Comments by "PAPAZA TAKLA ATTIRAN İMAM" (@papazataklaattiranimam) on "Knowledgia"
channel.
-
1600
-
1500
-
1000
-
778
-
582
-
299
-
268
-
162
-
Lenin said: Despite being poor by ourselves, we can give financial support to Turkey. It is a necessity. Financial support, mercy (compassion) and friendship is a three times larger help. Turkish people should sense that they are not alone. "
In his memoirs Aralov writes about the instructions Lenin gave him before he was dispatched to Turkey:
"Turks are fighting for their national liberation. The imperialists have robbed Turkey naked, they are still doing it.. Mustafa Kemal Pasha is naturally not a socialist . But it is apparent that he is a good organizer . He is an able leader , leading the national bourgeois revolution . He is an intelligent , progressive leader . He has understood the importance of our socialist revolution , and is favorable toward Russia.. I believe he will destroy the I believe he will destroy the pride of the imperialists and liquidate the Padisah ( Sultan ) together with his lackeys .. Although we are very poor ourselves , we can materially aid Turkey . We must do it . This way the Turkish people will The Russian aid has been in three forms : money , arms and munitions . The precise quantity of this aid is still unknown . But considering that Russian economy was bankrupt at the time , and the country was ridden with warfare against the Allied powers and White Generals , the magnitude of this aid could not be as spectacular as it is sometimes claimed . Never- theless , this has come at the right time when it was most needed to furnish an otherwise poorly equipped Turkish army , and has been instrumental in the final victory. In round figurres the total Russian aid , according to the Turkish envoy Ali Fuad Pase in Moscow , was 10 million gold rubles ( paid in installments ) , rifles , bayonnets , machine - guns , cannons horses and relevant material to equip two divisions .
160
-
119
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
92
-
The secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in 1860–61 and the ensuing outbreak of armed hostilities were the culmination of decades of growing sectional friction over slavery. Between 1815 and 1861 the economy of the Northern states was rapidly modernizing and diversifying. Although agriculture—mostly smaller farms that relied on free labour—remained the dominant sector in the North, industrialization had taken root there. Moreover, Northerners had invested heavily in an expansive and varied transportation system that included canals, roads, steamboats, and railroads; in financial industries such as banking and insurance; and in a large communications network that featured inexpensive, widely available newspapers, magazines, and books, along with the telegraph.
By contrast, the Southern economy was based principally on large farms (plantations) that produced commercial crops such as cotton and that relied on slaves as the main labour force. Rather than invest in factories or railroads as Northerners had done, Southerners invested their money in slaves—even more than in land; by 1860, 84 percent of the capital invested in manufacturing was invested in the free (nonslaveholding) states. Yet, to Southerners, as late as 1860, this appeared to be a sound business decision. The price of cotton, the South’s defining crop, had skyrocketed in the 1850s, and the value of slaves—who were, after all, property—rose commensurately. By 1860 the per capita wealth of Southern whites was twice that of Northerners, and three-fifths of the wealthiest individuals in the country were Southerners.
83
-
78
-
77
-
64
-
At the past, Turkic peoples like Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Avars, Huns, Onogurs, Utigurs, Sabirs, Saragurs, Kutrigurs, Kipchaks, Cumans, Tatars, Ottomans etc. were fighting with each other for Ukraine. But now, Slavic peoples are fighting for it👀
60
-
55
-
52
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
Those who founded and developed the Ottoman Empire had "Turkishness consciousness" and at the same time did not neglect the knowledge of "ummah". Ki question is "national" and the other "religious" identity. The two achieve perfection together.
Famous Ottoman historian and Shaykh al-Islam Hodja Sadeddin Efendi uses expressions such as "Turkish heroes", "Turkish soldiers whose victories are shadowed" while describing the Ottoman conquests in his work titled "Tacü't Tevarih".
On the other hand, Mustafa Ali of Gelibolulu, one of the most important historians of the 16th century, underlines his knowledge of "Turk" with the definition of "elite nation, beautiful ummah, Turkish nation" in the history of "Kühn-ul Ahbar".
