1) The document refutes arguments made by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing regarding Turkey's inclusion in the European Union. 2) It argues that Giscard's view of European history and culture as limited to Ancient Greece and Rome is too narrow and neglects significant Phoenician, Scythian, Celtic, and other influences. 3) It also asserts that prominent historical figures like Alexander the Great cannot truly be considered "European" given that most of their conquests and cultural influences extended deep into Asia.

1. Irrelevant Giscard: the Anti-Turkish
Euro-Myopic
Analysis of the inconsistent argumentation published by the former French
President in Zaman (25 November 2004) under the title 'Return to Reason'.
Refutation of Valery Giscard d’ Estaing's erratic approach to World History
Part I: the Historical Approach
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
The debate was already long and passionate, regrouping former prime
ministers like Michel Rocard, and involving scholars like Erol Manisali, when
the former president of France, Valery Giscard d’ Estaing, started first
speaking, earlier this year in Athens, about the forthcoming eventual
adhesion of Turkey in the European Union. The present article does not
advance an argument in favor or against the participation of Turkey in the
European Union. It consists only in a historical academic refutation of
arguments introduced by past or current politicians in a way to serve their
political agenda; as such these arguments consist – at times – in an abhorrent
alteration of History that cannot be tolerated anymore in our global world.
The article addresses the basic historical approach arguments.
Turkey is not responsible for the erroneously composed
EuropeanConstitution.
In an ostensibly biased point of his intervention, the former French president
referred to the – already elaborated but still waiting electoral endorsement
and ultimate ratification – European Constitution. He said:
"As regards the Parliament, the maximum number of Members has already
been set at 750, and it is provided that the breakdown of its membership be
divided up among the States in proportion with its population size, with an
adjustment in favour of the smaller states, and a maximum number of 96
members per state. If Turkey were to join the European Union, it would
account for a little over 15 percent of its population. It would therefore have
96 members, at a parity with Germany. To make room for these new
members, the number of other States' representatives, notably those of Great
Britain, France and Italy, would have to be reduced.
As regards the Council of Ministers, the Constitution provides for recourse to
a double majority: for a decision to be adopted, it must receive the support of
at least 55% of the States, representing at least 65 percent of the Union's
population. With its 15%, Turkey becomes a key factor in the decision-making

2. process. It is hard to forget Spain and Poland's recent opposition to voting by
a double majority, even though it was only a matter of being at a
disadvantage in terms of a few points. The entry of Turkey would result in a
disadvantage of fifteen points"!
What one can easily understand through these points is that the Committee
tasked to elaborate the European Constitution did a very bad job! The
president of the Committee was precisely the former French president
himself, so even worse for him to speak now in this way, since he had the
opportunity to come up with a different draft…
What is very clear through the above two paragraphs is that the European
Constitution is going probably to be – if finally accepted – the first
fundamental chart in the World History to be composed without the slightest
political vision, without the least historical forethought, and without the
minimal ideological - philosophical farsightedness! This unbelievable
situation implies that it just pleased some obscure French bureaucrats to
rashly produce a piece of ‘paper’, just presuming that Europe is limited
within the present borders of the 25-state European Union, with the
'convenient' and 'affordable' exception of few extra Balkan states.
The answer to this aberration is that the Constitution is then politically
wrong, conceptually false, and historically inconsistent; if accepted, it is going
to create a counterfeit Europe, a state that would neglect and reject the real
European historical evidence.
Such a state - Mr. Giscard should know - would be predestined to doom…
Political Vision within a Constitution
There cannot be a Constitution without a political vision, a plausibly correct
reassessment of the past, and an identification of philosophical – ideological
targets. As French, Mr. Giscard should know that the French Revolution was
concluded with a Constitution that opened the modern European horizons for
Parliamentary Democracy, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. It is not sure at all
that the paper prepared by the Giscard committee is about to offer a parallel
vision of a multicultural Europe, which is the top demand of the continent's
populations nowadays. ‘Communautarisme’ does not appeal to either
Giscard or Chirac!
Identification of philosophical – ideological targetswithin a
Constitution
As European, Mr. Giscard should also know that the 1917 October Revolution
in Russia was fulfilled with the Constitution of the first Soviet state in the
world. That constitution reflected a precise philosophical – ideological
background, Marxism – Leninism in this case, as all anterior and posterior
constitutions respectively did: the French Third Republic constitution (anti-

