How did Anatolia become 100% Turkic?
Greece didn't, balkans didn't. Wasn't Anatolia like "super" greek?
Another question. Rome forced Latin upon Hispania. Gaul and other areas. Why wasn't Greece and middle east/north Africa forced to romanize?
>How did the Ottomans do it
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Is all of this a result of mostly ww1? With the british and french making borders that then locked in languages to the countries, so the once prevalent Greece in Anatolia just; poof, dead.
It's a well known fact that there were millions of Greeks in anatolia up until recently. It goes kinda like this
>WW1
>Greco-Turkish war
>genocide
>population exchange
>Istanbul pogrom
>persecution, discrimination and aggressive laws up until 2005
>Cyprus Invasion
See minor asia disaster for more info. This thing was going on real hard at very recent years
>Inb4 dindu Törk
anatolia isn't 100% turkic speaking even today. half of it speaks kurdish and related iranian languages. Until WW1 there were still tons of armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and Lazes around too. After the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the rise of nationalism in Turkey and the Balkans there was a lot of ethnic cleansing because people suddenly wanted a pure ethnostate instead of and empire of many peoples. The most significant events were probably the Armenian genocide and the Greek-Turkish population exchanges. Before the exchanges there were actually quite a lot of Muslim Greeks, but that identity did not conform with the new ideas of purity and sure enough it has mostly died out.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
>Why wasn't Greece and middle east/north Africa forced to romanize?
North Africa was Romanized - St. Augustine was a North African who spoke Latin. It was probably mostly just in the urban centers though so even though it stayed on for quite a while after the Arab conquest, it was eventually displaced when Arabic became the main language of those spaces (The rural areas remained berber speaking and still are today to some extent).
Greece and the entire eastern part of the empire was different because Greek Koine was already established as a lingua franca there as a result of the conquests of Alexander the great and his successors the diadochi. The Romans respected Greek culture and the Greek language as a medium of civilization and education and adopted it as the official language in the eastern part of the empire. also iirc the population balance was different in the east with a lot more people living there as opposed to the more sparsely populated west, where the conquerors weren't as outnumbers and thus could spread their language more easily.
forgot to add picture
ITT: AKSHULLY
Everyone knows that there were Greeks in the Ottoman empire. Its getting to the point where more effort should be put into debunking le super tolerant Ottoman meme than the KARA BOGA genocide meme.
The answer is a combination of ghazi raids and civil disorder, one is really a consequence of the other, but which is which?
After Manzikert, it was increasingly difficult for the Byzantines to control their porous Eastern border, so Turkmens would just stroll in and wipe out whole communities, either killing them or carrying them off into slavery. Do not underestimate how this can change a region's demographics over hundreds of years of war.
Add to this the brainless sissy retards like Andronikos Komnenos, who would attempt to usurp the empire every six seconds, so even Greek archontes were raiding Greek speaking areas with armies of mercenary slime.
In the case of Andronikos, after he seized power half of Asia Minor rebelled, and this allowed Turks to slip in, take and hold territory with no retaliation.
>100% Turkic
Wrong. Even linguistically, anatolia is 70-80% Turk only.
>Greece didn't, balkans didn't. Wasn't Anatolia like "super" greek?
no. There were Armenians and Assyrians too.
Genetically, i don't even think we're 100% Turkic. If we consider Turkic as pure Yakuts then 10-20% only. If we consider Turkic as Central Asian mutt then it's higher i think.
Good post user.
No it isn't, it puts the cart before the horse.
It also doesn't explain how Greece or the Balkans avoided Turkicisation.
not even the current turkic nations are that pure, you should really fix this by understanding that turkish and turkic are not the same things, if it was turkic then europe would mistake turkey for a nation filled with east asian looking people. Turkics are somewhat related to mongols because they are both altaic people from siberia or the steppes or whatever and most of the soldiers under genghis khan were turkic when he was advancing west. Anatolia is bascially full of anatolia ethnic groups with some turkish admixture but the heavily turk populations are found in the eastern part of the country. Turkish today is mostly a political ethnic group rather than one of turkish blood and turkics are even far rarer in all this. Just because that entire nation has the turkish language, culture, history and nationality doesn't mean they are Turkish by blood and again if they were turkic they would look closer to Chinese than Mediterranean or Caucasian.