Solakzade Mehmet Hemdemi Efendi, one of the historians of the 17th century, mentions in his works "the son of the Turk who conquered Constantinople"
Almost all palace historians attribute the Ottoman Dynasty to Oghuz Khan and Central Asia. They repeat it over and over again from the Ottomans, the Oghuz lineage and the Kayı Boyu.
Fatih Sultan Mehmed, to his grandson from Cem Sultan "Oguz", II. He calls his grandson from Bayezid "Feared". Sultan II. The name of one of Abdülhamid's grandchildren is “Ertuğrul” (I think it was the poet Eşref, when they said “Sultan Abdülhamid became a grandson, they named him Ertuğrul”, he said, “When we say that the dynasty is over, are they starting again?” Malum: Osman Gazi The name of his father was “Ertuğrul”.
When the Timur State claimed to be "Turkish", Sultan II. Murad feels the need to emphasize that the Ottoman Empire is also a "Turkish State" and puts Kayı Boyu's stamp on the coins and balls.
Again, Sultan II. Turkish comes to the forefront during the Murad period, Yazıcızade Ali not only translates the "Selçukname" (Ibn Bibi) in which the Oghuzs and Turks are told into the Turkish of the time, but also enriches it with some additions and additions. In the period of Fatih, many religious, literary, moral, medical, political, dictionary and encyclopedic works are translated into Turkish. All official correspondence in the state is already in Turkish.
Europeans are always the Ottoman "Turkey", the Sultan "Sultan of Turkey", in the Ottoman Empire "Turkey," he says, the Ottoman Empire in the map of Europe, "Turkish Empire" is shown as. So much so that the Europeans call the Muslim "turned Turkish". That is how Turkishness and Islam are identified.
Although some of the grand viziers are "devshirme", the overwhelming majority of senior bureaucrats are "Turks". At the head of the administration is the "Turkish son Turkish" sultan.
But the Ottoman State is never a "nation state". It was a multi-religious, multi-lingual, multiethnic formation. Therefore, top managers do not practice "Turkism", but they are never ashamed of their "Turkishness".
As a matter of fact, the harsh response of Kanuni to the famous Grand Vizier Pargali Ibrahim Pasha who joked with Kanuni as "Big Turk" is famous: "Yes, I am Turk, do you have something to say?"
You can imagine that Pargali went to the bottom of this answer.
44
-
42
-
41
-
38
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
@Letnistonwandif Ottoman Empire was stronger than Spain both economically, politically and geographically.
Capture of Algiers (1516) Ottomans won
Algiers expedition (1541) Ottomans won
Capture of Béjaïa (1555) Ottomans won
Siege of Coron, Ottomans won
Battle of Djerba, Ottomans won
Battle of Formentera, Ottomans won
Raid of the Balearic islands (1558) Ottomans won
Siege of Castelnuovo, Ottomans won
Fall of Tlemcen (1518) Ottomans won
Conquest of Tunis (1574) Ottomans won
Battle of Preveza, Ottomans won
at the same time, the Ottomans were alone in Preveza. But the enemy army Venice, Papal States, Genoa, Spain, Mantua, Malta, Portugal[1][2][3] All of them was part of Holy League but Ottomans won against them.
Also remember Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian helmet . It was an elaborate headpiece designed to project the sultan's power in the context of the Ottoman–Habsburg rivalry. Meaning The four floors of the Crown also represent Solomon's goal of world conquest—reigning the North, the South, the East, and the West—as well as the Pope's famous triple crown and the Holy Roman Empire two years ago. It was a reference to Charles V, who was crowned as the German Emperor.🙂.''
23
-
The writer uses the ambiguous term “Hellene,” which generally means “pagan” in Byzantine Greek. Plethon and his followers used the term almost to the exclusion of all others when referring to their own countrymen.
Nagy., 2003. Modern Greek Literature. Taylor & Francis, p.30.
