Sources and a Foreword
This is the culture post. It is in no way meant to be inflammatory, but it is my interpretation of the sources and I think most sources paint a very different picture from the Tinto Maps post. I will start by adding all my quotations and sources from all the posts together, then I will say which areas would be better off changed, then I will talk a bit about the internal divisions of the cultures. After that, I will present a map of what I think is rational. Anyone is free to disagree, but please do it with sources. We are doing this to help the devs out, not to have irrelevant nationalistic fights.
What the Sources Have to Say
- Letters of Manuel II Palaiologos by Manuel II Palaiologos (1977)
These are letters of Manuel Palailogos, the Byzantine emperor, who was forced to join Ottoman campaigns in Anatolia with his men in 1380's, against the beyliks. In these pages, he complains that there are barely any Greeks in any cities of Anatolia, saying his men cannot find anybody who knows their language and lamenting the loss of these territories to barbarians.
- Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century by Speros Vryonis Jr. (1971)
The main point of contention between me and those who argued against my claims was when this Turkification happened. I claimed that the overwhelming migration of nomadic and settled Turkomans into Anatolia after the Mongol invasion was the final nail in the coffin, with others saying Anatolia, or certain areas of Anatolia remained Greek until much later. Well, famous Greek-American Byzantinist Speros Vryonis wrote an entire, gigantic, humongous book about the transition of Anatolia from being Greek to being Turkish. And it is an impressive book. I recommend everyone interested in this area to read it. Not only it is the formative work on this subject, it also settles our bet, which is more important to me. From now on, I will use quotations from his book to illustrate the destruction Anatolian Christendom suffered and how quickly Turkish culture replaced it:
In the first half of his book, he starts by saying Anatolia was Hellenized and Christianized in a few centuries and talks about the reason for Byzantine downfall. Then he narrates through the First Beyliks Era, After Manzikert and before the crusades. He says, in this era, Turks were a clear minority, and that Turkish beys often fought each other to attain more Byzantine villagers to collect taxes from. He says the Turkish invasion, unlike the temporary Arabic raids, effectively cut all road and aqueduct system and destroyed the old Hellenic cities of Anatolia. This caused massive devastation, and Turks slew or forcefully converted many Christians too, a lot of Christians escaped, massive amounts of Christians were enslaved to be sold into other regions, and Turkish men married Greek women often, albeit the other way around was strictly forbidden. Anatolia became a barren wasteland, and Christians harbored great resentment against the newcomers, so conversion wasn’t as high as it would be later. In this period, many Anatolian Greeks crossed the Hellespont to settle in Greece and Thrace. Anatolia suffered great depopulation.
Then he speaks of a period he calls Nicaea-Konya equilibrium, in which the Greeks took back Aegean coast and Pontic coast. They swept away the Turkomans from here, but this caused the Turkomans to solidify and consolidate in Central Anatolia and Western Anatolia. They couldn’t reclaim more land, as they lacked the demographic basis of conquest. They managed to bring back many original Anatolian Greeks, as well as settling all kinds of people to generate tax revenue: Serbs, Latins, Alans… Greeks also became integrated and started to become converted in Muslim Anatolia. He also says this: “A substantial element of the farming population, indeed the majority, in the Seljuk domains of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries consisted of Christians. The program of recolonization of the Turkish lands with Christian farmers was especially important in the twelfth century. In the thirteenth century the properties of large landowning as well as of peasant Christians are mentioned in the wakf documents where property boundaries are being defined, and it is interesting that these documents quite frequently refer to the vineyards of these Christians.”
