkish National Assembly issued a resolution on 8 June 1995 granting the Turkish government full and perpetual competence to declare war (casus belli) (authorizing it to use military means against Greece), should Greece decide to extend its territorial waters over 6 nautical miles.

This stance on the part of Turkey is a blatant violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter on refraining from the threat or use of force (article 2, paragraph 4), on the peaceful resolution of disputes (article 2 paragraph 3) and on good neighbourly relations and peaceful coexistence (Preamble).


More in......

Territorial sea - Casus belli - Relevant Documents

Türkiye doesn't have to demilitarize it's mainland Greece DOES have to demilitarize said islands. According to YOUR own signatures when those islands were GIVEN to you.

What Greece wants is just being a..holes and to BLOCK Türkiye all around. Otherwise there is nothing to gain from raising 6 miles to 6 miles more. What are you going to be able to do that you are not already doing right now? Except blocking Turkiye's free access from Black sea, Marmara and Aegean to rest of the world? What?

Well 12 miles is NOT a rule it is the MAXIMUM. And your rights end where our free access rights by international law begins that is 6 miles. There is a reason it clearly says MAXIMUM in the UN law. Meaning there are situations where it is more reasonable to make it even as low as 3 miles. If you think USA or France are going to send their boys to die in TURKISH SEAS for Greek's ridiculous attempts to Block 85 million Türks in Aegean or block Turkiye's southern access to seas via ridiculous Greek EEZ claims please raise it to 12 miles TODAY. See what happens to your country in the end.

 

[Foulgrim]

That is, according to you, there is a conspiracy in the West, in order to have this illusion, that the majority were the Janissaries. Of course, whatever book you open, you will not find this view anywhere, because there is no such illusion. Instead, they call them elites and nothing more, except of course that they come from Christian families, violently abducted.
Of course the whole story started with a Turkish member of the forum, who wanted to tell us that the Ottoman army consisted of .... free people and not slaves, forgetting of course that this does not apply at times. In fact, I add that the Ottoman army used also, both mercenaries(Albanians) and foreign armies(Egyptian), as in the Greek revolution of 1821. Also specialist 'topçu' or artillery units were formed mainly of Christians, Kapikulu were converted christian slaves.

Unfortunately in the West there are such perceptions. Western society knows that the Janissaries come from Islamized non-Turkish populations. But society in the West, including in Greece, has the illusion that the Ottoman army was a "mercenary" army that enslaved its defeated opponents and turned them into its own Islamized soldiers. This is an illusion that people have about the military structure of the Ottoman Empire. The West has relied on the term "Islamism" to create this confusion, forgetting that in an Ottoman Empire of 20,000,000 inhabitants, the vast majority of the Ottoman Army were Turkic populations.

 

[Profchaos]

Unfortunately in the West there are such perceptions. Western society knows that the Janissaries come from Islamized non-Turkish populations. But society in the West, including in Greece, has the illusion that the Ottoman army was a "mercenary" army that enslaved its defeated opponents and turned them into its own Islamized soldiers. This is an illusion that people have about the military structure of the Ottoman Empire. The West has relied on the term "Islamism" to create this confusion, forgetting that in an Ottoman Empire of 20,000,000 inhabitants, the vast majority of the Ottoman Army were Turkic populations.

Not the whole army but the first versions of janissary corps were abducted enemy soldiers(14th century). Later it became a part of the devsirme system.

 

[Foulgrim]

Not the whole army but the first versions of janissary corps were abducted enemy soldiers(14th century). Later it became a part of the devsirme system.

Devshirme's practice is not much different from what it was initially done with the Janissaries. Besides, the difference is zero, in the beginning there was the kidnapping of the defeated soldiers as Islamized mercenaries while in the Devshirme system they used to kidnap children of other peoples in order to change their faith and join the ranks of the Ottoman Army.

Janissary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Devshirme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ryder]

Nobody denies slave soldiers in the Ottoman Army. But the Jannisaries were not the majority of the Ottoman army even at its peak under Suleyman.

