Make more of Anatolia greek

[Connor Mulhern]

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?

Trabzon is part of modern day Turkey, why to people exclude that in calculations? As for the argument for keeping the status quo, Anatolia was a very stable region for the Turks, while most of the other regions experienced rebellions every once in a while, Anatolian Rebellions were exceptionally rare, and adding in a greek culture with nationalist tendencies (aka might rebel and form its own country) is a falsehood as at the very least there would need to be an independent powerful Greek kingdom for that to happen. Anatolia should be a stable region for the Turks with little to no risk of rebellion even under high war exhaustion, as was historical. While it might not have been Turkish speaking, it was turkish loyal, and that is what mattered.

 

[Connor Mulhern]

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.

I think what he means is that there was no real strong nationalism or community among the Greeks and other orthodox Christians, they tended to be Osmanli in the literal sense, associating more with the ottoman Empire than their own language and heritage

 

[unmerged(464283)]

Yeah sorry 'repressed' was the wrong word, but I think the in game changing of the Greek culture to Turkish is the best way to simulate the 'Ottoman' way of life which the Greeks subscribed to e.g. millets

 

[Delta107]

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.

http:// http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/anatolian-turks.html Of course there was admixture, "Turkish nation" in the modern sense exists because of Ataturk's contribution.

 

[Delta107]

Those bad Ottomans.

Yeah OE was a negative factor which crushed Eastern European nations for centuries.

There are many Russians who can't denounce USSR. You know why? Because their ancestors fought for the regime and it would be foil to condemn your grandfathers. I bet most don't even know if their grandfathers committed crimes or not. So they can't even acknowledge the possibility. "What if my grandfather was an NKVD guard?" Blaming the enemies of Russia of denigration of the Russian history is easier. (Though the Russian nation was the most affected and so many millions of innocent Russians died because of the Bolsheviks.)

Now the birth of Turkey is surrounded in a thick fog of massacres, no matter who perpetrated them. And all those things happened because of OE and its increasingly repressive nature.

 

[Mixxer5]

@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.

I can't argue here, as I've way to small knowledge about it, but it'd be nice to see in game how Turks favor Greeks due to their close cultural ties (Greek nobility before and after fall of Constantinople could keep their lands, titles, etc in exchange for converting to Islam) and how Greeks become accepted- and thus much less troublesome- culture in OE, eventually taking over culturally Balkans... Of course in exchange for big autonomy and riots before Balkanians are Hellenized.

http:// http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/anatolian-turks.html Of course there was admixture, "Turkish nation" in the modern sense exists because of Ataturk's contribution.

Yeah, of course- it's hard to speak about nation before XVIII/XIX century. On the other hand French for example felt some ties with other French... And- quite u surprise- Poles did too. Jan Dlugosz- polish chronicler in XV century was talking about Silesians and Poles as kind... Proto-nation? At least he spoke that Silesians are very close in ties to Poles and thus they should be part of Polish crown and so on.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

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.

The more accurate version is obviously the province based one. Provinces are the basis of game mechanics, regions are not. That's how EU handles things. It is quite clear that in order to be in the game a culture should have a majority in a province. Do you also advocate making Jewish provinces in Iberia or Germany or wherever? Sometimes even having a plurality in a province is not enough, see the Kurds.

Also it is possible that someone, e.g. Byzantium take the "Greek" provinces in Anatolia. Where in reality they would have Turkish majority provinces, they would have Greek ones in the game. And the rest of Anatolia would be 100% Turkish, which is also a misrepresenation. So I think this kind of thing only comes up for Anatolia because of the Byzantophiles. Paradox should really stop pandering to them.

"Turkish nation" in the modern sense exists because of Ataturk's contribution.

Atatürk is of course an important figure in Turkish nationalism as he is the founder of the nation state, but Turkish "nation"/ethnicity is pre-modern, and modern Turkish nationalism predates Atatürk.

Yeah OE was a negative factor which crushed Eastern European nations for centuries.

Like all empires, OE's impact on the region is a mixed bag. In my opinion nationalists who try to represent it in extreme terms are not interested in history or truth, but in propaganda.

There are many Russians who can't denounce USSR.

Why should the Russians denounce the USSR? Like the OE and all other empires USSR's impact was also a mixed bag. To say that Russians should denounce it is propaganda. They should denounce the crimes and applaud the achievements.

