Should Byzantium have a few cores on western Anatolia?

[Josar]

Byzantium would have had land in western Anatolia that would not have been lost until the early 14th century.

Now a core lasts a 150 years after it has been lost as long as it is in the same culture group.

I also know that western Anatolia had a sizeable minority of Greeks even as late as the 20th century. So the question becomes were Greeks still a majority in any of these provinces during 1444?

If the answer is yes maybe some of the western coastline should still have Byzantium cores. Though nothing like EU3 where they had cores on practically all of Anatolia.

 

[sekelsenmat]

I am actually sad that Paradox is changing history and removing Christians. I'm quite sure that in 1444 you should:

1> Have 1 catholic province in Lebanon, the Maronites
2> Have Izmyr be greek/orthodox, possibly more provinces in asia minor (but I'm not sure which ones)
3> In Egypt at least 2 provinces should be egyptian/coptic, the coptic population in Egypt is very sizable even today

This was the situation in EU2 if I remember well, no idea why they changed it.

 

[withche.07]

As I remember this was discussed a lot in past and many believe Timurids devastated Anatolia when they conquered that's reason why there is no Greek minority in Western Anatolia. I personally researched data from 1550s and most places were Muslim majority but according to way Ottomans measured population didn't include nations for Muslims so even there were huge amount of Greek converts its impossible to detect in data.

 

[Josar]

I am actually sad that Paradox is changing history and removing Christians. I'm quite sure that in 1444 you should:

1> Have 1 catholic province in Lebanon, the Maronites
2> Have Izmyr be greek/catholic, possibly more provinces in asia minor (but I'm not sure which ones)
3> In Egypt at least 2 provinces should be egyptian/coptic, the coptic population in Egypt is very sizable even today

This was the situation in EU2 if I remember well, no idea why they changed it.

Well at least there was an improvement with emperor, we got the despot of epirus back, which I believe was in EU3.

 

[noldorin]

Western Anatolia has been under the sovereignty of various Turkish principalities since 1071. What you say has nothing to do with reality. There may be a certain level of population, but there is no sovereignty.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Western Anatolia has been under the sovereignty of various Turkish principalities since 1071. What you say has nothing to do with reality. There may be a certain level of population, but there is no sovereignty.

False, as late as 1323 the Byzantines still had Smyrna and the coast on the other side of Gallipoli/Constantinople: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/2400-years-of-european-history/

Also: Then how do you explain almost 1 million greeks living in Anatolia (excluding Trebizont) in 1914?

Population exchange between Greece and Turkey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"A revised count suggests 620,000 in Eastern Thrace including Constantinople (260,000, 30% of the city's population), 550,000 Pontic Greeks, 900,000 Anatolian Greeks and 60,000 Cappadocian Greeks"

So you are saying that between 1444 and 1914 the proportion of muslims decreased in Anatolia or something? Too bad for those dhimmi laws! Looks like they don't work then! Maybe they have the opposite effect then intended or something?

 

[Josar]

Western Anatolia has been under the sovereignty of various Turkish principalities since 1071. What you say has nothing to do with reality. There may be a certain level of population, but there is no sovereignty.

The Byzantine empire had control of parts of western Anatolia as late as 1300, Byzantium was relatively strong in the 11th century.

 

[noldorin]

Having a few castles in Anatolia does not mean that you are dominant in that region.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Having a few castles in Anatolia does not mean that you are dominant in that region.

False, watch the video, it clearly shows province sized areas 1323 and in 1280 we have:

Just google "Byzantine Empire 1300", everyone agrees it had provinces in western Anatolia.

 

[sekelsenmat]

As I remember this was discussed a lot in past and many believe Timurids devastated Anatolia when they conquered that's reason why there is no Greek minority in Western Anatolia. I personally researched data from 1550s and most places were Muslim majority but according to way Ottomans measured population didn't include nations for Muslims so even there were huge amount of Greek converts its impossible to detect in data.

