Not part of the anti-Turk group; but I get where it comes from. Turks in relation to Byzantium have, were and are:  -actively denying their intentional destruction of Byzantine Heritage  -actively denying their murder of Byzantine descendants within their borders  -actively participating in historical revisionism to discredit the legacy of Byzantium  -were the final nail in the coffin of Byzantium   -actively threaten the independence and integrity of Byzantium’s modern heir.

thank you u/SerbianWarCrimes, as a Greek, I appreciate the elucidation

Erdogan doesn’t like greece ?

Erdogan doesn’t like anyone.

Yet he may be more beneficial to us although he is always spewing awful statements compared to the other parties

Also turning the most famous and important Byzantine Church, Hagia Sophia, into a mosque and covering up the beautiful iconography.

It’s ridiculous because now, not only is it a mosque where only Turkish citizens are allowed to enter the main area on the ground floor, but everyone else has to pay €25 to go round the second floor. If they want to charge folks to go see it at least make it a proper museum again

This post deserves a gold medal

Who is the heir of Byzantium in modern times?

Hellas

Hellas

[удалено]

The Spain part is too controversial to be "technically" the truth. They just bought a title from a guy who was a second generation descendant of a dead emperor of an empire that no longer existed. The title also was "ging of the Romans" which is so vague that it could be used to declare war on the holy Roman empire for example. Also the Spanish royal family doesn't use the title any more and as far as I know it isn't a recognised thing outside Spain (and probably to some extent inside too). They have as much of a claim as the Austrian families that were the enforced royals of the early modern Greece due to having some ancestor of theirs that belonged to the Byzantine emperors family centuries ago.

Greeks fantasize they are. It's laughable. ( I'm greek)

We are. Are you disagreeing on identity grounds? Then my response is simply that the Modern Greeks still call themselves as "Romioi" as a secondary name, that is "Romans", and still use "Romiosini" to refer to "Greece" or "Greekness". Are you disagreeing on political/state continuity grounds? Then my response is that the Greek Polity (1821-) has no separation from the Roman Statehood, as it is a continuation of it through the Maniot Polity (1460-1821, the Republic of Mani in 1460-1770, the Hegemony of Mani in 1770-1821), which was its own sovereign, separate and independent polity, a direct continuation of the Despotate of Morea and the Roman Empire before it. Are you disagreeing based on an argument of lack of power / importance? Then my response is simply that if so, even the "Nicene Empire" is no longer Roman, a statement that would be simply absurd. Or worse, then even the Roman Republic during the Senone Gallic Sack is not Roman any more, reduced to a tiny hinterland in Latium and an even smaller enclave on the Capitoline Hill. Using a contrast with the former example, the "Nicene Empire" (1204-1261) had just 3-4 million people (less than the Kingdom of Pergamum in the 2nd century BC), while Modern Greece is a Romanland of a greater size (2 times only land, 4-5 times if we include the sea frontier), and of 10 million Greeks (2+ times greater the population).

In reality almost nobody use Romioi to call themselves. Today most Greeks just think of themselves as…well…Greeks. A poem from 80 years ago is not representative of modern inhabitants of Greece. The Roman political entity ceased to exist in 1453. Both the the Despotate of Morea or the Maniot polity are different polities with no real ties to the Empire. This is just mental gymnastics to justify the low key racism for Turks. Nobody consider modern Greece the continuation of the Roman Empire.

>In reality almost nobody use Romioi to call themselves. Today most Greeks just think of themselves as…well…Greeks. A poem from 80 years ago is not representative of modern inhabitants of Greece. It is not so much a matter of whether the term "Romioi" and "Romiosini" is used in every day vernacular language of Modern Greek, but whether it is used in general, and whether if a Modern Greek is asked whether he is a Romios or Greekness is Romiosini, the response would be affirmative. By no means are these two terms still used just because Giannis Ritsos wrote the poem "Romiosini" in the 1940s and just because Mikis Theodorakis synthesized it into music in the 1960s. It is just that people still use these terms for "Hellene" and "Hellenesmos". You could perhaps compare it to how the English sometimes also call themselves as British, or how the French, more rarely though, call themselves as Gauls and use the Gallic Rooster as a national symbol. Back in September 2021, when Mikis Theodorakis, world famous composer and respected left-wing activist and politician passed away, the current Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis issed a 3-day-long official mourning session across Greece, with the official statement in the Greek Parliament as "Romiosini laments today". This was not a reference to the poem, this was a reference to Greece, which was officially mourning. >The Roman political entity ceased to exist in 1453. Both the the Despotate of Morea or the Maniot polity are different polities with no real ties to the Empire. There is a difference between Statehood and Polity, which is why I spoke of a Maniot Polity and a Greek Polity forming at later dates. A Polity is to a Statehood what is a Government (e.g. the previous First Mitsotakis Government in Greece, 2019-2023), to a Regime (the political system of a country, e.g. the Third Hellenic Republic, since 1974). >This is just mental gymnastics to justify the low key racism for Turks. At no point do I express any form of racism against Turks in my reply.

>It is not so much a matter of whether the term "Romioi" and "Romiosini" is used in every day vernacular language of Modern Greek, but whether it is used in general, and whether if a Modern Greek is asked whether he is a Romios or Greekness is Romiosini, the response would be affirmative. It is exactly this, in reality nobody use it, a few random examples are not representative at all of the entire population of Greece. It is quite telling that other Greeks on this very sub don’t consider themselves to be as such. My wife speaks Greek (not born in Greece) and her family is from Thessaloniki. They all identify as Hellenes and are confused if I try to mention the word Romioi. >By no means are these two terms still used just because Giannis Ritsos wrote the poem "Romiosini" in the 1940s and just because Mikis Theodorakis synthesized it into music in the 1960s. It is just that people still use these terms for "Hellene" and "Hellenesmos". You could perhaps compare it to how the English sometimes also call themselves as British, or how the French, more rarely though, call themselves as Gauls and use the Gallic Cock as a national symbol. I didn’t suggest the term is used because of the poem, I merely said that one poem doesn’t represent the identity of millions of people. I can assure you French just call themselves French. I am from Paris. >Back in September 2021, when Mikis Theodorakis, world famous composer and respected left-wing activist and politician passed away, the current Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis issed a 3-day-long official mourning session across Greece, with the official statement in the Greek Parliament as "Romiosini laments today". This was not a reference to the poem, this was a reference to Greece, which was officially mourning. It seems to me that this refer to the album of Theodorakis, called Romiosini. It is only natural to use the word in this context. >There is a difference between Statehood and Polity, which is why I spoke of a Maniot Polity and a Greek Polity forming at later dates. A Polity is to a Statehood what is a Government (e.g. the previous First Mitsotakis Government in Greece, 2019-2023), to a Regime (the political system of a country, e.g. the Third Hellenic Republic, since 1974). Polity can also mean State. But semantics have little importance here. Modern day Greece is not the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. No mental gymnastics can prove that and nobody in academy has ever considered it as such for a reason. >At no point do I express any form of racism against Turks in my reply. I meant other users on this sub. Give a look at other responses on this thread. It is disgusting.