Now the birth of Turkey is surrounded in a thick fog of massacres, no matter who perpetrated them. And all those things happened because of OE and its increasingly repressive nature.

Yes. The thick fog of massacres and ethnic cleansing of the Muslims and the Turks between 1820 and 1920 from the Balkans, Ukraine and Caucasus surrounds the birth of modern Turkey. Of course, OE/Turkey had its own share of such crimes. But to blame the OE, or Turkey (or Atatürk as some idiots do) for all the blood is just propaganda. Balkan nationalists, Western Imperialists and most of all the Russian Imperialists have a lot to answer for.

Having said that, I think Balkan nationalists were justified in their cause. OE was a conservative relic and deserved to go. Even Turks got rid of it in the end.

 

[Mixxer5]

Yes. The thick fog of massacres and ethnic cleansing of the Muslims and the Turks between 1820 and 1920 from the Balkans, Ukraine and Caucasus surrounds the birth of modern Turkey. Of course, OE/Turkey had its own share of such crimes. But to blame the OE, or Turkey (or Atatürk as some idiots do) for all the blood is just propaganda. Balkan nationalists, Western Imperialists and most of all the Russian Imperialists have a lot to answer for.

Having said that, I think Balkan nationalists were justified in their cause. OE was a conservative relic and deserved to go. Even Turks got rid of it in the end.

Take a note, that it was Turkish nationalism that led to Greek massacre in Pontus and Constantinople, while Greeks weren't massacring local Turks while advancing during war.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

@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.

I agree with the bit about the Turks not patronising Greek art as much as Greek Orthodox rulers did. That of course impacted Greek culture negatively. It surely would have been better for Greek culture if OE was Orthodox. However, the Venetians oppressed the Orthodox church and introduced serfdom. That's a bigger negative impact at all levels. As to education, Greeks had full autonomy on education under the Turks, if it was not available, it was because the Orthodox church did not supply it.

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.

This is bollocks however. The thing is, the church keeps the baptism records. And the Greeks from Turkey proper don't have their churches and records anymore (because of the war and population exchange) unlike the other Greeks. So it is normal that they can't trace their ancestry. It doesn't mean Turkey proper was poor or lawless. To the contrary, as I wrote before, Turkish coast was richer so the Greeks migrated there in the 19th century.

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.

Fair enough. I also think that the Church was a leg of the Ottoman system. However, since the church was autonomous, it makes no sense to blame the Turks for its failures and corruption.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

Take a note, that it was Turkish nationalism that led to Greek massacre in Pontus and Constantinople, while Greeks weren't massacring local Turks while advancing during war.

If this is about the Greco-Turkish war, there was no large scale Greek massacres in Pontus and Constantinople (which was under Allied occupation). Greeks scorched-earthed Anatolia when they were retreating. Some say the Turkish Army then burnt Smyrna for revenge.

Greeks also wanted to do the same in Thrace and Marmara region, but they were prevented by their Allies, especially the Italians who were by far the most civilised of the bunch in their conduct during the occupation.

 

[diegosimeone]

Since EU is considering majorities, everything is fine as it is as much as I'd rather have Greek culture in Anatolia.

The Greeks were oppressed under both Byzantines and Ottomans. A large number of Greeks migrated away from the historically Greek region (Aegean, modern state of Greece, coast of modern state of Turkey) in places such as Austria, Russian states, Italian states, Germanic and Frankish states etc, but not in a way to form large minorities, more like scattered around. Most Greeks at the time lived in Constantinople and south of Athens (Athens + Peloponnese) and the islands, Ionian and Aegean that is.

Catholics were good rulers overall for the Greeks except for 3 regions. Athens, Crete and Cyprus. Everywhere else, the Greeks preferred them over anyone else. The other rulers, Byzantines(Christians) and Ottomans, sort of forced religion and/or taxation upon them. Hence we've had many forced (by the wallet I may add) conversions from Hellenist to Christian, from Christian to Muslim and from Hellenist to Muslim throughout the centuries.

 

[diegosimeone]

If this is about the Greco-Turkish war, there was no large scale Greek massacres in Pontus and Constantinople (which was under Allied occupation). Greeks scorched-earthed Anatolia when they were retreating. Some say the Turkish Army then burnt Smyrna for revenge.

