Better representation of Armenians in Turkey

[Milan23]

I was reading an article on the Armenian genocide and it got me interested in this concept of 'Western Armenia' so after doing some browsing i was stunned to find out that massive swathes of Eastern Turkey were predominantly populated by Armenians yet this isn't represented in the game. Looking at a few maps I've come to the conclusion that in fact 5 provinces in the game that do not have Armenian as prime culture should do.

Looking at this map the dark red areas were areas with an Armenian majority in the early 16th century. These would account to Sivas, Erzincan, Erzurum, Diyarbakir and Mush. I dont see the point in inclduing the enclave which is Marash.

This map is of the Armenian Eyalets of the Ottoman Empire and further back up my point as they roughly are the provinces i have mentioned.

Frankly im not too sure the reason of ignoring the Armenians was. I understand that weren't many Armenians here but these regions were sparsely populated and the Armenians made up the majority of the population. Unfortunately there aren't many Armenians living in these areas present day due to the genocide which is maybe why they aren't represented in game. Now these provinces in the game would have Armenia as primary culture, coptic as relgion and Armenian core as well.

 

[Me_]

Anatolia is very wrong when it comes to culture/religion. There are too many Sunni, too many Turks, not enough Greeks, Pontic Greeks and Armenians, and to few Orthodox/Coptic provinces.

All of this was done to strengthen the Ottomans, but I'm not convinced that this is the rigght approach.

 

[JKiller96]

The problem with this is the sources. If you look at sources for majority Kurdish populations during this time it will overlap with many of these provinces. Really theres a lot of bias historically whether it be on the Turkish, Armenian or Kurdish side. The best thing is just to keep it Turkish since there were no real issues in the area for the ottomans until out of the game's period.

Also the populations tended to be segregated it seems, which kinda complicates things. One Kurd community here, an Armenian one there.

 

[Milan23]

The problem with this is the sources. If you look at sources for majority Kurdish populations during this time it will overlap with many of these provinces. Really theres a lot of bias historically whether it be on the Turkish, Armenian or Kurdish side. The best thing is just to keep it Turkish since there were no real issues in the area for the ottomans until out of the game's period.

Also the populations tended to be segregated it seems, which kinda complicates things. One Kurd community here, an Armenian one there.

Now obviously my Wiki sources are never going to be the most accurate so the first map alone IMO would not be enough. The fact though that there were 'Armenian' eyelets regardless of sources suggests to me that Armenians made up a majority in these regions.

 

[Milan23]

ll of this was done to strengthen the Ottomans, but I'm not convinced that this is the rigght approach.

I though this was also the case and I also think it's wrong. Even with half of Anatolia different cultures and religion, with the Ottomans tolerance of heathens and with humanist ideas they will never get rebellions anyway. The Ottomans are OP as it is and are probably the only nation guaranteed to be successful in the game so what's the point in ignoring basic historical facts just to strengthen the Ottomans?

 

[CelticWarrior95]

I agree there should be more greeks and armenians in anatolia. a unified turkish monoethnical state wouldn't come to be until after ww1

 

[Franz Limit]

Weaking the strong cultures to make it more historical accurate shouldn't be that much of a problem anymore. There is no % cap to accept a culture anymore -> the Ottomans could just start with Armenian, Kurdish and Greek as accepted cultures while reducing the total amount of turkish provinces.

 

[Chamboozer]

Unfortunately I don't have any sources on the extent of the Armenian population in the fifteenth century. It seems reasonable that much of the east could be made Armenian, though I wouldn't change the provinces which are currently Kurdish. That region was called by the Ottomans "Kurdistan" and whether the countryside was majority Armenian or Kurdish, it was the Kurds who were more influential.

As for the west: it should stay the way it is. Western Anatolia was majority Muslim (=Turkish) in every province by 1444.

 

[Milan23]

Unfortunately I don't have any sources on the extent of the Armenian population in the fifteenth century. It seems reasonable that much of the east could be made Armenian, though I wouldn't change the provinces which are currently Kurdish. That region was called by the Ottomans "Kurdistan" and whether the countryside was majority Armenian or Kurdish, it was the Kurds who were more influential.

As for the west: it should stay the way it is. Western Anatolia was majority Muslim (=Turkish) in every province by 1444.

