Challenge: Multiply the Greeks II

[Cuāuhtemōc]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=168746&highlight=Multiply+Greeks

Let's this be a continuation of that thread.

Although they were a very ambitious people, the Greeks were not much of a numerous people compared to say the Germans, the Irish or even the Arabs and their reach is small compared to other ethnic groups. In Anatolia, the Turks managed to keep their own language and displace/assimilate the local Greek-speaking Anatolian population while adopting a lot of the culture.

The Greek language was at various points throughout history very widespread but not so much in recent history. Greek-dominant states such as the Eastern Roman Empire or the short-lived Argead Empire and its Successor kingdoms failed to last enough to leave multiple successor states speaking languages or dialects derived from Classical or Medieval Greek the way that the old Latin-speaking Roman Empire, or the Arab Caliphate.

So do we increase the numbers of Greeks? I'm extremely flexible so we can have PODs going as far back to the time of Alexander the Great's coronation as King of Macedonia or even prior to it. If it's possible, I'm curious if this is even doable after Osman proclaimed his independence from the Seljuks and set in motion the rise of the Ottomans.

How do we get a large number of self-identified Greeks?25 million? 30 million? 40 million? 70 million? 100 million? 200 million? 300 million? More than that.

Feel free to post any original ideas.

 

[Andreas]

The issue perharps is that if the Greeks were more numerous, they probably wouldn't be what they were (and are). I mean that the relatively small population and spread of the Greeks are two basic factors that produced the Greek language and civilisation.

Today the Greeks (Greece, Cyprus, North Epirus and Diaspora) are about 18-20 millions. Nevertheless, they could be even more under the following proposed PODs:

1. No German Ocupation in WW2: it cost the lives of 700.000 Greeks and brought a stalemate in population growth for decades.
2. A more substantial economic and social model -> no Civil war, no emmigration in post war period, better performance in terms of population growth
3. No "ethnic cleansing" policy by Turkey in 20th century: the number of dead Greeks (Pontians, Ionians and Cypriots) in 1915, 1919-1923 and 1974 is not yet counted, while the exile of 1.500.000 Greeks from Asia Minor in 1922-1923, 50.000 Constantinopolitans in 1955 and about 150.000 Cypriots in 1974 led to a diminised rate of growth.
4. No policy of discrimination by Xotza's Albania (1945-1985)
5. Better performance in terms of internal policy by Byzantium in 11th c. and onwards -> no loss of Anatolia
6. Better performance by Byzantium iin South Italy: even today there's a population speaking Greek and aware of their Greek origins
7. Better performance in intergrating Greek-influenced areas into the core of Greek culture: e.g. Moesia (modern Bulgaria), Ilyrian areas (modern Albania)

 

[Xeal II]

No Manzikert.

Byzantium retaining Asia Minor would leave a lot more Greeks in the modern age (though the butterflies would make such an age completely unrecognizable to us).

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

1) Mainland Greece is small and mountainous and couldn't support a large number of inhabitants. In fact the only densely populated areas of ancient Greece were the Macedonian and the Thessalian grasslands and that's because they were basically the only large grasslands available in Greece. Compare these areas with the amount of grasslands some large states such as Germany and France have and you can easily get the picture.

2) The colonies were many but they were spread too thin all over the Mediterranean coasts, so it was hard to preserve their independence and Greek character. The only candidate to house a large Greek populations was South Italy/Sicily and Asia Minor. The Greek population of Italy and Sicily may have exceeded that of mainland Greece at various points during antiquity. You might say that this is absurd, but try to think about enormously large cities like Taras, Syracuse, Croton, Sybaris etc in mainland Greece. Only Athens comes close. Italy though was captured by Rome and although the Byzantines managed to hold it, not many people considered themselves Greeks and South Italy was mostly always considered a remote place for Byzantium, hence it was easy for the Normans and other conquerors to capture it.

As for Asia Minor, yeah that's the key I suppose to a large Greek population. The only way for the Greeks to be multiplied (doubled to 20 million I'd say) would have been a victory over the Turks in the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1923. Imagine a Greece with Eastern Thrace, Western Asia Minor and maybe Constantinople today. Yeah, that's the only case of we want something more recent.

 

[kasumigenx]

The issue perharps is that if the Greeks were more numerous, they probably wouldn't be what they were (and are). I mean that the relatively small population and spread of the Greeks are two basic factors that produced the Greek language and civilisation.

