"The Legend of Dracula and the Lessons of the Romanian Struggle against the Jihad
There have been very few instances in the history of the Islamic Jihad, where the inveterate brutality of the Muslims was surpassed by their adversaries. They included the Nubians of Southern Sudan, the Franks of France, the Crusaders, the Romanians (of the Dracuia legend) and the Marathas of India. All these people had one thing in common – they successfully checkmated and defeated the Islamic Jihadi In this string of people, it was the Romanians and the Crusaders who excelled in overawing the Jihadis in their monstrosity. While the Crusaders are reputed to have roasted and eaten the Jihadis in Anatolia, during the fury of the first crusade, it was the Romanian who instituted the practice of impaling thousands of captured Jihadis who made up the Ottoman Turkish army. Among the Romanian kings who were particularly ruthless was Vlad the Impaler who became notorious as Dracula (circa 1420-1476). "
Please. spare us the technical details. VLAD defended his territory ROYALLY, while your Emperors tried to conquer Europe, while being drained DEAD by their HAREMS.
They didn't get too far, did they?? Cherchez la femme, as French would say....[/url]
I don't think that this last story about the working man and his wife means anything.
We are referring to incidents which took place many years ago and people were not exactly the way we are now. And what Dracula MIGHT have done to a peasant doesn't prove that the Turks were the good guys and Vlad the bad guy.
And if you stil wonder why I said that a great civilization was ruined by some barbarians, answer me this question:
How does one "measure" civilization? Do years count? Where were the Turks back at 1900b.C???
If you read the history of our species you will find that at 1900 b.C flowered the first greek civilization, at Crete.
At 500 b.C. we already knew the meaning of Democracy which is yet to be taught to many nations..........
During the 400 years that the Turks thought they ruled Greece, they didn't even allow us to have schools!!! The Greeks had to make schools at the mountains and in dirt holes, so as not to forget who they are. Many were killed only because they were christians. You call THAT gentleman war and religious tolerance?
While the outher European countries lived the Renaissance, built palaces , churches, wrote poetry and philosophy, we were rotting under our conquerers' and enslavers' RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
You can say anything you want about your country and even claim that the Turks did nothing wrong, but not to a greek person. And Vlad Tepes defended his nation against the INTRUDERS. What's wrong with that?Sorry if we didn't let you rule the planet...
Other than that, you should be more worried about your country's status TODAY, rather than trying to prove that Turkey has been the most decent nation in the past. Everybody knows history and you can't just say that the Turks were GENTLEMEN during their wars. Vlad Tepes might not have been a gentleman either but - as I said in my first post which you probably didn't understand - violence only brings back violence and if Vlad didn't want the Turks around at his counrty, he wouldn't have managed to keep them off his territory by caressing them.
"In the fourteenth century, the Ottoman Turks expanded their empire from Anatolia to the Balkans. They crossed the Bosporus in 1352 and crushed the Serbs at Kosovo Polje, in the south of modern-day Yugoslavia, in 1389. Walachia's (ancient Romania) Prince Mircea the Old (1386-1418) sent his forces to Kosovo to fight beside the Serbs; so soon after the battle Sultan Bayezid marched on Walachia and imprisoned Mircea until he pledged to pay tribute. After a failed attempt to break the sultan's grip, Mircea fled to Transylvania and enlisted his forces in a crusade called by Hungary's King Sigismund. But unfortunately the campaign ended miserably: the Turks routed Sigismund's forces in 1396 at Nicopolis in present-day Bulgaria, and Mircea and his men were lucky to escape across the Danube.
Mongol Assault on the Ottoman gave respite to Romania from the Jihad
In 1402 Walachia gained a respite from Ottoman pressure as the Mongol leader Tamerlane attacked the Ottomans from the east, killed the sultan, and sparked a civil war. When peace returned, the Ottomans renewed their assault on the Balkans. In 1417 Mircea finally capitulated to Sultan Mehmed I and agreed to pay an annual tribute and surrender territory.
