What is the ethnic make-up of turkish people?
I have seen paintings of the earyl turks and they look like Mongols, but today they look like a mix of Iranian, Armenian and Greek. How extensive was mingling within the empire?
Printable View
What is the ethnic make-up of turkish people?
I have seen paintings of the earyl turks and they look like Mongols, but today they look like a mix of Iranian, Armenian and Greek. How extensive was mingling within the empire?
They looked like Mongols cause thats what they were. The Turks were a central Asian Mongolic people, who eventually migrated westwards. After the migrations, I am willing to bet that they mixed quite a bit with the Arab populations on the way. Also, northwestern Turkey does have Greek influence in it just as there are northeastern Greeks who who Turkish blood, as there was quite a bit of mixing around in those areas during the Ottoman occupation, lasting for quite a long time until everything settled down during the campaigns for the independance of Greece.
Maybe somebody has more detailed information, but thats what I know about what you are asking. Hope it helps.
They mixed with the local populations already living in Central Asia. There were plenty of Iranian tribes like the Scythians and Sarmatians (and their descendants) with whom the Turks mixed with once they conquered them.
-
Like all things mentioned, the mongolic stuff is also a mix. Ancient Turks were asiatic but definitely not Mongoloid. However, endogamy (sp?) was never practiced and mixing was inevitable.
Today a Turk is simply someone who speaks Turkish as mother toungue.
-
A lot of Turks look completely white which I didn't know until recently. I guess the people of Asia Minor might also have been white and that would explain it. :dizzy2:
I've already explained this. Turks were a ethnicity of numerous tribes of steppe. Some came in, and ended up settling in Turkey. While there, they mixed with the Iranians, and other "white" people.
And Turks were asiatic, but not Mongoloid. Of course they mixed a lot, but they were a seperate bunch of tribes, different languages, etc.
The Turks were people originating from modern day Turkmenistan....That's why the country is called like that....There were many "types" of Turks. The Selgiucid Turks is one type.....
When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
Does anyone know if Turks actually believe this tosh? Presumably they think being able to claim they are the indigenous people gives them some sort of advantage, heaven knows what since I hardly think the Byzantines are going to come back to try to kick them out.
Actually, most of those Turks I have had the pleasure to discuss history with seem to accept that the contemporary Turks, the people of modern Turkey, are an integrated people, and that they have no greater ties to the Central Asian steppes than to the mountains of Anatolia. A heterogeneous people, with an amalgamated culture, like modern North Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
The hilarious claim that they originated in Turkey seems like nationalist propaganda, something I am not entirely unfamiliar with. Interestingly enough, some nationalists also claim that the Scythians, and especially the Etruscans, and a few other peoples were of Turkish ancestry. Very amusing.
However, Turkish nationalism should not be underestimated. Thus, the claim of ancestry in Asia Minor presumably stems from the long rivalry with the Greeks.
You have to be the first Iranian to ever grace our boards! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
welcome!
Dariush, you really live is in Parsa? I find that hard to believe.
Parsa is the ruins of Persepolis. ~:confused:
No, sadly I do not live in Iran. But I have Iranian blood. ~;)
Hmm. No nifty little edit button. Perhaps a moderator could merge this into my post above? ~:)
Pārsā is also a province. Now it is called Fārs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
The Turks, like the Mongols, are Asiatic. But they are not Mongol-Tungusic. They are Altaic, like all Turkic peoples.
The Turks first assessed their position in history under the Köktürk khanate, which is Old Turkish for 'Blue Turks' or 'Celestial Turks'. The collapse of that power (including the second, or eastern Köktürk khanate) in Central Asia and Mongolia led to several of the tribes living under its rule to migrate to the west, such as the Bulgars and the Khazars. Although it must be noted that the newest theories propose the ancient Bulgars as being Iranian, like the Alans.
What remained were the Tokhuz Oghuz (Old Turkish for 'Nine Tribes'), from which the Oghuz sprang, from which such powers as the Selçuks and Ghaznavids emerged as they migrated through Iran. I do imagine that there was 'crossbreeding' as the biological term goes, but not so much as to make the Turks radically different from their cousins in a nation like Turkmenistan. Their 'whiteness' can be attributed to their pretty cold nation -- like the Arabs, Berbers and Jews, they remain very white when not exposed a lot to the sun, while getting an olive color if they are.
