Early Turkish history: Rise of the Ottomans, identity and culture.

[Balikesir]

The Turkic peoples have always been a minority amongst the denizens of Anatolia. Instead of subjecting the locals to their central Asian culture and traditions. The Turkic peoples adopted the local culture and customs. The only thing that was foreign to Anatolia for an Anatolian Greek at the time was the religion.

Converting to Islam wasn't a bad choice for most of the Greek population of Anatolia. The byzantine Empire, a crumbling corrupt mess, could no longer keep their country safe, it no longer had any prestige, and worst of all the orthodox byzantine Empire caved to the demands of the west.

Many Byzantine Greeks felt betrayed and instead of converting to Catholicism, the religion of the westerners, they had allied with the Turkic peoples. The new rulers of Anatolia.

"Better the Turk than the Pope"
- George Gemistos Plethon

The Byzantine elite was very greedy, corrupt and disgusting. It was very much like our modern day elite. Sucking up every penny from the locals however possible. Taxation became unbearable.

Osman Ghazi on the other hand was known for his generosity. This fame would garner him a favorable image amongst the local Anatolians, and they would join in hi raids against the Byzantine Empire.

Historian and writer Lord Kinross writes that Osman was a wise, patient ruler, whom people sincerely respected and were ready to serve him faithfully. He had a natural sense of superiority, but he never sought to assert himself with the help of power, and therefore he was respected not only by those who were equal in position, but also those who exceeded his abilities on the battlefield or on wisdom. Osman did not arouse feelings of rivalry in his people—only loyalty

It shouldn't be surprising that the majority, no the vast majority, of the Ottoman court, army and peasantry was made up of Anatolian locals.

These Greeks would quickly assimilate into the new Ottoman culture. Which was essentially the Byzantine culture but Muslim.

Some Seljuks and early Ottomans would even baptize their children in accords to Byzantine tradition. Truly a fun fact.


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/byzantium/comments/1bxilcd/did_you_know_medieval_turks_used_to_get_baptised/


What did the people of Anatolia identify as? Some will tell you that they identified as Turks, others will tell you they identified as Ottomans. Neither is true. Most commonly the people of post medieval Turkey identified as Rums. Rum meaning Roman, but in this context it refers to the Anatolian peninsula. Because Anatolia was called Rum. Regional identities were also a thing. Such as Izmirli, Aydinli...

Ethnically the people would maintain their local heritage. Western Turkish people are of Byzantine Greek heritage, Central, southern and Northern/Northeast Turks as well.

A historian named Mustafa Ali (Gelibolu Ali) says this:

"Most of the inhabitants of Rûm are of confused ethnic origin. Among its notables there are few whose lineage does not go back to a convert to Islam."

In other words; we all descent from converts.

The early Ottomans viewed themselves as the successor state to the Byzantines because of this. Fatih Sultan Mehmed (Mehmed the Conqueror) was one of the biggest Roman advocators. This is why taking the city of Constantinople was so important to him.

Not to forget the flag of Orhan bey was the Byzantine flag but helal


View: https://imgur.com/a/j0FF0rN


Here's the Byzantine flag for comparison


View: https://imgur.com/a/tmbDz88


The flag was most likely the idea of Orhan Beys wife. Who was a Byzantine princess.

To no surprise the Byzantine Emperor dynasty, Palaiologos, converted to Islam and was prominent in the Ottoman court. They were later noted for their hatred of Christians.

Mesih Pasha - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Manuel Palaiologos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The money provided by the papacy was gradually cut back and Manuel eventually left Rome in 1474 in order to seek his fortune by offering military service to various nobles and rulers in Europe, including Galeazzo Maria Sforza of Milan and Charles the Bold of Burgundy. Disappointed with the offers he received, and with the papacy cutting the money back further, Manuel surprised the establishment in Rome by travelling to Constantinople in 1476 and throwing himself on the mercy of the Sultan Mehmed II, who had conquered the city 23 years earlier. The sultan generously received Manuel, who stayed in Constantinople for the rest of his life. The Ottomans called him "el Ghazi" ("holy warrior").

Though Manuel maintained his Christian faith, it is possible that he served in the Ottoman navy. He fathered at least two sons; John, who died young, and Andreas, who converted to Islam.

I made this post to talk about lesser known things about early Turkish history. Many people assume that the Turks came, genocided every single person in Anatolia, and drastically changed the culture. The only difference between the Ottoman period and Byzantine period is the religion and language. (I was also very bored )

Here's a population list of Anatolia. The vast majority of Greeks were Muslims.


View: https://i.imgur.com/2VXnqD4.jpeg


This book is called "The decline of Medieval Hellenism in Anatolia" by Speros Vryonis. This book goes even deeper into the corruption of the Byzantines and why conversions were so high amongst Anatolian Greeks.

 

[Balikesir]

Here is genetic data on Anatolian Turks and Byzantine Greeks.