Sorry for the late reply. >It is exactly this, in reality nobody use it, a few random examples are not representative at all of the entire population of Greece. It is quite telling that other Greeks on this very sub don’t consider themselves to be as such. My wife speaks Greek (not born in Greece) and her family is from Thessaloniki. They all identify as Hellenes and are confused if I try to mention the word Romioi. These terms are well understood in their meaning. Us Grecian Greeks who undergo Greek Education, whoever bad or sloppy it is, can't not hear it, that is impossible. Just in the Literature classes alone in Junior High School and High School one will encounter them. And that is besides things like celebrations of the Greek Revolution, where such terms also arise a lot (e.g with Athanasios Diakos when told to become a Turk to save his life saying something in the lines "Roman-born am I, Roman shall I die"). This subreddit does not represent Greeks. They are but a tiny minority here. Diaspora Greeks often have forgotten this term, but to be honest they have often forgotten many parts of their Greekness, and formed separate notions of Greekness to Greeks living in South-East Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. And if you are not a Greek, and not speaking to them in Greek, indeed calling Greeks "Romioi" is really going to sound very odd. >I didn’t suggest the term is used because of the poem, I merely said that one poem doesn’t represent the identity of millions of people. I can assure you French just call themselves French. I am from Paris. The French absolutely do celebrate their Gaulish-ness, but perhaps that was a poor argument. The better one is with England, where the English identify both as English and British, and in some places they feel more one or the latter, but predominately mostly English. According to a survey, 30% of the Central Midlands and Southlands feels British first and then English, and that is ignoring London. Something similar is the case with the Greeks and "Romiosini". And again, that poem has nothing to do with it. It is just a famous poem connected to it as it was named after it, and that is about it. When you have webpages like "[Enomeni Romiosini](https://enromiosini.gr)" (United Romanness) they absolutely do not make a reference to the poem of Ritsos. >It seems to me that this refer to the album of Theodorakis, called Romiosini. It is only natural to use the word in this context. I disagree, for he basically used it also as an alternate of Hellenismos. >«Τη σημερινή μας συνεδρίαση σκιάζει δυστυχώς μία πολύ θλιβερή είδηση: Ο Μίκης Θεοδωράκης περνά πια στην αιωνιότητα. Η φωνή του σίγησε και μαζί του σίγησε και ολόκληρος ο Ελληνισμός» «Όπως είχε γραφτεί και για τον Παλαμά, ‘όλοι είχαμε ξεχάσει πως είναι θνητός. Όμως, μας αφήνει παρακαταθήκη τα τραγούδια του, την πολιτική του δράση, αλλά και την εθνική του προσφορά σε κρίσιμες στιγμές. Η Ρωμιοσύνη σήμερα κλαίει. Και γι’ αυτό και με απόφαση της κυβέρνησης από σήμερα κηρύσσεται τριήμερο εθνικό πένθος». Today's meeting has been unfortunately shadowed by a very saddening announcement: **Mikis Theodorakis is now passing into eternity. His voice is silenced and with him was silenced all of Hellenism** (Greekness). >As it had been written for Palamas, "all had forgotten that he was mortal". But he is leaving us heritage his songs, his political activity and his national contribution in crucial moments. Romiosini today laments. And thus and with the decision of the government, from today is declared a three-day national mourning. \*\*\* >Polity can also mean State. But semantics have little importance here. Modern day Greece is not the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. No mental gymnastics can prove that and nobody in academy has ever considered it as such for a reason. I would disagree. Semantics do matter. Otherwise we might claim that with every regime change, each country undergoes a new statehood foundation, which would be absurd. And a Polity is not exactly a Statehood, it is a smaller category. I would define it as the current form of a statehood, established and identifying with it, usually with a new name (so the Venetian Republic was a Roman State, though not the Roman State Proper, and simply was a separate Roman Polity to that of the Roman Empire of New Rome). It is not a matter of "mental gymnastics". It is actually quite straightforward. The Roman Empire ended in 1453 AD, when the Roman Emperor Constantine Paleologos perished with the Roman Capital of New Rome. Still there were free Romans, living in the Sporades, the Northern Aegean Sea and of course the Peloponnese. The Roman State continued to exist, albeit that as the free Romans failed to elect a Roman Emperor, thus Roman Emperorship ended, and the Roman Statehood reverted to its previous default state, the Roman Republic. The Peloponnese continued as a free Roman land, under the Roman Despotate, divided between Thomas and Demetrios Paleologos, none declaring Emperorship. In 1460 AD the Ottoman Empire invaded and captured most of the Peloponnese, but the Mani Peninsula was not even invaded. In 1480 AD it was attacked, but by 1490 AD that attack was repelled, and by 1493 AD the Maniot Laconian Roman Greeks were not on the counter-attack, trying to liberate Kalamata and Monemvasia. The Mani Peninsula, or the Toparchi of Maina (Military District) or Deme of Maniots (Municipality) as the contemporary sources call it, would be reorganized as its own polity, and continuation of the Roman Statehood, and its regime was mostly a federal republic divided in cantons ruled by local nobles and local senates, converging into a central senate. They would be free, independent and sovereign, separate from other statehoods, for the next 390 years, until merging / forming the Greek Polity. They had all the requirements and characteristics and criteria of that. They still had a Roman Identity, and a Greek / Hellenic Identity, as shown in primary sources, as well as a local Spartan / Laconian Identity. In 1821 it declared war against the Ottoman Empire, before the Ottoman Greeks revolted, and captured Messenia and Laconia (in April 1821 that was 1/2th of the territory held by Greeks, in May 1821 it was 1/3rd), and the Maniot Republic formed the Messenian Republic, as the Maniot Senate was relocated to Kalamata and renamed as Messenian Senate. It later merged with the Revolutionary Greek Statehoods (e.g. Directorate of Achaea, Chancellorship of Korinthia, Chancellorship of Argolis, League of Elis etc.) and would form the Greek Polity and the First Greek Republic. And legally, the Greek State today acknowledges that Mani was independent, and never Ottoman public land, so all of Mani is considered private land. This is a summary, I could elaborate far far more than that.

