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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Turkification of Asia minor

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Afsar Beghi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jun-2006
Location: Azerbaijan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 341
  Quote Afsar Beghi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Turkification of Asia minor
    Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 22:33

I've read many genetic researches about the genetics of Asia minor and what amazes me is that almost all of them come to the conclusion that the population of Asia minor was Turkificated by the Ottomans. The migrating Turks are seen as a minority in contrast to the "original" population of Anatolia. But how comes that the culture and identity of a minority wins over that of the majority. Cengizhan's military power consisted mostly of Turks,  but the Turks didnt lost their identity along the way. I wonder how the Ottomans would have pulled that job in such a short time?


Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur,
Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur,
Nice ko yiğitler yere serilir,
Olen lr kalan sağlar bizimdir!
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
  Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 23:11
Anatolian peasants were fed up with imperial taxation and simultaneous lack of protection. Ottomans took everyone in as long as he turned Muslim. After that it's easy to Turkify since in the end Byzantine identity for the commoners was a religious one
Back to Top
Afsar Beghi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jun-2006
Location: Azerbaijan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 341
  Quote Afsar Beghi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 23:16
But how would someone give up their identity?
Can you imagine that you would?
Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur,
Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur,
Nice ko yiğitler yere serilir,
Olen lr kalan sağlar bizimdir!
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 23:38
Vorian
Anatolian peasants were fed up with imperial taxation and simultaneous lack of protection. Ottomans took everyone in as long as he turned Muslim. After that it's easy to Turkify since in the end Byzantine identity for the commoners was a religious one


There are many problems with your theory.

There was no widespread Turkification or forced Islamification projects during the Ottoman reign. The peasants were mostly uneducated folk so there was no way for them to learn to read and speak Turkish as most didn't go to school and learn. In addition to this untill the collapse of the Ottoman Empire there in Anatolia for example there was a large Greek population, they should have been Turkified and become muslim according to your theory.

The Turkification of Anatolia did not begin with the Ottomans.
Anatolia was known as "Turchia" (Land of the Turks) which is where the word Turkiye comes from by the 1300's.
The expansion of the unruly Oghuz tribes who the Seljuks placed on the Byzantine-Seljuk border mainly because they they were causing so much trouble and hard to control that the state decided its better they harrass the Byzantines than us.
These Oghuz tribes penetrated Anatolian Byzantine lands and thrived there as the steppe was similar to what they were used to in Central Asia and suitible for their horses.

After the Seljuks defeated the Byzantines at Malizgirt more and more tribes and armies flooded the Anatolian plateau.

After the Seljuks were defeated by the Mongols another social change occured. This time tribes fleeing the Mongols migrated into Anatolia and founded more Beyliks and Atabeyliks.

During this period, due to a mixture of migration, regional domination, the spiritual sufi nature of these early Turks whose mystical dervishes were winning over the masses with their liberal tolerant views, infact so liberal they were somtimes called heretics.

There were a combination of reasons but alot of Anatolia had either become majority Turk or had a Turkish presence before the Ottoman Empire was founded.

Infact Ottomans were a product of these social changes in Anatolia. They were one of many beyliks founded by Oghuz Turk tribes which had migrated there over the past few centuries. They were a frontier state and originally were not exactly Orthodox Sunni in their doctrine, there were heavy Sufi and mystic elements in their early years.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 23:47
 
Originally posted by Afsar Beghi

 

I've read many genetic researches about the genetics of Asia minor and what amazes me is that almost all of them come to the conclusion that the population of Asia minor was Turkificated by the Ottomans. The migrating Turks are seen as a minority in contrast to the "original" population of Anatolia.
 


 
 
Exactly ...
 
There is a popular dilusion of being direct offspring of the " Huns " among Turkish nationals  LOL .
 
The truth of the matter is,majority descended from variety of indigenous origins.
 
 
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
  Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 00:07
Originally posted by Bulldog


There are many problems with your theory.





I don't get your point. My theory is that Anatolian peasants were Turkified by the Seljucs and the Ottomans. You say you disagree but carry on mentioning Turkish tribes etc.

Is your point that Turks completely erased the previous inhabitants thus there was no "turkification"?
Back to Top
Afsar Beghi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jun-2006
Location: Azerbaijan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 341
  Quote Afsar Beghi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 00:16
Originally posted by pebbles

 
Originally posted by Afsar Beghi

 

I've read many genetic researches about the genetics of Asia minor and what amazes me is that almost all of them come to the conclusion that the population of Asia minor was Turkificated by the Ottomans. The migrating Turks are seen as a minority in contrast to the "original" population of Anatolia.
 


 
 
Exactly ...
 
There is a popular dilusion of being direct offspring of the " Huns " among Turkish nationals  LOL .
 
