# Τουρκοκρατία/Οθωμανοκρατία?



## shawnee

While my reading suggests that Τουρκοκρατία is the most popular term used in Greek historical discourse, my understanding of events leads me to prefer Οθωμανοκρατία. What sort of (political/social/academic) pickle would I get myself into if I stuck to Οθωμανοκρατία? 
I hope this is an acceptable question.


----------



## Acestor

Το μόνο πρόβλημα είναι ότι ο καθιερωμένος όρος είναι Τουρκοκρατία (από το 1834, νομίζω). Οπότε, αν και δεν υπάρχει κάτι που να ενοχλεί στον όρο Οθωμανοκρατία, οι αναγνώστες θα αναρωτιούνται γιατί άραγε να διάλεξες αυτόν τον όρο. Μπορείς βέβαια να εξηγήσεις την προτίμησή σου.


----------



## shawnee

Πολύ σαφές  Acestor  ακριβώς έτσι είναι. Απλώς προτιμώ, χωρίς να επιμένω, τον όρο Οθωμανό λόγου του ότι κατά τη γνώμη μου απεικονίζει πιο σωστά την ιστορική πραγματικότητα. Δηλαδή ναι μεν οι άνθρωποι ήταν Τούρκοι, άλλα η αυτοκρατορία ήταν οθωμανική. Εντούτοις βρίσκω το αγγλόφωνο όρο Ottoman πιο ικανοποιητικό. Έκανα την ερώτηση μήπως είχε αλλάξει η καθιερωμένη στάση αντί την  ορολογία από τους σχολιαστές τα τελευταία χρόνια.                          
Ας μείνει η ορολογία όπως είναι το λοιπόν, δεν είμαι αυτός που θα πάει κόντρα.

Τώρα παρατήρησα το "1834". Εγώ μιλαω για την μεταβυζατινή περίοδος, έτσι δεν είναι;


----------



## cougr

Notwithstanding the fact that _τουρκοκρατία_ appears to be the more frequently used term, the terms _οθωμανοκρατία_ or _οθωμανική κυριαρχία_ do enjoy significant usage, therefore I can't see why you couldn't use one of the latter options.


----------



## Perseas

shawnee said:


> Τώρα παρατήρησα το "1834". Εγώ μιλαω για την μεταβυζατινή περίοδος, έτσι δεν είναι;


Ο όρος "Τουρκοκρατία" αφορά όλη την περίοδο από την πτώση του Βυζαντίου μέχρι τη δημιουργίου ανεξάρτητου ελληνικού κράτους. Δε θα υπήρχε πρόβλημα αν χρησιμοποιούσες τον όρο "Οθωμανοκρατία", πέραν του ότι αυτό που έχουμε συνηθίσει να ακούμε είναι "Τουρκοκρατία".  (Συμφωνώ με Acestor και cougr).



cougr said:


> ...the terms _οθωμανοκρατία_ or _οθωμανική κυριαρχία_ do enjoy significant usage, therefore I can't see why you couldn't use one of the latter options.


Especially, "οθωμανική κυριαρχία/κατοχή".


----------



## Acestor

shawnee said:


> Τώρα παρατήρησα το "1834". Εγώ μιλαω για την μεταβυζατινή περίοδος, έτσι δεν είναι;


What I meant was that the term was coined by the historian Ioannis Philemon in 1834 and has been in use since then. I agree with cougr that the other terms are also used but it is significant that Οθωμανοκρατία is not even found in dictionaries. It is quite likely that people who use these terms are influenced by the same considerations as yourself or by the English term (Ottoman rule).


----------



## shawnee

Acestor said:


> What I meant was that the term was coined by the historian Ioannis Philemon in 1834 and has been in use since then. I agree with cougr that the other terms are also used but it is significant that Οθωμανοκρατία is not even found in dictionaries. It is quite likely that people who use these terms are influenced by the same considerations as yourself or by the English term (Ottoman rule).



I think I actually understood your intended meaning there on first reading. It was on reflection that I mixed it up! Your observation on the reason for the use of Οθωμανοκρατία among some writers is interesting. It should also be noted that the favoured Greek term _Tourkokratia_ has also appeared in the writing of many English speaking scholars. 
Thank you very much for your insight on the subject.


----------



## shawnee

Perseas & Cougr:    	 	 	 	   Σας ευχαριστώ για την συμβολή σας. Θα χρησιμοποιήσω και τους δυο τρόπους αναλόγως.


----------



## fdb

As you probably know, the name is ʻuϑmānī in Arabic and Osmanlı in Turkish. English "Ottoman" results from contamination with the Germanic personal name Otto. Oϑωμανικός (with ϑ) is a bizarre hybrid of Arabic and English.