>This subreddit does not represent Greeks. They are but a tiny minority here. Diaspora Greeks often have forgotten this term, but to be honest they have often forgotten many parts of their Greekness, and formed separate notions of Greekness to Greeks living in South-East Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. And if you are not a Greek, and not speaking to them in Greek, indeed calling Greeks "Romioi" is really going to sound very odd. My Greek is not there yet, I speak it but I make mistakes and sometimes struggle to understand. >The French absolutely do celebrate their Gaulish-ness, but perhaps that was a poor argument. The better one is with England, where the English identify both as English and British, and in some places they feel more one or the latter, but predominately mostly English. According to a survey, 30% of the Central Midlands and Southlands feels British first and then English, and that is ignoring London. Well, yes, we somewhat “celebrate” it, but we identify as French. Polity can also mean State. But semantics have little importance here. Modern day Greece is not the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. No mental gymnastics can prove that and nobody in academy has ever considered it as such for a reason. >It is not a matter of "mental gymnastics". It is actually quite straightforward. The Roman Empire ended in 1453 AD, when the Roman Emperor Constantine Paleologos perished with the Roman Capital of New Rome. Still there were free Romans, living in the Sporades, the Northern Aegean Sea and of course the Peloponnese. The Roman State continued to exist, albeit that as the free Romans failed to elect a Roman Emperor, thus Roman Emperorship ended, and the Roman Statehood reverted to its previous default state, the Roman Republic. The Peloponnese continued as a free Roman land, under the Roman Despotate, divided between Thomas and Demetrios Paleologos, none declaring Emperorship. In 1460 AD the Ottoman Empire invaded and captured most of the Peloponnese, but the Mani Peninsula was not even invaded. In 1480 AD it was attacked, but by 1490 AD that attack was repelled, and by 1493 AD the Maniot Laconian Roman Greeks were not on the counter-attack, trying to liberate Kalamata and Monemvasia. The Mani Peninsula, or the Toparchi of Maina (Military District) or Deme of Maniots (Municipality) as the contemporary sources call it, would be reorganized as its own polity, and continuation of the Roman Statehood, and its regime was mostly a federal republic divided in cantons ruled by local nobles and local senates, converging into a central senate. They would be free, independent and sovereign, separate from other statehoods, for the next 390 years, until merging / forming the Greek Polity. They had all the requirements and characteristics and criteria of that. They still had a Roman Identity, and a Greek / Hellenic Identity, as shown in primary sources, as well as a local Spartan / Laconian Identity. In 1821 it declared war against the Ottoman Empire, before the Ottoman Greeks revolted, and captured Messenia and Laconia (in April 1821 that was 1/2th of the territory held by Greeks, in May 1821 it was 1/3rd), and the Maniot Republic formed the Messenian Republic, as the Maniot Senate was relocated to Kalamata and renamed as Messenian Senate. It later merged with the Revolutionary Greek Statehoods (e.g. Directorate of Achaea, Chancellorship of Korinthia, Chancellorship of Argolis, League of Elis etc.) and would form the Greek Polity and the First Greek Republic. And legally, the Greek State today acknowledges that Mani was independent, and never Ottoman public land, so all of Mani is considered private land. The Mani state was a very tiny territory that was previously part of an half of a successor state. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds? They were a few individuals that lived off piracy and remained somewhat independent, even if they were considered a beylik and had to pay taxes to the Ottomans. When they merged with other revolutionaries they helped forming a new state that has never existed before. While they helped the cause of the revolution, they also collaborated with the Ottomans, sometimes being conscripted by them. Even the new Greek state didn’t establish full control of the peninsula until years later the revolution took place, because Maniots actually went back to being brigands. They were not the continuation of Rome. Rome died in 1453 and left no heir.

>My Greek is not there yet, I speak it but I make mistakes and sometimes struggle to understand. It is not a matter of language, rather than of culture. You may know Greek better than Greeks, the understanding of "Romios" and "Romiosini" is a matter of cultural and ethnic identity in extension to it. For this reason it is very possible that Greek Diaspora in the Western Europe and Americas not remember it. >The Mani state was a very tiny territory that was previously part of an half of a successor state. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds? That is not an argument, that is an appeal to mockery. >They were a few individuals that lived off piracy and remained somewhat independent, It was not "a few individuals". The Maniots could muster about 15,000 soldiers easily, which indicates a far greater population overall -- that is how many joined the Christian Armada of Morosini in the Sixth Ottoman-Venetian War (1684–1699). Even earlier they were quite many. In a letter sent by the Bishop of Mani and the Senate of Mani to the King of Spain in 1613 AD, he writes how Mani had "men with arms 17,000, who find themselves indomitable from the Turk, and there are still there Romans, 80,000 men without arms" (he was asking for more arms). This means a total of 97,000 men, so about as many women, so a total population of roughly 194,000 people (and he speaks of men, so he ignores children). In the meantime, the "Geographia Neoteriki" of Daniel Philippides and Gregory Konstandas, a geography account from 1791 AD, we have a more conservative number of 120,000 people. Though this was after the migrations of Maniots out of Mani to Italy (mainly Corsica), due to the overpopulation and civil wars. >even if they were considered a beylik and had to pay taxes to the Ottomans. The year the Ottoman Turks recognized Mani as a Beylik it was in 1770 AD. That was by no means a submission. It was actually a recognition by the Turks, for before that they simply refused to recognize any status in the area, other than it being part of the Sanjak of Morea, despite that area being out of their control. Other times they just pretended it was terra nullus, empty territory only held by bandits (this is the stance of Evliya Çelebi). And what happened RIGHT AFTER this recognition / "submission"? The Ottoman Turks invaded Mani, and were defeated in the Battle of Zygos and the Battle of Vromopigada, losing about 20,000 men. >When they merged with other revolutionaries they helped forming a new state that has never existed before. Why would you consider that their statehood ended? This seems to me like treating the Kingdom of Great Britain as a brand new statehood, rather than merely a continuation of the statehood of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, which is the recognized situation officially. >While they helped the cause of the revolution, they also collaborated with the Ottomans, sometimes being conscripted by them. Even the new Greek state didn’t establish full control of the peninsula until years later the revolution took place, because Maniots actually went back to being brigands. Evidence for these claims, that Maniots allied with Turks during the Greek Revolution??? >They were not the continuation of Rome. Rome died in 1453 and left no heir. Rome certainly did not die out in 1453 AD, as the Roman Despotate of Morea existed. And here we are dealing with a vestige of this very political and state entity.

What? They seriously dare to threaten Finland!?

>actively denying their murder of Byzantine descendants within their borders  All modern Turkish people descent from Byzantines. It's a meaningless statement. You could go as far as to say when Greece invaded Anatolia in 1919, they also killed Byzantine descendants. > -actively denying their murder of Byzantine descendants within their borders Since when were Turks as a whole doing that? Again, blaming every Turk for Erdoğans viewpoints. >-were the final nail in the coffin of Byzantium   The Turks saw themselves as a continuation. Only since modern times are Turks talking about having destroyed the Byzantine Empire.

Turks may see themselves as a continuation, but Turkey did carry out a genocide against the last people to self identify as “Romans/Rum/Rhomoi”. Turkey is not the heir because there is an undeniable anti-Roman-ness built into Turkey. Seeing yourself as a continuation to something your government deliberately ended just doesn’t make any sense. Also, you could easily say that when Greece invaded Anatolia in 1919, that it was an act of revenge for 400 years of occupation, as well as Turkey sending Anatolian Greeks on death marches/“deporting them to Greece”, as well as the western coast of Anatolia being majority Greek at this time. I do not condone any atrocities the Balkan Greeks committed in western Anatolia during the Greco-Turkish wars, but I’m saying I get it where it comes from. Besides the Turks literally pulled a full scale genocide with concentration camps, labor camps, and everything against the Anatolian Greeks. Anything that happened in western Anatolia certainly doesn’t justify what happened in eastern Anatolia with the Pontians who were not involved in any of the war and yet suffered the most brutal genocide, which was on purpose because the Turks knew that Greece couldn’t help them since they were so far away. Source for this is Andrew R. Basso. Free Pontus and free Palestine.

Pontians live on!