But this truce was a a deceptive one that was used by the Ottoman to regroup, to launch an assault deeper into the heart of Europe, by attacking Poland. In this assault launched in 1444 the Ottomans routed European forces at Varna in contemporary Bulgaria. And when Constantinople succumbed in 1453, the Ottomans cut off Genoese and Venetian galleys from Black Sea ports, trade ceased, and the Romanian principalities' isolation deepened. At this time of near desperation, a Magyarized (Hungaryianized) Romanian from Transylvania, János Hunyadi, became regent of Hungary. Hunyadi, was to become a hero of the Ottoman wars, mobilized Hungary against the Turks, equipping a mercenary army funded by the first tax ever levied on Hungary's nobles. He scored a resounding victory over the Turks before Belgrade in 1456, but unfortunately died of plague soon after the battle.
In one of his final acts, Hunyadi installed Vlad Tepes, around whom evolved the legend of count Dracula,(1456-62) on Walachia's throne. Vlad had seen from his early childhood, the depredations of the Turks against the Romanians. He had a traumatic childhood, fleeing from the Turks and consequently had cultivated an abhorrence for the Turks. These childhood experiences influenced his character and when he grew up, he took abnormal pleasure in inflicting torture and watching his Turkish victims writhe in agony. He also defied the sultan by refusing to pay tribute. In 1461 Hamsa Pasha tried to lure Vlad into a trap, but the Walachian prince discovered the deception, captured Hamsa and his men, impaled them on wooden stakes, and abandoned them. Sultan Mohammed later invaded Walachia and drove Vlad into exile in Hungary. Although Vlad eventually returned to Walachia, he died shortly thereafter, and Walachia's resistance to the Ottomans softened.
Meanwhile in Eastern Romania, in Moldavia and its prince, Stephen the Great (1457-1504), were the principalities' last hope of repelling the Ottoman threat. Stephen drew on Moldavia's peasantry to raise a 55,000-man army and repelled the invading forces of Hungary's King Mátyás Corvinus in a daring night attack. Stephen's army invaded Walachia in 1471 and defeated the Turks when they retaliated in 1473 and 1474. After these victories, Stephen implored Pope Sixtus IV to forge a Christian alliance against the Turks. The pope replied with a letter naming Stephen an "Athlete of Christ," but he did not heed Stephen's calls for Christian unity. During the last decades of Stephen's reign, the Turks increased the pressure on Moldavia. They captured key Black Sea ports in 1484 and burned Moldavia's capital, Suceava, in 1485. Stephen rebounded with a victory in 1486 but thereafter confined his efforts to secure Moldavia's independence to the diplomatic arena. Frustrated by vain attempts to unite the West against the Turks, Stephen, on his deathbed, told his son to carry on the struggle against the pagan Turks and expel them from Europe. But unfortunately succession struggles weakened Moldavia after his death.
In 1514 greedy nobles sparked a widespread peasant revolt in Hungary and Transylvania. Hungary was vulnerable to outside aggression. Taking advantage of these unsettled conditions, the Ottomans stormed Belgrade in 1521, routed a feeble Hungarian army at Mohács in 1526, and conquered Buda in 1541. They installed a pasha to rule over central Hungary; Transylvania became an autonomous principality under Ottoman suzerainty; and the Habsburgs assumed control over fragments of northern and western Hungary.
Once the Ottomans conquered Buda, Walachia and Moldavia lost all but the veneer of independence and the Ottomans exacted heavy tribute. The Turks chose Walachian and Moldavian princes from among the sons of noble hostages to be taken to Constantinople for being enlisted as Janissaries in the ottoman army. A few of the princes chose death to a life of servitude.
The Romanians' final hero before the Turks closed their stranglehold on the principalities was Walachia's Michael the Brave (1593-1601). Once enthroned, however, he rounded up extortionist Turkish lenders, locked them in a building, and burned it to the ground. His forces then overran several key Turkish fortresses. Michael's ultimate goal was complete independence. In 1600 Michael conquered Moldavia. For the first time a single Romanian prince ruled over all Romanians, and the Romanian people sensed the first stirring of a national identity. Michael the Brave grew more impressive in legend than in life, and his short-lived unification of the Romanian lands later inspired not just the Romanians but all peoples of the Balkan nations to struggle against the Turks for national freedom. All these nations have suffered greatly - and bear the scars - of the Ottomans. In the case of Albania, this process is particularly marked, with the effects being less prominent in Romania, Bulgaria and Greece only by the measure of the population change in these regions. In the case of Albania, the original Christian population was converted to Islam and so Christianity was fully supplanted by Islam.
