That’s the problem

Re: Wish me luck

Correct. I interpreted the reference to the “fifth century” as a reference to the fifth century AD since I am accustomed to refer AD centuries as such and BC centuries with the abbreviation BC. The comment “classical era” was misleading since I am accustomed to refer the 3rd pre-Christian century as the “classical” era, which is due a bad translation and thus even more misleading. The third century BC was Hellenistic era and 490 – 323 BC are considered as the (three) classical eras. (Bellingham p.26). My bad.

True. People tend to interpret any and all information in way that corroborate their already chosen point of view and ignore information that contradicts it. I am aware that this is just a forum but I still see your point, or so I think. I have already finished my cum laude (bachelors decree) in anthropology and today I finished my aprobatur in sociology. All I have left is to finish my master’s thesis before Mayday. The constant academic debates and respondentry have no doubt affected my way of thinking and my way of expressing myself. Adding the fact that in its infinite wisdom the army may or may not deploy or dismiss me practically any day now tends affect my behavior making it ever more volatile. My apologies for that.
What comes to the difference between north and south, I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. My arguments need not to convince anyone to see the difference; on the contrary, my arguments were a poorly disguised attempt to justify/legitimize an already accepted notion. The grand majority of the Finnish people (of the other norhtmen I cannot say for sure) are already convinced that all southerners are lazy and corrupt to the bone. The word “mediterranean” is nowadays almost as hateful word as “nigger” was in the 1990’s. Before the elections of 2011 our supreme right populist party was in the marginal with 4,9 % of the votes. 2011 they became the third largest party with 19,05 % of the votes (as the largest party got 20,38 % of the votes). Today’s polls dictate that the supreme right would get over 21 % of votes today. For those unaware of parliamentary democracy our current government has ministers from six different parties, ranging from greens to communists, from rightwing conservatives to Christian democrats and Swedish national party. Yes, the current government is a wide coalition only because they didn’t want to co-operate with the supreme right wingers. Sadly the latter have been the only ones who have spoken against lending money to the corrupt south thus making the latter sadly the only ones who will benefit in the next election. This is how it is, no matter what I do or think. I cannot change it.

And a lot of people will tell me how right I am. Anyways what time period those books of Greek military history deals with? Ancient or modern warfare? I am utterly ignorant of Greek military accomplishes after the fall of Κωνσταντινούπολη. All I know there is some very deep animosity between the infidel Turks and the Greeks. And I have witnessed that in person by driving a car from Greece to Ottoman territories. No offence meant, just being curious.

There is clearly a cultural barrier between us. Yes, I have clearly assimilated the academic debate culture where one’s goal is to prove one’s own arguments valid and to disprove the validity of the argument of the others. For that I am guilty. What comes to the personal library that is a cultural misunderstanding. I mentioned my own limited library and using it because I was too lazy to walk two blocks and use my university’s library, which of course would have far better selection. Having a personal library is just something any “professional” historian needs. Mine is old and very limited only to studies that reflect my interests. I was only trying to be honest: not all facts can be found on my limited library.

I cannot say. Although my orthodox theology professor said that especially the rural Greek identify themselves as “Romans” instead as “Helens”. The Helens are ancient history but the Greeks lasted a thousand years as the Romans (Byzantine) while the Romans themselves succumbed to utter barbarism. But that of course is only my interpretation. All I can say for sure is that when my mother’s sister’s husband’s mother was inflicted with dementia, she was attacking the neighbors yelling what my mother’s sister’s husband translated to me as “the Turks are coming! The Turks are coming!

Actually the sons and the horses were not given voluntarily, at least in the beginning. The Swedes did spoke incomprehensible language to the recruits. And they did force the sons to worship an alien god, the crucified one. As the families worshiped: Ukko, Pekko, Tapio, Mielikki, Ilmatar and such. Although in the early days when the kings themselves were pagans no such problem existed. After all, the Swedish kings managed to eradicate majority of paganism in Finland no earlier than 1800th century. Still, some of the pagan traditions survived also the era of Puritanism, and flourish even today. But you are right: what once was slavery became servitude and even nobility. Although the rule of primogeniture was never introduced in the north and thus at the moment the house could no longer provide the crown with a rider, the house seized to be noble.

 

thank you for this reply. I apologize too if I was overly aggressive at some points.

