Reconquest of Constantinople in the 19th Century
- Thread starter Chrispi
- Start date
Is there anything wrong with "the Clash of Civilizations" theory, Grey? I found it rather convincing, or at least more fitting than "The End of History."
Grey, if Turkey joins, it will be the largest voting member in the EU population wise.
Grey, if Turkey joins, it will be the largest voting member in the EU population wise.
Redbeard
Banned
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Guilt is only interesting in relation to whether the punsihment stands in relation to the crime you're are guilty of - unless there is the only one punishment for all offenses. And if the label/excuse is race, class or survival of the state is also insignificant, and BTW both the Gestapo and the NKVD were convinced that they only acted to secure the survival of...(insert something nice) - the biggest crimes are often done with the best intentions. I doubt if many or any of the KZ guards stood up each moring with a giggle "he-he- I'm going to be evil today!". If they had any thoughts they actually believed they we're doing it for some bigger good purpose - that's the really scary part. It would be easy to guard ourselves against complete wackos, but if it's really the idealists who are/can be dangerous...
I find it OK that you have the Ottoman Empire end in 1908/13, but that still doesn't free the Ottomans from forming the background for what happened a few years later. Just like the Germans have been forced to consider what in Germany and the Germans pre 1933 made the nazi attrocities possible later.
And like Germany has contributed a lot positive too, I'm sure you can find that from the Ottomans also. But still, the relatively relaxed muliti ethnicity of the Ottoman Empire wasn't a symptom of that system being specially good to handle that, but of the Ottoman Empire not yet having reached the development status where problems with multiethnicity usually occurs. In that context I actually find the Habsburg Empire a more promising study object, and not at least a city like Viennna - which BTW also today is a marvelous city and has a 1000 reasons to visit.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I agree with what you wrote, except that in the case of the Holocaust, the victims were incontrovertably NOT in any way a threat to the state, and in that time and place were nothing but productive members of society.
In the case of the Armenians in WWI, that can't be said, nor did the Armenians refrain from comitting atrocities of their own, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of victims - and continue to today. Further, since the current Armenian agenda, and you can find this clearly stated on any Armenian site, is to annex about a quarter of Turkey and get reparations, I don't necessarily think that a unilateral apology is appropriate or wise.
Both sides should drop the propaganda, free up everyone to honestly study what really happened, and should confront and accept the past and work together to move forward.
In any case, if you wnat to continue, it really needs to move to chat before we get in trouble.
In the case of the Armenians in WWI, that can't be said, nor did the Armenians refrain from comitting atrocities of their own, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of victims - and continue to today. Further, since the current Armenian agenda, and you can find this clearly stated on any Armenian site, is to annex about a quarter of Turkey and get reparations, I don't necessarily think that a unilateral apology is appropriate or wise.
Both sides should drop the propaganda, free up everyone to honestly study what really happened, and should confront and accept the past and work together to move forward.
In any case, if you wnat to continue, it really needs to move to chat before we get in trouble.
Redbeard said:
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Grey Wolf said:
It's not just wat Bulgaroktonos said - much of Europe's population is declining, and where it's rising its often due to Muslim immigration - while Turkey's is rising fast and can continue to for some time - so in ten years Turkey's population will comfortably exceed Germany's, and in fifty years the EU will be 1/3 or more Muslim.
I think that frightens a whole lot of people, and colors the treatment of Turkish and Ottoman history.
Heirs presumptive
The Regnal Chronoligies website gives two putative lines, one from the Paleologi and one from the Latin Empire.
http://www.hostkingdom.net/pretends.html
To give it in shorter form...
The last Paleologue died in 1515. Apparently the Muscovite Princes were related but died out. There was a collateral Paleologi line that was established in Italy in the 14th century but the line only survived through the females, who were married into the Gonzagas of Mantua. The last member, a female, married a Duke of Lorraine and a descendant, Francis of Lorraine, married Maria Theresa of Austria. So theoretically Franz Joseph could've made a claim to the Byzantine legacy.
Likewise, the heirs of the Latin Empire trace a line of descent through a cadet Capet line, the Dukes of Cleves and finally the Hohenzollerns, making the German Kaiser the other claimant.
The Regnal Chronoligies website gives two putative lines, one from the Paleologi and one from the Latin Empire.
http://www.hostkingdom.net/pretends.html
To give it in shorter form...
