The following comments are
the result of recent discussions that I had with several friends about the
world known historical event, of which academics -in either the Western World
or the Islamic World- make a celebrated landmark; this is wrong.
Attributing an
extraordinary importance to the victorious siege of Constantinople by Mehmet II
is a major historical mistake. And it is an even worse mistake to consider the
date as that of the real end of the Eastern Roman Empire, which is fallaciously
called "Byzantine Empire' by Western academic and intellectual gangsters
and by Modern Greece's miserable pseudo-professors and bogus-'Byzantinists'. In
fact, Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable – Ρωμανία) or Eoon Kratos (Εώον Κράτος - Oriental State) was terminated in
1204, long before the Ottomans established their initially tiny sultanate.
As I don't intend to
expand much in this merely thought-provoking comment, I will point out first
that I never considered Mehmet II as a major Ottoman; by definition he was not
a Suleyman Kanuni (the 'Magnificent'). And surely Mehmet II was not a Selim I,
by far the greatest Ottoman of all times. And the victory over a fallen,
decayed, depopulated, impotent and historically worthless city can hardly be
truly a significant victory for any mighty conqueror – despite the presence of
a remarkable Genoese 'Konstantinopel Korps'!
Constantinople
/ Istanbul, Popular Imagination, and the Modern Disruption
It is however a fact
that in the modern – so: sick – popular imagination of both, the Turks and the
Greeks, the event is extremely colored, outsized and mystified, as it
represents a 'remarkable victory to be permanently solidified' for the Turks,
whereas for the Greeks it constitutes 'an ominous defeat to be ultimately
amended'.
Modern popular
imagination is a corrupt, distorted fantasy aptly and subtly maneuvered by the
villainous, heinous, inhuman and criminal Anglo-French diplomats, agents,
academics and politicians, who ceaselessly manipulate the feelings of targeted
nations, stage-maneuver factoids, and impose fake versions of History that are
different enough to pull either nation to calamitous impasse.
Modern popular
imagination has nothing in common with the legends, the traditions, the epics,
the imaginative folklore, and the genuine cultural identity of pre-colonial
peoples and nations. There is no continuity in this regard, but disruption.
This shock was produced by the colonial engineering, the introduction of the
evil, inhuman and alien notion of 'politics', and the diffusion of modern
theories, ideas, ideologies, concepts, philosophies and political ideologies –
which are all monstrous and disastrous inventions of the Western World.
This means very simply
that the 16th c. Roman (: pseudo-Greek) legend of the Marbled King (Μαρμαρωμένος Βασιλιάς) was the result of a true, genuine,
popular imagination of the Romioi (Ρωμιοί – Rumlar – Romans – pseudo-Greeks),
whereas in the 19th c. this legend lost totally its authenticity among the
Romioi (Ρωμιοί
– Rumlar – Romans), who became pseudo-Greeks (or bogus-Hellenes) for the needs
of the Anti-Ottoman Anglo-French evilness. Within the context of the modern
pseudo-Greek state, which was entirely fabricated by the English and the French
colonials, the legend of the Marbled King was politicized and distorted in
order to fit the Anti-Ottoman policies ('Megali Idea' – the Great Idea) that
the Anglo-French diplomats dictated to their shoeshine boys, i.e. the
bogus-statesmen, the pseudo-politicians, and the demented academics of the
fabricated state.
The total disruption in
popular imagination is very evident indeed at the level of the state name:
On 29th May 1453, in
Constantinople, the state that collapsed was named "Romania".
In 1828, the detached
South Balkan Ottoman provinces were called "Hellas" (Greece).
In World History before
1828, there was never a state named "Hellas" (Greece). The term is
purely geographical in Ancient Greek, and it is valid only for lands south of
Macedonia.
These are in fact the
true deeds of the evil Anglo-French gangsters, and of their permanent stooges
in South Balkans, i.e. the duly besotted (through studies in Paris and London),
corrupt, bribed and ultimately inane Modern 'Greek' statesmen, politicians and
academics:
- they 'took' a state
(Romania) in 1453 and they turned it to a 'space' (Hellas) in 1828.
