Make more of Anatolia greek

[Beylerbeyi]

Beylerbeyi:
If only 10% of the population were Greek, then Anatolia was pretty much unpopulated before the turks arived (or did they just die of the black death or something?). The fact that there are not that many greeks today is because of cultural/religios conversion over 400 years or more. Why stay christian, if you have to give your oldest son to the ottoman army and pay more taxes.

Anatolia was not unpopulated, but it was not densely populated either when the Turks conquered it. The thing is the Turks conquered it in 1070's and the game starts in the 1440s. That's 370 years after the conquest which is plenty of time to convert and absorb the local population so that the ratio of Greeks is about 10% around 1500. As I wrote before the number of Greeks in the region increased in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is wrong to assume that since they were 20% in 1910 they were more in 1810.

We also know these ratios because Ottomans kept detailed records of taxable assets which included the number of households. Studies of these census records were published by historians such as Barkan and Uzuncarsili decades ago, and form the material basis of Ottoman history studies.

You are wrong about "giving your oldest son" thing, but I won't discuss it here.

Here's what I wrote about the Devshirme system before (I edited a bit):

OE actually ruled the Balkans for 200 years with less problems than Anatolia. Balkan problems started with nationalism (still causing problems there), centuries after Devshirme practice was abolished. The Devshirme numbers were too small to make a major impact anyway. However Balkan romantic nationalism selectively resurrected tales of people hating the Devshirme: Turks raided villages and kidnapped kid, with moms crying etc. It is bullshit. In fact for each peasant who cried there was another who actually wanted to give their child away (some even bribed the officers to take the child), because the kids would have great jobs (anything from janissary to grand vizier) and most would remember their family. And the whole selection was organised by the local Orthodox church.

Also this:

Devshirme practice was introduced in the 1390s and effectively lasted until about 1590. The devshirme collected from the whole Balkans numbered at most around 3000 in one go, usually it was in the hundreds. Some peasants even bribed the collectors to give their children away. The children were mostly teenagers, so most remembered their families and helped them if they had the chance later on. It was of course not done to provide education for the Balkan peasants, it was done to produce an effective ruling class loyal to the Sultan and replace the Turkish nobility who could challenge the House of Osman.

 

[Mixxer5]

One of my first games will be to restore Byzantium control of Anatolia! Forge a new Greek empire!

New ROMAN empire! Otherwise it's ok But it'll be my second game- first I'll try Poland to learn new mechanics.

 

[spyroware1]

Mentese could be the representative Aegean Greek province but Bursa/Hüdavendigar is way too big to have it as Greek, which is kinda lame as if there was one area that consistently remained Greek through and through during the timeframe was the coastal Marmara region (the Riviera being the second).

 

[Bard of Reveran]

Anatolia was not unpopulated, but it was not densely populated either when the Turks conquered it. The thing is the Turks conquered it in 1070's and the game starts in the 1440s. That's 370 years after the conquest which is plenty of time to convert and absorb the local population so that the ratio of Greeks is about 10% around 1500. As I wrote before the number of Greeks in the region increased in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is wrong to assume that since they were 20% in 1910 they were more in 1810. Also this:

Correct, Anatolia was not a densely region, especially when it was always a frontier for constant warfare; be it Seljuks, Sassanids or Arabians. After the successful invasion by the Seljuks, most of what small amount of the Greeks that used to inhabit the inner Anatolia moved towards the coastal lines. Another reason why it wasn't a very inhabited places can simply be lifestyle, as Greeks are a seafaring society.

 

[Miguel_k]

Anatolia was not unpopulated, but it was not densely populated either when the Turks conquered it. The thing is the Turks conquered it in 1070's and the game starts in the 1440s. That's 370 years after the conquest which is plenty of time to convert and absorb the local population so that the ratio of Greeks is about 10% around 1500. As I wrote before the number of Greeks in the region increased in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is wrong to assume that since they were 20% in 1910 they were more in 1810.

We also know these ratios because Ottomans kept detailed records of taxable assets which included the number of households. Studies of these census records were published by historians such as Barkan and Uzuncarsili decades ago, and form the material basis of Ottoman history studies.

You are wrong about "giving your oldest son" thing, but I won't discuss it here.

Here's what I wrote about the Devshirme system before (I edited a bit):



Also this:

You are wrong, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devşirme

I don't know what turks learn about history in school, but from what I read, all the bad stuff is left out.

 

[Miguel_k]

Correct, Anatolia was not a densely region, especially when it was always a frontier for constant warfare; be it Seljuks, Sassanids or Arabians. After the successful invasion by the Seljuks, most of what small amount of the Greeks that used to inhabit the inner Anatolia moved towards the coastal lines. Another reason why it wasn't a very inhabited places can simply be lifestyle, as Greeks are a seafaring society.

I agree that the inner Anatolia should be turkish, but more coastal povinces should be Greek. Maybe the most western ones, that the Greeks lost last.

