Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Anatolians before Turks
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694 		  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Anatolians before Turks
    Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 10:44
Originally posted by Anton

 
Nice to hear from greek about assimilation of greeks by other nation. That is my first experience really Wink
 


First time? Confused
And what do you think,that all the world believes pan-turanist imaginations that modern Turks are pure descendands of central Asian tribes?
Of course a significant part are grand-children of the ex-greek speaking -orthodox Romei =Byzantines.

 
 
Digenis! What do you want me to show!? Inscriptions of the nonwritten languages?  From f.e. 2 million thracian population in the Balkans, north Pontum and Asia Minor we got only 3 or 4 inscritpion that are readable and their length is around 3 or 4 words!



some thracian inscriptions:
http://members.tripod.com/groznijat/thrac/thrac_6.html

and...
Thracians started to write their language ,where already under heavy greek linguistic and cultural influence,and then (the northern tribes ,under latin influence.
During the Roman occupation their language was disappeared too.Unless you believe that there are still thracian speakers,just because there must be somewhere.
The same happened with the several Anatolian nations.Of course at first they were speaking their languages.There have been found such inscriptions. But(!)
Somewhere between 4-6th century ,after they are being gradually reduced in numbers...they disappear!
In the same time greek inspriptions are being raised..until there can be found only greek.
Even in popular texts of the lower class: prays,curses,on rings.

What else can this mean apart from the disappearence of their language too ?





So how could I show you something that never existed? The only  thing we could look for is sources. Some of them regarding slavs, like history of Karaman I have posted. Bashibouzuk did the same for Lydian language. I am sure if youyare interested you may find more. So, this means that greek language was not the only one. The major sort of speak but not the only one.


About the Lydian language!!!???
What?
I ll write it for the 3rd time:Strabo in 1st cent (63 BC-64 AD) claims that there is no evidence of Lydian language in whole Lydia ,and the only spoken language is Greek.

As for your beloved "history of Karaman" :1st is not a scientific book.
2nd:it speaks about "Bulgarians"=people that could not be in Anatolia before 700-800 AD -so their linguistic hellinizationwould last the most 200 years.
I am speaking about the Anatolian people of inner Anatolia-they were under greek language 's influence since 5th cent BC.
This means 1.500 years (!)


And again, you are telling me that 1.3 million anadolian Greeks were returned to Greece. Such a huge population even after 500 years of living under ottoman rule and domination! How much is it? Around 5 or 10  per cent of total Anatolian population? 


The Orthodox Christians in Anatolia recorded in 1600's Sultanic catalogues are counted around 400.000 .
The greek -speaking Orthodox population of Anatolia before the invasion of the Turks where some millions .

But plz answer me this:
Do you believe that Turks did not islamize a big part of Anatolian-Byzantine population ? this population was greek-speaking , othodox and hellinized.
Why is it so hard for some people to swallow this?


Edited by Digenis - 30-Jul-2006 at 13:22
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200 		  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 14:55
just a random fact, but prior to 1900 Anatolia was 34% ethnically Turkish, after 1925 it was 85% ethnically Turkish
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919 		  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 15:54
Originally posted by mamikon

just a random fact, but prior to 1900 Anatolia was 34% ethnically Turkish, after 1925 it was 85% ethnically Turkish
hahaha I and a lot of turks would wish that but thats bull 20 or 30% of turkey is kurdish btw the  ethnicaly TURKic lineage in turkey is low  most who have it have 30% of it.
 
So that not a fact most sites say that but this is the internet according to those states there are only 2 ethnic groups in turkey turks and kurds.
Are there more?LOL(sarcasm)
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Argentum Draconis View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 02-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130 		  Quote Argentum Draconis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 16:32
Originally posted by mamikon

just a random fact, but prior to 1900 Anatolia was 34% ethnically Turkish, after 1925 it was 85% ethnically Turkish
 
I dont know where did you get that but this isnt true. Turks have been the major people in Anatolia since they have conquered it. There was no one except Ottoman census to record such a statistic and since the Armenians dont believe them i wonder whose fantasy is this. Dont get offended but this statement is a lie. For this numbers to be true Turks whose number are one third of the region must somehow make %91 of the remaining people disappear while facing starvation, invasions and civil wars and the fact that they have entirely lost their few generations in the war should be noted too. That means they had decreasing manpower and population which effects the population ratio of the country.
 