The Turks are a distinct ethnical identity, and are related to the Turkmenbashi of Turkmenistan, as they are to the other Turkic nations such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Not sure if Kyrgyzstan is Turkic, though, while Tajikistan is Iranian (Tajiks are the last remaining Transoxanian Iranians).
~Wiz
Welcome Dariush. Your member level is "Junior Member" which does not allow you an "edit" button. You should soon see your member level upgraded to "Member" and with that will come the "edit" button. I know it is inconvenient, but it is a protective measure against any troublemakers who happen to join our forums - they can't edit their posts to remove any incriminating evidence before the moderators can see it.
Wow. That's ... um... nuts. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as the whole Aryan race crap that the Nazis invented...Quote:
When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
But why would they do such a thing? Turkish history is very interesting and very militaristic, no need to make things up to make people proud...
We call them Turks because they speak a Turkish language. They might not all be the same physically. Some look far more like our idea of the Mongols while others look like Iranians or Slavic.
Well, it's a different culture - different way of thinking. Maybe they don't, as a nation, take that much pride in their military. Or, you know, maybe they're trying to downplay that whole military thing, what with the Armenian Genocide issue being such an important issue in the news lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Maybe it's meant as a counter-claim against the Kurds who say they are the original inhabitants and call the Turks invaders?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
-Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
That's an ancient "official", never popular, claim of the proto-fascist governments of the 20s-30s. AFAIK it's been dropped for long but some museums might still be sticking to the крап.
-
Aha, that explains a lot, very interesting, thanks. Probably this place just hadn't updated its captions or somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
I think that belief is still held by some Turks.
What's left of the Greeks of Asia Minor still get abuse of the "foreigners go home" variety.
They should just come back to Greece. There's nothing there for greeks anymore. I am pretty sure that "they'll be ours again" mentality in Greece is beginning to fade.
What ? Giving up after a mere 600 years ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Well it's just not the same anymore. We tried to reclaim what was ours back in the 20's and we lost because of our overconfidence. Now there are different rules and regulations. We could never invade, ever. That would be lunacy. Turkey's army is enormous now, not to mention NATO and the fact that Greece is in the European Union and doezens of other organizations.
I think we can all safely say that Asia Minor belongs to the Turks now, only reasons of pride and can be used to contest that.
The English (well, British now) might as well try to claim France again.
-Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
No single person should be forced out of their mother/fatherland, unless they decide to leave willingly. And NO, they should not be "convinced to leave willingly" either... My personal opinion, they should not leave at all, even willingly.
:bow:
-
-Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
"Nation state" and nationalisme are simply out of time. Whether people resist or not, they will fade out, taking together the last remnents of neolithic societies.
-
We are not wanted there. I know there's good people, but there's a lot of racists as well. Also we already lost there, why shouldn't they come back to the mainland to become proper Greeks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
because its their home there. My grandfather was of cretan origin but born in Nicomedia. He came back to Greece and settled with his parents and rest family in Corinth. Even when he was 87 years old he still remembered their house there. Its not easy to leave home even if somebody is trying to force you in many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
well Greece exists as nation today cause we didnt gave up after 400 years ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
But Greece and the other eastern european parts were more 'occupied' by the ottomans than part of the empire, as far as I can tell, while Asia Minor really did become part of Turkey (culture, religion, ethnic make-up).Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
But as Mouzafphaerre said, nationalism, certainly in Europe, should be left in the past, it has caused to much harm already.
Sorry, but no.Quote:
The English (well, British now) might as well try to claim France again.
As the king of England was a vassal of the French king (so were William and his folks as well), I wholeheartedly claim that Britain, and if possible, the whole commonwealth should be part of France.