Discord-TDNA2 hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-TDNA2 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Discord-TDNA3 hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-TDNA3 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Discord-TDNA4 hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-TDNA4 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Discord-TDNA5 hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-TDNA5 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Discord-TDNA6 hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-TDNA6 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Discord-TDNA7 hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-TDNA7 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Discord-TDNA1 hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-TDNA1 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Discord-AGDNA hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-AGDNA hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Discord-AGDNA1 hosted at ImgBB

Image Discord-AGDNA1 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

 

[Balikesir]

This post is not here to trash people. Many get sensitive about turkish people on this platform

 

[Balikesir]

This post is not here to trash people. Many get sensitive about turkish people on this platform

Oh this is neither an islamist rant. I'm not an Islamist. I like history.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

The Turkic peoples have always been a minority amongst the denizens of Anatolia. Instead of subjecting the locals to their central Asian culture and traditions. The Turkic peoples adopted the local culture and customs. The only thing that was foreign to Anatolia for an Anatolian Greek at the time was the religion.

Converting to Islam wasn't a bad choice for most of the Greek population of Anatolia. The byzantine Empire, a crumbling corrupt mess, could no longer keep their country safe, it no longer had any prestige, and worst of all the orthodox byzantine Empire caved to the demands of the west.

Many Byzantine Greeks felt betrayed and instead of converting to Catholicism, the religion of the westerners, they had allied with the Turkic peoples. The new rulers of Anatolia.

"Better the Turk than the Pope"
- George Gemistos Plethon

The Byzantine elite was very greedy, corrupt and disgusting. It was very much like our modern day elite. Sucking up every penny from the locals however possible. Taxation became unbearable.

Osman Ghazi on the other hand was known for his generosity. This fame would garner him a favorable image amongst the local Anatolians, and they would join in hi raids against the Byzantine Empire.



It shouldn't be surprising that the majority, no the vast majority, of the Ottoman court, army and peasantry was made up of Anatolian locals.

These Greeks would quickly assimilate into the new Ottoman culture. Which was essentially the Byzantine culture but Muslim.

Some Seljuks and early Ottomans would even baptize their children in accords to Byzantine tradition. Truly a fun fact.


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/byzantium/comments/1bxilcd/did_you_know_medieval_turks_used_to_get_baptised/


What did the people of Anatolia identify as? Some will tell you that they identified as Turks, others will tell you they identified as Ottomans. Neither is true. Most commonly the people of post medieval Turkey identified as Rums. Rum meaning Roman, but in this context it refers to the Anatolian peninsula. Because Anatolia was called Rum. Regional identities were also a thing. Such as Izmirli, Aydinli...

Ethnically the people would maintain their local heritage. Western Turkish people are of Byzantine Greek heritage, Central, southern and Northern/Northeast Turks as well.

A historian named Mustafa Ali (Gelibolu Ali) says this:

"Most of the inhabitants of Rûm are of confused ethnic origin. Among its notables there are few whose lineage does not go back to a convert to Islam."

In other words; we all descent from converts.

The early Ottomans viewed themselves as the successor state to the Byzantines because of this. Fatih Sultan Mehmed (Mehmed the Conqueror) was one of the biggest Roman advocators. This is why taking the city of Constantinople was so important to him.

Not to forget the flag of Orhan bey was the Byzantine flag but helal


View: https://imgur.com/a/j0FF0rN


Here's the Byzantine flag for comparison


View: https://imgur.com/a/tmbDz88


The flag was most likely the idea of Orhan Beys wife. Who was a Byzantine princess.

To no surprise the Byzantine Emperor dynasty, Palaiologos, converted to Islam and was prominent in the Ottoman court. They were later noted for their hatred of Christians.

Mesih Pasha - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Manuel Palaiologos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The money provided by the papacy was gradually cut back and Manuel eventually left Rome in 1474 in order to seek his fortune by offering military service to various nobles and rulers in Europe, including Galeazzo Maria Sforza of Milan and Charles the Bold of Burgundy. Disappointed with the offers he received, and with the papacy cutting the money back further, Manuel surprised the establishment in Rome by travelling to Constantinople in 1476 and throwing himself on the mercy of the Sultan Mehmed II, who had conquered the city 23 years earlier. The sultan generously received Manuel, who stayed in Constantinople for the rest of his life. The Ottomans called him "el Ghazi" ("holy warrior").

Though Manuel maintained his Christian faith, it is possible that he served in the Ottoman navy. He fathered at least two sons; John, who died young, and Andreas, who converted to Islam.

I made this post to talk about lesser known things about early Turkish history. Many people assume that the Turks came, genocided every single person in Anatolia, and drastically changed the culture. The only difference between the Ottoman period and Byzantine period is the religion and language. (I was also very bored )

Here's a population list of Anatolia. The vast majority of Greeks were Muslims.


View: https://i.imgur.com/2VXnqD4.jpeg


This book is called "The decline of Medieval Hellenism in Anatolia" by Speros Vryonis. This book goes even deeper into the corruption of the Byzantines and why conversions were so high amongst Anatolian Greeks.

