Wrong anatolia.

[Chamboozer]

You want to explain to me, that 100 years after the occupation of a nearly homogeneous territory the turks became majority in 1444?
You also want to explain to me that the christian greeks who was two fifths of vilayet aydin in 1919 weren't a majority in 1444?

The same reason places like Vojvodina and parts of the Banate of Temeşvar suddenly became Serbian at the end of the 17th Century: population flight. Western Anatolia was an anarchic warzone for large parts of the period 1260-1415. There was migration of Greek peasants out of unsafe areas, and the Turks moved in to take their place.

Maybe the "christian" greeks were not the majority, but it is very propably that the greeks "muslim and christian" were definitely the majority.
Also you need to consider, that most greeks convert to islam to avoid the devshire system.

Speculation. Also for the most part the devşirme wasn't applied in Anatolia, so I'm not sure what that has to do with it.

There was also christian greek cities that fall in 1390 such as philadelphia!

And Philadelphia may or may not have still been mostly Greek in 1444, but the bulk of the Anatolia population lived outside of the cities anyway so it wouldn't make that much of a difference in overall demographics.

Do you think that most greeks of asia minor died within one century and was replaced by ethnic turks?

Maybe you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Muslims

No, I think they either fled the country or assimilated into the Turkish population. It would be great if EUIV's representation of population was more nuanced to also include those Greek Muslims, but it would be wrong to make any province in Western Anatolia Greek given the current system. Besides, ethnic identity wasn't terribly important in this era anyway. People who converted to Islam were considered part of the same group no matter what language they spoke. To the Muslims they were all part of the Islamic community, and to outsiders they were all 'Turks'. And huge numbers of modern Turks are indeed the descendants of these Greeks and other people who became Muslim in Ottoman times.

 

[Outrider]

You want to explain to me, that 100 years after the occupation of a nearly homogeneous territory the turks became majority in 1444?
You also want to explain to me that the christian greeks who was two fifths of vilayet aydin in 1919 weren't a majority in 1444?

Maybe the "christian" greeks were not the majority, but it is very propably that the greeks "muslim and christian" were definitely the majority.
Also you need to consider, that most greeks convert to islam to avoid the devshire system.

Distribution of Greek dialects during the late Byzantine Emptire, 12-15th centuries

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=...ur=105&page=1&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=0CHAQrQMwCA

There was also christian greek cities that fall in 1390 such as philadelphia!

Do you think that most greeks of asia minor died within one century and was replaced by ethnic turks?

Maybe you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Muslims

Most greeks convert to islam in 16th and 17th century.

-

-

-

The armenian majority:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Armenia

Can you evidence that the culture of Anatolia was homogeneously Greek as of 1344? Even if the Ottoman conquests were from that time period, the Turks and the Byzantines had traded portions of Anatolia as far back as the 11th century (Arp Aslan).

From reviewing your wikipedia article on Greek Muslims:
1) I see no discussion of Western Anatolia or when greek populations converted other than "dates to the Ottoman period"
2) "Despite their ethnic Greek origin the contemporary Greek Muslims of Turkey have largely been fully assimilated into the Turkish-speaking (and in the northeast Laz-speaking) Muslim population" Can you evidence that they had not been assimilated into Turkish language/culture in the mid 15th century?
3) I clicked through to the main article on Devşirme, which indicates that it was mainly drawn from the Balkans with a preference for Bosnia and Albania. It includes no mention of Anatolia.

Obviously, Wikipedia is neither an exhaustive nor a necessarily accurate source. If you are going to make assertions that the game is historically accurate, please make sure you have documentation to support your statements.

 

[Tijean]

The population in anatolia are Turkish for game balance issue. It is kind of strange that France have a lot of sub-langage into his territory but not England. Modern French start to exist in 18e century it is well documented. No one would keep turkish was there primary culture if greek was dominant in anatolia too.
English was a ratter new langage in 1444. Don't forget Guillaume invade England just few century ago. Most England ruler were speaking french was there primary langage. English is a mix of old breton dialect, Saxon dialect, Viking dialect and medieval french. There was still a lot of village speaking an mix of all those dialect.
Is it important to emulate the fact that England didn't have a langage unity in 1444? No. I would just be complicated for nothing, but if you invade England, i would be easier to have English as an accepted culture. When you invade French, it is almost impossible to have one of those culture accepted.