I still think that at least Smyrna should be greek/orthodox, otherwise where did all those greeks from 1914 come from? Emigrated there in later periods?

I could agree on greek/sunii, but this is problematic because today there are very few muslims in Greece (excluding the post 2016 ones): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Greece

It really confuses me: if many greeks converted to islam, what happened to them later? Converted back again? Aculturated as turks? If they aculturated as turks, then we have yet more reason to believe it should be greek/orthodox since in 1914 there were so many christians in the region.

Besides I'm not sure how they were doing in 1550, probably the data is honest, but 1900s Ottoman data has been proven to be tainted to hide minorities. It also matters the size of the regions measured, they comprise multiple eu4 provinces.

 

[Ivashanko]

I still think that at least Smyrna should be greek/orthodox, otherwise where did all those greeks from 1914 come from? Emigrated there in later periods?

I could agree on greek/sunii, but this is problematic because today there are very few muslims in Greece (excluding the post 2016 ones): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Greece

It really confuses me: if many greeks converted to islam, what happened to them later? Converted back again? Aculturated as turks? If they aculturated as turks, then we have yet more reason to believe it should be greek/orthodox since in 1914 there were so many christians in the region.

Besides I'm not sure how they were doing in 1550, probably the data is honest, but 1900s Ottoman data has been proven to be tainted to hide minorities. It also matters the size of the regions measured, they comprise multiple eu4 provinces.

During the end of WWI some bad things that we can't really talk about happened in Turkey, and then there was a population exchange. The Sunni Greeks that moved to Turkey integrated into the Turkish population.

 

[Me_]

There once was a very lengthy discussion once about the Greeks in Anatolia with some developer input and a lot of well researched data from the forum that ultimately supported the current 1444 setup. There were Orthodox Greeks there for sure, but they were dispersed and only converged in specific places so as to become a majority in those places much later.

 

[withche.07]

I still think that at least Smyrna should be greek/orthodox, otherwise where did all those greeks from 1914 come from? Emigrated there in later periods?

I could agree on greek/sunii, but this is problematic because today there are very few muslims in Greece (excluding the post 2016 ones): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Greece

It really confuses me: if many greeks converted to islam, what happened to them later? Converted back again? Aculturated as turks? If they aculturated as turks, then we have yet more reason to believe it should be greek/orthodox since in 1914 there were so many christians in the region.

Besides I'm not sure how they were doing in 1550, probably the data is honest, but 1900s Ottoman data has been proven to be tainted to hide minorities. It also matters the size of the regions measured, they comprise multiple eu4 provinces.

Data was from French source by the way.

 

[ImperatorRoman]

Western Anatolia has been under the sovereignty of various Turkish principalities since 1071. What you say has nothing to do with reality. There may be a certain level of population, but there is no sovereignty.

The Battle of Manzikert only caused a temporary loss of Anatolia. The Komnenian Restoration from 1081 to 1185 would see the Byzantines regain everything but the eastern interior of Anatolia, which would remain the domain of the Sultanate of Rum. This would remain the case until 1204 with the Fourth Crusade and the fragmentation of the empire.

So to assert that there was no Greek population in or Byzantine sovereignty over western Anatolia since 1071 is patently false. It's your claims that has nothing to do with reality.

 

[noldorin]