The truth of the matter is,majority descended from variety of indigenous origins.
 
 


The truth of the matter is that it is a great mystery considering you have no genetic material to compare it with.
Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur,
Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur,
Nice ko yiğitler yere serilir,
Olen lr kalan sağlar bizimdir!
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 00:22
Vorian
I don't get your point. My theory is that Anatolian peasants were Turkified by the Seljucs and the Ottomans. You say you disagree but carry on mentioning Turkish tribes etc.

Is your point that Turks completely erased the previous inhabitants thus there was no "turkification"?


Maybe you misunderstood me.

Anatolian peasants were mostly Greek speaking communities, there were also Armenians, Assyrians and Georgians. These people didn't get erased or vanish, Greeks carried on being Greeks.
Communities which converted religion sometimes also changed identity because they were excluded from their original societies. There are examples of Turkish speaking Greek Orthodox Christians and Greek speaking muslims.

Turkish tribes did have a considerable population and bought with them their language, religion, culture and founded states and empires. However, they were not a majority, only in certain areas they became a majority over time. The areas which they dominated and during the Beylik eras when the church central control was weakened many locals mixed with them untill there were no differences left and by difference I mean linguistic/religous/cultural.

My point is the Turkification of Anatolia is not a black and white issue, there were many factors involved. Its just as wrong to say it was because peasents went through a mass dementia totally forgetting their identity then woke up as Turks, just as its wrong to say the Oghuz tribes came and saw an empty land which they solely populated and drove out any Byzantine remnants in their path.

A combination of migration, mixing, religous conversions, influence of the dominant powers of the land in addition to other factors are the reasons of how there was Turkification in Asia Minor.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Singidunum View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9
  Quote Singidunum Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 01:13
First of all you are not looking Asia minor as a whole. In 13-th and 14-th century much of Asia minor was not controled by the Ottomans. Trabzon was controled by the Komnenids, Armenians had their kingdomes ( and after thay fell the Armenians did not migrate or accepted islam), and let's not forget all those Greeks that lived on the Egean coast which remaind christian orthotox. Besides we can't forget that while Empire controled Asia minor many deafeted nations were forced to settle there as foederati! Among them were Cumans, Serbs, Pecheneges and they were not that much diffirent from the Turks (apart from Sebs who of course were christians). The nations of Asia minor did not migrate because the Turks adopted the same way of taxation and administration which existed for centuries (turkish sipahis had same commitments as roman proniars). I do not think that islamization was mandatory because Ottoman empire like other empires at the time was not a national state (though it would certenly make life less complicated). How many nations were in Russian empire or the Habsburg? It did not matter at the time. Becides most of grand viziers were not Turks, the same is in the army. The therm turkification is not the same as islamization. Turkification was not completed until the creation of the republic, and as Frank Sinatra would say ''not in a shy way''. 
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 02:42
Originally posted by Afsar Beghi

Originally posted by pebbles

 
Originally posted by Afsar Beghi

 

I've read many genetic researches about the genetics of Asia minor and what amazes me is that almost all of them come to the conclusion that the population of Asia minor was Turkificated by the Ottomans. The migrating Turks are seen as a minority in contrast to the "original" population of Anatolia.
 


 
 
Exactly ...
 
There is a popular dilusion of being direct offspring of the " Huns " among Turkish nationals  LOL .
 
The truth of the matter is,majority descended from variety of indigenous origins.
 
 


The truth of the matter is that it is a great mystery considering you have no genetic material to compare it with.
 
 
Turkish population: relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other meds
Tissue Antigens
Volume 57 Issue 4 Page 308 - April 2001
doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057004308.x


HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans

Authors' affiliations:A. Arnaiz-Villena1*, M. Karin2*, N. Bendikuze3, E. Gomez-Casado1, J. Moscoso1, C. Silvera1, F.S. Oguz2, A. Sarper Diler2, A. de Pacho1, L. Allende1, J. Guillen1, J. Martinez Laso1

Abstract: Turkish and Kurdish HLA profiles are studied for the first time. The comparative study of their allele frequencies, characteristic haplotypes, genetic distances with other Mediterraneans is complemented by neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older "Mediterranean" substratum. No sign of the postulated Indo-European (Aryan) invasion (1200 B.C.) is detected by our genetic analysis. It is concluded that this invasion, if occurred, had a relatively few invaders in comparison to the already settled populations, i.e. Anatolian Hittite and Hurrian groups (older than 2000 B.C.). These may have given rise to present-day Kurdish, Armenian and Turkish populations.
 
