[JessicaLin]

are you an idiot or you are trying to appear as one?

what part from the simple phrase "the ottoman empire was an ISLAMIC empire" you don't understand?

first of, you should not take the precursors for empires to intervene too seriously, like the russian empire using Christianity to attack the Ottomans at every chance they get, it is clear that empires usually behave in a pragmatic way, otherwise they would not last very long.

yes i do know that empires behave in a pragmatic way, and that "pragmatic way" is VIOLENCE for the ottoman empire.
here educate yourself, learn about the masacre in chios island which was only one of the many.

"When the Greek War of Independence broke out, the island's leaders were reluctant to join the revolutionaries, fearing the loss of their security and prosperity. However, in March 1822, several hundred armed Greeks from the neighbouring island of Samos landed in Chios. They proclaimed the Revolution and launched attacks against the Turks, at which point islanders decided to join the struggle.
Ottomans landed a large force on the island consequently and put down the rebellion. The Ottoman massacre of Chios expelled, killed, or enslaved five sixths of the 120,000 Greek inhabitants of the island.[30] It wiped out whole villages, and affected the valuable Mastichochoria, the mastic growing villages in the south of the island. It triggered negative public reaction in Western Europe, as can be seen in the art of Delacroix, and in the writing of Lord Byron and Victor Hugo."

secondly, the conditions for ethnic tension all over the Balkans are the same regardless of imperial ruler, the outcome and reasons for revolt differ yes, but not in a radical way, Greek nationalists may have used Christianity as a motivator, but it was not the main reason to separate themselves from Ottoman rule, if you believe that you do so with little understanding of history.

mate, as i said before it was religious tention not ethnic.

my very own village which was inhabited by:
a) greek speaking christians
b) greek speaking muslims
they were from the same ethnic group, they spoke the same language, they listened to the same songs they had the same traditions and all the rest.
that is NOT ethnic tention, that is RELIGIOUS tention.

there were christian albanophones (aka arvanites) with christian greeks
against
muslim albanophones (aka albanians) with "turks", meaning muslims in general that included also muslim greeks.

that is not a conflict of ethnic groups, its a conflict of religious groups, identities existant or not are irrelevant.
and we are talking about the begining of the downfall, ofc if you will mention the balkan wars then yes, it was ethnic conflicts.

here educate yourself some more

third, nationalism had everything to do with the breakup of the Ottoman empire, without it Greece would not have become independent as it did, though Greece relied more on western sympathies and the balance of power then anything else, it did not manage independence on its own.

nationalism in the Balkans spread to Christian merchants/translators first as these where the people who behaved as intermediates between the Ottoman empire and the rest of europe, until nationalism caused open rebellions, after that other ethnic groups took over due to Ottoman fears that they relied too much on Greeks (mainly) for their contact with an increasingly powerful europe.

After the fall of the byzantine empire and during the ottoman time, a harsh ideological conflict began among the three names of the greeks. this arguement stoped for a period of time after the greek revolution of 1821, but it was complitely solved just in the begining of the 20th century with the occupation of minor asia by the turks.

the preparation of hellinism for its national awaking, is clear that contains many parameters which will be analysed so the brewings of the pre-revolution period will be understood.
the contribution of the neohellenic enlightment in the preparation of the awaking of the Hellenic nation is great, because with the works of the hellenic intelectuals of that time, they contributed on the shaping of the neohellenic concience, the language and the education of the hellenes.
the intelectuals concidered education a basic foundation of our national awaking. and this movement was the moving force for this cause, by transfering the ideas of the european englightment by translating works of the grand englightmentists of the west.
as a general phenomenon it is observed the creation of ethnic groups, which even if they are living inside multiethnic empires, they began to request their independance.

in the hellenic space things are differentiated. Greece was an alloy of languages, civilisations, ethnic groups and religions. also it was a part of a multiethnic empire which couldn't compare with europe. The lack of education and laws was its basic characteristic. the sultans were not friends of "letters", of the arts and of the sciences, like the european monarchs which cultivated these in their courts. the ottoman state had a complitely different character, a different dominant religion, different customs, different political organisation. the ethnic groups that lived in the empire were seppareted into millets, like the millet of the faithfull, the millet of the jews and the millet of the romans (rum).
it is a fact that the enslaved greeks were in a better condition than the other millets, since they had their own administration and they took part in the administration of the empire.
the basic meanings which will be aproached are the meanings of the genos and ethnos, and also the three ethnic names will be analysed, the roman, greek and hellin.
it is a fact that during all the duration of the neohellenic englightment of which the goal was the englightment of the genos and its resurection, there have been oppinions about its name but also about its language.

the concepts of genos and ethnos sometimes they come close and sometimes they are really far. in the texts of englightment both of these terms exist, many times with different "colours".
in the begining the genos is based on ancestry, while in later representatives of the englightment and majorly in the radicals it looses its ecumenical form.
and because the expectations of the genos change and divert towards the creation of a national state so the term ethnos comes up.
With the term genos it is meant the whole group of greeks which inhabits the lands of the former byzantine empire, of which is inherited. their main expectation is the resurection of the empire which is now under the dominence of the conqueror, that with his tolerance the enslaved managed to climb the comanding classes and took part of the authority as well as of privilages.
in some way the genos is in analogy with the religious identity of the greeks, it wasn't against the empire and it was in the millet, the religious group that was a custom of the ottomans.

in contrast the ethnos, is about new ideas. this term is the outcome of nationalistic trends, based on the preachings of the englightment, of the french revolution and it is a turn towards ancient greeks with models athens and sparti. here the expectation is the creation of a national democratic state, which hasn't got as a center constantinople but mainland greece. we see the appearence of the term "hellenic homeland".
as we can assume the ethnos isnt about religion but about politics and it was created later on.
the existance of these terms come along with the names of the greeks in which we have three names.

~~~~

do you know the differences between the concepts of genos and ethnos?
do you know that the revolution was the "uprising of the genos" and not the revolution of the ethnos?
can you explain the differences between the identity roman and hellin?
how can you explain that arvanites and vlachs who weren't a part of the greek ethnos but where a part of the greek genos revolved with the greeks if it was a national revolution.
how could any tention be "ethnic tention" when most balkanic "nations" didn't have any identity?

from your other posts ect ive noticed that you keep seeing the world through religion allot, it would serve you best to not do so when dealing with history, the biggest agent in history is Economical and that is usually the agent for change in society...

what is your malfunction?
and ok, i do understand that you have no clue about the ottoman empire, the greek revolution, the identities in the balkans and all the rest.

but don't you have the basic inteligence that is required to understand that a christian empire =/= an islamic empire?

but wait, wasn't you the guy with the turkish girlfriend?

and note: i didn't even have to mention the thourios and the syntagma of rigas fereos, the revolution in moldovlachia, osman pasvantzoglou, the way the modern greek identity was "rediscovered" back in the 10th century ad, and all these interesting stuff that i know but unfortunately you don't.