Today the Greeks (Greece, Cyprus, North Epirus and Diaspora) are about 18-20 millions. Nevertheless, they could be even more under the following proposed PODs:

1. No German Ocupation in WW2: it cost the lives of 700.000 Greeks and brought a stalemate in population growth for decades.
2. A more substantial economic and social model -> no Civil war, no emmigration in post war period, better performance in terms of population growth
3. No "ethnic cleansing" policy by Turkey in 20th century: the number of dead Greeks (Pontians, Ionians and Cypriots) in 1915, 1919-1923 and 1974 is not yet counted, while the exile of 1.500.000 Greeks from Asia Minor in 1922-1923, 50.000 Constantinopolitans in 1955 and about 150.000 Cypriots in 1974 led to a diminised rate of growth.
4. No policy of discrimination by Xotza's Albania (1945-1985)
5. Better performance in terms of internal policy by Byzantium in 11th c. and onwards -> no loss of Anatolia
6. Better performance by Byzantium iin South Italy: even today there's a population speaking Greek and aware of their Greek origins
7. Better performance in intergrating Greek-influenced areas into the core of Greek culture: e.g. Moesia (modern Bulgaria), Ilyrian areas (modern Albania)

I think a no-normans scenario where in Normans were not allowed to settle in Normandy would work, the Normans screwed the Byzantines in Southern Italy.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The problem is that a Greek victory 1919-1923 will almost certainly include the Axis, plus Turkey, overrunning not only larger Greece during WWII but probably the collapse of the entire British position in the Middle East...plus questions as to whether the USSR can hold out with even less support or hope of support from the Western Allies.

In return for which...is there any evidence that these Greeks spending a single generation effectively under siege will experience a much more rapid birth rate?

 

[Andreas]

I think a no-normans scenario where in Normans were not allowed to settle in Normandy would work, the Normans screwed the Byzantines in Southern Italy.

You got a point, too!

 

[Andreas]

The problem is that a Greek victory 1919-1923 will almost certainly include the Axis, plus Turkey, overrunning not only larger Greece during WWII but probably the collapse of the entire British position in the Middle East...plus questions as to whether the USSR can hold out with even less support or hope of support from the Western Allies.

In return for which...is there any evidence that these Greeks spending a single generation effectively under siege will experience a much more rapid birth rate?

I agree, and that's why I proposed a POD about turkish policy and not a Greek victory....

 

[Socrates]

Mohammed dies as a child would probably do it. Without the Arab invasions, you can maintain a Greek Anatolia, Egypt, Levant and Mesopotamia, so you will get a couple hundred million of them by the modern day.

 

[Pachac]

Mohammed dies as a child would probably do it. Without the Arab invasions, you can maintain a Greek Anatolia, Egypt, Levant and Mesopotamia, so you will get a couple hundred million of them by the modern day.

Hellenized=/=Greek. None of those regions besides Anatolia were actually Greek. Syria's fortified cities of the Seleucids are long gone and the Greeks have assimilated into the local population. In Mesopotamia they faded away and disappeared almost entirely.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Guys, you forget that all of these proposed PODs involving a stronger ERE will probably lead to almost nobody considering themselves a Greek, given its inhabitants were always Rhomaoi and all...

The POD for more Hellenes has to come after about 1750. I'd say the best way to do it is to avoid all the nastiness of the early part of the twentieth century in the Aegean.

 

[Andreas]

Guys, you forget that all of these proposed PODs involving a stronger ERE will probably lead to almost nobody considering themselves a Greek, given its inhabitants were always Rhomaoi and all....

I completely dissagree. The Greek inhabitants of ERE considered themselves as "Romaioi" reffering to their "citizenship", but they always were aware of their Greek ethnic identity, it's just that ethnic identity was not considered as so important before the Enlightment. The argument of no-Greek ERE is long considered as false by historians, as the research into byzantine private correspondece and literature, performed in the past four decades, has clearly proven that. For example, see Photios' Library, or the correspondence between Gregoras and Georgios Pepagomenos, or the movement of Paleologian Renaisance. Gemistos' works etc...
In any way it's at least not plausible to consider the inhabitants of ERE as stupid enough to speak Greek, to study Greek, to think Greek and consider themselves as ethnic Romans....

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I completely dissagree. The Greek inhabitants of ERE considered themselves as "Romaioi" reffering to their "citizenship", but they always were aware of their Greek ethnic identity, it's just that ethnic identity was not considered as so important before the Enlightment. The argument of no-Greek ERE is long considered as false by historians, as the research into byzantine private correspondece and literature, performed in the past four decades, has clearly proven that. For example, see Photios' Library, or the correspondence between Gregoras and Georgios Pepagomenos, or the movement of Paleologian Renaisance. Gemistos' works etc...
In any way it's at least not plausible to consider the inhabitants of ERE as stupid enough to speak Greek, to study Greek, to think Greek and consider themselves as ethnic Romans....

I'll concede the point on the Palaiologi and Pepagomenos, but the post-1261 Byzantine state was moving away from its old definition of "Roman Empire" and towards a more Greek style identity. Photius was an intellectual, not a commoner, who'd have probably found being called a Hellene distinctly less of an insult than would the average inhabitant of the Roman Empire.