 
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 03:10
Pebbles
There is a popular dilusion of being direct offspring of the " Huns " among Turkish nationals  LOL


The more correct term would be "ethnic offspring", the components from which the Turk ethnicity devloped is rooted in the Xiongnu/Huns. The language, state system, millitary organisation, customs etc later devloped into the GokTurks and so forth.

Racialistic arguments are pointless and mean little when discussing ethnic groups or nations because a person doesn't speak a particular language or share a certain identity due to their DNA.

There are studies regarding Xiongnu tombs which show similarities to sample populations in Turkey, what does this prove? not alot, its not what makes Turks, Turks.

      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 09:48

The turkification of anatolia was a conclusion of massive turkish migration. Without the turcomans it was impossible. Let us think the greek islands, this islands were also in turkish hands for hundreds of years but their character remained unchanged because there was not a turcoman migration to the islands. Ofcourse the local population converted with many reasons but a massive conversion did not occur. Secondly the seljuks and ottomans were not a nation state so they did not pursue it. Through the 13th century the anatolian population was consisted mainly by the local christians but the mongol invasion pushed a lot of turcoman to anatolian peninsula(Germiyan, Karesi, Karaman, Hamid, Çandar, Saruhan, Aydın.....). After this migration the process get faster

     So I think we can say that there was a major turcoman migration and a considerable local conversion. During the reign of the ottomans the crimean tatars, circassians, balkan muslims(turk and other) each migrated to Anatolia with hundreds of thousand people. The slaves(Mostly European) also contributed to the population.
 
      Finally the turks are not homogenous , similar to other nations 
Back to Top
Afsar Beghi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jun-2006
Location: Azerbaijan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 341
  Quote Afsar Beghi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 09:53
Originally posted by pebbles

Originally posted by Afsar Beghi

Originally posted by pebbles

 
Originally posted by Afsar Beghi

 

I've read many genetic researches about the genetics of Asia minor and what amazes me is that almost all of them come to the conclusion that the population of Asia minor was Turkificated by the Ottomans. The migrating Turks are seen as a minority in contrast to the "original" population of Anatolia.
 


 
 
Exactly ...
 
There is a popular dilusion of being direct offspring of the " Huns " among Turkish nationals  LOL .
 
The truth of the matter is,majority descended from variety of indigenous origins.
 
 


The truth of the matter is that it is a great mystery considering you have no genetic material to compare it with.
 
 
Turkish population: relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other meds
Tissue Antigens
Volume 57 Issue 4 Page 308 - April 2001
doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057004308.x


HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans

Authors' affiliations:A. Arnaiz-Villena1*, M. Karin2*, N. Bendikuze3, E. Gomez-Casado1, J. Moscoso1, C. Silvera1, F.S. Oguz2, A. Sarper Diler2, A. de Pacho1, L. Allende1, J. Guillen1, J. Martinez Laso1

Abstract: Turkish and Kurdish HLA profiles are studied for the first time. The comparative study of their allele frequencies, characteristic haplotypes, genetic distances with other Mediterraneans is complemented by neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older "Mediterranean" substratum. No sign of the postulated Indo-European (Aryan) invasion (1200 B.C.) is detected by our genetic analysis. It is concluded that this invasion, if occurred, had a relatively few invaders in comparison to the already settled populations, i.e. Anatolian Hittite and Hurrian groups (older than 2000 B.C.). These may have given rise to present-day Kurdish, Armenian and Turkish populations.
 
 


I was talking about ancestral (Oguz) DNA.
And the topic is not about Anatolian genetics, read the first post again.
Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur,
Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur,
Nice ko yiğitler yere serilir,
Olen lr kalan sağlar bizimdir!
Back to Top
heyamigos View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 31-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 126
  Quote heyamigos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2012 at 05:24
Jamaicans are black people today who speak an Indo-European language (English).  Their ancestors consisted of many different tribes from Africa speaking different languages.  They were forced to learn a new language without mixing with the rulers who gave them that language.
 
Same situation must be with these Turks.  They came to Anatolia and found people speaking Armenian, Georgian, Kurdish, Greek, Laz etc.  Many later converted to Islam (voluntary or forcefully) and did not want to speak the language of their infidel ancestors.  Also to rule more easier over this diverse people, it would make sense to have them speak to you in your language, the rulers language.
 
This kind of contrasted to the Spanish conquest of the South Americas and the Chinese conquests of southern parts of China.  In both examples, the invading men did wipe out the native women and forced mixing.  DNA studies shows this.  That is why northern Chinese look different from southern Chinese, but the southern Chinese will still feel superior to their Vietnamese neighbors though.
 
The case in Anatolia, just like Jamaica only involved language and religion change (not much genetic changes).  Maybe the Seljuk and Ottoman rulers were gracious not to slaughter off the native men and take all the native women for themselves (like most conquerors do)?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

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 0.156 seconds.