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.

 

[Trin Tragula]

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

That's not why it's setup the way it is. The setup we have reflect our impression of how majorities looked historically. Please do criticise if you think it's wrong.

For the Greeks see the posts of Chamboozer. Nobody is disputing they existed but we have nothing to indicate they were in majority in the 15th century other than that they would be 500 years later, while there are significant things that speaks for them being in minority.
If you disagree you are more than welcome to provide your own sources (but perhaps in its own thread)

Armenians has had much less discussion in this forum so if any of you has more to contribute please do post where you think they should be exactly and why

 

[Chamboozer]

So I thought I had no data on the east, but upon taking a second look I see I mislabeled some of my PDFs and the 1530 cadastral surveys actually do include the eastern provinces. Now since Muslims are counted as one big group I have no way to tell who is Turkish and who is Kurdish, but Christians are counted separately, so we can presume that those are the Armenians.

According to the survey, the city of Sivas was majority Christian (about 75%),* whereas the region as a whole was majority Muslim (about 80%). This Ottoman province of Sivas was smaller than the EUIV province, so to take into account some of the surrounding regions:

(Corresponding EUIV province in brackets)
Koyluhisar: ~80% Muslim [Amasya/Sivas]
Karahisar-ı Şarki: ~38% Muslim [Amasya/Sivas/Trabzon]
Divriği: ~66% Muslim [Sivas]
Canik: ~95% Muslim [Canik]
Samsun: ~90% Muslim [Canik]
Bafra: ~98% Muslim [Canik]
Kavak: ~90% Muslim [Canik]
Bayburd: ~33% Muslim [Erzincan]

I could not identify all the place names listed, and not all the listed provinces gave a breakdown into religious groups. However the total for the province of Rum [Amasya/Sivas/Canik] is listed as 70% Muslim.

It's worth mentioning that the actual percentages were probably a bit lower than this, due to undercounting and the possibility of the tax-exempt being mostly Christian.

For comparison's sake, the province of Trabzon appears as 92% Christian, so this is not just a phenomenon of radical under-reporting of the Christian population. On the basis of this, I think that Sivas should remain Turkish. On Erzincan I have only the above-mentioned section of the province, and on Erzurum I have nothing. If I remember correctly, Canik is currently represented in the game as Greek and Christian. In the absence of other evidence, it should also be Turkish. Although I don't have any hard evidence, it seems reasonable to extend Armenian culture and religion to Erzincan and Erzurum.

*Or rather, that the imperial demesne was, which I interpret as largely overlapping with the city.

 

[Milan23]

Canik is currently represented in the game as Greek and Christian.

It isn't it's Turkish and Sunni

 

[Milan23]

That's not why it's setup the way it is. The setup we have reflect our impression of how majorities looked historically. Please do criticise if you think it's wrong.

For the Greeks see the posts of Chamboozer. Nobody is disputing they existed but we have nothing to indicate they were in majority in the 15th century other than that they would be 500 years later, while there are significant things that speaks for them being in minority.
If you disagree you are more than welcome to provide your own sources (but perhaps in its own thread)

Armenians has had much less discussion in this forum so if any of you has more to contribute please do post where you think they should be exactly and why

I understand that you probably need more sources than just a few maps but I think the actual existence of 'Armenian eyelets' which correspond to the provinces I've listed is a good suggestion that they were populated by a majority of Armenians

 

[Milan23]

Armenians has had much less discussion in this forum so if any of you has more to contribute please do post where you think they should be exactly and why

Yeah funny that as this was the whole point of this thread

 

[Tufto]

I understand that you probably need more sources than just a few maps but I think the actual existence of 'Armenian eyelets' which correspond to the provinces I've listed is a good suggestion that they were populated by a majority of Armenians

I think the actual Ottoman archival data provided by Chamboozer is a rather better suggestion that most weren't populated by a majority of Armenians .

Moreover, a cursory glance over what Wiki says on the matter (not that Wikipedia should be used as any kind of source to begin with) suggests that these provinces were only referred to as "Armenian" in the late 19th century, and were not eyalets (the provincial system used in the Early Modern period) but vilayets, which did not come into being until the 19th century.

 

[Philthy]

I think the actual Ottoman archival data provided by Chamboozer is a rather better suggestion that most weren't populated by a majority of Armenians .

