Seljuk Kiev: What if the Turks were forced North?

[Leo Caesius]

TemporalRenegade -

No one here is claiming that the Armenian Holocaust is a hoax. What is being debated (and what has been debated, numerous times, ad nauseum) is what exactly happened in Eastern Anatolia leading to the massacres and deportations of the Armenians there. I personally don't think there's a very strong case that the Turks as a group - or even the Young Turks - conspired to commit genocide stricto sensu in a manner comparable to the Nazi program to exterminate the Jews. As for the numbers you're quoting, even the most ardent scholarly advocates of the Armenians reject them, although they are frequently quoted in polemical contexts.

Here is one of the more recent threads we've dedicated to this topic. I advise you to look through it and see if you have anything to add.

Ian was not warning you for bringing up the Armenian Holocaust. He was warning you not to paint an entire group of people with a broad brush. Even though this is alternate history, we need to keep one foot in reality. That means we can't misrepresent an entire group of people as "historically racist" and "potentially far worse than the Nazis," particularly on the basis of the actions of a regime that has long since been replaced, orchestrated by a few individuals who were tried for their crimes and are now long dead.

 

[Calgacus]

Oh not this again! The Armenian 'genocide' was not a genocide, given the lack of proof of central planning and intent to wipe out the whole race. Ethnic Cleansing sure, and it was pretty despicable, but not on a par with the Nazis.

 

[Keenir]

Of course they are! Greeks and Italians might be classified as the Mediterranean race, but in reality there is no one "Mediterranean race." Greeks, Italians, Albanians, Spaniards, Portuguese, etc. are Southern Europeans whereas Swedes are Northern Europeans. Despite regional differences, all are of European descent.

the Turkish citizens of the Republic of Turkey, are of Greek and Celtic descent, and therefore are also Europeans by blood.

No I don't. I never said that religion defines it. A Turk need not be Muslim to qualify and could therefore convert to Christianity and still be considered a Turk. By "very very few" I am really stating quite uncommon, not nonexistant!

I admit these aren't large populations...but they're more than a dozen people in each, mind you.

modern Turks:
Tuva - shamanistic
Yakut, Chuvash, Gagauz - Christian

historical Turks:
Khazars - Jewish.

The Hellenic people of Knossos, Italic people of Sardinia, and Germanic (Viking) people of Sweden probably have a common ethnic origin dating back to the neolithic. Linguistically, they are all Indo-European.

okay, so what are the Basques? they don't have an Indo-European language.

Genetically, Europeans have more in common with eachother on average, than they do with non-Europeans,

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of Egyptians have Greek blood. ergo, by your definition, Egyptians are European.

 

[King Gorilla]

One reason Asia Minor got Turkified so quickly is b/c many peasants, oppressed by their foreign mercenary landlords, welcomed the Turks as liberators and intermarried with them.

The Byzantine Empire at the time of Manzikert was rather weak internally, despite an impressive exterior.

The Rus might give the Turks real problems in TTL. Even in Asia Minor in OTL, peasant akritai helped hold the line for centuries, while 10-15% of the Turks ultimately converted to Christianity.

I'm thinking that the Seljuks will take only part of Rus territory (one or two sub-kingdoms, perhaps), and get "contained." I suspect they will get assimilated like the Bulgars after awhile, although they might leave some interesting cultural changes behind them.

I agree, I think it is rather unlikely that the Turks would conquer and assimilate both the white and red Russians so quickly. I can see Kiev and its associated principalities taking a decade of solid warfare to be subdued and held down but I feel northern Russian would be a little more difficult given the densely forested terrain not being very conducive to nomadic warfare. There would probably be 2-3 Turkish states dominate OTL Ukraine and the territory of the Volga Bulgars with an ethnic Russian state based in Novograd dominating the north with Belorussia being controlled by Lithuania. From there the turks would have to begin the slow conquest of their neighbors while creating a composite russo-turkish culture, devising new tactics and eventual triumphing 100-300 years later with the conquests of Novograd and Minsk.

 

[Ian the Admin]

Well Ian, I am sorry for trolling, but I do not consider such an accusation way off base. For one thing over one and a half million Armenians were killed between 1915 and 1923, with an original population estimated at just over two million, so about 75% of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire was killed. Contrast this with the Holocaust.

Cut the horseshit. You called the entire Turkish *people* racist, not just in the early 20th century but "historically", and potentially to an extent worse than the Nazis whose massacring was only limited to 11 million because their empire was destroyed before they could carry out most of their plans. That's a gigantic troll and there's basically no way you could substantiate it, no matter how much you try. Even the Nazis don't demonstrate historical racism on the part of *Germans* - in fact, the Germans weren't any more racist than other Europeans before the Nazis took power, but with extremist nutballs in power and a chaotic situation in the world it's easy to whip up an unusual frenzy of support for the "master race".

There is a qualitative difference between the Nazis and your garden variety ethnic massacres/genocies/whatever. And the Armenian genocide was basically "garden variety" in quality although large in quantity- an ethnic/sectarian group in a particular region is targeted for get-out-dead-or-alive treatment, but many or most deaths result from being forced to flee rather than direct execution, and those outside of the region of conflict may be quite unscathed.