Then this Nicaea-Konya equilibrium is destroyed. This is the part that concerns us the most, as it is definitive for what would happen to fourteenth century Anatolia. According to Vryonis, The Byzantine emperors did not do much about this: “After transfer of the Byzantine capital to Constantinople, Michael VIII Palaeologus first neglected and then penalized the Nicaean domains, with a consequent corrosion of the militarily and socially cohesive factors of the Greek state in Asia Minor. The church, the aristocracy, the army, and many of the inhabitants were in turn abandoned and alienated. The disintegration of the indigenous military forces, the rapacity of such mercenary bodies as the Catalans and AIans, and the rebellions and desertions of the troops laid bare to the Turkmen emirs the regions of western Asia Minor which the Lascarids had done so much to resuscitate.” Rûm also was overrun by rebellious Turkmens in this period, who were the ancestors of our beyliks. The Seljuks and the Mongols could not keep them from banditry and anarchy, which caused the peninsula to be ravaged once more. Commerce halted, and cities became uninhabitable due to extreme taxation and bad supply lines.
Due to these conditions, Turkmens arrived in the Aegean, Bithynia and Paphlagonia in large numbers. “The raiders came, in the beginning, for booty. But as the Byzantine armies were disbanded or transferred to Europe, the raiders settled on the land until they finally reached the Aegean coastline. What was the nature of this final Turkish conquest and settlement and what effect did it have on the Christian population? An examination of the actual facts reveals that this second conquest of western Asia Minor was in many ways similar to the earlier conquest at the end of the eleventh century. That is to say, it was often accompanied by violent displacement of rural and urban populations, enslavement, and destruction.” is what Vryonis has to say about the way the Turks expanded.
Byzantines sent the occasional army to repel Turkish invaders, but these were not genuine and decisive attempts. Turks were fighting for destruction, and they really decimated the population of many towns and cities by entirely destroying the countryside and starving them. Here is an example of what happened. “Extensive destruction in some areas once more characterized the conquest. The valleys of the Maeander, of the Cayster, and the regions of Magedon were repeatedly and savagely devastated, as were the towns or Priene, Miletus, Caria, Antiocheia, Melanoudium. Tralles had also been destroyed, so the emperor sent his son who decided to rebuild and recolonize the uninhabited town. When the city was finally finished, Andronicus brought together 36,000 colonists in order to repeople the city. But soon after, in 1282, Menteşe besieged the town and as a result of the severe blockade the citizens were reduced to such famine that they began to drink horse blood. The besieged repeatedly offered to surrender the city but the Turks refused, and when the latter finally entered, the slaughter of the inhabitants and the destruction of the city were extensive.”
This, of course, caused many Greek commoners to flee Anatolia for their own safety. Vryonis records that large segments of the populations escaped to European parts of the empire, and this significantly reduced the number of Greeks in Anatolia. The Meanderian districts (around Thyraia and such) were severely depopulated. Most places the Turks invaded in this period, they either killed or enslaved the entire population, selling them off. Most cities lied in ruins until fifteenth century and were intentionally burned down. The entire population of Magnesia escaped. Assus received so many refugees that the entire population crossed over to the island of Mytilene, abandoning the city. Constantinople and Biga got so many refugees, starvation and famine started, as well as a plague.
Famine and starvation were apparently common in the region. In many places all rural settlements were destroyed before the Turks even reached the towns and cities. “The partial diminution of the indigenous population plus the settlement of the Turks resulted in a drastic demographic change. In a passage that strikingly recalls the words that Anna Comnena used to describe the destruction of coastal Anatolia in the late eleventh century, George Pachymeres wrote of the late thirteenth century : And thus in a short time the [Turks], attacking the land of the Rhomaioi, transformed it into another desert encompassing the length and width of the land from the Black Sea to the sea by Rhodes.” Here we can clearly see a contemporary Greek chronicler define the limits of Turkish expansion by Black Sea and the Aegean.