Moreover, a cursory glance over what Wiki says on the matter (not that Wikipedia should be used as any kind of source to begin with) suggests that these provinces were only referred to as "Armenian" in the late 19th century, and were not eyalets (the provincial system used in the Early Modern period) but vilayets, which did not come into being until the 19th century.

Actually, a few professors I know from good schools (Harvard, Boston College, American University, Georgetown) say that while it certainly shouldn't be used in an academic citation context, it's usually pretty accurate-if sparse and with little nuance. You should always start with the wikipedia page to get an idea of the topics before you dive into actual rigorous texts. Then you'll have an idea of what the background is.

Now others say not to. But I'm of the opinion that the Ottoman Census records are going to be a pretty good source for this because again, they want to have accurate records for tax purposes.

 

[Dutchman251]

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.

Well, I think that we should not expect to find good ethnical maps from this period. However, we might make some allusions based on reasoning and newer maps.

Firstly, we see that until the genocide Armenians were the majority the eastern, mountanious part of what had been called Western Armenia before the Turks came to Anatolia. That means Sivas, Erzincan, Erzurum, Diyarbakir and Mush, and an enclave in Marash (once the most western part of Greater Armenia).

Secondly, we should take in mind that those regions are mountaneous, and few immigration has taken place their. The region is not particurly attractive to immigrate into, like Smyrna, so I don't think that much changed over the course of ages.

With this information, I guess we can compile the Suggestion:

When we combine the maps from Milan with the data from Chamboozer, we find that Canik is definitely Turkish, and Amaysa as well. On the topic of Sivas, evidence is mixed, and both Turks and Armenians are acceptable. But when we come to Erzincan and Erzurum, we can reliably say they should be Armenian. Finally, on the topic of Mush and Diyarbakir (lacking Ottoman data) : I think that a trade-off is best: Mush should become Armenian, but Diyarbakir, still the most important city of Western Kurdistan, should stay Kurdish. This would also make a up for a nice-looking map.

So, @Trin Tragula , if everyone could live with above-mentioned suggestion, I think this should be implemented for 1.19.

 

[Chamboozer]

I understand that you probably need more sources than just a few maps but I think the actual existence of 'Armenian eyelets' which correspond to the provinces I've listed is a good suggestion that they were populated by a majority of Armenians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_vilayets

The problem is that the "Armenian Eyalets" were not so-called because of being populated by a majority of Armenians. They were at best a plurality, which you can see if you read the above page. Of the six vilayets, Sivas and Erzurum both had more Turks than Armenians. I think Sivas should stay Turkish while Erzurum and Erzincan should become Armenian. Mush too, that's fine.

 

[Grand Historian]

I second that Erzurum, Erzincan and Mush should become Armenian/Miaphysite.

 

[Trin Tragula]

You will likely be seeing some changes stemming from this thread in 1.19

 

[Me_]

That's not why it's setup the way it is. The setup we have reflect our impression of how majorities looked historically. Please do criticise if you think it's wrong.

For the Greeks see the posts of Chamboozer. Nobody is disputing they existed but we have nothing to indicate they were in majority in the 15th century other than that they would be 500 years later, while there are significant things that speaks for them being in minority.
If you disagree you are more than welcome to provide your own sources (but perhaps in its own thread)

Armenians has had much less discussion in this forum so if any of you has more to contribute please do post where you think they should be exactly and why

I stand corrected, then, and apologize for any false claims. Although I'd like to see all the data. I understand that Greeks might have migrated, until they became majority, but they must have migrated from somevhere, so it would be good to check all provinces (from the data provided thus far Sivas seems debatable), as you said, it's for a different thread.
As for Armenians, I also wonder if there should be any changes to cores. An obvious thought is more cores for Armenia itself.

 

[Milan23]

You will likely be seeing some changes stemming from this thread in 1.19

Yaay (I've never had my own suggestion put into the game)

 

[Milan23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_vilayets

The problem is that the "Armenian Eyalets" were not so-called because of being populated by a majority of Armenians. They were at best a plurality, which you can see if you read the above page. Of the six vilayets, Sivas and Erzurum both had more Turks than Armenians. I think Sivas should stay Turkish while Erzurum and Erzincan should become Armenian. Mush too, that's fine.

