[BadbarmrapBef]

there is no need for such language, if you continue with it i will simply ignore you.

if you act in such a way its not my selection of words that should trouble you.

the Ottoman empire was Islamic yes, but it was more then anything pragmatic, this means that in cases where the sultan had to choose between Islam and the empire they usually choose the empire.

do you dissagree that the ottoman empire was an islamic empire in which the christian poppulations were oppresed, an empire that resorted to massive violence?

do you dissagree that the austrohungarian empire wasn't an islamic empire? (and all what is meant by the term islamic)

this is waaay of topic..so i will ignore it as its not relevant to thread..

what is out of topic?
that the ottomans enslaved and slaughtered 5/6 of an islands poppulation?
isn't this a great indication of how muslims treated christians?

put yourself in their possition, would you sit and watch?

ofcourse in a landscape where you where separated by religious millets conflicts would usually rise between the various groups within close proximity to each other, but these conflicts are long standing and are not part of the nationalist struggle as such, but i agree that they became part of it, but it was still a ethnic conflict, religion can in the case of Greek Muslim and Greek Christian be a defining element of ethnicity..but the major difference to be noted is between Greek and say Macedonian ect, who are also Christian orthodox as Greece, they are two ethnicities with two separate struggles in about the same timespan trying to achieve the same on the basis of nationalism.

albanophone A speaking albanian , having the very same south balkan culture, and being an orthodox christian

albanophone B speaking albanian, having the very same south balkan culture, and being a muslim.

they killed each other in war, is this an ethnic conflict?
how was it an ethnic conflict when people from the same ethnic group fought?

first off i dont know why your going so off topic here? the Byzantine empire has little to do with nationalism in the Ottoman empire period.

second your millet system is overly simplified, maybe you are referring to a very early model of it?

third, there have been ethnic identities in most of the Balkan peoples dating back into Ottoman times, pre-nationalism times: Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Hungarian ect..some however are more modern constructs such as Kosovoan ect.

MOST of the identities were non existant at the time, there were linguistic identities around but not ethnic ones.
"vlachs" meaning the ones who would later become romanians and moldavians had Greek phanariotes rulers of moldovlachia.
bulgarians had a Greek clergy since the conquest of bulgaria by the turks, because turks slaughtered all the bulgarian priests and we filled in the position.
albanians had no identity other than a linguistic one.
turks had no ethnic identity untill kemal ataturk.

and the revolution took place was due to many different factors, mainly because the poppulations were oppressed economicaly, religiously, and socialy.
balkan nationalism as it is displayed in the balkan wars was the product of the greek revolution, the greek revolution itself wasn't an ethnic conflict, it was a religious conflict with a few elements of an ethnic conflict.

i am a historian who study history:P focusing on the classical period into mid evil period..so i do have some clue about this..

you seem locked in a mindset evolving around religion and it seems you are set in a defensive position, i have argued with you about religion before and i saw it then too..too bad you dont see it..try to think outside the religious box..

having a Turkish gf is irrelevant to my views on this, i doubt most turkish forum members would agree with you..

oh yes, i am sure having a turkish gf isn't affecting your views at all...
and i ask you again

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?

and mate, even if i would be an atheist, that doesn't change what happened 200 years ago or the actual differences between the religions, as well as the way these can be seen in history.