I am afraid people read too much in what the "fuehrer" said. You guys run your imagination wild. I am not here to support his party, I am absolutely neutral to Greek internal affairs.
I guess he meant the european part of Turkey, Edirne etc...Originally Posted by TG211
The problem with Greece and Constantinople is also that the East Roman Empire (Byzantine was a misnomer of 19th century historians who considered it undeserving of the Roman name) was not a greek empire as such.
It used the Greek language and church rites because Greek had been the dominating language of the area from Alexander to Mohammed, but most of the really great persons were not greek, and a larger part of its soldiers and and most of the better emperors were by even the broadest definition not greek.
You had Armenians, Slavs, Illyrians (Justinian) et cetera.
The newly founded Greek state in the 19th century deliberately did not take up the imperial heritage but rather based itself on classical ideas, this was not to avoid pissing off the Turks but because a orthodox autocratic theocracy had a very backwards feeling to it, and the Empire was, at least by 19th century standards, not a hellenic nation-state.
I am afraid people read too much in what the "fuehrer" said. You guys run your imagination wild. I am not here to support his party, I am absolutely neutral to Greek internal affairs.
his ''wishes'' remind me this picture
Hieronymus Wolf started using the name Byzantine, juxtaposing Eastern Roman-Holy Roman, Empires. Which of course was as arbitrary as naming Sweden, Stockholmia.
Which as we know since Isocrates' time, Hellenism (or Greekness) is a cultural identity and not a biological one:
"The name Greek is no longer a mark of a race, but of an outlook, and is accorded to those who share our culture rather than our blood"
(in Greek: "Καὶ τὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὄνομα πεποίηκε μηκέτι τοῦ γένους ἀλλά τῆς διανοίας δοκεῖν εἶναι, καὶ μᾶλλον Ἕλληνας καλεῖσθαι τοὺς τῆς παιδεύσεως τῆς ἡμετέρας ἤ τοὺς τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως μετέχοντας").
It was irrelevent whether you were an Illyrian, Syrian or Armenian "by blood"; if you spoke Greek, you adhered to the beliefs and doctrins of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and accepted the Emperor based in Constantinople as your ruler, you were a Roman ("Ρωμαῖος") i.e. a "Greek speaking Christian citizen of the Roman Empire", which was called Rhomania ("Ρωμανία") by its contemporaries.
Which was of course BS...when you have at least since 12th c. CE a great number of "Byzantine" scholars writing that they were Greeks (Anna Comnena, Laonicus Chalcocondyles, Pletho Gemistus, Emperor Ioannes III Ducas Vatadzes etc.). It's the philhellenic romantic idealism that pushed for a "Hellenic State" based on antiquity (that's why Otto as soon as he becomes King of the first free Greek State, moves his capital from Nauplion to Athens, then a tiny shepherd's village) by taking a gigantic leap of 11 centuries and completely erasing the Eastern Empire. It's a well attested fact, that some travelers from the West, when visited the first free Greek state, were in a constant shock of disillusionment since they only encountered illiterate peasants, farmers or shepherds, and not philosophers dressed in togas: Fallmerayer was so upset by it, that he invented his Slavic theory; ancient pure-bloodied Greek has been infected by the Slavic untermensch
Where is that from?
Doctor Who
Will that be before or after he re-occupies Northern Cyprus with his elite sturm-troopers?
Connaught Ranger.
Maybe you should do a little research, or at least common sense will tell you that a strong land army nowadays is not nearly enough to win wars...sure Turkey's army is huge, especially near the Greek border, and they have many modernisation programs, including the 1000 new Altay tanks, but the first tanks will be ready until after 2016, meaning that the Greek armored division in Kavala is still the most powerful equipped and trained armored unit in the region (especially if Greece reiceives the 400 M1 Abrams offered by the US). Now let's look at the most important factor in modern warfare, which is airpower:
Advantages of Turkish airforce:
1. Numerical superiority of 218 F16s to Greece's 157 F16s.
2. F-35 modernisation program (none of which have been recieved yet)
Advantages of Hellenic Air Force + air defence
1. Having Mirage 20005 Mk2, which the Turks find especially difficult to encounter, and can carry SCALP EG cruise missiles
2. Greek warplanes have the capability of hitting whatever the conditions and at night, wheareas the vast majority of the Turkish fighters do not have this capability
3. Greece has both the S300 and Patriot advanced AA systems. Turkey has neither.
4. Despite the lack of real combat experience, Greek pilots are known to be among the best in the world, proven by their performance against US fighters in Red Flag 2008 and more recently when two Greek pilots where voted the best pilots in NATO
and also everyday encounters over the Aegean
I think it was cool how last Emperor died fighting on the walls of Byzantine. thats the way to go.
Cool story bro! but again Greece stands no chance against Turkey!
Errh let's not find that out, ever;
btw very immature post, reminds me of the Monty Python clinic argument sketch:
Russia could help it's orthodox brothers troollololol
So very sad, considering how MUCH COOLER the Byz part/era of the Roman Empire was.The problem with Greece and Constantinople is also that the East Roman Empire (Byzantine was a misnomer of 19th century historians who considered it undeserving of the Roman name) was not a greek empire as such.
But it is true, the identity of Greek is more of a cultural group now then a mere ethnicity.
The Greeks would end up being colonized for the 2nd time by the Turks and loosing any form of government they have.The Turks would decimate them like in 1453.This time it would be Athens.The Greeks would end up bankrupt just by firing rifle cartridges.They are more a threat to themselves then any one else.
Let me guess...you're a Turk right? and a 16, 17-year-old, tops, keyboard warrior right?
Posting Permissions