On 29th May 1453, the
last fighters of Constantinople were "Romioi".
And so they were called
among themselves the descendants of the Eastern Roman Orthodox Christians for
the period 1453-1821.
But the vicious
Anglo-French gangsters, who were searching for idiots in the South Balkans at
the end of the 18th c. and at the beginning of the 19th c., by means of bribe,
flatter and incitement, gradually persuaded a small number of local
"Romioi" that they were the descendants of a most fake ancient race
named "Hellenes". By means of corruption, the Anglo-French gangsters,
posturing as 'Philhellenes' (friendly to "Hellenes"), offered
scholarships to selected children of the innocent and benevolent local people,
sent them to French and English universities, and there, they taught them a
bogus-historical dogma, which was not only a totally deceptive anti-historical
scheme, but also a grave distortion of the corpus of the Ancient Greek
Literature. Then, by means of fraudulent promises (that their future state
would be as great as that of Alexander the Great!!), they induced them to
mutiny and rebellion.
Then, contrarily to
29th May 1453 "Romioi", in 1828 "Hellenes" (Greeks)
appeared to be the inhabitants of the Paris-made pseudo-state; this is called
the Art of Black Magic.
But the simple name
"Hellenes" was an insult for the "Romioi", who defended
Constantinople on 29th May 1453; and it was so ever since the Eastern Roman
Empire was incepted, following the division of the Imperium Romanum. "Hellenes"
were indeed the race of institutionalized homosexuality, prostitution, debauchery,
and blasphemous orgies in the Satanic temples of demons named Athena, Dionysos,
Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Artemis, and other abominations.
The aforementioned is
enough to conclude how fake the present-day legend of the Marbled King is among
the so-called Modern Greeks and how unrelated it is to its original version. As
an orphaned bogus-nation that lost its true national identity, its authentic historicity,
and its traditional culture, today's so-called Modern Greeks cannot lay claim
to the right of recapturing Istanbul (ex-Constantinople); this would be
tantamount to a hypothetical right of Brazil to invade Portugal!
Istanbul,
the Wrong Capital of Two Empires, and Kemal Ataturk
Who went beyond plots
and schemes?
Surely only one! But he
was great enough to do so: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
He terminated the
otherwise useless status of the ominous city as a capital of two long lasted
empires that were both defunct long before their respective death certificate's
issuance dates.
Kemal Ataturk proved
also to be the greater historian of his time, because he convincingly concluded
what Eastern Roman 'basileis' and Ottoman sultans / caliphs failed to ever
understand:
- either Constantinople
or Istanbul, this city failed the two empires.
In other words, the
capital city and the therein prevailing theological circles were the main
reason the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire / Caliphate failed.
In both cases, the
administration of the capital city was caught in conflict with overwhelming
movements in Anatolia (Icon-fighters / Iconomachy and Paulicianism at the times
of the Eastern Roman Empire; Qizilbash and Bektashi at the times of the Ottoman
Empire / Caliphate).
In all of the
aforementioned four cases, the ominous Constantinopolitan / Istanbulite
administration acted as a heinous, heretic and lunatic, extremist group that
brought about short term prevalence and long term disaster.
In all four cases, the
imperial administration used the army to squelch the opponents, thus alienating
the bulk of the Anatolian population which constituted for 1600 years the
vertebral column of the imperial state.
Constantinople /
Istanbul was unfit to become a capital city for empires controlling Anatolia
and the Balkans to say the least. The capital had to be located in Anatolia, in
Cappadocia; and Kemal Ataturk draw a correct conclusion that historians and
academics had failed and still fail to conclude.
With capital at
Caesarea, the Eastern Roman Empire would have lasted longer.
With capital at
Kayseri, the Ottoman Empire / Caliphate would have lasted longer.