Vryonis says that the exact proportion is difficult to say, and recalls that Ibn Battuta said there were still lots of Greeks in Anatolia in the 1330’s. Then Vryonis also talks about Eastern Anatolia, saying the Eastern Anatolian and Cilician cities were burned, entirely massacred, and sold off to slavery, often multiple times by both Mongols and Turks. Malatya had turned into a desert, in his words. gain attain the stability and prosperity or the early thirteenth century. “Traces of this less fortunate period were still visible in the fourteenth century. Ibn Battuta remarked that in 1333 Erzerum was still mostly in ruins as a result of the feud between two groups of Turkmen. Izmir too was largely a ruined town; the site of Ephesus was abandoned for the neighboring heights, and the Christian population was removed. Pergamum was a shambles, as was Iznik which was uninhabited. The emperor Manuel Palaeologus, who had occasion to visit Anatolia while performing military service in the army of the sultan Bayazid, observed that many of the older Byzantine towns of northern Anatolia were uninhabited and destroyed. In the south Ludolph of Suchem observed about 1350 that both Patara and Myra were ruined as a result of the Turkish invasions and a century later Arnold von Harff found the same conditions at Laranda.” This shows that Anatolia was still recovering from that period of upheaval back then, but the ethnic makeup of the peninsula had significantly and irreversibly changed already.
My claim that the fifteenth century census data would still be a meaningful indicator for fourteenth century was based on the fact that this was the last period of population change in Anatolia, up until the modern times. No more nomads would arrive, and the Christian population wouldn’t be conquered in this fashion once again. The numbers, except for the ongoing conversion, would remain largely the same in proportion all the way until the end of the game’s timeframe. Vryonis agrees with me, at least in spirit: “This displacement or Christian population which arose from plague, famine, massacre, enslavement, and migration, along with the arrival of new Turkic and Mongol groups in Anatolia, resulted in an important demographic and ethnic alteration of the Anatolian population. But as has already been mentioned, it is very difficult to say anything about numbers or proportions. It is surely true that this late thirteenth- and fourteenth-century period is the period of final, critical change in the ethnic and religious configuration of Anatolia.”
It is surely true that this is the final period of change in the ethnic and religious configuration of Anatolia. And it is surely true, according to the multiple primary sources Vryonis used, the extent of Turkoman settlement reached the Sea of Rhodes, the Black Sea, and the Aegean. All the beyliks had thousands of horsemen as previously mentioned, all of whom were likely Turks, and the beyliks were founded on the demographic basis of nomadic, newly arrived Turkoman tribes and clans. I did not detail too much into beylik histories, but a quick look will show you that almost half of all beyliks were in Central Asia a century prior. There are still Karamanids in Azerbaijan, and still Teke tribe in Turkmenistan.
I am finishing this part of the text with a list of all the towns that were destroyed and depopulated: “Tralles, Priene, Miletus, Caria, Antioch, Melanoudium, Nysa, Tripolis, Thyraia, Ephesus, Magnesia ad Hermum, Croulla, Catoicia, Cenchrae, Belocome, Angelocome, Anagourda, Platanea, Melangeia, Assus, Bursa, Nicaea, Apameia, Smyrna, Uluborlu, Eğridir, Konya, Koladna, Karahisar, Aynegöl, Köprühisar, Akhisar, Biga, Kevele, Mopsuestia Pompeiopolis, Edessa, Tokat, Kayseri, Tarsus, Erzincan, Ayas, Elbistan, Adana, Aksaray, Corycus, Erzerum, Patara, Sebasteia, Myra, Alaşkert, Laranda, Ani, Ereğli, Malatya, Selefke” He calls this a partial list, and almost all of these are significant enough to be locations in the game. And most of these were destroyed after their countryside were ravaged and all the villagers fled to the walled city. Think about the sheer volume of destruction.