Include the Jannsaries and the Kapikulus basically 40k or 30k. Jannisaries and the Kapikulus were treated the same so their numbers would be 20k to 40k still does not outnumber Sipahis and Regular troops. Not to mention mercernaries and auxillary troops

 

[Ardabas34]

Janissaries werent even devshirmehs but Turks after surpassing 15.000 as a corps. Turks started bribing officials to enlist their children because the corps was so prestigious.

Janissaries had no difference to Varangian guards. They were bodyguards of the sultan/generals and policework of the capital.
In both examples(despite one being slaves and other being foreign mercs) they were of foreign origin to ensure political loyalty.
They mostly numbered up to 5000 men, both examples. Only janissaries went as far as 13-15.000 in Suleimans period but after that the corps got corrupted and started enlisting a lot of Turks. Thats how 30.000 was reached.

 

[Ryder]

Janissaries werent even devshirmehs but Turks after surpassing 15.000 as a corps. Turks started bribing officials to enlist their children because the corps was so prestigious.

Janissaries had no difference to Varangian guards. They were bodyguards of the sultan/generals and policework of the capital.
In both examples(despite one being slaves and other being foreign mercs) they were of foreign origin to ensure political loyalty.
They mostly numbered up to 5000 men, both examples. Only janissaries went as far as 13-15.000 in Suleimans period but after that the corps got corrupted and started enlisting a lot of Turks. Thats how 30.000 was reached.

People believe they are the majority which is BS.

Not to mention the Jannisaries anf their legacy is complicated and controversial in Turkish history compared to the Sipahis.

The Sipahis retired peacefully even hunted down the remanants of the Jannisary corps.

Sipahis have a positive legacy while the Jannisaries have a complicated and controversial legacy.

I dont deny the good service they have given while at the same time they destroyed the same empire that they were suppose to protect and serve.

At the end of the day many people can mythologise the Jannisaries and the Samurais with the bs about how they did not want to lose their way of life.

They just did not want to lose their overpriced priviledges.

I included the Samurai because the Samurai also have numerous myths which are not true in reality just like the Jannisaries. They were tough warriors no doubt but also had no problem in destroying their own states just so they can keep their rich lives.

 

[Ardabas34]

People believe they are the majority which is BS.

Not to mention the Jannisaries anf their legacy is complicated and controversial in Turkish history compared to the Sipahis.

The Sipahis retired peacefully even hunted down the remanants of the Jannisary corps.

Sipahis have a positive legacy while the Jannisaries have a complicated and controversial legacy.

I dont deny the good service they have given while at the same time they destroyed the same empire that they were suppose to protect and serve.

At the end of the day many people can mythologise the Jannisaries and the Samurais with the bs about how they did not want to lose their way of life.

They just did not want to lose their overpriced priviledges.

I included the Samurai because the Samurai also have numerous myths which are not true in reality just like the Jannisaries. They were tough warriors no doubt but also had no problem in destroying their own states just so they can keep their rich lives.

Sipahis were a pain in the neck too after Suleimans period. Celali revolts was the biggest reason Ottomans lost their entire grip on Anatolia. For decades this problem remained. They even had to offer beylerbeyi positions to some rebellious sipahi leaders.

After state authority declines all the structures start to rot, no need to mythologise/romanticise individual corps or demonise neither.

 

[Ryder]

Sipahis were a pain in the neck too after Suleimans period. Celali revolts was the biggest reason Ottomans lost their entire grip on Anatolia. For decades this problem remained. They even had to offer beylerbeyi positions to some rebellious sipahi leaders.

After state authority declines all the structures start to rot, no need to mythologise/romanticise individual corps or demonise neither.

Damn I never knew this. I really thought Celali revolts wer ejust Ottoman soldiers and officiers who gone rogue then began recuriting locals to fight in the revolt against the Ottoman State.

I gotta look this up then never knew the Celali revolts were this hardcore. Rebellious Sipahis!! Damn.