Aghia
Sophia / Ayasofya, Kemal Ataturk and beyond
Furthermore, Kemal
Ataturk proved to be the greater theologian and historian of religions of his
time, because he convincingly concluded what Eastern Roman Christian Orthodox
patriarchs and Ottoman sheikhulislams failed to ever understand:
- Aghia Sophia ('Αγία
Σοφία / Sancta Sapientia) or Ayasofya may well have been a Christian Church and
an Islamic Mosque, but in reality the extraordinary, sophisticated and majestic
edifice was conceived by Justinian's advisers and constructed by his architects
in order to be exactly what its name suggests: the token of the Divine Wisdom.
Much more than just a
church or imperial church, much more than just a mosque or an imperial mosque,
the magnificent temple erected by Justinian bears witness to the manifestation
of the Divine Wisdom in the Creation of the Universe; pretty much like all Ancient
Assyrian – Babylonian and Egyptian temples were built to be, Justinian's architectural
representation of the Divine Wisdom is a miniature of the Universe.
As such, it plays a
prominent role in heralding what people will be taught to survive at the End of
Times, in revealing the real form and dimensions of the Universe, and in
untangling the knots of deception that brought today's world close to
eradication.
As a conscious
spiritual being and consummate mystic, Kemal Ataturk, the great disciple of
Rudolf von Sebottendorf, knew that Aghia Sophia / Ayasofya was a human
construction incommensurably more important than just a place to pray.
If he turned it to a
museum, it was because he knew that in the future this edifice will fulfill a
far more significant role.
Present
Divisive Imaginations
So, my real conclusion
about the modern perception of the 29th May 1453 event is the following
confirmation:
when I see Turks
viewing the event as a 'remarkable victory to be permanently solidified',
and when I see Greeks
considering the event as 'an ominous defeat to be ultimately amended',
I also see the
Anglo-French strings pulling the former and the latter apart from one another and
targeting to throw either populations to the bottomless pit of permanent
self-hatred, self-ignorance, and self-destruction.
If the externally
imposed division that brings so calamitous results is removed, what can both
Turks and Greeks see, when evoking the 29th May 1453 event? What is it that
they did not see until now?
The
Tragic Historical Reality: the Catastrophic Ignorance of Mehmet II
The answer to this
question involves many points; before enumerating them below, I will
immediately point out that they all testify to detrimental ignorance of Mehmet
II about what Ρωμανία
/ Romania truly was and whom this reality disturbed.
It is in fact very
impressive that Mehmet II - whose acquaintance with leading figures of the Eastern
Roman Christian Orthodox Church (Gennadius Scholarius, George of Trebizond) and
with the Palaiologos imperial family is beyond any doubt – knew so little about
the state that he conquered.
Even more so, because Gennadius
Scholarius recognized Mehmet II as successor to the Eastern Roman throne, and
George of Trebizond supported the Ottoman Sultan's claim to the title of
'basileus', which automatically means continuity of the Eastern Roman Empire
or, if you prefer, transfiguration of the still small and relatively 'recent' Ottoman
Kingdom (: Sultanate) into a 15-century lasting Empire.
Despite his
acquaintance with Anti-Union (Anthenotikoi) Orthodox theologians (who
vehemently rejected every contact with the heretic Catholic Church of Rome) and
notwithstanding the excellent education and the spiritual formation that he
must have got from his mentor, the leading mystic, erudite scholar, and medical
doctor Ak Shamsaddin, Mehmet II did not probably realize what he was about to
do and what it meant to become the 'basileus' of the Ρωμανία / Eastern Roman Empire; eventually,
he was too young to possibly fathom the burden of millennia.
Mehmet II failed to
learn, understand, and duly assess that
1- by conquering
Constantinople and appearing as successor to a long line of Eastern Roman
'basileis', he inherited an enormous confrontation with various Western
European kingdoms and principalities that were all controlled by the papal
state at Rome.