The Nazis are noteworthy for being a far rarer type - they developed an extremely explicit "master race" ideology in which their race was superior to all others, and other races (and other religious/political undesirables) deserved to be enslaved or executed. The especially undesirable were in for systematic, 100% murder - no expulsion, every last one was to die. The merely somewhat subhuman would be enslaved, and perhaps subject to some level of massacring, to make way for movement of the German master race into new lands in the East. It wasn't any sort of pragmatic or imperial plan, but explicitly one of racial domination.

Since Nazi ideology was founded on racism, and they murdered 11 million people directly because of that (and killed far more in warfare largely because of it - the invasion of Russia was on racial grounds), accusing anyone of being possibly worse than that is stupendously serious and very offensive.

 

[Glen]

....
There is a qualitative difference between the Nazis and your garden variety ethnic massacres/genocies/whatever. And the Armenian genocide was basically "garden variety" in quality although large in quantity- an ethnic/sectarian group in a particular region is targeted for get-out-dead-or-alive treatment, but many or most deaths result from being forced to flee rather than direct execution, and those outside of the region of conflict may be quite unscathed.

The Nazis are noteworthy for being a far rarer type - they developed an extremely explicit "master race" ideology in which their race was superior to all others, and other races (and other religious/political undesirables) deserved to be enslaved or executed. The especially undesirable were in for systematic, 100% murder - no expulsion, every last one was to die. The merely somewhat subhuman would be enslaved, and perhaps subject to some level of massacring, to make way for movement of the German master race into new lands in the East. It wasn't any sort of pragmatic or imperial plan, but explicitly one of racial domination.

....Nazi ideology was founded on racism, and they murdered 11 million people directly because of that (and killed far more in warfare largely because of it - the invasion of Russia was on racial grounds)....

A nice summation of what made the evil of the Nazis different from those who came before and after.

 

[Calgacus]

in fact, the Germans weren't any more racist than other Europeans before the Nazis took power.

Very true. In fact I think if you were to travel back to the 1880s and tell people that there was a country that within 60 years would be trying to wipe out the Jews, very few of them would guess it was Germany. France for one was far more antisemitic, although I'm pretty sure they would have guessed Russia.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Since Nazi ideology was founded on racism, and they murdered 11 million people directly because of that (and killed far more in warfare largely because of it - the invasion of Russia was on racial grounds), accusing anyone of being possibly worse than that is stupendously serious and very offensive.

Anyone, as in anyone at all? I might be inclined to raise you Mao and Stalin as competitors, although they were less racist (however, class-based slaughters, such as "landlords" and "intellectuals," surely count as "kill all members of X group" just as race).

 

[Calgacus]

Anyone, as in anyone at all? I might be inclined to raise you Mao and Stalin as competitors, although they were less racist (however, class-based slaughters, such as "landlords" and "intellectuals," surely count as "kill all members of X group" just as race).

I can't think of any. It's difficult to think of any that can be described as a true genocide (ie. an attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group on purely racial grounds) in the way that what the Nazis tried against the Roma and Jews was. Rwanda maybe? But not Stalin or Mao, as there was no attempt (AFAIK) to wipe out all of a particular ethnicity.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I can't think of any. It's difficult to think of any that can be described as a true genocide (ie. an attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group on purely racial grounds) in the way that what the Nazis tried against the Roma and Jews was. Rwanda maybe? But not Stalin or Mao, as there was no attempt (AFAIK) to wipe out all of a particular ethnicity.

How about "democide," which is a bit more broad?

And how did that definition of genocide get so narrow? The UN definition is so broad as to be somwhat farcical (attempting to hurt a group's self-esteem is in there too), but it's surely more broad than that.

Some people around here seem to think the Nazis were more evil just b/c they were racist--the Communists were (on paper) not racist, but they were in power a lot longer and did a lot more damage.

 

[Calgacus]

How about "democide," which is a bit more broad?

And how did that definition of genocide get so narrow? The UN definition is so broad as to be somwhat farcical (attempting to hurt a group's self-esteem is in there too), but it's surely more broad than that.

Some people around here seem to think the Nazis were more evil just b/c they were racist--the Communists were (on paper) not racist, but they were in power a lot longer and did a lot more damage.

Well I go with the dictionary definition, and with the application of logic. The UN definition is dangerously narrow, opening the door to all kinds of ridiculous laws (like in France and Germany ATM). Genocide is trying to destroy an ethnic group? To be proved that it is an ethnic group that is the target, there really has to be an attempt to destroy all of them, and for th precise reason of their ethnicity. It would seem pointless for it to include individual acts, therefore I would judge there to have to be central planning and execution, but one can argue about that.

I don't think Nazis or Communists were more or less evil than each other - intentions matter, but at the end of the day they both killed lots of people. One would be too many. Tens of millions, and it scarcely matters what the reasons were.

Democide is a better word, but unfortunately genocide is firmly established as the most oversued word around. The media likes to use it all they can to spice up their stories, and this has desensitised people to its application.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I wonder if there's such a thing as genocide de jure (the Holocaust) and genocide de facto (something like Cambodia).