Wasn't Constantinople the richest city of the 15th century? All of Europe knew about his wealth.

 

[Balikesir]

Wasn't Constantinople the richest city of the 15th century? All of Europe knew about his wealth.

From the mid-5th century to the early 13th century, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city in Europe.

By the time the Ottomans stood at the gates of the city it wasn't.

I was speaking on the Byzantine Empire as a whole in my thread though. The Empire as a whole was a mess, which is kind of a meme nowadays with how many rebellions occurred.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

By the time the Ottomans stood at the gates of the city it wasn't.

I was speaking on the Byzantine Empire as a whole in my thread though. The Empire as a whole was a mess, which is kind of a meme nowadays with how many rebellions occurred.

Yes, but if part of the byzantine elite converted to Islam, and the Byzantine regime was so oppressive, then why did the Greeks cling to Orthodoxy for centuries under Ottoman rule and considered themselves Romans ( Romeas) the 19th century? It was only later that they began to consider themselves Greeks in order to attract more foreign support from the great powers in the struggle for independence.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

By the time the Ottomans stood at the gates of the city it wasn't.

I was speaking on the Byzantine Empire as a whole in my thread though. The Empire as a whole was a mess, which is kind of a meme nowadays with how many rebellions occurred.

And , if the last emperor chose to stay and share the fate of his soldiers, it doesn't really look like some kind of oppressive dictator. He could have taken the money with him and left and lived in prosperity in any country in Europe, but Constantine 11 decided to just go to war as an ordinary soldier and died on the battlefield.

 

[Balikesir]

Yes, but if part of the byzantine elite converted to Islam, and the Byzantine regime was so oppressive, then why did the Greeks cling to Orthodoxy for centuries under Ottoman rule and considered themselves Romans ( Romeas) the 19th century?

Those are the Balkan Greeks, they weren't impacted by the Anatolian struggle as territories like Epirus within the Empire, after the Nicaean reconquest, were independent. Only paper they weren't.

The Ottomans paid more attention to the needs of the Anatolian Greeks. I have no sources, this is an educated guess of mine. Why do I believe this? The Ottomans started out in Anatolia as the smallest of the Beyliks. If they didn't have popular support amongst the locals they would have been wiped out. Once they had reached the Balkan lands, this wasn't an issue anymore. Anatolia had a stable population of 6 million, double than that of Balkans, while the balkans was a region cursed by turmoil and constant war, leading to a smaller population. The important aspect that the Ottomans had to maintain was quenching resistances. They didn't need more men, Anatolia had plethora of such.

This doesn't mean Islam didn't reach Greece. It did, but was wiped out during the balkan wars.


View: https://imgur.com/a/1cR2lvB


(the exerts below my words convey more)

Another key topic to remember is without Christians the ottomans wouldn't have funds. Christians had to pay double the amount of taxes. Anatolia in a way was their territory for getting troops, Balkans was their lands to take money.

The devşirme system was important in the mid stages of the Empire. The jannisarries were exceptionally good soldiers. In many ways keeping a Christian population was vital for the survival of the Empire.

With participation in the Greek War of Independence and the Greek Civil War, this has led to increasing assimilation amongst the Arvanites. The common Christian Orthodox religion they shared with the rest of the local population was one of the main reasons that led to their assimilation.

It was only later that they began to consider themselves Greeks in order to attract more foreign support from the great powers in the struggle for independence.

I should've read your comment till the end
Precisely.

Here are some exerts

The Sultan regarded the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church as the leader of all Orthodox, Greeks or not, within the empire. The Patriarch was accountable to the Sultan for the good behavior of the Orthodox population, and in exchange he was given wide powers over the Orthodox communities, including the non-Greek Slavic peoples. The Patriarch controlled the courts and the schools, as well as the Church, throughout the Greek communities of the empire. This made Orthodox priests, together with the local magnates, called Prokritoi or Dimogerontes, the effective rulers of Greek towns and cities. Some Greek towns, such as Athens and Rhodes, retained municipal self-government, while others were put under Ottoman governors. Several areas, such as the Mani Peninsula in the Peloponnese, and parts of Crete (Sfakia) and Epirus, remained virtually independent.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople in general remained loyal to the Ottomans against the western threats (as for example during the Dionysios Skylosophos revolt, etc.) The Orthodox Church assisted greatly in the preservation of the Greek heritage, and adherence to the Greek Orthodox faith became increasingly a mark of Greek nationality.