In this cities though I don't think this was the case. Hudavendigar and Izmir appear to have a majority Greek population pre WW1 but this will always disputed. The one that can't be disputed is Sinop. Along with Trebuzond it formed the region of Pontus. In 1444 it had a majority Pontic population

 

[JKiller96]

I agree that Armenians should have an additional province to the West, but over all, more Kurds need to be added than Armenians

 

[Chamboozer]

In this cities though I don't think this was the case. Hudavendigar and Izmir appear to have a majority Greek population pre WW1 but this will always disputed. The one that can't be disputed is Sinop. Along with Trebuzond it formed the region of Pontus. In 1444 it had a majority Pontic population

Izmir's population statistics from more than 400 years later don't necessarily reflect upon the population in 1444. As it were, we know that Izmir was largely destroyed by Timur and subsequently repopulated by Muslims. The one statistical analysis I have seen shows that in the 17th century it was more than 90% Muslim. About Sinop, I don't have any hard data. I'm fine with it being Greek, but isn't it already?

I agree that Armenians should have an additional province to the West, but over all, more Kurds need to be added than Armenians

Where do you think they need to be added? It seems fine to me the way it is.

 

[JKiller96]

Izmir's population statistics from more than 400 years later don't necessarily reflect upon the population in 1444. As it were, we know that Izmir was largely destroyed by Timur and subsequently repopulated by Muslims. The one statistical analysis I have seen shows that in the 17th century it was more than 90% Muslim. About Sinop, I don't have any hard data. I'm fine with it being Greek, but isn't it already?



Where do you think they need to be added? It seems fine to me the way it is.

Timur's invasions definitely DESTRYOED the Armenian population which led to a surge in Muslim population over the Christian one. as for Kurds, eastern Dulkadir should be Kurdish definitely.

 

[Milan23]

About Sinop, I don't have any hard data. I'm fine with it being Greek, but isn't it already?

It isn't, in reality both provinces owned by Candar and Bolu should have Pontic culture and orthodox religion. This makes sense as it results in a strip of Pontic lands that connect to Trebizond and form the region of 'Pontus'.

 

[Chamboozer]

It isn't, in reality both provinces owned by Candar and Bolu should have Pontic culture and orthodox religion. This makes sense as it results in a strip of Pontic lands that connect to Trebizond and form the region of 'Pontus'.

Hmm. Do you have any sources about this? I just checked the 1530 Ottoman cadastral survey that I have a PDF of and it lists for Sinop sub-province 4220 Muslim households, 552 Christian, and 173 undefined (tax-exempt). For the whole Kastamonu province of which Sinop is a part it's 31,573 Muslim households, 661 Christian, and 5,660 undefined.

 

[Grand Historian]

About Sinop, I don't have any hard data. I'm fine with it being Greek, but isn't it already?

No, it's currently Turkish/Sunni - changed back in 1.12 I believe.

I personally think it was more of a design decision, given that for some reason you still cant release nations whose primary cultures are different from the provincial cultures.

 

[Milan23]

Hmm. Do you have any sources about this? I just checked the 1530 Ottoman cadastral survey that I have a PDF of and it lists for Sinop sub-province 4220 Muslim households, 552 Christian, and 173 undefined (tax-exempt). For the whole Kastamonu province of which Sinop is a part it's 31,573 Muslim households, 661 Christian, and 5,660 undefined.

This shows a Greek majority on the northern Anatolian coastline which includes Sinop and Bolu

As does this.

And this (Greek in red)

All three show Greek majority on northern Anatolian coastline including Sinop and Bolu though the Kastamondu probably didn't have more Greeks than Turks in 1444

 

[Chamboozer]

I see. So, all late 19th/early 20th century maps that don't necessarily reflect the situation centuries previously. I'll go with 16th century Ottoman survey data over modern ethnographic maps unless someone knows of a scholarly study which has something to say about this topic.

 

[Milan23]

I see. So, all late 19th/early 20th century maps that don't necessarily reflect the situation centuries previously. I'll go with 16th century Ottoman survey data over modern ethnographic maps unless someone knows of a scholarly study which has something to say about this topic.