 
Originally posted by xi_tujue

Originally posted by mamikon

just a random fact, but prior to 1900 Anatolia was 34% ethnically Turkish, after 1925 it was 85% ethnically Turkish
hahaha I and a lot of turks would wish that but thats bull 20 or 30% of turkey is kurdish btw the  ethnicaly TURKic lineage in turkey is low  most who have it have 30% of it.
 
So that not a fact most sites say that but this is the internet according to those states there are only 2 ethnic groups in turkey turks and kurds.
Are there more?LOL(sarcasm)
 
 
Kurdish populaiton is Turkey something like 10 million, Turkey's population is 72 million. That doesnt make %20 or %30.


Edited by Argentum Draconis - 30-Jul-2006 at 17:34
Back to Top
Bashibozuk View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316 		  Quote Bashibozuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 17:28
just a random fact, but prior to 1900 Anatolia was 34% ethnically Turkish,
 
Funniest statement of yours I've ever read in this forum (except your previous one about being hairy). Anyway, I need your "sensible" sources.
 
I am speaking about the Anatolian people of inner Anatolia-they were under greek language 's influence since 5th cent BC.

5th century B.C.? You mean when the PErsians conquered neo Hittite kingdoms of Tabal in Cappadocia, Issuwa (Melitene), Carcemish, Cilicia and Lydia which dominated all over Anatolia, including coastal Aegean? There was no significant Greek influence in Anatolia except Ionia and Pontian colony cities before Hellenistic period, and Greek language wasn't the lingua franca of Anatolia before the Roman conquest of Anatolia and the kingdom of Tabal, by A.D.17. Roman emperors have always imposed Greek language in Anatolia, Armenia, Northern Syria and Thrace.

So Anatolia was never entirely Hellenized, though its language was by late Byzantine period, except few local communities.
 
The Orthodox Christians in Anatolia recorded in 1600's Sultanic catalogues are counted around 400.000 .

I wonder what sultanic catalogues are, but nope, much less than that number was consisted of Christian Rums.
Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar,
Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar.
Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar,
Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben.
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200 		  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 18:25
take it easy now, I never said I believe that...however it was my a professor in the University of Minnesota who said that in the last part of his interview....which happens to be on the same page as the Taner Akcam interview, on another thread...
Back to Top
Bashibozuk View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316 		  Quote Bashibozuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 02:42
So you may have said that that your professor from the diaspora, with his brother Taner stated these so called "factbite"s, not you.
Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar,
Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar.
Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar,
Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben.
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694 		  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 04:30
Originally posted by Bashibozuk

5th century B.C.?


Yes 5th century.

Lycia,Lydia and Caria were under the ioanian heavy cultural influence.

The adoption of greek language,and greek culture dates back to the 5th century.

Of course after Alexander's conquest and for the following 1000 years the hellinization was complete.


So Anatolia was never entirely Hellenized, though its language was by late Byzantine period, except few local communities.


Yes sure!
Take a look at your touristic advertisements all over internet,and you won't see any Hellinization! LOLLOLLOL
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 06:27

Originally posted by Digenis



First time? Confused
And what do you think,that all the world believes pan-turanist imaginations that modern Turks are pure descendands of central Asian tribes?
Of course a significant part are grand-children of the ex-greek speaking -orthodox Romei =Byzantines.

No, doubts about that.
 
Some??? These are all found inscriptions Smile
 

and...
Thracians started to write their language ,where already under heavy greek linguistic and cultural influence,and then (the northern tribes ,under latin influence.
During the Roman occupation their language was disappeared too.Unless you believe that there are still thracian speakers,just because there must be somewhere.
 
You cannot prove that since it is not known about thracian language much. Balkan nations share many words, they colud be thracians but it is unprovable.
 



As for your beloved "history of Karaman" :1st is not a scientific book.
What do you mean? It was not written by Graduated Historians from Athen University? What about Strabo? Tongue
 
2nd:it speaks about "Bulgarians"=people that could not be in Anatolia before 700-800 AD -so their linguistic hellinizationwould last the most 200 years.
I am speaking about the Anatolian people of inner Anatolia-they were under greek language 's influence since 5th cent BC.
This means 1.500 years (!)
The question was about Anatolian languages in Anatolia before arrival of Turks. And by the way big part of Bulgarians were foederati of Bizantyne Empire much earlier than VII or VIII century. 
 
 

But plz answer me this:
Do you believe that Turks did not islamize a big part of Anatolian-Byzantine population ? this population was greek-speaking , othodox and hellinized.
Why is it so hard for some people to swallow this?
 