Not all orthodox groups are Greek. At the order of the Georgian King David, there were thousands of orthodox kıpchaks tribes. After the Georgian kingdom collapsed, most of them settled along the north of the black sea. Besides, there were thousands of groups of oguz clan escaping in front of the Mongols. After the Mogol raids, there were different types of nations of Central Asian origin who came to Anatolia and settled down. ( uyghurs, uzbek, tatar). There are many examples like this. After the collapse of the Crimean Khanate in the recent past, most of the Crimean people settled in Anatolia. Orthodox Turkish people are known to exist in Anatolia. It is funny to say that these are Greek. I live in turkey. I've never heard of himself calling himself a muslim greek. There are Pechenegs and Orthodox people of Kipchak origin in the Balkans. Some people think they are Greek. Today only gagauzes introduce themselves as Turks. Avars, Bulgarians, Huns have always been groups of Central Asian origin and where did they go after they became Christians. The answer is assimilated. Byzantium put many of these into service. These issues are still discussed even today. especially the Greeks claim this in Anatolia. They think they can get these back someday. In Turkey, we follow them laughing. If you have a neutral argument or document, show it. the Ottomans did not interfere with anyone's religion. Why should an orthodox greek convert to a Muslim? Let's say they became Muslim. Why is Greece not Muslim today? The Greek population that is Muslim is less than your guess. I exclude myself from this discussion. I am a member of the salur clan of the oguz.

 

[Josar]

Well this is all interesting, while I think it is possible that many Sunnis in western Anatolia may have still considered themselves Greek (for instance did janissaries who were forced to convert as a child considered fully assimilated as a Turk), this is really hard to answer as apparently the Ottoman empire conflated religion with nationality.

It would be interesting if Byzantium had a few cores on western Anatolia, but maybe this is not actually consistent with in game coring rules (a core not in culture group is lost after 50 years).

Of course this does still leave Chios, held by Genoa. Which is Greek culture, and by games rules should still be a core.

 

[redshirt4life]

Well this is all interesting, while I think it is possible that many Sunnis in western Anatolia may have still considered themselves Greek (for instance did janissaries who were forced to convert as a child considered fully assimilated as a Turk), this is really hard to answer as apparently the Ottoman empire conflated religion with nationality.

It would be interesting if Byzantium had a few cores on western Anatolia, but maybe this is not actually consistent with in game coring rules (a core not in culture group is lost after 50 years).

Of course this does still leave Chios, held by Genoa. Which is Greek culture, and by games rules should still be a core.

To answer some of your thoughts here:

There wasn't really a concept of nation in the east for nationality to be a concept. Greeks only began identifying themselves as Greek after the 4th crusade to distinguish themselves from the latin occupiers.

From then onto modern times the orthodox faith has been one of the biggest parts of Greek Identity. In Greece your religion is even displayed on your license.

So, if a Greek changed their religion during the reign of the Ottomans, it'd most likely change their identity as well. To be Greek was to be Orthodox.

Even further, the idea of being Greek at all died out in the Ottoman empire. The Greeks in the Ottoman empire didn't see themselves as Greek so much.

The idea of "being Greek" rose again after Philhelonism rose in the west. The French and Germans romanticized the Greeks and fought for their independence.

 

[Mackus]

Even if no single anatolian province had actual greek/christian majority to justify changing cultural and religious setup, they were still in sizable numbers that if those territories were reconquered, Byzantines would find plenty locals that would welcome return to Empire. That means they'd find integration of the new-old territory relatively easy: precisely what having core on the provinces would represent.

That's why I think Byzantines absolutely should start with cores on coast of Aegean and Marmara, possibly only territorial cores rather than full ones.

 

[Execute Order 66]

I think I can remember reading one of the devs comments saying that they removed the cores and changed the culture groups not because they were ahistorical but to stop provinces flipping to Byzantium to keep it consistent with the Ottoblobbing? I can remember in earlier patches (maybe ~2 years ago) Smyrna was Greek culture before they changed it.

EDIT: Actually it looks like this has been discussed in similar fashion from a thread in 2015

Shouldn't Byzantium have more cores?

Hello, I've recently taken up EU4 again, lots of New patches plus the Common Sense and Art of War DLC. Exciting, as always I fire up a New game With Byzantium, my favorite. So far so good, managed to ally Poland-Lithuania, Wallachia and Aragon...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Josar]

Well that's interesting, I guess they will change it when they want to. Ottomans really should sometimes fail to blob, as it keeps the game fresh.