3. monarchical, anti-clerical, secular, parliamentary Republic), the constitution
of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (the epitome of federal anti-Nazism), and
various other fundamental laws. What is the Giscard ideology?
A plausibly correct reassessmentof the past within a
Constitution
As citizen of the world, Mr. Giscard should in the same way know that the
American Revolution – to which so many French contributed – ended up with
the Constitution of the first anti-Colonial Democracy in the world. That
Constitution consisted in an adequate reassessment of the Colonial History to
which it did put an end across the then nascent USA. In addition, it expressed
a major rebuttal of the Dark Ages, shifting towards the revivification of the
democratic aspects of the Classical, Greco-Roman world. What is Giscard’s
possible conception of European History?
Giscard’s false and waned spectrum Greco-RomanEurope
It would be very useful to report his own words that unveil a dwindled and
waned spectrum of Greco-Roman Europe, which testifies to the fact he did
not learn any lesson from the History. Thus spoke Giscard:
‘Europeans need to strengthen their sense of identity. "European patriotism"
can only begin to exist when European citizens become conscious of
belonging to a common whole.
The European Convention sought to better define the basic foundation of this
common whole: 'the cultural contributions of Ancient Greece and Rome, the
religious heritage which permeates European life, the creative impetus of the
Renaissance, the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment, the input of
rational and scientific thought'.
Through these few words, we understand that Giscard’s Committee realized
very well the need for a historical reassessment, but failed to opt for the
correct one! If we leave aside the later parts starting with Renaissance, we are
met with a nefarious picture of a faded blossom, a shrunk continent, a
shriveled world.
The Phoeniciansand the Carthaginiansare missing!
Why is Europe limited in the cultural contributions of Ancient Greece and
Rome only?
The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians, who settled and developed great
civilizations in Sicily, Sardinia, the Iberian coast, and the Aegean Sea, are a
seminal part of the European History too. It is well known that Phoenicians
introduced in their colonies a direct democratic, representative political
system, and it is also known that Phoenicians introduced it in Athens.

4. Where are the Scythians, the Cimmerians, and the Celts?
The Scythians, the Cimmerians, and the Celts are part of the European
identity too; how can we delete Stonehenge, the dolmens and the menhirs of
France, and the basic ethnic and racial background of the peoples of today’s
North-Western Europe? Does Vircingetorix mean nothing to Giscard?
AncientGreeksdwelled on both, Europeanand Asiatic
territories.
An idealized and nonexistent form of Ancient Greece and Rome cannot serve
as model either to Modern Europe or to anybody else. What was Ancient
Greece? A number of various peoples, namely the Achaeans, the Aeolians, the
Ionians, and the Dorians, never unified, and always being in strife with each
other and with the non-Greek Pelasgians. Although they did not expand in
the northern parts of present day Greece, since that territory belonged to the
Macedonians, another people with different language, Ionians, Aeolians, and
Dorians dwelled on both, European and Asiatic territories.
Through Giscard's approach, if we exempt Turkey from any sort of European
character, Carian Herodotus, and almost all the Pre-Socratic philosophers,
Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, and the like, were elements
of Asiatic culture. Great!
Then, last but not least, Homer belongs to the Asiatic territory of Turkey, so
Giscard will drive him out of Europe, in the same way Achaeans drove the
Pelasgians out of Troy!
Either Turkey belongs to Europe or Homer is rejected by the counterfeit
Europe of Giscard's band…
Rome’sOrigins are Asiatic too!
And how it comes that Trojans are not considered as European when at home,
in NW Turkey, but become Europeans, when they travel to Rome like
Aeneias? Has Giscard heard of Aeneid? Virgil?
Of course, all this is just the ostentatious, upper part of the iceberg! The most
important points follow.
If Giscard neglectsTurkey, Alexanderthe Greatrejected Europe!
How can one consider king Alexander of Macedonia, rejected by the
Athenians and by the famous orator Demosthenes, as a 'European' without
taking his model into proper account? Alexander did not see the Adriatic
coast of Illyria, did not set foot on the Greek islands of the Ionian Sea, and did
not advance even 1 km beyond the western borders of Macedonia, whereas
his military expeditions and invasions drove him more than 4000 km away in
the East, on rather Asiatic territory!

