Tweet
Hellenic News of America, PA
Aug 26 2007
TURKEY?S DEBT TO ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY
By
Dr. Christos Evangeliou
Professor of Philosophy
Turkey as a nation is proud of its long history and rightly so. The
glorious path of this history, as taught in its schools, took the
nomad Turks out of the steppes of central Asia and spread them in all
directions. Especially in the South and the West, they were able to
establish themselves as the rulers over other and older nations such
as the Persians, the Arabs and the Byzantine Greeks. It is not
surprising then that even today Western authors who wish to
ingratiate themselves with the Turkish ruling elite (and the powerful
military that supports it) publish books with such flattering titles
as Sons of the Conquerors.
Certainly, it would not be fair to belittle the manliness and the
military prowess, which are naturally bred by the Asiatic steppe or
the Arabic desert. On the other hand, no one should underestimate the
fanatical zeal the religion of Islam can, and historically has
inspired the holy warriors to spread their faith to the infidels, to
fight them to submission, enslave them in the name of Allah and rule
over them for centuries. But, in the case of the Turkish conquest, as
well as in the case of the Arabic rapid expansion, goddess tyche or
luck was certainly a factor in their military successes.
By the time when Prophet Mohammed preached his message to the
faithful Arabs in Mecca and Medina and his successors were ready to
spread it to the infidels by the force of neophyte zeal (7th
century), the Persians and the Byzantine Greeks had exhausted
themselves by constant fighting that went on for many centuries.
Besides, the endless Byzantine controversies regarding the shape of
the Christological dogma had alienated the Christian populations of
the Middle East, Egypt, and North Africa. Like desert scavengers, the
Arabs exploited the situation that luck had provided for them. United
under the banner of their new faith in Allah, they moved rapidly to
conquer and either convert or eliminate the Christian populations of
these areas which were soon Islamized.
About five or six centuries later the Turkish nomads, moving slowly
down from the central Asian steppes, like packs of wolves, would
repeat in the North the Arabic success in the South, with greater
ease apparently, and with more spectacular results. They succeeded in
capturing Constantinople and overran the Anatolia completely, which
Arabs had failed to do, although they had tried hard. The reason for
this Turkish `glory' was again an apparent opportunity and good luck
rather than, as is usually claimed, the superior military prowess of
the Turks or their even greater religious and Islamic zeal.
With regard to the latter, the Turks could not compare or compete
with Arabs. Islam, as a new and militant religion, was a product of
the genius of Mohammed and the Arabic desert. It was dressed
poetically in the flexible and fluid language of the Arabs and only
adopted by the Turks later, half-heartedly, conventionally, and
conveniently. In retrospect, it would appear that the split and
strife within Christendom was the real reason of the Turkish
spectacular achievement of conquering and holding on to the
Hellenized Eastern half of the Roman Empire for more than half a
millennium. Thanks to Mustafa Kemal, they still hold Anatolia,
Constantinople, Eastern Thrace, and Northern Cyprus.
It may be simply a historical coincidence, but it is puzzling to
consider that the first victory of the Turks over the Byzantine
Greeks, in the battle of Mazikert in 1071, came just a few years
after the split between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in 1054.
Unexpectedly, the Latin Catholic Christian Church was separated from
the Greek Orthodox Eastern Church not only linguistically,
culturally, and administratively, but also dogmatically for the first
time in the history of Christendom. The split was to become definite,
and the gap to grow between the two Churches, after the fourth
Crusade, which ended with the capture and looting of Constantinople
by the Catholic Crusaders in 2004. The already weak Byzantine Empire
was thus mortally wounded and weakened even further. It was divided
by the Crusaders into a number of principalities, competing, small,
and impotent to withstand the attacks of the Turks who, like
scavenging wolves, were waiting to pick up the pieces of the Empire
at their convenience and with ease. There is a direct link between
the two fateful dates for Constantinople, 1204 and 1453.
Therefore, the cruelty and the foolishness of the fourth Crusade made
most of the Byzantine Orthodox Greeks to hate the Catholics with such
intensity that they were willing to embrace even the barbaric and
Islamic Turks of the East in order to avoid dealing with the
schismatic and Catholic Christians of the West.
This consideration would explain nicely the fact that the Turks were
able to advance into Greece and the Balkans with relative ease; it
would also answer the question why their advance into Europe
coincided neatly with the extent of Orthodox Christianity. Apparently
the Orthodox Greeks, and other Balkan peoples, had decided to side
with the Turks and keep their Orthodox faith supported by the prudent
Turkish system of millets. Turkish rule was harsh for the majority of
Orthodox population, especially the Greeks, but it allowed the
Hierarchy of the Orthodox Church to acquire also limited political
powers, similar to those the Papacy had enjoyed during the apex of
the Dark Ages.