- DNA Diversity and Population Admixture in Anatolia by Giulietta Di Benedetto, Ayşe Ergüven, Michele Stenico, Loredana Castri, Giorgio Bertorelle, Inci Togan, and Guido Barbujani (2001)
This study deals with genetic and archaeological data, creating three models of Anatolia's Turkification and the genetic/linguistic changes that would happen, then comparing blood samples from contemporary Turks to ancient Near Eastern and Turkic samples. The first model is pure elite dominance with no population influx and hence no genetical change, the second model is military conquest and forceful Turkification at once (which would be apparent due to the difference between matrilineal and patrilinieal DNA markers in people) and the third model is continous population influx with men and women across a long time. They say the third model is basically proven, as Turks of our time have similar amounts of Turkic DNA patrilineally and matrilineally. They say once the linguistic barrier between Turks and Greeks was demolished, there was continous gene flow from Azerbaijan, and Turkey experienced genetic change gradually. Interesting paper, really biological, basically proves that "Turks are Turkified Greeks" trope is not all that true and actual, large scale migration did happen.
- The Cambridge History of Islam, Chapter 3: Anatolia in the Period of the Seljuks and the Beyliks (1977)
This one I stumbled across as a PDF without the rest of the book, but it also helps my case the most. It recaps how the first wave of migration was economic and Byzantines lost the ability to resist after Manzikert, but was less significant demographically. What it has to say about the second wave of migration is my point about the chronology of Turkification:
"Although the victory of Manzikert was followed by a considerable flow of population into Anatolia, the transformation of this land into a wholly Turkish territory took some centuries more. The Turks who fled before the Mongols from Central Asia and Persia formed the second great migration, and
the process of turkification spread from central Anatolia to the coasts and was completed during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This movement of population was essentially based on the nomadic elements, but, with the foundation of the western Seljuk state, peasants, tradesmen, artisans, and religious leaders came to Anatolia as part of the migrations."
The Turkification was nearly completed in 1337, and was at the top of its acceleration. This also alludes to Turks being beaten back to and consolidated at Central Anatolia, and makes reference to Vryonis' idea of "Konya-Nikaea equilibrium", also stating the Mongols and the harbinging wave of migration broke this equilibrium down and pushed the Turco-Greek frontier further towards the coasts. After the Seljuk state crumbled, the frontier beyliks were founded by the newly arrived, non-Persianate Turkoman, which was the start of this expansion. This book also supports my claim that the coastal areas were even more Turkified than the earlier-Turkified inland:
"According to various documents the density of the Christian population in Anatolia of which we have information increased from west coast, in the opposite direction to the Turkish migration. The strong turkification of central Anatolia, apart from the Konya and Kayseri regions, can be explained by historical and geographical reasons. There exist certain documents and Turkish village names which show this ethnic situation.
In the fourteenth century under the beyliks, the western and northern parts of Anatolia were more thoroughly turkified than the eastern and even the central parts. This almost complete transformation in a short time was one of the results of the Mongol invasion."
The beyliks of these regions indeed depended on their Turkoman population for the military, and it wouldn't make sense for them to be populated by Greeks at all. The book also speaks about how Turks were still syncretic and not sufficiently Islamized, apparently continuing to use drums and incense for worship, and many Sufi
babas acting more like shamans than Islamic imams. It also talks of how the beyliks did not inherit the Persianate culture and Persian court language of the Seljuks, and instead used Turkish as a literary and administrative language.
- Evidence on Human Sacrifice by the Early Ottoman Turks by Speros Vryonis Jr. (1971)
This is a short paper, once again talking about how Shamanistic customs survived amongst Anatolian Turks for a significant amount of time. It is also a rather interesting read. Apparently, ancient Turks sacrificed prisoners, servants and enemies on the grave of their newly buried warriors because they believed those sacrificed would serve the warrior in the next life. This custom was recorded by many Byzantine chroniclers on Turkish mercenaries and even Sultan Murad I, for whom six hundred people were sacrificed. I included this not because I want a human sacrifice mechanic, but more because it shows how Turks were not sufficiently Islamized in this era.
