Wrong anatolia.

[unmerged(375695)]

Can someone go check this out for me? Specifically how many Greek left eastern Anatolia and where they went exactly? If they all went to Greece itself that changes things but if they stopped at the Coasts (because there wasn't anywhere left to go really) that may vindicate those numbers.

After the conquest many greeks leaved the countryside and went to the large cities. Some even leaved anatolia and went to the balkans.
But many was resettled by the ottomans. It is hard to find numbers of these times. The most reliable thing you can do is to use modern numbers as clue and estimate
the past as you did.

 

[Encak]

Will an admin ever say something here in this thread?

I wouldn't if I was. This is conjecture, and it's difficult to prove without a shadow of a doubt that west Anatolia was still Greek at the time. It's nice to go through the exercise though.

 

[unmerged(375695)]

I wouldn't if I was. This is conjecture, and it's difficult to prove without a shadow of a doubt that west Anatolia was still Greek at the time. It's nice to go through the exercise though.

But we are also talking about the armenian element. I would like to know where Paradox gets their information about the ethnography.

 

[Encak]

But we are also talking about the armenian element. I would like to know where Paradox gets their information about the ethnography.

Yeah, me too. I've already agreed on the Armenian element being underrepresented. There is no getting around that, and I don't care if this affects anyones sense of "balance" this is a game giving us a historical scenario and letting us work from there, so it should represent the circumstances as best it can. Not give hand outs to the AI or player. Well that's my view anyway, I just wish I could hear Paradox's design philosophy regarding cultures and what they define it as.

 

[Chamboozer]

If this at all accurate than I think it may be safe to say that the 3 provinces could start out Greek in Eu4. The percentage of Greeks in Edirne and Trebizond dropped by about 70% in 392 years. This means that the western Anatolia would have looked like this
Izmit: ~88%
Hudavingar: ~83.7%
Izmir: ~84%
Mentese: ~75.5%
That is a pretty heavy majority, even if you take into account things like people moving around/getting killed in the initial invasion. (Which i'm not entirely sure of the number of Greek peasants left dead from)
Can someone go check this out for me? Specifically how many Greek left eastern Anatolia and where they went exactly? If they all went to Greece itself that changes things but if they stopped at the Coasts (because there wasn't anywhere left to go really) that may vindicate those numbers.

Edit: I use this because Paradox had researched this themselves in (hopefully) a non-biased manner like we would.

It's not comparable. The Turkification of the Balkans (mostly) was a result of the flight of Muslim populations from Hungary around 1700 and from the areas conquered by the Russian Empire from 1600 onward. Those groups migrated into the Ottoman Empire and very quickly started speaking Turkish and assimilating. Some did move to Anatolia but only to a much lesser degree, until the period after 1878 when it became the only place left to go.

Prior to that Thrace had received a lot of Turkish population through both voluntary and state-sponsored settlement.

 

[Encak]

It's not comparable. The Turkification of the Balkans (mostly) was a result of the flight of Muslim populations from Hungary around 1700 and from the areas conquered by the Russian Empire from 1600 onward. Those groups migrated into the Ottoman Empire and very quickly started speaking Turkish and assimilating. Some did move to Anatolia but only to a much lesser degree, until the period after 1878 when it became the only place left to go.

Prior to that Thrace had received a lot of Turkish population through both voluntary and state-sponsored settlement.

Fair enough.

 

[Pilot00]

I think he believes that it does, since all his responses to criticism are "rubbish" and "I presented evidence". Its like he doesn't read the rest of everyone's posts where they have told him that the sources he has thus-far presented are either unreliable (generally state sponsored post-WW1) or inaccurate (generally wrong time period).

He posted some quite accurate things, but in the wrong way. So did some of his critiques. Also whatever you mentlegen post in this thread thus far is either, state posted propaganda, falasies Wikipidia innacuracies or purposfully innacurate/information lacking from both sides. It started as a good idea (to balance a terriotory more, I dont take sides, I refuse to do your work for you) and it ended in an ethnic battle (How uncommon on the internet /sarcasm) . The ammount of historical distortion is reaching epic levels in this thread.