As a rule, the Ottomans did not require the Greeks to become Muslims, although many did so on a superficial level in order to avert the socioeconomic hardships of Ottoman rule[14] or because of the alleged corruption of the Greek clergy.[15] The regions of Greece which had the largest concentrations of Ottoman Greek Muslims were Macedonia, notably the Vallaades, neighboring Epirus, and Crete (see Cretan Muslims). Under the millet logic, Greek Muslims, despite often retaining elements of their Greek culture and language, were classified simply as "Muslim", although most Greek Orthodox Christians deemed them to have "turned-Turk" and therefore saw them as traitors to their original ethno-religious communities.[16]

 

[MassEffectKoala]

Turkish are ethnic nons 1488

 

[Balikesir]

And , if the last emperor chose to stay and share the fate of his soldiers, it doesn't really look like some kind of oppressive dictator. He could have taken the money with him and left and lived in prosperity in any country in Europe, but Constantine 11 decided to just go to war as an ordinary soldier and died on the battlefield.

Can a tyrant not fall with his Empire? Hitler sure did.

Plenty of Romans did so in fact. 1 heroic moment doesn't prove much. The Palaiologos dynasty was bad up until John and Konstantinos. The Greeks maintained their dislike for them, because in order to maintain power, they bend the knee to the Pope.

He actually did convert to Catholicism in 1437 at the Council of Florence and the Pope did try to save Constantinople from the Ottomans by sending it Venetian troops to defend it. Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos died a Catholic.

Now I do not believe he actually converted to Catholicism. This is a stretch. But Konstantinos was planning to reunite the churches under papal jurisdiction. In essence he would betray his Orthodoxy.

As I've established in my post, the Greeks, at least the ones in Anatolia who encompass the majority of the hellenic world at the time, saw Islam in a better light than Catholicism. The hate against the west was very strong.

This was written in the third year of the reign of Constantine Palaiologos, who remains uncrowned because the church has no leader and is indeed in disarray as the result of the turmoil and confusion brought upon it by the falsely named union which his brother and predecessor John Palaiologos engineered... This union was evil and displeasing to God and has instead split the church and scattered its children and destroyed us utterly. Truth to tell, this is the source of all our other misfortunes.

Constantine and his brother John VIII before him had badly misjudged the level of opposition against the church union.[1] Loukas Notaras was successful in calming down the situation in Constantinople somewhat

I just noticed that even wikipedia has him listed as a Catholic convert. Maybe he actually did convert. I'd have to look further into that. I believed it to be a rumor.

Constantine XI Palaiologos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Can a tyrant not fall with his Empire? Hitler sure did.

Plenty of Romans did so in fact. 1 heroic moment doesn't prove much. The Palaiologos dynasty was bad up until John and Konstantinos. The Greeks maintained their dislike for them, because in order to maintain power, they bend the knee to the Pope.


Now I do not believe he actually converted to Catholicism. This is a stretch. But Konstantinos was planning to reunite the churches under papal jurisdiction. In essence he would betray his Orthodoxy.

As I've established in my post, the Greeks, at least the ones in Anatolia who encompass the majority of the hellenic world at the time, saw Islam in a better light than Catholicism. The hate against the west was very strong.



I just noticed that even wikipedia has him listed as a Catholic convert. Maybe he actually did convert. I'd have to look further into that. I believed it to be a rumor.

Constantine XI Palaiologos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thanks for the interesting conversation, I understand the history of the Ottoman Empire quite poorly, in fact, I have always studied closely mainly the history of Russia, the history of Germany and the History of Poland.

 

[Balikesir]

Thanks for the interesting conversation, I understand the history of the Ottoman Empire quite poorly, in fact, I have always studied closely mainly the history of Russia, the history of Germany and the History of Poland.

I appreciate your honesty bro

Maybe we can talk about the Russo-Turkish wars one day. I have no issues and there is no nationalism involved. I have great respect for russian people. I think we can both add perspectives that neither of us have heard before

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I appreciate your honesty bro

Maybe we can talk about the Russo-Turkish wars one day. I have no issues and there is no nationalism involved. I have great respect for russian people. I think we can both add perspectives that neither of us have heard before

In fact, most of the Russian-Turkish wars were initiated by Russia because of its obsession with the idea of a third Rome, that Russia is the true heir of Byzantium. That Russia (the Grand Duchy of Moscow), recently liberated from the Golden Horde, was the only Orthodox Christian state in the world and that the marriage of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan 3 with the niece of the last Roman Emperor Constantine 11 Sophia Palaiologos transferred to Russia the right to the legacy of Byzantium. The Russian tsars were obsessed with the idea of taking Constantinople to prove their right to the Byzantine population, they sponsored the liberation movements of the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, they spent a lot of money on wars and all for the sake of obsession with Constantinople. Alexander 2 during the war of 1877-1878 almost came close to this goal and the imperial army was already on the threshold of Istanbul (Constantinople), but Great Britain threatened war and he withdrew troops from the Balkans. Then, during the First World War, Tsar Nicholas 2 obsessively wanted to take the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, as a payment that France and England would pay Russia for participating in the Entente against the central powers. It was the obsession with Constantinople and the desire to get it at any cost that doomed the Russian Empire.Even if you look at the Russian coat of arms, it is always a double-headed eagle, the symbol of the Palaiologos dynasty, which began to be used from the time of Ivan 3 to the USSR (1924-1991) and even now it is used throughout Russian heraldry.
View: https://youtu.be/I1DToTcF9R8?si=Vy2zZ-fSFtAepCIJ


