Ottoman history

Turkey is among the oldest continuously inhabited regions of the world, and boasts one of the earliest known civilizations at Catal Huyuk, which dates back as far as the dawn of Sumerian civilization in Iraq.

Just as it is a cultural crossroads today, so it was thousands of years ago. Archaelogical evidence indicates it was settled during the Neolithic period from three different directions - Hatti from the north (Caucasia), Hittites from the east (Iraq), and Ionians from the west (Greece). Ilus II of the Greek Dardanian dynasty is credited with the founding of Troy as a trading post .

The Hittites established Turkey's first major empire almost 4,000 years ago and achieved a notable military victory over Egypt at Kadesh in the time of Ramesses II (leading to what is regarded as the first truce in world history). The Persians invaded in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, before the arrival of Alexander the Greek in the 4th century BC.

Turkey remained for the most part in Greek hands until the coming of the Romans. It continued to weather invasions from all sides, just as it had throughout the Hittite and Persian periods, and it was the Celtic Gauls of Western Europe who first made Ankara (Angora) their capital.

Istanbul was founded by Greek explorers in the 7th century BC and named in honour of their king, Byzas. Byzantium, the city, fell to the Romans in the 2nd century AD, and in 324 the emperor Constantine made it eastern capital of the newly divided Roman Empire.

It thus became the home of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. During the reign of Justinian I in the mid-6th century the Byzantine Empire encompassed the Mediterranean, with colonies in the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Balkans, the Ukraine and Anatolia.

Arch-enemies included the Bulgars, whose 9th century khan Krum killed Emperor Nikephoros in the Battle of Pliska and turned his skull into a drinking cup. Emperor Basil II earned the nickname 'Bulgar-Slayer' two centuries later, after capturing 15,000 Bulgars at the Battle of Kleidon, blinding all but 150 of them, and sending them back to their ruler, who died of a stroke.

The first Turks began to arrive in the 9th century, having wandered across Asia from their homelands along the Chinese and Mongolian frontiers. Turks, in fact, were prominent in the Mongolian armies of Ghengis Khan.

Among the first Turkic tribes were the Seljuks, who had previously ruled parts of Central Asia and Persia, including the fabled capital Samarkand, and converted to Islam. In 1071, under Alp Aslan, they inflicted a stunning defeat on the Byzantines at Manzikert in eastern Anatolia.

Byzantium earned a reprieve when the Seljuks were devastated in turn by the Mongols. The Mongols did not remain, allowing various other Turkic tribes to fill the void. These included the Osmanli (Ottomans), who would later become the most powerful empire on earth.

The Ottomans were very patient and spent half a millenia pushing across Anatolia and on into Europe. They drew others into their empire so that by the time they had reached the Balkans they were already a hybrid race, as much Greek, Bulgar, Russian and Persian as Turkic.

Osman is credited with founding the empire, while his son Orkhan first brought them into Europe, crossing the Dardenelles into Thrace and the Bosphorus to surround Constantinople. In this the Turks found themselves allied to the Catalan Empire, then at its height with a colony at Gallipoli, which sought to avenge the murder of its military hero Roger de Flor at the hands of Byzantine Emperor Michael Palaeologus .

Orkhan's successor Murad was the first of the great Ottoman emperors. He expanded into both Asia and Europe at the same time. His army suffered an early setback against the Serbs and Bosnians in the Battle of Kosovo, but eventually regrouped to destroy the Slavs. A turning point in the battle was the inexplicable withdrawal of Serbian troops by their chief's son-in-law Vuk Brankovic.

Murad did not live to celebrate the victory. Fighting with his men, though 70, he was assassinated by another of the Serb leader's sons-in-law Milosh Obilic. This one had been accused of conspiracy and was so desperate to prove his loyalty he deliberately got captured by the Turks, drew upon his status to demand an audience with Murad, then flew forth and stabbed him twice. Murad lived long enough, however, to know victory was assured.

In accordance with his wishes, the Ottomans treated their victims with lenience and tolerance, and so a Pax Ottomanica prevailed for some centuries. It was a time of great progression throughout the empire.

Sultan Bayezid repelled the last of the Crusades, which was instigated by the Hungarians as the Ottomans reached their border after conquering Serbia in the late 14th century. (The first Crusades, in fact, were not against Islam but against Eastern Orthodox Christians, including the capture of Constantinople in 1204, and later extending into the Balkans, all at the whim of the Pope in Rome and financed by Italian banks, principally in Genoa).

The Crusaders, with their French chevaliers in the vanguard, stormed through Serbia and Bulgaria virtually unopposed, then laid seige to Nicopolis, Bulgaria - scene of many an ancient Greek battle. It had been so easy they grew complacent, forgot about the Ottomans and began to party and squabble among themselves.

Bayezid, preoccupied with his seige of the last remnants of Byzantium at Constantinople, had been slow to react. But now, the emperor known as "Thunderbolt" lived up to his name and appeared suddenly at Nicopolis with an army of 200,000.

The French chevaliers gallantly rode forth to meet him, managed a few initial victories (Bayezid's tactic was to put his less adept and more dispensable troops out front), and found themselves in the midst of the giant Ottoman army, which duly annihilated them. The Hungarians, who had disagreed with the French on tactics, fled the scene. The last Crusade was over.

Bayezid returned to his seige of Constantinople (he first called it Istanbul which, despite sounding Asiatic, is actually a corruption of the Greek name for the city), but, just as victory was within grasp, he was distracted again - and this time fatally.

In the spirit of his ancestor Ghengis the Mongol, Timur the Tatar had come sweeping unopposed across Asia, forming an empire that extended from China to Hungary in the north and India to Palestine in the south. Its capital was at Samarkand (situated in what is today Uzbekistan).

Timur, a cripple, actually had no designs on the Ottoman Empire, which he respected, and whose religion his own people shared. Bayezid, who had known nothing but victory, was conversely arrogant, and invaded a city allied to the Tatars. Timur attempted to negotiate but the sultan rebuffed him.

Timur therefore recaptured the city by force. Bayezid marched his army across Anatolia to meet him. While he was doing so, the Tatars craftily circled around behind, completely evading the Ottoman scouts. Bayezid then made one final blunder. Contrary to his usual tactic of luring the enemy with a soft front, he sent his prized Anatolian cavalry. They were not only his finest, they were of Tatar stock, and they promptly defected to the other side.

The subsequent rout of the mighty Ottomans, which included the capture, humiliation and eventual death of Bayezid, could have spelt the end of the Ottomans in Turkey, just as the Mongol rampage two centuries earlier had driven their Seljuk forerunners out for good. But Timur himself died shortly after and the Tatars, never much interested in Anatolia in the first place, departed.

So it was that Bayezid's son Mehmed, followed in turn by his son, the great Fatih Mehmed, swiftly re-established the Ottoman empire throughout its former territories. It went on to conquer many more, as far afield as Morocco, Hungary and Persia, and including, finally, Constantinople.

The Ottomans enlisted the aid of a Hungarian, Urban, to build monstrous cannons for them, which could not only bust down the Roman walls, but also protect the Bosphorus. In 1453 they finally took Constantinople.

Meanwhile the Mamluks (ex-Circassian Turkic slaves turned conquerors) had taken Egypt. Theirs became the first army to repel the Mongols. But they fell to the Ottomans in the time of Selim the Grim.

Selim's successor Suleyman (Solomon Turkified) the Magnificent was among the greatest of the sultans. Ascending to the throne in the early 16th century through the then common practice of fratricide, he was grandson of the great Fatih Mehmed. Suleyman was the first to capture Belgrade and the Christian stronghold of Rhodes.

Amazingly, they never defeated the Knights of St Johns, the tiny group of elite soldiers who had held out on Rhodes for centuries with vague hopes of some day reclaiming Jerusalem for Christianity. In fact, the knights were a considerable nuisance to Ottoman shipping. So the mighty Ottoman army moved in for the kill. They were not successful, repeatedly frustrated by an impenetrable defence. Finally the knights agreed to negotiate (though they would later encounter the Ottomans again, on their new homeland Malta).

