I'd like to ask our resident experts about the Greek population of Anatolia.

1) Was Anatolia mostly Greek (with Armenian minority) before the Turkish conquest? It was a part of the Byzantine Empire, but was the population made of ethnic Greeks?

2) If it was, what the heck happened to them? How could the Turk assimilate them in just few hundred years after the Battle of Manzikert?

3) What parts of Anatolia, if any, did still have a Greek majority in 1453?

I'd like to ask our resident experts about the Greek population of Anatolia.

1) Was Anatolia mostly Greek (with Armenian minority) before the Turkish conquest? It was a part of the Byzantine Empire, but was the population made of ethnic Greeks?

Ethnic? What is that?
It was culturally part of the greek world.

2) If it was, what the heck happened to them? How could the Turk assimilate them in just few hundred years after the Battle of Manzikert?

Lets just say that the turks were from the same stock as the mongols... to deal with a conquered native population they practiced those methods you seem to love so much - check the end of the Khwarezm...

3) What parts of Anatolia, if any, did still have a Greek majority in 1453?

The western zone, certainly, and several places along the northern coast. It likely had an overall greek majority still.

Ethnic? What is that?

Inhabited by people speaking Greek, obviously.

---

Any non-biased replies, please?

a) Well, after Latin faded out, yeah. :) Of course, it was a multicultural empire so many languages were spoken by travelers, merchants, etc.

geneticly speaking, the inhabitants of Anatolia are largely either Greek, or what they were before the Greeks- central asian contribution to the geneology of anatolia is around 15%, and for whatever reason, it seems alot of that is actually due to Turkish women, from from the genetic stuff I've looked at

1) Was Anatolia mostly Greek (with Armenian minority) before the Turkish conquest? It was a part of the Byzantine Empire, but was the population made of ethnic Greeks?
Yes, it was primarily inhabited by Greek-speaking persons.
2) If it was, what the heck happened to them? How could the Turk assimilate them in just few hundred years after the Battle of Manzikert?
What innonimatu said; a combination of destruction (both by Turks and Mongols) and ethnic assimilation. Too, the Greeks weren't really wholly assimilated that fast. Ethnic Greek populations slowly lingered on in western and northern Anatolia until the early 20th century, when they were killed by the Kemalists or deported as per the Treaty of Lausanne.
3) What parts of Anatolia, if any, did still have a Greek majority in 1453?
Pontos, Paphlagonia, the Aigion coast (save perhaps Bithynia, though that's borderline) to 150-200 miles inland.
Any non-biased replies, please?
innonimatu is mostly on the spot there actually.
a) Well, after Latin faded out, yeah. :) Of course, it was a multicultural empire so many languages were spoken by travelers, merchants, etc.
Latin never really was that popular among the vast majority of the population of the eastern segment of the Roman Empire, save for administrative use, and even that was ended in the seventh century.

Yes, it was primarily inhabited by Greek-speaking persons.

What innonimatu said; a combination of destruction (both by Turks and Mongols) and ethnic assimilation. Too, the Greeks weren't really wholly assimilated that fast. Ethnic Greek populations slowly lingered on in western and northern Anatolia until the early 20th century, when they were killed by the Kemalists or deported as per the Treaty of Lausanne.

So basically, the central parts of Anatolia were not densely populated enough/were depopulated enough by the invaders?

When nomadic invaders defeat a country, on of two things happen. Either the nomads assimilate into the more numerous and culturally stronger peasant population (China and Bulgaria - I am still struggling to understand what these two countries have in common), or the nomads settle down and assimilate the peasants (Hungary, Turkey).

It is just that in the Anatolian case, if I was totally ignorant of history, I'd expect that the nomadic Seljuks assimilate with the Greeks who were numerous and culturally advanced. So what was different? The amount of destruction/depopulation caused by the invasions? Or were the Turks better organized, less willing to assimilate? Combination of more factors?

Pontos, Paphlagonia, the Aigion coast (save perhaps Bithynia, though that's borderline) to 150-200 miles inland.

Thanks. Now I know which provinces do I need to edit to make Magna Mundi more historical before I embark on a suicide mission :mischief:

So basically, the central parts of Anatolia were not densely populated enough/were depopulated enough by the invaders?
Central parts of Anatolia (Galatia) always have been screwed up. They're really not all that habitable compared to the other parts, such as the Ikonion region or the coasts, and invaders have periodically settled there because the people who do live there (up to the twentieth century anyway) weren't populous enough to repel them. There's the examples of the Hatti and the Galatians' migrations, and the Turks fit in to some extent here as well.
When nomadic invaders defeat a country, on of two things happen. Either the nomads assimilate into the more numerous and culturally stronger peasant population (China and Bulgaria - I am still struggling to understand what these two countries have in common), or the nomads settle down and assimilate the peasants (Hungary, Turkey).

It is just that in the Anatolian case, if I was totally ignorant of history, I'd expect that the nomadic Seljuks assimilate with the Greeks who were numerous and culturally advanced. So what was different? The amount of destruction/depopulation caused by the invasions? Or were the Turks better organized, less willing to assimilate? Combination of more factors?
I'd say it was a combination of these. Initial shock and destruction certainly helped, but after that there were still very substantial Greek populations up to the 1920s, and due to Turkish political control and an inability of the Romaioi to reclaim central and southern Anatolia following the First Crusade (blame for which I lay entirely at the feet of Manouel I's idiotic Western meddling, plus the sheer bloodymindedness of Andronikos I and the lunatic foolishness of the Angeloi) the Turks had the organization to establish themselves rather firmly, intermarry with the local population, and carry on their own customs and traditions while absorbing many of the natives' own. After all, what is döner kebab but modified gyros? :p

Yes, I know it's the other way around.

