Virtual Ani

[Joseph]

Phantom, we still have some differences of opinion regarding the matter, but I appreciate your candid and mature approach.

Kharpert, the process of conquest, changing hands, occupation, or whatever you want the call it, of Eastern Turkey continued from 1071 until 1921. By this time, the Treaty of Kars, as well as the Treaty of Gyumri, as well as the following treaty of Lausanne defined the Turco-Soviet (and later on, Turco-Armenian) borders.

The same process is not complete yet, in case of Karabagh, but I believe it will eventually conclude in Armenia's favour.

For me, the most important factor in determining a region's fate is its ethnic composition. In Eastern Turkey, at least from early 1700s until 1923, the Turks constituted a majority, while Armenians constituted a significant minority (we had this discussion in another thread, and I offered several non-Turkish sources which clearly demonstrated this fact)

In Karabagh, before the start of the hostilitites, the Armenians constituted a majority while the Azeris made a significant minority. Therefore, if peaceful co-existence is out of question, then it is logical that Karabagh, or the major part of it, should be assigned to Armenians.

In conclusion, Karabagh changed hands, that is correct. Azeris have a right to reclaim it, but I am pretty much certain that they will not succeed.

I imagine that if any peace accord is finalized, Armenians will retain Artsakh (Karabakh) plus Berdzor (Lachin) and Karavachar (Kelbajar) and give up the occupied territories of Aghdam, Gubatli, Zangelan, Fizuli in addition to the former Armenian territories of Shahumian and Ardzavashen.

[1.5 million]

For me, the most important factor in determining a region's fate is its ethnic composition. In Eastern Turkey, at least from early 1700s until 1923, the Turks constituted a majority, while Armenians constituted a significant minority

This is an entirely false statement. Turks have NEVER contituted any kind of majority before 1915 in this region - even if one might argue that MUSLIMS came to be represented in greater numbers then Armenians - these were not largely Turks - but Kurds and other ethnicities (even Armenians who had converted) - but not Turks at all in the strict sense of the word. In fact in most areas - even up until 1915 - Armenians consitituted the ethnicity with greatest representation - even after decades/centuries of deliberate settlement of non-Armenians into these ARMENIAN LANDS on the part of the Sultan to attempt to solidify his claim to lands that were not his.

[Vogelgrippe]

This is an entirely false statement. Turks have NEVER contituted any kind of majority before 1915 in this region - even if one might argue that MUSLIMS came to be represented in greater numbers then Armenians - these were not largely Turks - but Kurds and other ethnicities (even Armenians who had converted) - but not Turks at all in the strict sense of the word. In fact in most areas - even up until 1915 - Armenians consitituted the ethnicity with greatest representation - even after decades/centuries of deliberate settlement of non-Armenians into these ARMENIAN LANDS on the part of the Sultan to attempt to solidify his claim to lands that were not his.

This certainly is a true statement according to most historians of late 19th and early 20th centuries (Hew Strachan, Arnold Toynbee, Stanford Shaw, Martin Gilbert, Ugo Steinbach etc..) However, if you look at more recent (since 1970s) historians regarding the same period, you can see that they start to distinguish between Turk and Kurd (as Moslems) or Armenians and Assyrians (as Christians).

Therefore, I tend to agree with you that, using most current ethnic scientific jargon, the region have had a Moslem, rather than Turkish, majority since early 1700s. In some vilayets, such as Erzurum, this Moslem majority consisted mostly of Turks, whereas in Elaziz vilayet, the Moslem majority was most likely predominantly Kurdish.

[bell-the-cat]

This is an entirely false statement. Turks have NEVER contituted any kind of majority before 1915 in this region - even if one might argue that MUSLIMS came to be represented in greater numbers then Armenians - these were not largely Turks - but Kurds and other ethnicities (even Armenians who had converted) - but not Turks at all in the strict sense of the word. In fact in most areas - even up until 1915 - Armenians consitituted the ethnicity with greatest representation - even after decades/centuries of deliberate settlement of non-Armenians into these ARMENIAN LANDS on the part of the Sultan to attempt to solidify his claim to lands that were not his.

So you have re-emerged from whatever hole you scurried into?

[bell-the-cat]

Apart from the fact that you change the subject, you are right in claiming that many more Christian monuments in Turkey(in addition to Akhdamar) need restauration. I have no objection to that. But to accuse Turkey of acting with evil intentions with regards to the Akhdamar restauration is simply manipulative militantism. Simple as that.

As you correctly observe, Turkey tries to repair mosques and imarets that are of historical value, but always faces criticism from architects and media because allegedly they do not do it the 'right' way. The same is happening during the restauration of Akhdamar, and the different opinions about how it should be done just reflects the diversity of opinion, and not lack of goodwill.

As the website makes perfectly clear the 'restoration' of Aghtamar breeches many international codes of conduct regarding the treatment of historical monuments. You seem to want to disregard international standards the same way as the Turkish state often disregards them. International treaties and standards exist so that those who do not know, or do not care about, or simply want to ignore the 'right way' are not allowed to continue with their wrongful actions. But in Turkey no-one is ever wrong. We all know about 'diversity of opinion' when it concerns Turkey. Turkey generally holds one opinion, the rest of the world holds a completely different one. That is not diversity - it is Turkish pig-headed arrogance and a blind refusal to admit to any mistakes (so the same mistakes are repeated again and again and again).

[Joseph]

So you have re-emerged from whatever hole you scurried into?

Fighters to your corners!

[bell-the-cat]

Fighters to your corners!

Naw, I haven't got the time.

Anyway, with his physique, the only fighting style Winston would be good at would be Sumo.

[bell-the-cat]

BTW, regarding the Aghtamar restoration. Even the poodle-patriarch in Istanbul, normally always ready to make pro-Turkish comments, seems to have refrained from praising it publically.

[Vogelgrippe]

As the website makes perfectly clear the 'restoration' of Aghtamar breeches many international codes of conduct regarding the treatment of historical monuments. You seem to want to disregard international standards the same way as the Turkish state often disregards them. International treaties and standards exist so that those who do not know, or do not care about, or simply want to ignore the 'right way' are not allowed to continue with their wrongful actions. But in Turkey no-one is ever wrong. We all know about 'diversity of opinion' when it concerns Turkey. Turkey generally holds one opinion, the rest of the world holds a completely different one. That is not diversity - it is Turkish pig-headed arrogance and a blind refusal to admit to any mistakes (so the same mistakes are repeated again and again and again).

If you want to vomit your hatred against Turks, no excuse or opportunity is small enough, so knock yourself out.

If you want the truth about restauration, however, nobody, including myself, denies that there are several xxxxups regarding the Turkish restauriations, including that of Akhdamar Church. Even Turkish chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers acknowledged these mistakes and threatened to sue the government if restauration continues using the current methods. So far not bad for a country and nation who does not possess the capacity to admit mistakes

If you check my postings on the same thread, you can see that I have documented other Turkish xxxxups regarding Turkish, Islamic, and Hellenic monuments, and that these screwups are not limited to Armenian monuments only. You seem to be a clever and experienced forumist, so that your 'skipping' of this information gives some clues about your goodwill.

Therefore I only dispute and counter the ridiculous claim that these mistakes are done deliberately and only while repairing Armenian monuments. You should hence look for another subject area or excuse.

[imported_Melik]

Did anyone check out the Memorabilia section? I got a kick out of the (now unused?) permit application for those who wished to visit Ani. It has a "not" (note in Turkish?) that asks visitors not to turn their cameras or video recording cameras toward the Armenian Republic. Anyone know why?

Very nice website overall. The design is simple and navigation is easy. I'm glad they didn't use Flash.