The Ottomans suffered similar embarrassments elsewhere, in Egypt, Persia, the Balkans and Italy, but invariably, in the end, their perserverence paid off. Less obstinate were the Hungarians, who they crushed on various occasions, taking advantage of divisions within the isolated kingdom (and avenging the defeat of Mehmed II, who had suffered a rare reversal at Belgrade in 1456) only to retreat back through the mountains to fight another enemy at home or else in Asia.

It was in 1529 that they arrived at the gates of Vienna, with a force outnumbering their opponents three to one. Suleyman's troops had travelled through the Balkans during a particularly harsh winter and were not in great shape. They encountered fierce resistance from the Europeans, with Poles to the fore, and were eventually forced to retreat. It was Suleyman's first decisive defeat, although the Ottomans did return for another, half-hearted attempt which never quite reached Vienna itself.

Europe still feared the giant Ottoman army and it was the Bohemian king and Hungarian pretender Ferdinand who first proposed a truce, even agreeing to pay a pension to the sultan. Suleyman refused and vowed to pursue Charles V. Though he would come to accept that Vienna - 700 miles away across the Balkans - was beyond the reach of a sultan in Istanbul.

Suleyman's final years were spent battling the Portuguese off Mesopotamia - with limited success. On Malta, the French-led knights held out heroically until the Spanish arrived to chase the Ottomans away and inflict upon Suleyman his greatest humilition. He returned to his favorite hunting ground, Hungary, where his forces consolidated their territory - and where he died in 1572, in the midst of his 13th campaign (3rd against Hungary).

Meanwhile Barbarossa, a chieftain from the Barbary Coast of North Africa, had allied himself to Suleyman. After a combined Christian force defeated him at Tunis in 1535, he retaliated by leading a combined Ottoman-Berber force (Berber's are indigineous to North-West Africa and comprised the vast majority of the Moors who, under Arab leadership, settled in Spain) into thes Balaeric Islands.

Barbarossa's Ottoman-Berbers, antagonised by attacks on their own vessels in the Mediterranean, next attacked Italy, principally Sardinia and Venice, but could not occupy it. The Christians, under the Pope and Charles V, then put a huge fleet to sea, easily outnumbering the enemy. But when the battle began they inexplicably fled from Barbarossa, undone by internal bickering.

The Mediterranean remained an Ottoman lake for a generation. Barbarossa went on to defeat Charles' forces again at Algiers (with help of a hurricane) then in 1543 arrived in the heart of Western Europe by landing at Marseille, with the approval of Frances I, Charles' arch enemy. They proceeded to turn Toulon into Constantinople II, practicing their own religion there and even trading in Christian slaves! They then invaded, sacked and burnt Nice. Eventually Frances was obliged to bribe them back to Istanbul. Barbarossa died two years later.

Suleyman's successor, Selim the Sot, preferred to get drunk in his harem while his grand vizier took care of business. But he overruled his plans to recapture Tunis from the Spanish and instead ordered an invasion of Venitian Cyprus. This was achieved at far greater cost to themselves than the enemy, and in fact only after agreeing to a truce then betraying it by killing the enemy leader during negotiations.

The Spanish-Italian victory over the Ottomans in the sea battle of Lepanto, 1571, was a tremendously costly battle for both sides, but the eventual victory of Don John's Christians over the Turks of Ali Pasha (who died in the battle) was a turning point in history. Cervantes, himself wounded in the battle, described it as the "End of Turkish invicincibility." All of Christian Europe celebrated, including the French, who were more or less allied to the Turks, and the distant backwater of England.

The Ottoman Empire was stunned and dismayed. Even Selim, the short fat Sultan of dubious parentage whose reign began the empire's decline, paused from his debauchery for a few days to fast and give prayer. He then ordered a massacre of all Spaniards and Venetians in his dominion, though fortunately the Grand Vizier dissuaded him.

Not quite the end of the Ottomans. They defeated the Portuguese at Morocco, killing their king Sebastain in battle. Selim also died at this time, not in warfare, but by slipping over in a drunken stupor and cracking his head on the marble bathroom floor. A not inappropriate end to the least distinguished of all sultans.

His eldest son Murad III took over, after having his many brothers executed, scared the Christians off Cyprus and took Georgia and Daghestan, but failed to hold onto Persia.

Onto the 16th and early 17th centuries; we find Murad IV, having indirectly succeeded his older brother, Osman, butchering 25,000 of his own people in a brutal reign of terror. He certainly avenged himself on his subjects, who had imprisoned then killed Osman in the first instance of regicide in Ottoman history.

So bloodthirsty became Murad he ordered summary executions for the slightest disturbance; such as the drowning of a group of young women whose song and laughter reached his ears and irritated them. But iron-fisted Murad did succeed in restoring law and order throughout his empire, lacking during the reigns of his brother and insane uncle.

A large powerful figure in the image of Porus (the Indian giant who had heroically battled Alexander from the back of his elephant, then later become the Greek's ally), Murad fought alongside his troops in the reclamation of Baghdad. He was the first sultan since Sulyman to serve in battle, and was said to have taken on the largest of the Persians in single combat before the battle and slain him with his first blow. After the victory, he massacred all prisoners and civilians.

Murad died just 28 years old. His end was hastened by excesses of alcohol, though he had enforced prohibition on his subjects! The empire then fell into decline. His final wish was to have his only surviving brother Ibrahim executed, but it was not then carried out, the worse for the empire.

Ibrahim was ruled by his harem, with whom he became obsessed. His avarice for jewellery and fur enitrely corrupted him. He executed his Grand Vezier (the first sultan ever to do so), a hero of the Baghdad campaign, for displeasing a lady of his harem on some trivial matter. Meanwhile his troops were away fighting interminable wars with the Russians on the Crimea and the Italians on Crete.

Inevitably Ibrahim, who had refused to heed earlier warnings, became the empire's second victim of regicide, in 1648, dying imprisoned just as his eldest brother had done. With his death the absolute despotism of the sultans came to an end, and the empire began to recover.

It was never to recapture its former glory, however, as signified by an early 17th century treaty with the Habsburg's. For the first time the Ottoman's were forced to negotiate as equals, and actually came off slightly the worse with the loss of some of their Hungarian terrain.

No longer a threat to Western Europe, which was too wartorn itself to take advantage of the Ottoman demise, it became a key player in the continent's politics and commerce, even signing an (anti-Spanish) alliance and free-trade pact with Elizabeth I in far-off Britain. A century after the discovery of America had wrenched Europe out of the Middle Ages, the Ottomans began to follow.

Interesting to examine the repercussions of Ibrahim's execution. Evidently this shook the sultanate to its core. No more the totalitarian sultan. Ibrahim's son Mehmet IV ascended to the throne at the age of 14 and created the Köprülü - Grand Vezir with greatly enhanced powers which basically became the head of government.

The first Köprülü, also named Mehmet, executed 35,000 in a reign of terror reminiscent of Sultan Murad. Sultan Mehmed was no warrior. He preferred to hunt while the Köprülü led military campaigns. Mehmed the Köprülü recaptured several islands from the Venetians.

The second Köprülü was Ahmet, and his military achievements would rival those of the greatest sultans, Fatih Mehmet and Suleyman the Magnificent. He took Belgrade with the help of neighbouring Christian regions who welcomed the Ottomans as liberators from Habsburg tyranny. In this manner they continued, surging on through Transylvania and Hungary and right into Austria itself. But in 1664 they were defeated while trying to cross the Raab enroute to Vienna.

Leading the Austrian defence were the French. The Ottomans took one look at their clean-shaven faces and powdered wigs and jokingly asked "Who are these young girls?" But the French dandies, battle-hardened veterans of the Thirty Years War, cut them down and inflicted upon the Ottomans their first major defeat ever in Central Europe (although the Treaty was, as usual, favorable to the Ottomans, and they lost little).