 

[Encak]

The same reason places like Vojvodina and parts of the Banate of Temeşvar suddenly became Serbian at the end of the 17th Century: population flight. Western Anatolia was an anarchic warzone for large parts of the period 1260-1415. There was migration of Greek peasants out of unsafe areas, and the Turks moved in to take their place.



Speculation. Also for the most part the devşirme wasn't applied in Anatolia, so I'm not sure what that has to do with it.



And Philadelphia may or may not have still been mostly Greek in 1444, but the bulk of the Anatolia population lived outside of the cities anyway so it wouldn't make that much of a difference in overall demographics.




No, I think they either fled the country or assimilated into the Turkish population. It would be great if EUIV's representation of population was more nuanced to also include those Greek Muslims, but it would be wrong to make any province in Western Anatolia Greek given the current system. Besides, ethnic identity wasn't terribly important in this era anyway. People who converted to Islam were considered part of the same group no matter what language they spoke. To the Muslims they were all part of the Islamic community, and to outsiders they were all 'Turks'. And huge numbers of modern Turks are indeed the descendants of these Greeks and other people who became Muslim in Ottoman times.

There is no way the Greeks were all able to leave Anatolia and there is no way that there were enough Turks to replace them. For the most part the Greeks were assimilated into the Turkish identity but that took time. What my issue is, is that Anatolia is completely Turkified at the start and that's just wasn't the case. I doubt that within the span of time between the fall of Byzantine Anatolia and the start of the game there were enough people speaking Turkish to warrant the provinces being labeled as such.

 

[AndreasPhokas]

I think perhaps one or two provinces could be culturally greek. As for orthodox that's a much bigger stretch for me, I could see Smyrna and sinope at best. I know the coastal regions still had a fair amount of people that identified as greek. I don't think its a huge issue for the ottomans if one or two provinces are greek/orthodox, its an accepted culture. I rarely ever see nationalistic rebels succed in the ottoman empire anyways due to how strong they start.

Id say sinope and Smyrna at most should flip. I don't know enough about the demographics in hudavthingasming and Nicomedia to comment there.

 

[unmerged(248351)]

In the late 19th and 20th centuries, competing nationalisms in the Balkans and Anatolia mobilised resources and produced a number of ethnographic maps and demographic statistics that supported their own claims. They all employed a number of ways, in which to inflate the good guys and make the bad guys disappear. Of course, they all contradicted each other, but everybody insisted that their own map/statistic was the real deal. I find it greatly ironic that this legacy spilled over to a internet forum of a contemporary computer game. Some points:

1) There is simply no evidence that the statistics quoted here and that showed a Greek majority in Western Anatolia are true. They were produced in 1919 and were specifically used to advance Greek claims over the region in the Peace Conference after the end of WWI. Amazingly, they claimed they represented the pre-1914 situation, though no convincing mention of how the data were collected in the first place was mentioned. Ottoman statistics showed a very different image of the area. Though highly unreliable themselves, Ottoman statistics were published on a regular basis, unlike the Greek ones, and are comparable to each other (i.e. nobody added a couple of hundred thousand here and there, just before Peace Treaty negotiations). The "truth" lies somewhere in the middle and virtually every historian of the late Ottoman Empire takes for granted that Greeks represented 30-40% of the population in Western Anatolia.

2) There is no logical basis to use such statistics to get an idea of what the ethnic composition of areas was 450 years before. It is accepted that between the 11th and 14th century, Greek population in the area collapsed because of population flight, conversion or simply the slaughter that accompanied the original Turkish invasion/migration (though to what extent each is still highly controversial and impossible to express statistically). It recovered and started increase again in the 18th century, as Greeks from mainland Greece and the Aegean islands started migrating to Western Anatolia to take advantage of growing opportunities. The same goes with Armenians.