 

[Kansei]

The majority of crimes for which execution by impalement was reserved was non-Muslims giving an affront to Islam in some form. It would be natural to have non-Muslims get more of that penalty statistically. But this is a conversation of fringe importance akin to the fact that while lethal injection is a practiced punishment in Texas, it will not be a concern for the general population. Devsirme as a recruitment tool is not tantamount to "kidnapping" and yes, Turks were of course drafted into the military. Placing the devsirme soldiers in high positions rather than Turkish nobles was a concern mainly early on and in any case Turks naturally were a big component of the regular standing armies at lower levels. Putting down revolts can be messy but I am not in a position to be able to confirm what you mention about the civilian losses - though one can speculate that if the Turks in general had an intent to commit genocide on the Greeks, I would be having this conversation by myself.

These fragmented, anecdotal arguments all look like what they actually are - a desperate search of the past to justify the Greek savagery that followed.



Like most comparisons to Hitler online this one is also way off the base. The relationship for centuries between Turks and Greeks were actually cordial. People lived side by side, engaged in trade and were friends with each other. There was not a Hitler-esque environment.



Yes, they would. In fact, looking at history's catalogue of atrocities you'll find that most of them were justified with a sob story that is mostly imaginary. This is an interesting point in the history of the Ottomans as well. If somebody in 18th century were to guess which ethnicities would revolt against the empire, Greeks and Armenians would be toward the end of the list. Both of these ethnicities coexisted with Turks peacefully for many centuries and were considered very loyal. And yet, both of them revolted extremely violently with uncommon levels of hostility. Armenians committed acts of terrorism toward the end of 19th century and at the beginning of WW1 killed so many civilians in Eastern Turkey that we are still uncovering mass graves. Their French commanding officer after the end of WW1 in the occupying force was horrified at how the Armenians under his command were acting. Greeks similarly committed ethnic cleansing against Turks in Attica, on various islands and tried to commit a genocide even in Anatolia in 1920s. Greek atrocities were widely recorded by their Western allies both just after they got independence and during their occupation of Turkey. The hostility continued even after Lausanne and Greeks tried to kill Turks on Cyprus.

The culprit here in my opinion is the Russian influence which sought to start revolts to weaken Ottoman Empire and used Orthodox Christian nations as tools. Both of these tools were fed stories of past golden ages which were mercilessly cut short by Turks and the many past injustices they had to endure. In the end, these things are driven by mass psychology and objective historical analysis is not the thing that gets people moving and dehumanizes the enemy but wounded pride is.

Anyway, these are all history now but the same theme of wounded pride and extreme hostility is still central to Greeks' view of Turkey. Unfortunately, Turkish people usually view Greeks favorably or as only mildly problematic and Turkish governments including the current one tend to be very soft on Greece compared to how a country on our east would be treated. Hopefully, the hostility will be met with an appropriate response at some point and things will come to an equilibrium and lasting peace. The EEZ controversy in the recent years has hopefully been an eye-opener for many in Turkey with regards to the extent of Greek claims.

"The majority of crimes for which execution by impalement was reserved was non-Muslims giving an affront to Islam in some form. It would be natural to have non-Muslims get more of that penalty statistically. But this is a conversation of fringe importance akin to the fact that while lethal injection is a practiced punishment in Texas, it will not be a concern for the general population."

Okay and ? I am telling your that if they broke one of the many oppressive and ridiculous laws they would suffer impalement and you reply with yeah because they are criminals and you continue by using whataboutism and mentioning Texas as an example ? A) Just because I don't agree with how the ottoman's treated christians doesn't mean I agree with how Texan's treat their own people, B) The Texans have the right to vote if they are in favor of so and don't have someone else imposing their own religious laws and punishment but also claiming that they were extremely liberal when it came to religion.

"These fragmented, anecdotal arguments all look like what they actually are - a desperate search of the past to justify the Greek savagery that followed."