The Legend of Dracula and the Lessons of the Romanian Struggle against the Jihad
There have been very few instances in the history of the Islamic Jihad, where the inveterate brutality of the Muslims was surpassed by their adversaries. They included the Nubians of Southern Sudan, the Franks of France, the Crusaders, the Romanians (of the Dracuia legend) and the Marathas of India. All these people had one thing in common – they successfully checkmated and defeated the Islamic Jihadi In this string of people, it was the Romanians and the Crusaders who excelled in overawing the Jihadis in their monstrosity. While the Crusaders are reputed to have roasted and eaten the Jihadis in Anatolia, during the fury of the first crusade, it was the Romanian who instituted the practice of impaling thousands of captured Jihadis who made up the Ottoman Turkish army. Among the Romanian kings who were particularly ruthless was Vlad the Impaler who became notorious as Dracula (circa 1420-1476).
Vlad used brutal terror tactics against the Turks, impaling tens of thousands of them upon stakes, thereby earning his nickname. His name has also been used in western literature as a vampire - although this is completely unrelated to his real activities, since he never drank the blood of his Muslim adversaries, as against the Crusaders who have been documented to have roasted and consumed their Muslim adversaries. The Turks never forgave Vlad and by deceit they succeed in eventually killing him, and his head delivered to the Sultan of Turkey on a platter, as proof that their great enemy was actually dead. But while he lived, with his overawing brutality Vlad Dracula, managed to terrorize the Turks. He even managed to liberate Walachia from the Turks for a short while. Although his name has been appropriated for another completely unconnected use in western literature (as a vampire), Vlad was in fact the terror of the Jihadi Ottoman Empire for many years, and through his sheer terrorism he inflicted some of the greatest defeats upon the Ottomans during their long reign in the Balkans.
Romanians learnt the technique of Impaling from the Jihadis
But not many know that Vlad Dracula had originally learnt this habit of impaling the Turks on stakes from the tactics used by the Turks themselves during his campaigns against them along with the famous Hungarian hero, Janos Hunyad. Before Vlad, there has been no mention of impaling of thousands of captured enemy prisoners in European History.
In 1461, Walachian soldiers took a Turkish fort called Giurgiu near the Turkish center of Nicopolis and slaughtered all the Turks they could find, impaling them on stakes, with the tallest stake being reserved for the Turkish governor of Nicopolis, Hamza Pasha.
In one instance Vlad Dracula impaled 20,000 Turks - the sight of the massacre so shook an invading Turkish army that they turned back rather than face the man who could do such a thing - even though, ironically, Vlad had learned the impaling trick from the Turks themselves. Dracula continued along the Danube to the Black Sea, sending a message back to the Hungarian court that "we have killed 23,884 Turks". Accompanying this message, Dracula sent two bags full of Turkish heads, ears and noses to underline his point.
By 1462, the Ottomans had drawn up an overwhelming army of 60,000 men to wipe out the upstart Walachian Prince. The Turks advanced in two parts - half sailed along the Danube River while the other half marched overland through Bulgaria. Dracula's men kept the Turks shadowed along the Danube - when the Turks started disembarking, the Walachians burst upon them from the forest on horseback and drove them back into their boats with the ferocity of the attack. However, Dracula knew that he could not face the Turks in open battle, as he did not have the numbers to defeat the Jihadis in this manner. Dracula decided to wage a guerrilla war against the Turks, combining it with a scorched earth policy. Constant raids and food shortages then took their toll on the invading Turkish army. The Turkish Sultan himself barely escaped capture when a Walachian party raided his camp in the Carpathinian mountains overlooking Tirgoviste. Thousands of Turks were captured and killed in this engagement - and when the Sultan advanced upon Tirgoviste itself, he found a mile long gorge filled with 20,000 impaled Turks. The brutal display was too much even for the notoriously cruel Turks. They withdrew without joining battle for Tirgoviste, with the Sultan complaining that he could not "win this land from a man who does such things".
