Turkification

mind you that majority of hte people living in the area where as greek as the people living in roman gual where (roman) Italian. they only became "Greek" in the sense that tye spoke it since Alexander conquered the area.

Because Islam. Is it really that hard to figure out. If an Ottoman ever mated/married a Christian, they were now all muslim by default. It's the reason why there probably isn't any significant Turkish genetic influence in Greece but minor Greek influence in Turkey

The whole of Greece was ruled for centuries by the Turks, yet they kept their language, religion, and culture.

>turkified under minority rule
I hate this dumb meme.

It wasn't simply the elite that was Turk. The Seljuks kept an expressway open from Transoxiana for every Turkic tribe to move in for almost 3 centuries. And it became much more intensified once the Mongols started pushing Westward.
Think of it as how we drove the indo-iranian Schytians towards Europe, the Mongols did similar to us (unless they assimilated). Hell, the father of the founder of our glorious Ottoman empire was the chieftain of the Kayı tribe that moved entirely to the Sultanate of Rum like every other tribe to escape the Chagatai Khanate.

Sure, there were greeks, armenians and other filth living in Anatolia among them.
But guess what, they still existed to this day and moved to Greece during the great exchange or got removed by K'rds.

>Italians are not germanicized

Uh, the Romans were black, user. The people you see in Italy now are descendants of northern European Lombard invaders.

Not necessarily. Many greeks converted to islam and there were still many in antolia who were christian. But by the end of the ottomans when nationalism began, muslims and christians relocated to either turkey or greece. Then their descendants took on the culture of their country.

Why do modern Turks refuse to acknowledge the fact that they are turkified Anatolian Greeks.

>like the Italians under Lombard rule, didn't become 'Germanicized'.
But they did.

I think the answer lies in a mishudgment of your analyses. A very large portion of Asia Minor was never identified as Greek. So this group may be a larger.source of modern turks than then the ionans who were always the Greekest part of Asia Minor.

its more that greeks get butthurt when you say the average turk just speaks a different language but is basically the same

The Christians were gradually exterminated.

>The Christians were gradually converted.
ftfy

No, they were exterminated and replaced by turkic and middle eastern migrants.

>he fell for the "population x is exactly the same as 2000 years ago!" meme

No genetic research supports your claim.

>if I say it it makes it true!

Nigga you can't genocides millions of people spread around an area as large as Anatolia; it just is not logistically possible, especially for the middle ages. If you actually look into how the Turk gathered power and land from the dying Byzantines you would know that as Turkish migrators from the east annexed land from the Byzantine empire and become the ruling class of Anatolia.

Because of this native Anatolians begun to adopt Turkish customs, culture and religions. Steadily intermarrying and converting over the course of hundreds of years. Eventually resulting the the Greco-Arabic-Mongol people who make up modern day Turkey.

>Nigga you can't genocides millions of people spread around an area as large as Anatolia; it just is not logistically possible, especially for the middle ages.
Moronic nigger

Mongols killed 60 million people in a few decades.

>Mongols killed 60 million people in a few decades.
On a continent populated by several hundred millions of people. And the Mongols didn't have to population numbers to replace entire civilizations with their own tribes; and neither did the Turks. Hell, the Turks even begun as a group of Mongols who established an empire in the northern Levant.

But I know you're just memeing, otherwise you would actually put some though into what you're saying.

>On a continent populated by several hundred millions of people
And? You said "Nigga, you can't genocide millions of people spread around an area as large as Anatolia", and I just showed you that you indeed could, and around an area much much larger than Anatolia.

>And the Mongols didn't have to population numbers to replace entire civilizations with their own tribes
Right, I never claimed they did you moronic nigger. I was just refuting your stupid point about medieval people being unable to kill millions.

Kill yourself.

Perhaps in the early era They identified with various ethnics like Lydians, Hitites, etc. but by the Byzantine era, they're pretty much already greekfied

Islamization probably

In most cases Muslims identify more with other Muslims than Christians of their own nation(and vice versa).

I agree,"The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century" by him is a good starting point on this subject.

I don't think anyone talked about 2000 years ago, rather the immediate pre-Seljuk period. Anatolian Turks are closer to Europeans than Caucasians or most Middle Eastern Arabic speaking populations are. How would you get that by a population that is "Turkic and Middle Eastern" as you stated? If anything they'd be even more distant. The only other solution is to think there was Balkan Muslim immigration that was *that* significant.