2- the terrible
division between Constantinople (basically named Nova Roma, i.e. New Rome) and
Rome was neither a secondary theological polarization nor a Christological
dispute; it was an abysmal schism and a detrimental chasm whose true dimensions
exceeded by far the possibilities of an average human to comprehend.
3- the evident Eastern
Roman Christian Orthodox division into Anti-Union (Anthenotikoi) and Unionists
(Enotikoi) factions was not a normal and natural phenomenon, but the result of
papal (or Western European) bribery and machination. This means that the
Unionists among the Eastern Roman priests were real renegades and evil traitors
of their own state.
4- the papal, Catholic
policy toward the Eastern Roman Empire for the entire period 1261-1453
consisted in deliberate weakening of the Constantinopolitan basileis whose
title (Βασιλεύς
Ρωμαίων / Imperator
Romanorum), capital city name (Roma vs. Nova Roma), heritage (Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων / Imperium Romanum), and faith
(Christianity) the felonious and lawless Roman popes had tried hard to usurp
for many long centuries.
5- all major historical
events occurred between Euphrates river and the Atlantic Ocean over the
previous 700 years (exactly: 752-1453) were due to the pitiless confrontation
between Nova Roma (also known as Constantinople) and Roma (Rome).
6- the bogus-Christian,
Satanic Crusades (1095-1291) were NOT undertaken against the Islamic Caliphate,
which was merely the pretext; they were mainly addressed against the Eastern
Roman Empire and its Reconquista of Syria (969: re-conquest of Antioch). The
fact that the Crusaders' raids in the Red Sea region were scarce and
inadequately prepared testifies to the fact that the Crusades were NOT carried
out in order to eliminate Islam and destroy Medina and Mecca.
7- The main targets of
the papal, Anti-Christian Crusades of the Western Europeans were two: first, to
prevent the basileis Eastern Roman from recapturing Jerusalem (and thus
obtaining the foremost testimonies to primacy among Christian churches) and
second, to conquer Constantinople (as it happened with the Fourth Crusade in
1204) and thus destroy the Eastern Roman Empire, damage Orthodox Christianity,
and disperse or corrupt the populations of the Eastern Roman Empire, so that
they never again become able to re-launch their state as supreme challenge to
fake Roman, papal supremacy.
8- The ferocious
rivalry between New Rome (Constantinople) and Rome – or to put it better,
between Eastern Christian Rome and papal Anti-Christian Pseudo-Rome – took the
form of an all-out assault after 1054 and the definite Schism, which occurred
then between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the pope of Rome. It is quite
telling that the Crusades started only 41 years after the mutual
excommunication of the two religious heads; this was the time needed by the
papal administration to mobilize the puppet 'kings' of Western Europe and to
organize the first military expeditions and attacks.
9- For two consecutive
centuries between the first (Photian) schism and the definite Schism
(869-1054), the papal control in Western Europe (extended mainly over central
and northern Italy, Germany, France and England, because the Iberian Peninsula
was almost entirely Islamic) mobilized hysterically all local sources against
the Eastern Roman Empire; the papal, Anti-Christian, pseudo-Roman policy
against Constantinople involved all types of barbarians on whom the popes of
Rome would confer all possible titles (that of Imperator Romanorum included) to
turn them against the only true Rome, i.e. New Rome – Constantinople.
Mehmet II should know that
1- his claim to the
title of 'basileus' (Qaysar-i Rum) was in fact denied to his Palaiologus
predecessor by the Anti-Christian pope of fake Rome, and this was the case for
all his earlier precursors on the Constantinopolitan throne for no less than
653 years – ever since the Anti-Christian pope Leo III rejected to recognize
Roman Constantinopolitan Empress Irene and crowned the incestuous Frankish
barbarian Charles I (known as Charlemagne by Western propagandists) as
"Imperator Romanorum" on 25th December 800.