Now the Turks resorted to subterfuge, and promised the throne of Romania to Dracula’s brother who was held by the Turks in captivity and had been brought up a leader of the Janisaaries. Dracula’s brother began exploiting the divisions in the ranks of the Romanians. Dracula’s ruthless march against the Turks had earned him enemies amongst those traitor Romanains who had been appointed to high rank by the Turks as Tax collectors, and who had been stripped of their rank and privileges by Dracula. Seizing the divisions among the Romanians, Dracula’s brother led the Jannisaries who were joined by the traitor contingents, who wanted to over throw Dracula and regain their privileges. Sadly for Romania, Dracula was defeated and then deposed as Prince of Walachia by his brother who collaborated with the Turks.
After being attacked by his brother's forces, Dracula fled to the Hungarian capital, where he was given refuge. In 1476, he once again became prince of Walachia after invading with a new army. His reign did not last long. He was ambushed by the Janisarries outside Bucharest, his headless corpse was found in a swamp. His head was delivered on a platter to the Turkish Sultan at Constantinople - the Jihadis final revenge on the Romanian prince who had inflicted so many defeats upon them. Walachia then fell once again under Ottoman rule.
But Romanian resistance Turkish rule continued uninterrupted until the end of the 16th Century, when another Walachian prince, Michael the Brave, led a revolt against the Ottomans and succeeded in liberating Walachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania, uniting these regions for a brief period until 1601. Michael is to this day the national hero of Romania for his part in this uprising and for being the first to combine the three territories that were to form Romania.
The rise of Imperial Russia under Tsarina Catherine the Great proved to be Romania's eventual salvation. Declaring Russia to be the protector of all Orthodox Christians, the power of Russia at the time persuaded the Ottomans to allow a measure of autonomy in Walachia and Moldavia. This was to culminate in 1829 when the two regions were to be formally attached to Russia as protectorates. The two regions still were however obliged to pay tributes to the Ottomans - a sort of blackmail to prevent further military intervention.
Romania’s Final Independence from Ottomans
By 1857, the regions of Moldavia and Walachia had built themselves up to the point where they were prepared to declare themselves independent. In that year the two states' legislative bodies (made up out of a limited franchise) voted for political union and independence, creating a state with the name Romania. The Ottomans were only finally removed as a factor from the Romanian state - after a 500 year occupation - following a Russian-Romanian victory over the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78."
For the sake of argument and/or historical TRUTH. Take your pick.
Dark Witch wrote:I don't think that this last story about the working man and his wife means anything.
We are referring to incidents which took place many years ago and people were not exactly the way we are now. And what Dracula MIGHT have done to a peasant doesn't prove that the Turks were the good guys and Vlad the bad guy.
And if you stil wonder why I said that a great civilization was ruined by some barbarians, answer me this question:
How does one "measure" civilization? Do years count? Where were the Turks back at 1900b.C???
If you read the history of our species you will find that at 1900 b.C flowered the first greek civilization, at Crete.
At 500 b.C. we already knew the meaning of Democracy which is yet to be taught to many nations..........
During the 400 years that the Turks thought they ruled Greece, they didn't even allow us to have schools!!! The Greeks had to make schools at the mountains and in dirt holes, so as not to forget who they are. Many were killed only because they were christians. You call THAT gentleman war and religious tolerance?
While the outher European countries lived the Renaissance, built palaces , churches, wrote poetry and philosophy, we were rotting under our conquerers' and enslavers' RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
You can say anything you want about your country and even claim that the Turks did nothing wrong, but not to a greek person. And Vlad Tepes defended his nation against the INTRUDERS. What's wrong with that?Sorry if we didn't let you rule the planet...
Other than that, you should be more worried about your country's status TODAY, rather than trying to prove that Turkey has been the most decent nation in the past. Everybody knows history and you can't just say that the Turks were GENTLEMEN during their wars. Vlad Tepes might not have been a gentleman either but - as I said in my first post which you probably didn't understand - violence only brings back violence and if Vlad didn't want the Turks around at his counrty, he wouldn't have managed to keep them off his territory by caressing them.