I think for the time being assuming the Turks to be pre-Turkic Anatolians with an important Turkic component is a good explanation that should satisfy everyone before we have better data.

I never denied the fact that medieval people could kill millions of people. But they sure as hell couldn't replace then with an entirely different group of people.
The republic of Turkey couldn't do it to the eastern Minorities, Medieval Europe couldn't get rid of the Jews, the PRC are struggling to do it to the Mongolians, Tibetans and East Turkistani. What makes the Mongol migrations to Anatolia different.

And while you're at it, go look up the genetic history of Anatolia from the high middle ages to the modern day. Then try explaining why it remains so fucking similar for nearly 1000 years.

>Also like, contrary to the myth, the rise of Ottomans actually helped Christians because the Ottomans restored order and put the warlords under control.
Maybe in Asia minor where the turk warlords already destroyed all forms of civilization, but certainly not in the Balkans, where your so called "myth" was reality

Pre-modern demographic arguments are a bit spurious but let's keep in mind that the majority of that number would have been in China proper which has always been basically the most populous region of Eurasia (along with the subcontinent). As such it sounds a bit more impressive than it should be.

I get your point though and it's true that pre-modern demographics could actually be disturbed much more easily than in modern times. In general (local) depopulation and repopulation seems to be common in history and especially in prehistory. Still, these arguments can't be solved unless you have good genetic data.

Until then, general surveys only give us a general idea. Just to recommend him again as a starting point into this, Vryonis mentions the relative depopulation of Asia Minor as well.

Depends on the part of the Balkans. For example southern Greece, which had been fought over by various, small, very regional powers, having a more centralized government helped. Surveys seem to point to a clear demographic increase in the first Ottoman centuries. So the situation is complex.

Of course this isn't about the Ottomans-qua-Ottomans, it's about a competent, centralized state which the Ottomans could be too at times!

Why should I bother sourcing my claims when you're just going to dismiss them like the emotionally driven /pol/tard you are?

>/pol/tard

He could just as well be a Turk to be honest.

I've met a lot of obviously European Turks who unironically believe they were descendants of Central Asiatic nomads, muh Turan and all that.

>tfw Anatolian Greeks were cucked so hard they actually started to believe they were racially Turkic

lol

Came here to post this. They were hellenized Anatolians

The ones on the Ionian coast were largely Greek settlers.

up until 100 years ago it was all empty deserted wasteland, it wasnt so before the turko-mongols

turko-mongols raped and genocided

west/central asia was genocided that even to this day it hasnt recovered

100 years ago all the 'stans had less people than finland
USSR was able to get the stans out of their deserted wasteland status

>I've met a lot of obviously European Turks who unironically believe they were descendants of Central Asiatic nomads, muh Turan and all that.
They could be. Maybe the just fucked their way into whiteness.

>USSR was able to get the stans out of their deserted wasteland status

Should have just let them die out and repopulate the land with whites. Stans will go full Pisslam soon enough.

Yeah, in the same way you're Cherokee because you're 1/64th native american I guess.

>Anatolian Greeks were cucked so hard
Nah, if anything Anatolia is finally independent.

>t. Murat Ibrahim Mustafa

"Anatolia" is a geographical expression.

>100 years ago all the 'stans had less people than finland

That's definitely wrong.

And not a single area in the world today has fewer people than in the middle ages.

Keep in mind that even the Greek colonies in Asia Minor were very mixed. Half of Herodotus's family for example had Carian name. This whole thing about "-ization" just confuses genetics and ethnicity a lot anyway. Everything is a gradual process.

Russians were not racialists like Anglos or Germs. Russians barely influenced Uzbek culture and traditions. meanwhile Anglos genocided Indians and westernized the survivors.

>Russians were not racialists like Anglos or Germs.

South Slav here. Complete nonsense.

Open discourse about race, the physical anthropology of race and so on is far more acceptable in Slavic/Southeastern European countries both casually and academically than it is in Western Europe, where it is tightly proscribed through informal means.

The only people on earth who truly believe in concepts like "no such thing as race", "we are all the same" etc are Western European Germs/Anglos/Scandinavian cuckolds.

