When does Turkish Anatolia become irreversible?

That is quite literally impossible, that would require Greece to not only conquer all of Anatolia (a ridiculously difficult thing in the firstplace) but also the greek military (not exactly the best in the world, or even of its immediate neighbors) to commit to a campaign of ethnic cleansing akin to the Armenian genocide on a far bigger scale targeted towards a population that is larger than the population of Greece itself. Nothing could gain Greece a victory to that extreme a degree.

I admit I'm well out of my expertise zone, but here's an idea.

Greece joins the Allies willingly and decisively during the Gallipoli campaign, turning it into a resounding success that ends with the Greeks controlling Constantinople (since they have by far the most boots on the ground). With the Ottomans reeling, Romania joins the Allies earlier and since Russia is in better shape with the Black Sea open, Romania doesn't get steamrolled but instead the Romanians, Greeks, and Anzacs knock Bulgaria out of the war.

The Ottomans are militarily weaker, and so they don't have the forces to carry out as thorough an Armenian genocide, and WW1 ends with the Allies really liking Greece because of its contributions, while Greece has a more experienced army that has also benefited from Allied know-how. Meanwhile the Turks have taken heavier than OTL casualties (including Ataturk who's dead somewhere in Gallipoli), so in the Greco-Turkish war the Greeks are able to grab a good piece of western Anatolia (maybe the old Byzantine Optimatic, Opsician, and Thracesian themes or some such-Greece grabbing all of Anatolia at this time is definitely, absolutely ASB).

The Greeks do drive out/kill the Turks in their new territories, which burns off a lot of their goodwill. But they have a lot because of WW1, and they make some back when they offer room to Armenian refugees (of which there are a lot more because of the weaker genocide attempt), a policy inspired by Byzantine romanticism caused by the fall of Istanbul. The end result, a Greco-Armenian (aka Byzantine) western Anatolia.

As for the central plateau, maybe when WW2 rolls along Greece seizes that while the great powers smash each other. Or even assuming an OTL style Cold War, Greece could take it with American approval in the name of 'forestalling the threat of Turkish communists'.

Like I said, this is well out of my expertise zone, and likely ASB. But I am interested in what others think (I may repost this in the post-1900 forum).
 
I'm not enough of an expert to pick it apart properly, but it sounds pretty far fetched to me.

Interesting enough (in a gruesome sort of way) to want to see someone who does know look at it, though.
 
I'm not enough of an expert to pick it apart properly, but it sounds pretty far fetched to me.

Interesting enough (in a gruesome sort of way) to want to see someone who does know look at it, though.

Regarding the far-fetched, you won't get any argument from me. But this is my 'is it really impossible, or just very very difficult?' attempt. And because I am curious, I am going to put this in post-1900, since it's more likely there's an expert there.
 
It's certainly in part a population trend. Where are your numbers on the number of Turks from (I haven't seen specific figures, but I have read about people fleeing to safer areas away from the Turcomen raiders, which is going to push them westward more than leave them where they are)?

And this would suggest Anatolia is pretty thoroughly "Turkified" if still in some "significant" part Christian (40%?) by 1300.

And as a not so minor point: The Turks came from Central Asia, although where whatever peoples we're looking at lived were from before I don't know. Also, if memory serves, there are several stories of blonde Cumans, to name another "Turkic" people, so I'm not sure that seeing blonde Turks (as in modern Turkey) is enough for proof of a predominantly Greek-and-Armenian population. Admitedly, "Greek" in Anatolia is purely cultural - those settlers and natives who are at least perceived as Hellenized by the Byzantines or others (which is to say, "pure" Greek makes no sense here). The Byzantines paid less attention to ethnicity than just about any other empire I can think of. Culture, no, but definitely ethnicity.

This is interesting there (you may have already read it or something better, but others may not have): http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/anatolian-turks.html

It is very interesting what you say, about numbers of turkish settlers, I'm just guessing: move millions of people is difficult now, much more in 13th century, but your link about turkish genetics gives a hint:

(thank you very much, I owe you big). About halogroups let me quote:
"The major components (haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1; 94.1%) are shared with European and neighboring Near Eastern populations and hcontrast with only a minor share of haplogroups related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%)"
3,4% central asian, so we can guess in a native population of 5 million 13th century anatolian, number of turkish raiders would be around: 340K.

So I would put figures in 13th century Anatolia more in 90% Christian/10% Muslim (Egypt itself only turn a muslim majority country around that time, 5 centuries after arab conquest).

So turkification IS a cultural trend, not a genetic one.

BTW: ethnic identification is a cultural phenomem.
 
1923. No, I'm not joking. Assume a decisive Greek victory in the Greco-Turkish War.

The nationalist Greek government of that period was quite capable of imposing a drastic hellenization program in Anatolia. (At least, of willing such a program; whether they could carry it out, Idunno.)

At the very least, displacement of millions of Turks to the east seems certain - as voluntary or involuntary refugees. This would de-Turkify Anatolia to a significant degree.

It might not lead to full de-Turkification, but a second round of ethnic cleansing during a later war might finish the job. And heaven knows that the mid-1900s saw a lot of ethnic cleansing.

Given the one time Greece fought the Ottomans just the two of them together it was a thirty day curbstomp......of the Greeks...I fail to see how this leads one to assume that the Greeks have the capability of inflicting such a defeat on Turkey or the bigger Ottoman state by themselves.
 
If there had been no political instability after the death of Manuel I, the Byzantines stood a chance of conquering the Seljuks in the late 80s/early 90s.