Obviously, the Turks do not admit that Vlad the Impaler learned the trade, while growing up in Constantinople, taught and bred by Turkish teachers (who applied the same tactics on both him and his brother Radu, may it have been sodomy and all other crappy, creepy methods, in order to groom them for future positions, as puppet kings, in future teritorries to be conquered). Vlad never forgot the treatment.
Radu, his brother, succumbed.
However, Vlad, returned their "favor" and IMPALED any TURK that he could get his hands on.
"The Ottomans were only finally removed as a factor from the Romanian state - after a 500 year occupation - following a Russian-Romanian victory over the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78."
"OCCUPATION???? THEY dare say OCCUPATION, after taking the biggest beating after the CRUSADES.
Romania was never occupied by TURKS, PAL...GET IT STRAIGHT. Neither was GREECE.
If ANY occupation took place was way back in time, when Muslims didn't even exist.
His NAME was Alexander the Great/ Alexander the MACEDONIAN/Alexander the GREEK. But that makes for another history lesson for poor history handicapped Turkish arkadash.
Whatta BULL dung. My GOD, I should know TURKISH by now. My parents and their great great parents should have known Turkish.
Hmmm...Again History can be distorted and twisted like a twisted sister.
Turks should pipe down, and become part of a CIVILIZED ONE WORLD/New World Order.....as soon as possible.
"The Legend of Dracula and the Lessons of the Romanian Struggle against the Jihad
There have been very few instances in the history of the Islamic Jihad, where the inveterate brutality of the Muslims was surpassed by their adversaries. They included the Nubians of Southern Sudan, the Franks of France, the Crusaders, the Romanians (of the Dracuia legend) and the Marathas of India. All these people had one thing in common – they successfully checkmated and defeated the Islamic Jihadi In this string of people, it was the Romanians and the Crusaders who excelled in overawing the Jihadis in their monstrosity. While the Crusaders are reputed to have roasted and eaten the Jihadis in Anatolia, during the fury of the first crusade, it was the Romanian who instituted the practice of impaling thousands of captured Jihadis who made up the Ottoman Turkish army. Among the Romanian kings who were particularly ruthless was Vlad the Impaler who became notorious as Dracula (circa 1420-1476). "
Please. spare us the technical details. VLAD defended his territory ROYALLY, while your Emperors tried to conquer Europe, while being drained DEAD by their HAREMS.
They didn't get too far, did they?? Cherchez la femme, as French would say....[/url]
Jihad cannot imply conversion by force.Islamic jurisprudence divides the inhabitants of Dar al-Harb (known as harbis) into two: People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) and polytheists. People of the Book, defined in the Qur’an as Christians, Jews, and Sabeans, have a distinct status in Muslim eyes because they follow a genuine—if incomplete—revelation from a genuine prophet. They may live undisturbed under Muslim rule so long as they accept a subordinate status (that of the dhimmi) which entails paying a tribute (jizya) and suffering a wide range of disabilities. As for polytheists, the law requires Muslims to offer them the choice of Islam or death, though this was rarely followed after the initial Muslim conquest of Arabia. Instead, Muslims generally treated all harbis as People of the Book. The jurists first sanctioned the inclusion of Zoroastrians in this category; Muslim conquerors of the Indian subcontinent extended it to Hindus as well, thereby effectively eliminating the category of polytheists.
The belief that jihad should continue until Dar al-Islam covers the entire world does not imply that the jurists expect Muslims to wage non-stop war. The Prophet Muhammad made a peace agreement with the Meccans in 630, the Treaty of Hudaybiya, and several of the early caliphs made peace treaties with the Byzantine Empire (some of which even required them to pay tribute to the Byzantines). Although there is no mechanism for recognizing a non-Muslim government as legitimate, the jurists built on these precedents to allow the negotiation of truces and peace treaties of limited duration. The jurists provide for military prudence, permitting the withdrawal of badly outnumbered or overpowered forces. And some jurists added an intermediate category, Dar al-`Ahd (Abode of Covenant) or Dar al-Sulh (Abode of Peace), for those countries where non-Muslim rulers govern non-Muslim subjects.