Then we'll teach them how to cook some tasty food, instead of the horrible crap they have to eat everyday ~;)
And unlike our Southern cousins, us Scots have brought haggis to the world of cuisine! Goes to show that all those French relations weren't for nothing eh? At least we eat SOME good food! ~:)Quote:
Then we'll teach them how to cook some tasty food, instead of the horrible crap they have to eat everyday
Unfortunately, racists exist everywhere, whether its Turkey or the UK, they are a constant. However, since most peoples ethnic backgrounds aren't guaranteed, ie just because you appear 'Turkish', doesn't mean you don't have Greek or other genes in your DNA, then the whole concept of 'racism' is a bit absurd.Quote:
We are not wanted there. I know there's good people, but there's a lot of racists as well.
I absolutely agree with these statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Learning to british children that jeanne of arc was a national hero, that waterloo, trafalgar and azincourt were national defeats, and learning them to speak FRENCH instead of the local and very limited slang they seem to have developped in those isles is a matter of law as well as justice.
The French have no more claim to their former (nominal) vassal than the Greeks have on any former Byzantine land, or the Turks have on any former Seljuk or Ottoman holdings.
You just say this because you are a long haired hippie freak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Who shall remain insensitive to the pain of those so pure french population crying under the dark clouds of barbarian separatism?
Who shall seriously pretend that the feudal non written and contradictory traditions upon wich this very legitime claim is founded are total senseless craps?
I think we should invade those wet islands as quickly as possible to bring peace, freedom and civilisation to these populations and liberate them from their own oppressive barbary -wich is a very legitimate claim indeed.
For modern Turkish - the same as for modern Greeks :eeeek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
*runs away*
They were the original inhabitants. At least of the area they now live in. Xenophon mentions them by the name Kardushians and they were quite rebellious against their Persian masters even then.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
In reply to Paul Peru, it is common knowledge that Greeks have always been a closed community to foreigners and especially to conquerors (at least those with a completely different background). As such I find the proposition unlikely. Keep in mind that I am not advocating racial purity, which is a position as ridiculous as it is false.
On the subject of Asia Minor and nationalism, I believe that it was our mistake (Greece, that is) alone that eradicated 2500 years of Asia Minor's Hellenism. And of course, nationalistic wars of aggresion for reclaiming "lost lands" are (thankfully) far from our minds. You will find the occasional nutter who is ready to assault the beaches of Izmir (Smyrne) but that's about the extent of it.
I'm sorry, but that is just completely con (pardon my French). The King of France only controled the Ile de France and a bit of land around Orleans, so I don't think he could claim the whole of England. Edward III had a better claim on the crown than the Valois since he was the grandson of Philippe le Bel, rather than Philippe de Valois who was a distant cousin. And you just invented the salic law to keep the English of the throne. And france no longer has a legitimate claim, since with the Bill of rights, no catholic can sit on the throne. and if you to talk in terms of law, England still has the right to Brittany, Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Poitou, Aquitaine, Gascony, Boulogne, Champagne and Blois (see the marriages and family tree of the English Royal Family). On the contrary, England should invade France and show you the meaning of hygene, toilets (and not a whole in the floor with two footprints on either side), proper service, how to drive, how to park, make your language actually logical, how to build flats WITH good insulation (and not with walls so thin you can hear your neighbour pissing), teach you that joan of arc was a schizophrenic, and that you had/have the crappest army in the world (barring the italians). As I always say "No King of England if not King of France".Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus
Wow, I wouldn't have thought that this small joke would turn into another french bashing issue.
Furthermore, I won't pull out all the stupid clichés we have about the british (though I still think your food is more than horrible), and I'll advise you to re-study your History :bow:
(your french is perfect, at least concerning the term you used into this very serious debate)Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
(by the way, please excuse my english, mostly misinterpretations(?) from me but at least no aggressivity intended)
Now, you must understand the perfect glory of the salic law and it's absolute strength.
When the barbaric germanic tribes invaded the roman provinces of gaul, it was simply not imaginable for a woman to rule as a warlord.
Since the francs were illiterate, they could not write this as a law but it remained as an absolute law over the centurys.
The french kings, being respectfull of laws, even when they were not written, carried this precious heritage.
When the so called king of england decided to break the law and became a rebel, he was a bit more powerfull than the french king who was out of his gard -how shall he have taken care about who was supposed to be a loyal subject but proved to be a hateful felon?
The rebellion that followed and that was joined by several other rebel lords permitted to the so called english king to put several territories under his tyranny, territories that understood with time the foolishness of their crime and joined back the legitimate power.