That's the Victoria 2 Culture map at the start of 1836, 392 years after the start of Eu4. Each province shows a percentage of each pop culture in said province. In the eastern bit Anatolia it's pretty heavily split between Armenians and Kurds in each province, with Turks acounting for a little less than a third in what would correspond to Erzurum in Eu4 which is the only place aside from Trebizond where there is a sizable amount in Eastern Anatolia. Greeks are also fairly spread out in Anatolia but constitute a neglible demographic past the coasts. Averaging about 5 percent in the Central Anatolia and around 16% or so around the coasts. I took a look specifically at Western Anatolia and averaged out the percent of Greeks living in each province and tried to give an average percent for the corresponding provinces in Eu4. They are as follows:
Izmit: 18% (Highest City 25%)
Hudavenigar: 13.7% (Highest City 17%)
Izmir: 14.3% (Highest City 29%)
Mentese: 5.5% (Highest City 8%)

For reference here is Edirne and Trebizond which both start of as Greek at the beginning of Eu4
Edirne: 38.2% (Highest City 56%) - This one was a bit difficult as the provinces were harder to match up
Trebizond: 22.5% (Highest City 24%)

If this at all accurate than I think it may be safe to say that the 3 provinces could start out Greek in Eu4. The percentage of Greeks in Edirne and Trebizond dropped by about 70% in 392 years. This means that the western Anatolia would have looked like this
Izmit: ~88%
Hudavingar: ~83.7%
Izmir: ~84%
Mentese: ~75.5%
That is a pretty heavy majority, even if you take into account things like people moving around/getting killed in the initial invasion. (Which i'm not entirely sure of the number of Greek peasants left dead from)
Can someone go check this out for me? Specifically how many Greek left eastern Anatolia and where they went exactly? If they all went to Greece itself that changes things but if they stopped at the Coasts (because there wasn't anywhere left to go really) that may vindicate those numbers.

Edit: I use this because Paradox had researched this themselves in (hopefully) a non-biased manner like we would.

Those are pretty accurate, all in all things considered Anatolia (from contemporary sources) fell to one million people while it contained in its entirety around 10 million (Greeks, Armenians and other small miniorities). Consider this in relation to the fact that after the war of 1920 Greece nearly doubled in size due to refugees from the massacres.

It's not comparable. The Turkification of the Balkans (mostly) was a result of the flight of Muslim populations from Hungary around 1700 and from the areas conquered by the Russian Empire from 1600 onward. Those groups migrated into the Ottoman Empire and very quickly started speaking Turkish and assimilating. Some did move to Anatolia but only to a much lesser degree, until the period after 1878 when it became the only place left to go.

Prior to that Thrace had received a lot of Turkish population through both voluntary and state-sponsored settlement.

Call me silly but I fail to see your point, care to explain to me if you dont mind? I might be too tired.

 

[Chamboozer]

Call me silly but I fail to see your point, care to explain to me if you dont mind? I might be too tired.

His argument was that since Thrace went from Greek to Turkish over the EUIV time period, that the Anatolian provinces could be thought of as having the same change in percentage points of population. That's not a workable argument to begin with, but I was bringing up the historical point that Thrace's Turkification was a product of EUIV period migrations, so one shouldn't think of all of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire as being affected by the same causes of cultural change.

 

[Encak]

His argument was that since Thrace went from Greek to Turkish over the EUIV time period, that the Anatolian provinces could be thought of as having the same change in percentage points of population. That's not a workable argument to begin with, but I was bringing up the historical point that Thrace's Turkification was a product of EUIV period migrations, so one shouldn't think of all of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire as being affected by the same causes of cultural change.

Well i mean't the Edirne province in Eu4, I guess you are talking about the IRL province, but thats not the one I was focusing on. I was looking more at Trebizond, which WAS greek at the time and at the start of Vic has a majority Turkish population. I'm just assuming that after the turkish conquest (which I can't be sure how many greeks were left on the coast but there was no possible way to logistically move millions of people out of their homelands, but I guess that would explain why Anatolia dropped so heavily in population, everyone died the same way the died in the Treaty of Lusanne) that those who were left slowly assimilated over time and used Trebizond as my base because, well, no one go out of their way to move there.

I recognize this is all conjecture, but it is a curious thought.

Edit: But seriously though, there needs to be more Armenian provinces.

 

[Pilot00]

His argument was that since Thrace went from Greek to Turkish over the EUIV time period, that the Anatolian provinces could be thought of as having the same change in percentage points of population. That's not a workable argument to begin with, but I was bringing up the historical point that Thrace's Turkification was a product of EUIV period migrations, so one shouldn't think of all of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire as being affected by the same causes of cultural change.

Adrianople / Edirne was never a major population center to begin with (asside from the city itself), so it would be easier to swap either ways.
Overall I agree thoough.

Well i mean't the Edirne province in Eu4, I guess you are talking about the IRL province, but thats not the one I was focusing on. I was looking more at Trebizond, which WAS greek at the time and at the start of Vic has a majority Turkish population. I'm just assuming that after the turkish conquest (which I can't be sure how many greeks were left on the coast but there was no possible way to logistically move millions of people out of their homelands, but I guess that would explain why Anatolia dropped so heavily in population, everyone died the same way the died in the Treaty of Lusanne) that those who were left slowly assimilated over time and used Trebizond as my base because, well, no one go out of their way to move there.

I recognize this is all conjecture, but it is a curious thought.

Edit: But seriously though, there needs to be more Armenian provinces.

