What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Really? What about the "Fanariot regimes", then?

I think that the best way to understand the situation is to think of it as a "federal state", like the United States of America, Federal Germany or more aptly (oh, in so many ways!) what used to be called Yugoslavia until the early-nineties. These are independent states, with their own flag, governor, regional government/assembly, local religion, local dialects, local fashons or even local currencies. Even if they have this level of control over their own destinies, they are still part of a larger entity with one single supreme head of state. What you are actually saying is that because California has its own governor and flag, it is not part of the USA.

In the Romanian (or a better word would be "Danubian") Principalities, the rulers were appointed by the Porte and these tended to be "foreigners", usually Greek Christians originating from Fener/Istanbul - these included such "Romanian-sounding" names such as Cantacuzino, Cerkez, Callimaki, Cantemir, Ghika, Duka, Mavrocordat, Giuvara, Racovita, Rosetti. All of them were Greek Christians, belonging to the Ottoman Empire by birth/lineage/allegiance.

You are seriously wrong when you say that Turks were not allowed to own land or build mosques! I recommend that you consider such "Romanian-sounding" localities as Mahmudia, Topraisar, Ceamurlia, Cogealac, Agigea, Medgidia, Mangalia, Adamclisi, Techirghiol, Beidaud, Saringhiol, Casimcea, Cismeaua, Topolog, Macin, Nalbant, Cataloi, Tulcea, Bestepe, Murighiol, Saraiu, Topalu, Tortoman, Murfatlar, Amzacea, Cobadin, Cerchezu, Comana and so on and so forth... If these Turks were not allowed to own land, they surely were allowed to give those lands Turkish names. Furthermore, all of the above-named Fanarioti rulers (the majority born in Istambul) were land-owners and many localities are named after the townlands they owned.
Also, you will find old mosques (or ruins of such) everywhere.

The Ottoman Empire did not have a policy of proselytising the populations, which is the reason why those lands that were to later become Yugoslavia were allowed to maintain such a mosaic of disparate regions with conflicting religions/langauges/traditions, which led to at least one world war and lots of other Balkan wars. For the same reason the Greek Orthodox Church was still allowed to function and operate from Constantinople/Istambul. This is also the reason why the Ottoman Empire appointed Christian (the above-mentioned Fanarioti) to rule the Danubian Principalities - they did what was necessary to maintain a prosperous peace instead of trying to convert everyone and face ruinous rebellions. For them, a steady influx of grain and wealth from a peaceful land was more important than a specific type of prayer. This is an exact imitation of what the Roman Empire used to do.

You do not unserstand Islam! To become a Muslim you personally MUST WANT to become a Muslim without any duress or coercion from anyone, which is why you will not see a Muslim missionary similar to the Christian missionaries. Furthermore, the most indoctrinated and the most fervent Muslim will never want to sit down and talk to a Christian (have you found Mohammed? :-) ) in order to convince him/her to convert for the simple reason that extremist Muslims think that Christians are dirty heathens to be killed, not converted. In other words, a Muslim missionary (if there was such a thing) would leave a trail of masss graves rather than mosques in his (always a "him") wake. The Ottoman Empire did not encourage Muslim extremism becasue it was (and still is) "bad for business".

Remember that song "Tara te vrea prost"? Many "historians" concentrate too much on the early period of expansion of the Ottoman Empire, Mircea and Stefan cel Mare who tried to resist the Turks, but the same "historians" conveniently forget the hundreds of years that followed, during which the Principalities simply embraced a period of sweet torpor and allwoed the Porte to rule them until 1877 when a "War of Independence" was needed.

I recommend that you read "Intre Orient şi Occident. Tarile romane la inceputul epocii moderne" by Neagu Djuvara. It will explain a lot!

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on August 25, 2011 09:26 am

Radu, all those localities are in Dobrogea province, who was part of Ottoman Empire between Mircea cel Batran and 1878. This province was not part of any of Romanian provinces during this time.

Nope, i stand to my previous opinion, you are obviously wrong. The Romanian Countries can be at most compared with one of the Warsaw Pact countries vs USSR, and definately not how you say.
Even in that case, in most of the time the control of USSR over those countries (again, we was an exception, and we was usualy independent) was bigger then Ottoman Empire on Romanian Countries.
You example with USA is hilarious, no offence. California cant make international deals as independent country, dont have a Californian army, and is part of a federal entity, where a federal law is applied. Again, this was not the case here, with few exception during phanariot period (but without the Ottoman laws be aplied here, ofcourse)

Hmm, why "Danubian" is the better word? I dont get it?

The phanariotes ruled for about one century, some of them was Romanized, and Otoman law was not apllied here. This period was the close as you can get to consider the Romanian Countires as being close to be a province of Ottoman Empire. But even now not completely. I think you (and MMM) have some problems in understand the concept of suzeranity and vassal

I am sorry if i need to ask, but you realize that those are from Dobrogea, which is south of Danube, and the only Romanian teritory who was integrated in Ottoman empire?
Please give me an example of mosques (not XX or XXI century, as i understand that are couple builded then) from Wallachia, Moldavia or Transylvania, from all this period

The Ottoman empire didnt want to make all muslims, because those have lighter taxes, agree, but wanted to make enough of peoples from its provinces, so to have a better control of them and a greater loyality.
And trust me, this is nothing to compare with Roman Empire. Maybe you try to say the situation betwen Romanian Countries and Ottoman empire was similar with that betwen Roman Empire and its "client states", that can be true. But "client states"=/=Roman provinces

Hmm, maybe not, but how do you think many Albanians, Bosnians (meaning Serbs or Croatians) and even Bulgarians, as well Greeks, and so on, become muslims? Do you think they was suddenly convinced by the islamic spirituality, or that was convinced thru heavy taxes, permanent fear and vulnerability vs a more peaceful life and lighter taxes?

