User talk:KeremTuncay

Welcome!

Hello, KeremTuncay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Baristarim 00:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine capitals[edit]

To avoid a revert war, I'll make my position plain here: Morea and Trebizond may have been satellite states, but that does not mean that their capitals were capitals of the Byzantine Empire! Furthermore, Trebizond was effectively independent, and not under the Palaeologus dynasty. Moreas was an autonomous part of the Byzantine Empire, with its own capital, but still subject to Constantinople. And the Empire of Nicaea was not the Byzantine Empire. It was merely one of the many Greek successor states established after 1204, and is generally regarded by historians as a separate entity. If Epirus had taken Constantinople back, then it would have been regarded as the "legitimate" successor. The only "true" Byzantine Empire was the one with Constantinople as its capital, and even the court at Nicaea saw themselves as but in temporary exile from the "legitimate capital" during 1204-1261. The Empire and the City were identical in the Byzantine mindset, which is why Constantine XI could not abandon it in favour of Moreas when Mehmed II made him that offer. To speak of a "capital of the Byzantine Empire" other than Constantinople is simply wrong. There is simply no way that Mystras, Nicaea or Trebizond can even be compared to the status that Constantinople enjoyed. Regards, Cplakidas 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case you at least have to add Nicaea, because Constantinople was not the capital city of the Byzantine Empire between 1204 and 1261, it was the capital city of the Catholic Latin Empire.

And, without Mystras and Trebizond, the article cannot continue to argue that "the fall of Constantinople wasn't the definitive end and that the Byzantine Empire continued to function for several more years" (more explicitly, this definition refers to Mystras and Trebizond). KeremTuncay 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the formal sense, there was no Byzantine Empire between 1204-1261 for it to have a capital. It was re-established by one of the successor states, i.e. Nicaea, when and only after it captured Constantinople. This exemplifies that without Constantinople, there simply is no Byzantine Empire. The argument about the Empire "going on" is somewhat misleading. Generally, historians state that the Empire fell with the fall of Con/ple in 1453. True, this is not precise, since remnants continued until a few years later, but the Empire as such, as the direct and undisputed continuation of the Roman Empire, fell in 1453, and was succeeded in this role by the Ottomans. Finally, Constantinople was the capital for over a thousand years. To a Byzantine, it and no other was the true capital, even when under the Latin "occupation". To equal Nicaea, Mystras and Trebizond (which, again, was the capital of a culturally similar, but politically independent state) with this legacy is like claiming that Vichy should be also added as the "capital of France", or perhaps Algiers also, where there was a Free French government, which would eventually liberate Paris, the "legitimate capital". Regards, Cplakidas 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are merely your opinions I'm afraid. Nicaea was the interim Byzantine capital city, and Mystras and Trebizond were interim capitals as well, between 1453-1460 and 1453-1461, respectively.

The Byzantines didn't go to Mars with a spaceship in 1204 and suddenly returned back in 1261. KeremTuncay 18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take it slowly, and no insults, please. I think you consider "Byzantine" as a national/cultural identity more than a political one. Yet here we are talking about capitals, viz. political identities. The article states: "Yet, in 1204, the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade sacked the Byzantine capital at Constantinople and dismantled the Byzantine empire." Nicaea did play an interim role as a capital, but of the Empire of Nicaea, which was merely one, albeit the strongest, of the claimants to the Byzantine legitimacy. If it had not reconquered Constantinople, it would have gone down into history as exactly that: the Empire of Nicaea. Epirus, Nicaea and Trebizond were all "Byzantine" in terms of their identity, but they were not the Byzantine Empire.

The Empire of Trebizond parted with the Byzantine Empire in 1204, and continued separately. It may have had a strong cultural and, at times, political connection with the renewed Byzantine Empire, but it is regarded by all major historians as a separate state. And, after reaching a settlement with the Palaeologi, it renounced any claim to the Byzantine imperial authority. It can be seen as a successor state, but that's about it. Moreas may even be considered capital of the Empire's remnants, but the very infobox we're editing, and almost all histories, flatly state that the Empire ended in 1453, not in 1460. It may not be accurate, I'll grant you that, but in a purely political sense, it is. The Empire as the political entity we understand under the term "Byzantine Empire" effectively fell in 1453, that is the verdict both of contemporaries and of History. Mystras was the capital of the Despotate of Morea, not of Byzantium. And I observe that you still don't take into account that Constantinople and the Empire were effectively one. That is not "my opinion", that is a fact. If the quote "the fall of Constantinople wasn't the definitive end and that the Byzantine Empire continued to function for several more years" is the problem, I suggest amendin it to "the fall of Constantinople wasn't the definitive end and that Byzantine remnant states continued to function for several more years." or something similar. Regards, Cplakidas 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defining an Empire's existence with a single city is ridiculous.

The Ottoman Empire existed before the conquest of Istanbul (Constantinople), when Bursa (Prusa) and Edirne (Adrianople) were "Ottoman" capital cities as well; just like Mediolanum (Milan), Ravenna, Nicomedia and Constantinople were also "Roman" capital cities (not just "Rome").

I don't understand what's this "Constantinople obsession" in defining the Byzantine Empire. KeremTuncay 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that defining an Empire's existence with a single city may sound ridiculous. But to the Byzantines, it didn't. If you controlled it, you were the legitimate emperor, no matter what. If you did not, then you were an usurper, no matter who you were or what you claimed to be. All of Byzantine history, especially after the 7th century, clearly shows that tendency to identify the Empire and its fortunes with the capital. You may not like it, but it is nonetheless not less a fact. And you still don't answer any of my arguments as to why Nicaea, Mystras, or Trebizond, at the very least, can or cannot be regarded as capitals of the BE. Regards, Cplakidas 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this explains the continuing Greek desire for Constantinople, LOL :)

Just kidding by the way KeremTuncay 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, it does... It goes back that long. :P Cplakidas 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOOOOOOOOFFF, OF!... Poli mou, where are you... :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQHYxD3CDbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMPjX4W-GWw

Great film and songs by the way KeremTuncay 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Glad you like them. Look, since Mystras and Trebizond are already included in the infobox as the Empire's successor states, I will remove them from being "capitals" of the Byz. Empire. I will retain Nicaea, despite my own judgment, as it can be considered an interim capital. Regards, Cplakidas 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roman_acqueduct_in_Izmit.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Roman_acqueduct_in_Izmit.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia!! I hope that you will enjoy your time here. I was thinking that maybe you would like to get involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey - we need all the help that we can get. There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Turkey-related articles and coordinate group work. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Happy editing! Baristarim 00:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPTR[edit]

Dear Kerem, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey/Current tasks, we need help there.Kolay gelsin. Must.^T ^C 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. :) KeremTuncay 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul[edit]

If you read the talk page, you will see I tell you that I do not claim to have finalised these images, only proposing a better layout. If you know a better picture to put then do it, but we cannot put everything. I understand you come from wowturkey, and your passion is for photography, but Wikipedia is not an image gallery, its an article and we have to balance images with factual content. --A.Garnet 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]