2- during his reign as
Ottoman Sultan and as Qaysar-i Rum, his main opponents would not be armies,
kings and soldiers, but the bogus concept of translatio imperii ("transfer
of rule"), as per which the anti-Roman pope Leo III of fake Rome had
'possibly' the right to transfer the imperial rule from Constantinople, i.e. the
sole true Rome, to the Frankish barbarians whom he selected as puppets for his
schemes and plots against the Eastern Roman Empire, which was the sole Roman
Empire, after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (476 CE) and the
dispatch of the imperial insignia to Constantinople.
3- 69 years (800-869) sufficed
to the Anti-Christian popes of fake Rome before they demonstrated their
ulcerous enmity against the Eastern Roman Empire with the first schism.
Strengthened with their alliance with the barbarian Franks, the popes of fake
Rome embarked on a very long-term scheme to gradually impair and finally
destroy the only Roman Empire, which was also the main Christian kingdom of the
world. By progressively eroding the imperial power and by undermining the
authority of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, the Anti-Christian popes of
the Counterfeit Rome intended to prepare the ground for the diffusion of their
pseudo-Christian, heliocentric, Mithraist theology, for the worldwide
imposition of their evil deception, and for the monstrous colonial conquests
that their slaves carried out starting in 1492.
4- his claim to the
title of 'basileus' (Qaysar-i Rum) would be possibly valid only if he were
ready to assert his power and to do all that it would take to impose on the
popes of fake Rome the form of Caesaropapism, which was imposed by Justinian I
and lasted until 752 CE. As per Justinian's orders, for the popes of Rome to be
truly Roman Christian popes, they had to be appointed and approved by the Roman
Emperor at Constantinople – New Rome. In the extensively biased, Western
bibliography, the Constantinopolitan popes of Rome are denigrated as 'Byzantine
Papacy'; the practice lasted from 537 to 752.
5- without knowing the
ceaseless plots of the Anti-Constantinopolitan party of Rome during the period
537 to 752, he (Mehmet II) - 700 years later - would certainly be an
inexperienced 'basileus' with minimal chances to outmaneuver the plots of his
worst enemies. It is this party that managed - at a time the Eastern Roman
Empire was facing internal and external adversities - to achieve independence
from the Christian rule (752) and expand its plots until striking an alliance
with the barbarian Frankish realm (800).
6- the entire issue did
not hinge on a balance of power, but mainly concerned disastrous developments
that took place in the western part of the Roman Empire during the last decades
of its existence and before Justinian's Reconquista opened the way for
Constantinople-appointed, truly Christian, Roman popes. These developments were
of spiritual, theological and esoteric nature; they culminated with the
establishment of the secretive, pseudo-Christian Order of the Benedictines
(529) whose activities constituted the main pole of the Anti-Constantinopolitan
side of Rome. This religious order functions on the basis of the Rule of Saint
Benedict, which is a corpus of instructions that can be described as
non-Christian, if not Anti-Christian. This is not strange if one takes into
consideration the Manichaean influences on Benedict of Nursia (via St.
Augustine / Augustine of Hippo) and the absolute Origenist impact that John
Cassian exercised on Benedict of Nursia. This strikingly anti-Christian
background was at the origin of all theological clashes between Constantinople
and the Anti-Constantinopolitan party of Rome before and after 752 CE.
It is from this
Origenist – Benedictine – Anti-Christian and Anti-Constantinopolitan background
that emanated later the intellectual, cultural, artistic, religious,
theological, academic monster which is called Renaissance; this monster would
threaten with extinction, as it finally did, both religions, Christianity and
Islam.
The inhuman monster
would automatically turn against the states which would constitute the most
imminent threat for it: the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ottoman Sultanate.
The aforementioned
points do not constitute recently drawn conclusions among modern scholars; we
know very well that they were widely known and believed, shared and discussed
among Anti-Union (Anthenotikoi) Eastern Roman Orthodox theologians, who were
allied with Mehmet II. Having this in mind, one can wonder what would be the
best possible option for Mehmet II. The present article's title consists in an
insinuation that it would be better for him not to conquer Constantinople. It
is therefore time to ask what Mehmet II should do, if not conquering the
capital of the then tiny and impotent Eastern Roman Empire, and how this would
be more beneficial for Muslims and Christian Orthodox alike or how it would
best serve the interests of the two states, the Ottoman Sultanate and the
Eastern Roman Empire.
