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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Basileus444]

If we're talking the central plateau of Anatolia, I'd personally say maybe the 1120s or 1130s. By that point, any of the remaining locals who remember Byzantine rule are dying out or already dead, with the new generations having only experienced Turkish ways. The Komnenid policy of actually pulling out Greek settlers from Turkish lands obviously doesn't help.

I think that a Byzantine reconquest of the plateau is possible after that date up to the 1260s and the rise of Charles d'Anjou ruined the Byzantines' chances to take down the Seljuks as they collapsed. But any re-conquest after 1120s/30s would result in a Greco-Turkish Anatolia (at least in the interior), not a Greek Anatolia.

[Consul Arrianus]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

If we're talking the central plateau of Anatolia, I'd personally say maybe the 1120s or 1130s. By that point, any of the remaining locals who remember Byzantine rule are dying out or already dead, with the new generations having only experienced Turkish ways. The Komnenid policy of actually pulling out Greek settlers from Turkish lands obviously doesn't help.

I think that a Byzantine reconquest of the plateau is possible after that date up to the 1260s and the rise of Charles d'Anjou ruined the Byzantines' chances to take down the Seljuks as they collapsed. But any re-conquest after 1120s/30s would result in a Greco-Turkish Anatolia (at least in the interior), not a Greek Anatolia.

Well, then you have to make John II. more succesfull with his wars against the Turks (and he fought them quite often with little result). I guess if the Byzantine Empire didn't collapse after the death of Manuel I. and and having a strong state at the death of Kilij Arslan II. there might be a good chance to regain the heartsland.

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by Consul Arrianus

Well, then you have to make John II. more succesfull with his wars against the Turks (and he fought them quite often with little result). I guess if the Byzantine Empire didn't collapse after the death of Manuel I. and and having a strong state at the death of Kilij Arslan II. there might be a good chance to regain the heartsland.

I'm distinguishing between a Byzantine Anatolia and a non-Turkish Anatolia. The chances of getting the latter end much earlier than the former, since in the latter they have to be gone, but in the former they can still be around, just under Byzantine rule. Basically I put it like this:

Assuming Byzantine re-conquest in these dates:

1071 to 1130: Turkish pop hasn't grown enough and sunk in deep enough, is gradually reabsorbed by Greeks, end result-Greek Anatolia, pre-Manzikert style more or less.

1131-1264: Turkish pop is too big and deep to be completely reabsorbed, end result-syncretic Greco-Turkish Anatolia. How strong each element is depends on details of re-conquest and aftermath.

1265 on: Turkey.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

I'm distinguishing between a Byzantine Anatolia and a non-Turkish Anatolia. The chances of getting the latter end much earlier than the former, since in the latter they have to be gone, but in the former they can still be around, just under Byzantine rule. Basically I put it like this:

Assuming Byzantine re-conquest in these dates:

1071 to 1130: Turkish pop hasn't grown enough and sunk in deep enough, is gradually reabsorbed by Greeks, end result-Greek Anatolia, pre-Manzikert style more or less.

1131-1264: Turkish pop is too big and deep to be completely reabsorbed, end result-syncretic Greco-Turkish Anatolia. How strong each element is depends on details of re-conquest and aftermath.

1265 on: Turkey.

I largely agree.

But I think you might be overestimating "Turkish" as an identity in the first half of that period (or about 1131-1200) I think you'd almost definitely see a different culture than with an earlier reconquest, but different in the sense of details, not necessarily Greco-Turkish.

I think a Greek dialect that borrows a lot of words from Turkish and Persian would be a good illustration of what it would look like - if the Byzantine influence on the interior of Anatolia is strengthened, not weakened, in the 1180s and 1190s. Because if the Empire isn't seen as a place to turn to in that period -by those Turks who are concerned with models of "higher" civilization - they're going to look eastward like they did OTL.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saljuqs-iii Just as an interesting article, as it talks a little about Turkification of Anatolia.

So maybe I'd write it like this. If up to 1131 it could be recognizably the same soup, 1131 to 1200 is the same soup with a couple different ingredients and 1200-1264 is increasingly "You can call it calm chowder, but there aren't a lot of clams in it. And it doesn't look like its a chowder, either." - if that makes sense.