- The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rûm from Eleventh to Fourteenth Century by Claude Cahen and Peter Malcolm Holt (1988)
This is also a rather formative work, and one of the works that challenges at least some views of Vryonis too. He talks about post-Mongol Anatolia having three politically powerful populations: Anatolian Muslims from centuries prior, Turcomans and Mongols. Turcomans included a bunch of Persians, Kurds, Mongols and more too, but were united by the fact that they were nomadic parvenus. He says that they were concentrated mainly in the frontier regions, rather than the non-dynamic Central Anatolia, which is Western Anatolia and Northern Anatolia. He also says the Turkomans were numerous in central Black Sea coast when discussing the Çandarids. This book also deals extensively with economics of this period's Anatolia, which is perhaps a good source for the developers.
- İlk Osmanlılar ve Batı Anadolu Beylikler Dünyası (The First Ottomans and the Western Anatolian Beyliks' World) by Feridun M. Emecen (2001)
Emecen is a famed Turkish historian, specializing on the Saruhan beylik and Ottomans. In this book he peripherally touches upon some information relevant to this discussion. He states that the Western Anatolian beyliks "depended upon the Turkoman who lost their pastures in Eastern and Central Anatolia as well as Azerbaijan, and formed a line of settlement from Northwest Anatolia to the Mediterranean coastline" and that some of them even took up sailing which was very much foreign to them. He quotes Byzantine chronicler Pachymeres saying "the Paphlagonian region was filled to the brim with Turkoman after 1250", showing once again the concentration of Turks in the frontier regions. The actually relevant part in my opinion is this paragraph which is extremely illuminating, and I will try to translate it verbatim:
"The conclusions from both Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman primary sources show that the Bithynian Greeks did not get exhausted by the frequent raids and abandoned their land to seek refuge in the Byzantine Empire, unlike the Greeks in other regions of Western Anatolia. These shadows that fall on even very late Ottoman official history show that in regions to the south of Bithynia like the strip from Karesi to Menteşe, chaos ensued and Christian people had to abandon their hopes, unlike the Hüdavendigar region in which Christian villagers of questionable ethnic origin went on living for quite some time."
He likely means the Byzantine Greek-Slav-Catalan-Alan conglomeration that was settled in Anatolia by the Byzantines. This proves that the Ottoman territories of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Opsikion had a large minority (even majority at some places) of Greeks, unlike the Aegean region which had a lot less Greeks in areas controlled by the Turks and a clearer majority of Turks. He also talks about Ottoman settlement of Turks to Balkans. Another thing he explains is that for some unexplicable reason the nomads to the west of Kızılırmak were called Yörük and those to the east of it were called Turkoman. Both were very similar, but the Turkoman were more mobile and unruly, unlike the Yörüks who were used to settle Balkans and picked up sedentarism a lot more frequently. When discussing the Saruhanids, he states that the local Greeks were really really important on the marine beyliks of western Anatolia as shipmakers and sailors.
Another important section of the book is his article on Yörüks. He states that the Seljuks kept the lucrative region from Bithynia to Caria largely intact as a goal of frequent raids and a source of continous revenue. The Turkoman arrival broke this equilibrium down. According to Byzantine sources, thousands of tents of Turkoman arrived to the Kastamonu-Antalya line after the Mongol invasion. They moved forward from there, pillaging and settling the Meander region so violently that even the priests at the monasteries escaped alongside the rural people. The Byzantines claimed, exaggerating of course, that the ground was not visible in these regions due to the density of tents. Emecen also affirms that the frontier beyliks of Çandarids, Ottomans, Germiyanids, Karesids, Saruhanids, Aydınids and Menteşeids all depended on this endless stream of Turkmen warriors and nomads. These nomads later became the primary source of Turks settled in the Balkans, which goes to show just how demographically virile they were. They quickly abandoned nomadism and became sedentary too.
- Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, edited by A.C.S. Peacock, Bruno de Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız, published by Routledge (2015)
This was an actual behemoth. A total tome, in which most articles were relevant to the discussion at hand, and it seems to be the widest and most recent authoritative work on this topic. Kudos to whoever suggested it to me. I will go article by article, since almost all of this is in some way relevant to determining cultural boundaries in Anatolia. The first part about the experiences of Christians under Muslim rule and the third part about the divisions between the Muslims are the most relevant by far, with the second part being more relevant to art developers if anything.