His
Education and Culture could lead Mehmet II to a Better Option
What should be the
substitute to the unnecessary Ottoman attack against Constantinople?
I understand that
Christians would not be expected to have this type of resourcefulness because
they are unfamiliar with the History of Islamic Caliphates. And quite
unfortunately, few Muslims today have a fair knowledge of their own historical
past. Most of them know uselessly low level stories about the time of Prophet
Muhammad's life; but this is only a minimal part of Islamic History.
What I am going to
suggest depends on accurate knowledge of Islamic History, and we know very well
that around Ak Shamsaddin and Mehmet II there were many erudite scholars well
versed in Islamic Historiography, notably Tabari's History of the Prophets and
Kings (تاريخ الرسل والملوك / Tarikh al Rusul wa al Muluk); this voluminous
masterpiece of Islamic Historiography constitutes the World History's largest
book ever written by a single author.
Tabari wrote his
celebrated History as a Chronography, like contemporaneous Eastern Roman
chronographers, starting with the Creation of the World; his opus covers events
up to the first three decades of the 10th c. This means that Tabari covers
fully 300 years of Early Islamic History. This is essential because this period
covers a historical example that would be very good for Mehmet II to have in
mind and to adjust in his case and times.
The rise of the Abbasid
dynasty (750 CE) was partly due to the involvement of the Iranian family of
Barmakiyan (برمکیان), who
were able to transpose Sassanid Iranian imperial traditions and manners,
concepts and practices within the context of the newly established Caliphate,
which broke with the Umayyad tradition of Damascus. This development is at the
very origin of the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization, and without the
establishment of the venerated Bayt al Hikmah (بيت الحكمة /House of Wisdom) in Abbasid Baghdad, what we now know as
Islamic Sciences, Knowledge, Wisdom, Arts, Letters and Philosophy would have
not existed. Aramaeans, Iranians, Copts, Yemenites and Turanians were the
leading scholars in Baghdad's Bayt al Hikmah, which was a mere revival of the
Sassanid Imperial University, research center, library, archives and
laboratories named Jond-e Shapur (or Gondishapur / فرهنگستان گندیشاپور) in today's SW Iran. The Aramaean schools of Nasibina (Nusaybin
/ Nisibis) and Urhoy (Urfa / Edessa of Osrhoene) greatly contributed to the great
role Bayt al Hikmah played in materializing Prophet Muhammad's concept of Islam
as a religion of Knowledge.
Due to the great role
of the Barmakiyan in Abbasid Baghdad, after the peak of the Abbasid strength,
several Iranian and Turanian dynasties started becoming partly independent from
the Caliphate's center. These rulers did not rise in opposition but in
collaboration with the imperial capital Baghdad, which after one century of unmatched
wealth, power and expansion had difficulty to keep faraway provinces under a
centralized control.
The Tahirids, the
Saffarids, the Samanids, the Sajids, the Ziyarids, the Buwaihi (Buyids), and
the Sallarids controlled the enormous periphery from Central Asia to Northern
India; the most influential of all were the Buyids who even managed to put the
weak caliphs of Baghdad under control. They postured as warrantors of the
caliphate and they bore royal names that meant exactly that. Examples: Sharaf al-dawla:
'owner of the state' - Fakhr al-dawla: 'pride of the state' - Taj al-dawla: 'crown
of the state' - Rukn al-dawla: 'cornerstone of the state' - Imad al-dawla:
'pillar of the state', and so on.
This period that goes
up to the arrival of the Seljuks is called by modern scholars as "The
Iranian Intermezzo". The term was introduced by the Russian Orientalist
Vladimir Minorsky (1877-1966), who worked in Czarist Russia, France, England
and Egypt, only to be invited in the Soviet Union during the great, liberal
'intermezzo' of Nikita Khrushchev (1960); the term is correct, although it
consists in sheer neologism. As 'Iranians', one must understand many different
nations, notably Persians, Turanians, Azeris, Khorasanians, etc.