More exactly is "stapanirea te vrea prost, vrea sa te faca sa crezi ca supunerea e ceva normal, si ca asa a fost dintotdeauna, vrea ca mentalitatea de sclav si de supus sa fie de baza". This vs nationalist view. Previously, the nationalist view had the upperhand, now it seem they try to impose the mentality i talk about (romanii intotdeauna supusi unei puteri)

This is from a later period, after Mircea, Iancu, Vlad and Stefan

http://www.descopera.ro/cultura/4060913-io...odul-de-cremene

Is mostly copied after B.P. Hasdeu
http://www.dracones.ro/?operatie=subiect&l...oda_cel_Cumplit
And after Ioan Voda cel Cumplit was his brother, and after just 2 decades was Mihai Viteazul

I fail to see those "hundreds of years" you talk about? But i am curious to see, i remember you was very surprised one time to learn about battle of Vaslui, and its magnitude compared with contemporan battles

The "rule" of Porte was increased under phanariotes (so mostly one century), and after 1821 Revolution become decreasing and was just nominal in 1877.
The "little Unification" from 1859 under Cuza was done over Ottoman empire head, and Turks wasnt able to influence this even if was strongly against

This post has been edited by udar on August 25, 2011 02:42 pm

Udar,
The "Danubian Principalities" are Wallachia and Moldova - I used that term when referring to the Fanariots. If this perfectly valid and recognised term offends you, you should direct your protest towards others ... I did not invent the term. I am not aware of Fanariots in Transylvania, but I am open to new learning.
The Fanariots ruled in Wallachia and Moldova from the 18th to the 19th Century, almost 180 years. Before that the Principalities were paying tax to the Otoman Empire for at least another 100 years.

As for Islam and the rest... I said what I had to say. You can disagree with me, it does not bother me in the least. It is nothing that I feel strongly about one way or another.

Contras,
Yes, I know that they are in Dobrogea. I grew up there.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on August 25, 2011 03:53 pm

He is not wrong at all.

The autonomous statute of the Principalities meant that the Ottoman Empire did not have the right to settle muslims there (Bogdan Murgescu, Romania si Europa. Acumularea decalajelor economice, Polirom, 2010, pag.31).

Conversion to Islam under duress was accepted by Muhamad himself and was therefore a common occurence.

They were like that for a while, at the beginning of the period of Ottoman dominance. But as time went by they became more like Radub is saying. They didn't have foreign policy as independent countries, they didn't have a national army.

To quote the book I mentioned in my reply to Radub, the period of Ottoman dominance sees several stages: first stage the payment of tribute in exchange for peace, second stage protective suzeranity in exchange for aligning their foreign policy to the Ottoman Empire's foreign policy and third stage an "effective and restrictive suzeranity".

Well, I remember having this discussion with one of my lecturers in university (a Muslim from Indoensia). According to him (I did not read the Qur'an) there is a verse in Qur'an that states that there must be no forced conversions. He is the one who explained to me that there was never a proselytising or "missionary" movement in the Islam - definitely there was nothing similar to what the Christian Church had (and still have). And I still believe him.

According to wikipedia, forced conversions to Islam happened in some isolated cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion - but even in Wikipedia this issue of "forced conversion to Islam" appears to be disputed.

Anyway, this red-herring about "forced conversions" is a moot point because there is no evidence of any kind that the Ottoman Empire ever carried out a policy of forced conversion anywhere. So the absence of "forced conversions to Islam" is not the "smoking gun" that proves that the Ottoman Empire was not involved in the Principalities.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on August 25, 2011 06:22 pm

There may be verses, but Muhamad himself accepted the conversion of Abu Sufyan (he was leader of the Quraysh who controlled Mecca), which was a conversion under duress. The conversion took place just hours before Muhamad's vastly superior forces were about to attack Mecca and after Sufyan realised the city had no chance.

Then, after the conquest of Mecca, Muhamad sent out men to bring the rest of the tribes to Islam "peacefully" (obviously, if they didn't resist) and to destroy their idols. A kind of "missionaries".

Forced conversions (may have) happened, but the Qur'an still forbids it.
Fact remains that the Ottoman Empire, the subject of discussion here, did not have a policy of forced conversion. I am sure that you will be able to find other examples of forced conversion in some places but I am just as sure that you will not find many cases of systematic forced convesrion in the Ottoman Empire. And that is the issue here. It was alleged that because there were no cases of forced conversion in the Principalities, that is evidence that the Ottoman Empire had no influence here. All I am saying is that the Ottoman Empire never did that anywhere, so that is a fallacious argument.
Radu

I didnt said its offend me, i was just curious why Danubian is a better term then Romanian, as you said?
It can be Carpathian as well for ex.

As far as i know, and you can correct me, the phanariot period is considered from 1711 to 1821, so 110 years, about a century.
And yes, i agree that was periods when tribute was paid to Porte, but that doesnt mean that Romanian Countries was Ottoman provinces, ofcourse. As you can see up to the XVII century it was many times an independent position of them, making alliances with others as well, sometimes following Ottoamn demands, sometimes going to war against Ottomans.

In rest, it is nice for you to share with us your opinions about if you care or not what i said, and i definately agree is just a relaxed forum discussion, and you dont need to have strong feelings about it

Danubian Principalities is an established tem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danubian_Principalities
I do not think the same applies to ... Carpathian Principalities.

Radu

Another kind of war?

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/09...de-fapt-si.html

Yeah... So if I understand correctly, the internet is used by certain people (or "agenturili") to manipulate people's opinions. Or so says a certain person who is using the internet to manipulate our opinions. In othe words, "their" manipulation is bad, but "our" manipulation is good.
Nothing new there.

Radu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tYNE0RkAFg