Tbh, I don't see how the French or the Russian Emperor and non-Brest Litovsk Russian governments don't veto a British Gallipoli, given its huge strategic importance and its monopolisation by the British. And I think the one thing Greeks and Turks would agree on would be that they really, really don't like this idea.
Greece with Cyprus and Constantinople?
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
I'm curious about discussing how the Greeks would run Constantinople were they to recover it (instead of Ionia) following the First World War. Presumably, the Greeks would want to reconsecrate the Hagia Sophia as a church, but what about other sites in the city of significance to the Greeks and Turks in the city and elsewhere in Eastern Thrace?
I disagree; the Turks might see British occupation of Gallipoli as the best way to guarantee protection for the Tube of Suleyman Pasha, brother of Murad I
I disagree; the Turks might see British occupation of Gallipoli as the best way to guarantee protection for the Tube of Suleyman Pasha, brother of Murad I
Last edited:
abc123
Banned
Yes, I presume that Hagia Sophia would become a church again, and about Turkish monuments, I'm afraid that they will all be destroyed or converted into Greek use ( mosques in churches etc. ).
Well in this scenario I'd say an Axis Turkey is almost certain come WWII (butterflies notwithstanding)
Some would; Hagia Irene would become a church again too, but what of the large Ottoman mosques built where there was not known to have been a Greek church before? Surely, they would be left, both for the sake of historicity, and to serve the Muslim population remaining in the city and its environs.
I think a lot depends on the terms of the final settlement. The treaty might insist on a special status for the city, and as such, some protections for places of worship for religious minorities.
I think it goes without saying that every surviving church in the city would be restored to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, starting with Hagia Sophia (which would require a massive, long-term restoration). There would undoubtedly be pressure to take over some or all mosques, no question.
It is instructive, however, to look at what happened to other cities in the Balkans (especially Greece) where large Muslim populations lived at the handover to the new Christian states. Mostly, they fled, or were exchanged. In Thessalonica, the New Mosque was not marked for takeover, but the departure of the city's entire Muslim population left it defunct, and it ended up as a museum. How many Muslims would want to remain in a Greek-ruled Constantinople? Even without a formal requirement of population exchange for the city? My guess is that more than one mosque would end up defunct, at least, and converted to other purposes.
It's a fair question what would become of prominent edifices such as the Blue Mosque in such a situation.
My thinking exactly.
Great minds think alike!
In any event, Athens is a lot more centrally located...
I agree with all of this. Now that you mention it though, I do wonder if the "Church of Greece" would endure with the Ecumenical Patriarchate based once more in a Greek-ruled city. Of course, this is solved by the special status you suggest as a possibility for Constanrinople extending to ecclesiastical jurisdictions in Eastern Orthodoxy as well.
I think that if Constantinople comes under the direct rule of Greece, then the political compromise which necessitated a separate Church of Greece would no longer make any sense. It would end up rejoined under the direct jurisdiction once again of the Patriarch, yes?
Unless, of course, the city is given some special jurisdiction, and had a provision forbidding such a fusion. Again, so much depends on the details of how this plays out.
I don't know what you're referring to and I couldn't find anything through google search, so I can't answer.
Why wouldn't they? I don't think that people who were born in a place where their ancestors have lived for generations, whether Muslim or Christian, are prone to leave it, unless forced to do so either by financial constraints or by the state. The Greeks who remained in Constantinople after 1922 would also still be largely there today, but for persecution by the Turkish state.
Although not exactly a model of a multicultural society, Greek official policy was never formally hostile towards its Muslim (and Jewish) citizens. There was even a long-standing national obsession among Greek officialdom in the late 19th/early 20th century with demonstrating to the world that Greece is an enlightened country and that it scrupulously observed the law in its treatment of minorities (of course, this was in service of the Greek claim to succession of the "moribund" Ottoman Empire as being the "bringer of civilization" to the "barbaric" East, but still...).
Historically, Muslims remained under Greek rule in Thessaly, Macedonia, and Crete until the population exchange, and still remain in Western Thrace, even though the region is the Greek equivalent of darkest Siberia. IIRC, many of the Cretan Muslims in particular even suggested converting to Christianity to be allowed to stay, but were rebuffed for fear of Turkish reactions.
The only periods of persecutions against Muslims happened in wartime and in rather extraordinary circumstances: mutual slaughter in war-torn Anatolia, and near-civil war and collaboration of some of the Muslim Cham Albanians in the occupation during World War II. I also note that at the same time Greeks and Turks were slaughtering each other in Anatolia, the Muslims of Macedonia and Crete lived peaceful lives, voted normally in elections (which helped bring down Venizelos) and had one of their own as mayor of Thessalonica.
So while there is always the possibility that some fascist or nationalist Greek government will expel the Turks from the city, I think that the Turks themselves will choose to stay.
PS I too think that government would remain in Athens, at least for the time being, even though Constantinople would almost certainly become the state capital. The city is simply too exposed and geographically awkwardly placed for a Greece that doesn't have any Asian territories to serve as a viable administrative centre. Then again, Greek politicians are not particularly famous for their clear-sightedness...
Hello Spatharios,
So while there is always the possibility that some fascist or nationalist Greek government will expel the Turks from the city, I think that the Turks themselves will choose to stay.
My question wasn't rhetorical - I really don't know. And it wasn't intended as a swipe at Greeks of that period.
Certainly some would remain. But a lot would depend on how the scenario played out. The more armed conflict there was before the final settlement, of course, the more likely that more will flee - not because of what was happening, but what they fear *might* happen. Many Greek nationalists would be drawn to newly liberated Constantinople, and they might be a more...zealous lot than the typical Greek in Thessaly or Macedonia or Crete. It's hard to say. The only thing we can be certain of is that for the long term - at least the intermediate long term (the next three generations, at least), the city would become more Greek and more Christian in character, through inevitable in- and out-migration.
It will also depend on what the actual governance of the city is - whether it is fully integrated into Greece proper, or an international or semi-international condominium (Nicholson was seriously proposing handing it over to American administration at one point).
So while there is always the possibility that some fascist or nationalist Greek government will expel the Turks from the city, I think that the Turks themselves will choose to stay.
My question wasn't rhetorical - I really don't know. And it wasn't intended as a swipe at Greeks of that period.
Certainly some would remain. But a lot would depend on how the scenario played out. The more armed conflict there was before the final settlement, of course, the more likely that more will flee - not because of what was happening, but what they fear *might* happen. Many Greek nationalists would be drawn to newly liberated Constantinople, and they might be a more...zealous lot than the typical Greek in Thessaly or Macedonia or Crete. It's hard to say. The only thing we can be certain of is that for the long term - at least the intermediate long term (the next three generations, at least), the city would become more Greek and more Christian in character, through inevitable in- and out-migration.
It will also depend on what the actual governance of the city is - whether it is fully integrated into Greece proper, or an international or semi-international condominium (Nicholson was seriously proposing handing it over to American administration at one point).
I did not interpret this as a slight, don't worry. It's just that most people around here seem to think that Greeks and Turks just have to hate and exterminate one another. History does seem to bear them out, but history also contains the oft forgotten facts I mentioned above, or the rather cordial Greco-Turkish relations from 1930 until the Cyprus quarrels in the 1950s.
abc123
Banned
Bold: I agree.
Other: Do you think that situation where Greek army advances toward Constantinople, wanting to rectify 500-years-old unjustice and take Constantinople from Asiatic barbarrians and eternal enemies ( aka Turks ), could qualify as normal situation?