 

[Max Sinister]

Wouldn't the latter rather be some million cases of murder?

 

[Calgacus]

Wouldn't the latter rather be some million cases of murder?

Surely that would be democide in any case?

 

[Keenir]

Wouldn't the latter rather be some million cases of murder?

Cambodia's killing fields were organized, right? (honest question, as I'm not knowing the answer to it)

 

[Dmitry]

Russia didn't have good supply lines for an army?
well, Napoleon can certainly confirm that.

Yep. Do you know why Napoleon eventually lost his 500-thousand army?


the local food, of course.

if you're suggesting they'd fail because of boar meat, I should remind you that - under Islamic dietary laws - even haram foods such as pork are permitted if consuming those foods allows the faithful to be alive and in good health.

I'm suggesting that after their runaway from Iran they'd find themselves in a cold steppes north of the Caucasian mts with not enough food, with no space for their cattle and sheeps and they should have faced Pechenegs, Alans, Circassians and hell knows who. And Pechenegs more than one time demolished and massacred Oghuz people and eventually drove them to Danube. They were stronger as warriors and I think in their region Seljuks are simply no match for them

I could be literalist, and tell you that Mongols are a sibling language family to Turkish...but I won't, because that isn't what I'd been referring to.

Russians and for example Persians are of the same language family. So what? Does it mean that they are have so very much common in cultural and military affairs?

Mongol state were _unprecedented_ case in Great Steppe history because of their ultra-efficient army and great success in state-building. Thanks for Temujin and Yasa. No other steppe people could even get close to them in these affairs.

 

[Keenir]

Yep. Do you know why Napoleon eventually lost his 500-thousand army?

the cold, and the people burning everything in sight.

(much of Anatolia and Iran are highly mountainous as well, and the non-mountain areas are elevated)

I'm suggesting that after their runaway from Iran they'd find themselves in a cold steppes north of the Caucasian mts with not enough food, with no space for their cattle and sheeps and they should have faced Pechenegs, Alans, Circassians and hell knows who. And Pechenegs more than one time demolished and massacred Oghuz people and eventually drove them to Danube. They were stronger as warriors

I'm not sure what you mean by that - given that below, you say they had different military traditions, how can one say one group is stronger warriors than the other? *is curious*

I could be literalist, and tell you that Mongols are a sibling language family to Turkish...but I won't, because that isn't what I'd been referring to.

Russians and for example Persians are of the same language family. So what? Does it mean that they are have so very much common in cultural and military affairs

literally, the Russian culture as we know it nowadays and modern Persian are different culturally, though not exceedingly different militarily...though the dominant cultures of each of those nations were not neighbors.

 

[Stalker]

@Stalker: In Russian historiography, I guess? And if this is true: Who invented the legend of Viking Rurikids then?

The basic source of the Normandic (I avoid to use a term Vikings here because they were pirates and though dominated by Scandinavians, actually had no definite nationality having in their crews Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Germans, Slavs) origin of Rurikids is Nestor's East Slavic chronicle (Повесть временных лет). It was written 200 years after the event and had certain political reasons to narrate facts as it was beneficial to the rulers of Rus. There's also a serious doubt on complete authenticity of the texts that preserved untill the early 18th century.
Later on, in 18th century, the story was supported by the academician of Russian Academy of Science, prof. Miller and it was a very hot dispute about that between him and Mikhail Lomonosov.
I also argue Russian backwardness in 11th century with rich trade going through Rus and Silk Way also having its routs to Kiev. And Kiev with its population of 40 000 was the second biggest city of Europe after Constantinople. The Kiev smiths made very good swords having reinvented the secrets of Damask steel. The art was developing rapidly. Around 30-50 % of population (incl. women) were literate. There multiple cultural and technological items can be added to the list. Is that backwardness?

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
Wow, how I come I missed this hunt on a newbie till now?

Temporal Renegade
Yours is an interesting idea, but as you yourself have said you do not know that much on history of Eastern Europe. But you certainly know other stuff.

The main mistake I feel is imagining Russia as a empty place, which it is not and it is populated by all sorts of nasty tribes and people, like the Pechenegs, who managed to maintain their tribal identity long into middle ages and have a very nasty reputation. Even the Russia is very different from what will come later, the appanages have not yet wreaked its havoc on the country at this time- you are essentially speaking about having people who jsut got beaten off conquering fairly mighty kingdom on a upswing.

Oh to Rurikids. But if the list of kings is real, you can see the change frem Germanic names to Slavic names, non?

 

[Stalker]

Oh to Rurikids. But if the list of kings is real, you can see the change frem Germanic names to Slavic names, non?

Yes. It's an argument of normannists. But their assimilation is going too quickly while the name Rus' distinguished from Slovens has preserved for centuries on.
And thus, we may name Oleg - Helg, Igor - Ingwar, but it already does not work with Svyatoslav. My point is that all of these names had parallel Germanic names (which is a complete true especially for Rurikids) and with the sources confused, the historians were unable fo distinguish an original Slavic name from its Germanic analogue and vise versa - so, the truth had been lost in the darkness of ages.