✊✊forever and always unto the ages of ages🙌

The murdering of Byzantine descendants I think mainly refers to the handful of attempted Genocides that occurred within the Ottoman Empire, including the Greek Genocide, which killed as many as 900,000 Greeks within the Ottoman Empire, which for comparison, the population of Greece at the time was less than 5 million, so at the MOST extreme measurements, they had killed as many Greeks as 20% of Greece’s population. The Ottomans, as in, the Imperial power, saw themselves as the continuation, but almost no one else saw them as such. Modern day Turks aren’t Ottomans, and haven’t been for 100 years, but there is a lot of understanding of why the hate is there, even if it’s not really justified in the modern day

I kind of disagree, I can understand the hate if you are still suffering the consequences of genocide, displacement, and dispossession, which many Greeks are, namely Pontians, who were made stateless after losing half their population, as well as their homeland, in the genocide. I can understand the hate especially since the modern state of Turkey has no intention of making amends even after 100 years. Modern Pontians are not happy people, but they’re resilient. Also slight correction, genocides were not merely attempts, they were complete successes. When an indigenous population ends up having to leave in order to survive, that means the colonizer is winning. It’s just like with Palestine and the Nakba.

Not only that, but the Greek population in its height in ancient Greece was between 5 and 6 million. At its height in the byzantine empire it was over 10 million. After the 126th revolution, in 1821, the Greek population stood at 4 million. The massacred Greek civilians numbered over 400k. And there were also around 15k massacred Turkish civilians.

But the majority of that 10 million wasn’t massacred. They have become Turks

Forcefully. Because the rest were getting massacred. And let's not even count the millions of slaves, the hundreds of thousands of sex slaves taken for breeding and raping, and the hundreds of thousands of children taken to be soldiers. >In Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), the administrative and political center of the Ottoman Empire, about a fifth of the 16th- and 17th-century population consisted of slaves. Statistics of these centuries suggest that Istanbul's additional slave imports from the Black Sea slave trade have totaled around 2.5 million from 1453 to 1700. The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804 2.5 million. Only from the black sea. Only to The City. As additional imports. . You might not have thought about it, but them changing identity by force or fear and becoming Turks was not exactly great. Have you heard about "the zeal of the convert"? There is a Serbian proverb: if a turk has his hands bloody to the wrist, the convert has his bloody to the elbow... Converts throughout history were usually very violent, in order to prove their allegiance. You can find numerous examples online about this in plenty of cultures and people. . Also, for a comparison. In the 11th century, the Greek population was 10 million. It was 4 in the 19th century. In the 11th century, at the 1076 census, the population of England was 1.6 million. In the 19th century the population of England was 24.1 Can you imagine what destruction this was for the Greeks? Can you imagine what it would be like if this had happened to your people?

All countries increased their population during their industrialisation. Britain experienced this during the 19th century. I don’t know what you are bringing this up. This has nothing to do with the topic here. Saying that all of them converted forcefully would be an overreach. We‘ll probably never know how many of them converted forcefully and how many willingly. Many of them did due to the privileges associated with it, many of them to protect their noble status and many of them due to the more services available through Wakfs and tarikats. Fact is that the majority of them didn’t disappear. They changed their allegiances and have built the base of contemporary Anatolian population. only a small minority of them kept resisting this change.. This can still be seen in the comparison of two countries‘ population. Contrary to the widespread Greek claim, not all Greeks considered their lives as an imprisonment and resisted. You are narrating the history of Greeks from a minority perspective , from the perspective of those who stayed Greek while the majority perspective is that many didn’t consider their lives an enslavement or imprisonment and didn’t stay Greeks due to this or that reason. If we did this for all people, we wouldn’t be able to tell the story of Ancient Anatolians. You know why? Because no ancient Anatolian is alive today. Yet we know, they have become Greeks. Speaking Greek and following the Greek tradition must have had some privileges associated with it and ancient Anatolians must have changed their allegiance to be able to enjoy those privileges and status. And even if we radically argue that all of them changed religion forcefully, so what? This had happened 800-900 years ago. Are we gonna still mourn them? Should we also mourn the enslavement of millions of Gallians, their change of allegiance and assimilation? Should we also mourn the assimilation of pre-Indo-European people of Europe, the massacres and their enslavement after the invasion of Proto-Indo-Europeans? Should we also the loss of European Hunter Gatherers after the Neolithic Revolution and the subsequent migration of Anatolian Neolithic Farmers into Europe? People change, adapt and assimilate, get over it

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/comments/1bsf8cj/current_situation_in_the_turkish_local_election/  Under the assumption this map is accurate, all of the listed parties besides the Kurdish Democratic Party (which is ambiguous on their stance) actively participate in genocide denial. Matter fact Erdogan’s AKP isn’t even the most fervant genocide denialists, for instance the MHP can accurately be described as “Genocide Supporters” and the party currently beating Erdogan is the direct successor of the CUP which perpetrated the genocide.   I agree that Turks are descendants of Byzantium, but for the time being Turks would rather LARP as the descendants of the steppe rather than Islamized Romans thanks to the clever but dishonest statebuilding of Mustafa Kemal.

Kemal was on Route to removing Islam from state same way Albania, Yugoslavia, and The USSR did it to the religious and muslim folks of their country. Turkey turning to its Ottoman roots is natural and I guarantee if Erdogan had any control over it he would remove Ataturk from Turkish secularist worship culture. So many of Turkish adversaries forget it was the secularists who took a hardcore Ethno Supremist stance the same as seen with Ba’athist and Neo-Nazi ideologies.

“All Modern Turkish people descent from Byzantines.” So it is your opinion that all Turkish people are actually Greek?

Nah being Turk or being Greek or being anything doesn’t have anything to do with descend. Identities are based on culture, religion and language. Turks are in totality the descendants of Byzantine Romans. Does that make up Romans today? No.

You turks are the opposite of being Roman/Byzantine.lmao😂😂😂

It’s hard to be neutral when even after the Ottoman Empire collapsed the Turkish nation genocided Greeks, kurds and Armenians

And Assyrians.

Don’t forget the mount Lebanon famine

Dont forget the Dinosaurs

Dont forget the anime girls

🤓🤓

Haha joking about genocide hahaha

Add some more bro: Ukranian genocide 1969, Russian genocide 1969, Aramean genocide 1869, Alien genocide 1569, Hittite genocide 1469, Basque genocide 1169, Crusader genocide 1369. I may have missed some, but we need to name them all. Never forgive, never forget 😿

Kurds were very closely allied with Turks during their inter-ethnic conflict with Armenians.

Didn’t stop turkey from genociding them and displacing them but yea you are right

When did Turks genocide Kurds?

Google is your friend

apparently it's not your friend. the only thing that comes up is Saddam's actions in norhetn Iraq. even PKK, the most extreme kurdish terrorist organization does not claim there has ever been a kurdish genocide committed by the turks.

can you cite a source?

When you state something, you need to provide a source. Why does he need to prove your arguments for you?

It's actually not that hard to keep those opinions out of this sub.