"Although the final transformation of Anatolia into an almost entirely Muslim, Turkish-speaking land did not take place until the First World War and its immediate aftermath, it was during the period between roughly 1100 and 1400 that Islam achieved its position of dominance." says the foreword. It talks about the lack of primary sources and the resulting lack of studies on the demographic transition, which made me suffer greatly too, and criticizes Turkish historiography of remaining mythical on purpose to avoid delegitimising Turkish claims to Anatolia, which seems fair. It also defines a Köprülü paradigm, attributing the dichotomy of orthodox static Islam versus heterodox dynamic Islam to M. Fuat Köprülü, a prominent Turkish historian from the bureaucratical Köprülü family. I will explain my thoughts on this criticism of him when it is relevant.
Then it criticizes Vryonis, saying he is a Greek nationalist and his work is Byzantine centric. It also talks of Hasluck, who theorized that the Muslims and the Christians both influenced each other substantially and heterodox Islam was halfway through Christianity, due to shared shrines and saints between the two cultures. The criticism is also centered on how Vryonis emphasizes the destructive aspect far too much. Then it talks of Krstic's criticism of Hasluck. Krstic said that the shared shrines led to competition and violence more often than tolerant and Islamic tolerance is far too exaggerated (I tend to agree with her).
The first article is focused on the second half of the first millenium, and isn't much relevant. The second article is about pre-Rûm era and is hardly relevant either. The third article about Armenians first talks about how Muslims were forbidden from producing and consuming wine, which made it so that the dhimmi held a monopoly, but it was freely traded by them (there is a thread on this!). It also talks about how after the Ilkhanate converted to Islam they massacred Armenians, and asserted the supremacy of Islamic qadis over Armenian bishops. The fourth article, Rape of Anatolia, is on intermarriage between Turks and Greeks. It accuses several westerners including Vryonis of being too dependent on tropes, Osman Turan of being a rabid nationalist, saying it did happen but was not very common.
The fifth article is on Maritime Asia Minor, the coasts which is our main point of contention on this thread, as a contact zone. It talks about the large Italian and Jewish presence in Ayasuluk and Antalya, and how those lived in walled quarters in city centers. The underrepresented role of Latins in Western Anatolia is emphasized in the entire article. A section is devoted to Papal embargoes on trade with infidels and Ottoman embargo on the Hospitaliers, which forced them to buy food expensively elsewhere. It also talks a lot about slavery.
The sixth article, The Greek Orthodox Communities of Nicaea and Ephesus under Turkish Rule in the Fourteenth Century: A New Reading of Old Sources, is perhaps the most relevant here. It goes to great lengths talking about peculiarities of ecclesiastical debates and laws, but what it says about the demography is essentially confirming Emecen. Nikaea had a vibrant community of Greeks, Ephesus had some too, but far less and the bishop from there complained about the lack of believers. It was near entirely Turkified. The supposed criticism of Vryonis in this article seems to be saying "No, there were
some Greeks in this period in Western Anatolia". I do not believe it changes my point significantly. It also states the Muslim repression decreased gradually.
Yıldırım's chapter is the start of the Part Three, omitting the art-related Part Two I'll discuss him. He basically does the academician thing where they say "Well, actually it was much more complex than that" without explaining anything else. His criticism of the heterodox-orthodox dichotomy seems to be that there were intermediate forms, which is ridiculous and pedantic in my opinion. But his points about how heterodox, shamanistic Islam was reappropriated by the Shi'ites when Shah Ismail established Shi'a as a firm religious and political power are really interesting. He claims this Shi'ite label was a later addition, in reality the heterodox movements of Bektashis and Baba Ishaq's supporters considered themselves Sunnis, albeit with a pro-Ali tinge. He builds this on Cahen, and seems to have much of a point. He also talks in length about how the Turkoman did not practice proper Islam at all, including the religious leaders.
