When does Turkish Anatolia become irreversible?

[Basileus444]

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.

That makes sense and I agree. I should have been more nuanced earlier. During the early middle period, say 1150, the result would be significantly more Greco than Turkish, while a late date, say 1250, would have much more of the Turkish. My main argument was that by 1131 or thereabouts enough Turkish elements would remain after a Byzantine conquest to warrant the label Greco-Turkish, whereas beforehand not enough would survive to merit the 'Turkish' part.

But I will admit to not having a sound definition of the difference between 'Greek with some Turkish bits' and 'Greco-Turkish'.

 

[Elfwine]

That makes sense and I agree. I should have been more nuanced earlier. During the early middle period, say 1150, the result would be significantly more Greco than Turkish, while a late date, say 1250, would have much more of the Turkish. My main argument was that by 1131 or thereabouts enough Turkish elements would remain after a Byzantine conquest to warrant the label Greco-Turkish, whereas beforehand not enough would survive to merit the 'Turkish' part.

But I will admit to not having a sound definition of the difference between 'Greek with some Turkish bits' and 'Greco-Turkish'.

Fair enough by me. The difference between the Turks being no more than a transitory presence (up to 1131) vs. an actual influence on the cultural muddle?

I think a lot is also going to depend on how the Byzantines go about controlling the place. A Byzantine Empire single mindedly focusing on driving out the Turks might be able to do so - although it probably wouldn't be wise to devote that much attention and effort - even later than 1200ish.

 

[Basileus444]

Yes. And I agreed that the details of the re-conquest would have a big impact. If the Byzantines really wanted to perform a Turkicide, and didn't have other commitments, they could probably do it. But it would be stupid and also out of character for the Byzantines.

 

[Tongera]

Yes. And I agreed that the details of the re-conquest would have a big impact. If the Byzantines really wanted to perform a Turkicide, and didn't have other commitments, they could probably do it. But it would be stupid and also out of character for the Byzantines.

Wasn't slaughtering religious and ethnic minorities (majorites as well) normal in medieval times? If the Byzantines thought the Turks will be a problem and they would be in a position to do something.....

 

[Zuvarq]

When did it become irreversible? It's never irreversible. HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS.

Actually, it was always irreversible from the beginning of time. TÜRKTÜRKTÜRKTÜRK

(Sorry, doesn't contribute that much but I had to make fun of Greek and Turk nationalists )

 

[Elfwine]

Wasn't slaughtering religious and ethnic minorities (majorites as well) normal in medieval times? If the Byzantines thought the Turks will be a problem and they would be in a position to do something.....

The Byzantine solution to minorities being a problem was usually to move them around within the Empire, outright slaughter was very, very, very rare - I can think of all of a couple examples. Though most of that has to do with a lack of groups the empire didn't assimilate that it wanted to eliminate instead. Anatolia being "Greek" is a result of a variety of peoples adopting Hellenic ways (including Slavs moved to repopulate the place, for instance), not anything that any blood-based standard would define as Greek.

Crete being recaptured and assimilated/repopulated actually might be an example of what this would look like, given that the time period of it being under nonByzantine control is comparable to the Anatolian plataeu in the second phase (it fell in the 820s and was retaken in 960).

It's never irreversible. HELLAS HELLAS HELLAS.

Actually, it was always reversible. TÜRKTÜRKTÜRKTÜRK

(Sorry, doesn't contribute that much but I had to make fun of Greek and Turk nationalists)

Speaking as a Byzantiophile: Amen.

Nationalism over the areas formerly Byzantine is a particularly silly practice, given that the Byzantines rigorously ignored ethnicity in any sense akin to how its used in the modern territories.

 

[Basileus444]

Wasn't slaughtering religious and ethnic minorities (majorites as well) normal in medieval times? If the Byzantines thought the Turks will be a problem and they would be in a position to do something.....

It was, but the Byzantines always had manpower issues. So they didn't like to kill off potential soldiers and taxpayers unless they really really had to (it's not because the Byzantines were nicer people, just more pragmatic). But as Elfwine pointed out, the usual Byzantine method of dealing with troublesome minorities was to move them around and scatter them.

 

[Riain]

I don`t think that there are any quick fixes, but if the Byz hold Anatolia for long enough, a century or so, then it could re-Greek or Greekify the Turks who have to deal with Greek administration. Therfore I think that somewhere between the 3rd and 4th Crusade was the last time Anatolia could be re-Greeked and/or Greekified.