>Russians WERE not racialicisasts
past tense, like during the Russian empire
not talking bout today's westernized Russians

check the Russian empire census
Kazakhstan was 100k in 1800s
thats including Russians
populstat.info/Asia/kazakhsc.htm

its a fact that central and western asia would have been more peopled than china in modern times, if not for turkomongols. and these people would be all white and not elliot rogers

why are you disputing historical facts of asian depopulation by turko-mongols?
how much is ulaan batur paying you?

>not talking bout today's westernized Russians

Ah I see. You're one of those people who believe that the concept of "race" was invented by nefarious 19th century European anthropologists who wanted a way to justify slavery.

Which is why the fucking Tang Dynasty 1000 years prior had anti-miscegenation laws...

Islam. Being a dhimmi is made intentionally awful conversion super easy

This.

Islam is intentionally set up to wear people down and get them to convert over time.

Rigorously applied Shariah doesn't even allow non-Muslims to repair their places of worship for example, let alone set up new ones.

>Which is why the fucking Tang Dynasty 1000 years prior had anti-miscegenation laws...
With literally who? Aside from the rare Greek/Indo-European, caucasians had an insignificant presence in China to authorize such a rule. And blacks had a flat out zero population in ancient China.

Breh, do you know how many Chinese ethnic groups there are?

You made a mistake of asking a question about Turks OP. You will never get a good answer because butthurt is the driving force of discussion.

It was instituted in Guangdong, where there were actually a few blacks in the Tang period - mostly though it was aimed at SEAs/Austronesians.

>south slav here

Embarrassing.

Better than being a Western European cuckold for Muslms and Blacks.

All of whom are racially East Asian. Miscgenation means race mixing.

>few blacks
Do you have a source? I never heard of blacks living in ancient China.

> if not for turkomongols. and these people would be all white

Delusional.

Yes, that's why ex-yugoslavs are emigrating en masse to those western countries. You can keep drinking the /pol/ kool-aid about the degenerate west if it makes you feel better but that still won't change the fact that our countries are corrupt nepotistic shitholes.

>t. butthurt turkomongol

As as southslav you should know that the concept of race is a 19th century political idea created in the anglosphere.

No Slavs traditionally recognized race, but ethnicity.

this
autistic germanics preoccupied themselves with studying the obvious. no one needed a science to recognize a mongol or bantu, except the germanic autist who spent resources and elite institutions in studying obvious differences

slavs only cared about vodka and pussy.
turkomongols cared about genocide and pussy. simple. no autistic science needed

the same germanic autism in gender studies and all the other social science bs

>I shall just ignore all the genetic studies conducted on the matter because I'm butthurt about a certain ethnicity that genetically bred itself out of existence when they arrived in anatolia

Anatolians are and were "brown". Modern turks aren't genetically mongoloid.

You basically proved that Kazakhstan alone had basically the same population as Finland at the time, let alone all the other (much less populated, admittedly) -stans too. And that's not 100k, it's 1 million

>its a fact that central and western asia would have been more peopled than china in modern times, if not for turkomongols. and these people would be all white and not elliot rogers

Nope. East Asia was always more populated than Central Asia for good reason. Similarly the current population sizes are mostly the result of the last 2 centuries. East Asian ancestry had began trickling into Central Asia already in the Iron Age by the way.

>the Mongols did similar to us (unless they assimilated)
And that's what most people did, migration in the middle age isn't like migration today. And no 30000 turks don't change the genetic pol of 7 millions people

>they retained their language and religion
>unlike the Greeks
wut
"Official language and national language
Greek"

"The Greek Constitution recognizes Eastern Orthodoxy as the "prevailing" faith of the country, while guaranteeing freedom of religious belief for all.[112][210] The Greek government does not keep statistics on religious groups and censuses do not ask for religious affiliation. According to the U.S. State Department, an estimated 97% of Greek citizens identify themselves as Eastern Orthodox, belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church.,[211] which uses the Byzantine rite and the Greek language, the original language of the New Testament. The administration of the Greek territory is shared between the Church of Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece

stop being retarded
backwaters like Filipins, Thai, Viet, Burma, Bangladesh were less peopled than Fergana, Transaxonia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Khotan, Kashgaria, Yarkand, Khwarezm, Scythia, Sarmatia, Tocharia etc....

India had less people than China back then, and it was just a jungle. Now India shits on China.

toikey is brown for arab reasons. toiks of istanbul are albanians. toiks of van are armenians. azeris are gypsies. central asians are mongoloid

let us wait for ikibey