If your logic was to be followed, it would be like rewarding a criminal in proportion of the amount he stole!
Also, the bill of right is not a problem regarding this debate, being issued from an illegal form of government, it is also illegal.
You probably made a mistake concerning the size of the possessions of the duke of normandy in france, but it is not a problem : as a loyal subject of the king, the greater his domain, the best for the kingdom!
We have another tradition in france that is more recent than the salic law but wich, i think, is a great argument concerning the ownership of the british isle.
We are used to cut of the head of the royal family members and to proclaim republic.
So, coming back into the rule of the law would be even more interesting for you : to the well being and the great honnor of being french would be added the immense joy of seeing the local landlords off with their heads.
How can you still hesitate?
Concerning your last point.
I think like you, the french army is the crappest in the world, exepted maybe for the italian army.
In another hand, the french army managed to send back to their islands the mercenarys employed by the so called english king upon the continent.
So i must precise that the french army is the crappiest in the world, except maybe for the italian army and except for sure the british army.
Pardon me Ladies and Gentlemen. What appeared to start out as some good natured inter-nation ribbing seems to have lost the humour and turned nasty. No more of that please! If you intend humour, please use emoticons. :yes:
I'm sorry, no offense or insult was intended but it is very difficult to writte some sort of humour in english due to my lack of vocabulary and grammar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
In any case, i retire what i wrote about the italian army.
Well william of Normandy did not have a legitimate claim, having extracted an oath from Harold by force. Therefore the legitimate claimant after Harold's death was Edgar the Aetheling, whose daughter (Margaret) married into the house of Scotland. Her daughter Mary married Count Eustace of Boulogne, whose daughter became the wife of King Stephen, younger brother to the Count of Blois and Champagne. Another daughter of margaret of scotland married Henry I of England, and their daughter was the Empress Mathilda, who fought Stephen for the throne. Her son was Henry II.
My point is thus: William should never have been King, and any legitimacy was received from the Aetheling's daughters. Therefore the French claim of suzerainity over England was illegitmate since William's claim was illegitimate. However, since William's claim over Normandy (and subsequent marriages to various French noble men) were legitimate, And these were inherited by Henry II, these possesions were legitimate. Confused yet? ~:confused:
Is any leader legitimate? No conquer conquered something that was allowed by law. Besides, French and England no longer exist as they did then. France is no longer a monarchy, thus they have no claim to the French Monarch's claim of England being their vassal state.
Petrus, I also consider the Celtic states before Rome, and the Frankish states after as totally different, for the same reason. Just because they are in the same place, doesn't make them continuation of the same entity.
And how far back would we have to go? You use Medieval political realities. An Italian might try and use Roman laws to take back all of their lands. A Greek would use even older laws. A Mongol could use Medieval laws to justify the take over of China, all of Central Asia, most of the Middle East, Korea, Russia, and Hungary.
My point is that when people try and use the far past to justify reclaiming terrortories, there is no set time, thus creating thousands of "legitimate" claims on the same piece of land.
~:cheers: man you really made me start laughing. I didnt see tastefull humour here for long ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Peru
The majority of population in Asia Minor was Greek till 1920's. In fact most of today turkish inhabitants are of greek origin and some dont even know it. Asia minoer was as greek as the mainland and even more as it was the center for 1000 years. The mainland was as occupied as Asia minor but it was easier to be free than the region that capital of ottoman empire was (constantinople).Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
anyway thats long before so....
Pardon me if my post was unclear, i was just trying to immitate some authors on this board whose arguments seam to me so absurd ont the subject of nationalism or ethnicism that i never know if they are serious or just jocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Of course, i was just jocking.
I absolutly agree with your point and your argument.
Concerning france and great britain, the nonsense of arguments concerning a legitimity seamed so obvious to my eyes that i thought it would be clear to any reader.
As you say, in a europe wich was not composed of nations and into wich the only real political power was the catholic church, a claim over a land by a warlord was legitimate.
But in a europe constituted of democratic nations with a supranational and democratic political power it simply doesn't make sense.