The last Paleologue died in 1515. Apparently the Muscovite Princes were related but died out. There was a collateral Paleologi line that was established in Italy in the 14th century but the line only survived through the females, who were married into the Gonzagas of Mantua. The last member, a female, married a Duke of Lorraine and a descendant, Francis of Lorraine, married Maria Theresa of Austria. So theoretically Franz Joseph could've made a claim to the Byzantine legacy.
Likewise, the heirs of the Latin Empire trace a line of descent through a cadet Capet line, the Dukes of Cleves and finally the Hohenzollerns, making the German Kaiser the other claimant.
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:It's not just wat Bulgaroktonos said - much of Europe's population is declining, and where it's rising its often due to Muslim immigration - while Turkey's is rising fast and can continue to for some time - so in ten years Turkey's population will comfortably exceed Germany's, and in fifty years the EU will be 1/3 or more Muslim.
I think that frightens a whole lot of people, and colors the treatment of Turkish and Ottoman history.
There isn't that much room for European population growth anyway; its population density is about as great as China's.
And why Europe? India has more of a right to be a continent than Europe.
Grey Wolf said:
Perhaps "right" isn't the right word, what I mean is that Europe and Asia are the same continent, Eurasia, while India is the northern end of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate. Geologically, India has a greater claim to be considered its own continent than Europe.
Culturally, India is larger and older than Europe, also, and thus should be considered a continent, too.
chrispi said:
Well, India was a continent til it slammed into Asia giving us the Himalayas, now it is a sub-continent.
And depending on how one looks on it, there are probably only 3 continents: America (one continent, not two), Eurafrasia (including the big island of Australia) and Antarctica. Then again, one could argue for N. and S. America and for Eurasia and Africa and Australasia and Antarctica. I don't think it has any more "right" than Europe, since land in general has never been given or recognized as having rights. I guess it has to do with human history as much as it has to do with geography. Personally, it doesn't matter to me, just as long as everyone knows where I am talking about.
Sean Swaby said:Well, India was a continent til it slammed into Asia giving us the Himalayas, now it is a sub-continent.
...
I don't think it has any more "right" than Europe, since land in general has never been given or recognized as having rights.
I don't know, looking at all these "Bush Country" t-shirts 'round these parts gives the impression that land (states) have more rights than people...
Getting back on topic though, it seems the consensus is that the Greeks are the best bet at obtaining (not so much conquering) Constantinople in the 19th C, since whilst Russia could do it, there would be a nice big war in which nothing would be certain and whilst Bulgaria had a chance, Russia and the rest of the major powers would not long tolerate it and since Austria, though in theory capable of attacking and maybe occupying it, could never sustain its hold and would be quickly evicted by Russia in yet another large war where the outcome for Europe is uncertain.
Pasha's TL looks like the most workable, only thing is I can't make sense of the dates. Mahmud II and Selim III are in the 1800s but when looking for Murad IV, I came up with a guy who lived in the 1600s. I did find a Mustafa IV though...is that who you meant Pasha?
At any rate if it was that the House of Osman would have been extinguished (were there no second cousins or so?), then that means in 1808 (when Pasha's POD occurs) the Ottoman Empire becomes leaderless. An Ottoman Empire without Ottomans? Well, that would certainly bring up a lot of questions in Europe. I wonder if a general wouldn't have installed himself as the new ruler of the "X Empire"? I would think that other generals might be just as ambitious and oppose him...leading to small civil war around the capital and the straits...
The various nationalities and prominent leaders of various areas (like in Egypt and Albania) would probably declare themselves independent since they were subordinate to the Ottomans and not "X"....Egypt might make a play in Arabia and Anatolia and North Africa, whilst the Serbs, Bulgarians, Rumanians (or whatever they would be called) would suddenly pop up as independent states, as would the Greeks who would then probably send a hastily assembled army north and east to Constantinople. Russia would probably grab more of Armenia, Britain may decide to occupy Cyprus (if the island isn't conquered by or joins the Greeks in rebellion) and once Constantinople is in Greek hands we get Basileion ton Romaion with the Greek speaking "Romaioi".