3) In EU IV, "Greek" or "Turkish" stands for culture, not an underlying ethnic identity (which appeared in the 18th-19th century to begin with). In medieval and early modern Europe and the Middle East, culture equaled religion. Though there were Greek-speaking Muslims (in Crete, for example) and Turkish-speaking Christians (the Gagauz, the Karamanlis etc.) , they never represented the norm, and their modest literary production never escaped the respective boundaries of their communities. In game terms, it doesn't make sense to put religion-culture combinations in Anatolia.

4) Paradox is here applying religious and cultural tags over regions and in periods where data is very difficult to compile. It is very understandable that it wants to "play it safe" and when in doubt follow boundaries, contemporary ones or of the period. That's why Izmir is "Turkish" and that's why Janina and Thessaly and Salonica are "Greek" (and not Albanian or Bulgarian). Try and play the Byzantine Empire and you will realise that spending a few diplomatic points to switch culture should be the least of your problems.

 

[unmerged(375695)]

Common result

I have spent a lot of time reading your texts. I also know that i can not push through my proposal.
I want to come to an common result and compromise with you.

I think if i sum up all content that was posted here, we agree that the greeks and armenians aren't represented good
enough in anatolia.

I have some suggestions how this could be solved.

1. Maybe some missions, cores, buffs or decisions for the byzantines or armenians to make it easier for them to re-arrive in anatolia.

Example: Mission: conquer province izmit to get a core ...
Example: Cores: Give some cores to byzatium like, izmit, hüdavendigar or Smyrna.
Example: Buffs: 4% conversion rate for the byzantines in anatolia (as in Europa Universalis 3!!)
Example: Decisions: Make smyrna a core to get greek culture (as the ottomans can do it with constantinople)

What do you think about that? I want to come to a common compromise to propose a proposal in the bug thread.

I still emphasize the armenian element of eastern anatolia.
I think this had been forgotten due to the armenian genocide.

Red --> Armenian majority in 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Armenia

Source is not wikipedia. Scroll down to watch the sources, that are up to ten.

 

[heraklonas]

I have spent a lot of time reading your texts. I also know that i can not push through my proposal.
I want to come to an common result and compromise with you.

I think if i sum up all content that was posted here, we agree that the greeks and armenians aren't represented good
enough in anatolia.

I have some suggestions how this could be solved.

1. Maybe some missions, cores, buffs or decisions for the byzantines or armenians to make it easier for them to re-arrive in anatolia.

Example: Mission: conquer province izmit to get a core ...
Example: Cores: Give some cores to byzatium like, izmit, hüdavendigar or Smyrna.
Example: Buffs: 4% conversion rate for the byzantines in anatolia (as in Europa Universalis 3!!)
Example: Decisions: Make smyrna a core to get greek culture (as the ottomans can do it with constantinople)

What do you think about that? I want to come to a common compromise to propose a proposal in the bug thread.

I still emphasize the armenian element of eastern anatolia.
I think this had been forgotten due to the armenian genocide.

Red --> Armenian majority in 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Armenia

Source is not wikipedia. Scroll down to watch the sources, that are up to ten.

Reagrding the Armenians I can support this mostly, because the Ottoman population transfers in the 17th centuries from Inner Armenia to central Anatolia were minor (which those ppl forget to take into account who only try to say something about the 15th century by looking on maps created in the 19/20th!!). Regarding the Greek-speaking population this is totally different. It is well researched that the Smyrna-Aydin Greeks which penetrated also in the interior and some Black sea areas (Paphlagonia e.g.) came only about in the 19th century as a huge movement of settlement from the southern Balkans (and promoted by Ottoman authorities) in order to engage in merchant business mostly.
What I want to say: dont use these French and British maps of the late 19th century or even those just before WWI. Its better to look a the sources (Kantakouzenos, Blemmydes etc, I'm a byzantinist) and avoid Speros Vryonis as much as possible (decline of medieval hellenism) because no every Byzantine is a 'Greek'. As we know now (Claude Cahen, also Korobeinikov) Turkification was rapid, because in the 14th c. much of the population fled in front of the Turkish advance to the Balkans, almost no resistant population remained therefore under Turkish rule (Islamization was more slow, and had its zenith in the 17th c.). The only exceptions are Pontus (look Bryer to find the explanations) and Cappadocia/Karaman.