I mainly have books that deal with ancient and medieval warfare. This is because I tend to have a high opinion for non-gunpowder weapons, because I believe that they require greater skill than gunpowder weapons. It certainly took longer to train a swordsman to skillfully use his weapons (sword-shield-armor) that it takes to train a rifleman to use his, IMHO.
Therefore it's mostly ancient and Byzantine era.
currently, I am (re) reading the book "Τεχνικές Μάχης στον Αρχαίο Κόσμο" (Combat techniques in the ancient world) by Δημήτριος Γεδεών. the ISBN is 960-423-215-0. I also have "Greece and Rome at war" as well as several Osprey paperbacks. For the "tactical" (since we started with military jargon) level, I have the book "Πολεμιστές τς Αρχαιότητας και του Μεσαίωνα" (Warriors of the Ancient and Medieval era) by Χρίστος Γιαννόπουλος ISBN 978-960-6740-80-0. Apart from the images of each warrior, there is also some explanation on the weapons and armor they had. I find the images particularly useful, because from time to time I like to make a miniature based on them.

The fall of Constantinoupolis signalled the end of the Byzantine Empire. As Eastern Roman Empire (as we were known) there was no more to do. Subsequent rebellions were basically drowned in blood, with some of them having perhaps seen some victories before that. The problem was that previous (pre 1821) rebellions were local and disorganised (rebels from one place would not coordinate their activities with rebels from another place, even if they happened to be active in the same time period), and were thus unable to have a serious impact on the Ottoman Empire, which could isolate them or completely eradicate them. So, without the C3 (Command-Control-Communications) to guide them, the rebels had no possibility of harming the Ottoman empire, but were at best confined to some local form of independence (such was the case in Mani and Souli, which were independent, although all around them there was Ottoman rule)
As an example, one of the rebellions before that of 1821 (which was the only successful) was that of Dionisios Trikkis.
This was a rebellion of 1611. Dionusios was an Orthodox priest, therefore not a man with military experience. When Dionisius's poorly armed peasants were defeated by the Ottoman Sipahi (professional soldiers, horsemen) the priest was arrested, and was skinned alive. His skin was filled with straw and feces. He was still alive when they dressed his skinned body with his cleric robes, and walked him in the streets of Ioannina.
The information was taken from here:
http://www.livepedia.gr/content-providers/periskopio/1632SKYLOSOFOS.pdf
The man who wrote the article is a professiona historian, Stavros Karkaletsis, writing the article for the magazine "Historical Issues".
This is an example of Ottoman tortures:

that was common practice in the Ottoman era (1453-1821). Similar activities were seen even in the 20ieth:
(I will not post the pictures here, because the photographs are quite graphic. If you want, you can click on them:
http://panayiotistelevantos.blogspot.gr/2010/05/blog-post_2873.html
http://www.defence-point.gr/news/?p=47254
http://antistasi.org/?p=837

And of course, Cyprus, in 1974, and August 1996:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kaUvxLC92Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTEx6VnE4c


I am attempting to explain the attitude of the demented lady you mentioned (who may have been a survivor of 1922), and the enmity you are referring to.

I must note, though, in their defence, that as individuals, the Turkish-muslims I have met are NOT like that.

Regarding victories, 1822 (the second year of the revolution) saw quite a few, as the Turkish (Ottoman) empire was in decay at that era, the terrain of southern Greece (where the Empire started) is extremely mountainous, and the Greeks of the mainland were cooperating with the Greeks of the islands, who used their armed merchand ships to prevent the Ottoman fleet from resupplying-reinforcing the turkish forces in Peloponisos. The Greek fleet was heavily outgunned, however, by using small boats filled with flammable materials, they were often able to burn much heavier ottoman ships (they would use two boats, one with the flammable materials, and another with men, towing the "burner" boat to the Ottoman ship at night. Once the flammable boat was attached to the ship, they would set it on fire, using the other boat to escape. Needless to say that this was exceptionally risky, as they could be found out at any moment as they approached. They could also be consumed in the conflagration, or killed as they withdrew.
Even so, even the rebellion of 1821 would have been crushed, had it not been for the naval battle of Navarino (1827), where English, French and Russian forces defeated the Turko-Egyptian fleets, and forcing the Ottoman Empire to accept Greek Independence.

In fact, it was to a great extend thanks to the Russians (who had a Greek, Ioannis Kapodistrias as one of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Tzaric Russia (early 19th century)) that the Greek Revolution of 1821 succeeded. Austria, at the time a superpower in Europe was extremely hostile to the Greek Revolution.