----------



## fdb

apmoy has kindly reminded me (privatim) that the German name Otto does appear in Greek as Ὄϑων. Consequently, we can leave Arabic out of it. Oϑωμανικός is a pseudo-Greek transformation of English or French “Ottoman”.


----------



## shawnee

Much welcome food for thought there fdb. I had a hunch there was more to this topic, but wasn't on that wavelength at all. Thanks also for pointing out that it was Osmalı and not Osmanli as I had previously thought.


----------



## sotos

shawnee said:


> What sort of (political/social/academic) pickle would I get myself into if I stuck to Οθωμανοκρατία?
> I hope this is an acceptable question.



You will only be criticized for "political correctness",  "neo-liberalism" and the likes. It has already been an attempt to erase "tourkokratia" from a school-book of history (that famous book of Mrs Repousi) and the this endeavour was not taken seriously by the Greek society. Sticking in the linguistic part,  "turk" meaned "mouslim" (of any language/nationality), and as such the term is justified in the view that the  Ottoman Empire  was a theocratic system based solely on the Koran till mid 19th century. Also, by accepting "Ottomanokratia" you leave out the period and places of the Seljuk Empire.


----------



## cougr

sotos said:


> ..... Also, by accepting "Ottomanokratia" you leave out the period and places of the Seljuk Empire.



The same applies to "Tourkokratia".


----------



## shawnee

Thanks *Sotos*, that is precicely what I was after. I do remember the school book controversy, but being far from the events I had not an idea of the details; most interesting indeed. I suppose I fit on the side of the fence that believes that not all political correctness is bad. I would much appreciate any link to a Greek debate on what is clearly an 'issue'. Thanks also to *cougr* for additional comment. I wonder if this may not be a topic suitable for wider discussion on another forum on this board?


----------



## sotos

shawnee said:


> I suppose I fit on the side of the fence that believes that not all political correctness is bad.


Aggree, if we are talking about a socially developed  western country. In Greece, unfortunatelly the "political correct" is constantly distant from the public opinion and closer to some clubs of american universities alumni.




shawnee said:


> I would much appreciate any link to a Greek debate on what is clearly an 'issue'.


See this scholarly paper by St. Meselidis : http://books.google.gr/books?id=lBp...el&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## sotos

cougr said:


> The same applies to "Tourkokratia".


No, if it is understood that "Turk" means muslim. Another case: During the era of Ali Pasha, half of Greece was practically more  under "Alipashocracy" than under "Ottomanocracy". But Ali Pasha was  "Turk" only in religion and as such was viewed by the Greeks.


----------



## shawnee

[/QUOTE] See this scholarly paper by St. Meselidis : http://books.google.gr/books?id=lBp...el&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false[/QUOTE]
Thank you Sotos I found that very interesting indeed.


----------



## shawnee

sotos said:


> No, if it is understood that "Turk" means muslim. Another case: During the era of Ali Pasha, half of Greece was practically more  under "Alipashocracy" than under "Ottomanocracy". But Ali Pasha was  "Turk" only in religion and as such was viewed by the Greeks.


My understanding of this question would be to address the fact that 'in the past' the terms were applied thus, but now we understand differently and must use our terms accordingly. We know that Ali Pasha of Tepeleni never identified as a Turk, nor as far as I know did he speak Turkish, so to refer to him as a 'Turk' in current historical narrative would be outrageous in my view. 
> I am struggling to keep this within the guidlines of a language question. I beg Ireney consider parking this elsewhere because I think it has potential for a much larger and informative discussion.


----------



## sotos

The established term for Ali Pasha and other muslim Albanians is "Turk-albanian". Since he was actually an enemy of the Sultan, you can hardly call him an "Ottoman". Therefore, the term "tourkoracy"  holds well, for linguistic and historical reasons.


----------



## shawnee

This discusion has raised my awareness for the use of the terms in question. My writing will be the better for everyone's contribution. Again, many thanks.


----------



## cougr

sotos said:


> ......Ali Pasha...... Since he was actually an enemy of the Sultan, *you can hardly call him an "Ottoman"*. Therefore, the term "tourkoracy"  holds well, for linguistic and historical reasons.



Yet in countless history books he was precisely referred to as such.


----------



## shawnee

sotos said:


> The established term for Ali Pasha and other muslim Albanians is "Turk-albanian". Since he was actually an enemy of the Sultan, you can hardly call him an "Ottoman". Therefore, the term "tourkoracy"  holds well, for linguistic and historical reasons.


I think there was a misunderstanding here. When I said I would not call him a 'Turk' I did not imply that I would call him an 'Ottoman' as an alternative. Self serving, Ali Pasha is a special case, and I don't think an appropriate example here. He both fought the Turks, but was ultimately revered by them as a great Muslim war lord.


----------