View: https://youtu.be/B8_rzd6HtiQ?si=ei2iyxfG38SPLLN1

 

[Balikesir]

In fact, most of the Russian-Turkish wars were initiated by Russia because of its obsession with the idea of a third Rome, that Russia is the true heir of Byzantium. That Russia (the Grand Duchy of Moscow), recently liberated from the Golden Horde, was the only Orthodox Christian state in the world and that the marriage of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan 3 with the niece of the last Roman Emperor Constantine 11 Sophia Palaiologos transferred to Russia the right to the legacy of Byzantium. The Russian tsars were obsessed with the idea of taking Constantinople to prove their right to the Byzantine population, they sponsored the liberation movements of the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, they spent a lot of money on wars and all for the sake of obsession with Constantinople. Alexander 2 during the war of 1877-1878 almost came close to this goal and the imperial army was already on the threshold of Istanbul (Constantinople), but Great Britain threatened war and he withdrew troops from the Balkans. Then, during the First World War, Tsar Nicholas 2 obsessively wanted to take the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, as a payment that France and England would pay Russia for participating in the Entente against the central powers. It was the obsession with Constantinople and the desire to get it at any cost that doomed the Russian Empire.Even if you look at the Russian coat of arms, it is always a double-headed eagle, the symbol of the Palaiologos dynasty, which began to be used from the time of Ivan 3 to the USSR (1924-1991) and even now it is used throughout Russian heraldry.
View: https://youtu.be/I1DToTcF9R8?si=Vy2zZ-fSFtAepCIJ


View: https://youtu.be/B8_rzd6HtiQ?si=ei2iyxfG38SPLLN1

Nice summary.

I believe it was Peter the Great who left a message for each Russian Tsar after him. The note said "Take Constantinople". Paraphrasing here.

I think its very interesting that Russia claimed it's third Rome. Slavic people generally were focused on the Byzantines.

Serbia is a good example of this. They adopted their coat of arms from the Byzantines as well.

Bulgaria has a long history of trying to become Byzantine as well. Bulgarians were promised the Byzantine crown, but were betrayed. Their Tsar went mad after this.

Kaloyan of Bulgaria - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I think Russia did a good job at capitalizing on their opportunities. Russia wasn't seen as a friend to Europe, so Peter toured European states, learning of their culture and traditions, he managed to get the Habsburg Austrians on board in his war against the Ottomans, which legitimized Russia as a European power. Seeing Austrians ally with them.

Russia liberating the Balkans from the Ottomans was another smart move that endeared them to the Balkan Slavic populace, making Russia a defender of the Slavic orthodox people. The Ottomans had to officially recognize them as this. It was the western Europeans, who grew weary of Russia and started plotting against them.

I find it fascinating how the Ottomans fell like the Byzantines did. The ottomans tried their hardest to be Byzantine successors and in the end, failed like them.

The once great Ottoman Empire which was pretty progressive for its time, had turned into a backwater rumpstate. They were rapidly losing lands, they barely had any funds and were attacked from all sides. The once mighty Jannisarries were now the new Praetorian guards, who held the Empire hostage and decided who may sit on the throne. The Ottoman reforms caused more chaos than peace and in the end the Ottomans lost everything and were expelled from Anatolia. (The Osmanoglu dynasty was exiled, but in the 70s that exile was lifted)

The Ottomans in their final stages committed atrocities against entire population who were regarded as honorable and loyal by the state. Armenians.

That backfired massively because nowadays the former armenian regions are full of Kurds who commit terrorism. (The issue is more nuanced but has more to do with Atatürk than the ottomans)

An interesting note is, much like the Byzantines, the Ottomans tried to westernize, which pissed off the populations. Old ottomans used to wear big white round hats such as these and baggy clothing


View: https://imgur.com/a/ni0qFJu


In their westernization process they copied the German uniforms (German officers came and trained the Ottoman troops, which pissed off the population again, since Islam looks down on Christians as "gavurs", but now these gavurs are invited to teach us) and used Byzantine Headwear to replace the big hats.

Ottomans used "The Fez" as its commonly referred to.


View: https://imgur.com/a/ChKiJXz


The similarities between the Ottomans and the Byzantines is quiet karmic. They rose upon the ashes of the Byzantines, and fell like them.

 

[hghcel]

quora answer copy pasta
Islamization of anatolia
Arab historian Al-Umari noted [Turkmen tents] 200,000 in Denizli, 100,000 in Kastamonu, and 30,000 in Kütahya regions.
( — 14th Century — )
By the 12th century, Western Europeans began calling Anatolia as “Turchia/Turkey”, meaning “the land of Turks”. The land took its name from the ethnicity, not the other way around. The Turkmen migration influx to Anatolia from Turkistan and Iran continued until the 16th century.