 

You’re welcome. And there is no need for apologizes, I am accustomed with heated debates. Actually the first and most important thing they teach us about “academic” dialectic is never to take the arguments personally. Since we all are only humane, mistakes are made. I have actually witnessed how a professor loses his temper and tosses a grad student with a textbook while yelling: “your research is utter bullshit!”. Only because said student dared to question said professor’s point of view. Sadly that professor is the head of our faculty so that student (my friend) had to find tutor for his master’s theses from another university. Curiously both of the culprits are of the Greek religion and see themselves as the only true authors on Byzantine history…

I agree completely! Gunpowder weapons made warfare less noble and more dangerous. In the old times wars were waged between armies and civilians were left alone (at least in the conflicts here between northern tribes). Gunpowder made waging war too easy and cheap. In the olden days soldiers could count on that as long as their courage (and luck) holds, their skill with the blade will determine their date of demise. Nowadays it is set by blind luck when a snipers bullet, unfair (indirect) fire, IED or a landmine ends your days. And more and more innocent civilians suffer.
Curiously, there is one Guy Gisborne (not a sir) who teaches mediaeval martial arts in Helsinki. I can’t wait to move back in Helsinki and enroll in his class. My choice of weapon would be single bladed great axe, given that dual wielding (more modernized) Finnish “Vesuri”

would not be possible.

Unfortunately I am not accustomed with those books but I must say they sound very interesting. Greece, namely the phalanx, against the Roman legions? Pyrrhos (Πύρρος) should be the one to answer that question, no? Any idea if there are any translations available? btw. I have also a fond history with miniatures, mainly GamesWorkshop’s though. The Warhammer games are just my favorites.
Sad to say but I have quite a few books that handle the Roman art of war, of Byzantine history I know almost nothing. For some reason our (western) education system categorically ignores Byzantine and glorifies Rome. Even as the former outlived the latter with no less than a millennium. All that I know from Byzantine is the Greek fire, the Varangian Way and the Norwegian guard. All those because they are mentioned in the Sagas.
If you are into the metal music I heartedly recommend Finnish folk metal band Turisas (the god of war). They made an album (The Varangian Way) that tells the tale how northmen travel all the way to Κωνσταντινούπολη to serve the king of the Greeks and an album (Stand Up and Fight) that tells the tale how Byzantine came to end and the “last of the Vikings” fled home. Those are not entirely historically correct, but still I hear the tale of my ancestors of the Sagas in those tales, perhaps you do too?

To my knowledge, it was the IVth crusade that gave Κωνσταντινούπολη the blow from which it could not recover and was the beginning of the eastern end. In that respect, you should actually hate the west more than the ottomans. Your fall was our fault. When the Ottomans came to siege the walls of Wien, it was of our own doing.

Of this I had no knowledge; actually the date 1821 does not tell me anything. Was that the year Greece got its independence? I thought that the Ottoman Empire lasted till the end of the Great War?

Curious. Our history is more similar than I dared to think. Between the end of 16th century and beginning of the 17th century King of Sweden managed to conquer most of southeastern Finland from Russia (actually most of that area was defacto no man’s land like the northeastern part was till the 19th century). The problem was that in the 17th century Sweden was puritan protestant nation and the “new” subjects of the East were orthodox. In 1656 the entire southeastern orthodox population rebelled and was supported with massive Russian invasive forces. Russian orthodox priest and monks (as the peace treaties and church law prohibited any “Swedish” or “Finnish” to serve as orthodox priest) were those who machinated the “uproar” inside Swedish borders. Sadly the Russians were defeated within a year, it took until 1661 before the final peace treaty was signed as the rising western superpower took more and more eastern territories. Anyway, within just few years almost the entirety of Finnish orthodox population was annihilated as traitors. It is amazing that even to this day, we still have an orthodox minority, small as it may be.

I think the official term is “Alzheimer” but the old-timers would just say” senile”. No one knew how old she actually was (including her) as she was illiterate. When she died 1998 (or 1999, can’t remember) she was thought to be by the healthcare officials at least 90 years old, so I guess it is plausible to say she was a “survivor of 1922”. Although you never mentioned what happened in 1922? I do not know. But I guess the Ottoman Empire collapsed in one final bloody confrontation and the Greeks got their independency?

And as we are told by the EU sensitivity propaganda: one must not make any generalizing conclusions based on individual experiences, or one is guilty of making stereotypes. Thus those Ottomans must be evil; suggesting anything else would be racist.

I must say that was too confusing to read. Who did what and in what order and why? Perhaps you should start from the beginning and go on chronically? And tell it just like you would tell a foreign kindergarten student. I am ashamed to say but the year 1821 or was it 1822 does not tell me anything. I am not mocking you, just pointing out that I know nothing about Greek history since the year 1453. Please.

 

I think I understand how this student must have felt, as I have had some similarly unfortunate encounters. It is sad when academics believe themselves to know everything.

There is a similar general tendency here, for academics of the Greek Literature department to consider themselves "superior" to the rest of the academics. It is somewhat peculiar, but when I meet someone from there, I just know there is going to be trouble.