And as you also say it, the notion of time is also absurd as long as it is impossible to limit this time and that there is alwas someone that was here before, even if nothing remains of the former local populations.
As a general matter, i would add that nationalism is the most direct way to war that generate death, mutilation, ruin, misery and dictature.
So as long as i am concerned, a nationalist argumentation can only be humorous so that it cannot become serious and stinking like all serious nationalist argumentation.
Now i think i just shall learn to use those smileys.
~D
I agree wholeheartedly with you. But I wasn't just talking too you, or really anyone in general. Just trying to point out the futilety of nationalism and any one culture claiming a certaint peace of land.
And yeah, smilies do help. ~:grouphug:
Its a fair offer but I think we should take things in stages. Why don't you send us Sophie Marceau, and we'll send you Jade Goody, and if that goes OK we can work on similarly fair cultural exchanges to bring our two great nations together?Quote:
Learning to british children that jeanne of arc was a national hero, that waterloo, trafalgar and azincourt were national defeats, and learning them to speak FRENCH instead of the local and very limited slang they seem to have developped in those isles is a matter of law as well as justice
I would heartily like to object. You drive on the wrong side of the road -- you started doing it, and have never learned the right way. You're stuck in the Middle Ages! We continentals just realized that the right side of the road is the right side. All Enlightment, baby. Even your wayward subjects, the Yanks, understood that.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Although they still have your crazy metric system. I mean, you weigh what? Five stones? Yeah man, I weigh twenty rocks, or fifteen hundred thirty-four pebbles. And you say you're how tall? Five feet two inches? What? Meters, man, meters! METERS AND CENTIMETERS! Not every village its own metric system! Next thing, you'll have Chelsea supporters saying they ran six thousand seven hundred times the distance their keeper kicks a ball to get away from the riot police, and then Man United hooligans say they toppled a police van over weighing eleven thousand watches and then had to run a million large toes! Middle Ages, my friend, it's just plain painful to watch.
~;)
I think it was a case of French English mixed with dry French humor that caused this. Silly French... they really should learn some Wallonian humor, à la Goscinny et Uderzo ~D
And really, get some help with your highway toilets. Professional help. For the love of God -- and for the love of me -- PLEASE! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!
As I say:
English for eloquence;
español por sensualidad;
français pour le romantique;
en Nederlands? Alleen om kennis te maken!
~Wiz ~;)
I thought only the Aegean coast of Asia Minor was truly Greek in character after the Selçuks moved in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
And I realize that it wasn't poof, bang, and the Greeks were gone, but took many years. But such desolation as described in the letters of basileios Manuel II Palaiologos in his campaigns alongside Beyazid I in Asia Minor really doesn't convince me of the fact that there were still a lot of Greeks back then. His description of what remained of Pompeiopolis, which lay on the eastern bank of the river Halys, in 1391 is simply pure Romanticism, in his way of accessing your emotion as you read of this sad remnant of Pompey the Great's legacy -- a ghost town, all the inhabitants fled to the surrounding rough country, forgotten and without a name amongst the Turks.
~Wiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
There is actually an historical reason why we drive on the left. Before it was far more sensible, since it was easier to face an opponent such as a highwayman (don't say that you didn't have Highwaymen in France or Holland, becuase you did) by drawing one's sword with one's right hand. Also, It was the way the English drove their carriages. Since the coming of the automobile was not overnight, at one time both carriages and cars were driving on the road.
Coming back to the the thread's topic, the seljuks did enslave and massacre hundreds of thousands of Eastern Roman Citizens I the 1000s and 1100s. One could also say that Turkish expansion is the cause of recent turmoil in the Balkans.
Actually the Wizard is right on this. Greeks in the mainland of Asia Minor fleed a long time ago. And if they remained they probably got sucked into the population. I'm not sure there were many real Greek there anyhow, they spoke greek, but they didn't have the descendents as us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
Now the people on the coast( the 2,000,000 greeks ) were forcibly removed in the 20's. But that was our fault for invading and not holding back.
Here is a positive attitude!Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Altough concerning Sophie Marceau, i am not sur this is a good idea.
You seem to have strange beliefs about french women and i fear some of you well intentionned islanders shall pretend to wash those dark red-brown parts of her while thinking they are due to some lack of hygiene.