If Byzantium was a Greek state, why do Theophanes, Psellus, and Anna Komnena, to name but a few, refer entirely to "Romans", and never to "Hellenes"? Why was the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas so incensed when addressed as "Emperor of the Greeks"? There never were Greek Emperors- the early ones were Latin, the Isaurians were Syrian, the Macedonians were Armenian, and the Komnenoi were Cappadocian.

The language they spoke was known in the Empire as "Romaika" (though I'm not sure of the exact spelling)- "Romanish", not Greek.

I agree with you that the inhabitants of the Empire didn't see themselves in ethnic terms- they saw themselves as a chosen people, "Romans", which was more or less synonymous with "Orthodox Christians". In any case, the Empire was not an ethnically homogenous state- what about all the Slavs, Isaurians, Armenians, Italians, and so on? These were never Greek in any sense of the word.

 

[Elfwine]

The Eastern half of the Roman Empire was dominated by the Greek language, and Greco-Roman culture included studying Greek stuff as well as Roman (as in, Livy etc.) stuff.

Looking at the days before the ERE was the only Roman Empire. I'm not sure if considering one's identity to be "Roman!" for those who were fully assimilated (as opposed to how Armenia for one reason and the Slavs for another seem distinct enough to stand out from the rest of the Empire) when asked would be inappropriate at all.

Seems more likely that you'd see those who are in the sorta-kinda foreign category to identify themselves sort of like how we have (to use a term that is currently unfashionable)E "African-American" - in the sense that one might be of _____ stock, but one is Roman.

Those who consider themselves to be "purely" Roman would identify as just that, however.

 

[Sol Zagato]

You're all thinking like small fry.

The Turks turned Anatolia without replacing the population. Ergo: keep Greek domination of Persia (without absorbtion of course), and all kinds of 'Greek' peoples will exist.

 

[Andreas]

The point is that we can not perceive the past (history) in terms of modern meanings. I mean that it is understantable that a modern person can not accept that when the inhabitants of ERE called themselves "Romans" did not reffer to their ethnic identity, but to their citizen identity. In ancient and medieval world the ethnic identity played small or no role at all.

The whole thing about "Hellenas" being a curse comes from very certain sources, belonging to the high rank clergy: in any case it doesn't reflect the self-image of the commoners, nor their view of things.

Just for the case I was missunderstood: I never claimed that the whole population of ERE was Greek, or the ERE itself was a "pure" Greek state; if this was perceived, I guess that it is due to my poor english syntax, and I apologised. The correct thesis is that, as the science of history has proved in the past four decades, Greeks in ERE continued to be Greeks, and they were aware of their ethnic origins and identity. It's not something I red somewhere, nor I just think it is true. It is a universaly accepted thesis among the modern historians. And by historians I mean scientists...

 

[DuQuense]

Have the 500 BC, Greek Black Sea cities survive. You get a Greek Ukraine, with the population that can support.

 

[Errnge]

In the Classical era, Greeks were everywhere. You could find Greeks in Iberia, North Africa, Egypt, Italy (Magna Graecia anyone?), Anatolia, and all along the Black Sea.

But their fatal flaw was that they could never unify. The city-states squabbled and fought each other so often that they depleted their own population and allowed other groups to sweep in and take over (ie. the Persians, Macedonians, Galatians, Romans, Slavs, Turks). So, to multiply the Greeks, we must unify the Greeks, and do so early.

Sparta and Athens both had opportunity, as did Thebes, Epirus, and the Achaean League. If one of these groups could somehow unify the Greek homeland under one banner, I am positive such a state would soon gain dominance int he eastern med. sea.

 

[Pachac]

In the Classical era, Greeks were everywhere. You could find Greeks in Iberia, North Africa, Egypt, Italy (Magna Graecia anyone?), Anatolia, and all along the Black Sea.

But their fatal flaw was that they could never unify. The city-states squabbled and fought each other so often that they depleted their own population and allowed other groups to sweep in and take over (ie. the Persians, Macedonians, Galatians, Romans, Slavs, Turks). So, to multiply the Greeks, we must unify the Greeks, and do so early.

Hoplite warfare does not deplete a population. You can lose maybe 10% of a losing force and prisoners are returned. Of course, in some cases such as Sparta usual hoplite rules were not followed and the traditions became null after the Persian wars, but in general the battles did not cause depopulation. They never had a large population in the first place, after all. Athens imported grain from the Crimea to support her population.

 

[Wendell]

The question of who counts as a Greek should be asked here too. Do the Grikos of modern Italy count as Greeks? Do Orthodox Christians in the Middle East whose churches are in communion with Constantinople (i.e. under the 'Greek' Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria) get included in the tally?