According to the Ottoman cadastral record books, the Muslim Yörük-Turkmen tribes formed 90% of Anatolia’s population in the 16th century, excluding regions such as Rumelia and Thrace. Based on these records, between 1520–1530, the total population of Anatolia was 5.7 million, formed by 7% Christians and 93% Muslims, while the nomadic Turkmen tribes constituted 5.3 million of this total figure.


In summary, the ‘Turkification’ of Anatolia was a demographic process that lasted for centuries. On the other hand, claims such as “modern-day Turks being assimilated local Christians” are mostly political and carry no weight in terms of historical facts and realities.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Turks-genetically-ancient-Anatolians-or-Anatolian-Greeks-Byzantine

 

[Balikesir]

quora answer copy pasta
Islamization of anatolia
Arab historian Al-Umari noted [Turkmen tents] 200,000 in Denizli, 100,000 in Kastamonu, and 30,000 in Kütahya regions.
( — 14th Century — )
By the 12th century, Western Europeans began calling Anatolia as “Turchia/Turkey”, meaning “the land of Turks”. The land took its name from the ethnicity, not the other way around. The Turkmen migration influx to Anatolia from Turkistan and Iran continued until the 16th century.

According to the Ottoman cadastral record books, the Muslim Yörük-Turkmen tribes formed 90% of Anatolia’s population in the 16th century, excluding regions such as Rumelia and Thrace. Based on these records, between 1520–1530, the total population of Anatolia was 5.7 million, formed by 7% Christians and 93% Muslims, while the nomadic Turkmen tribes constituted 5.3 million of this total figure.


In summary, the ‘Turkification’ of Anatolia was a demographic process that lasted for centuries. On the other hand, claims such as “modern-day Turks being assimilated local Christians” are mostly political and carry no weight in terms of historical facts and realities.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Turks-genetically-ancient-Anatolians-or-Anatolian-Greeks-Byzantine

Thank you for adding nothing to my post. A person that can't think for himself. There's no data to support any of this gibberish.

Dna data from every single Turkish person supports a complete opposite. The official Turkish DNA project claims this as well.

This is common sense. Turks don't look asiatic, if we are predominantly east asian we'd look the part. Dna tests confirm this obviousness.

I have also added books and links in my thread that you've ignored. Welcome to my ignore list. Idiot.

 

[MassEffectKoala]

Can a tyrant not fall with his Empire? Hitler sure did.

Plenty of Romans did so in fact. 1 heroic moment doesn't prove much. The Palaiologos dynasty was bad up until John and Konstantinos. The Greeks maintained their dislike for them, because in order to maintain power, they bend the knee to the Pope.


Now I do not believe he actually converted to Catholicism. This is a stretch. But Konstantinos was planning to reunite the churches under papal jurisdiction. In essence he would betray his Orthodoxy.

As I've established in my post, the Greeks, at least the ones in Anatolia who encompass the majority of the hellenic world at the time, saw Islam in a better light than Catholicism. The hate against the west was very strong.



I just noticed that even wikipedia has him listed as a Catholic convert. Maybe he actually did convert. I'd have to look further into that. I believed it to be a rumor.

Constantine XI Palaiologos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[hghcel]

Thank you for adding nothing to my post. A person that can't think for himself. There's no data to support any of this gibberish.

Dna data from every single Turkish person supports a complete opposite. The official Turkish DNA project claims this as well.

View attachment 1307088
View attachment 1307089
View attachment 1307090

This is common sense. Turks don't look asiatic, if we are predominantly east asian we'd look the part. Dna tests confirm this obviousness.

I have also added books and links in my thread that you've ignored. Welcome to my ignore list. Idiot.

No one was talking about asiatic turkmen as turkmen warrant fully asiatic. U will never be white or European and funny how u say I can’t think for myself for quoting others while u do the same but with cope material. Turks are 15-20% Asian on.
What’s the point of ignoring if ur gonna press show post everytime? Like u do with others that u ignore u insecure roach.

 

[Balikesir]

I can upload images normal now. Here are they in normal format.

 

[ReconElement]

More turkics invaded India numerically speaking with huge armies and empires part fueled by men and mounts fleeing from Mongol armies and even before that than they did to Anatolia, but Indian Turkic empires never were divided into individual beyliks or into feudal lords they were impressively centralised but fratricide and regicide was very common with regular usurpations

 

[Balikesir]

More turkics invaded India numerically speaking with huge armies and empires part fueled by men and mounts fleeing from Mongol armies and even before that than they did to Anatolia, but Indian Turkic empires never were divided into individual beyliks or into feudal lords they were impressively centralised but fratricide and regicide was very common with regular usurpations

Thats how the term Hindu Kush came about. I think it means 'Hindu slayer'. The Turks were large in force and could kill many local people. They didn't need popularity. they couldn't afford to do this in Anatolia because they were very outnumbered and needed popular support.

