Talk:Siege of Tripolitsa
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Info@kafalas.com (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)This is not helpful. I'm an American descendent of the brother of Gen. Kefalas (or Kephalas in the photo caption), and as you can imagine, in our family, he is a tremendous source of pride, being a hero of the Greek revolution, etc. Frankly, I never gave much thought to the idea that there might be another side to it until recently, when I decided it was time to read some of the primary sources from that period. Come to find out, he's not a hero, he's a butcher. Or, no, he's still a hero, because despite the excessive killings at Tripolitsa, the Turks killed a lot more people over the previous ~400 years. Or, how can you equate a few wartime excesses of violence with centuries of Turkish oppression and atrocities? Look: None of us was present at the event. At this point, all that matters is to identify what happened and why. According to Howe's rather dry discussion of the taking of Tripolitsa, a huge number of people were killed; he attributes a lot of it to rage over events of 1821 such as the execution of Gregory V and its aftermath, and a lot of it just to angry soldiers who wanted to steal anything of value from the city. Howe moves right along; In the context of the war, he feels, it was only one of many important military turning points, some of which involved mass killings of innocent (and guilty) people. At this point, making biased edits to the article, either to justify the killings, deny that they happened... or, on the other hand, to say they were unjustified acts of pointless slaughter, does not help readers who are trying to understand the events and their context in history. What would be more helpful would be to add references to more primary sources, so readers can read and decide for themselves.
User:Greek1232 15 ,August 2012 18:00 Hmm..I would say that the article is not close to the truth...i was not present at Tripolitsa but two of my ancestors were there and the stories i have heard are really different from arms and legs cutting...If the writer-composer of this article does not agree with the stories i know its ok..But he must know more about the historians he trust in order to tell somehting close to the historical truth(which nobody knows by the way)...But first let me tell you that general Theodoros Kolokotronis who was present at Tripoli i9n the siege and the "massacre" does not say in any spot of his memoirs about tortures and arms-legs cutting...I keep telling that because it seems silly a thing like that to vbe written cause this is a way the Turks used to execute many of Greeks in the past as well as the Romans did..Never heard however something like that in the modern Greek history...By the way Thomas Slavos was executed this way and some others too...To continue you refer to things said or written by6 foreign generals present...Where exactly did you read that foreign generals where to a secondary Ottoman city in the event of the siege by the Greeks in 1821??You may have read that in the historians you refer to in the comments...Just know that we cannot ,as writers ,compose articles and demand from the others to respect them when they lean on three writers or more for whom the two live almost one century away frtom what they describe and not give attention to the things written from both sides , even if things are written only by Greeks about that.. Finally its absolutely in human nature to commit thing like some of the ones described with the specific backstage of this epoc...If some invaders kill your mother, you father, your childer your wife,rape your mother yopur wife ecven your children, if yopu are not allowed to educate your children and not freely believe in any religion you want,if your kids are kidnapped and converted to sworn enemies of you and all these toprtures happen for 4 centuries then yes....its in human nature to commit massacres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greek1232 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC) ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Kekrops the aim of this article is to talk about the massacre not about the siege of the city as it is opened in relation with the massacres that occured following the outbreak of the greek revolt..Stop changing its name then..I dont go and say Siege of Chıos, right? And by any respect sıege was not an important success as there wasnt any significant ottoman military within the city they were mostly mere civilians..--laertes d 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain it again,
- article is opened as a part of the massacres that occurred following the outbreak of greek revolt..It was opened in relaton with the massacres..
- Siege of tripoli is an insignificant act in history but not the massacres that occured after the surrender..
- i am not changing the chios massacre article to "siege of chios"..
Clear enough? --laertes d 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is no source for your proposed title, whereas "Fall of Tripolitsa" is the most common term in Greek historiography. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Kekrops, first do not change the content, for instance do not erase the sentences that i completed about the massacres even though you dont agree with the title..
- W. Alison Phillips, William St. Clair, George Finlay all these historians who wrote the history of the greek revolution uses the term "tripoli massacre" in their writings..
- what matters here is not what is most common in Greek histiography, which doesnt even mention about the occurence of the massacre, but what is historically important about that event, which is the massacre of up to 30.000 people..--laertes d 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually that is incorrect that Greek historiography does not mention the massacre-- I have been the Tripoli museum which has a plaque about the massacres of civilians there. What is historically significant about the Fall of Tripoli is not that civilians were killed (this had no bearing on the outcome of the war) but that the last and most important Turkish stronghold was in Greek hands.
Siege of Tripolitsa
Should this article be called Siege of Tripolitsa is instead of the Fall of Tripolitsa and include the battles anf the siege? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyriakos (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Peculiar Excerpt of Painting
The excerpt of the primary painting designed to draw the reader's attention to a detail of this painting appears like sheer editorializing, and adds no new or compelling information, or, to my taste, emphasis to the article so far. Indeed, it is condescending, presuming, as it does, that the reader did not already notice the destruction thus summarized in the text. A guide in a museum might do that to a busload of overwhelmed tourists, but the point is evident upon arrival to the article page. Slapping on visual chartjunk does little to encourage the thoughtful reader to understand and appreciate the primary sources quoted in that section, and explain to him/herself what actually happened. I should propose to delete it. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more. It is pure tendentious editing. I removed it several times, but the user who added it edit-warred to put it back (incidentally he has now been reported at WP:AN3). Athenean (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)