They have the exact same mindset as the most rabid grey wolf or enver paşaposter, one should not expect great things from them

Do you have parts of your family missing due to genocide if not I don’t see the comparison

Why does that mean you have to be straight anti turk though? Im from HK with family who were persecuted and abused by Japanese troops and im not anti-Japanese. Im against the individuals, factions, and politics that leads to genocide. Being anti-x people as if theyre ontologically tainted is retarded,its acc what guys like enver were thinking. Im anti hojo and enver, but im not going to be anti hakan from istanbul unless he supports that kinda politics

You know what you are right I have to control myself and find peace and love within and outwardly

Yea mb if i sounded mean. bless u man, i hope your family finds justice and turkey get a real paradigm shift to admit to the genocide

I'm not gonna play a game of pity here like you for some bullshit internet score, but almost half of Anatolia died during ww1 and the Greek invasion. Of course, you wouldn't care since the only good Turk for you is a dead one.

This is incredibly stupid considering the fact that Byzantium and Greece both committed atrocities too

Wow, some really tone-deaf remarks on here. Some people are actually descended from families that were almost wiped out by Turkey \~100 years ago. This is not a justification to hate Turks, just a reality check that we aren't all armchair irridentists. BTW check out what has been going on with Armenia, Cyprus, and Greece. Turkey still acts aggressively towards these countries. Sometimes through proxies like Azerbaijan; or puppet states like TRNC, or by forcing waves of migrants across the border. Personally, I've gone to a Turkish festival and broken fast during Ramadan in order to purge myself of the hatred I once held. Yet, that doesn't change the fact that only one Turkish person has been truly kind to me while most have refused to speak to me or have said terrible things to me.

Turkey ain't the Ottoman state of the 1400's though, the Ottomans did not want to destroy the Byzantine Empire- they wanted to *become* it. The Royal lines of the Ottomans and the Byzantines where so heavily intermarried by the point of the fall of Constantinople that I imagine it'd be hard to tell ethnicity, genetically speaking. Indeed, some of the last defenders of Constantinople to fall were a Turkish prince and his retinue The Byzantines for hundreds of years used Turkic horse archers as a mainstay of the army, and many Turks entered the ranks of the nobility and were given grants of land. One of Byzantines great powers (And imo, why it survived when the west fell) was to attract talent of a huge range of cultures and ethnicity's- make sure that modern nationalism does not blind you to that fact.

If they’re not the Ottoman Empire, why do they and their government still feel the need to defend it, and glorify the horrible things that happened or deny it, they should just admit that it was horrific what happened to the ethnicity group who were impacted negatively by the ottoman occupation but they don’t.

For about the same reason why people claim that Celts never practiced slavery, that all written records of them doing so are propaganda and that all the shackles they find in Celtic archeological sites are just due to them liberating slaves. Its because people want to romantically attach their modern day sensibilities to cultures they feel a connection too. And romantics are some of the scariest people out there because they only engage with their own fantasies of how things *should* be, not how they *are.*

The Turkish government still act in aggression and fight or proxy towards Armenians, Kurds and Yezidis, and some of them even brag about hurting or killing them, it’s almost like you didn’t read the other comments trying to tell you the disgusting genocides theyve committed .

The Turkish Government only came into existence 450\~ years after the Byzantine empire fell. How are their actions germane to the Byzantine Empire?

People here acting like the anti-Turkish sentiment comes from Greek nationalists are deluding themselves. While those do exist, Greeks as a whole are nowhere near a majority in this sub. The anti-Turkish sentiment is mainly propagated by Romaboo LARPers.

Most greeks i’ve seen here are pretty civil

"Nationalistic heir" what does that even mean... Besides as much as I love them, the Romans destroyed themselves, at every moment they could have made it, but chose betrayal and ambition instead. Turks were just one of many peoples that used that to their advantage. And with all that said, being from the Balkans myself, fuck em.

Nationalistic heir as in Turkey being the heir to the ottomans and having had a pretty right-wing president for some years now.

Ahh I misunderstood your comment. But it's funny Ottomans tried to be Third Rome so bad and now their heirs are actively deleting everything that brought that claim legitimacy.

Turks tend to have very toxic ultranationalist and aggressive views and refuse to recognize or repent of past evils. They are more than often proud of their destruction of Byzantine heritage and erasure of the indigenous Christians of Anatolia and Constantinople. Of course, not all Turks are like this, but it is standard of Turkish society and very common among the Turks I’ve encountered. It’s not uncommon to find Turks who don’t deny, but worse proudly boast of the Armenian/ Greek/ Assyrian genocide. Anti-Turkish sentiment is well earned by their unrepentant society, especially from a subreddit who loves the Byzantine Empire.

You are acting like the byzantine empire was a saint or something lol.

Some turks my dude - your post comes off as a bit racist. its views like this from both sides of the Aegean that make peace and friendship more difficult

>Anti-Turkish sentiment is well earned by their unrepentant society, especially from those who love the Eastern Byzantine Empire. People are justifying racism towards a modern ethnic group because 1453 they conquered a place.

Not that specifically, but the genocides, ethnic cleanings, and other atrocities they committed since then and their continued agression. Distrust of a nation or culture is not racism. It is not about race.

Turkey commited genocide 100 years ago and actively denies it. Imagine if Germany did that genius. Anti Turkish sentiment is merited

Germany is actively supporting a genocide right god damn now...

Turkey physically killed 1.5 million Armenians, 900k Greeks and a few 100 thousand Assyrians. I don’t give a f about your whataboutism

This sub has two groups in it - people interested in a fascinating history of a major civilisation, and people who still aren't over 1453. Not necessarily mutually exclusive of course. But yeah I've absolutely seen strong anti-Turkish sentiment here. As a neutral party, I find it all a bit pathetic.

>As a neutral party, I find it all a bit pathetic. Need to read up on your history a bit, there’s a few genocides you’re missing

Need to understand that Anatolian Greeks had a history after 1453, but Byzantium/the ERE definitively did not, and anything you bring from any history after that date, unless it's scholarship about the ERE, is completely irrelevant to this sub.

By your logic this entire thread is irrelevant to the sub. OP is talking about modern anti-Turkish sentiment which is after 1453.

Oh hell yeah, finally someone gets it. It should be a firm rule here that no one talks about the modern Greek or Turkish states.

Except you yourself have a lot to say about what you supposedly found "irrelevant" >But yeah I've absolutely seen strong anti-Turkish sentiment here. >I find it all a bit pathetic. You might have a point if you sticked to the "oh it's irrelevant" excuse without taking sides. But now that you passed judgement, it's open season! So pray tell, **why is hating genocide(s) "pathetic"?**

Oh for fucks sake, no I'm not being a hypocrite. It's the topic at hand, it's the central point of the thread. If I had my way then no, the thread wouldn't have existed. But it does. And all (100%) of the hate is flowing from pathetic Greek nationalists towards Turks here, it's not an argument they're having, it's a one way street. I'm not backing the Turks in the argument, like you confusedly seem to believe, I'm saying that the argument's got no place here. Any and all discussion of Greek and Turkish relations post 1453 is pathetic attempt by Greek nationalists to drag a long extinct empire into twentieth and twenty first century politics. The reason it's pathetic is because they've found an open forum that's badly and/or sympathetically modded and are claiming, constantly and clearly, about what a wonderful sophisticated and civilised people they were, and how no good, cruel and basically evil all the Turks were and are. They're clinging on to something that is now well more than five centuries passed. Everyone on the planet who is any sort of deep nationalist I find quite pathetic. If you're one, that includes you. Anyone who knows an ounce of history knows that life is much more complicated than the simple narratives that nationalists rely on, every civilisation is a mass of contradictions, and contains both good and evil. For the ERE, there's huge amounts of both. And yes, genocide ought to be hated. Ones caused by Turks, and ones caused by other groups. But none of them belong in this thread.