 

[Mixxer5]

Correct, Anatolia was not a densely region, especially when it was always a frontier for constant warfare; be it Seljuks, Sassanids or Arabians. After the successful invasion by the Seljuks, most of what small amount of the Greeks that used to inhabit the inner Anatolia moved towards the coastal lines. Another reason why it wasn't a very inhabited places can simply be lifestyle, as Greeks are a seafaring society.

As far as I remember, I've read historical article saying that ethnically currently only 1% of Turks are "clear" Turks, while rest of them are Greek-Turkish (more or less of course). That would mean that Greeks were still quite numerous in Anatolia during Turk conquest.

EDIT: http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/how-turkish-are-anatolians-new-alu.html
Here is an article I've mentioned.

 

[Bard of Reveran]

What do you mean by bad stuff? Most of the devshirme children was chosen from poor families. I don't understand why you see these things in white and black, but that also gave the kids a proper education and the chance to take a role in the administration of the empire (up to getting to the rank of the second most powerful man in the country as well). There were some exceptions however, where officials also sought intelligent children that may have already come of age, from wealthy or prestigious families. Of course the officials had to persuade the family. (Architect Sinan and Mehmed Pasha Sokolovici are such examples)

 

[unmerged(464283)]

I actually didn't mind seeing the disappearance of the Greek culture in EU3, I thought it represented how their culture was repressed before its 'revival' in the 19th century

 

[Mixxer5]

I actually didn't mind seeing the disappearance of the Greek culture in EU3, I thought it represented how their culture was repressed before its 'revival' in the 19th century

Nah, it was simple overlooking like in most of cases. I'm afraid that devs are simplifying things a bit too often...

 

[Beylerbeyi]

Various genetic studies find that 70%-95%+ of the genes of Turks are local (not 1%). That means Anatolia was populated enough when the Turks conquered it. The people who populated Anatolia were Hellenised ancient Anatolians. They are the Turks of today. Mixed with all kinds of other people (Central Asians, Balkan peoples, Semitics, Crusaders, Ukrainians etc), of course. None of this changes the facts I wrote, though. They were mostly Turkified by 1444.

don't know what turks learn about history in school, but from what I read, all the bad stuff is left out.

What Turks learn in school is irrelevant, because what I wrote doesn't come from any school books. It comes from good historians with international credibility. Also if you were my student, I would have flunked you for referencing wikipedia. Don't do it if you want to be taken seriously.

I actually didn't mind seeing the disappearance of the Greek culture in EU3, I thought it represented how their culture was repressed before its 'revival' in the 19th century

Greek culture was not that repressed by the Turks. It was repressed by the Catholics (e.g. Venetians), though. It was replaced in parts by the Turkish one, but otherwise Greeks were mostly autonomous. Of course they were second class in the state, so it was not like in the ERE. But repression so that it disappears? No way.

You can argue that Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian cultures were repressed, and you'd have more of a point, because the Turks shut down their national churches and sent Greeks from Istanbul to rule their communities. But Greek "secret schools" stuff is 90% nationalist myth rejected by contemporary Greek historians.

 

[Mixxer5]

Various genetic studies find that 70%-95%+ of the genes of Turks are local (not 1%). That means Anatolia was populated enough when the Turks conquered it. The people who populated Anatolia were Hellenised ancient Anatolians. They are the Turks of today. Mixed with all kinds of other people (Central Asians, Balkan peoples, Semitics, Crusaders, Ukrainians etc), of course. None of this changes the facts I wrote, though. They were mostly Turkified by 1444.

Sorry, I've mixed things a "little" (I don't know why to be honest...). Of course I can't argue with Turkization of majority of locals until 1444, but coastline provinces still held significant numbers of Greeks. In game it could be represented by extra culture (Turko-Greek) and increased time of assimilation (for Greeks of course- but Ottos shouldn't have any particular problems in this case).

You can argue that Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian cultures were repressed, and you'd have more of a point, because the Turks shut down their national churches and sent Greeks from Istanbul to rule their communities. But Greek "secret schools" stuff is 90% nationalist myth rejected by contemporary Greek historians.

Actually Greek culture domination over Bulgarians during late Ottoman empire is interesting thing. As I remember from what I read recently, Greeks were close to totally assimilate Bulgarians, as they controlled clergy.

 

[spyroware1]

@Beylerbeyi : I think what was meant with 'repressed' is that in the absence of language education and other domestic/native institutions the greek culture dwindled no matter what. The OE didn't have to actively repress the Greeks - the local beys would do that on their own initiative against any subject in their jurisidction - but they didn't patronise Greek artists and writers either, something that the Venetians did, and whose products took Greek form more often than not. Education was also more available. People who live in the Ionian islands can trace their ancestors many centuries back, while those from the Ottoman mainlands are out of lack as they lived in a pisspoor lawless backwater. The secret church schools are a lame myth yes (who brought that up?) but anyway it's another sign that the successes of the Greek Church in the Balkans, which was just another wholy corrupt leg of the Ottoman administration, is totally unrelated to the welfare of the average Greek subject of the OE.

