Why did Anatolia get linguistically Turkified and religiously Islamified but Greece and Southeast Europe didn't? Did the Ottomans practice different policies in different regions? Did this just happen on accident and wasn't the result of any kind of planning?
Anatolian hicks went through the crypto-christian -> Ali worshipper -> muslim pipeline. You still see remnants of the former two around
Anatolia had around 15 Mio people at 1900 and around the half of them weren`t turks, but Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds and other.
>Why did Anatolia get linguistically Turkified and religiously Islamified but Greece and Southeast Europe didn't?
because the Yugochuds killed all the Turks, although there are still Bosnian and Albanian Muslims there, as a reminder of the brown rape.
I love Gunpower Empires so much bros
Because of the Mongols.
The Turkification of Anatolia was pre-Ottoman, under the Seljuks/Rum Sultanate in the aftermath of Manzikert
though the 20th century genocide finished the job
Bulgaria was nearly 50% Muslim until decolonization occurred.
What
And
said. Along with the fact that Greece, Serbia, and other parts of the Balkans had large Muslim populations prior to 1900ish.
Bulgarians were considered Turks who somehow were Christian until like 1945
Meds
considered by who?
I think the race tha lived in Anatolia(people from modern day turkey) are a weak slave race that got conquered by everyone and their mom, similar to the Copts of Egypt
Damn that must make Arabs even weaker for losing their Caliphate to a bunch of Turks for hundreds of years
Arab Islamic caliphate/civilisation started in 7th century and ended in the 16th century with exception of Morocco and Yemen, but it started declining in the 13th century, ottomans and their European(not Turkic)army were the last nail in the coffin. Turks didn’t have a civilisation unlike the Arabs.
>Turks didn’t have a civilisation unlike the Arabs
I mean, they clearly did. Even before the Ottomans, you had the Sultante of Rum, the Seljuks, the Cumans, etc. The Mughals were also Turkic along with a dozen or so western and central Asian dynasties and kingdoms.
Civilisation is not a ruling dynasty, the Seljuks copied Persians and Arabs, the Mughals were mongols(obviously from the name) and their culture was also not Turkic, Cumans and central Asian states were just tribal states, nothing civilised about it, and if I’m not mistaken most of these states had Persian as their official language, which mean the Turk language is weak, and as you’re supposed to know, language is one of if not the most important things in a civilisation, you know what, name one Turkic scholar that is half of al kindi or in khldoun and name me a city built by Turks that’s as grand as Cairo, Baghdad, fez etc
It's all meaningless now especially when you compare the state of the Arab world with Turkey.
>Mughals were mongols(obviously from the name) and their culture was also not Turkic
moron moment
>Seljuks
>mongols
These two could never get into agricultural. The annual harvest of the seljuks was a fraction of the buyids and the annual harvest of the mongols was a fraction of the Seljuk's
The eternal An*tolian survived the bronze age collapse. He will kill his full blood brother for inheritance disputes. He survives, he doesn't give a flying frick about irrelevant stuff like language or religion
>Anatolia get linguistically Turkified and religiously Islamified but Greece and Southeast Europe didn't?
That's a faulty premise, many regions did get Turkified and religiously Islamified in the Balkans while many in Anatolia did not, at least until the early 1900s, when both got more homogeneous
This. The Balkans and Anatolia have been homogenised through population exchange, ethnic cleansing and genocide in the last 150 years.
The "Armenian Genocide" was primarily the genocide of non-Turkified Anatolians. Everyone left in Anatolia after 1922 was de facto party to the secular Ataturk regime's policy of creating a new national identity that required the purging of all traditional influences not aligned with his view of Turkish identity. Keep in mind, there were still plenty of Christian Greeks in Constantinople and Smyrna emigrating west from the 18th-20th centuries. Look at Cyprus for a microcosm of what happened to Greeks in Turkey, the only reason the Cypriot Greeks haven't been exterminated is because that's a damnably difficult thing to accomplish in full view of the international community.
>Look at Cyprus for a microcosm of what happened to Greeks in Turkey
Yep. Just like the Greeks of Anatolia paid the price for the Greeks overstepping their mark at the outset of the Greco-Turkish War, the Greek Cypriots paid the price for overstepping their mark through Nikos Sampson's Athens-backed ultranationalist coup.
The Turks are capable of great savagery, no doubt about it, but the Greeks have this stupid tendency to poke the bear then cry when the bear mauls them.
They did; Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, etc. are all just Turks in denial.
The opposite you mean. It's funny when turks claim to be true blooded turkic nomads when they look just like other med peoples and completely different from turkic groups from central asia.
Now do one of Turks in the Balkans
It wouldn't be very accurate because "Turk" was synonymous with "Muslim" in the Ottoman Empire. Many of the Turkish refugees fleeing to Turkey after the collapse of the Empire were islamized Balkanites who barely even spoke Turkish, with obviously different ethnic backgrounds.
But then, the same can be said about the Greeks here
. Until the 19th century, "Greek", or rather "Roman" was synonymous with "Orthodox Christian". A lot of the Greeks in light purple on the map were just Orthodox Christians of various ethnic backgrounds who didn't speak Greek.
So a religious map would be more accurate.
Anatolian until WW1 was a confused mess of turks, greeks of various sub-groups, armenians, kurds, circassians and so on.
Turks were the majority but only relative. In the 10s and 20s they pretty much killed/expelled/absorbed everyone else.
Because they are in fact Turks while Southeast Europeans are not.
Turks are genetically inherently different from all surrounding populations and stick out with nearly 15% East Eurasian DNA while neighboring people like Greeks, Bulgarians, Arabs and Armenians have below 1%.
In comparison their most related Central Asian Turkics like Turkmen and Uzbeks have 25-35% East Eurasian ancestry.
Even Balkan Turks (in Bulgaria & Greece) stick out with 5-10% East Eurasian ancestry.
Turks do have significant Turkic ancestry and are Turkic + Anatolia, European, Caucasian mutts
Comparison of Turks and Greeks
Average Uzbeks, btw.
Yeah, you can clearly tell that they are East and West Eurasian mutts. When you mix Uzbeklike people with 100% West Eurasian people you get something like modern day Turks
Picrel Anatolian Turk
Literally just a Greek.
Because human beings are cussedly stubborn and refuse to behave the way academics have arbitrarily decided they ought to. And I for one think it's hilarious. Do carry on, gentlemen.