Sounds logical, thanks.

Wasn't there quite a bit of discussion after WW1 by the Allies about the status of the Greeks there?

Manuel Comnenus's main fault, I think, was the failure to take Aleppo, but besides that I think that he was overall an excellent emperor, and a worthy sucessor to John the Beautiful.

Wasn't there quite a bit of discussion after WW1 by the Allies about the status of the Greeks there?
Yes. There was also a war from 1919-22, in which a monkey bite determined the fate of millions of Greeks. Pisses me off.
Manuel Comnenus's main fault, I think, was the failure to take Aleppo, but besides that I think that he was overall an excellent emperor, and a worthy sucessor to John the Beautiful.
Meh. He was okay enough, but his western interventions were totally pointless, as was his Egyptian expedition, a waste of cash and manpower for absolutely zero gain in the end. Would've been better to crush the weakened Seljuqs once and for all and regain the rich cities around Ikonion, and the excellent border that the Romaioi had held before Manzikert. I'd characterize him the same way I once characterized Pyrrhos of Epeiros: he was brilliant enough, but he had ADHD and didn't concentrate on any one thing long enough to make a difference...

That monkey bite indeed is annoying :shake:

What monkey bite? :confused:

What monkey bite? :confused:
This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Greece_(king)#Death).

This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Greece_(king)#Death).

Oh :lol: I thought it was some English idiom I haven't heard about yet :)

So basically, the central parts of Anatolia were not densely populated enough/were depopulated enough by the invaders?

When nomadic invaders defeat a country, on of two things happen. Either the nomads assimilate into the more numerous and culturally stronger peasant population (China and Bulgaria - I am still struggling to understand what these two countries have in common), or the nomads settle down and assimilate the peasants (Hungary, Turkey).

It is just that in the Anatolian case, if I was totally ignorant of history, I'd expect that the nomadic Seljuks assimilate with the Greeks who were numerous and culturally advanced. So what was different? The amount of destruction/depopulation caused by the invasions? Or were the Turks better organized, less willing to assimilate? Combination of more factors?



Thanks. Now I know which provinces do I need to edit to make Magna Mundi more historical before I embark on a suicide mission :mischief:

You play Magna Mundi?

You play Magna Mundi?

Without going further with off-topic - yes :)

Thanks. Now I know which provinces do I need to edit to make Magna Mundi more historical before I embark on a suicide mission :mischief:
The provinces are too large. The enclave populations are there in the other major EU3 mod, MEIOU, but that's because there's a huge number of provinces in Anatolia.

I'm not so sure about the eastern half of Byzantine Anatolia. There was an Armenian kingdom in Cilicia, and there were also Iranians and Kurds.

The western half and the rest of the coast would have been Greek. There was also a Phrygian speaking component for a long time. There were also the Galatians (Celtic speaking) that eventually got absorbed.

There were also the Galatians (Celtic speaking) that eventually got absorbed.
To all intents and purposes they were absorbed by Diocletian's time, if not long before. Their original size was rather small anyway, and they were subsumed easily enough.

Like Winner, I am puzzled by why the Bulgars speak a Slavic language but the Magyars do not. This is nowhere near as shocking to me as the fact that the descendants of Anatolian Greeks speak Turkish, as the Turks built a very strong and prestigious state that lasted for hundreds of years and created strong incentives for assimilation.

Also, Hungary is a good counter-example for the popular new theory that language adoption is determined in large part by agricultural technology.

Also, Hungary is a good counter-example for the popular new theory that language adoption is determined in large part by agricultural technology.

About that - AFAIK about 10% of Magyar words have Slavic origin, and most of these words are related to agriculture.

My personal guess is that Pannonia was too diverse to offer any effective "cultural resistance" to Maygarization. There were Slavs, yes, but the whole plain was full of various descendants of the previous nomadic invaders (Huns, Avars...). Maybe the population density wasn't high enough, so when the Magyars settled there, they were not just a tiny minority in an ocean of Slavs, but a very large minority. This allowed them to assimilate the diverse population of Pannonia, whereas the population of present-day Slovakia remained mostly Slavic.

About that - AFAIK about 10% of Magyar words have Slavic origin, and most of these words are related to agriculture.

As a counter example to that however, about 10% of the Romanian words have a Slavic origin, and they as a rule are not related at all to agriculture.

As a counter example to that however, about 10% of the Romanian words have a Slavic origin, and they as a rule are not related at all to agriculture.

Makes sense, doesn't it? Romanians were already there when the Slavs arrived, they didn't have to adopt Slavic words for agriculture-related activites, they had their own. Magyars, on the other hand, were nomadic herdsmen, so they simply adopted words used for their peasant Slavic subjects.

Makes sense, doesn't it? Romanians were already there when the Slavs arrived, they didn't have to adopt Slavic words for agriculture-related activites, they had their own. Magyars, on the other hand, were nomadic herdsmen, so they simply adopted words used for their peasant Slavic subjects.

Yes, it does actually make sense. :D