 

[Elfwine]

I don`t think that there are any quick fixes, but if the Byz hold Anatolia for long enough, a century or so, then it could re-Greek or Greekify the Turks who have to deal with Greek administration. Therfore I think that somewhere between the 3rd and 4th Crusade was the last time Anatolia could be re-Greeked and/or Greekified.

Do you think that if the empire hadn't collapsed in that period it could have done so later?

Meaning, the issue is less the date than the strength of the empire?

 

[Riain]

Yes, the Komnenos were the last big resurgence and therefore the last chance to regain Anatolia. And the Crusades allow it to largely happen for free, so to speak.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I don`t think that there are any quick fixes, but if the Byz hold Anatolia for long enough, a century or so, then it could re-Greek or Greekify the Turks who have to deal with Greek administration. Therfore I think that somewhere between the 3rd and 4th Crusade was the last time Anatolia could be re-Greeked and/or Greekified.

I think, however, that it's inarguable that after 1204 there is no going back for Byzantium. Even if it manages to recover some territorial extent, the Turkic Ghazi polities are too well established for the Turks to be given the boot and/or assimilated. And even before then there's no simple means to change things the later into the 12th Century the scenario in question is.

A victory at Myriokephalon just delays the inevitable in a long-term sense, it does not lead to active changes.

 

[Elfwine]

I think, however, that it's inarguable that after 1204 there is no going back for Byzantium. Even if it manages to recover some territorial extent, the Turkic Ghazi polities are too well established for the Turks to be given the boot and/or assimilated. And even before then there's no simple means to change things the later into the 12th Century the scenario in question is.

A victory at Myriokephalon just delays the inevitable in a long-term sense, it does not lead to active changes.

So why is it that the Empire was able to, for instance, give the boot to the Emirate of Crete around hundred and forty years after it had been established, but the Turks in Anatolia are "too well established" despite having only been there (as of 1204) a comparable amount of time?

Certainly a lot of effort had to be put into giving the EoC the boot, but it was effort the Byzantines could make.

Note, I'm looking at 1204 as a date with an earlier POD - once Nicaea (as the strongest of the successor states OTL) has to spend two generations clawing back to to some kind of position like what it was at the end of the 12th century, that's two generations given to the Turks and two generations lost by the Byzantines.

 

[Snake Featherston]

So why is it that the Empire was able to, for instance, give the boot to the Emirate of Crete around hundred and forty years after it had been established, but the Turks in Anatolia are "too well established" despite having only been there (as of 1204) a comparable amount of time?

Certainly a lot of effort had to be put into giving the EoC the boot, but it was effort the Byzantines could make.

Note, I'm looking at 1204 as a date with an earlier POD - once Nicaea (as the strongest of the successor states OTL) has to spend two generations clawing back to to some kind of position like what it was at the end of the 12th century, that's two generations given to the Turks and two generations lost by the Byzantines.

Primarily because at the time they gave the boot to the Emirate of Crete the ERE was the premier naval power of its part of the world. After 1204 the Empire had enough problems holding itself together to the point where that alone was too much of a challenge to halt the steady expansion of Turkic culture.

 

[Tongera]

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.

But if Byzantium can retake the central plateau and keep for at least 100 years, then eventually the Turks will forget Seljuk rule and maybe could be re-Hellenized and make Orthodox again, as what happened to Byzantium.

 

[Basileus444]

But if Byzantium can retake the central plateau and keep for at least 100 years, then eventually the Turks will forget Seljuk rule and maybe could be re-Hellenized and make Orthodox again, as what happened to Byzantium.

But in those 100 years, the Turks would also be influencing the Greeks, and if the number of Turks is high enough, even after a century the end result wouldn't be wholly Hellenized. If for example you have 8 million Greeks and 3 million Turks (numbers picked randomly), after a hundred years you aren't likely to have 11 million Greeks (I'm ignoring pop growth here obviously). At most you'll have 11 million Greco-Turks, with some areas more Greco and some more Turkish. The cities would by that time be almost entirely (at least) Greek and Orthodox, but the countryside would be less so.

 

[Elfwine]

But in those 100 years, the Turks would also be influencing the Greeks, and if the number of Turks is high enough, even after a century the end result wouldn't be wholly Hellenized. If for example you have 8 million Greeks and 3 million Turks (numbers picked randomly), after a hundred years you aren't likely to have 11 million Greeks (I'm ignoring pop growth here obviously). At most you'll have 11 million Greco-Turks, with some areas more Greco and some more Turkish. The cities would by that time be almost entirely (at least) Greek and Orthodox, but the countryside would be less so.

I think, over the course of a century of Byzantine rule, the Turks having significant influence over the nonTurkish part of the population is unlikely.