Of course this is probably the best sort of idea a man can have but this can be a bit confusing.
Don't you prefere Christine Boutin, for example?
I am not sure she washes herself because this implies some sort of nudity but she loves bibbles and things like that.
I can only imagine the huge value of the cultural exchanges that can come from this!
As we continental french do not have any sort of a priori concerning french women from the isle's hygiene, there is no problem with you sending the person you speak about.
In fact, she should be proud of her personal top ranking hygiene level up to a point where she can be extremely willing to share it with culturaly curious people.
A great way to obtain a productive cultural sharing and, in the end, the mix to join together the different parts of france i agree with you.
Now, reunification is on the way, just a bit of work and everything will be right.
~;)
Well technically the people of Anatolia were not Greek. They were Anatolian 'hillmen' Romanized (or Hellenized, not sure really) when the Eastern empire cleansed its armies of Germanic warriors in the 5th century AD.
Later Heraklios brought them into the fold completely when he made their theme the most important theme, and he Hellenized them. There was also a Byzantine dynasty of these people -- the Isaurian dynasty, begun by Leo III the Isaurian. Although I suspect this dynasty was much like its successors of the Macedonian dynasty: truly Greek.
~Wiz
Well I am not entirely sure how we got onto the idea of washing Sophie Marceau but I certainly don't have the slightest problem with it.
Oh dear now I see why the French refer to perfidious Albion. Alas alas, my English sense of fair play will not allow me to take advantage of you in this way. Ms Goody was a "star" of a reality TV show a few years ago, she is not the delicate English Rose you may be imagining, more a sort of monkey in knickers. Tell you what, you can have Keira Knightly for a bit, there's a girl Blighty can be proud of.Quote:
As we continental french do not have any sort of a priori concerning french women from the isle's hygiene, there is no problem with you sending the person you speak about
Don't think I hadn't noticed all this "continental french" and "french from the isles" nonsense either. If I am French how come I only got a B in French at O level, eh? And, you DO realise this means the French are responsible for Basingstoke (I KNEW it couldn't be us).
Forgetting the nostalgia thing (and the Megali Idea-stuff) I can mention some even more ridiculous theories about the Turkish origins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
In the Anatolian (Asian Minor) origin theory, there is a rather interesting side-theory: that the Etruscans are actually Turks! I've read an extensive article on the subject (a Turkish friend was kind enough to translate it into Greek) several years ago and it was really hilarious.
There are several sources mentioning that the Turks are actually descendants of the Sumerians (the Sumerians were Turks, and then came to MEsopotamia from the steppe, and afterwards returned to the Steppe and fathered the Turks).
And other similarly valid theories.
Amusing, ain't it?
This is a rather huge subject now, ain't it? What Anatolians? Karians? Lydians? Lykians? Isaurians? Kappadokians? Pontics? Those coming from the north or those coming from the south? The inlanders or the coastal?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Some of them were Greeks to begin with (the descendants of the huge settling wave of the early 1st millenium BC of Greek immigration). Some others got hellenized before even the Romans arrived (Karians, Lydians, Lykians). Some got hellenized during the medieval times. Some got never hellenized (Kurds!).
A very wide subject, nevertheless. And hairy too, in some aspects.
Anatolia -- Anadolu -- the plateau upon such cities as Konya and Ankara lay. Scrubby and relatively dry, but quite liveable nevertheless. I'm not talking about Asia Minor as a whole, eh?
And you, knowing a whole lot about Byzantine history, probably know that the armies of the Eastern Roman empire were mainly made up of Isaurians, Cappadocians and Armenians, concerning the 'professional' part (talking post-Heraklios here). Sure, the Greeks had a pretty sizeable portion, but they were mostly the officer corps.
And consider the fact that hillmen were quite capable of holding on to their ancient ways, throughout history -- they remained essentially independent from the Achaemenids, Alexander, the Diadochi, the Parthians, and only were incorporated under the Romans and for a sizeable deal under the Sassanids.
~Wiz
Ah, right! The Anatolian plateu. Alright then, I thought you talked about Asia Minor as a whole.