Greeks also wanted to do the same in Thrace and Marmara region, but they were prevented by their Allies, especially the Italians who were by far the most civilised of the bunch in their conduct during the occupation.

The Pontic massacre is one of the worst of all time.
What you call worse is pretty much burning of homes and shops which would drive the Turkish population towards the next possible Turkish destination, not cut their throats. Turks did burn Smyrna for revenge, but in addition they killed thousands of fleeing, defenseless Greeks.


* No need to talk about these, let's keep it about population.

 

[Dutchling]

There really is no need to deny atrocities committed by your ancestors. Nobody thinks less of you because of their actions.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

There really is no need to deny atrocities committed by your ancestors. Nobody thinks less of you because of their actions.

He's Turkish, their education system would have them believe that no Turk had ever harmed another Human being in the history of time.

 

[Bard of Reveran]

Now the birth of Turkey is surrounded in a thick fog of massacres, no matter who perpetrated them. And all those things happened because of OE and its increasingly repressive nature.

Because birth of xenophobia out of nationalism by almost every minority that wanted to be independent really does not matter (?). It was not a repressive nature that those things happened, it was because the country was in a perpetual war. War tears people apart. War makes you poor, you'll lose prosperity and be incapable of improving yourself. OE was on its way to become a poor country in the early 18th century, because of wars and the corruption of taxation.

 

[Enewald]

I like how MEIOU handles this, Turkish Anatolian provinces have modifiers that show they have big-medium-small-very small Orthodox communities while the province itself has sunni and turkish majority. Once Orthodox religion becomes more dominant (usually after Roman reconquest) the culture flips over quite fast.
There is also Greek Amastra, city of Smyrna, Trebizond, Giresun and some else.

 

[Dutchling]

I like how MEIOU handles this, Turkish Anatolian provinces have modifiers that show they have big-medium-small-very small Orthodox communities while the province itself has sunni and turkish majority. Once Orthodox religion becomes more dominant (usually after Roman reconquest) the culture flips over quite fast.
There is also Greek Amastra, city of Smyrna, Trebizond, Giresun and some else.

I honestly either want a really fleshed out system for minorities or none at all. The half-assed way the bigger mods did is obviously greatly appreciated by a lot of people but personally I did not like it at all.

 

[DantesRevenge]

Anatolia should be what it was. An ex-byzantine greek based province with the possibility to defect to turkish culture since ottoman cores are next to anatolia. BUT, I hope that at EU4 the conversion of orthodox in Balkans will be far more difficult. Turks didnt achieve neither wanted to make a muslim empire but in eu3 it was so damn easy, so what developers should do is to prevent more effectively the possibility to convert balkan population...

Because birth of xenophobia out of nationalism by almost every minority that wanted to be independent really does not matter (?). It was not a repressive nature that those things happened, it was because the country was in a perpetual war. War tears people apart. War makes you poor, you'll lose prosperity and be incapable of improving yourself. OE was on its way to become a poor country in the early 18th century, because of wars and the corruption of taxation.

Well, one of the reasons of OE decline is because they stopped wars. They stopped expanding on expense of others, they didnt loot as they used too, and they didnt have the military advantage of 14th-16nth centuries. They stagnated since Western states had a huge evolution of technology and administration policies with the combination of money coming from colonies.

Also about national history. Noone admits the massacres of their ancestors. Most Spanish and English are proud for their red and yellow blobs without thinking the crimes of Cortes etc. So dont blame the Turks only. Greeks are proud for Byzantine empire but when they talk about Great Basilius crimes over Bulgarians they just silence the facts.

 

[Bard of Reveran]

It's not just about that. It's about the denial of heritage as well. I was born in the capital of two great empires so it is kind of my duty to cultivate myself into getting the essence of everything that is about the city or the geography. Same goes with every other nation, but especially Turks, Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Serbs and Armenians. If you cannot understand the essence of what your geography can give, you cannot be proud of your heritage. Otherwise you're destroying your heritage, in which all those nations I've mentioned were doing. Can't tell if it came to a halt though.

 

[diegosimeone]

Greeks are proud for Byzantine empire but when they talk about Great Basilius crimes over Bulgarians they just silence the facts.

Ermm, not all Greeks. Greeks who know their history would know that the Byzantines are the continuation of Rome and nothing to do with the Greek nation. It's similar to saying that Greeks are the continuation of the Ottoman Empire.