>if it was turkic then europe would mistake turkey for a nation filled with east asian looking people
Good
So by that logic Central Asia isn't Turkic either?
>Anatolia is bascially full of anatolia ethnic groups with some turkish admixture but the heavily turk populations are found in the eastern part of the country
retard alert.
>Turkish today is mostly a political ethnic group rather than one of turkish blood and turkics are even far rarer in all this
retard alert
> if they were turkic they would look closer to Chinese than Mediterranean or Caucasian
pic related.
are you an american? judging by your low IQ post it seems you're an american.
> if they were turkic they would look closer to Chinese than Mediterranean or Caucasian
-Veeky Forums 2017
Last year there was an Uzbek terrorist in Turkey. Pic related is him.
I still can't understand how we couldn't notice his Chinese features....
and here an another Turkic terrorist from Uzbekistan in USA
damn. he really does look like a Pho shop owner
Do you retards actually think Seljuks were Chinese or anyone from Central Asia Chinese looking people lmao Turkics are mutts any phenotype ranging from pure Caucasoid to pureish mongoloid can be found in that part of world. Though Central Asians are more "pure" than us for obvious reasons. Though Turkics who left their homeland are also more or less as mixed as Turks (Nogais, Crimean Tatars, Volga Tatars, Qashqais etc etc).
Also
>but the heavily turk populations are found in the eastern part of the country
if you do not stop that meme i'll eat your first born child.
here a recent map though it misses some places (based on personal turkish results)
>Good So by that logic Central Asia isn't Turkic either?
Central asia is turkic, turkey however is predominately turkish with linguistics and even if turkey was entirely turkish by blood they would not be turkic because turkic and turkish are two separate things that this thread is not able to process
>retard alert.
>retard alert
>are you an american? judging by your low IQ post it seems you're an american.
underage detected, try refuting me rather than pulling out strawman's and personal attacks
It's interesting that you're using a picture of turkics and not turkish people, those are western Oghuz Turks, only under the laws of the republic of turkey would they be considered turkish
Uzbeks are mix of iranic,caucasian and turkic. That's why they're not pure altaics
prove me wrong, they would be closer to East Asians with the mongoloid facial plates but that would include turkics and not most people in the republic of turkey
btw those are not maps of turkic admixture but turkish
>Uzbeks are mix of iranic,caucasian and turkic. That's why they're not pure altaics
and they're a Turkic people.
>prove me wrong, they would be closer to East Asians with the mongoloid facial plates but that would include turkics and not most people in the republic of turkey
Their phenotypes say they're more Caucasoid than East Asian.
>btw those are not maps of turkic admixture but turkish
maps of East Eurasian admixture which correlates with Turkic admixture. Considering Turkmens who brought East Eurasian component to Turks were around 15-40% mongoloid the Turkic admixture should be higher. But that depends on what you mean by "Turkic".
Turkey is shit
>and they're a Turkic people.
hardly by blood, think of it this way. They are pretty much just civic turks than blood
>Their phenotypes say they're more Caucasoid than East Asian.
then let's start again, they are more Caucasian than east asian looking which is different from people in central asia who can be predominately Altaic-mongoloid looking
>maps of East Eurasian admixture which correlates with Turkic admixture. Considering Turkmens who brought East Eurasian component to Turks were around 15-40% mongoloid the Turkic admixture should be higher. But that depends on what you mean by "Turkic".
pic related
the balkans were romanized. yugoslavians spoke italic dialects until only 100 yrs ago. romanians are slavs that adopted latin language.
romanized aromanians still live in greece.
modern greek language is a revival language like hebrew. it didnt exist until 100 yrs ago when the greek republic formed.