I was not aware of that information, but I have seen some videos of a Hammaborg school, which does that. Here is a video I found quite interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc

A demonstration of the uses of the viking shield.

I googled the "vesuri". It seems to be used as a farming/woodcutting tool nowadays (?) (I have read that many weapons, particuarly the halberd, derived from farming tools, and even a modern weapon, the AK-47 was originally designed to be a farming tool) yet in its poleaxe version I can see that it would be useful in fighting, particularly against opponents with a shield. The hook in the front could move one out of the way, and once the blade got near a neck or arm, a quick pull would cause a wound in a major vessel.
It reminds me a bit of the naginata. It looks interesting. Which era was this used in?

greece and rome at war was written by Peter Conolly. It's in English. The Osprey books, which are also very good to get an idea of specific eras are also in English. I prefer, when I can, to read books written by non-Greek historians, to get a foreigner's view of the facts. I remember, for example, reading a translation of Greece and Rome at war, regarding the battle of Thermopulae. The text was "by midday, it was all over. Leonidas and his men were all dead". The Greek text had a phrase added "but their bravery would echo through the centuries".

hehe, they did not name pyrrhic victories as they did for nothing. Pyrrhos defeated the Romans, but it cost him so much, that it might have been better not to.
Regarding Phalanx (macedonian or southern greek) vs Roman legion, it all depends. IF the ground is flat, the phalanx (particularly the macedonian) would be successful, IF it was not flanked or hit from the rear. The legionary had a large oval (or rectangular, depending on the period) shield, a gladuis (stabbing short sword) and two pila (iron tipped javelins). Once the pila were thrown, the legionary facing the front of the phalanx would have three options. Flee, be trampled, or be pierced by the pikes. The pikes of the phalanx were used two handedly, and at any given time, the phalanx would have the first three rows of pikemen fighting. This would mean that, as long as it kept its formation, the phalanx would be a ble to exert much greater "attack pressure" on the legion. The legionary's shield was a very good defense, true, however, because of the weight and length of the sarissa pike, and because of the fact that it was used with both hands, its piercing force would possibly render a shield useless (i recall from somewhere that with the appearance of the macedonian phalanx, southern Greeks were forced to add to their armor).

It is true that the Crusaders caused great harm to Constantinople, and indeed it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible to recover from that. In fact, I saw in a russian documentary that many western european banks and financial insitutions were founded on wealth... well... taken from Constantinople. As a turkish historian put it, it was no surprise that Constantinople fell in 1453. What is surprising is that it did not fall earlier.
Yet, most Greeks blame the Turks and not the Crusaders for the fall. In fact, I have seen Greeks glorify the crusaders.

True, I forgot to mention. On the 19th of May 1919, as part of the aftermath of world war 1, Greek troops disembarked on the port of Smyrni (now Izmir) in Minor Asia. previously, the Ottoman Empire was part of the Central powers (the ones who lost WW1), and Greece was part of the Entente (the winners). Because of that, it was decided that the Ottoman Empire would be partitioned, and the winners would receive each some of its territories. the only Entente country that actually had their own nationals (Greek orthodox) in Minor Asia was Greece. It was decided, therefore, that Greece should step in and liberate (with or without quotation marks is up to your opinion) the areas where Greeks were a majority (which was estimated at 17000 square kilometres, the so called Zone of Smyrna). This would make Greece a country which would have ports and land on both sides of the Aegean. It was said to be "Greece of the two continents and five seas". Unfortunately, someone forgot to give Mustafa Kemal that memo.
Even though the Sultan in Constantinople signed the Treaty of Sevres, which gave Greece all that territory, Mustafa Kemal, a former officer of the Ottoman military, refused to ackowledge that treaty. Even in previous years, Mustafa Kemal was an important figure in Turkey. After the Sultan's "treason" to give the foreigners (the partition of the Ottoman empire also involved giving Italy and France their share), Kemal became a hero for the Turks (he still is, in fact the turkish state is based on his teachings) and became the leader of the Neoturks, a strongly nationalist movement that denied the Sultan's power and was secular rather than religious (the ottoman state was more of a theocratic entity). Mustafa Kemal's practices (genocide) later had a great influence on personalities such as Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler (Hitler had said "Mussolini was his first student and I am the second").
Kemal was of course, an extremely intelligent indivudual. Having practically taken the reins of the new Turkish state, he made Ankara the capital of his state (as it is now). From there he conducted guerilla operations. As time progressed, he received better equipment from the Soviets, and later, even our "allies" the Italians and french. The Greeks made the stupid mistake of attempting to capture or kill Kemal, in order to force the neoturks into accepting the Sevres treaty. In doing so, they overextended their lines, from the Smyrna zone to deep Anatolia, attempting to capture Ankara and finish with Kemal. They managed to reach some fifty kilometres from Ankara, until the logistic/support nightmare played out. Seeing that the Greek front line forces were not being well ressuplied, and having been well supplied himself, Kemal launched his counter attack.
After the military stalemate of the battle os Sakarya (August-September 1921), Britain, France and Italy decided that the treaty of Sevres should be re evaluated (in favour of Kemal) and France and Italy evacuated their positions, leaving the Greeks exposed. Kemal saw the opportunity, and launched his counter attack on August 26 1922. Within two weeks, the Greek army had been eradicated from Anatolia. The fate of the Greek nationals, however, was the true tragedy. The teacher of Mussolini and Hitler, provoked by cases of Greek atrocities on Turks conducted massacres that, even Turks referred to as so horrible that they could not even bear to report them. The victims were not only Greeks, but also Armenians.