5. For Alexander, Egypt (Africa) was more important than the Ancient Greek
cities – colonies of the Black Sea.
Syria and Judea were more valuable to him than Iberia.
Even more so, Persia was more precious for Alexander than the Italian
peninsula.
For Alexander, apparently Amun - Ra was far more sublime than Zeus,
Jupiter and the Celtic gods.
Furthermore, Bactria, Sogdiana, Transoxiana, in Central Asia, Arachosia,
Gedrosia, Pentapotamia, in Eastern Iran and Pakistan, were the
circumferences he wished to unify under his scepter – not the Scandinavian
Peninsula, the Alps, and the plains of Scythia/Russia.
The border was not in the Azores or the Faeroes, but in the North of India,
whereas the epicenter, the capital of Alexander’s vast empire, was at Babylon,
Mesopotamia! What a blow for … Europe!
As a consequence, Alexander the Great, the embodiment of military virtue for
Julius Caesar, becomes now a non-European!
Speakingproportionally ofa country's provinceslocated on
differentcontinents!
Before advancing in this argumentation, it would be very illuminating to
focus on a related subject: the proportions of a state's provinces located on
different continents. A dear argument for Mr. Giscard! Read his words:
'While it is true that Turkey still possesses a small European enclave, this
portion only represents 5% of its territory and 8% of its population. The rest of
the country is located in Asia'.
Valery Giscard d' Estaing is probably the stupidest man alive!
If Turkey’s European provinces represent 5% of the entire country’s territory,
then Alexander’s European terrain is less than 3% of the total surface of his
vast empire. In this calculation, we did not total modern states' territories, but
we just estimated the totality of the space invaded by Alexander II.
So, what can such a ludicrous approach prove? Nothing!
And it is so for any quantitative approach to which Mr. Giscard seems always
to dedicate the bulk of his efforts.

6. More than half of the Roman Empire’s territory was located outside Europe!
The same concerns the Roman Empire! More than half of its territory was
outside Europe, involving Africa, Numidia, Egypt, Syria Coele, Syria
Palestinia, and - of course - most of Modern Turkey’s territory!
However, the aforementioned is only indicative of a great expansion, and it
tells us nothing about Culture.
DeterminantOrientalImpact on Giscard’s Greco-Roman World
Since a person like Giscard has been accepted as Member of the Institut de
France, the erroneously venerated French Academy, what we would further
suggest the demented former president of France is to ask his colleague in the
Institut de France, Jean Leclant, the Egyptologist and Permanent Secretary of
the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, the following:
- how many sites of Egyptian Culture, Religion, Mythology, Mysticism,
Theurgy, Ideology, Cult and Philosophy have been excavated on European
soil, in Greece, in Italy, throughout the Balkans, the German and the
Russians plains, let alone Gaul, Britain and Iberia?
The foundations of Giscard’s conception of the Classical Antiquity and the
basic lines of his perception of the Ancient Greek and Roman civilizations are
obsolete and inane.
The Ancient Greek philosophers were the humble students of their
grandmasters, the high priests and the hierophants of the temples of Egypt,
Babylonia and Persia.
Without the great Oriental civilizations, and without the work of transferring
the Lights of Civilization to the Aegean world, Ancient Greece would have
been left a barbaric realm absorbed by the polytheistic and idolatrous priests,
whom the Pre-Socratic philosophers opposed virulently.
Perhaps it is not interesting for Mr. Giscard, but many people should wonder
why we have been left with so few words saved out of the voluminous and
copious compositions of the Pre-Socratic philosophers. The answer is that
they have been persecuted by local barbaric and murderous polytheistic
priests, who had it easy to burn the works of ingenious intellectuals like
Thales and Anaximenes.
All the basic concepts initiated within the Ancient Greek world by the Pre-
Socratic philosophers, by Hesiod, by Homer, and by Plato are of combined
Oriental, Hittite Anatolian, Canaanite-Phoenician, Egyptian, Assyrian /
Babylonian, and Iranian, background.

