Without the Ottomans - would Anatolia be considered Europe?

Would Anatolia be considered European if the Ottomans didn't exist?


  • Total voters
    142
I have to agree with many of the other posters- Asia minor has been called Asia by the Greeks/Romans since forever ago. The only thing that might be considered is that Asia isn't a continent and Eurasia is, making the whole question moot.
 
To be fair it's not really considered a part of Europe culturally right now. I mean, it has a border with Irak and Syria...

Just look at the debates over Turkey in the EU. Europe ends at the Bosphorus these days
 
Uh.... when was Anatolia ever considered Europe? It certainly wasn't under the Byzantines, and no European ever considered "Asia Minor" to be European once the Turks took over...
 
What does "culturally European" means, anyway? I think that most of you make the calculus "Europe = Christianism" which is far too simplistic and wrong. There is an "European culture"? We are talking about which period of history? As I see "culturally European" can have as many definitions as there are stars in the sky...

Thus, no. If Europe is not a strictly greographical entity, to say that Asia Minor is a part of Europe defies logic in itself.
 
Uh.... when was Anatolia ever considered Europe? It certainly wasn't under the Byzantines, and no European ever considered "Asia Minor" to be European once the Turks took over...

I have to disagree with you there, before the Great Schism, Christendom and Europe were interchangeable. I don't know what the thinking is on Ethiopia or the Nestorians, but they're already separate from the Pentarchy before the Schism anyways.
 
I have to disagree with you there, before the Great Schism, Christendom and Europe were interchangeable. I don't know what the thinking is on Ethiopia or the Nestorians, but they're already separate from the Pentarchy before the Schism anyways.

Pagan Lithuanians, Spanish Muslims, Tatars, Kalmyks, Jews, Catholic Maronites, Armenians, Coptics, etc. tend to disagree with you. In the middle ages there was religious identity, but no "European identity", as a different culture that spans in all over a sole continent and is different from the rest of known world, etc.
In the middle ages, to think that "Europe = Christianism" is completly anachronic.
 
Pagan Lithuanians, Spanish Muslims, Tatars, Kalmyks, Jews, Catholic Maronites, Armenians, Coptics, etc. tend to disagree with you. In the middle ages there was religious identity, but no "European identity", as a different culture that spans in all over a sole continent and is different from the rest of known world, etc.
In the middle ages, to think that "Europe = Christianism" is completly anachronic.

That's not what I'm saying. The fact that Anatolia would be Greek Orthodox would mean that it is part of Christendom, which is the root of European identity. All those groups you mentioned are part of either Christendom or are geographically in Europe. However, the distinction of the Eastern Churches is that they left the mother church and are offshoots. And the distinction for the Polythesists, Andalusians and Steppe Peoples is that they aren't, religiously (and thus culturally in the scope of the era) part of Europe.

I think I wasn't clear earlier, to be European in the era was to be part of Christendom, so no, the non-Christian peoples in Europe weren't European. The Magyars and Slavs before their baptism weren't European because they weren't part of Christendom, but they became so afterwards. If the Slavs and Magyars had never been converted, or if they had adopted a different religion, they would not be considered European today because of fundamentally different culture. Even the East Slavic nations are questionably European today, as is Turkey, as they straddle the distinctions between 'Eastern' and 'Western' culture.
 
No one in Byzantium looked at the west and identified them as having some common European identity. They were Latins and usurpers following an upjumped Patriarch who didn't know how to bathe.
 
I think I wasn't clear earlier, to be European in the era was to be part of Christendom, so no, the non-Christian peoples in Europe weren't European. The Magyars and Slavs before their baptism weren't European because they weren't part of Christendom, but they became so afterwards.

Well, the Kingdom of Jerusalem e.g. wasn't considered as European. Geography also plays a role in whichever period we analyze. That's why today only only small islands such as Cyprus or Malta are considered a cultural part of Europe and the Americas are not. This is not like the Urals or the Caucasus, the division between Europe and Asia is clearly the Bosphorus and it didn't change since Strabo.

Again, even in the Middle Ages, to assume that Christendom is Europe is not true. The culture of the local Christians in the Crusader states was seen by the Latins just as different (or as similar, depends on your point of view) as the European Byzantine culture.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
It will be culturally part of what we call the European world OTL, but that might just mean they find different terms than "Europe" and "Asia". The geographical obstacle to calling it Europe is formidable.
 
I guess it depends on how you define North Africa in tangent. Is it African, or Asian? Geologically it's African, but it's presence as part of the Mediterranean and it's Islamic/Arabic roots define it as more part of the Middle East.
 
That doesn't preclude it being perceived as European. Technically, Chechnya and Kazakhstan are in Europe (Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, too, depending on how you draw the boundaries), and they're not usually counted. "Europe" as a geographic category makes very little sense.
:mad::(:confused:

Except that if Asia Minor were in the same cultural sphere, it wouldn't be 'European', it would be 'Christendom' or some such.

No. Asia Minor is Asia. By definition. Sorry.

If you want to use 20th century labels to deal with things with a 500 year old PoD, you're pretty much doomed to fail.
 
I guess it depends on how you define North Africa in tangent. Is it African, or Asian? Geologically it's African, but it's presence as part of the Mediterranean and it's Islamic/Arabic roots define it as more part of the Middle East.

"Middle East" is a modern concept too. Also, today we use the acronym MENA when we refer to both regions as a whole.
However, it doesn't have anything to do with the geographical notion of Africa or Asia, inasmuch as in all possible definitions of Middle East we add countries of these two continents (e.g. Egypt and Syria) and we cannot do the simplistic calculus Arabic = Asian.
 
Pagan Lithuanians, Spanish Muslims, Tatars, Kalmyks, Jews, Catholic Maronites, Armenians, Coptics, etc. tend to disagree with you. In the middle ages there was religious identity, but no "European identity", as a different culture that spans in all over a sole continent and is different from the rest of known world, etc.
In the middle ages, to think that "Europe = Christianism" is completly anachronic.

And yet, since the end of the reconquista, there never was a state in this area dominated by a Jewish or Muslim elite. Not every European was Christian tooth and nail but Europe was a christian continent with a unified past.

I know, it is a highly political question right now, with question of integration of new populations and all. But Europe as an entity has a very long common history, mostly fighting against each other, from Spain to Russia. The big big ennemy, the one which united a lot of people was the Ottomans, which weren't completely considered European. At best they were on the marshes of Europe because of their foothold West of the Bosphorus but Anatolia is the start of the Middle East. Basically, the Caucasus is, for me, one of the frontier of Europe. Below that is the start of the Middle East and East of that is Central Asia (the Caspian Sea can hardly be considered European.)

Then you have to admit some marshes. The Balkans are one of the marsh of Europe, Georgia as well. In these zones it can be blurry
 
:mad::(:confused:

Except that if Asia Minor were in the same cultural sphere, it wouldn't be 'European', it would be 'Christendom' or some such.

No. Asia Minor is Asia. By definition. Sorry.

If you want to use 20th century labels to deal with things with a 500 year old PoD, you're pretty much doomed to fail.

Well, that is my point. We don't know what 'European' would mean to someone from that TL. It doesn't mean geography now, it probably won't then, either. Unless it becomes an entirely unemotional term, referring solely to cartography. Then, the Greek distinction is likely to hold up.
 
Top