Plausibility Check: Kurds settled the rest of Anatolia

[ramones1986]

Recently, I'm thinking of an idea where the Kurds substituted Turks in (most of) the Anatolian peninsula, as in beyond their homeland (OTL southeastern Turkey and the Zagros Mountains).

While I really thought that such idea was almost/borderline implausible, I want to reassure if this scenario was plausible enough. If so, what PoD should be needed, and how it would affect the destiny not just of the Kurds, but also the rest of the Middle East?

 

[altwere]

I think that it is perfectly plausible. The Kurds are an Iranian speaking group that have been around for a long time. At one time they were thought to be the descendants of the Medes.
Perhaps you could have them slowly infiltrate during times of trouble.

 

[ramones1986]

Perhaps you could have them slowly infiltrate during times of trouble.

My only problem was the population density of the Anatolian Plateau in let's say a century before Manzikert.

 

[Practical Lobster]

The earliest use of the term Kurd was just a term for Indo-Iranian nomads. So basically you have from between the arrival of Islam onwards to make this happen. A true "Kurdish" people won't exist, but a people who are called Kurds and could easily continue to call themselves Kurds will.

Your best bet, IMO, is for the Kurds to move north during the earliest Arab raids on Anatolia and, as the Greek-speaking population there is in decline, exploit the vacuum.

 

[ramones1986]

Your best bet, IMO, is for the Kurds to move north during the earliest Arab raids on Anatolia and, as the Greek-speaking population there is in decline, exploit the vacuum.

Sure, the proto-Kurds would take advantage of the said situation, but the question is what would the Byzantines do?

 

[Maxwell Edison II]

Perhaps the Byzantines are the Romans p), the Turks are the Huns and the Kurds are the Germanics.

 

[LSCatilina]

Kurds were originally located in a smaller space, the kingdom of Corduene (the Medic origin is more or less wishful historiography), which probably imply the use of the Karduchoi name to the whole highland Iranic or Iranized population over history (differences with ancient Persian itself seems to have been minor).

Originally, the difference with other Iranic or Iranized sub-kingdom along the border with Rome may have been limited (at least on a cultural level, not linguistical : Armenian is so definitely not an Iranic language).

We may be facing what was first a political name (as Practical Lobster pointed, it was first about differencing "Nomads" from the others) that was applied to a region before it ended naming a whole linguistical group.

So, maybe, by having a more largely Iranized anatolia (trough Parthian or Sassanid conquest, for exemple), you may end with a larger Kurd ensemble, bit different from what we'd call Kurd culturally and linguistically tough (or diverse, as Zaza speakers identify themselves as Kurds)

Would that work?

 

[ramones1986]

So, maybe, by having a more largely Iranized anatolia (through Parthian or Sassanid conquest, for exemple), you may end with a larger Kurd ensemble, bit different from what we'd call Kurd culturally and linguistically tough (or diverse, as Zaza speakers identify themselves as Kurds)

Would that work?

Of course, though I would strongly consider Practical Lobster's PoD (the Arab raids over Anatolia in the midst of their wars with the Byzantines)