Now I have a question...when did the term "Rumanian" (or "Roumanian") arise? Especially in reference to those people inhabiting the former Dacia and speaking a Latin-derived language? What were they called before their duchies of Wallachia and Moldavia were united? If they were called Rumanians before (like how the Serbs were Serbians (or Servians) before they regained their independence and the Bulgarians were Bulgars/Bulgarians before the 1877 Russo-Turkish War), then might the Greek state be called "Greece" by the rest of Europe in addition to maybe being called the Romaion Empire (and maybe the corrupted form of "Romaian Empire").
Pasha's TL looks like the most workable, only thing is I can't make sense of the dates. Mahmud II and Selim III are in the 1800s but when looking for Murad IV, I came up with a guy who lived in the 1600s. I did find a Mustafa IV though...is that who you meant Pasha?
At any rate if it was that the House of Osman would have been extinguished (were there no second cousins or so?), then that means in 1808 (when Pasha's POD occurs) the Ottoman Empire becomes leaderless. An Ottoman Empire without Ottomans? Well, that would certainly bring up a lot of questions in Europe. I wonder if a general wouldn't have installed himself as the new ruler of the "X Empire"? I would think that other generals might be just as ambitious and oppose him...leading to small civil war around the capital and the straits...
The various nationalities and prominent leaders of various areas (like in Egypt and Albania) would probably declare themselves independent since they were subordinate to the Ottomans and not "X"....Egypt might make a play in Arabia and Anatolia and North Africa, whilst the Serbs, Bulgarians, Rumanians (or whatever they would be called) would suddenly pop up as independent states, as would the Greeks who would then probably send a hastily assembled army north and east to Constantinople. Russia would probably grab more of Armenia, Britain may decide to occupy Cyprus (if the island isn't conquered by or joins the Greeks in rebellion) and once Constantinople is in Greek hands we get Basileion ton Romaion with the Greek speaking "Romaioi".
Now I have a question...when did the term "Rumanian" (or "Roumanian") arise? Especially in reference to those people inhabiting the former Dacia and speaking a Latin-derived language? What were they called before their duchies of Wallachia and Moldavia were united? If they were called Rumanians before (like how the Serbs were Serbians (or Servians) before they regained their independence and the Bulgarians were Bulgars/Bulgarians before the 1877 Russo-Turkish War), then might the Greek state be called "Greece" by the rest of Europe in addition to maybe being called the Romaion Empire (and maybe the corrupted form of "Romaian Empire").
Pasha said:
Sean Swaby said:
Of course, I have a dissenting opinion, that the Greeks alone would be less likely to capture Constantinople than the Austrians or (less likely) the Russians. While I didn't mention whether Austria would maintain its hold on Constantinople, I think that a Greco-Austrian alliance would be able to re-establish the Byzantine Empire, especially if the Holy Roman Empire collapses or remains forever out of the Hapsburgs' grasp.
(And there is a surprising genetic link; next to the southern Italians, Greeks are related most closely to Austrians, according to Cavalli-Sforza. Furthermore, according to C-S the Greeks has insignificant Turkish influence genetically, but that's only because the product of a Turk-Greek marriage in Ottoman times almost always became a Muslim, there was very little Muslim->Christian conversion in the Ottoman Empire, obviously. These muslim Greeks became Turks, so the genetic influence if anything is the other way.)
Last edited:
Leo Caesius
Banned
At least in English, the first reference to the country Rumania comes after 1859, when the principalities were united. Since 1966, when the country officially changed its name to Romania, it has been known almost exclusively as such in English.Sean Swaby said:
Prior to that I would imagine that they were Wallachs and Moldovans. There are Romance-speaking populations all over the Balkans called Vlachs, a term which is related to Wallachia, Wallonia, and Wales. This, at least in English, was the proper term before Rumania was united. The 1881 Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that the Wallachians refer to themselves as Rumeni, but their neighbors almost universally referred to them as Vlachs.
Free City of Constantinople?
Any possibility that some European congress would set up Constantinople as a free city under some sort of international commission (a la Danzig post-1918)?
Any possibility that some European congress would set up Constantinople as a free city under some sort of international commission (a la Danzig post-1918)?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Leo Caesius said:
I studied a lot about this whilst writing AFOE, which is of course all knowledge that is beginning to slip away from me now.
Wallachia was generally known as Muntenia to its political inhabitants. Admittedly that was news to me as well.
I believe 1848 really gave the boost to the idea of unifying the principalities as Rumania. Cuza, who was to emerge as the first prince of both principalities, was a man of 1848.
Grey Wolf