Still, it does make Anatolia largely the Turkish version of Digenes Akrites rather than "pure" Greek like you'd see around Thrace and Hellas.

Ethnicity is probably not meaningfully more muddled than it already was, but culture is.

 

[Basileus444]

I think, over the course of a century of Byzantine rule, the Turks having significant influence over the nonTurkish part of the population is unlikely.

Still, it does make Anatolia largely the Turkish version of Digenes Akrites rather than "pure" Greek like you'd see around Thrace and Hellas.

Ethnicity is probably not meaningfully more muddled than it already was, but culture is.

That's what I was trying, and failing to say. And I've been using Turkish and Greek in the cultural and not ethnic sense (although that's my fault for not pointing that out earlier). But with enough Turks in there, Anatolia wouldn't become Greece 2.0, bigger and to the right, which is what I've been arguing. It is true that over the centuries, the Greco part of the Greco-Turkish mix would get stronger, but I don't think the Turkish part would ever completely go away, although it might be reduced to political irrelevance.

 

[Elfwine]

That's what I was trying, and failing to say. And I've been using Turkish and Greek in the cultural and not ethnic sense (although that's my fault for not pointing that out earlier). But with enough Turks in there, Anatolia wouldn't become Greece 2.0, bigger and to the right, which is what I've been arguing. It is true that over the centuries, the Greco part of the Greco-Turkish mix would get stronger, but I don't think the Turkish part would ever completely go away, although it might be reduced to political irrelevance.

Yeah. My inclination is that it being present would be more like oh (using the UK as an example of how the cultures relate to the UK): Slavs as Irish , Armenians as the Scots, the "pure" Greeks as the English, and the Greco-Turk element would be . . . not sure what. Northern Ireland's Anglo-Irish?

It wouldn't just be Greece 2.0, but I think Greco-Turkish can imply too strong a Turkish tone to things - DA was a Byzantine borderer, but "borderer" alone is enough to stand out from Greece proper, and the Turkish element probably does reinforce that as it emphasizes that the majority of Anatolia is rugged and rural rather than how we think of for instance Thessaloniki for "Greece proper".

But all of this is quibbling on details at this point.

The question is, how late can the empire maintain the strength for such a reconquest?

Your timeline is an optimistic outcome, and I think possibly overestimating Byzantine power (although the Seljuks are sorely weakened, so I'll leave my comments at the start of the thread as enough said there). But otherwise, I think the empire has to make it through the 1180-1204 period more or less intact for this to work. A crumbling state in the early 13th century, even if the Fourth Crusade is kept from breaking it up, just isn't in a position to win battles in Anatolia.

 

[Tongera]

Yeah. My inclination is that it being present would be more like oh (using the UK as an example of how the cultures relate to the UK): Slavs as Irish , Armenians as the Scots, the "pure" Greeks as the English, and the Greco-Turk element would be . . . not sure what. Northern Ireland's Anglo-Irish?

It wouldn't just be Greece 2.0, but I think Greco-Turkish can imply too strong a Turkish tone to things - DA was a Byzantine borderer, but "borderer" alone is enough to stand out from Greece proper, and the Turkish element probably does reinforce that as it emphasizes that the majority of Anatolia is rugged and rural rather than how we think of for instance Thessaloniki for "Greece proper".

But all of this is quibbling on details at this point.

The question is, how late can the empire maintain the strength for such a reconquest?

Your timeline is an optimistic outcome, and I think possibly overestimating Byzantine power (although the Seljuks are sorely weakened, so I'll leave my comments at the start of the thread as enough said there). But otherwise, I think the empire has to make it through the 1180-1204 period more or less intact for this to work. A crumbling state in the early 13th century, even if the Fourth Crusade is kept from breaking it up, just isn't in a position to win battles in Anatolia.

Perhaps if Manuel Kommenos can win the battle of Myriokephalon and can eventually conquer the central plateau of Anatolia? Although he will need competent heirs to keep the central plateau subdued and to re-assimilate the Turks there.

 

[Elfwine]

Perhaps if Manuel Kommenos can win the battle of Myriokephalon and can eventually conquer the central plateau of Anatolia? Although he will need competent heirs to keep the central plateau subdued and to re-assimilate the Turks there.

Yeah. Win, or not fight it at all and accept Killij ARslan's offer (making sure that he really does turn over the area in question).

I'm exploring the latter in my timeline, along with making an adjustment so his heir is born earlier (and Manuel lives another few years since his health seems to have suffered from his sense of disasterous failure here OTL)

It's tricky, but the Byzantines have managed things like this before.