Ahmet then led the recapture of Crete from a Venitian-French alliance, finally ending a seige which had endured quarter of a century - longer than Troy - and turning the Eastern Mediterranean into an Ottoman lake. They were welcomed by the Greek inhabitants as liberators from the Pope.

Next on the agenda was the Crimea, now in Polish hands. The Cossack (originally Kazakh) inhabitants of Ukraine sought Ottoman protection from Polish and Russian tyranny. Ahmet attempted to negotiate with the Polish King and the Russian Tsar, but when this failed he marched north to do battle.

Joined by Tatars and the Cossacks themselves, the Ottomans had surprisingly little difficulty in seeing off the Poles and Russians, and recaptured most of what is the modern Ukraine in 1676. The empire was in the best shape, territorially, that it had been since the time of Suleyman more than a century before.

Following the death of the great Köprülü, Sultan Mehmed IV broke with precedent and exercised his prerogative of appointing the Grand Vezier himself.

Thus came to power Black Mustafa, his son-in-law, an entirely corrupted individual with a harem numbering a mind-boggling 1500. Mustafa harbored grandiose ambitions of outdoing the great Suleyman and taking Vienna and Rome.

But, in reality, he was a poor soldier and promptly squandered a lot of the terrain won by his Köprülü predecessors. This included the Ukraine, taken just five years earlier. The Ottomans were driven out by the Russians with vast losses of men.

This did not greatly concern Mustafa, who already had his eye on Vienna. At the bequest of the Hungarian Protestants, he marched his army north to wage war against the Habsburgs in 1683. It was to be the last Muslim onslaught on Christian Europe.

Mustafa first ignored the advice of the Khan of Tatar and the Pash of Buda and strode directly on to Vienna before consolidating the territories in between. But he hesitated before attacking the city, knowing that if Vienna were taken in battle the booty would go to his army, but if the enemy could be forced to surrender the booty would go to he, Mustafa, the sultan's man in Austria. Whilst he hesitated thus, the Germans arrived to support the Austrians and the Poles were on their way.

Guns were used in this battle. The Ottomans' were inferior, nullifying the advantage of their superior numbers. So they resorted to mining, a tactic highly successful in Ottoman history.
The situation was becoming critical for the defense when the Poles arrived, and here Mustafa messed up disastrously. He just pretended they were not there; carried on with the job at hand while the new arrivals crossed the Danube unopposed and set themselves up for a downhill assault.

The outcome was a rout. The Tatars fled, the Hungarians followed, and most of the Ottomans went with them. The Janissaries stayed and fought to the death, of course, but the rest of the Ottoman army hightailed it. 10,000 were left dead on the field. The Turks also neglected to take their sacks of coffee, and this resulted in the establishment of the first Viennese coffee shop. (The croissant also originated in Vienna, shaped thus to celebrate victory over the Turks).

The Poles pursued them down through Hungary, and no fewer than 7,000 Ottomans perished when a bridge of boats crossing the Danube collapsed beneath them. This led directly to the surrender of Gran, an Ottoman possession since the time of Suleyman.

Mustafa executed the Pash as a scapegoat. Sultan Mehmed executed Mustafa.
In wider terms, the devastating defeat, the worst ever suffered by the Ottomans in central Europe, ended their prestige as an invading force and indeed they were never to return.

The Ottomans, under Suleyman II (his brother Mehmed was forced into exile following the aforementioned disasters) and the 3rd Köprülü, Mustafa Zade, did regain Belgrade and all of Serbia while the Habsurgs were preoccupied with the William of Orange saga.

But in 1691 they suffered another devastating loss at the hands of Ludwig's Austrians and their superior musketry, Mustafa himself being shot through the head whilst leading a charge. Meanwhile Peter the Great was beginning to challenge Ottoman naval domination of the Black Sea.

Suleyman II soon died, was followed by his brother Ahmed II, who also soon died, and thus came to power young Mustafa, son of Mehmed IV. Mustafa II made a promising start by securing the area around Belgrade. But just one year later the Ottomans were again smashed by the Austrians, losing 30,000 men (10,000 drowned) at the Battle of Zenta where the Grand Vezir was killed and the Janissaries mutineed.

Fortunately for the Ottomans, the Europeans were still preoccupied with their own conflicts, with the War of the Spanish Succession now underway, and again failed to follow through when they had the Turks at their mercy. In fact, the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 merely enforced the status quo with regards to territory, and the Ottomans retained most of the Balkans and scraps of Hungary and the Ukraine.

The Europeans had also come to realise that, after three centuries, the Ottoman threat had finally come to an end. They had fallen well off the pace in every department, politically, socially, economically, militarily. The Ottomans, for their part, knew this and accepted it. They might have slept soundly too, but for one man:

Peter the Great still lurked in the background, disgrunted with the Treaty in which he had been a minor player, eying the Black Sea with a path to the Mediterranean. Looking to establish himself as the Caesar of Constantinople - emperor of the 3rd Roman Empire, he set his sights on the capture of Istanbul.

Russia, at the dawn of the 18th century, was emerging as a modern industrialized imperial nation. Europe, entirely, had turned the tables on the Ottomans. No more the city states and feudal system the Turks had so easily overcome, but now the industrialized, battle-hardened nations with their big ships and mobile field artillery.

The Balkans appealed to Peter for help against, not the Turks, but the Austrian Catholics. They did not fear the Ottomans, who permitted them a fair degree of liberty, religious and otherwise.
The Russians, not quite ready to help out the Balkans, were nonetheless encroaching upon the Black Sea, which the Ottomans wished to retain as a lake. Meanwhile, a revolt at Adrianople led to the abdication of Mustafa II.

Mustafa's departure paved the way for the arrival of his brother, Ahemed III, who ruled very capably for a generation.

In 1711 Russia entered the Ottoman territory of Moldavia in persuit of Swedes following their triumph over the Scandinavian kingdom. The Turks responded swiftly, so swiftly that they caught the enemy unaware and had Peter the Great himself surrounded before he knew it. The Tsar actually went to pieces, suffering epileptic seizures as he contemplated certain defeat, the loss of all his territories and perhaps even his own enslavement.

The Ottomans, preoccupied with a Safavid invasion, were less interested in killing off the Russians, and were happy to sign a treaty which kept them out of the Black Sea. Thus peace was established for the next quarter of a century.

The Ottomans were, however, eyeing their former possessions in Greece, now under Venitian occupation. The Italian city state was in decline, ripe for the taking. Indeed, the Turks were barely troubled in recapturing their islands, plus Corinth, Morea and Crete (1714).
But in doing so they violated their treaty with the Habsburgs and the Austrians were drawn into the conflict. The Ottomans won the first round, at Karlowitz, before the tables were turned at Peterwardein, where the Grand Vezir was slain.

The Austrians then proceeded to kick the last of the Ottomans out of Hungary and recapture Belgrade. The latter was achieved against the odds, through the brilliant tactics of the French-born prince Eugen, who had tasted victory over the Ottomans before.

The subsequent treaty, in 1718, saw the Ottomans' European possessions reduced to little more than Bulgaria and much of Greece. But the real losers were the Venitians, who were not given back any of their territories. It was their death-knell as a European power.

Despite a string of shattering losses to the Austrians, the Ottomans made a remarkable comeback in the 1730s, overcoming technological military deficiencies, largely through the advice and influence of their French allies.

The Ottomans had found themselves threatened on two fronts. Their 25 year treaty having expired, the Russians were pushing their troops down toward the Black Sea. Meanwhile, the Austrians were taking back the last vestiges of Ottoman territory in the Balkans.

A Russian-Habsburg alliance offered the Ottomans an ultimatum. Hand over the Black Sea to the former and the Balkans to the latter. This, however, threatened French commercial interests in the Mediterranean, as the Russians were also demanding free passage through the Marmara.

It was the French who encouraged the Ottomans to march against the Austrians, and this they did, led by the Frenchman Comte de Bonneval. Here they managed a series of surprising victories, and eventually recaptured all their Balkan territories, including the big prize, Belgrade.
The Russian onslought, in contrast, was checked only by extreme hot weather and disease. On the western front, they were creeping toward Turkey through Poland and Moldavia - even as the Austrians were surrendering.