Plz keep in mind that the absolute numbers of the Turks were much higher in most areas conquered than the Byzantine population which stayed there. This is especially true for the more rural areas like Phrygia, less true for highly urbanized like Bithynia (e.g. Bursa) and parts of Ionia (Smyrna, Alasehir), because in the large cities Armenians and Greeks kept their majority. But this is not important for our purpose because 90% of the population in his age lived outside of cities..

[I'm neither Turkish nor Greek, just a byzantinist]

 

[unmerged(375695)]

Reagrding the Armenians I can support this mostly, because the Ottoman population transfers in the 17th centuries from Inner Armenia to central Anatolia were minor (which those ppl forget to take into account who only try to say something about the 15th century by looking on maps created in the 19/20th!!).

Thats what i say.

Regarding the Greek-speaking population this is totally different. It is well researched that the Smyrna-Aydin Greeks which penetrated also in the interior and some Black sea areas (Paphlagonia e.g.) came only about in the 19th century as a huge movement of settlement from the southern Balkans (and promoted by Ottoman authorities) in order to engage in merchant business mostly.

Can you evidence that? Because i don't think, that two Million greeks were immigrants.

What I want to say: dont use these French and British maps of the late 19th century or even those just before WWI. Its better to look a the sources (Kantakouzenos, Blemmydes etc, I'm a byzantinist) and avoid Speros Vryonis as much as possible (decline of medieval hellenism) because no every Byzantine is a 'Greek'. As we know now (Claude Cahen, also Korobeinikov) Turkification was rapid, because in the 14th c. much of the population fled in front of the Turkish advance to the Balkans, almost no resistant population remained therefore under Turkish rule (Islamization was more slow, and had its zenith in the 17th c.). The only exceptions are Pontus (look Bryer to find the explanations) and Cappadocia/Karaman.

As a Byzantinist, do you have some of this sources?

Your Suggestion for the "new" Anatolia in game is?

 

[heraklonas]

Thats what i say.

Can you evidence that? Because i don't think, that two Million greeks were immigrants.

As a Byzantinist, do you have some of this sources?

Your Suggestion for the "new" Anatolia in game is?

Keep in mind there was a rapid population increase in the 19th c. Within some decades 100k became a million. I don't have numbers actually for this area (which is not my focus), but some other guy in the forum said roughly the same, maybe he can forward it. I just know that it's well-accepted in the research community that the Ionian Greeks of the 19/20th c. where mostly originally migrants from the mainland (which was mostly Ottoman, as well of course), as u can see by the tahrir defterleri (tax registers) of the region which start in the 16th c, and go till the end of the Ottoman empire, step by step approx. for every 50 years a new one (you can see the Greek names of taxpayers within). I did this stuff for my region Paphlagonia to get an idea of the peoples' fate during the last 1000 years. Someone also spoke about the kurdish in dulkadir and everywhere. Those Kurds 'west' were settled by Atatürk to occupy the "abandoned" villages of the Armenian. This is true also for Paphlagonia, where there was no Kurd before 1920, and now there are many. It's not appropriate at all to look at 20th century situations for compiling a map of the 15th c..

I used these sources, yes. You can find them in every library, the literature is overwhelmingly written in english (Cahen -french -was translated even). Medieval "Hellenism"/Greek identity is hotly debated in our field, and I have to co-authorize an article bout it right now.

I only play MEIOU so I cant suggest for vanilla. I have to check the actual vanilla map first.

 

[aragonFTW]

On one of your earlier points I don't know if we can say that Qarabagh had an Armenian "culture" in 1444 rather than an Armenian "ethnicity". I have been doing some reading and The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century states that the Black Sheep Turqomens thoroughly devastated Armenians living in eastern Anatolia, while the White Sheep in central anatolia were more tolerant of existing cultures. Eastern Anatolians immediately migrated west, and gradually went back east over the next few years. If anything, there would have been more (percentage) Armenians in much of that map above than there were in the 17th c.

From this and your map, we could probably say Erzurum and its immediate southern and western neighbours should be Armenian (for a total of 4 provinces). The rest could stay what they are other than maybe Sinop.

