It is good to see that following review has been featured on IMDb:
Not real story , all lies as usual.
This movie is full of lies.
I wish they made a movie about Artin Agopyan.:)))))
This film does not reflect reality in any way , but it is also quite biased. The theme is quite boring.it is not clear for what purpose it was written it doesn’t give anything to the viewer. I do not recommend this movie to anyone, which has no artistic value, has ridiculous content and is boring and was made just for in order to manipulate what really happened in the past. It is truly sad for humanity that such a film was made to serve certain interests groups by misleading people’s feelings. Again this film does not reflect reality in any way.
See the solution of an Armenian commenter on preserving Armenian roots on Turkey
It is what it is. Turkey has successfully made sure historical Armenian lands will never be under Armenian governmental/Armenian Republic rule. Many factors played into it: Depopulation of Armenians, Armenian state being under Soviet state for nearly 70 years, treaties being signed between Western superpowers and Turkey, it’s just too late. The boat for saving western Armenia has already sailed. Yes, I do wish that Ani and other historic Armenian territories would return to its rightful owner, but the Turkish government is very territorial government. The best way to preserve Armenian roots in these lands are if mass amount of Armenians return to these lands and start reproducing like the Kurds and Turks. Every Armenian family should have 7-8 kids. That way they’ll be able to replenish the Armenian roots again.
Historic Armenia – Peter Musurlian documentary on Western Armenia
Tree has great importance in Turkish culture. With the belief of Shamanism, tree is entered daily life and accepted as a tool of communication. All the meanings that the tree of life encompasses are reflected on traditions. Tree of life is used as a motive in architecture and handicrafts of Anatolian realm in Turkish culture before and after Islam.
A new interpretation of tree is observed in the festivities and weddings organised in the Ottoman Empire with the use of three dimensional nahıls in different sizes.
Nahıl is an object which is used in weddings and festivals resembling a palm tree with its conic shape getting thinner as it goes upwards and is decorated with ornaments in different shapes.
The meaning ascribed to nahıl coincides with the meaning ascribed to the tree. Nahıls which draw all the attention to themselves are important indicators in terms of sharing power and beauty with the society.
Historians mention the existence and technical features of nahıls in small and large scales. Nahıls on which the power of sovereignty is also reflected have begun to be forgotten with the collapse of Ottoman Empire.
The traces of nahıl are found, though rarely, in Turkey and it is used in plain forms as a sign of wedding ceremonies. As a reflection of an almost forgotten cultural tradition, nahıl makers (Nahılbents) of today strive to keep alive this tradition.
Did Britain ever rule over Turkey? If not, why did Great Britain not take over Anatolia during World War I considering that Germany was allied with the Ottomans at that time?
No, Britain did not rule over Turkey. During World War I, although Germany was allied with the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), Great Britain did not take over Anatolia for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, it is important to understand the geopolitical landscape of the time. The Ottoman Empire, once a powerful force in the region, was in decline in the early 20th century. However, it still held strategic importance due to its control of key trade routes, particularly the Suez Canal, which connected the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea and provided a vital shortcut to India, Britain’s prized colony.
Britain, being aware of the Ottoman Empire’s strategic significance, pursued a policy of maintaining the status quo rather than outright annexation. This approach aimed to preserve stability in the region and protect British interests without jeopardizing delicate alliances and triggering further conflicts.
Additionally, Britain had other priorities during World War I. The war effort required substantial resources, both human and material, which were primarily allocated to fighting on the Western Front against Germany and Austria-Hungary. British forces were heavily engaged in Europe and the Middle East, including campaigns in Gallipoli and Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq).
Moreover, the prospect of taking over Anatolia would have presented significant challenges for Britain. It would have required a massive military campaign and an occupation force to maintain control over the vast territory. With limited resources and stretched supply lines, such an endeavor would have been logistically challenging and potentially prolonged the war effort.
Another crucial factor to consider was the potential backlash from other major powers. Imperial Russia, a key ally of Britain at the time, had territorial ambitions in Anatolia and sought to expand its influence in the region. Any attempt by Britain to seize control of Anatolia would have likely provoked a confrontation with Russia, leading to further complications and potential conflicts.
Furthermore, the post-war settlement played a role in Britain’s decision-making process. The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920, aimed to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and divide its territories among various powers. However, this treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which recognized the independence of the Republic of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This effectively marked the end of Britain’s ambitions to rule over Anatolia.
The South-eastern part of the peninsula was inhabited by Arabs allied to the Turks, so no need for conquest.
The Empire controlled the more densely inhabited areas of the West and East which were the largest trading establishments, included the holy islamic cities of Mecca and Medina and also much of the coastline and ports. Stationing troops in the middle of the desert to guard sand wasn’t really a good investment move. Had they attempted to do that, they would have succeeded but they would have to defend against raids from indomitable bedouin tribes which would drain manpower and resources best used elsewhere. Oil wasn’t a big thing back then.
Instead the Ottomans traded with the bedouins coming and going to and fro. This way they got what the land had to offer without expending themselves.
The occupants of Istanbul were the Greeks, prior to the Turks. However Istanbul had different inhabitants prior to the Greeks as well. A timeline for Istanbul is as follows:
1930 – to date: Istanbul, a city in the Republic of Turkiye
1923 -1930: Konstantiniyye, a city in the Republic of Turkiye
1453 – 1923: Konstantiniyye, a city in the Ottoman Empire
476 – 1453: Constantinople, a city in the Eastern Roman Empire
330 – 476: Constantinople, a city in the Roman Empire
272 – 330: Byzantium, a city in the Roman Empire Byzantium (Byzantion) was founded by Greek Megarians in the 7th century, BC and Chalcedon was also founded by Greek Megarians at about the same time. Two different cities on either side of the Bosphorus, the first evolved into Istanbul the other into Uskudar/Kadikoy, both now of “metropolitan” Istanbul.
BC 657 – 272:, Chalcedon (the city only at the Asian side of the Bosphorus), a city in the state of Megara
BC 1300: Lygos, a city hosting some Thracian people
Before BC 1300: Many ancient people have lived in this area. Most of them are unnamed due to lack of documentation. During the excavations of Marmaray tunnels, many artifacts have been found, some of which are dated back 6,000 BC.
Marmaray dig reveals glasswork in ottoman, 2011-11-24