Trebizond was having a very big Pontic Greek population even after its conquest, mostly due to the fact terrain and inhospitability it was left to its own devises (just as certain territories in Morea, by its own devises I dont mean left indipendent but for a time control was lax). I am not familiar with the date that ViC starts, but what happened to Pontic Greeks is internationally accknowledged.

 

[Encak]

I am not familiar with the date that ViC starts, but what happened to Pontic Greeks is internationally accknowledged.

Are we talking about the genocide? As far as i'm aware none of that happened in that area at this point in time. The game starts in 1836.

 

[Aquilah]

...

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

I'm curious, how does that work exactly? Are you referring to the fact you are a researcher or do you idolize the era of the Byzantine Empire?

 

[Pilot00]

Are we talking about the genocide? As far as i'm aware none of that happened in that area at this point in time. The game starts in 1836.

Cant remember when the Neo-Turk movement started. Anyway my memmory is a bit fuzzy right now and I am not in the right workplace to consult my books. So it might be irrelevant indeed. Ill come up with it tomorow. if I rember it precice though the work camps and conscription were over a wide period of time.

I'm curious, how does that work exactly? Are you referring to the fact you are a researcher or do you idolize the era of the Byzantine Empire?

I believe he means that he is a historian that specialises in Byzantine history though, I am unfamiliar with the term.

 

[Encak]

Cant remember when the Neo-Turk movement started. Anyway my memmory is a bit fuzzy right now and I am not in the right workplace to consult my books. So it might be irrelevant indeed. Ill come up with it tomorow.

Upon on a quick googling (I hope this is the one you are referring to) it started in 1908 well after the Vic2 start date.

 

[Aquilah]

Cant remember when the Neo-Turk movement started. Anyway my memmory is a bit fuzzy right now and I am not in the right workplace to consult my books. So it might be irrelevant indeed. Ill come up with it tomorow. if I rember it precice though the work camps and conscription were over a wide period of time.

I believe neo-Turk movement can be traced back to 1880s at the very earliest. And until the Balkan wars, they were pro-Ottoman not Turkic. They even seem to have formed an alliance with the Armenian nationalist organizations.

I believe he means that he is a historian that specialises in Byzantine history though, I am unfamiliar with the term.

Makes sense.

 

[Pilot00]

I believe neo-Turk movement can be traced back to 1880s at the very earliest. And until the Balkan wars, they were pro-Ottoman not Turkic. They even seem to have formed an alliance with the Armenian nationalist organizations.

Makes sense.

Upon on a quick googling (I hope this is the one you are referring to) it started in 1908 well after the Vic2 start date.

Yes that was on paper, then they found colourfull ways to make their pressecutions though (on the Neo-Turk subject). As I said what I post in the last two posts of mine are to be read with a grain of salt. Its a subject that I have about a decade to touch and my memory fails me. These forums (and the CK2 one) gave me a bit of study to do to refresh my memmory.

 

[Outrider]

After the conquest many greeks leaved the countryside and went to the large cities. Some even leaved anatolia and went to the balkans.
But many was resettled by the ottomans. It is hard to find numbers of these times. The most reliable thing you can do is to use modern numbers as clue and estimate
the past as you did.

This is the issue that keeps getting mentioned. Modern numbers are not a reliable indicator of past numbers unless you can decently account for the activity in the intervening period. Saying "these are the modern numbers, imagine what it must have been like in XXXX" just doesn't cut it.

As an example: assuming a city had a population of 100,000 in 1800, 70% Turk and 30% Greek. Over the next 100 years, the Turkish population grew by 3% annually and the Greek population by 4%. By 1900 the city would have a population of 2,860,000 and would be 47% Turkish and 53% Greek. Using the population breakdown in 1900 to guess at the population in 1800 would lead you to a wrong conclusion.

 

[Encak]

This is the issue that keeps getting mentioned. Modern numbers are not a reliable indicator of past numbers unless you can decently account for the activity in the intervening period. Saying "these are the modern numbers, imagine what it must have been like in XXXX" just doesn't cut it.

As an example: assuming a city had a population of 100,000 in 1800, 70% Turk and 30% Greek. Over the next 100 years, the Turkish population grew by 3% annually and the Greek population by 4%. By 1900 the city would have a population of 2,860,000 and would be 47% Turkish and 53% Greek. Using the population breakdown in 1900 to guess at the population in 1800 would lead you to a wrong conclusion.

If you are referring to what I said, I did say that they were assimilated, not outgrown demographically. Just to be clear, I was implying that over time the Greek population slowly assimilated into Turkish society by adopting Islam, the Turkish language, Turkish culture. If you weren't sorry about that. I recognize my numbers are based on conjecture and nothing more.

 

[heraklonas]

I'm curious, how does that work exactly? Are you referring to the fact you are a researcher or do you idolize the era of the Byzantine Empire?