 

[grand_Turk]

It seems to me that these are just ideas of a greek nationalist who wants to see that parts of Anatolia be Greek or Armenian even if it's in the game. Based on the regarding statements so far, we have no reason to think that he has a point about these matters either...

 

[unmerged(375695)]

As a Byzantinist. What would you think? Wich ethnography?

 

[unmerged(375695)]

It seems to me that these are just ideas of a greek nationalist who wants to see that parts of Anatolia be Greek or Armenian even if it's in the game. Based on the regarding statements so far, we have no reason to think that he has a point about these matters either...

The turk has spoken ...

 

[grand_Turk]

what is it to you?

 

[unmerged(375695)]

what is it to you?

A Suggestion to underline the greek and armenian element in Anatolia, that can not be found in Europa universalis 4.

 

[grand_Turk]

This is a game. Everybody wants to see specific features for their nations, which is impossible to implement of course. For instance, I want to see higher monarch powers for Mehmet the conqueror and Selim the stern. However, the developers decided to make Mehmet a 5-5-6 monarch, which is still remarkable, instead of 6-6-6 in order to create a balance between the nations. So I must accept as is and suggest that you should do the same as well.

 

[unmerged(375695)]

This is a game. Everybody wants to see specific features for their nations, which is impossible to implement of course. For instance, I want to see higher monarch powers for Mehmet the conqueror and Selim the stern. However, the developers decided to make Mehmet a 5-5-6 monarch, which is still remarkable, instead of 6-6-6 in order to create a balance between the nations. So I must accept as is and suggest that you should do the same as well.

Thats a bad comparison. Does it matter if he is 6/6/6 or 5/5/6? I also accept that most provinces in Anatolia was turkish during that time.

The thing i did is that i showed you some ethnographical maps and Information to think about a small rework of Anatolia.
Most People and even a Byzantinist (we don't know if he actually is) agreed with me regrading the armenians.
Ths is a Thing you Need to accept.

Regrading the greeks it is a Little bit different. That appears on the Definition of "culture" in Europa Universalis IV.
Meaning ethnicity would mean more greek that turkish in some provinces of Anatolia.
Another question is in how far the greeks influenced the turkish culture. I don't think that the People of smyrna was like the People of Turkmenistan in 1444.

Well i accept the greek issue on the aegean. But i hold on my conviction that sinope and some other eastern anatolian provinces should be changed.

 

[Outrider]

Thats a bad comparison. Does it matter if he is 6/6/6 or 5/5/6? I also accept that most provinces in Anatolia was turkish during that time.

The thing i did is that i showed you some ethnographical maps and Information to think about a small rework of Anatolia.
Most People and even a Byzantinist (we don't know if he actually is) agreed with me regrading the armenians.
Ths is a Thing you Need to accept.

Regrading the greeks it is a Little bit different. That appears on the Definition of "culture" in Europa Universalis IV.
Meaning ethnicity would mean more greek that turkish in some provinces of Anatolia.
Another question is in how far the greeks influenced the turkish culture. I don't think that the People of smyrna was like the People of Turkmenistan in 1444.

Well i accept the greek issue on the aegean. But i hold on my conviction that sinope and some other eastern anatolian provinces should be changed.

You can have all the conviction you want to have. Unless, however, you can provide contemporary evidentiary support for such a change I would hope that the volume of noise won't result in any changes to the game. Speculation /= evidence
The support you've presented thus far consists exclusively of 20th century data of dubious accuracy. As has been mentioned before, even if the 20th century data accurate, it would still be inapplicable to the 15th century as a result of population flight, migration, and growth over five centuries.

 

[unmerged(375695)]

You can have all the conviction you want to have. Unless, however, you can provide contemporary evidentiary support for such a change I would hope that the volume of noise won't result in any changes to the game. Speculation /= evidence
The support you've presented thus far consists exclusively of 20th century data of dubious accuracy. As has been mentioned before, even if the 20th century data accurate, it would still be inapplicable to the 15th century as a result of population flight, migration, and growth over five centuries.

Five lines of rubish.

I posted several maps and sources and even a Byzantinist (We dont know if he actually is) agreed with me in some Points.