 
No, I do not believe to this panturkic stuff. Anatolian population before arrival of turks were majorly greek speaking, but many other languages also existed (like bulgarian as I pointed) in less proportion. In General I do not believe in any pansomething staff and I include to that panhellenistic as well. Thus I do not believe that greek population were unmixed with other nations existed in multinational Byzantine Empire -- slavs, Armenians, Bulgarians, Thracians, Illirians and others. I am sure you will agree with that Smile
.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813 		  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 12:56
Originally posted by xi_tujue

How so If greeks already was the dominant language the turks just replaced that with turkish. So other languages were lost before the turks at the arrival of greeks.


For the same reason as people in USA speak English nowadays and not the native languages. They were forced away from the region so there were not so many left to keep the language dominant.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694 		  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 14:07
Originally posted by Anton

 
No, I do not believe to this panturkic stuff. Anatolian population before arrival of turks were majorly greek speaking, but many other languages also existed (like bulgarian as I pointed) in less proportion. In General I do not believe in any pansomething staff and I include to that panhellenistic as well. Thus I do not believe that greek population were unmixed with other nations existed in multinational Byzantine Empire -- slavs, Armenians, Bulgarians, Thracians, Illirians and others. I am sure you will agree with that Smile


Ok...it turned to a conversation of personal beliefs..
I don't want and i can't convince you with any arguments for the opposite,since you believe it and no evidence can change this.Smile

Byzantine Empire started as a real multinational empire,but as they centuries where passing by all its nations (like Thracians,Illyrians u mentioned-as well as Anatolians and Greeks of the mainland) melted   -(under Christianity and Greek-Roman civilization) into one :
the ΡΩΜΑΊΟΙ (Romei,Romans,"Byzantines") -the people which in the 1800's where already the "'Ελληνες" (Ellines,Hellenes,Greeks,Neo-ellines,"New-Greeks")

Of course distinct exceptions where some Slavs and the Armenians-but these where already since medieval times distincted from the "Romei".
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:03
Originally posted by Digenis

Originally posted by Anton

 
No, I do not believe to this panturkic stuff. Anatolian population before arrival of turks were majorly greek speaking, but many other languages also existed (like bulgarian as I pointed) in less proportion. In General I do not believe in any pansomething staff and I include to that panhellenistic as well. Thus I do not believe that greek population were unmixed with other nations existed in multinational Byzantine Empire -- slavs, Armenians, Bulgarians, Thracians, Illirians and others. I am sure you will agree with that Smile


Ok...it turned to a conversation of personal beliefs..
I don't want and i can't convince you with any arguments for the opposite,since you believe it and no evidence can change this.Smile

Byzantine Empire started as a real multinational empire,but as they centuries where passing by all its nations (like Thracians,Illyrians u mentioned-as well as Anatolians and Greeks of the mainland) melted   -(under Christianity and Greek-Roman civilization) into one :
the ΡΩΜΑΊΟΙ (Romei,Romans,"Byzantines") -the people which in the 1800's where already the "'Ελληνες" (Ellines,Hellenes,Greeks,Neo-ellines,"New-Greeks")

Of course distinct exceptions where some Slavs and the Armenians-but these where already since medieval times distincted from the "Romei".


 
Well, well, if you look at the thread you will be surprised who first used this word Wink  Regarding that in 1800s they started to be called hellens -- thats right. Multinational product called Roman Empire started to bear name hellens later Tongue  Of course, no doubts that hellenistic civilization had the strongest influence on that "product" but if one is not blinded by beliefs he could find other influences as well Smile The problem is that now it would be difficult to find this influences and such attempts will meet strong opposition from "new-greek" co-forumers. Because they would very much like to have continuation of their culture during milleniums without any influences from neughboring nations and to be descendant of everything attractive in Balkan peninsula. This is their belief which cannot be argued by facts Wink
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:12
Originally posted by Flipper

Originally posted by xi_tujue

How so If greeks already was the dominant language the turks just replaced that with turkish. So other languages were lost before the turks at the arrival of greeks.


For the same reason as people in USA speak English nowadays and not the native languages. They were forced away from the region so there were not so many left to keep the language dominant.
 