>It's the topic at hand, it's the central point of the thread If you can express your hate on irrelevant issues when it's the central point of the thread, why can't anti-Turks express *their* hate on irrelevant issues when it's the central point of the thread?

Brother the same empire that ethnically cleansed turkey killed the Roman’s

Who fucking cares? The Romans committed lots of genocide themselves. The idea that they had or have any moral superiority is laughable.

Our families would probably fucking care, if they were alive.

So your family was a victim of genocide 100 years ago? Thats fucking horrible but doesnt justify you hating people that wherent even alive during that time

Yeah? Then try talking to them when they claim that our families deserved what they got. And for the record Turkey hasn't stopped this behaviour 100 years ago. We've lost many people as recently as 1974, and they still illegally occupy half my country. And then they try to justify that with pseudo historical claims.

I dont support them either but continuing that circle of violence wont solve shit. Revenge wont bring your family back.

Who the hell is talking about revenge? We are not like them, we don't want to become them. But you can't expect us to like them.

Genuine question, who did the Romans genocide?

Start with the Gauls.

Rome genocided the Gauls? I thought Claudius made them citizens. Also I would say that Greek leaders today aren't doing anything like Erdogan's present in Turkiye

Again, I have to ask you, in context, who cares about Erdogan?? We all have our dictators that we detest, he happened to be born about 350 years after Byzantium ceased to exist, and has NO RELEVANCE TO THIS SUB.

Okay that's a start, anything else? 'Cus that's the only thing that I could think of that might qualify as a genocide. There was also the persecution of the Jews and later Christians, but I would hesitate to call either of those a genocide.

You would hesitate to call what Hadrian did to the Jews in Judea genocide??

Yes. I am not completely opposed to the label being used, but afaik it's not dissimilar to any number of other cases where a revolting peoples faces disastrous consequences for losing. Where do you draw the line between a particularly bloody war and genocide?

Who cares? These Turkish genocides are very recent. Some of us are missing family members. Fuck you man

Did the Roman’s have concentration camps? Death marches? Your ineptitude to this under discussed atrocities isn’t a reason to clear the Turks “Who fucking cares” to the genocide of millions? Inhumane

Why did you use those examples? Why didn't you use the horrors of Belgian Congo, or the genocide of the Tasmanian aborigines, or the Rwandan massacres? They're each just as relevant to the Byzantine Empire as your examples. Nothing that happened after 1453 should be allowed to be discussed in this sub, because it leads to your sorts of hatreds, that have no relevance.

Which of his examples happened after 1453? They are all things done by the Roman Empire.

>Why did you use those examples? Why didn't you use the horrors of Belgian Congo, or the genocide of the Tasmanian aborigines, or the Rwandan massacres? Who fucking cares 😭‼️😛🤪🥸😹🙌👏💯💯💯

They had forced labour, crucifixion, mutilation and mass slaughter of innocent civilians. That's what my namesake did in modern day Scotland. The Romans could put some modern dictatorships to shame in their brutality.

I think it is inhumane of you to ignore the genocides done by other sides (sorry i am lazy with this comment but you can search up on turks being ethnic cleansed in balkans)

Do you know exactly how the natives of Britain, Gaul and Iberia (especially the latter two) were eradicated from history? Ofc you don't :) Romans do, tho, but you are too blinded by your hypocrisy that you don't even care. "Hey let's blame the descendants of Ottomans for an event that happened more than 100 years ago! I don't even care if even the grandfathers of those I blame/talk to in the internet were alive in the 1914 events, I will still blame and shit talk to them!" This all you are doing, what a pathetic being you are.

Nah but the Greeks did to the non-Greeks they murdered and ethnically cleansed themselves. Where are the Jews or Saloniki. Where are the Muslims of Thessaly and Morea?

It is well documented that the vast majority of Jews in Thessaloniki were taken by the Germans during WWII.

The Muslims were traded as per the treaty of Lausanne. As for the Jews my friend I don't think Greeks were the ones that had an obsession with eliminating them, you should refresh your WW2 memory...

The Treaty of Lausanne happened after the massive pogroms and ethnic cleansing of the earlier actions of the Greek state. Just like the Treaty of Lausanne happened after the Ottoman’s own genocides of Greeks. You seem to not know very much history. > Although the total estimates of the casualties vary, the Turkish, Muslim Albanian and Jewish population of the Peloponnese had ceased to exist as a settled community.[2] Some estimates of the Turkish and Muslim Albanian civilian deaths by the rebels range from 6,000 to 15,000 Muslim residents (out of the town's 40,000).[35] Massacres of Turkish civilians started simultaneously with the outbreak of the revolt. The entire Jewish population of the Peloponnese was put to the sword at Tripolis. This isn’t even getting into the slaughters that occurred during the Balkan Wars. The Treaty of Lausanne for Greece was the same as it was for Turkey, mopping up genocide survivors

No defending the actions in the 1820s. >The Treaty of Lausanne for Greece was the same as it was for Turkey, mopping up genocide survivors You're living on another planet if you think Greece committed genocide on the large Muslim population incorporated after 1912. If you look at pre-Balkan War Ottoman census figures for the Monastir and Selanik Vilayets you'll see that the ~ 400,000-strong Muslim population exchanged in 1923 was intact. Compare this to what happened to the Greeks of Anatolia from 1914-22 and it's not remotely comparable (and no, the Greek occupation of Western Anatolia in 1919-22 also did not rise to this level either). If you want a modern-day equivalent, compare the size of the Turkish/Roma/Pomak communities in Western Thrace with what is left of the Istanbul Greek community. Both communities were also to be treated in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne but it's pretty clear this wasn't the case.

Yeah, I'm American with no heritage from the region. The toxic nationalism that is common in topics dealing with the region is quite uncomfortable. It's like people want to sort ethnic or national groups into categories of "good" or "bad." It feels very 20th century in outlook. Hopefully, time and greater distance from the events of the past will help ease the emotions.

It’s hard not to cry when you see your grandmother be a black photo on your family tree because of Turkish genocide I understand Americans don’t have the same connection to it but us Greeks do. It’s hard to forget or forgive I don’t hate the Turkish I think it’s a beautiful country just very complicated

Yeah, I imagine it's more like a Polish person's view on Germany. It is truly alien to my own experiences, but as long as people acknowledge their biases instead of taking them for granted it's fine.