Anywa, this is already a huge post, perhaps we should resume later about the other question 1821, year of the Greek Revolution against the Ottoman Empire.

 

Interesting point here, I thought I might try to analyse it a bit:
The first time I heard turkish being spoken, I could actually feel adrenaline rushing through my veins. "The language of the enemy".
This would be the "appropriate" reaction in time of war, perhaps, when there is no "luxury" to distinguish between people, who, have a different personality each. But let us say that we meet a Turk who is not hostile toward us because of religion or because of nationality, and who is not an aggressive, bloodthirsty villain. What happens then? Do we behave toward the person as if he was the "stereotype enemy", or do we say that this person is not of the nationality that has committed the atrocities? Either one would be equally insulting toward the individual, and thus we would end up punishing an innocent individual for vices/crimes of others. I find this injust, and because I find this injust I find it inappropriate. I also find it in sharp constrast with the Christian faith. Remember the story of the good Samaritan. Who is this man's neighbor?
I refuse to have my actions dictated by Political Correctness. This means that I refuse to do as Political Correctness dictates (I did not choose the verb accidentaly), and I also refuse to allow myself to act or think in one way, because Political Correctness says I should act or think the other way.

 

"As the families worshiped: Ukko, Pekko, Tapio, Mielikki, Ilmatar and such."

Emmm... Wait... Forgotten Realms Gods have Finnish names?

 

I would not be surprised. Games and Fantasy lore often take names from "not so common languages". For example, the area of Peloponisos in Greece is also known as Morias (Moria), (for some centuries now) and there are no dwarves or mines with dwarves there, to my knowledge. .
We also have a village named Cimmeria in Thrace, but there are no barbarians there (however, there are dirt roads with plenty of holes, and poor lighting, making traveling there an accident waiting to happen). In fact, the Cimmerians were an ancient thracian tribe (thus the village name), and apparently Robert E. Howard borrowed the name from history.
I don't speak the language, so I cannot know for certain, but it seems to me that the Klingon language sounds a bit like Russian. I was always of the opinion that in Star Trek the Klingons were meant to be seen as the Soviet Union.
Eve online also borrows some Greek and I think Carthagenian names.

 

I wonder if names of cities in other countries are used the same way they are here in America?

If you travel through a few states you'll see quite a few cities with same name, but in a different state.

It's kind of like names are recycled heh heh, does this happen in your country?

 

It happens here as well, but usually with villages. For example there is a number of villages named Neohori (Νεοχώρι)= New village. And once, I even saw the same name used for two villages in the same region (I wonder how many people got confused with that). Other than that, we have the term "Νέο" or "Νέα" for many small cities, villages, and suburbs) because the people who founded them were refugees from the "original" place and named them thus in order to remember. For example, there is "Νεα Χαλκηδόνα" (New Chalkidona), which was founded by refugees from the city Chalkidona in Minor Asia.
In cases where the term Neo is added as a prefix (eg Neochori) we are not dealing with a refugee-built city/village as far as I know, only in cases in which the name of the city/village (or city part) consists of two words, the word "New" being one, eg Nea Irakleia, Nea Chalkidona, etc.

 

Well, I do not speak Klingon, but what I've heard ("below" the translation) sounds nothing like Russian. And (if I recall correctly), Klingons are governed by an Emperor, while Soviet Union was governed by the Supreme Council (until 1989, when Chairman of the Supreme Council was made head of state.).

In Russia there are many repeating names, usually of small towns and villages. But then, there are so many towns and villages in Russia, it is hard to NOT repeat names, right?

 

I am wrong, then My apologies if it was offensive (although I was rather fond of the Klingons because I liked their ships). However, the late Ronald Reagan DID refer to the USSR as the "Evil Empire" (March 8, 1983). A rather aggressive statement, IMHO.

