If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I just pointed this out because i think that it looked very negative.But that's maybe because i'm Greek
Let's be clear i'm not here to make troubles or so...
Armenians did part of the Byzentium Empire and give it his Greatest Glory.Armenians are the reason why the Empire lived hat long.
Also it is good to say that the politic views of The City are not always the same then his habitants.
No, not correct. The region in question, as well as the royal capitol city of Ani were given to the Byzantines because of Byzantium's decades long agenda to acquire those lands by force and/or blackmail.
I never said they succeded in protecting it.
Also Hovhannès Sembat gave Ani to Byzantium after his dead and it was not respected.Gagik II was put on the trone.
What blackmail are yoy talking about ? Could you clarify this point , thank you.
You are right. Theological and administrative disputes played a big role. Even today the Greek Church considers the Armenian Church heretical.
I will say that it is a good thing for modern Greece because religion prevent us to be westernized even if it is happing thanks to the religion it is happining slowly.
He certainly was. However, my favorite was Heraclius, also said to be of Armenian decent.
Well then we have here another good exemple of good Greek-Armenian relations.
When he defeated Phocas to take his crown back the people of Constantipolilis were with him and celebrated him.
About Basil II i think he was the best one because he had a falling Empire in his hands and defeated in my eyes the Empire's strongest ennemie , the Bulgarians.
"I rather have an enemy like Greeks than a friend like Turks"
Assuming hypothetically, that you had to pick between being political rivals with Greeks or political allies with Turks, knowing the historical anticedents of the region, I would rather be political rivals with Greeks versus being political allies with Turks. The Greeks will "eat your meat", like they will be rivals, but will "leave your bones", they have some level of bottomline morals and civility. You can not negotiate with Turks or compromise with them, it is their way or the highway, just look at the US-UK-Israel-Turkish alliance, it can not even be consdered a true "alliance", all parties blackmail each for political gains, who would want to be blackmailed into submission? What is then the "alliance" in that? By the way, the proverb is not about greeks, it actually is just "'blank' will eat your meat, but leave your bones", translates better in Armenian.
Behelit, all this talk is directed towards the Turkish posters that try to make it seem like Armenians and Turks have some reason or middle-ground to work together, when they don't, obviously, considering the past events, it falls on them to prove to the Armenian people and the various other minorities like the Greeks, Serbs, and etc ... that they have truly gone beyond their old Ottoman Empire tactics and vision.
In 571 the Byzentium came in help to Armenia against the Persians who invaded Armenia.
Armenians helped to both Byzantium and Persians at the same time. Thus, Tacitus said weird to Armenians. Armenians had feudal life style like ashirets live in Eastern Turkey. They have common language and religion and it was all. They were not united politically.
You can not negotiate with Turks or compromise with them
Please tell me where/when you try to really negotiate with a Turk or compromise with him. Editing some pictures and saying affirm them... a good, true argument shut all moths up. A greek shows a hanged greek provocateur as a Armenian Genocide evidence...
all this talk is directed towards the Turkish posters that try to make it seem like Armenians and Turks have some reason or middle-ground to work together
For the first time in more than 600 years, Armenia is free and independent, and we are therefore obligated
to place our national interests ahead of our personal gains or aspirations.
It is obvious that Turks bear a very large pre-Turkic Anatolian component. The resemblance to Greeks and Armenians is remarkable, although some Turkic elements are apparent.
Does anyone care to comment on what in Turkish culture makes the Turks in history so ruthless? I don't believe it's genetics at all, on principle, and also on the basis that many other Turkic peoples (Kazakhs, Tatars, Uzbeks, etc.) have not demonstrated this degree of ferocity.
Is it Islam? If so, how can we explain why Persians and Arabs never gave rise to such a culture, and in the late 19th and early 20th century in particular, never resorted to the tactics of the Ottomans, or at least not to such a degree.
Comment