7. Do notcall it 'Hellenistic'! The period of cultural interaction was
properly speaking'Orientalistic'.
The later interaction of Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greeks with
various other nations within the Empire of Alexander the Great, and
throughout the kingdoms of his successors, brought about an inundation of
Oriental cults, philosophies, ideologies, concepts, religions, and cults across
the Ancient Greek and Roman worlds, the Aegean and the entire
Mediterranean.
The vast Oriental impact changed totally the face of the Ancient ‘Greek’
world. The procedure was accentuated during the Roman times! Modern
scholarship focused already on this, and I am sure that Prof. Jean Leclant will
probably suggest informative readings to Mr. Giscard, choosing perhaps
some of the – no less than 150 – volumes of the monumental and updated
series 'Etudes Preliminaires sur les Religions Orientales dans l’ Empire
Romain' (Preliminary Studies on the Oriental Religions within the Roman
Empire).
The first stage consisted in the establishment of religious, mythological,
spiritual, esoteric, philosophical and cultural stems of Oriental background
that the Ancient Greeks tried to make theirs to thus enrich their earlier poor
culture. Sarapism, Chaldaism, Ostanism, Hermetism, and various
Gnosticisms are some of these composite systems that were formed and
flourished for centuries, turning the Ancient Greek world into a marginal
province of Ancient Orient.
With OrientalCivilizationsand Culture permeatingthe Roman
Empire, MarginalEuropebecamepartof the Orient!
During the next phase, we encounter a plethora of temples dedicated to
Osiris, Isis, Horus, Anubis (Egyptian gods), a multitude of sanctuaries of
Mithra, Anahita and Zurvan (Iranian gods), a great number of shrines of
Cybele (Anatolian goddess of Sumerian origin), and an abundance of holy
places of Adonis, Atargatis, and Astarte (Phoenician god and goddesses, the
latter of Babylonian – Sumerian background) throughout the European
territory of the Roman Empire and beyond in Central and Eastern Europe.
The two most influential religious – esoteric – ideological systems, namely
Isidism and Mithraism, expelled the old, local, European gods and decisively
ostracized them far from the hearts and the minds of the Ancient Greeks, the
Romans, the Celts, and all the other native European peoples. An excellent
academic opus consisting of numerous voluminous tomes full of related
bibliography is the venerated series "Aufstieg und Niedergang der
Roemischen Welt" (Rise and Fall of the Roman World).
This would irrevocably convince Mr. Giscard about the real face of Europe
across the ages, as well as about the Oriental origins of 'the cultural