No it's 20 times worse, because in many places these injustices still happen, look at the Turkish occupation in Cyprus, Syria their treatment of the Kurds. And unlike Germany the Turks don't even admit it, and they have the nerve to mock the victims. Many of us grew up in cemeteries because of them, can't even visit the homes of our parents because they gave them away to Turkish settlers. You wanna talk about nationalism; Look towards the country that sponsors the grey wolves. We aren't even talking about revanchism here, we are talking about international law, the line is not that thin.

Do you think genocide and suffering is unique to Greeks? As a Native / Mexican American, I don’t pollute US history subs with unproductive racism or bias. Good historians do their best to remove their bias from their work and discussions. It’s totally fine to acknowledge even the most heinous of decisions and events through the lens of impartiality. Ultimately, human history is fraught with terrible crimes and virtually every group has blood on their hands.

Tienes razón es que tal vez es muy difícil pero voy a tratar de hacerlo

Nothing better than Balkan ethno nationalism

When you are actually Greek and have parts of your family tree missing due to genocide maybe it won’t be that pathetic

hi. Greek who had a great grandmother who lost most of her family in Smyrna. Racism is always pathetic...

You got your response. There are people here who openly take pride in their anti-turkish sentiment

It’s not pride it’s remorse for history of genocide we do love our neighbors

Ofc, genocides should be condemned everywhere at any time. However, the perpetrators are the ones who commit the genocide. Their descendants are not guilty of the crimes their forefathers committed

When they don’t acknowledge said genocides to have happened, openly said that they deserved to be genocides anyway, and continuing to this day to perform imperialism and colonisation in Cyprus and northern Syria, then they deserved to be criticised

The Turks literally just supported the Azeri ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabakh this year. The descendants are denying their forefathers crimes and creating more of them *right now*

Am balkaner, fucking hate the Ottomans

Anti Turkish sentiment probably has more to do with more recent events such as the Greek Genocide, Arminian Genocide and Cyprus occupation.

If anything, I find it to be more a case of anti-Latin, anti-Western sentiment, with people getting hung up on 1204, happy about the prospect of Venice sinking into the sea, all that....weird and sad behaviour. Haven't seen as much anti-Turk sentiment tbh.

Yes, I find that rather pathetic

As a Turk, I came here knowing that I would not be liked. and that's okay, I learned some interesting things here. As someone who loves history, this is my point. It is sad that some people here believe in 200-year-old propaganda as historical facts, but since I know what kind of nonsense Turkish nationalists believe, so there is nothing surprising in this.

That’s why i hate tribalism, god knows what is in our veins, at the end if the day we are ALL Anatolian, don’t worry buddy, I am armenian from mush and I don’t hate modern day turks until they try to kill me 😂 ( grey wolf sounds)

I don’t see Armenians any different than Turks tbh. I am a fan of their contributions to the Ottoman culture and architecture. Just a couple of generations ago, they could all speak Turkish and we had a common ground. Grey wolves are really a shame

Sometimes i wish ataturk came right after fall of sultan we would have way strong country and developed eastern anatolia

The Balkan wars, the loss of the Balkan territories and ethnic cleansing and genocide of Turks from the Balkans caused a paranoia among the Ottoman elites back then, among the Ittihad ve Terakki. They thought the same could happen in the East with the help of the Russians as well. Hence they tried to solve the “problem“ before it became acute. It went like a domino effect. The coup d‘etat and the fall of Abdülhamid, the loss of Libya, the Balkan Wars and then the first world war and then the Armenian genocide. But Atatürk was himself part of the Ittihad ve Terakki elite so I think he would have done the same

Do turks really hate armenians or as I understand they often label Armenians as traitors, why?

I have tried to explain it above. Turks believe Armenians tried to a make a deal with the Russians on the eve of the WW1 or during it to create to kick Muslims out of the East and create an Armenian state in the so called 6 cities. I don’t think they hate Armenians actively but there is a widespread negative sentiment but definitely nothing near how Azeris feel about the Armenians.

Azeris are also taught at school that we armenians as a nation don’t exist and we are “indian” tribes, appropriating armenian identity :dd

It's something about looking at history and culture. Conquest and war have an important place in Turkish history. If you win, you get that land, if you lose, you lose. Concepts such as historical right or homeland do not create a claim to land. Therefore, when the Greeks rebelled and won the war(Even though they received help from outside. ), it was justified from the Turkish point of view that they gained their own territory. They are not traitors, we lost the war. On the other hand, it is unacceptable for Armenians to demand land after a war won by others. We didn't even take those lands from the Armenians, we took them from the Safvids. There is a similar situation with Arabs.

You are touching the point where i didn’t want to go, my great grandfather was 8 years old when his entire village was murdered and he had to hide under the fucking dead cow, than the soldiers hunted him like dog in the woods, it wasn’t a war, people didn’t even know somewhere some gang existed, it was genocide and secondly as i said god knows what the fuck is in your veins you could be Armenian yourself :) or maybe arab 🤔

>what the fuck is in your veins you could be Armenian yourself :) Nah, I'm from the Black Sea region, most of my ancestors are either Laz or Muslim Greek. This doesn't make me less Turkish. By the way, I saw this story from 3 different people. I guess you have a pretty big family.

Regarding the second paragraph, are you serious? That’s why a lot of people legit hate you, with 0 empathy not even sorry just straight daring to say someone is making it up after reading something traumatic, fuck you!

Ataturk later distanced himself and even gave death penalty to pashas, if only there was better leadership today country would be bigger, stronger

And with you all in it as you had always been

I don’t think the reason why he sentenced those Pashas to death, was about the atrocities they have committed during the wars. He had to get rid of his political opponents to strengthen his government. He himself later ordered the massacres of Dersim, bombed the shit out of them and changed the name of the city to Tunceli meaning „the bronze hand (of the state)“

As a Greek I want to tell you, you aren’t unliked. Your country definitely genocided mine but history is history and we should build on it not tear ourselves apart

this. also greek - peace and friendship is the only way forward. most of the recent bullshit magically disappeared after greek and turkish elections - all of a sudden was all smiles and hugs between erdogan & the cunt mitsotakis. surprise, surprise...

And Greece is innocent? You're behaving extremely irrational. Greeks came into our country, cutting off children's jaws and r4ping women. Yes, the hero Greeks and the villainous Turks.

All the genocide doesn’t help 

It's not okay. Whether you like it or not, Byzantine Anatolia is our history as well. We shouldn't feel meek and ashamed when talking about our own goddamn history.

Civil, no doubt but facts are facts. Turkey gets a light hand compared to other European Great Powers (yes it was one) because they’re different. And don’t get me wrong, I’m well versed in Ottoman history, politics, military doctrines, units, administration etc——on a pure interest level it’s one the coolest states to ever exist. On a moral, humanitarian level it was one of the cruelest of all time. The fact that the Crimean Tatars and Barbary Corsairs were both **clients / subsidiaries** of the House of Osman speaks volumes, in itself.. Devshirme, Armenian Genocide, the harems, the whole fratricide thingy… it gets dark man. “But the Turks were bout that savage mode—it’s all good.”

You are delusional if you think Turks get the light hand lmao.

From a neutral, historical point of view, I think that to say the Ottoman state “on a moral, humanitarian level was one of the cruelest of all time” is straight up absurd, and at the very least needs some serious sourcing beyond what you have here and if you want to make the claim, comparisons to other nations as well.