The two armies came face to face at the Danube. The Ottomans were 200,000 and flush from victory. The Russians wisely offered to compromise, and it was the French, who had brokered a favorable deal for the Ottomans with the Austrians, who did the same again at the Treaty of Belgrade.

The Ottomans kept their Black Sea lake and were also given back the Crimea and Moldavia. The Russians merely gained a new chunk of the Ukraine.

The Ottoman Empire had been saved from the point of complete annihilation, with powerful enemies approaching from two fronts, and regained much of the territory (and face) lost in those devastating defeats to Prince Eugen's Austrians earlier in the 18th century.

Following the partition of Poland between Prussia and Russia in the 1760s Catherine the Great sent her troops into Ottoman territory in pursuit of fleeing Poles. There they massacred not only Poles but Turks. Sultan Mustafa III declared war, though his army was run down and well off the pace. The Crimean Tatars achieved some early victories over the Russians, but the Ottomans took a licking between the Dniester and Danube.

Catherine's dream was to "liberate" Greece from the Ottomans. She attempted this with the help of the British, fighting against the French-backed Turks. They landed in Greece in 1770 and butchered the local Turks. The Ottomans sent the troops in and drove the Russians straight back out.

The Russians had more success on water, destroying the Ottoman fleet in the Mediterranean, partly through the assistance of an unsuspected fire-ship under British pilot. But, instead of following through, they hesitated at the mouth of the Dardanelles, giving the Turks time to fortify. The Russians eventually laid siege to the fortress and were closing on victory when Hassan of Algiers led the Corsairs out from Istanbul and surprised them in the trenches.

The Russians continued to make progress in the Balkans and Black Sea regions, however, taking Moldavia, Wallachia and basically everything else north of the Danube, plus another chunk of the Ukraine in which fierce battles reduced the Tatar population by two thirds.

They then proceeded to overrun the Crimea itself, without resistance, and also captured Georgia, thereby claiming the northern half of the Black Sea coast.

Alarmed European powers stepped in to broker a peace deal, but negotiations broke down when Mustafa refused to cede the Muslim stronghold of Crimea. Instead, in 1773, he brought Muhinzada Pasha, hero of Morea, back into the frame and campaigned successfully against the Russians in Bulgaria.

In 1774 the Russians crushed the Ottoman army in the Balkans, leaving the sultan (Abdul Hamid, in fact - Mustafa III had died in action the previous year) no option but to sign a treaty along the same lines as the one rejected two years earlier, losing the Crimea.

On the surface the deal did not go badly for the Ottomans, other than that they were forced to share the Black Sea with the Russians on more or less equal terms. Crimea gained independence, under Tatar rule, and Georgia, Wallachia and Moldavia were returned to the Ottomans - this on proviso of religious freedom, no minor detail, for it was to sow the seeds of all the internal and international conflicts to come.

It all boiled over again within a few years. Catherine instated a puppet khan in the Crimea and when his subjects objected she sent in the troops to massacre them. This led to the annexation of the Crimea in 1783, with the further slaughter of 30,000 Turks. Catherine now claimed she was "Liberating Crimea," and in this light it was perceived by the West. She was hailed as the enlightened despot, Christian reason triumphing over Muslim fanatacism.

Meanwhile the Austrians made a surprise attack on Belgrade. It was repelled, but a Russian-Austrian alliance was now lined up for an assault on the Ottoman Empire.

After further incursions into their territory, the Turks declared war in 1787 and recalled Hassan the Algerian who had been busy quelling rebellions in Morea, Syria and Mamluk Egypt. He was given charge of the Black Sea naval force but was swiftly destroyed by the young military genius Suvarow - who then pushed on down the eastern shores unchecked.

The Austrians were driven back on the Western front, and in their panic fired upon each other in the darkness, losing thousands. Tens of thousands more perished from disease in the harsh environment. Emperor Joseph stepped down to make way for Loudon, a hero of the Seven Years War, and he promptly met with success in Bosnia and Serbia.

Abdul Hamid's death brougth his nephew Selim III to the throne. He made Hassan Grand Vezir, only to have him executed a short time later following a rout of Ottoman troops by Suvarow's Russians and their brutal bayonet charges.

Just when the Ottoman Empire was on its knees, with Loudon having taken Belgrade, Joseph died and was replaced by his brother Leopold, an opponent of Russia who duly withdrew from the alliance. The Austrians signed a generous treaty with Istanbul, basically restoring the pre-war status quo.

But Suvarow continued to hammer away at the Bulgarian frontier, and in one bloody, drawn-out battle, excessively costly to both sides, the Russians finally ground out a victory which was to leave the Ottomans at their mercy.

This set the alarm bells ringing among the European powers once again. Britain, in particular, was concerned at the implications of Russia gaining easy access to the Mediterranean and withal unrivalled naval supremacy (a threat which would, in fact, draw Britain into the Crimean War two generations later).

It was agreed all round that the Ottomans weighed heavily on the scales of Europe. Russia was persuaded to to sign a treaty which not only left her in charge of the Black Sea, but also right on the Ottomans' Balkan doorstep.

Such a treaty could not have endured while Catherine lived. Fortunately for the Turks, she died, suffering a stroke in 1796. On the other side of Europe, the French Revolution was in progress. The Revolution brought about a whole new chapter in Ottoman history, notably in terms of their relations with the European powers. From being allied with the French against mighty Russia and Britain, the Ottomans now found themselves allied with Russia and Britain against Napoleon.

When the French took Egypt off their Mamluk subjects, the Ottomans declared war. They were defeated on land but the French were destroyed at sea. An 1802 treaty placed Egypt back in Ottoman hands. So grateful were the Ottomans they restored relations with France.

Meanwhile the Janissaries had taken over in Serbia, committing such atrocities as to provoke the Sultan into sending his troops in - Ottoman Muslims to defend Serbian Christians from Ottoman Muslims. The upshot was Serbian independence, not including Belgrade.

The Serbians were not content, and under the leadership of a pig trader named Black George, turned on the Ottomans. Three times they repelled the sultan's forces. And then they captured Belgrade, a remarkable achievement. By the beginning of the 19th century, Serbia had become the first Christian nation to win its own independence from the Ottomans.

The Turks, suspicious of Russian involvement in Serbia, then aligned themselves with Napoleon. Things had come full circle, as they found themselves at odds with both the Russians and British again. Tsar Alexander sent his troops directly into Moldavia and Wallachia, leading to an Ottoman declaration of war.

The British sailed into the heart of Istanbul spouting threats of bombardment. The Ottomans stalled them long enough to organise their defenses, however, and the British had no choice but to retreat, being bombarded themselves along the way, with the loss of two ships in the Dardanelles.

Selim III's alleigance to Napoleon was paying dividends externally. But internally his admiration of French methods, and his attempts to adopt them, would lead to his downfall. In 1807 he was deposed after ordering a brutal response to a Janissary rebellion (against Europeanization) in the Hippodrome. His nephew Mustafa IV replaced him.

A truce with Russia that same year allowed Selim's supporters to consolidate and seek his restoration. Mustafa had him strangled before they could get to him. The coup d'etat went ahead regardless, and Selim's brother Mahmud II was instated in place of Mustafa. He in turn sought to follow through with Selim's Francophile policies, prompting another Janissary rebellion.

The Greeks originally endeavoured to gain independence with Russian support but were defeated. Later around 1819 they tried again while the Ottomans were busy suppressing an Albanian rebellion, and this time they were successful. They followed up with a general massacre of all Muslims then sunk an Ottoman flagship off Khios - the latter sparking a massacre of Khios Greeks by Ottomans. Britain, led by Lord Byron, attempted to consolidate Greek independence with a six figure sum designed to fight the Turks, but which the Greeks promptly squandered on civil war.

Hardly surprising therefore that in 1825 the Ottomans were able to reconquer much of Greece, taking the Acropolis itself in 1827. European powers then intervened, seeking autonomy for Greece. The Ottomans did not agree to the terms. They were annihilated in the ensuing naval engagement.

