When does Turkish Anatolia become irreversible?

[Basileus Giorgios]

Byzantinists:

I had an exam question vaguely on this yesterday and thought I'd source out opinions. When, in your view, does the "Turkification" of Anatolia become impossible to reverse, in your view? That is, even if Anatolia is retaken by the Empire it'll remain predominantly Turkish, just as the Balkans remained predominantly Slavic even after being reconquered.

1075? 1080? 1085? Later still?

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

Byzantinists:

I had an exam question vaguely on this yesterday and thought I'd source out opinions. When, in your view, does the "Turkification" of Anatolia become impossible to reverse, in your view? That is, even if Anatolia is retaken by the Empire it'll remain predominantly Turkish, just as the Balkans remained predominantly Slavic even after being reconquered.

1075? 1080? 1085? Later still?

Battle of Myriokephalon. Or sometime around the Mongol invasions which caused a second wave of Turkic migration onto Asia Minor. :

[Elfwine]

I'm not sure, but definitely after the mid-13th century - though this is looking more at how the Turkish element was reinforced at that point.

[Basileus Giorgios]

You both put it much later than I would've done- I argued in the exam that the troop withdrawals at the start of Alexios' reign to reinforce the doomed campaigns against the Normans effectively meant the plateau was more or less irredeemable for the Empire after that, considering it would almost always face distraction on other fronts from herein. I compared Anatolia at the start of Alexios' reign to the Balkans at the start of Heraclius', that is, a shaky situation but more or less recoverable, but made impossible to recover by the withdrawal of resources to fight elsewhere.

How do you guys think it's credible to do an Anatolian conquest that "re-Greekifies" that plateau, then?

[LSCatilina]

It was irreversible after the retaking of Constantinople by the Empire of Nicea in 1261.

Niceans did a good job at making greek Anatolia redevelloped and strong. But when they took back the capital of Byzantium, they neglected the western Anatolia, giving all room of Turks to take it.

[Dyranum]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

It was irreversible after the retaking of Constantinople by the Empire of Nicea in 1261.

Niceans did a good job at making greek Anatolia redevelloped and strong. But when they took back the capital of Byzantium, they neglected the western Anatolia, giving all room of Turks to take it.

I think that had more to do with the new dynasty that took over rather than retaking Constantinople. I am not sure, but I think that's the reason for the neglection.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Dyranum

I think that had more to do with the new dynasty that took over rather than retaking Constantinople. I am not sure, but I think that's the reason for the neglection.

I'm not sure. When they had only to take care of the east (the Latin Empire being unable to do anything against Niceans), Byzantines knew for the first time a "one front" situation and handeled it quite well.

But ruling Constantinople means having to handle attacks from the North (Slavs), from the West (Slavs and Latins) and from the East (Turks, Mongols).
And, finally, to make a choice about which province is dispensable to ensure the survival of the capital.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

You both put it much later than I would've done- I argued in the exam that the troop withdrawals at the start of Alexios' reign to reinforce the doomed campaigns against the Normans effectively meant the plateau was more or less irredeemable for the Empire after that, considering it would almost always face distraction on other fronts from herein. I compared Anatolia at the start of Alexios' reign to the Balkans at the start of Heraclius', that is, a shaky situation but more or less recoverable, but made impossible to recover by the withdrawal of resources to fight elsewhere.

How do you guys think it's credible to do an Anatolian conquest that "re-Greekifies" that plateau, then?

Same way as the parts that were retaken could be done.

And the empire facing distractions on other fronts isn't the same thing as being unable to fight here or to repopulate the area.

I think it would have taken population transfers, at least to some extent, and probably would still be distinct from the areas not abandoned - sort of halfway between "Greek" and "Turkish".

A lot depends I think on how large the Turkish element of the population is/was though - if we're dealing with (for an empire that was what, ten million under John iI?) half a million Turks, that's different than four or five million.

[Snake Featherston]

By the late Seljuk era.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

By the late Seljuk era.

Defined as?

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Defined as?

The 13th Century, around the time of the Fourth Crusade. In the initial migrations, nothing said the Turks necessarily were going to go west instead of south.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

The 13th Century, around the time of the Fourth Crusade. In the initial migrations, nothing said the Turks necessarily were going to go west instead of south.

Makes sense.

Would you say a Byzantine Empire/ERE that didn't collapse in this period would push back that point, as a significant influence on the region both by might and culture?

Still at the point Turkish power is solidifying (assuming said noncollapsed ERE hasn't kicked the Seljuks apart), but with them less drawn towards the nonERE aspects of what influenced them, that might count for something.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Makes sense.

Would you say a Byzantine Empire/ERE that didn't collapse in this period would push back that point, as a significant influence on the region both by might and culture?

Still at the point Turkish power is solidifying (assuming said noncollapsed ERE hasn't kicked the Seljuks apart), but with them less drawn towards the nonERE aspects of what influenced them, that might count for something.

I think it would at least make an effort to do this. Whether it succeeds is a different question.

[Avitus]

I'll opt for the reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos, because he lost control of Byzantine Anatolia, among other territories, and failed to retake them within a decade, essentially allowing the destruction of the Byzantine rehabilitation of Anatolia under the Laskarids. Up until then, Byzantine control in Anatolia was only roughly one third, but that third would have been the most heavily populated and economically productive. Once you lose that, all that's left is Trebizond and possibly Smyrna, which apparently clung to it's Greco-Roman heritage longer than the other conquered portions of Anatolia, so not much real potential for becoming Byzantine again (unless you give them like 100+ years of prosperity while resettling those lands, which is about as likely as the empire reestablishing themselves in Egypt at the same date).

[Basileus Giorgios]

I hear all your arguments about Laskarid Anatolia, but my original point was more about the plateau than the entirety of the peninsula...

[Avitus]

I think the point people are trying to make about Laskarid Anatolia is that, if the Nicene successor state could do that much to restore Anatolia, then the restored empire, provided it continues to focus on Anatolia, could at the very least continue that trend at a similar rate, likely until all of Anatolia is restored. As one of the final portions of the empire's heartland, I think that the death of Byzantine Anatolia isn't assured until the death of the empire itself is assured. After all, the last stronghold of Byzantium, Trebizond, was Anatolian, so at the last the empire was Anatolian in it's entirety.

[el t]

I vote for Myriocephalon. For more info, read "The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor" by Spiros Vryonis.

[Tongera]

Originally Posted by el t

I vote for Myriocephalon. For more info, read "The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor" by Spiros Vryonis.

If Manuel can win there and follow up on the victory with a siege and capture of Konya, then Anatolia can be retaken completely.

[Bee]

If Tamerlane depopulated Anatolia to the best of his ability after the Battle of Ankara (1402), it would create an opportunity for a non-Turkish population to move in, but I can't see Byzantium having anywhere near the numbers to be the one.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by el t

I vote for Myriocephalon. For more info, read "The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor" by Spiros Vryonis.

I kind of disagree with that. 1204 is when the process really starts to become irreversible, as after that point the ERE has enough problems merely holding itself together to bother with returning to power-projection elsewhere. Meaning that for Turkic society to expand is rather simpler and it only requires time's inexorable eroding force in its favor, a luxury the ERE will never have.