Flipper, in US people still speak native languages despite the domination of English. And like in Byzantium there are many communities that speak their native languages mainly. They are somewhat analogs of foederati apart from the fact that foederati beared protective function in Byzantium. You may find Irish, Jewish, Chineese, Indian and other cultural and lingual communities in the US. Am I right?
.
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694 		  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:33
@Anton:
1-"Ellines" (Hellens) started to be used again far more earlier (15th ,even 13th century) (though not widely till 1800's) ,to describe ex-"Romei".

2-Of course there was influence (localy mainly) by other ethnic groups ,but this was limited.

3-foederati was a constitution of the early Byzantine empire.
United states could be a good example (esp about the earlier immigrants to USA) Germans,Irish,English,and other Europeans melted under common language and culture into a nation.

Latinos and Chinese are 10 century's Armenians and other non-Romei nations of Byzantium.

and finally: it's simple :there were not any thracians,illyrians,lycians,cappadocians,lydians...etc in Byzantine empire of 10th century.
There were only greek speaking,orthodox christian Romei.



Edited by Digenis - 31-Jul-2006 at 15:35
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:48
Digenis it seems that our opinions differ  only in details
 
 
Originally posted by Digenis

@Anton:
1-"Ellines" (Hellens) started to be used again far more earlier (15th ,even 13th century) (though not widely till 1800's) ,to describe ex-"Romei".
No doubt.
 

2-Of course there was influence (localy mainly) by other ethnic groups ,but this was limited.
How limited? Why local mainly?
 

3-foederati was a constitution of the early Byzantine empire.
Agree.
 
 
United states could be a good example (esp about the earlier immigrants to USA) Germans,Irish,English,and other Europeans melted under common language and culture into a nation.
Latinos and Chinese are 10 century's Armenians and other non-Romei nations of Byzantium.
Thats rigt. But they are rather big communities and English is not the only spoken language in the US what is actually the initial question of the thread. With the difference that the question was about Byzantium not about USA Smile
 

and finally: it's simple :there were not any thracians,illyrians,lycians,cappadocians,lydians...etc in Byzantine empire of 10th century.
There were only greek speaking,orthodox christian Romei.
You started to repeat yourself without posting additional arguments and facts. This will lead to nowhere Smile


Edited by Anton - 31-Jul-2006 at 15:53
.
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694 		  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:00
Sorry for repeating myself,but i don't get any counter -argument on this just personal  beliefs .
so i won't say it againSmile (after all i ve said "finally")

2.limited/localy.:
Since greek language was the only one,and since a common culture was created,any influence was limited and localy.

Take a look at the underground churches of Cappadokia (the eastern frontier of Byzantine(Romei) population)
Inscriptions are all (of course )in greek .
Frescos revealed show the common byzantine rythm of iconography ,but with local (not so elegant) elements.
There is a lack of clasicization that exists in churches of Constantinople and the other major cities of the empire.
Back to Top
Argentum Draconis View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 02-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130 		  Quote Argentum Draconis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:12
What about the Kurds, due to their homelands' geographic condition they are hard to influence, were they hellenized as well?
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694 		  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:25
Originally posted by Argentum Draconis

What about the Kurds, due to their homelands' geographic condition they are hard to influence, were they hellenized as well?


No.
Kurds remained out of the cultural influence of Hellenism.
They were not even christianized.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 18:14
Originally posted by Digenis


2.limited/localy.:
Since greek language was the only one,and since a common culture was created,any influence was limited and localy.

Take a look at the underground churches of Cappadokia (the eastern frontier of Byzantine(Romei) population)
Inscriptions are all (of course )in greek .
Frescos revealed show the common byzantine rythm of iconography ,but with local (not so elegant) elements.
There is a lack of clasicization that exists in churches of Constantinople and the other major cities of the empire.
 
 
Well, of course they are in greek since they belonged to greek orthodox church Smile As for "not so elegant", be more cautious. Sometimes it is hard to make a difference between "beautifull" and "different from your culture"... I personally do not consider Hellenic elements in  for example thracian culture as "more elegant" and "higher standarts", as many tends to say. It is, better to say, another way (no doubt, a good one) of expression of Thracian mysticism. The same thing could be applied with Cappadokian churches, maybe. Or icons of Russian Andrej Rublyov do not become less elegant or less impressive because of addition slavic understanding of christianity. Sorry for the offtop again.


Edited by Anton - 31-Jul-2006 at 18:25
.
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694 		  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 18:36
I didnt say "ugly"
I ve said more elegant.
If u prefer not so naive-or products of a more "intellectual" art.
Or more stylized-or closer to clasical pwtterns-or performed by classical educated painters...
Is it ok ?Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.