 

Truly so. I always get surprised how jealous and arrogant the so called academians can be. Especially since they ought to be the once with the understanding how limited the human knowledge is and how fallible individuals are. On the other hand, I can see that when a person spends majority of one’s adult life studying a specific topic one is likely to think that one is the only one who knows anything about said topic. Personally, the more I study something the more apparent it becomes to me how little I truly know.

I think that depends a lot from one’s personality. When I converse with a professor, it will be clear to me within minutes whether I come along with the professor or not. Some people may choose confrontation and a heated debate in that situation, I tend to retreat. I see no gain in a pointless argument which might very well make a professor my enemy and hinder my academic progression. I just think that shutting up and walking away is the lesser evil in many occasions.

Thanks! That was really interesting. Ah, the many wondrous things of the interweb and youtube.

Well let put it this way: my archeology professor said that when we find remains of a previously unknown (prehistoric) culture we can be sure that the culture waged war only if we find swords. Hammer, mace, axe and vesuri are tools of a woodsman/carpenter, sickle and scythe are tools of a farmer, and spear, crossbow, bow and arrow are tools of a hunter. Sword is a tool of a soldier; it has no other usage than killing humans (challenging a full grown brown bear with a Viking shield and broadsword would be suicide and a moose would just run away). Yes, most tools of warfare have also alternative peacetime use, including most firearms.

The earliest vesuri that have been discovered are from the early Iron Age (800 – 900 AD). Probably because softer metals like copper and brass couldn’t be used to form that long and still strong curved blade. The picture is somewhat deceiving: the length of the blade varies from just 30 cm to over a meter and the handle is always almost as long as the blade minus the hook. The tallest vesuri that I have handled required both hands to use, since the blade is heavy, almost like an axe.

Technically it is a multipurpose tool that has and is used (depending on the size) as a carpenters tool, gardening tool, forestry tool (better than machete, lighter than an axe) skinning and chopping (as a skinning knife and a meat cleaver) large game like the brown bear or moose and killing people. Vesuri still reaches the TOP 5 most favorite weapons used in a homicide in Finland.

Of purely military usage I am unaware of. It is more like a weapon of opportunity, something that almost every Finnish man would be carrying. No doubt, it has been used as much in tribal warfare as to settle a drunken brawl. In that sense it resembles the kukri.

Peter Conolly? Hmm. That sounds familiar, have to check my library. Anyways, reading studies written by non-domestic authors is always a double edged sword. Sometimes their point of view and non-detachment of the culture can provide valuable insight that would be clouded from the domestic researchers or their misunderstanding/misinterpretation could be plainly laughable. Like the old Wikipedia article about the Hakkapeliitta (it seems to be corrected now) cited some English scholar saying that the Finnish horse used by Hakkapeliitta was especially large. That scholar clearly newer visited Finland or he would know that nothing grows especially large in the cold north, on the contrary.

My point exactly. And I am very aware of the natures of the “gladius” (named after the gladiators), the armor piercing javelin I thought was called “pilum” and the later slashing sword was “spatha”?

As they say: all things must come to an end. The Greco-Roman empire lasted in its different forms almost two millennia and its culture still thrives. No-one else can claim equal resilience.

What comes to the banks, the first ones were the Knights Templar, who made a ridiculous wealth by organizing, financing (lending money) and protecting the endless flow of European pilgrims heading to the Holy Land. Until Filip of France decided to fill his coffers with templar gold and butchered the Templers as heretics. As rich as the Κωνσταντινούπολη was, it would be hubris to claim that its wealth was great enough to build the entire western financial sector on it.

Thank you, that was most enlightening. So did I understand this correctly: Greece was already independent at the time of the Great War, probably since the year 1822? We got our independence in 1917 when the imperial Russia finally collapsed. And this Mustafa Kemal is the same person as Ataturk, the one who gave his name to the contemporary nation of Turkey? Yet again I see similarity in our history. During the years 1918 and 1922 Finnish troops occupied or liberated the northeastern and southeastern parts of Karelia to “re-join” all the Finnish speaking tribes. Those borders lasted ‘till 1939 when Stalin tried to invade Finland. Regardless of the empty promises by the English and French empires we faced the soviet threat alone. The backstabbing Americans offered us nothing but “sympathy” while they were sending endless shipments of material support to the soviets. We would have succumbed under the soviet ilk if not of Hitler. Sad as it may be, without the might of Wehrmacht, Waffen SS and Luftwaffe I would most likely been never born. My grandparents would have perished in some unnamed prison camp in Siberia. In that respect I refuse demonize the glorious Third Reich.
And, according to Mein Kamph, it was the American policy towards the Indians and the reservations that gave Hitler the idea of the vilified concentration camps.