The Russians, now under Tsar Nicholas, moved on the Balkans, drawing the Turks into war. They took Varna but suffered heavy losses at the foot of the Balkans. They returned with a larger force and crossed the mountains, appearing suddenly at Adrianopolis, the Ottomans' European capital. These mountains had never been crossed by an invading force in Ottoman times, and so dazed were the locals they surrendered, not realising the invaders were in a state of exhaustion. A subsequent treaty left the Russians with parts of Moldavia and the Danube, plus Georgia and a chunk of the Caucasus in the east. It also liberated Serbia, though not Belgrade. And Greece officially got its independence - in 1830.

The loss of the bulk of their European and Caucasus territories prompted Mahmud II to instigate drastic reforms during the 1830s. First off he replaced the Janissaries with a modern army based on European methods. The Janissaries rebelled, inevitably, but unlike 1807 the Sultan was ready for them. They were gunned down and 4000 more burned barracaded in their barracks. A five centuries old military force, which had once been the terror of Europe, was wiped out in little more than half an hour.

This opened the way to politicial, educational and social reform such as the Ottoman Empire had not witnessed before. But now a new threat emerged in the form of Mehmet Ali, ruler of Egypt, who wanted Syria. Denied, he marched on the Ottomans and progressed all the way to central Anatolia. The Sultan called on the Russians for help, so desperate he allowed them to set up office in Istanbul. He then marched on Ali but was beaten on all fronts, largely due to bribe-induced desertions. A Russian-Austrian-English alliance delivered an ultimatum to Ali - settle for Egypt and Syria, or be blockaded. Ali rejected them. England bombarded Egypt. Ali accepted. By then Mahmud, the greatest reformer in Ottoman history, had died.

Onto developments leading up to the Crimean War: Following on from his father, Sultan Abdul Mejid continued with the reforms, introducing the Tanzimat which provided civil freedoms not dissimilar to those in the West. This, in turn, led to increased trade with the West, although the Ottomans' inexperience in handling finances allowed European enterprises to prosper at their expense and they found themselves more under Europe's political thumb than ever (causing the Sultan to withdraw into his harem).

Tsar Nicholas raised the Eastern Question, which was to say, the partition of the Ottoman Empire among the major European powers. His pretext was a demand for a protectorate over all Orthodox Christians under the Sultan's rule. This was rejected and further negotiations also failed. War broke out in 1853. The Turks were massacred in the first skirmish, at Sinope. France and England delivered the Tsar an ultimatum, which he ignored, so the two powers declared war on him in 1854, setting up office in Ottoman Bulgaria.

The Russians laid siege to Silistria, though this the Turks successfully defended themselves - their first victory over a European power in living memory. They then drove the Russians out of the lower Danube. The modernized Turk army had prevailed. Austria, not officially involved, occupied Moldovia and Wallachia and threatened to join the war against Russia. Although the Tsar retreated, this was not the end of the war. Rather, it was the beginning of the Crimean War proper.

This excessively costly war was probably unnecessary and was instigated entirely by France and England, seeking to follow up on the Ottoman successes (in which they themselves had been little more than cheerleaders). The defenders became the aggressors as they moved on the vital Black Sea port of Sebastapol. This time they brushed the Turks aside, regarding them as mere "bandits" in spite of their successes at Silistria and the lower Danube.

It was the first major war to make use of the train, the telegraph and a professional press. The presence of the latter created such enduring legends as The Charge of the Light Brigade and The Lady of the Lamp.

Though Russia took the city of Kars in the East, they were losing the war on the Crimea. Nicholas died and Alexander II arrived on the throne seeking peace. This came in 1856 with the Treaty of Paris, which freed the Danubian principalities and declared the Black Sea open to international commercial shipping but closed to all naval vessels. The Ottomans had suvived none the worse for wear. However, the real winners were the Western European powers.

Sultan Abdul Aziz arrived on the throne in 1861 but his anti-reform policies led to massive debt, famine and eventually insolvency. This resulted in the formation of the Young Turks, the first political party in Ottoman history, who sought a constitutional government synthesized with Islamic values. Among its leaders was Namik Kemal who became a political prisoner because of his nationalist writings.

It also led to revolt in the Balkans, aided and abetted by Russia. A massacre of Muslims in Bulgaria led to a massacre of Christian Bulgarians by the Ottoman army.

In 1876 there was a student uprising in Istanbul. Later that same year the Sultan was overthrown in a bloodless coup. His alcoholic brother Murad V replaced him but when news arrived that Abdul Aziz had slit his wrists he suffered a nervous breakdown and was removed. This brought his nephew Abdul Hamid II to the throne and he promptly signed a constitution.

Although the European powers sought a solution to the Balkan question, Britain held out, condemning the "Unspeakable Turk" and looking rather for a means of extending her own influence to the region.

Alexander pledged to defend Slavic Christians. Disreali accused Russia of warmongering and threatened to support the Turks against her. In 1877 Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire. Britain stayed out of it.

Russia moved down through the Balkans and Caucasus regions with little difficulty, gaining support from the local Christian populations along the way, and soon occupied parts of European Turkey and eastern Anatolia.

The tide turned with the introduction of Mehmet Ali to the Ottoman cause. Though outnumbered two to one, his men were equipped with US rifles that were superior to the Russian guns. They drove the invaders back across the Balkans - twice, finally routing them. In Britain the "Unspeakable Turk" was now being championed as that "brave fighter of the bulldog breed."

The tide turned again as winter set in. The Russians were better prepared and gained the upper hand, finally re-taking Plevna, then charging on to Sofia, as well as Armenia in the east. Eventually Alexander marched on Istanbul itself. This prompted Britain to belatedly send a few warships into the Marmara as a show of support for the Turks.

With the Russians at their gates the Ottomans agreed to a treaty that was excessively generous to Russian interests. Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia were transformed into enlarged independent nations, Romania also gained independence (but as a Latin nation was not enlarged), and Bosnia received a degree of autonomy.

The remaining European powers were understandably alarmed, discerning in this the emergence of a Slavic Eastern Bloc fully capable of threatening the West. They succeeded at the Treaty of Berlin in having the Bulgarian super state chopped in half, with Istanbul retaining control of the lower half.

The Bulgarians in the 1880s united and claimed independence anyway, upsetting both Russia and the Ottomans, although the Ottomans did not react. Abdul Hamid II was turning his back on Europe, and withal allowing Africa to slip away. France assumed a protectorate over Tunisia and with England moved in on bankrupt Egypt (England would later occupy Egypt by force). Abdul turned instead to the Islamic world, in which his empire remained the dominant force.

The Armenian independence movement provided him with a pretext for rekindling Islamic fanatacism. When the Armenian Christians became too animated for his liking, he sent in his troops to massacre them - in liaison with Kurdish tribesmen. By the time they were finished, scores of thousands of Armenians had been butchered in eastern Anatolia.

The following year an aborted attempt at a terrorist attack by Armenian activists led to further slaughter in the streets of Istanbul. Now the European powers delivered an ultimatum to the Sultan. He complied in so far as the killing stopped. But the ensuing inquiry was a sham. For all their bluster, the European powers took no action against the Ottomans.

Abdul Hamid was not enitrely finished with Europe. In 1897 Cretan unrest led to the 30 day war in which the Ottomans routed the Greeks. This, and similar turmoil in Macedonia, was the beginning of a division between the European powers that would ultimately lead to two world wars. Germany and Austria backed the Turks but France, Russia and England sided with Greece. The latter trio in fact forced the Sultan to give up Crete, which was, afterall, 90% Greek, though it had not known independence since the Romans had arrived 1900 years earlier.

The Young Turk revival and military unrest in Thrace at the beginning of the 20th century forced Abdul Hamid to yield and parliament was restored in 1908. The following year there was a coup by Islamic fundamentalists, and an accompanying massacre of Armenian Christians in the south, with the Sultan himself implicated. The military ousted the coup leaders and sent the Sultan into exile.