First map is more 17th - 18th whilst the last one is clearly 13th-14th and do you care to direct us to your source? There are many reasons why those ethnographical survey may be completely incorrect. Greeks were heavily persecuted in the Ottoman Empire so why would present himself as Greek legally when he could pretend to be Turkish, not be persecuted yet enjoy his Greek heritage. Stuff like that still happens today. Also the Ottomans may have changed the data to suit them, I imagine they would've preferred to have fewer Greeks than they did. Point being you're making it out as if your 'sources' are the most reliable when in fact they are also full of holes. There were Greeks in Sinop in the 14th century and there were Greeks in Sinop in the 18th century. Did they just go on a really long pilgrimage which took them 400 years? I think it's safe to assume that Greeks made up a majority in between that time period as well...

 

[Chamboozer]

First map is more 17th - 18th whilst the last one is clearly 13th-14th and do you care to direct us to your source?

Where are they from? What data is it based on? What's the methodology of the mapmaker?

Are you sure that last one doesn't actually depict ancient times? I don't remember reading about any Babylonians and Medes in the 13th-14th century

The cadastral survey is BOA [Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi/Prime Ministry's Ottoman Archives] 438 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Anadolu Defteri (937/1530) II, [Register of the Accounting of the Province of Anatolia, numbered 438, volume II] covering the sancaks of Bolu, Kastamonu, Kengırı, and Koca-ili.

So for Sinop, for example, it gives this data:

CEM‘AN KAZÂ-İ SİNOB [Total for the District - Sinop]
Şehr [City] 1
Kal‘a [Fortress] 1
Câmi‘ [Congregational Mosques] 2
Mesâcid [Regular Mosques] 22
Zaviye [Lodges] 5
Medrese [Madrasa] 1
Hammâm [Baths] 2
Kurâ [Villages] 180
Mezra‘a [Fields] 14
Evkaf [Waqfs] 37
Neferân [Population i.e. adult males] 4.854
Mu‘âf [Exempt] 173
Hane [Households] 3.556
Hane-i müslim [Muslim Households] 3.096
Hane-i gebr [Christian Households] 461
Mücerredân [Bachelors] 1.124
Mücerredân-i müslim [Muslim Bachelors] 1.033
Mücerredân-i gebr [Christian Bachelors] 91
Hâsıl [Revenue] 456.256

 

[Chamboozer]

Greeks were heavily persecuted in the Ottoman Empire

No

so why would present himself as Greek legally when he could pretend to be Turkish, not be persecuted yet enjoy his Greek heritage.

Because one couldn't just casually pass oneself off as a member of a different religion during this time period. People knew their neighbors on an intimate basis and could be used to corroborate/disprove any story, and it would be pretty easy for the tax-recorder to just take a look and see if a person's household looks like a Muslim one or a Christian one (or to ask him some questions about Islam, or to see if he spoke any Turkish). If this were something that people did on such a widespread basis then we'd expect to see tax records showing Muslim majorities everywhere in the Ottoman Empire. Somehow this didn't happen.

In any case, much of this type of recording was done not by the individuals saying what they are, but by community leaders. They would often try to undercount the size of their communities, but this could only go so far, as I'll address below.

Also the Ottomans may have changed the data to suit them, I imagine they would've preferred to have fewer Greeks than they did.

Yes, the 16th century Ottomans intentionally botched their own taxation records, because they knew that hundreds of years later it would be beneficial to show Europeans that the Greek population was low

No, their goal was accuracy because they were trying to collect as much revenue as they could. They're cadastral surveys, not censuses made for propaganda purposes. There was no one to show the propaganda to. The only people the Ottomans ever expected would read these surveys were government bureaucrats.

Point being you're making it out as if your 'sources' are the most reliable when in fact they are also full of holes.

Yes, the cadastral surveys are problematic as sources. Doesn't mean they can't be used. If they say that Sinop was 80% Muslim, then maybe it was really 90% or 60% Muslim, but it probably wasn't 40%. If anything they're going to undercount the number of taxpayers. If they missed 50% of the Christians (and none of the Muslims), then that means there were really 1,200 Christian households instead of 660. That against 31,000 Muslims. Do you want to argue that they missed 90% of the Christians? Then there were really 6,600 Christian households... versus 31,000 Muslims. For the Christians to be in the majority the tax collectors would have had to have missed an absurd number of them.

There were Greeks in Sinop in the 14th century and there were Greeks in Sinop in the 18th century. Did they just go on a really long pilgrimage which took them 400 years? I think it's safe to assume that Greeks made up a majority in between that time period as well...

A lot can happen in 400 years. Greek migration to the Izmir region is well documented during the 19th century, that's how they got to be a majority there. Same thing likely happened in Sinop.