The next article is about Mevlevi and Bektashi rivalry, which wasn't much demographic, I can't give feedback on that before we receive something about holy orders or societies. The one following that is a literary dissertation of a poem book. Then Chapter 15 by Karamustafa explores the Saltukname, a work about a warrior-mystic who converted lots of people to Islam and has supposed tombs in tens of locations, and its content about Islamisation. This is the final article, and while an interesting read, it does not provide me with demographical data.
What Have I Cited?
A leading Byzantologist of Greek origin, a collection of articles written by a diverse group of scientist including Armenians and Greeks, a Byzantine Emperor's own writing, a Marxist Jewish economic historian, the Cambridge History of Islam, Ottoman tax records, a genetics study, one of the leading historians of Turkey, and no other Turkish source. Yet people are still talking about how THA denies genocides, how Turks sell fake honey and how Turkish sources are not dependable. These are not Turkish sources at all. So, I am not even going to argue with anybody who can't offer sources.
What Do I Think Should Be Changed?
I believe the section of Eastern Anatolia between Cilicia and Armenian Highlands was Turkified at this point, and think there should be more Turkoman there. I think the Pontic-Turkish border was further east in the Northern Anatolia. I believe Southwestern, Southern and Western Anatolia was even more thoroughly Turkified than central Anatolia at this point in the time, due to violent incursions by Turkomans essentially changing the entire cultural landscape. There should of course remain Greek and Armenian minorities in most of the regions, I am arguing about shifting the majority. The current situation makes no sense as it makes the frontier beyliks unviable. I think Bithynia should be Greek, as well as Biga and Hüdavendigar, but from Karesi southwards until Muğla, and from there eastwards until Silifke it should be Turkish majority, with the exception of the coastal maritime towns. I think there should be a lot of Turks around Samsun and Bafra too, and most of Eastern Anatolia.
Smaller Minorities
There should be a small population of Muslim Turks in Dobruja. There should be a lot of Greeks dispersed through Konya and Kayseri. Armenians should be spread all over Anatolia, most as burghers, as far as Smyrna and Istanbul. Around Aydın and Denizli there should be a bunch of Catalans. Big cities and Genoese colonies should include Catholic Italians in high numbers. There should be a whole bunch of Mongols, Kurds and Persians dispersed among the Turkish people. There should be Romaniote and Kurdish Jews all around the place. Laz should probably not be a stand in for the Tzanes and limited around Rize.
The Subdivisions
I am satisfied with Pontic and Cappadocian both. Armenian does NOT need to be divided into Cilician and Armenian proper. Aramaic and Assyrian makes a lot of sense. Kurdish should remain one culture. I like the Turkish-Turcoman divide but there should either be a Yörük culture OR the newcomer Turks in Western Anatolia should be Turcomans too. Yörüks are really important in my opinion, so I hope they are added. (Do not trust those who say I am lobbying for this because I am a Yörük on mother's side)
Last Words
I consider myself a Philhellene, believe it or not. I speak intermediate Greek, and am proud of the Byzantine heritage of my city. I am not arguing because I am a rabid Turkish nationalist or anything. The sources clearly state the density of Turks decreased eastwards from the coast, and the newly Turkified lands were really a lot more Turkified due to the brutality of the conquest. I think this should be reflected, and I think with the current setup a lot of the beyliks do not make any sense. The Turcoman made the beylik, not the other way around, and it would be unviable and unimmersive to play them otherwise. Many thanks to Pavía, the rest of the team and the awesome community. I am not claiming to be an authority on the subject, but I hope my recommendations will be taken into account. I hope to have a fruitful and constructive discussion with anyone who wishes to do so! Thanks for reading it all the way here.
.png){kind=avatar}