" In its final centuries , the Byzantine Empire was also called " Romania . " Remnants of this Roman heritage are still evident in such terms as " Rum " and " Rumeli .
Georgius, Philippides, M. and Macarius, 1980. The fall of the Byzantine empire. Amherst, MA: Univ. of Massachusetts Pr., p.2.
Given Gennadios ' strong religious and traditional orientation , one would expect him to adhere carefully to the traditional Byzantine nomenclature wherein Hellene signified pagan and Rhomaios Byzantine .
Ćurčić, S. and Mouriki, D., 2019. The Twilight of Byzantium. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.9.
And there is also evidence that the word 'Hellene' now meant 'pagan', and Justinian did conduct persecutions of Hellenes.
Scott, R., n.d. Byzantine chronicles and the sixth century.
The Byzantine Empire was officially called the Empire of the Romans, not the Greeks, Hellenes, or whatever. And if we proceed from the northern theory of the formation of the state, then we could not know about the Hellenic Greeks, Venetian-Venets in any way due to the lack of direct contacts. At that time, the word “Hellene” among the Romans meant a pagan and a traitor.
Attila Kagan of the Huns from the kind of Velsung Kindle Edition by Соловьев Сергей Юрьевич (Author)
The ancient Hellenes were conquered by the Romans . Emperor Justinian destroyed the last vestiges of Hellenic civilisation , and state Christianity created a new civilisation on the ruins of the old .
Koliopoulos, G. and Veremēs, T., 2007. Greece: the modern sequel. London: Hurst & Company, p.242.
Hellenes as they were called, were persecuted by the enforcement of these general rules; Justinian endeavored, above all things, to deprive them of education, and he had the University of Athens closed in 529; at the same time ordering wholesale conversations.
The Cambridge Medieval History volumes 1-5 by John Bagnell Bury, Paul Dalen (Goodreads Author) (Editor)
And there is also evidence that the word 'Hellene' now meant 'pagan', and Justinian did conduct persecutions of Hellenes. The world of Classics in the sixth century was not entirely rosy.
Scott, R., n.d. Byzantine chronicles and the sixth century
It is believed that there was some kind of trade route, but the object of exchange is not clear. The Baltic States could offer amber, but the path along the Elbe and then the Danube is better and safer than the path "From the Varangians to the Greeks" invented by idle historians. First, where did the Greeks come from? The Byzantine Empire was officially called the Empire of the Romans, not the Greeks, Hellenes, or whatever. And if we proceed from the northern theory of the formation of the state, then the Veneti Veneti could not know about the Greek-Hellenes, due to the lack of direct contacts. At that time, the word "Hellene" among the Romans meant a pagan and a traitor. And the term Varangian, unknown even among the Scandinavians, at least in Saxon Grammar it does not occur, from the word at all. The way from Wagry sounds more reasonable, and where? If we translate the term "Hellene" as a pagan, then we get that the way from Wagri to the east was the way of pagan pilgrims.
Russia the formation of the state in the 9th century Veneds and the severjans (northerners), part of the Huns, which became the basis of a new community Kindle Edition by Solovyov Sergey (Author)
Although the Breviarum has some major flaws, including a lacuna for nearly the entire reign of Constans II (r. 641-668), it is nonetheless one of the most important sources for his tory from the reign of Phocas through Constantine V-in no small part due to the fame of its author rather than the work's intrinsic merit.79 Nikephoros' use of names in this text is somewhat idiosyncratic. This short history does not have much on language-the sole mention of Latin names it 'Itaλ@v qwvn.80 He never refers to Greek, but 'Hellene' is invari ably a pejorative term, used in the sense of meaning 'pagan. On the other hand, he regularly glosses 'Christians' as meaning 'Romans' in a cultural and even political sense. Like other Greek-writing authors of this period, Nikephoros displays a high degree of laxity of precision in his terminology.
In spite of the relatively relaxed attitudes adopted by contemporaries with respect to linguistic labels, it is clear that the later medieval and mod ern colloquial usage of the signifier Roman' for the Greek language is unprecedented in the early middle ages. Where the 'Roman tongue" is mentioned in the sources, it is always Latin which is signified-and this is consistent from Procopius in the sixth century through Constantine VII in the tenth.