Anyway, I do remember the commotion about the genocide of the Armenians conducted by the Ottomans. In their never-ending arrogance the French parliament has declared that denying the Armenian genocide within the French borders is a crime (just like denying the holocaust). Curiously, no-one has ever mentioned that Greeks also suffered at that time. Or am I mistaken and there are two different genocides conducted by the Ottomans?

What is wrong with long or even huge posts? I have the time and ability to write posts here only once a week or so. I have long enough attention span to read and write long posts. I hope others have too.

As do I. My comment was meant as an ironic/sarcastic comment. As the sensitivity propaganda of EU dictates, (as it does) that we should not make any generalizing notions (stereotypes) about the immigrants when they commit a crime (which usually makes the headlines), because those are just random individual acts of a random individuals. Same standards should be used when the immigrants commit a positive act, or we would be using double standards. If the current propaganda would be cheering for double standards it would be ok, but as the propaganda is all about equality… Well, do we choose the soviet system (again) where some people is just more equal than the other?

Yes. Actually “Ilmatar” is an ancient Finnish spirit, the spiritess (is there an English word for a female spirit?) of the air. Nothing like the Christian martyr that the Forgotten Realms Ilmater is.
Mielikki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mielikki) is not just a pirated name but almost copy-pasted deity. The Newerwinter Nights 2 character called Okku, the bear king, is again bad typing of the Finnish king of the Gods Ukko. Although Ukko is like AO the absent over father who is seen only when he is angry, that being during a storm (ukonilma=thunderstorm). The Baldurs Gate 2 character “Lehtinan” is yet another misspelled Finnish name, “Lehtinen” is one of the most common Finnish surnames. There was a NHL player carrying that name. For some reason the English speakers (or perhaps the speakers of indo-European languages) seem to face Finnish language as something utterly alien. In that respect it serves the needs of fictions writers.

But as I have stated before: all fiction reflects reality. It would be utter hubris to think than an individual writer, or even a group of a dozen, could conjure up a tale as creative as one that was created by a never-ending line of bards that have lasted over a thousand generations.

For example the anthropologist Ursula K. Le Guin based the magical system of her “Legends of the Earthsea” on the pagan Finnish magical system. I too, have a “true name” which is different than my common name. The ritual of naming, is still one of the most important rituals in Finland, given that it is utterly corrupted by Christianity.

Not even the great master Tolkien was original. As a linguist he for some reason idolized the Finnish language and used it as the base grammatical for elvish. But even as he dedicated his life to create something utterly new and unforeseen, he too succumbed to plagiarizing: Narn i Chîn Húrin is nothing but a pale copy from the story of Kullervo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullervo) in Kalevala (excluding the dragon). Although, Tolkien admitted that he was a huge fan of Finnish folklore and language.

 

You have the facts right in most respects, just to recap
1. True Mustafa Kemal is the same person as Kemal Ataturk. The Greeks mostly call him Kemal Ataturk, the Turks seem to prefer to call him Mustafa Kemal. I refer to him as the Turks do, because he was a Turk.

2. March 25 1821 was the day of the Greek revolution against the Ottoman Empire. Leftists here say it was not a national revolution (Greeks rebelling against Turks) but a class revolution (Poor/slaves rebelling against Rich/landowners). I believe that it was a National revolution, however. On the same day there is the celebration of the Ευαγγελισμός της Θεοτόκου (The Annunciation of the Virgin Mary). It is a significant day in Greece, both for religious and national reasons.
Since you mentioned metal in one of the previous posts (I am of course aware of the excellent Finnish metal bands, such as the Turisas (which you mentioned) and also Before the Dawn, Sabbaton (and the song Coat of Arms which speaks of the Greek fight against the Axis), Amorphis, and of course the winner of a previous Eurovision (the only time I watched the Eurovision kitsch festivities and celebrated a victory) Lordi, whom the ignrant Greek reportes referred to as "the Monsters")
Here is some metal of our own:
group: Marauder Song: The Greek Revolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6Xofy5BlQk

group: Sarissa (it is the pike of Alexander's Macedonian Phalanx) song: Macedonian Army
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKeq1ZZLaIE

(From Thessaloniki, the capital of Macedonia).

Group: Athlos Song: Talos Unleashed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myunwp9jUCA
Folk metal, it reminds me of Eluveitie)



I mentioned 1822 earlier, because most of the greatest victories occured then, as the turkish ottoman military was still startled, and the Greek rebels were getting more and more organised and better equipped.
As I said before, however, the Ottoman military would have drowned the Greek revolution if it had not been for the naval battle of Navarino, when the British, the French and the Russian fleets crushed the Turco-Egyptian fleet. In his wrath because of his defeat, the Sultan proclaimed a jihad against the westerners, and closed the Bosporus to international shipping. This angered Russia. The events that followed are rather complicated, but in the end (1832) the Ottoman Empire officially recognised Greek Independence.