LMAO WHAT? We are having an argument about historical events and you disprove my argument because it's an anectode? Lmao you can argue that the anacdote isn't objective or try to bring counter-evidence but you can't just throw it out cause it's an anecdote? The entire study of history relies on anecdotes; what do you want me to do? bring you a certified picture from the 17th century of this specific incedent that also has in the background a sign saying "he is a Christian,he is being impaled because he broke x law, this text is written from an Ottoman Official and this is a regular punishment for such crime" ? Jean de Thévenot from what i know has never been questioned or called out for lying and is considered a very reputable source. Also I'm not going to reply to the Greek thing since I already did previously admitting that it was bad but you are obviously trying to derail.

"Like most comparisons to Hitler online this one is also way off the base. The relationship for centuries between Turks and Greeks were actually cordial. People lived side by side, engaged in trade and were friends with each other. There was not a Hitler-esque environment."

Okay once again you refuse to comment on the logical validity of the scenario I gave you, basically just replying with a random statement with no evidence "this is wrong because umm hitler bad and greeks and turks were friend". If i remember correctly, the claim was that we were treated good in the empire, i gave examples of why that's false and then the reply was something along the lines of " Compared to how other nations treated other nations, you had it good", so in the question of "If I came in your country in the 40s and raped all the women and just said " I treated you good, you are lucky I am not using gas chambers or torture camps as punishment for breaking the laws like Hitler" would that be justified?" , has nothing to do with a supposed friendship but with the punishments used by those two powers.

"Yes, they would. In fact, looking at history's catalogue of atrocities you'll find that most of them were justified with a sob story that is mostly imaginary. This is an interesting point in the history of the Ottomans as well. If somebody in 18th century were to guess which ethnicities would revolt against the empire, Greeks and Armenians would be toward the end of the list. Both of these ethnicities coexisted with Turks peacefully for many centuries and were considered very loyal. And yet, both of them revolted extremely violently with uncommon levels of hostility. Armenians committed acts of terrorism toward the end of 19th century and at the beginning of WW1 killed so many civilians in Eastern Turkey that we are still uncovering mass graves. Their French commanding officer after the end of WW1 in the occupying force was horrified at how the Armenians under his command were acting. Greeks similarly committed ethnic cleansing against Turks in Attica, on various islands and tried to commit a genocide even in Anatolia in 1920s. Greek atrocities were widely recorded by their Western allies both just after they got independence and during their occupation of Turkey. The hostility continued even after Lausanne and Greeks tried to kill Turks on Cyprus."

Again you are completely avoiding to reply to any of my arguments, going on a random tagent citing extremely debatable opinions as facts and the basing your entire arguments on that.

"The culprit here in my opinion is the Russian influence which sought to start revolts to weaken Ottoman Empire and used Orthodox Christian nations as tools. Both of these tools were fed stories of past golden ages which were mercilessly cut short by Turks and the many past injustices they had to endure. In the end, these things are driven by mass psychology and objective historical analysis is not the thing that gets people moving and dehumanizes the enemy but wounded pride is."

Again like ??? in reply to argument A I gave, you reply by making argument B that has nothing to do with argument A, but you look like you are in the right because some of you sub-argument are correct but for a completely different topic ?

 

[Ardabas34]

Damn I never knew this. I really thought Celali revolts wer ejust Ottoman soldiers and officiers who gone rogue then began recuriting locals to fight in the revolt against the Ottoman State.

I gotta look this up then never knew the Celali revolts were this hardcore. Rebellious Sipahis!! Damn.

Especially in battle of Kerestes(1596) (known as Haçova Meydan Savaşı in Turkish) many sipahis first deserted because war didnt go well initially. The development(actually turn back to ancient era tactics) of disciplined infantry armies and tercio formation really diminished the role of sipahis in battlefield. Padishah III.Mehmed even considered fleeing but he was convinced by Hoca Sadullah. Then Austrian army lost cohesion and their troops started looting Turkish camp. At this point literally servants like cooks etc started attacking them with ladles, shovels etc. This inspired the other troops and they managed to regroup and push back Austrians. Some of the sipahis that didnt flee completely also regrouped and attacked.

However Ottomans made a terrible mistake and took account of the sipahis who showed up and who fled. They took the timars of those who fled. All of them became celalis.