Thus was the arrival onto the political scene of Mustafa Kemal, the man the world would come to know as Ataturk. He served during this time as chief of staff under Commandant Shevket Pasha. Shevket ruled for two years as military dictator while sowing the seeds of a democratic empire

There were elections in 1912, with much talk of curruption, resulting in a landslide victory to Shevket's party - though he subsequently resigned as a result of the problems in Albania. The democratic empire's first test came with Italian claims on Tripoli. War broke out with the Italians victorious, notwithstanding some stout resistance by Arab tribesmen within Lybia itself.
At the same time, the Ottomans went to war with the Balkan league (1st Balkan War) and, divided, weakened and ill-prepared, they were defeated in a six week blitzkrieg. They lost Salonika after 500 years unbroken occupation. A 1913 treaty signing was disrupted by a coup (Shevket, back in charge, then removed again) in Istanbul and war resumed, with the Ottomans suffering the further loss of Adrianople and, in fact, most of their scant remaining European territory, leaving Istanbul itself as practically the north-western boundary of the empire.

However, civil war erupted among their conquerers, in which the enlarged Bulgaria was defeated by Greece and Serbia, allowing the Ottomans to sneak back and reclaim Adrianople. They managed to retain the city when the next treaty was signed. But Greece held on to Salonika (Ataturk's own home-town).

At the outbreak of WWI in 1914 Britain confiscated two Ottoman warships which were in its waters for repairs. This angered the Turks, who then gave shelter, in the Dardanelles, to two German warships being pursued by the British. Those ships, and the senior members of their crew, were integrated into the Ottoman navy, while the British naval force in the Porte was dismissed.

Churchill, Lord of the Admiralty, wanted to attack the Ottomans pronto but was overruled. Instead, without provokation, a German led Ottoman squadron bombarded Russian ports in the Black Sea. Russia, England and France declared war on the Ottomans. The Turks fared badly, with a disastrous winter campaign in the Caucasus and a failed attempt to retake Egypt. The Churchill plan was revisited, only Kitchener insisted on a land invasion rather than by sea. Finding themselves up against the formidable Mustafa Kemal, ironically one of the few high profile Turks to have opposed allegiance with Germany, the allies were twice driven back into the Aegean and finally forced to withdraw from a battle which had been ill-conceived and excessively costly in terms of lives to both sides.

The Russians had been making inroads in the Black Sea, but this was checked by the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. Although the Ottomans survived there, they lost Iraq to the British and suffered an Arab uprising and mass desertions within their own ranks. Mustafa Kemal held out in Palestine and, in fact, finished the war as the only undefeated Ottoman leader.

When the victorious allies partitioned the empire, leaving the Turks with a mere chunk of Anatolia, it was Kemal who rallied his compatriots.

Firstly they overthrew and exiled the last Sultan, Mehmed VI, then they drove the occupying Greeks back out into the Aegean Sea. A new international peace conference recognized the Turkish boundaries we know today, and in 1923 Ataturk founded the Turkish Republic, moving its capital to Ankara.

This occurred under the military leadership of Enver Pasha, one of the three Young Turk leaders who came to power with the 1913 coup. During the war Armenian Turks sided with the Russians and committed a massacre at Van. In response around one million Armenians were deported by force with approximately half perishing in the process. After the war the Young Turk leaders were sent into exile, all to die violent deaths.

Ataturk became first president of the Turkish Republic, introducing astonishing reforms aimed at secularization, Europeanization and, ultimately, modernization. This included universal suffrage, prohibition of more conservative forms of Muslim dress, and the conversion of the alphabet from Arabic to Latin.

End

Why Rugby's 2007 World Cup will be a farce

Rugby's World Cup began with a hiss and a roar in the latter stages of the amateur era. The first three tournaments produced three different winners and five different finalists. There were surprises, there were near upsets, and there were new qualifiers every time.
In the professional age, conversely, the tournament has descended into a farce. During the last installment, 2003, there was only one upset in 48 games. No team debuted in the quarter-finals, which were contested by the same eight who were dominating the game a century ago.
In 2003 there was just one debutante, Georgia. There will be just one debutante again, Portugal, for this year's event in France.
In defending its decision to award the 2011 Rugby World Cup to 1987 hosts New Zealand, the IRB made reference to soccer's progress in the previous century. But soccer's first five World Cups were held in entirely different countries, and not until its 13th edition in 1986, when Mexico stepped in for Colombia, did any nation host it for a second time.
By the time soccer had staged its fifth World Cup, 12 different nations had appeared in the semi-finals and over 30 had played at the tournament. Only seven teams have so far appeared in rugby's World Cup semi-finals, and just 23 have played at its tournament - which comprises 20 teams. This despite the advantages of vastly improved transportation and communication technology. Moreover, world class soccer leagues were operating throughout Europe and Latin America and a pan-European championships had been drafted. The European nations and Copa Americas tournaments, open to all teams within those regions, were just around the corner.
Rugby in 2007 remains confined to two elite tournaments, comprising a grand total of nine teams, and neither of which is geographically all-embracing. Italy has been the only addition to Europe's elite competition since 1910.
There can be little doubt that the International Rugby Board is a facade. Lift aside the flags of ninety-five nations and you will find a self-absorbed little nest of primarily eight. Rugby's world constitutes the British Isles, France, Australasia and South Africa. These overwhelmingly hold the balance of power, with 16 of 21 seats on the IRB. These are the same member unions which were dominating the game in 1907!
While paying lip service to globalization, it is clear the privileged few are only looking out for themselves. Funding (much of it generated by that lopsided money-spinner which masquerades as a World Cup) is all well and good, but the only way to bring rugby's vast majority up to speed is by engaging them in regular competition at the highest level.
The so-called 'emerging' nations (some of which have been 'emerging' since time immemorial) suffer greatly through lack of access to elite geographical competitions (Italy notwithstanding), unfair and inadequate schedules (notably the Pacific Islands) and non-availability of first-choice players.
Trade not Aid. Why invite 20 teams to the tournament's showpiece event when half of them are not deemed fit to bother with the rest of the time?
The All Blacks have been installed as favourites for the 2007 Rugby World Cup. But what are we to make of these New Zealand All Blacks, who roam rugby's tiny world vanquishing the same half dozen foe year after year? Are we to admire them when it is the NZRFU which has played an integral role in keeping the pond so small? New Zealand, in particular, is obsessed with world domination of the sport. It has sabotaged its international development by blocking all attempts to expand the Southern Hemisphere's premier tournaments beyond three nations.
What are we to make of a nation whose rugby scouts plunder the Pacific Islands but whose administrators refuse to help develop those same islands through regular international competition?
It is interesting to draw a further comparison to the "parent code" here. Soccer began to make real progress only after Brazilian Joao Havelange wrested the FIFA presidency away from the conservative Englishman Stanley Rous.
Rugby is still being held back by Anglo stuffiness. It is no accident that of the major unions France has done by far the most to globalize the game through the FIRA competitions.
England, to its credit, has recently begun to take the game to North America by way of the Churchill Cup tournament. But even here, the very name of the trophy gives some indication of the prevalent mentality within English rugby. It is ultra-nationalistic.
The sport is going nowhere so long as the privileged few continue to hold sway and their xenophobic, myopic agendas take priority over the interests of the global game.
The IRB needs a complete overhaul; an injection of new blood conducive to a broader, less stagnant world order, which may well produce the "Joao Havelange" the international game so desperately requires.

************************************************************************************

Two years ago England rugby captain Jason Robinson was reported to have said racist incidents in football would have no place in his sport. It may have escaped his attention, but football is a genuine world game, encompassing all continents, nations and races. Rugby, conversely, remains confined at elite level to Britain and a handful of its former colonies, with the notable exception of France.

It seems ironic the finger is being pointed at a sport which has unreservedly embraced the international community by one which, comparatively speaking, has not. Let us consider also that South Africa was kept out of football completely during the Apartheid era while most of the rugby heavyweights maintained some contact with the republic.