The two genocides occured at the same time approximately ( about 1922). It was part of a Kemalic plan to make Turkey (the new Turkey, which he founded from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire) a minority-free country. The Armenians and the Greeks were "cleansed" first. Mustafa Kemal used the assistance of the Kurds, whom he later double crossed (their leaders were executed, I think, after they were gathered under pretense of negotiations about what he was going to give the Kurds in reward for assisting him).
The Greeks are not mentioned, as you say, because the Greek governments never do anything about it.
Mustafa Kemal later admitted that it was his mistake to cleanse the Greeks from his territories, particularly the inhabitants of Smyrni (today Izmir), because the Greeks of that area contributed much to the economic growth of Turkey with their businesses.

Thank you for the information on what was going on in the North at the time. Until now, I had thought that it would be "peaceful up there".
Regarding your point about the Third Reich, it is interesting, but here:

I don't know if this is reason to view the Third Reich in a "better" light. Did the Germans step in to help the Finns? Also, given what the Reich did to the rest of the nations (largely as part of aggression), I would not call it glorious. Were the Soviet concentration camps any different from the Nazi concentration camps?

Regarding Mustafa Kemal's influences on Hitler:

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/153778

And some images:



Some more information about the picture is here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t923024/

One of the many reasons I despise nazism, btw is its relation (at least the relation I perceive exists) with Mustafa Kemal's practices. The same inhuman attitude, exercised on the same nation (Greece) by two different bullies. And I am not a leftist, btw.
In many ways, the current situation is viewed as a repetition of what occured back in the days of the German Occupation of Greece, back in World War 2.
The nazis requisitioned all food production in Greece, and people died of hunger in the streets. They also had the great idea of making Greece pay the expenses for the Occupation. Greece was also forced to give a loan to Germany (the famous war loan), which, of course was never payed back.
Not to mention, of course, their retaliation for guerilla attacks. The nazis would murder women and children, and burn down whole villages.
Therefore, in my opinion the Reich was not so glorious, but I guess this is a matter of perspective.
To tell you the truth, what I find most disturbing of all, was Hitler's order, that bombings should not harm the Parthenon or any other historical sites. I find this particularly disturbing, because what sort of mentality would love art, in essence inanimate objects so much, and hate people, who create art. This was the epitome of an inhumane cult, in my view. It also demonstrates the sterility of nazism. Who will create art if people do not exist? And who will admire it?

Interesting point with the immigrants. We have a huge problem with immigrants here, and this gave rise to the neo-nazi party (it is a neo nazi party, although they now claim to be "Greek nationalists"). On a personal level, I understand that, if someone leaves his/her home, to go somewhere else, then this person doesn't usually do it for the laughs, and is not having a good time doing it. Nor do I think that someone is deliberately leaving his/her country, if everything is going well for him/her in his/her country, in order to go to another society and cause havoc. In that sense, I would disagree with an "Invasion USA" type of concept. On the other hand, I don't see how we are responsible for someone else's blight, and how we should help another, if we cannot even help ourselves. Jesus said those who have two tunics should give one to their neighbors, but it seems that, as a society, we don't even have a leaf of a fig tree.
Needless to say, of course, that these immigrants (1.5 million of them) do not really want to be in Greece, they want to be in the North (Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia). Yet our government has signed the Dublin Treaty, which forces Greece to keep them "in the country of entry", that is, here. Even if they manage to leave Greece and go to the North, the North sends them back here. One of the "benefits" of being in the E.U.

Anyway, I cannot say I disagree with you in the argument about double standards and about illegal acts, but we must also bear in mind that they come from a completely different culture. The bottom line is, however, that when one goes to a society, this person must learn and respect the ways of this society, or leave. Even in our culture, the person seeking asylum has some obligations toward the host.
Of course, we do recognize that, being foreigner, he is at a disadvantage (this should explain why those Greeks went out of their way to assist you when you had lost your way once, in Alexandroupolis), and that we should go an extra mile to help, as much as we can.

 

.......................................................

 

btw, regarding this comment you made here:

I actually did not say exactly that. I said this:

I could not find the specific documentary, but I did find this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NIM8dqXA-s

So, the sacking of Constantinople was a process that lasted quite some time, over the next fifty years.
Given the amount of wealth that was taken, it is possible that several western institutions would have been financed by it. In fact, in the second minute or so, the narrator says a few things of what this gold financed. Even Napoleon, centuries later used part of this gold to pay his troops.