My main subject I studied for 5 years was 'byzantinology' or byzantine studies, whatever suits you; examined 3 years ago, and now do my ph.d in byzantine history (economic history there in fact). So I wanted to say I know the sources maybe even better than all those trolls here, mostly because cultural identity and hellenism in byzantium is a particular topic I'm in touch with right now. And also conversions during the early Ottoman period. and I'm not in the fog of nationalism like some here.

first, after looking again since a while here, I'm astonished that ppl use vicII 'data' to answer the questions. Ridiculous, multi-folded.:wacko:
The main obstacle is the map itself, where u are forced to generalize too much. Minorities cant be represented which is terribly unacceptable for a 'subcontinent' like asia minor in the 15th century. Many proposals made here are inappropriate in any case: 1) western-eastern turkish division. This did not exist, and it never came in existence. It is true that there are differences in the faces (and therefore also in the gen pool), but this is not investigated yet (out of political reasons ofc), so it's total speculation how much former Greek population is still to be traced at the Aegean shore. BUT we talk about culture, not race...do I really have to stress this?? 2) the Armenian west-drift started in the 7th century, when the Arab onslaught was going on in eastern Anatolia; it accelerated in the 11th century due to the Seljuk advance (the Cilician settlement happened just then 10th-12th c., and was promoted by the emperors in the beginning - on a sidenote: peoples never hate each other, just individuals..so it was with the complex Armenian-Greek-relation as well); Ottoman population transfers happened at the beginning of the 17th c. due to the Jaleli revolts, but this was rather minor for our concerns. Many towns of the east like Sivas, Erzerum, Kayseri were overwhelmingly Armenian also before (countryside of not).
3) as was said, you cant use 19th century tables/maps to calculate back.:wacko: The reason are the uneven growth rates, which lead to terrible wrong results after just 100 years. And there was migration everywhere, esp. in the 19th century. If you really want to know about the situation in e.g. Ionia in the 15th c, you have to use historical sources (those I mentioned above). It is pretty clear that only in the large cities on the coast the Greek-speaking element was still a majority.
(like Smyrna itself). In the countryside, Turkification was done at that time (=language spoken outside church mess) and crypto-christianity was the rule. 'true' Islamization had its breakthrough in that regions in the 16/esp. 17th century.
4) it is very speculative what could have happened if Nicopolis or Varna had been a success and a byzantine rollback had happened. The Byzantines themselves had given up Asia Minor also in mind/ as a thought, as can be seen e.g. in the writings of cantacouzenos already ca. 1360. They wanted to stabilize a Balkans realm and use the Propontis as a barrier to Ottoman advance. As a point of reverence (what would have happened), you can look more back to the Comnenian reconquest in the 12th c. of Turkified parts of Asia minor. In the beginning, Hellenization is/was rather easy, because the Turkish population just fled to the interior (because otherwise slaughtered, or force-conversed - what happened very rarely generally). But because then they were more concentrated over there, a further conquest was almost impossible. A Hellenization/Christianization through conquest was impossible in the minds of the elite, the only way feasible was an incorporation in a more peaceful way by mission (cf. Stone) or christianization of some parts of the ruling elite by intermarriage etc. (what happened in many cases, both ways btw). What I want to say: annihilation should be made almost impossible ingame..

so what now? Expand Armenian population and create a Turco-Byzantine culture group just as meiou did in order to balance game-play. Or accept culture for all of them. The 'cultural' hatred that is to be felt in this thread was not there in the 15th century between Greek-, Armenian- and Turkish speaking elements. The conflict was only between the religions, not the culture which was rather similar for all of them. If somebody can't believe this, try their respective cuisines.

 

[Pilot00]

so what now? Expand Armenian population and create a Turco-Byzantine culture group just as meiou did in order to balance game-play. Or accept culture for all of them. The 'cultural' hatred that is to be felt in this thread was not there in the 15th century between Greek-, Armenian- and Turkish speaking elements. The conflict was only between the religions, not the culture which was rather similar for all of them. If somebody can't believe this, try their respective cuisines.

The rest of your post is accurate but this is way of the mark, especially from someone who studied Byzantine history. What essentially became an amalgamation that split up again, was a process that took centuries after the fall of the empire. Not before. This can apply selectively if you will to the Asia minor territories (who by the period were almost 400 under occupation), but saying that the reigning elite of Byzantium and its European holdings (even those that start under occupation in the games start) had similar culture to the Ottomans prior to the fall of the empire is fallacy at its finest. Unless I misunderstood your post that is.

The whole 'mess' can be solved easily and part the game supports what I am saying. Cores already represent the basis of an established population in a province. Add some Byzantine cores to the coasts of Asia minor. Culture and religious matters are not accurately represented in game to represent minorities/majorities in game. Adding the cores will make it so that the Greek population is represented and make everyone happy.