@Mixxer5 : The Bulgarians were not exactly that close to assimilation although Greeks traditionally had significant presence in all parts of (Greater) Macedonia and Thrace. If there was one culture that Greeks had assimilated of sorts it was the Albanians, they were practically the same 'nation' or so to speak until the late 19th century when the expanding Greek state adopted a one nation -one religion ideology (Orthodoxy) for its new territories. Tosk Albanian was traditionally written in the Greek alphabet. Anyway, as many Albanians were (and still are) Muslims or atheists they did not fit in that concept and so warlords (mostly the atheists, the muslims were pro-OE) that fought together against the OE parted ways and many areas that had worked together since forever were split along new ethnic lines. Many Albanians however did fall under that ideology, called Arvanites today. Later when Greece became very successful with its conquests it adopted a more inclusive-Balkan ideology, but the Bulgarian Exarchate was by then too strong.

 

[Bard of Reveran]

People who live in the Ionian islands can trace their ancestors many centuries back, while those from the Ottoman mainlands are out of lack as they lived in a pisspoor lawless backwater.

Those bad Ottomans.

 

[unmerged(445219)]

The Europa series never claimed that the culture of a province represented the entire population of said province. What it represented was either the majority culture of a province or the largest culture group of a province if no culture had a majority.

It was never meant to be a perfect or even accurate representation of demographics in a province. It is simply a broad stroke approach to cultural resistance to foreign occupation. It is not by design to provide a nuanced approach to this issue nor go into the complexity of cultural assimilation.

It doesn't matter how it is worded. The game treats the culture of a province as being 100% of that culture, no matter if it is a 51% majority of a 100% majority. That being said, the game treating Anatolia as 100% Turkish would be an inconsistency.


The argument then becomes whether having Anatolia as 100% Turkish or having it 88% Turkish (albeit by having 2 provinces 100% Greek) represents the game more effectively. BOTH choices are inaccurate. What should be decided is which one reflects both the province, region and country dynamics best.

It is already stupidly easy to convert religion + culture of 2 provinces. It can be done within a decade for super cheap. There is absolutely no good reason for having Anatolia represented as 100% Turkish. At all.

 

[benice1234]

I wonder how many people here are either ultra-nationalists/don't understand how majorities work.

 

[unmerged(445219)]

I wonder how many people here are either ultra-nationalists/don't understand how majorities work.

Most of the individuals posting aren't Greek or Turkish, difficult to be a nationalist for a country you don't belong to. Again, and I've attempted to explain this in multiple ways, the game doesn't care. There is no "majority" mechanic for provinces. It is either 0% or 100%.


Now, taking into account that a province can only be 100% of a certain culture, I would love to hear ANY rational argument for the status quo (100% Turkish) rather than the solution suggested which would result in the region being 88% Turkish. Provinces can only have a single culture. The region as a whole though can have a mixed culture. So why not?

 

[Dutchling]

It doesn't matter how it is worded. The game treats the culture of a province as being 100% of that culture, no matter if it is a 51% majority of a 100% majority. That being said, the game treating Anatolia as 100% Turkish would be an inconsistency.


The argument then becomes whether having Anatolia as 100% Turkish or having it 88% Turkish (albeit by having 2 provinces 100% Greek) represents the game more effectively. BOTH choices are inaccurate. What should be decided is which one reflects both the province, region and country dynamics best.

It is already stupidly easy to convert religion + culture of 2 provinces. It can be done within a decade for super cheap. There is absolutely no good reason for having Anatolia represented as 100% Turkish. At all.

But having (almost) all of Anatolia Turkish just means that in all provinces the Turks were the majority, which is true.

Having a few extra Greek provinces where they were not the majority would just be false and confusing. Arbitrarily changes what culture means is should be avoided imo.

 

[unmerged(445219)]

But having (almost) all of Anatolia Turkish just means that in all provinces the Turks were the majority, which is true.

Having a few extra Greek provinces where they were not the majority would just be false and confusing. Arbitrarily changes what culture means is should be avoided imo.

Like I've said, either way you are going to have an inaccuracy. If you choose to represent each province, you will misrepresent the region as a whole. If you choose to represent the region, you will misrepresent 2 provinces.

The choice is then which version is MORE accurate and provides the most realistic depiction possible.

One choice has all 16 provinces at 100% Turkish. It would have the region at 100% Turksih as well. This is highly innacurate.

The other choice has 2 provinces at 100% Greek. It would have the region as a whole at 88% Turkish. This would be much more accurate in my opinion.


It is not an arbitrary culture change either. We do know that Byzantium controlled the region just 200 years before the start date. We also know that the Greeks migrated towards the coastal provinces. With no actual census records from this time period, it would not be too much of a stretch to represent such a small percentage (12%) of the region as Greek. Especially since it would increase both the REGIONAL accuracy and allow for a more historical gameplay as the Ottomans (having a small Greek Orthodox population within Anatolia).


This isn't a nationalistic debate. Having Greeks in Anatolia isn't some sort of attack on the Ottomans. It is an attempt at creating a realistic depiction of the region and allowing for a narrative to happen which closely represents the historical one.

 

[unmerged(471494)]

ftfy

Lolz, the lamest 1000th post in internet forums history :rofl:

Also, congrats on reaching 1000 posts