Frederick Barbarossa defeated the Turks and sacked Konya in 1190. By then two of Sultan K.A. sons were in open rebellion, and his death a few years later plunged the Seljuks into civil war.

The Byzantines, under different leadership could have restored their control of Anatolia to the extent they had in the 9-10th centuries, up to the Tarsus mountains. I doubt they could have gone much further east.

This would have meant a division of Anatolia into Greek and Turkish spheres, under Greek governance. The Greeks would have been able to re-establish their interior cities of Ankara, Amorion and Philomen in what was then no mans land, and the Greek coastal cities in Anatoloia, like Smyrna, would have undergone great growth because of renewed trade with the interior.

The Turks would have been enrolled in the Byzantine army, and would have continued in Cappadocia and around Konya with their own culture, religion and leaders, but under overall Byzantine leadership.
 
It is very interesting what you say, about numbers of turkish settlers, I'm just guessing: move millions of people is difficult now, much more in 13th century, but your link about turkish genetics gives a hint: (thank you very much, I owe you big).


Moving nomads is a lot easier than settled people.

Now, I'm personally of the opinion that a couple million would be high, but I don't see why - and I'm looking at both the initial wave and those pushed west by the Mongols - its impossible. And we have to allow for the native population declining - not by Turkish killing (mostly), but a battered and besieged population vs. a surging population growing stronger?

About halogroups let me quote:
"The major components (haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1; 94.1%) are shared with European and neighboring Near Eastern populations and hcontrast with only a minor share of haplogroups related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%)"
3,4% central asian, so we can guess in a native population of 5 million 13th century anatolian, number of turkish raiders would be around: 340K.

So I would put figures in 13th century Anatolia more in 90% Christian/10% Muslim (Egypt itself only turn a muslim majority country around that time, 5 centuries after arab conquest).

So turkification IS a cultural trend, not a genetic one.

BTW: ethnic identification is a cultural phenomem.

I don't know enough about halogroups to comment intelligently, but there's been plenty of time for mixing of groups, so there being a "pure central Asian" population would take a lot even with a lot more Turks. Especially with the OTL population swap between Greece and Turkey and such things.

As for ethnic identification: True. But the idea that there's a difference between proper Greeks and Hellenized ____ relies on some notion that X people are distinct regardless of sharing culture.

Valens: What stops further east? Once the Empire gets its breath back, I mean. Armenia hasn't been worse Turkified than Anatolia.
 
Last edited:
For those proposing a Greek reconquista (I wonder what the Greek term would be?), are there any examples of the Byzantines conquering large Muslim populations?
 
I vote for Myriocephalon. For more info, read "The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor" by Spiros Vryonis.

I kind of disagree with that. 1204 is when the process really starts to become irreversible, as after that point the ERE has enough problems merely holding itself together to bother with returning to power-projection elsewhere. Meaning that for Turkic society to expand is rather simpler and it only requires time's inexorable eroding force in its favor, a luxury the ERE will never have.
 
For those proposing a Greek reconquista (I wonder what the Greek term would be?), are there any examples of the Byzantines conquering large Muslim populations?

They did reconquer a large bit of Sicily during the reign of Basil II. There was also the Emirate of Crete that lasted more than a century. I can't think of any other examples.
 
For those proposing a Greek reconquista (I wonder what the Greek term would be?), are there any examples of the Byzantines conquering large Muslim populations?

The Emirate of Crete is probably a useful comparison here, and that was problematic for reasons having nothing to do with the religion of the Cretans.

But it was successfully re-Byzantinized despite being in Muslim hands as long as Anatolia as of the early 1200s. I think that's telling of something.

Syria seems not to have been too big a problem for the empire to manage, to the extent it regained it in the 10th century and beyond.
 
I admit I'm well out of my expertise zone, but here's an idea.

Greece joins the Allies willingly and decisively during the Gallipoli campaign, turning it into a resounding success that ends with the Greeks controlling Constantinople (since they have by far the most boots on the ground). With the Ottomans reeling, Romania joins the Allies earlier and since Russia is in better shape with the Black Sea open, Romania doesn't get steamrolled but instead the Romanians, Greeks, and Anzacs knock Bulgaria out of the war.
You have your chronology mixed up. Bulgaria didn't join the Central Powers until October 1915, well after the Gallipoli offense had become a failure. If the offensive is obviously succeeding Bulgaria will probably join the Allies and since they certainly have the most boots on the ground, it's quite likely that Bulgaria will capture Constantinople (probably will not be able to retain it, but then neither will be Greece, what with Russia in much better shape).
 
Turkish Anatolia

Even during the Nicean period, the central Anatolian plateau as well as the eastern provinces were regarded as permanently lost. Even after the disastrous defeat of the Seljuk sultanate by the Mongols, the Nicean Greeks did not make much of an effort to expand their territories. By 1200 a complete demographic transition in those areas must have been very obvious. Therefore the battle of Myriocephalum was a real watershed.
 
Even during the Nicean period, the central Anatolian plateau as well as the eastern provinces were regarded as permanently lost. Even after the disastrous defeat of the Seljuk sultanate by the Mongols, the Nicean Greeks did not make much of an effort to expand their territories. By 1200 a complete demographic transition in those areas must have been very obvious. Therefore the battle of Myriocephalum was a real watershed.

Nicaea was trying to take the European territories at this point and didn't have the resources to do both, I'm not sure this is proof of anything.
 
Top