Indian Turkic history is very unique. Baybars

 

[ReconElement]

Thats how the term Hindu Kush came about. I think it means 'Hindu slayer'. The Turks were large in force and could kill many local people. They didn't need popularity. they couldn't afford to do this in Anatolia because they were very outnumbered and needed popular support.

Indian Turkic history is very unique. Baybars

Indian Turkic history is as you said very brutal as well, it was a genocide partly fuelled by newly acquired Muslim believes the Turks who invaded before and even in Central Asia and even during the arab conquests like the Hindu Shahis or Turk Shahis or even the Huns were some of the ardent worshippers of Shiva and persecuted Buddhists wholesalely massacring them so it's not something new for them to kill for their beliefs, Mihirikula, Toramana and some other Turkic hindu hun kings comes to my mind

 

[ReconElement]

Indian Turkic history is very unique. Baybars

But baybar was an Egyptian mameluke not Indian idk

 

[Balikesir]

Indian Turkic history is as you said very brutal as well, it was a genocide partly fuelled by newly acquired Muslim believes the Turks who invaded before and even in Central Asia and even during the arab conquests like the Hindu Shahis or Turk Shahis or even the Huns were some of the ardent worshippers of Shiva and persecuted Buddhists wholesalely massacring them so it's not something new for them to kill for their beliefs, Mihirikula, Toramana and some other Turkic hun kings comes to my mind

what is interesting too is that the Turks bred out in India/Pakistan. There's no turkic blood on average in these places.

Turks outside of Central Asia bred out. Cumans, Peçeneks even Oghuz Turks in Anatolia bred out because Anatolia is heavily non oghuz.

Pakistanis from what I see online like Turks a lot. They claim Turkic ancestry too. This shows that religion is the fundament of an ethnic identity. If Pakistanis weren't Muslim, they would hate Turks.

 

[Balikesir]

But baybar was an Egyptian mameluke not Indian idk

Sorry I confused him with Babur. The mughal founder.

 

[ReconElement]

what is interesting too is that the Turks bred out in India/Pakistan. There's no turkic blood on average in these places.

Turks outside of Central Asia bred out. Cumans, Peçeneks even Oghuz Turks in Anatolia bred out because Anatolia is heavily non oghuz.

Pakistanis from what I see online like Turks a lot. They claim Turkic ancestry too. This shows that religion is the fundament of an ethnic identity. If Pakistanis weren't Muslim, they would hate Turks.

Tbh, Ordu or Hindustani is a mix of local hindi Indian tongue with Central Asian Turkic so many of their words and customs and ways of life have become integral parts of Indian Hanafi Islam like for example Turkic ancestor worship which inspired a lot of Sufi saint worship cults as well as words like Begum, Khatun, Khan and what not plus in some Indian languages they have picked up intra Turkic racism as well like in Bengali Uzbek is a slur for a fool so the Turks who invaded Bengal those tribes probably hated Uzbeks, Turkoman Ottoman and Seljuk Turkic people would not even know these intra Turkic racism cos only Turkomans invaded Anatolia meanwhile in India it was multiple tribes and ethnicities of Turks

 

[ReconElement]

Sorry I confused him with Babur. The mughal founder.

Baybar Bandukdari is no less than Babur, i'd say militarily he was much more dangerous than Babur with his gun wielding and knowledge of Turko-Mongol tactics

 

[Balikesir]

Tbh, Ordu or Hindustani is a mix of local hindi Indian tongue with Central Asian Turkic so many of their words and customs and ways of life have become integral parts of Indian Hanafi Islam like for example Turkic ancestor worship which inspired a lot of Sufi saint worship cults as well as words like Begum, Khatun, Khan and what not plus in some Indian languages they have picked up intra Turkic racism as well like in Bengali Uzbek is a slur for a fool so the Turks who invaded Bengal those tribes probably hated Uzbeks, Turkoman Ottoman and Seljuk Turkic people would not even know these intra Turkic racism cos only Turkomans invaded Anatolia meanwhile in India it was multiple tribes and ethnicities of Turks

Bro this is awesome knowledge. I didn't know any of this

 

[ReconElement]

Bro this is awesome knowledge. I didn't know any of this

I'm very interested in the people of the steppes from the Turks to the Aryans if you're interested we can have many interesting conversations

 

[ReconElement]

what is interesting too is that the Turks bred out in India/Pakistan. There's no turkic blood on average in these places.

Turks outside of Central Asia bred out. Cumans, Peçeneks even Oghuz Turks in Anatolia bred out because Anatolia is heavily non oghuz.

Pakistanis from what I see online like Turks a lot. They claim Turkic ancestry too. This shows that religion is the fundament of an ethnic identity. If Pakistanis weren't Muslim, they would hate Turks.

The Turks were known to Indians by their common identity as Turushkas, calling them muslims is a very latest phenomenon only some of them called themselves muslims as well, a very 18th century thing and even after that they were known to local scribes and kings as Turushkas and not muslims all though everyone knew they were muslims by faith

 

[Balikesir]

I'm very interested in the people of the steppes from the Turks to the Aryans if you're interested we can have many interesting conversations

Speaking of steppe people in India.