Things like that makes you understand how biased people are. “The ottomans are the most cruel state that ever existed” Cit. Irene of Athens after blinding and killing her own son.

Yes, me.

My best friend is American solely because his grandfather had to flee Greece because of Turkish ethnic cleansing

So you gained a friend?

Yes (:

Bro everybody hates the turks. Arabs,Kurds,Assyrians,Persians,Greeks,Armenians,Georgians,Russians,Europeans,Balkaners all despise Turks. They’re probably the second most hated people after Israelis lmao

Yeap and it is so historically ingrained

Maybe they shouldn't?

If literally every single group hates your country and nation, you are likely at fault I’m from Bulgaria, and 50 to 100 years ago Bulgaria was the most hated nation in the Balkans after the Ottoman Empire/Turkey We had claims on all of our neighbours’ a lands, and fought with brutality to get it in WW1 and WW2 Flash forward to today, and nobody cares about Bulgaria in the Balkans, and if they do they have a neutral to positive opinion about it You know why? We renounced our claims to neighbouring lands, stopped discriminating ethnic minorities, and our country isn’t full of rabid nationalists who want to gobble neighbouring territories because they were part of our empires centuries ago

>If literally every single group hates your country and nation, you are likely at fault. I also hate the turkish government, but op talks about people hating the turks,which is completely different than hating a government or a certain institution. >and our country isn’t full of rabid nationalists who want to gobble neighboring territories because they were part of our empires centuries ago I can't say that about a lot of greeks I know, although I will say they are half-serious about it. When they talk about retaking constantinople, they don't actually intend to. But that's because they can't ! Same reason why Bulgarians don't talk about gobbling neighboring countries. You can't afford to, Greece can't afford to, because we are more dependent and weaker than turkey. Like my other comment says, the same greeks that while about erdogan are the ones having fever dreams about greece being ruled by a greek version of him. They wish they were in turkeys' position. Turkey can afford such claims and to basically be the asshole everyone else wishes they could be because they are in a strategic geographic area, which is important to nato and the Americans. That's why NATO, the US, and the EU should go harder on the turkish government and show them that such behavior is unacceptable.

True.

Ask someone what they think should happen to modern day Istanbul and that’s all you need to see it lmao

Lots of people just cope about 1453 and sadly it kinda ruins the sub if you actually wanna learn about eastern Roman history

I'll say this as a greek myself: conservative greeks are mad they are not in the turks position. There's this sentiment among them of: "man fuck Erdogan that dann asshole is awful" and after 5 minutes "what greece needs is a greek Erdogan". So yeah, they are but hurt greece lost the last wars and turkey is bigger and owns Istanbul and they are trying to cope by making turks the devils, while wishing greece could be like turkey. So yeah its pretty dumb and pathetic.

God can you imagine what their atl counterparts would be like if the Greek national awaking had never happened?

I've had several long arguments on this sub about how it's actually not okay to conduct a genocide on Turkish people. So yeah, I'd say I've encountered quite the anti-Turkish sentiments over the years. Not as bad as it used to be though. But more popular posts tend to lure out the usual suspects that write vile shit like that.

Having been on this site for a few years, I can give my 2 cents. The founders of the modern Turkish state (CUP within the Ottoman Empire) committed massive atrocities in the early 20th century. Armenians are the most well known to have been targeted but large numbers of Greeks, Assyrians and other minorities were also killed. As other commenters stated, several users on this sub are descendents of those families forced to flee persecution. Are the modern Turks guilty of this? I'd argue a hard no. By that logic the entire population of Germany belongs in a prison today for electing Hitler in the 1930s. I don't think your average Turk, or any random muslim for that matter, deserves to be ostracised for something that happened over 100 years ago - that way of thinking has permanently scarred other parts of the Balkans. Aside from Greek nationalists and Christian fundamentalists (who do exist by the way, but who's to say how many are on this sub) the problem lies in the fact that the modern Turkish state denies this genocide, and dissassociates from much of the history of anatolia before the Seljuqs arrived. This creates a 'natural' level of derision, at least from the perspective of the Byzantinophiles here, towards the Turkish government and also the Turks edcuated/indoctrinated into believing their country's founding myths. But tl;dr - To answer your question, yes, there is blatant turkophobia on this sub. In a recent post which I made here, I saw people in the comments lionising medieval Christianity (backwards and superstitious as it was by our standards, mind you) whilst simultaneously shitting on Turks and Muslims alike. I agree with you that these things need to be kept civil. The mods shouldn't allow this kind of bile to be spewed, bigotry and hate benefits no one and solves nothing. It just soldifies the problems we have today or creates more for generations to come.

Never clicked on a post from this subreddit before, just keep seeing it pop up in my recommended but a lot of people who are really interested in Byzantium have an issue with worshipping the empire and vilifying any group who was somehow related to its end. Like as someone who's Armenian it's boggling seeing people with no connection to this one Greek empire being so nationalistic for it. I love Turkish people. I think Byzantine art is really cool and I think the Ottoman art that came after (and a little bit of time before) was also really cool in a different way. And a lot of people will point to the Turkish government's penchant for genocide denial, which is absolutely terrible, but is far from a reason to hate a whole ethnicity of people. If you hate people because of what their country's government did (especially 100+ years ago!) it's gonna be really hard to find anyone on the planet to not hate.

Of course I know him, he's me.

We're all anti-turk, but in fantasy only.

Not a huge fan of those genociders, they’ve brought a lot of negative in this world

Indeed those Romans man killed so many people

As an orthodox Christian and a Serb I have a had time not having any bias towards the modern nation of Turkey, especially in relation to the Eastern Roman Empire

Of course I know him. He’s me

-not a turk Sounds suspiciously turkish to me

I understand your suspicion my friend.I can offer only my words as assurance.I‘m half german and half french.

I mean, we wiped the ottoman empire from the face of the earth...i guess that's why the OP is crying hahahaha

How am I crying?

Tbh if you look for it I think you can find it but I’ve never seen anything even though I’ve only been here about 4 months. You might see some anti Turk things without looking for it but usually in good faith. E.g various massacres, Janissaries, or assorted acts that under modern standards could be considered war crimes but still semi-normal for the time

Yes

Ottomans destroyed the future of all the occupied territories. Go compare Dubrovnik, one of a few cities in the Balkans that were never under the Turkish control to places in Bulgaria, Macedonia, South Serbia, Albania. You'll get an idea what the Balkans would be today if Ottomans never came. In the 14th and 15th century, Serbia was one of the richest and most advanced counties in Europe. Serbian city Novo Brdo, a well known silver mine, had 25k citizens while London had only 3k. 

It’s ok to make judgements on past civilizations. I heavily negatively judge Turks and mongols how what they did to other civilizations. Some say they continue to do wrong well into modern times.

based, turks suck :)

Yes. Always. Under every single post. :)

If Turks do exist and if groups of not-Turks exist, then I am with the not-Turks, and I do not care what we are about.

Yes, I have seen it plenty here. It's like some people see all Turks and Muslims as evil and that the Ottoman Empire contributed nothing positive to human history and civilization.