Football in Europe is the sport of the common man and the masses. Rugby in Britain, and indeed most of the established playing nations, is the traditional domain of the upper class. Socio-economic factors undoubtedly play a part in forming racist attitudes. European football abounds with black players; while the non-white international remains a novelty inBritish rugby. The public school graduates may not be chanting racist taunts from the terraces, but this type of behaviour is not unknown in New Zealand, one of the very few nations in which rugby is number one, the sport of the common man.

Ironically, The 2002 British and Irish Lions in Australia claimed they were the victims of racism from the local press, who termed them "Poms." That, of course, is only evidence of their own hypocrisy and ignorance. "Pom" is a reference to a nation, not a race, quite regardless of race, in fact.

No, we are not confronted in rugby by such vivid images as those captured on television during various high-profile football fixtures two years ago. But high-profile football matches are played and televised all over the world every other day. In rugby there are comparatively few.

The problem exists in rugby, without doubt, but is swept under the carpet and merely tolerated. One might well tune into talkback radio or log into a rugby website chatboard and encounter racist comments. (I am aware of once instance where English, New Zealand and South African staff of a London-based rugby website habitually post racist comments on their own forum and use the internet to harrass those who object).

Robinson's views are not necessarily those of the rugby community in general, of course, least of all its administrators. It would be inappropriate for rugby, among all the sports that are, to exploit football's hour of shame to promote its own image.

************************************************************************************

Ideas for developing the game in the Southern Hemisphere through expansion of existing elite competitoins:

Expand the tournament Super 14 to 18, split into three geographical zones, and rename it the Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championships. NSW, Queensland, Act, Victoria, Western Australia and a Suva-based Pacific team will form a Pacific Conference. The existing New Zealand sides plus North Harbour will form a New Zealand conference, and the South African teams will be joined by Orange Free State and Buenos Aires in an Atlantic Conference. Teams will play their conference rivals home and away each season. They will also play three sides from each of the remaining conferences. Teams will thus receive eight home games and eight away games a season. A rotation system will allow them to meet all inter-conference rivals biennially and host them quadrennially. The overall effect is more teams, more games and marginally less travel. Playoffs will entail the conference winner with the worst record, and the three runners-up, meeting in two wildcard playoffs to progress to semi-finals against the two conference winners with the best records.
Week 1: NSW at Hurricanes, Victoria at Highlanders,ACT at Crusaders, N Harbour at Reds, Blues at WAustralia, Chiefs at Pacific.(Byes: Buenos Aires, Stormers, Bulls, Cats, OFS,Sharks)
Week 2: Buenos Aires at Stormers, Bulls at Cats, OFSat Sharks, Reds at Victoria, ACT at W Australia,Pacific at NSW, Blues at N Harbour, Hurricanes atChiefs, Highlanders at Crusaders.
Week 3: Buenos Aires at OFS, Sharks at Bulls, Cats atStormers, Pacific at ACT, W Australia at Reds,Victoria at NSW, Highlanders at N Harbour, Crusadersat Chiefs, Hurricanes at Blues.
Week 4: Buenos Aires at Cats, Stormers at Sharks,Bulls at OFS, Pacific at Victoria, NSW at W Australia,Reds at ACT, N Harbour at Hurricanes, Blues atCrusaders, Chiefs at Highlanders.
Week 5: Buenos Aires at Bulls, Cats at Sharks, OFS atStormers, Pacific at Reds, W Australia at Victoria,Crusaders at Hurricanes, Highlanders at Blues.(Byes: ACT, NSW, Chiefs, N Harbour)
Week 6: Sharks at Buenos Aires, Stormers at Bulls, OFSat Cats, Reds at NSW, Victoria at ACT, Crusaders at NHarbour, Blues at Chiefs, Hurricanes at Highlanders.(Byes: Pacific, W Australia)
Week 7: NSW at Crusaders, Victoria at Hurricanes, ACTat Highlanders, N Harbour at Pacific, Blues at Reds,Chiefs at W Australia.(Byes: Buenos Aires, Bulls, Cats, OFS, Stormers,Sharks)
Week 8: Pacific at OFS, Reds at Cats, W Australia atBulls, Hurricanes at Sharks, Crusaders at BuenosAires, Highlanders at Stormers, ACT at NSW, Chiefs atN Harbour.(Byes: Blues, Victoria)
Week 9: Pacific at Bulls, Reds at OFS, W Australia atCats, Hurricanes at Buenos Aires, Crusaders atStormers, Highlanders at Sharks, N Harbour at Blues,NSW at Victoria(Byes: Chiefs, ACT)
Week 10: NSW at Buenos Aires, Victoria at Stormers,ACT at Sharks, Chiefs at Cats, Blues at OFS, N Harbourat Bulls, Pacific at W Australia.(Byes: Hurricanes, Crusaders, Highlanders, Reds)
Week 11: Bulls at Buenos Aires, Sharks at Cats,Stormers at OFS, Reds at Chiefs, W Australia at NHarbour, Pacific at Blues, Highlanders at NSW,Hurricanes at ACT, Crusaders at Victoria.
Week 12: Stormers at Buenos Aires, Cats at Bulls,Sharks at OFS, NSW at Pacific, Victoria at Reds, WAustralia at ACT, Chiefs at Hurricanes, Crusaders atHighlanders.(Byes: Blues, N Harbour)
Week 13: OFS at Buenos Aires, Bulls at Sharks,Stormers at Cats, ACT at Pacific, Reds at W Australia,N Harbour at Highlanders, Chiefs at Crusaders, Bluesat Hurricanes.(Byes: NSW, Victoria)
Week 14: Cats at Buenos Aires, Sharks at Stormers, OFSat Bulls, Victoria at Pacific, W Australia at NSW, ACTat Reds, Hurricanes at N Harbour, Crusaders at Blues,Highlanders at Chiefs.
Week 15: Buenos Aires at Sharks, Bulls at Stormers,Cats at OFS, Reds at Pacific, Victoria at W Australia,NSW at ACT, N Harbour at Chiefs, Hurricanes atCrusaders, Blues at Highlanders.
Week 16: Stormers at NSW, Sharks at Victoria, BuenosAires at ACT, Cats at Pacific, Bulls at Reds, OFS at WAustralia, N Harbour at Crusaders, Chiefs at Blues,Highlanders at Hurricanes.
Week: 17: Stormers at ACT, Sharks at NSW, Buenos Airesat Victoria, Cats at N Harbour, Bulls at Blues, OFS atChiefs.(Byes: Hurricanes, Crusaders, Highlanders, Reds,Pacific, W Australia)
Week 18: Stormers at Hurricanes, Sharks at Crusaders,Buenos Aires at Highlanders, Cats at Blues, Bulls atChiefs, OFS at N Harbour, NSW at Reds, ACT atVictoria, W Australia at Pacific.
Week 19: Wildcard playoffs - lowest ranked conferencewinner hosts lowest ranked conference runner-up;highest ranked conference runner-up hosts secondranked conference runner-up.
Week 20: Semi-finals: Two highest ranked conferencewinners host winners of Week 19 playoffs.
Week 21: FINAL

* Argentina and the Pacific Islanders will be added to the Tri Nations, which will be reduced to a single round of games.

* Pacific 5 Nations fixtures will be awarded test status, with the A teams (or age-restricted sides) of New Zealand and Australia being recognised as national teams.

* Biennial Northern and Southern Hemisphere tournaments will be established to slot in between World Cups. The former will involve the 6 Nations, joined by the top two 6 Nations B teams, two North American qualifiers, and the Asian champion and runner-up, drawn in four groups of three, leading to semis and a final. The latter will involve the Tri Nations, joined by the South American champion and runner-up, the Pacific Islands champion and runner-up, and the African champion, in two groups of four leading to semis and a final. The Northern Hemisphere champion will meet its Southern Hemisphere counterpart in a 'World Crown' game at a venue such as Tokyo.

NB: The last idea would replace the traditional Autumn internationals, and would be a preferable option, from the perspective of developing the international game, to those being mooted by the IRB and elite playing nations.