8. contributions of Ancient Greece and Rome'. The ideal, archetypal empire for
the 'European' Roman Empire was Assyria, and this is not Europe but
Mesopotamia and Asia, Mr. Giscard!
The Oriental cataclysmic impact on the Ancient Greek and Roman worlds did
indeed cover all aspects of everyday life during the Roman Imperial times. A
minor effort for Mr. Giscard would be to study carefully the excellent book
published by the French scholar Paul Faure, a Hellenist, not Orientalist! In his
'Parfums et Aromates de l’ Antiquite' (Fayard, Paris, 1987), the French
archeologist draws a magnificent picture of the unprecedented changes that
occurred in the Greco-Roman world because of the introduction of Oriental
ways of life and lifestyles, most notably the use of perfumes, spices, incense,
as well as of other aromatic fragrances. It is essential to offer some examples
of rather 'hidden' literature in order to break down the idiotic and pathetic
Giscard version of Greco-Roman History.
In the year 287 BCE, King Seleucos of Syria, one of Alexander’s Diadochs
(successors), sent to the temple of Apollo at Miletus (so on Turkish territory)
360 kg. of incense, 36 kg. of myrrh, and no less than 1200 kg. of cassia!
Theophrastus (On Plants, ch. 9) depicts similar circumstances. And Nero
spent no less than several millions of sestertii for the aromatic needs of a
funeral (Tacit, Annals, XVI, 6)! At the times of Vespasian, an enumeration of
aromatic fragrances in Rome would involve no less than 60 different types
(Pliny, Historia Naturalis, XII, 35 – 135). This lifestyle expanded so much that
caused a certain reaction by Plautus (Mostellaria, I, III, 273), who stipulated
that "mulier recte olet ubi nihil olet" (the woman smells properly, when she
does not smell at all). All this relates to Assarhaddon, to Thutmosis, to Hiram
of Tyre, to the Queen of Sheba, to Cambyses, but certainly not to Numa
Pompilius, Epameinondas or Pericles.
The Origin of the Current European Religionsis Not European!
It was certainly wise not to mention any specific religion in the European
Constitution; this would automatically imply another dimension of the
Oriental impact on Europe – or, to put it better, of the Oriental Identity of
Europe. Speaking about present European religions brings the epicenter of
Europe at … Jerusalem, far beyond Turkey!
But to what religious system(s) does the enigmatic notion of "the religious
heritage which permeates European life" refer? And to what extent Europe is
"Europe", if the existing variants of "the religious heritage which permeates
European life" are – all – of Asiatic origin, be they Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, Buddhism and/or Hinduism?
If the existing variants of "the religious heritage which permeates European
life" are of Asiatic origin, how "Turkey did not share any part of this
heritage"? Here ends every possibility of elementary historical argumentation,

9. and the political motives of historical distortion become flagrant!
Modern Heirsof AncientCultures – Politics, Culture and
History
However, behind this prejudiced and dogmatic statement of Giscard’s is
hidden a very obnoxious approach to historical interpretation. There are some
basic points of Human Cultural Heritage and World History that are known
to everyone. However, the ominous Taliban of Afghanistan seemed to
disregard them, and so does Giscard! It is essential therefore to restate them.
All the monuments erected, the artifacts produced, the ideas conceived, the
theories elaborated, and the literary works composed in a place are Common
Heritage of the Mankind; they belong to all of us.
Every country is bound to best preserve, to study and to propagate every
historical testimony excavated on its territory.
Every government shapes the local culture best, when acting as a depository
of the historical evolution, and when establishing the proper cultural link
between the present and the past.
There cannot be selective tendencies in this regard, since this would lead to an
early stage of cultural discrimination. To give an example, the Spanish
government must be totally committed to best preserve, study and propagate
historical testimonies excavated in Spain, whatever the monuments' identity
and character may be, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Ancient Egyptian, Roman,
Gothic, Christian, Islamic or Jewish.
Historical and cultural discrimination, as it was attested in the Bamiyan
(Afghanistan) disaster in Afghanistan (where the cannibalistic Taliban
destroyed the colossal statues of Buddha under the pretext of fighting against
idols, because they misinterpreted their religion in their erroneous theological
system), is not and cannot be acceptable anymore in our global, multicultural
world. It was not acceptable in Afghanistan; it cannot be acceptable in Europe.
Modern Turkeyis by definition a depository and promoterof
the AncientGreek Antiquity.
A better observation would have led the opinionated and intolerant Mr.
Giscard to a deeper understanding. Ever since its inception, Modern Turkey
has advanced a lot in terms of cultural policies and political rights. Women
voted and were elected in Turkey four (4) years before they were allowed to
do so in France!
Better than in many other European countries, Turkish cultural policies
followed an all-encompassing model whereby the Hittite Epics Illuyankas
and Ullikummi, the Assyrian – Babylonian Enuma Elish (the earliest text