In this respect, the historical debt of Turkey to the Orthodox
Christianity is great. Without the willingness and capacity of the
Hierarchy of the Orthodox Church to tolerate, to support, and to
prefer the Turkish rule over the Frankish rule, the Ottoman Empire
probably would not have expanded as rapidly as it did into South
Europe; it would not have extended as far as it did; and, certainly,
it would not have lasted as long as it did.
Orthodox Christianity, specifically the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople and New Rome, has been good for Turkey in the past and
can be of good service even in the future. It can facilitate again
and prepare the way of Turkey?s penetration of Europe.
Ironically, the Turkish diplomacy, in spite of its claims to
Byzantine cleverness, does not appear to have grasped the
significance of this historic fact; nor has it exploited as yet its
diplomatic potency. Turkey still insists in keeping the Theology
School of Halki closed. It does not address the Ecumenical Patriarch
with his proper title; it harasses it and the Greek minority, as well
as the Armenian and the Kurdish, while it knocks desperately at the
semi-closed door of the European Union. But its good luck may run out
with the time.
There is, however, some room for hope with the recent Election in
Turkey and the clear victory of the AKP, the ruling party of Mr.
Erdogan. He has proven beyond doubt that he is a charismatic and
popular politician. The second term will show whether he will use it
for demagogical purposes, and thus become a kind of Turkish Andreas
Papandreou; or will he rise to the challenge of the times and become
the new Kemal Ataturk. He could then put an end to the long Kamalist
regime and its inner contradictions. The most glaring contradiction
was Kemal?s effort to bring Turkey closer to Europe in terms of
changes in language, education, and law, while he and his successor
were trying to get rid of the most European segment of the Turkish
population, the Greeks, the Armenians, the Jews.
Erdogan?s new Government will have the opportunity and the power to
correct this and other wrongs. He should start with two changes that
are easy to make, open the School of Halki and recognize the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople with his historical and
legitimate title. These just and prudent acts will help both the
economy of Turkey and its process toward the European Union or, at
least, a Greek/Turkish reunion.
Dr. Christos Evangeliou is Professor of Hellenic Philosophy at Towson
University, and author of several books including the latest,
Hellenic Philosophy: Origin and Character.
http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.h tml?newsid=7108&lang=US
Aug 26 2007
TURKEY?S DEBT TO ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY
By
Dr. Christos Evangeliou
Professor of Philosophy
Turkey as a nation is proud of its long history and rightly so. The
glorious path of this history, as taught in its schools, took the
nomad Turks out of the steppes of central Asia and spread them in all
directions. Especially in the South and the West, they were able to
establish themselves as the rulers over other and older nations such
as the Persians, the Arabs and the Byzantine Greeks. It is not
surprising then that even today Western authors who wish to
ingratiate themselves with the Turkish ruling elite (and the powerful
military that supports it) publish books with such flattering titles
as Sons of the Conquerors.
Certainly, it would not be fair to belittle the manliness and the
military prowess, which are naturally bred by the Asiatic steppe or
the Arabic desert. On the other hand, no one should underestimate the
fanatical zeal the religion of Islam can, and historically has
inspired the holy warriors to spread their faith to the infidels, to
fight them to submission, enslave them in the name of Allah and rule
over them for centuries. But, in the case of the Turkish conquest, as
well as in the case of the Arabic rapid expansion, goddess tyche or
luck was certainly a factor in their military successes.
By the time when Prophet Mohammed preached his message to the
faithful Arabs in Mecca and Medina and his successors were ready to
spread it to the infidels by the force of neophyte zeal (7th
century), the Persians and the Byzantine Greeks had exhausted
themselves by constant fighting that went on for many centuries.
Besides, the endless Byzantine controversies regarding the shape of
the Christological dogma had alienated the Christian populations of
the Middle East, Egypt, and North Africa. Like desert scavengers, the
Arabs exploited the situation that luck had provided for them. United
under the banner of their new faith in Allah, they moved rapidly to
conquer and either convert or eliminate the Christian populations of
these areas which were soon Islamized.
About five or six centuries later the Turkish nomads, moving slowly
down from the central Asian steppes, like packs of wolves, would
repeat in the North the Arabic success in the South, with greater
ease apparently, and with more spectacular results. They succeeded in
capturing Constantinople and overran the Anatolia completely, which
Arabs had failed to do, although they had tried hard. The reason for
this Turkish `glory' was again an apparent opportunity and good luck
rather than, as is usually claimed, the superior military prowess of
the Turks or their even greater religious and Islamic zeal.