This period was not
named in this manner during the various Islamic historical periods, but it was
well known for its main traits and facts. And the concept of a powerless king
protected by his mighty warrior has always had very deep roots in many Oriental
traditions; in addition, it was part of the common Iranian – Turanian culture
that was the educational foundation of all Ottoman Sultans. Ferdowsi's
Shahnameh is the most celebrated masterpiece of Iranian epic poetry that was
the cultural cornerstone of Iranians and Turanians. Shahnameh has the same
value in Culture and Education of Asiatic Muslims as the Quran has in Religion.
Among many other epic
stories, Shahnameh describes how the great hero Fereydun went to the Alborz
Mountains to find the sublime Kay Qubad. the greatest of all emperors of the
Kayanid dynasty, offer him the title of Emperor of Emperors (Shahinshah) and
guide him to Iran where he would rule. Then, in the ensuing combat, it is the
hero Fereydun, Kay Qubad's standard bearer, who engages in battle. Mehmet II
and all the Ottoman sultans and caliphs were fluent in Farsi and referred to
Shahnameh even in official texts and correspondence.
What
if Mehmet II never tried to conquer Constantinople?
Applying heroic
prototypes, mythical concepts, and historical paradigms to his own time's
challenges, Mehmet could opt otherwise and this could be better for both him
and Constantine XI Palaiologos. The following points are an indication of
alternative approach:
1- Mehmet II could
strike a deal with the basileus.
2- As per the deal's
terms, the sultan would be the protector of the basileus, of the otherwise
small Eastern Roman Empire, and of the Christian Orthodox populations on both
states' territories and elsewhere.
3- The Anti-Union
(Anthenotikoi) Orthodox theologians and the Muslim imams and sheikhs would
establish an advisory body (reporting to the basileus and the sultan) to seek
how the two allied states' populations would live in peaceful cohabitation and
how they would all join the effort to undertake a New Reconquista in both the
East and the West.
4- Pacifying Central
and Western Anatolia, the Balkans, and the Aegean Sea in relatively little time,
the two heads of state would then launch an attack against the Kingdom of
Naples that controlled almost the entire southern part of Italy, being part of
the Crown of Aragon. The attack would involve Sicily as well. At the same time,
the Patriarchate of Constantinople would call for a Crusade to liberate Rome
from the Anti-Christian papacy.
5- Instead of trying to
expand toward Central Europe, the Ottomans would cooperate with the Eastern
Romans in liberating Christian Orthodox populations from the Aragon and the
papal tyranny and in solidifying the weakened Emirate of Granada.
6- After an enormous
mobilization of Muslim forces among the Aq Qoyunlu Turkmens of Eastern
Anatolia, Iraq and Iran, among the Mamluks of Syria and Egypt, and among the
Zayyanids of Tlemcen in the Atlas region, an enormous, Eastern Roman and
Ottoman, Orthodox Christian and Muslim, attack would take place against Rome,
and it would be impossible for any Western European army to thwart.
This would change the
World History as we know it; the Renaissance fallacies and evil theories would
never be diffused; the fake 'discovery' of 'America' would never involve the
criminal extermination of dozens of millions of indigenous populations; the
calamitous colonization of the Mayan – Aztec – Incas continent would never
occur; the western European kingdoms, which caused numerous wars and hecatombs
of massacred people worldwide, would not be formed; and Christianity would
survive and expand worldwide along with Islam from Constantinople / Istanbul
and from Jerusalem / Al Quds ash Sherif.
The barbarian
monstrosity of Western European colonialism, the falsehood of Western European
bogus-philosophers and pseudo-intellectuals, the fallacy of the Modern Science,
and the inhuman evilness of Modern Technology would never happen. In brief, the
Hell, which is called "Modern World", would never take place.
