Why couldn't Armenians....

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

I really want to know if there was peace between the Ottomans and Persia the wars for Armenia weren't they beeing fought out? I you have more info please give it. History is a passion of mine.

Yeah you're right and I'm right. The eastern part of the empire, most of the fertile crescent region, was in a tug of war between Safavids and Ottomans. I think the lecturer meant the Arab territories of the Levant, Hijaz, Syria, Egypt and Algeria. These regions were very loyal for centuries.

A quote you might find interesting: "Had it not been for the Safawids in Iran, we would have been reading the Qur'an this day like the Algerians."
- some ambassador of an an Austrian king.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

I did say regional. That's essentially what I meant. The idea is inter-muslim harmony.

Kind of like the U.S. during the nineties, there was technically no war, but the was still maintaining its imperial forces in the exploited countries, making sure nothing compromised its interests.

The world is in a constant state of war and war is in a constant state of flux. War is a traveller, inviting itself to wherever it pleases at its whim.

I really want to know if there was peace between the Ottomans and Persia the wars for Armenia weren't they beeing fought out? I you have more info please give it. History is a passion of mine.

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

If you closer into history you see that there is no real peace, not even during pax romana. During the pax-Romana the Romans were fighting the Persians in the east while they were fighting the Germanic tribes in the west. Maybe there was peace in the places were they ruled but at the borders there was chaos and death.

I did say regional. That's essentially what I meant. The idea is inter-muslim harmony.

Kind of like the U.S. during the nineties, there was technically no war, but the was still maintaining its imperial forces in the exploited countries, making sure nothing compromised its interests.

The world is in a constant state of war and war is in a constant state of flux. War is a traveller, inviting itself to wherever it pleases at its whim.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

i remember listening to a lecture by a credible person. he studied into ottoman history and there was a period of 200 yrs of peace in the region. - kind of like pax romana. the wars did resume but between muslims there wasnt any or only little bloodshed for about 200yrs - something not impossible.

i'll look more into it.....

If you closer into history you see that there is no real peace, not even during pax romana. During the pax-Romana the Romans were fighting the Persians in the east while they were fighting the Germanic tribes in the west. Maybe there was peace in the places were they ruled but at the borders there was chaos and death.

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Dude you have to be kidding me, 200 years of peace lol
you are forgetting the wars the ottomans and Iran fought, and all the wars the ottomans fought to conquer the empire. and don't forget timrud who also fought with Ottomans. so even then there was no peace, only a few times in history was there peace in the middle-east and was when all of it was under one empire.

i remember listening to a lecture by a credible person. he studied into ottoman history and there was a period of 200 yrs of peace in the region. - kind of like pax romana. the wars did resume but between muslims there wasnt any or only little bloodshed for about 200yrs - something not impossible.

i'll look more into it.....

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

You brought up a good deal of issues. they all have to be evaluated carefully.

NAtionalism: We are allowed to appreaciate our heritage and culture, so as long as it doesn't compromise harmony between muslims. Currently the entire world is by default the state system - the system that emerged out of europe 300 yrs ago. Given that this the standard of the world - nations - it is okay to ignite nationalism so as long as it could be used to further Islam within a state. For example, Czar Alexander 3rd of russia's russification process, orthodoxy was one of his principles, orthodoxy being a part of the russian identity. in this context, he used religion to further national ends, like the fascists during wwII, however, from an Islamic point, in scenarios such as pakistan vs india or turkey vs greece, its okay to use nationalism because no harm is being done between muslims. but to encourage nationalism that will lead to war between muslims is apostasy (kufr).

Take a look at western history - a bloodbath. We muslims have fought one another in the past, but our wars were fewer and further in between. The Ottoman Empire kept peace in the middle east for 200 years. There was a period of 200 years with no war between muslims!!!!! We spent that time fighting only non-muslims - how productive was that!!!!

And about fighting evil muslim governments. Islamically, justice is obligatory. A great muslim scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiyyah said that "if a just non-muslim government were to take out a non-just muslim government, then at that moment, the just non-muslim government is superior. " However, there are disagreements with this opinion for other reasons. If you know a little about the history of Islamic scholarship, you will see that there is strong tradition amongst our scholars of standing up against injustice and oppression by the corrupt, evil and oppressive. The four imams of Ahl Sunnah wal Jama'at (Sunni Islam) all were tortured except for one, and he was poisoned to death.

Dude you have to be kidding me, 200 years of peace lol
you are forgetting the wars the ottomans and Iran fought, and all the wars the ottomans fought to conquer the empire. and don't forget timrud who also fought with Ottomans. so even then there was no peace, only a few times in history was there peace in the middle-east and was when all of it was under one empire.

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

all this speculation is useless

[Armenian]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

The fact that this state of turkey will lose those territories is pretty much inevitable. Kurds are following the perfect protocol for conquest in the 21st century. Why do you think turks will prefer to lose those lands to Armenians rather than kurds?

Isn't it quite obvious why Turks would, or should, rather have a larger Armenia on their eastern borders than a larger Kurdistan?

Generally speaking, Turks have deep hate and disgust towards Kurds. Too much blood continues to be spilled between them. Kurds are a political nightmare for Ankara. Turkish-Kurdish problems are multidimensional, severe, current and immediate. Kurds make up something like 1/3 of Turkish society. A large/powerful Kurdish state in or adjacent to Turkey has a potential to dismantle the entire Turkish republic. This is the reason why Ankara panics at the mere mention of a Kurdistan. Nonetheless, Turks should not kid themselves, a Kurdish state is inevitable...