With regard to the latter, the Turks could not compare or compete
with Arabs. Islam, as a new and militant religion, was a product of
the genius of Mohammed and the Arabic desert. It was dressed
poetically in the flexible and fluid language of the Arabs and only
adopted by the Turks later, half-heartedly, conventionally, and
conveniently. In retrospect, it would appear that the split and
strife within Christendom was the real reason of the Turkish
spectacular achievement of conquering and holding on to the
Hellenized Eastern half of the Roman Empire for more than half a
millennium. Thanks to Mustafa Kemal, they still hold Anatolia,
Constantinople, Eastern Thrace, and Northern Cyprus.
It may be simply a historical coincidence, but it is puzzling to
consider that the first victory of the Turks over the Byzantine
Greeks, in the battle of Mazikert in 1071, came just a few years
after the split between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in 1054.
Unexpectedly, the Latin Catholic Christian Church was separated from
the Greek Orthodox Eastern Church not only linguistically,
culturally, and administratively, but also dogmatically for the first
time in the history of Christendom. The split was to become definite,
and the gap to grow between the two Churches, after the fourth
Crusade, which ended with the capture and looting of Constantinople
by the Catholic Crusaders in 2004. The already weak Byzantine Empire
was thus mortally wounded and weakened even further. It was divided
by the Crusaders into a number of principalities, competing, small,
and impotent to withstand the attacks of the Turks who, like
scavenging wolves, were waiting to pick up the pieces of the Empire
at their convenience and with ease. There is a direct link between
the two fateful dates for Constantinople, 1204 and 1453.
Therefore, the cruelty and the foolishness of the fourth Crusade made
most of the Byzantine Orthodox Greeks to hate the Catholics with such
intensity that they were willing to embrace even the barbaric and
Islamic Turks of the East in order to avoid dealing with the
schismatic and Catholic Christians of the West.
This consideration would explain nicely the fact that the Turks were
able to advance into Greece and the Balkans with relative ease; it
would also answer the question why their advance into Europe
coincided neatly with the extent of Orthodox Christianity. Apparently
the Orthodox Greeks, and other Balkan peoples, had decided to side
with the Turks and keep their Orthodox faith supported by the prudent
Turkish system of millets. Turkish rule was harsh for the majority of
Orthodox population, especially the Greeks, but it allowed the
Hierarchy of the Orthodox Church to acquire also limited political
powers, similar to those the Papacy had enjoyed during the apex of
the Dark Ages.
In this respect, the historical debt of Turkey to the Orthodox
Christianity is great. Without the willingness and capacity of the
Hierarchy of the Orthodox Church to tolerate, to support, and to
prefer the Turkish rule over the Frankish rule, the Ottoman Empire
probably would not have expanded as rapidly as it did into South
Europe; it would not have extended as far as it did; and, certainly,
it would not have lasted as long as it did.
Orthodox Christianity, specifically the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople and New Rome, has been good for Turkey in the past and
can be of good service even in the future. It can facilitate again
and prepare the way of Turkey?s penetration of Europe.
Ironically, the Turkish diplomacy, in spite of its claims to
Byzantine cleverness, does not appear to have grasped the
significance of this historic fact; nor has it exploited as yet its
diplomatic potency. Turkey still insists in keeping the Theology
School of Halki closed. It does not address the Ecumenical Patriarch
with his proper title; it harasses it and the Greek minority, as well
as the Armenian and the Kurdish, while it knocks desperately at the
semi-closed door of the European Union. But its good luck may run out
with the time.
There is, however, some room for hope with the recent Election in
Turkey and the clear victory of the AKP, the ruling party of Mr.
Erdogan. He has proven beyond doubt that he is a charismatic and
popular politician. The second term will show whether he will use it
for demagogical purposes, and thus become a kind of Turkish Andreas
Papandreou; or will he rise to the challenge of the times and become
the new Kemal Ataturk. He could then put an end to the long Kamalist
regime and its inner contradictions. The most glaring contradiction
was Kemal?s effort to bring Turkey closer to Europe in terms of
changes in language, education, and law, while he and his successor
were trying to get rid of the most European segment of the Turkish
population, the Greeks, the Armenians, the Jews.
Erdogan?s new Government will have the opportunity and the power to
correct this and other wrongs. He should start with two changes that
are easy to make, open the School of Halki and recognize the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople with his historical and
legitimate title. These just and prudent acts will help both the
economy of Turkey and its process toward the European Union or, at
least, a Greek/Turkish reunion.
Dr. Christos Evangeliou is Professor of Hellenic Philosophy at Towson
University, and author of several books including the latest,
Hellenic Philosophy: Origin and Character.
http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.h tml?newsid=7108&lang=US