10. about the Creation), Homer, Herodotus, the Annals of the Sargonid Emperors
of Assyria, the Urartu inscriptions, the Ionian philosophers, Zoroaster, the
Commagene Mithraism, John’s Revelation, the Cappadocian theological
milieu of the Fathers of the Christian Church, the Gnosticisms of the Late
Antiquity, the Aramaean Nestorians and Monophysites / Miaphysites of
Upper Mesopotamia (Tur Abdin), the Sabians of Sumatar, the Abrahamic
tradition of Harran, the Eastern Roman Empire's legacy, the Quarrel of the
Icons (: Iconoclasm), the Manichaens, the various Muslim denominations
(Sunni, Alevi, Qizilbash) and Turkic ethnic groups, all mysticisms from
Apollonius of Tyana, to Jelaleddin Rumi, and from Basil of Caesarea to the
welcomed Sephardim of Spain - with certainly a major focus on the Ottoman
Empire - are equally present in a unique multicultural panorama. Does Mr.
Giscard know that there has been a Sumerbank in Turkey?
The result of this approach to History and the consequences of the
implementation of the aforementioned cultural policies make of Modern
Turkey also the natural depository of the Classical, Greco-Roman world.
Turkey represents today the historical past of the Ancient Greek world, the
Ancient 'Greek culture' according to Mr. Giscard, to the same extent as
Modern Greece does.
If Pericles was born on territory that belongs to Modern Greece, Herodotus
was born on Modern Turkish soil.
If Plato 'goes' to Greece, Homer 'belongs' to Turkey.
Where does Apollo dwell?
In his temple at Delphi (Greece) or in his sanctuary at Sardes (Turkey) ?
Where can one find more representative monuments of the Ancient Greek
world?
In Athens (Greece) or in Ephesus (Turkey) ?
Modern Turkeyis also a depository and promoterofthe Roman
Antiquity.
If we come to the Roman World, then the strongest 'challenge' to Italy – as
depository of the Roman Culture according to Mr. Giscard – is not Greece,
neither France nor Spain, but Turkey. Istanbul, still called by Greeks
'Constantinople', remains Nova Roma forever.
The Modern European North that consists in the dynamo of the European
economy was the periphery of the Roman world (France, Britain, Germany)
or was always out of the Roman borders (Germany, Scandinavia, Scotland,
Ireland, Baltic counties).