Turkish problems with us Armenians are very clear cut. We Armenians simply demand justice for the historic crime committed against our nation during the First World War. We Armenians demand financial reparations and we demand our historic lands, at least a significant portion of it. Beyond the aforementioned, there exists no further potential longterm problems between us and the Turks. I believe that in our diplomatic relations with Ankara we should gradually begin utilizing a new approach; If you don't resolve your problems with us and help us create a larger more powerful state you will potentially risk loosing your republic to the Kurds. I know this approach is very simplistic/fantastic but its merely meant to be a template to work with. If you think about this proposal in a serious geopolitical perspective it will make a lot of sense, from an Armenian perspective and from a Turkish perspective. With our Hai Dat comprehensively resolved, I can foresee Armenia and Turkey having very cordial relations and I can see Armenia being a counterbalance to Kurdistan, which would benefit Iran as well.

If Turkish authorities want to be longsighted and enlightened they would realize that sooner-or-later they are going to lose some of their eastern provinces. Thus, helping create a larger more powerful Armenia can in the longterm benefit the Turkish state as well. Creating a geopolitical balance where no single state holds too much power in the region is one of the fundamental reasons why Israel and the US have decided to prop-up the Kurdish population of northern Iraq. We also need to start working on convincing Ankara, Moscow and Tehran that it's in their longterm interests to expand Armenia at the expense of a potentially large Kurdistan, especially one that is being supported by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Note: The other option would naturally be to work with the Kurds with the intention of toppling the Turkish state... However, this has been tried with the PKK before with very limited success. Plus, with Washington and Tel Aviv now involved in the region's Kurdish equation, I don't know how affective this approach would be if resurrected. Also, let's realize that Kurds are a very unpredictable/unreliable group of people and our historic problems with them are just as bad if not worst than our problems with Turks.

[skhara]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

PS: You Turks will eventually loose some of your eastern provinces to the majority Kurds there. Wouldn't you rather just give the territory in question to us Armenians instead? When a Kurdish nation rises wouldn't you Turks want a powerful Armenia as a counterbalance in the region? What kind of neighbors would you like to have to your east, Kurds or Armenians?

The fact that this state of turkey will lose those territories is pretty much inevitable. Kurds are following the perfect protocol for conquest in the 21st century. Why do you think turks will prefer to lose those lands to Armenians rather than kurds?

[crusader1492]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

why couldnt armenia build an empire again?

Here you go again. Now stay on subject and try to learn something for once.

Good question. Thank you for bringing this up. I would like Armenians to seriously think about this topic.

But before we go on, realize that Turks only managed to create their empire due to the political weaknesses of Byzantine, Armenian, Persian and Middle Eastern powers... Turkish power rose during a time when the natives of Asia Minor, Mesopotamia and the Caucasus were exhausted from constant warfare that had lasted centuries, most of which was occurring within the Armenian Highlands... The natives of the region had more-or-less fought themselves to the point of utter exhaustion. Moreover, the relentless stream of barbarian Huns, Tatars, Seljuks, Turkmens, Mongols, Ottomans, etc., was simply too much for the region's highly cultured and civilized nations to check effectively.

It's no secret that barbarians fight better than highly cultured peoples. This has been one of the fundamental ailments of world history.

The first Turks in Asia Minor/Armenian Highlands were the Seljuks. The Seljuk leader, Alp Arslan, managed to invade Asia Minor in 1064 only because the Byzantines at the time had in effect dissolved the Armenian Bagratuni kingdom during the 1040s. During the historic battle by the Armenian town of Manzikert in 1084, when the Seljuks symbolically broke down the gates of Asia Minor, the Byzantine empire did not have the crucial/pivotal support of the region's Armenians as well as having serious internal issues amongst themselves... Actually, due to their hatred of the Byzantines a significant portion of the Armenian population at the time may have even supported the Seljuks. Had the Byzantines made an alliance with Armenia at the time instead of relentlessly conspiring to destroy it - there would not have been a Turkish presence in Asia Minor today.

To their credit, Turkic peoples, being uncivilized and uncultured at the time, were united enough, barbaric enough and hungry enough to persevere against their vastly more civilized but hopelessly disunited enemies. So, history has given you Turks the credit for being united and relentless - yet uncultured and barbaric...

But you are right, other than Tigran the Great's short lived empire, which was created during a political vacuum in Asia Minor, Armenia only managed to create various kingdoms and principalities of various degrees of effectiveness. From Urartu to Cilicia Armenians managed to create powerful yet 'limited' kingdoms. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many historians, the reasons for this are geography, politics, culture and genetics.

From the beginning of time, mountain dwelling Armenians living in what was essentially the crossroads of the world were always stuck between major empires. So, in a sense, we Armenians never really had long periods of political stability. Historically, mountain peoples also tend to be fiercely independent - yet fiercely disunited as well. Historically, empires have been created by lowlands peoples which have tended to be compliant/slavish and isolated peoples such islanders.

Genetically and culturally Armenians have been too ambitious, too cleaver, too talented, and more importantly - too 'individualistic' to be united under one banner, be it Armenian or any other. Unlike Europeans and Asians, Armenians have never made good followers/servants.

So, our both people's respective national characteristics have been one of your greatest weapons. But times are changing. I think we will again carve out a significant portion of Asia Minor under an Armenian banner. Like in the past, we wont be a great empire, but we will again be a major regional power.

Besides, empires live big but they die nasty.

PS: You Turks will eventually loose some of your eastern provinces to the majority Kurds there. Wouldn't you rather just give the territory in question to us Armenians instead? When a Kurdish nation rises wouldn't you Turks want a powerful Armenia as a counterbalance in the region? What kind of neighbors would you like to have to your east, Kurds or Armenians?
__________________