Jihad is mainly fighting in the name of Allah/God.
The term "jihad" is often rendered in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as "holy war", but this "physical" struggle, which encompasses warfare, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. The denotation is of a struggle, challenge, difficulty, or (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or as resistance. A person who engages in any form of jihad can be called a mujahid (in plural: mujahadin) (Arabic: striver, struggler), a term even more often applied to groups who practice armed struggle in the name of Islam. Such a person might engage in fighting as a military struggle for religious reasons, or for example, struggle to memorize the Qur'an.
Dark Witch wrote:I don't think that this last story about the working man and his wife means anything.
We are referring to incidents which took place many years ago and people were not exactly the way we are now. And what Dracula MIGHT have done to a peasant doesn't prove that the Turks were the good guys and Vlad the bad guy.
And if you stil wonder why I said that a great civilization was ruined by some barbarians, answer me this question:
How does one "measure" civilization? Do years count? Where were the Turks back at 1900b.C???
If you read the history of our species you will find that at 1900 b.C flowered the first greek civilization, at Crete.
At 500 b.C. we already knew the meaning of Democracy which is yet to be taught to many nations..........
During the 400 years that the Turks thought they ruled Greece, they didn't even allow us to have schools!!! The Greeks had to make schools at the mountains and in dirt holes, so as not to forget who they are. Many were killed only because they were christians. You call THAT gentleman war and religious tolerance?
While the outher European countries lived the Renaissance, built palaces , churches, wrote poetry and philosophy, we were rotting under our conquerers' and enslavers' RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
You can say anything you want about your country and even claim that the Turks did nothing wrong, but not to a greek person. And Vlad Tepes defended his nation against the INTRUDERS. What's wrong with that?Sorry if we didn't let you rule the planet...
Other than that, you should be more worried about your country's status TODAY, rather than trying to prove that Turkey has been the most decent nation in the past. Everybody knows history and you can't just say that the Turks were GENTLEMEN during their wars. Vlad Tepes might not have been a gentleman either but - as I said in my first post which you probably didn't understand - violence only brings back violence and if Vlad didn't want the Turks around at his counrty, he wouldn't have managed to keep them off his territory by caressing them.
There is somewhere i agree with you on..
It is # And what Dracula MIGHT have done to a peasant doesn't prove that the Turks were the good guys and Vlad the bad guy. #
I didnt mean Greek(Byzantine) civilization wasnt great,they were good at maths,architecture etc etc. history can not be denied.BUT falling down is for every single empire,Turks removed your existence (that doesnt mean your historical remnants,values etc),Persians removed another empire,another empire removed Persians ...History is like that.But you said Turks were barbarians !! We were powerfull in military,being powerfull in military does not mean being barbarian.
(plus: i am not comparing with todays Turkiye s democracy with yours or with old ages)
You said that :
### they didn't even allow us to have schools!!! The Greeks had to make schools at the mountains and in dirt holes, so as not to forget who they are. Many were killed only because they were christians. You call THAT gentleman war and religious tolerance? ###
Stay there my friend,hold it up..i will prove that is NOT true.Proven by your OWN Greek media.Here it comes from To Vima newspaper.
A reporter published the lies about Turkey that have been accepted by Greece. Here are the answers given by To Vima newspaper against "10 Big Greek Lies":
Neither religious nor language pressure
1. Ottomans did not make Islamic pressure on the Greeks.
2. Families voluntarily let their children to become a janissary.
3. Greek language is not prohibited.
4. Catholics were the real enemy of the Church.
5. Independence did not come with a revolt.
6. Greeks did not have their independence on their own.
7. Serbians also revolted.
8. Other countries helped for their own profits.
9. Turks also lost their land.
10. It was people that went Anatolia who returned during the exchange.
10 Biggest lies of Greece
To Vima newspaper from Greece declared the 10 biggest lies mentioned in the history books against the Ottoman Empire.