11. But there is much more to say to this ignorant, Taliban-like, Mr. Giscard!
Giscard criminally deletesIslamic - Jewish Andalusia from
EuropeanHistory.
His viciously biased History of Europe makes him obliterate critical periods
of European History during which critical developments occurred that later
contributed greatly to the formation of the Modern European Culture.
Going beyond the Late Antiquity and the Early Christian Times in Europe, we
have to highlight the valuable and multifaceted contribution of Islam to the
cultural development of Modern Europe. This can be focalized mainly in two
areas and two different historical periods partly overlapping.
The first is Muslim Andalusia, the great Umayyad times that lasted from the
beginning of the 8th century to the end of the 15th century. Without the
knowledge, the science, the wisdom, the theological and philosophical
debates, the Arts and the Letters of the Iberian Islam and Judaism, Europe
would be left with the hidebound misery and pestilence of the Frankish
barbarism.
The Iberian Peninsula from where Andalusia Islamic Civilization sparkled in
the then known world is not a small part of Europe, even for those speaking
in quantitative terms. Without incorporating this entirely Islamic milieu into
his 'Europe', the racist Mr. Giscard rather hints at an eventual exclusion of
Spain or Portugal from the backstage of the European decision making.
Well, already he expressed his displeasure about the Spaniards fighting for
their rights of proper representativeness ("It is hard to forget Spain and
Poland's recent opposition to voting by a double majority, even though it was
only a matter of being at a disadvantage in terms of a few points").
In brief, we have no reason to believe that Mr. Giscard's 'philosophy of the
Age of Enlightenment' is more determinant a factor for the formation of
Modern Europe than Iberian Islamic and Jewish Andalusia.
Giscard deniesthe genuinelyEuropeanIdentity ofthe Ottoman
Empire.
Then, we come to refer to the second historical period of Europe that has been
obliterated by the obnoxious and chauvinist Mr. Giscard: the Ottoman
Europe.
It has to be reminded to that schizophrenically partial, bogus-historian of
Giscard that only modern Russia and the Roman Empire controlled on
European soil so large territory as that ruled by the Ottoman Empire!

12. If we do not take into account the deplorable moments of Hitler and
Napoleon, never did a country, even the Eastern Roman Empire or Alexander
the Great, control so vast a portion of European territory!
For several centuries, from the gates of Venice and the doors of Vienna to the
southern plains of Ukraine, encompassing the entire Balkan Peninsula,
Crimea and the entire Caucasus region, the Ottoman Empire diffused culture
and science, philosophy and art, literature and trade throughout an area
larger than 1.5 m km2 – all on European soil!
As specialized Sovietologist, Mrs. Helene Carrere d’ Encausse, Permanent
Secretary of the Serie Immortels of the French Academy, could perhaps
become the mentor to the – neophyte in the academic environment – Mr.
Giscard, and give him a lesson or two in this regard, making clear to him that
the entire Black Sea was for centuries an Ottoman lake.
We do not need to refer here to the fact that, while occupying so vast
European territory, the Ottoman Caliphate controlled even larger territories in
Asia and in Africa, bordering with the rest of Europe in the Western
Mediterranean.
Withoutthe Ottoman Empire, there would notbe Modern
Europe.
We have however to stress the nature of the almost infinite, Ottoman Empire
as the culture and civilization 'corridor' par excellence. It is very questionable
whether Copernicus and Galileo would have ever become known through
their researches and conclusions without the Latin translations of the works of
top mathematicians and astronomers like Ulugh Beg.
No, Mr. Giscard must not worry!
We do not intend to consider Ulugh Beg, great scholar, copious author and by
far the world's most erudite monarch, as a European intellectual! Ulugh Beg's
capital was Samarqand.
But without this Asiatic genius, and without the unprecedented role played
by the Ottoman Empire in functioning as cultural – intellectual corridor and
thus transferring the lights of civilization to the then uneducated and
obscurantist Europe, there would never be Renaissance in Europe!
So, the apparently ignorant Mr. Giscard must realize that Modern Turkey, as
depository of the Ottoman Cultural Heritage, is the heir of a leading
European contributor to the phenomenon of Renaissance and all the
subsequent historical periods that ensued. As such Turkey has indeed a great
role in Europe. And Giscard’s key to accurate and ultimate understanding is
the real, yet unknown, History of Europe.

13. This is a vast topic which was totally overlooked before and during the
otherwise worthless works of the Giscard infamous Committee; it is truly
comical how the members of the said body thought that they can conceive
and write down the constitution of a country the history of which they still do
not know, although the country is supposedly theirs!
And how can one know Europe, if one ignores Hermann of Carantania (also
known as Hermann von Carinthia or Hermannus Dalmata)?
Or perhaps Slovenia too is not European either?
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Published: 11/28/2004