What about Diyarbakir though? A lot of sources, including this map, suggest that it had a majority Arnenian population, albeit slightly

 

[Milan23]

I also wonder if there should be any changes to cores. An obvious thought is more cores for Armenia itself.

I think this is very debatable tbh. Currently I'm presuming that the Armenian cores are based on the lands of Bagratid Armenia:

Now from what I gather there was never an independent Armenian kingdom which held 'Western Armenia' it was more just populated by Armenians a bit like the Kurds I guess. Giving Armenia cores on these provinces would be solely based on the fact that they are of their culture. I sure there is another example of this in the game though I cannot think of one off the top of my head. I retract my earlier statement about giving them cores, Armenia never actually held the provinces. It doesn't change too much anyway as if the provinces were to revolt they would release Armenia or cede to Armenia it just a bit more historical accuracy into the game. Unless there is actual evidence of an Armenian kingdom holding these lands I don't think they should be given cores on them

 

[Metz]

That's not why it's setup the way it is. The setup we have reflect our impression of how majorities looked historically. Please do criticise if you think it's wrong.

For the Greeks see the posts of Chamboozer. Nobody is disputing they existed but we have nothing to indicate they were in majority in the 15th century other than that they would be 500 years later, while there are significant things that speaks for them being in minority.
If you disagree you are more than welcome to provide your own sources (but perhaps in its own thread)

Armenians has had much less discussion in this forum so if any of you has more to contribute please do post where you think they should be exactly and why

All these culture problems would be solved if a pie chart system was introduced.

 

[AirikrStrife]

My general take on the region that is northeasterneastern anatolia (currently refering to the provinces of Erzincan, Erzurum, Trebizond aswell as parts of Samtshke because Kars is the capital of that province and it's located in modern day turkey) is that we might need about 3-4 more provinces to better reflect the diversity. First I want to introduce another group into the mix, Georgians.

I alredy made a major thread on the caucasus, https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-caucasus.910856/ although it's a bit outdated so I've done more research since making the post and will very likely make a new suggestion in the future. For sources, except vigorous internet use I am also using a book called "The Caucasus - A History" by James Forsyth.

As can be seen in these maps (which I have verified with other sources) it is clear that Georgia extended farther west into turkey in 1444 than it actually does in game with the border being drawn just east of the city of erzurum.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Caucasus_1450_map_de.png
http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/abkh_histr 3_files/image023.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Caucasus_1490_map_de.png
My approach in my modding was to take out of Erzurum and Samtshke and split them in a total number of 5 provinces.
Tao, Georgian culture,
Javakheti (being the northern part of Samtshke) armenian culture, Samtshke, boosted in devs since Kars was an important city, and maintain armenian culture.
Possibly one more georgian province mostly from southern guria (Klarjeti, meshketi or Adjaria). So far my take on the actual province of Erzurum is that it should have armenian culture, possible erzincan should also get armenian culture but I do not have any hard proof for this.

Then there should be Lazica, the georgian populated part of eastern trebizond. Would be a minor boost to trebizond and add another province. After the Turkish conquest of trebizond Lazica was actually joined to Samtshke

I also include a rough draft of my proposal. Note that the new provinces of Tao (or Adjaria/klarjeti/meshketi) should get a coast to the black sea going around trebizond taking land from southern gurisa (which is anyway way to large) Especially important to a proposal on georgia I will shamelessly make in this Armenia topic thread (after the image) which I will also follow with a proposal relating to armenia so I'll get back on topic.

Georgia, should not start as a country, or at the very least have the possibility to balkanize quickly into 4-6 smaller states. Reasons: The division of Georgia was made in 1442, two years before the game start. Most map shows georgia united "still around 1450" but that is a generalisation. Although it wouldn't be until 1490 that the kingdoms stoped fighting each other, it's a bit complicated

More important reasons why Georgia should get balkanized: As of now usually see Georgia beeing vassalized by QK around 1446. This never happened. A united Georgia would be too big to vassalize in one take. Enough provinces and development should be added that a united Georgia would be to big to vassalize. That said, Georgia shouldn't be united at game start but would remain as a formable tag for countries with georgian primary culture. The countries would thus be:

Immereti (already exists so very nice): Immereti, Guria, abkhazia (should get their own culture and tag) and proposedly a new province Svaneti in the north.
Kartli: Province of kartli should be split in about three provinces (Tbilisi, Trialeti, Tasheti, Dvaleti).
Kacheti: Provinces of Kacheti and new province of Hereti
Samtshke (not a kingdom, principality; technically it could also be called Meshketi): Samtshke, Javakheti, Tao and Klarjeti/Adjaria/Meskheti

Back to what I said about armenia. You might have noticed a strange cluster of states in Artsakh in al those maps. Surprise! Those are the independent principalities/melikdoms of Kachen/Artsakh. Poor armenian feudal entities. Let's get them in there in the province of Melikates (get a new province in western azerbaijan to make proper room for them) And also add Alanians/ossetian as a christian nation in north caucasus. And Vainakh as a pagan nation given the choice to change to either christianity or islam. ANd create an event giving circassia the choice to convert to islam. We need like 5 new provinces in the north or something. Alanian and Nakh culture. It'll be great, they say Much more dynamics playing as the small nations of caucasus

 

[Me_]

Giving Armenia cores on these provinces would be solely based on the fact that they are of their culture. I sure there is another example of this in the game though I cannot think of one off the top of my head. I retract my earlier statement about giving them cores, Armenia never actually held the provinces. It doesn't change too much anyway as if the provinces were to revolt they would release Armenia or cede to Armenia

Actually, there are plenty of such cases in countries that never existed, but are releasables, like the Gaeldom or some possible Chinese revolter states.
If not given Armenian cores, then perhaps a second Armenian tag? For the sake of force-release via peace treaty. I'm not sure what it should be called though or whether it's actually sensible to add another rarely-seen tag to the game.

 

[AirikrStrife]

I somewhat revised my position after reading on, Erzincan, Mush and Erzurum should have armenian population but I made reservation to create a new provinces for kurds. SIvas is all too large a province to be given armenian majority.
I'm also hinting at the possibility of an Assyrian province carved out of northern Urmia. Been a lot of debate considering the realism behind giving Assyrians any provinces. With the current provinces I found it unlikely to give any province to assyrians but if a few smaller ones could be carved out I could see 2-3 assyrian provinces appear.

Edit: forgot to mention but culture of shrivan, ganja and whatever the rump left of melikates should have persian culture. Shirvan and the Khanate of Ganja were persian speaking states. Or possibly Tat or just Shirvani to separate them from the rest of Persia

I occasionaly see Armenia form, unlike Gaeldom. Give them cores, why not?

disclaimer: I'm terrible at drawing

 

[amah]

We can strongly ignore the "ottoman tax records" in regard to turkish identity in anatolia . the ottomans would count populations based on the millet system ,and clasify populations based on religious and not lilguistic or ethnoligical data .

You could either be "muslim" and pay taxes or pay the blood tax that would mean sending your child to a military camp .Anyone with half a brain gets the optimal choice
The vast majority of anatolia at the time was slowly converting to islam .The byzantine nobility(both greek and armenian) changed to become muslim within the first generation ,and several areas became muslim ,without being linguistically turks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devşirme

pontus specifically was linguistically -ethnologically greek albeit bi-religious by the time of the pontic massacres , well into the 19th century .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greeks

based on ottoman millet system ,we can mistakenly count bosnians (muslim serbians) as turks , pomaks (muslim bulgarians ) as turks , cherkez ,laz and kurds as turks .

The term turkification , is used in any minority language previously under ottoman control even today .reading the article present a clear view of how ottomans ruled anatolia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkification


In game terms .

-pontus should be pontic greek ,albeit muslim in some areas .the same can be said for most areas in minor asia (to present the 2 stages of culture conversion ->religious assimilation -> ethnological assimilation )

- a recapturing of the respective lands by armenian or greek entities should give the -50% discount on culture conversion ,based on the prior identity of the local population

-Byzantines should start with a core in Kocaeli (izmit captured for the last time by ottomans in 1419 , less than 50 years for cores to vanish )

-byzantines should start with a guarantee from Genoa

-trebizon should start with cores in theodosia (primary nation for pontic culture -cores cannot vanish)

- trebizon instead of canik should start with a trade bonus

-the 2 cilician areas north of antioch should be armenian in culture and religion , area was captured in 1375 ,i doubt 50 years can culture convert the region