As in most of the Balkan countries, even in the European Countries, the history books read are full of heroic stories and myths. The biggest part of the history books is the revolt of Greece against the Ottoman Empire for getting its independence in 1821. Inspecting the history books full of heroic stories of the Greek people during the fighting period, TO VIMA newspaper published the "10 biggest lies" of Greece on the 185th Anniversary of its revolt against the Ottoman Empire. According to the research made by Andreas Pappas one of the authors of the newspaper, here are the Greek lies:
1st Lie: During the 400 years of Ottoman administration, Ottomans forced the Greek to accept Islam.
2nd Lie: Taken form their families by force, Christian children are forced to accept Islam and closed to Janissary Barracks.
3rd Lie: Greeks used to go to secret schools for learning their language and Christianity.
4th Lie: Greek Church fought hard against the Ottoman Empire.
5th Lie: Greek nation got its independence with a mutiny against the Ottoman Empire in 1821.
6th Lie: Thanks to the mutiny, Larissa (Central Greece) joined to Greek lands in 1881. Athens siege of the Ottoman Empire failed in 1897. Ottoman lands are shared with the Treaty of Sevres in 1920.
7th Lie: Only Greeks revolted against the Ottoman Empire.
8th Lie: Foreign countries supported Greeks because they liked them much.
9th Lie: Only Greeks lost their home.
10th Lie: Greeks emigrated from Anatolia to Greece are taken out of Hellenic lands during the First World War
Here is just ONE more example of why Greek youth hate of Turks so much if you care.
Monday, April 3, 2006
By Ariana Ferentinou
***Every school year since the age of six I was taught why I should hate the Turks.*** On the anniversary of the outbreak of the Greek rebellion against the Ottomans, on the 25th of March of every year, I had to take part either in a patriotic sketch with the Greek flag in the background or recite some patriotic poem, myself dressed up in blue and white. Our basic, middle and university education was based on the same line: The Greeks, inspired by their inherent sense of freedom and the spiritual superiority bestowed by the Orthodox faith, were strong enough and powerful enough to defeat the powerful, backward, infidel, cowardly Ottomans.
The Ottoman occupation of land that used to belong to the Byzantine Empire was, according to our teachers, the worst catastrophe that had ever happened to our nation: The Greeks under the Ottoman yoke were forcibly Islamized, deprived of their ethnic identity, their property, their language, their education. From the beginning until the end of the Ottoman period in what is now Greece, there was nothing but misery, death and destitution. Actually, the basic tenets of education have not changed up until the present day, and the Greek clergy is still claiming to be the only force that kept the cultural identity of the Greek subjects of the Ottomans intact by secretly providing education to the suppressed population.
This year was no different. The 185th anniversary of the Greek rebellion was celebrated with the same national and religious fervor in school plays, military parades, speeches and church Masses.
But in a way, things are not the same as before. There are now voices in Greece, intellectuals, academics and educators, who are speaking out against the official portrayal of recent Greek history, especially the period under Ottoman occupation. With the establishment of various research centers around the world working scientifically on the Ottoman period, with the increasing number of publications and translations circulating, people are starting to be aware that we may have grown up believing in a well-designed national mythology -- a mythology that served religious and political groups in maintaining their authority.
**So it was not a total surprise to read in such an established newspaper as TO VIMA, an article by Andreas Pappas, a publications editor and translator, titled “Ten small myths about 1821.â€
Dark Witch wrote:You can say anything you want about your country and even claim that the Turks did nothing wrong, but not to a greek person. And Vlad Tepes defended his nation against the INTRUDERS. What's wrong with that?Sorry if we didn't let you rule the planet...
Other than that, you should be more worried about your country's status TODAY, rather than trying to prove that Turkey has been the most decent nation in the past. Everybody knows history and you can't just say that the Turks were GENTLEMEN during their wars. Vlad Tepes might not have been a gentleman either but - as I said in my first post which you probably didn't understand - violence only brings back violence and if Vlad didn't want the Turks around at his counrty, he wouldn't have managed to keep them off his territory by caressing them.
First of all i dont deny truths.Vlad defended his nation,thats true and i agree on.He was a warrior and defended his country,values but BY barbaric,cruel and COWARD ways.Not by a gentleman way...You still say #Violence brings violence # then i want you to SHOW me where we Turksimpaled women and children.Where were Ottomans barbarian???