Yes, it is a rather strong fact that the bulk of the Byzantine armies (from Heraclios onwards) consisted of the various Anatolians (as: the inhabitants of Asia Minor), hellenized/romanized or not. Not just the hillmen, though. And, not only the professional part, the best thematic troops came from Asia Minor as well. That's why when Byzantium lost hold of that areas, it came into a decline that could not be reversed.
Agreed. When they lost the access to the Armenians, numerous nomadic soldiers that were nearby, and the native Anatolians, they never really did recover.
Turkish history is believed to grow in Anatolia by the Malazgirt victory of Alparslan against Rome in 1071 which led to the fall of Anatolia later into Turks (Seljuks) hands.
We come from Asian ethnicity but as many others said, we are not Mongoloid. They are short, chunky people with pressed-looking noses. The Asian originated Turks are middle sized. They are also said to carry Mongolenfleck - a shadowy blackish-purplish fleck at the end of the spiral column of new-born babies that disappear in 6 -18 months. Also there is another physical distinction which is a bump of bone at the back of a Turk's skull. What's more, the racist Turks use this method secretly (e.g. when greeting each other) to identify if it is a pure Turk or not. (Oops! I have one.)
However, there is such a mix of population in Anadolu that it would be crazy to make such identifications and distinguishments.For example I have hazel eyes, moderate lips, long arms and legs. However, this is another identification of Turk - not an Asian one. Have a look at Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's photos - the founder of Turkey. His father's and mother's family were both of "Yoruk"s. "Yoruks" were pure Turks that wandered plateaus who did raising cattles, sheeps etc. for a living. I am a Yoruk as well and was born in lands that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's father was originated from (Aydin, next to Izmir - Smyrna). His mother's descendants are of Karamans, which was the most powerful opposing Turkish force when Ottomans were a minor state in Anatolia.
Kurd Issue is a very complicated part of the story (I read some lines about Kurds, that's why i am mentioning them here..) :
Kurds are nearly the one fourth population in Turkey. They gain financial and trade power everywhere and anywhere they want - illegally if necessary, they do not hesitate to. There are Kurdish artists, singers everywhere. Many of them have been parliamenters ever since. Even one of them (Turgut Ozal) achieved to be the president who was a former prime minister (Prime ministers are the focus mans to have the political influence, not presidents). Their unemployed population flocked from East to western cities. That simply led to serious corruption in western cities. That increased so much hatred between two societies. Actually I hate Kurds as a society, that's something related with them coming here and turning my social security and peace upside-down. I really would not be mixed up with a Kurd. Most of the emigrants called Turks in Europe are actually Kurds. They may carry corruption to where they live, and as a Turk I and my descendants have never been means of corruption in some place, either we lived in or we conquered.
I tried to be open and to avoid offensive words against Kurds at the same time. But if you want to know why we are battling continuously, they should be questioned about the terror organziation they adore - PKK - who led 30000 Turks death since 1984 and the insane corruption they did as well as we are being questioned about their well-being and, so called, assimilation.
We are maniac barbarians that continuosuly assimilate and wreck down minorities. If anyone wants to believe, let him. :D
(Mustafa Kemal organized meetings before the act of Independence War in '20s. One of the major ones was held in Erzurum and half of the representatives were Kurds)
And I should add that the government in '20s needed identities to ignite the wiling of liberty of a nation. If they were somehow intended to be fascist, they had to do that.
Izmir, where I live, still has so many Turk-ish Greeks which was one of the cities that held the most non-Turkish populations in the past. We right now live in peace although the corruption is growing tremendously.
Actually, most of the modern Turks descend from Turkish immigrants which arrived in great waves after the Mongols entered the Middle East. The Turks had settled sporadically in between Manzikert (Malazgirt) and the second half of the 13th century in Anatolia and further West, which had been depopulated as the native population was constantly raided and fled to uninhabitable, harsh territory to escape from these raids, coming from the Pontic and Cappadocian highlands, where the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum was located.
Only when this great Turkish tide came, did the Byzantines finally lose power over their Asian possessions, just when Nicaea had been a powerful bastion of Byzantine strength. That, and the terrible inactiveness that was the rule of Andronicus II.
~Wiz