WHALIN, D., 2022. ROMAN IDENTITY FROM THE ARAB CONQUESTS TO THE TRIUMPH OF ORTHODOXY. [S.l.]: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, p.31.
22
-
22
-
From this point of view, a large part of the 19 Cypriot historiography did not manage to achieve the substantial for the historian, to use a phrase by Eric Hobsbawm, overcoming of passions and political identities, 20⁰ identities that were of course created at the end or even after the Ottoman period. That is to say, that the national political identity of the Greek and the Turk, the national political ensembles of Greeks and Turks, realities of the post-Ottoman period in Cyprus are projected on the past of the 16th century.
Thus, in 1571 Cyprus was conquered by the Ottomans and for the next three hundred and more years was a part of the Ottoman territory. The Greek Cypriot historiography uses for this transition and generally the entire Ottoman period the term Turkish rule a term that lends a national Turkish identity to Ottomans. A big part of traditional historiography refers to a Turkish state,²¹ mentioning a Turkish government, while correspondingly the conquered are included in another national identity, the Greek, which - and perhaps this is more important - at the time history is written, is in conflict with the Turkish.
Already from the end of the 19th century, Greek Cypriot historiography states that during the Turkish rule "the spirit of the inhabitants fell to a pitiful point and poverty and misery and extreme ignorance, and depression of the national morale covered the island".23 The Orthodox on the island are defined by traditional historiography as a political group since "in the vizier's orders the participant in the defence of Famagusta Greek was a term that was generalised for all Greeks on the island". In relation to the population on the island the Turkish rule mentions that "after the occupation of Cyprus by the Turks the census that took place for tax pur poses revealed that the native Cypriot Greeks aged [...] in this population 20.000 30.000 Turks were added".25 It is also established that "the Turkish occupation brought to Cyprus many radical changes. The Turks supported the Greek population on the island in order not to give the opportunity to the peoples of Europe to be interested in the Cypriots […]”.26
And as it began with a national conflict that is how italso ends, since it is mentioned that “while the Turkish conquerors suppressed andpersecuted the Greeks on the island […]”.27
The existence therefore of a politicalnational group is considered given and every analysis of the Ottoman period func-tions in a way to bring to the forefront or reinforce the existence, even under difficultconditions, of such a group. This expressed the stereotyped view that the Cypriots“managed under the protection of the Church to maintain their religion, language,and national conscience as Greeks”.28
Even when relations are examined on differentlevels, even when they refer to the 17th
century, these are characterised as relationsof the “Greeks and the Turks of Cyprus”.29
In the Turkish Cypriot historiography, the same perception is more or less fol-lowed; history is written under the same terms, the national terms but with one sub-stantial difference: The “Turks on the island” 30
are usually referred to as acomplimentary term of the word Ottomans and are placed on the side of the goodoften contrary to the “Greeks, Greek Cypriots” who are on the opposite side. Thesettlement of the “Turks”on the island is interpreted as something that broughtabout positive results for the entire island 31 and the local Ottoman administration isgenerally whitewashed. In short, Turkish Cypriot historiography also accepts theexistence of national groups. The Church of Cyprus expresses again the Greeks of Cyprus and its activities are mainly targeted against the Turks of Cyprus, 32
whilewithout hesitation the actions of the Prelates of 1600 in Cyprus are combined andidentified with the Akritas plan of the period after the independence. 33
The Prelatesare considered to express not only spiritually but also nationally the Orthodox of Cyprus while institutionally the Church of Cyprus is perceived as warring towardsthe local Turkish administration. 34
The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot histo-riographies are identified when they project the present on the past, a past howeverthat is perceived and interpreted from a very different national point of view.
Michael, M., Kappler, M. and Gavriel, E., 2009. Ottoman Cyprus: A Collection of Studies on History and Culture Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp.14,15.
22