Thanks for your advice but i dont worry about my country's status today..
Vlad wrote:"The Ottomans were only finally removed as a factor from the Romanian state - after a 500 year occupation - following a Russian-Romanian victory over the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78."
"OCCUPATION???? THEY dare say OCCUPATION, after taking the biggest beating after the CRUSADES.
Romania was never occupied by TURKS, PAL...GET IT STRAIGHT. Neither was GREECE.
If ANY occupation took place was way back in time, when Muslims didn't even exist.
His NAME was Alexander the Great/ Alexander the MACEDONIAN/Alexander the GREEK. But that makes for another history lesson for poor history handicapped Turkish arkadash.
Whatta BULL dung. My GOD, I should know TURKISH by now. My parents and their great great parents should have known Turkish.
Hmmm...Again History can be distorted and twisted like a twisted sister.
Turks should pipe down, and become part of a CIVILIZED ONE WORLD/New World Order.....as soon as possible.
"Who controls the PAST, controls the Future.
Who controls the PRESENT, controls the PAST"
George Orwell
That post has nothing but insults to my personality It thought me Romanians can NEVER learn how to debate without insulting like Greel ultra nationalists This website belongs to you,you know you have an option to delete my posts as long as you want and i am just a user..
Whatever you deny..Vlad was a coward,he was uesd to hit and run away..That was his tactic on fighting unlike Ottomans.He also killed thousands of Romanians including women and children..Keep thinking he was a hero of yourselves
Vlad once noticed a man working in the fields while wearing a caftan (shirt) that he adjudged to be too short in length. The prince stopped and asked to see the man’s wife. When the woman was brought before him he asked her how she spent her days. The poor, frightened woman stated that she spent her days washing, baking and sewing. The prince pointed out her husband’s short caftan as evidence of her laziness and dishonesty and ordered her impaled, despite her husband’s protestations that he was well satisfied with his wife. Vlad then ordered another woman to marry the peasant but admonished her to work hard or she would suffer the same fate.
We have a saying in Romanian: "Shut up. Are you Turk?"
Here:
"History
The use of impalement as a form of execution in Ancient Persia is evidenced by carvings and statues from the ancient Near East. According to the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus (3.159), Darius I impaled 3,000 Babylonians when he took Babylon: this is recorded in the Behistun inscription. In Ancient Rome, impalement was superseded by crucifixion. In ancient Carthage, impalement was used for extreme cases of treachery and failure on the battlefield, usually mixed in with other forms of torture.
Impalement was used in Sweden during the 17th century, particularly as a death penalty for members of the resistance in the former Danish province Terra Scania (the so called "snapphanar)", where the stake was inserted between the spine and the skin of the victim. In that way, it could take four to five days before the victim died.
Turkish Ottoman Empire had also used impalement, as a punishment to rebellious Christians in its occupied European teritories, mostly upon Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks.
From the 14th to 18th century, impalement was a traditional method of execution for high treason in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Impalement is said to have been frequently practiced in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Vlad III Dracula and Ivan the Terrible have passed into legend as major users of the method.
One particularly gruesome form of impalement involved being forced to stand over a wide stake which was just tall enough that it penetrated the victim's rectum deeply. This left them unable to remove themselves, or to sit. As their legs tired, they would slowly sink onto the stake, which eventually would cause mortal damage, but only over the course of hours, or even days."
Now, take that and take your time and swallow it, and then say something.
You believe in propaganda, and miss the point, no matter how wide it is. (no pun intended:-))
Vlad did not impale women and children, idiot. He IMPALED your ancestors, until they got sick of pursuing him.
Capisci?? Eventually they gave up, and the Ottoman Empire fell through the cracks.
What is your point? That the Ottomans were a blessing for EUROPE..or WHAT?? C'mon..be real.
You should thank ALLAH that Turkey became a semi-European nation, otherwise you would have blown yourself up in Afganistan or IRAQ, together with the Islam radicals, waiting for the 1000 virgins at the gate.
They didn't get too far, did they?? Cherchez la femme, as French would say....[/url]