Blackmailed by the term 'Anti-Semitist'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments regarding the "removal" of Israel have been condemned in the West. Easy to see why.
The creation of Israel was a result of Western colonialism and was, in fact, an act of aggressive colonization itself.
Europeans had been colonizing the world for centuries. Is anyone demanding their ancestral land back? Surely that would make them something akin to an anti-semitist -like a Nazi.
The Zionists reclaimed land, of course, two millenia after the Romans drove them out of it. But they were doing so because there was genocide in Germany. It is not like there has been genocide anywhere else, before or since, is it?
We can't say Israel is the home of the Jews. They were one of a number of Semitic peoples who arrived there from Mesapotamia (modern day Iraq). But they were far from the first. They arrived via stints in Egyptian captivity, desert wandering and conquering of Canaanites, according to their own mythology, if no one else's.
The Jews did not originate in Israel. But Christianity did. Zionists therefore reclaimed Israel in the 20th century. They violated the terms laid down by the colonial masters of the day.They smuggled in arms with the intention of taking the region by force rather than co-existing with the natives. So what is the problem here? Objecting to this would be something akin to anti-Semitism, like Nazism, yes?
The Jews did co-exist with the natives of that region over two millenia ago. The Arabs were generally far more tolerant toward the Jews than ever the European Christians were, in fact. But by the mid-20th century Israel had the means by which to run the native Arabs out of town.They also had the means by which to blow up the King David Hotel in 1946; an act of terrorism which killed 91 people.
Why would anyone object to a nation founded on terrorism, unless they were anti-Semitist - like aNazi?David Ben-Gurion, initially involved in the King David Hotel strike planning, became Israel's first Prime Minister. Another future Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, was implicated in the 1952 Lavon scandal. This involved bombing British interests in Egypt to frame the Egyptians and turn the British against them.
Israel attacked Egypt a few years later. Britain and France, with colonial interests at heart, joined the fray. Does anyone object to unprovoked invasions? Israel's chief allies are still at it. And the United Nations is still condemning them, not that it makes any difference.
Thirty years ago the United Nations adjudged Zionism racist. Why would anyone but an anti-Semitist object to racism? Why would anyone but an anti-Semitist oppose the shooting of stone-throwing boys and dropping of bombs into crowded streets? Israel has the right to defend the land it has wrenched off the Palestinians, regardless how many thousands must die in the process. Do the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves? Not with acts of terrorism, anyway.
That Palestinians were driven from their homes and turned into refugees enmasse does not necessarily mean Israel has created its own Frankenstein here.
Zionism is Europe's Frankenstein.
Long-serving Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat was the problem, apparently. That was according to the previous Israeli prime minister, whose dearest wish was granted when Arafat suddenly turned green and died. So the ensuing shellings of Lebanese and Palestinian targets should not have been taken too seriously. Ariel Sharon said there would be peace once his old nemisis was out of the way. And Mr Sharon is a man who knew how to get ahead.
In 1953, as Palestinian farmers attempted to regain their land, Israeli troops gunned them down, slaughtering 50 villagers in Qibya. Major Sharon was implicated.
In 1956 a costly and unnecessary battle occured in Sinai's Mitla Pass during the Suez War. Commander Sharon was implicated by his own superiors of provoking the bloodshed.
In I967 Israel attacked Egypt (and most of its other neighbours) killing tens of thousands in their initial raids. Major General Sharon was a hero of the conquests.
In 1982 Christian militia turned on Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, slaughtering thousands. Defence Minister Sharon was implicated after his troops stood by and watched.
In 2000 Palestinian demonstrators were gunned down during a controversial visit to their region by Leader of the Likud party, Sharon.
In 2001 Palestinian homes and infrastructure were destroyed, television and radio masts shot down, and the international airport ripped up, at the bequest of Prime Minister Sharon. This last was accompanied by house-to-house raids, the abduction and blindfolding of men enmasse, the shooting dead of protestors, and a Jewish rampage through the streets of Palestine culminating in the torching of an ancient mosque.
Is it not hard to see, therefore, where Mahmoud is coming from?A rabbi, presiding over the funeral of an American Jew who has shot 29 Muslims, may say that the fingernail of a Jew is worth more than the lives of a thousand Arabs. An ultra-Zionist Israeli prime minister may compare Palestinians to salmon by saying they will forget where their homeland is after a couple of generations. And the West may even condemn Turkey's efforts to gag writer Orhan Pamuk (whose books are freely available to the public in Turkey incidentally).
But anyone who criticises Israel is, by the West's method of evaluation, akin to an anti-Semitist - like a Nazi. There are limits to freedom of speech.

end

Maori origins

The Maori were the first people to inhabit New Zealand. They are Polynesian. Polynesia means Many Islands, and applies to most of the islands of the Pacific Ocean, all but one of which were inhabited by the Polynesian peoples (an Australoid-Mongoloid hybrid) before the arrival of Europeans.
Australoid and Mongolid are two of the four major ethnic groups - the others being Caucasoid and Negroid (the Bushmen of southern Africa do not belong to any of these groups). Australoid originated in South East Asia and migrated into Australia during the Ice Age, when glaciers mounted up across Eurasia and North America caused the world's sea levels to drop by 300 metres, joining Siberia to Alaska (through which the ancestors of Native Americans wandered), and creating a sub-continent of Malaysia/Indonesia which was separated from Australia/Papua New Guinea only by the narrowest of straits. These man was able to cross, with his dog (ancestor of the dingo), to hunt the innumerable species of marsupial abundant in what were, in the Ice Age, the teeming grasslands of Australasia.
Mongoloid pressed down into South East Asia, there hybridising with Australoid and producing a variety of offshoots. Among the first were the ancestors of the Melanesian. Predominantly Australoid, they migrated out into the islands of the South West Pacific. It seems they never progressed beyond Fiji, an archipelago which obviously satisfied their needs.
They were followed several thousand years ago by the ancestors of the Polynesians. These were a fairly even Mongoloid-Australoid hybrid, using Mongoloid agricultural techniques and speaking an Austronesian language.
Australoid-Mongoloid also migrated west, and were the first inhabitants of Madagascar.
Those who headed east appear to have bypassed Fiji and settled the neighbouring islands of Samoa and Tonga around the two thousand years ago.
Within 300 years the Polynesians had progressed as far as the Tahitian archipelago. Here they developed a highly-stratified, religious society. They pioneered the giant double-hulled canoes, which could carry scores of men hundreds of kilometres a day.
They later settled Hawaii over 2000kms to the North (there remains a point in Hawaii named, in Polynesian, the Path to Bora Bora, northermost island of the Tahitian archipelago), Rarotonga (the Cook Islands) in the West and Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in the East. It is possible they reached South America, as they were in possession of American crops in pre-European times and called some of them by similar names to the American natives (compare American 'cumer' to Polynesian 'Kumera' for the sweet potato). Contact with South America might also help to explain some of the strange myths of Rapa Nui, which refer to battles between Long Ears and Short Ears, and whose stone statues are reminiscent of the continent.
Around the eighth or ninth centuries the people of the Tahitian archipelago also managed to find New Zealand, a 4000km journey to the south-west.
According to popular legend, Kupe was the captain and Rangi was the high priest aboard the first canoe to reach New Zealand's shores. It is believed the arrivals spied the snow-capped peaks of the mountains , thought they were looking at clouds and thus named the islands Aotearoa, Land of the Long White Cloud. The South Island was later named Te Wai Pounamu, the Big Canoe, and the North Island Te Ika a Maui, the Fish of Maui.
These were the first Maori. Another people, ethnically akin to the Maori but known as the Moriori, remain something of a mystery. It was at one time thought they were there first, but today a view more popularly held is that they were among the first arrivals and broke away from the others.
New Zealand, being two large islands and a group of small ones, had no native animals. There was, however, easily the largest bird in the world, the Moa, which grew up to 3m tall (10ft). This provided an important source of nutrition for the Maori, but was eventually hunted into extinction, just a century or so before Dutchman Abel Tasman became the first European to spy New Zealand.