I know of the Khotanese Saka people. This is where we know the language the Scythians spoke from their letters. We have dna from them and they are very mixed with Indian people.

 

[ReconElement]

Speaking of steppe people in India.

I know of the Khotanese Saka people. This is where we know the language the Scythians spoke from their letters. We have dna from them and they are very mixed with Indian people.

The modern Indian identity from Hinduism to its philosophy and mathematics and all of high culture is a product of the steppe, in India Hinduism vs Islam is just 1500 BC Steppe culture vs 1000 AD steppe culture

 

[Balikesir]

The Turks were known to Indians by their common identity as Turushkas, calling them muslims is a very latest phenomenon only some of them called themselves muslims as well, a very 18th century thing and even after that they were known to local scribes and kings as Turushkas and not muslims all though everyone knew they were muslims by faith

This is the opposite for Anatolia. In Anatolia the turk was Muslim. If you were a muslim Balkan person, a Greek or anything else, they would call you Turk.

Greeks referred to Albanians who were muslim as "Turk Alvanois' Turco-Albanians. The serb Muslims were named Turks as well. What made someone a Turk was Islam.

Turco-Albanian - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The ottomans did not like the turk name as it was barbaric. The Turks were an uncultured nomadic people. Only the anatolian villagers called themselves Turks. Nowadays they're called Yörüks

Yörüks - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In contrast, the term "Turk" (Türk) was used to refer to the Anatolian peasant and tribal population and was seen as a disparaging term when applied to urban, educated individuals.

 

[Balikesir]

The modern Indian identity from Hinduism to its philosophy and mathematics and all of high culture is a product of the steppe, in India Hinduism vs Islam is just 1500 BC Steppe culture vs 1000 AD steppe culture

The ancient aryans.

What do you think of modern europeans who identify as aryans? I have spoken with many Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians and they find it ridiculous because the europeans, in their words, have no ties to these indo Iranian cultures.

 

[ReconElement]

The ancient aryans.

What do you think of modern europeans who identify as aryans? I have spoken with many Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians and they find it ridiculous because the europeans, in their words, have no ties to these indo Iranian cultures.

Tbh yea, it's ridiculous but each to their own they just think in the terms of skin colour, I mean we have records between a war between early Indo Iranians and Indo Aryans known as the war of ten kings it was fought cos the Indo Iranians saw fire as a sacred thing and no incantations, rituals or offerings can be given to it meanwhile the Indo Aryans would observe this thing, this schism later evolved into the Zorastrian religion where they rejected Indra and the daevas and began worshipping the Asuras(Ahura in Avestan) I mean who'd explain this thing to a white euro who's least interested on what happened before the rise of Cyrus and Zoraster and how the Aryan way of fighting was considerably different than the Mediterranean way of fighting and how it was made to counter early Turkics and other Indo European tribes from the north and was heavy in missile weapons

 

[ReconElement]

This is the opposite for Anatolia. In Anatolia the turk was Muslim. If you were a muslim Balkan person, a Greek or anything else, they would call you Turk.

Greeks referred to Albanians who were muslim as "Turk Alvanois' Turco-Albanians. The serb Muslims were named Turks as well. What made someone a Turk was Islam.

Turco-Albanian - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The ottomans did not like the turk name as it was barbaric. The Turks were an uncultured nomadic people. Only the anatolian villagers called themselves Turks. Nowadays they're called Yörüks

Yörüks - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The problem was the Turkics in India were islamic and persophiles so they were not very enamoured by local customs and traditions although somewhere and sought to make great connections, the Ottomans and Seljuks even though they liked the legitimacy of Roman heritage somewhat they were also persophiles modern Turkish identity was only revived cos the Turks wouldn't get the difference on why they and the Turkic Safavids were fighting especially the lower beys and troops so Turks went out of their way to reject Persian high culture to revive Turkish high culture as its own thing and for that they were ridiculed by both the Mughal and Safavid courts who saw themselves as the three civilised Turkic Empires

 

[Balikesir]

Tbh yea, it's ridiculous but each to their own they just think in the terms of skin colour, I mean we have records between a war between early Indo Iranians and Indo Aryans known as the war of ten kings it was fought cos the Indo Iranians saw fire as a sacred thing and no incantations, rituals or offerings can be given to it meanwhile the Indo Aryans would observe this thing, this schism later evolved into the Zorastrian religion where they rejected Indra and the daevas and began worshipping the Asuras(Ahura in Avestan) I mean who'd explain this thing to a white euro who's least interested on what happened before the rise of Cyrus and Zoraster and how the Aryan way of fighting was considerably different than the Mediterranean way of fighting and how it was made to counter early Turkics and other Indo European tribes from the north and was heavy in missile weapons

The Seljuks identified strongly with Aryan too.

"When Seljuks became masters of the Muslim world, they said: "We are of the Kinik tribe of the Turkmens," and then they said, "We fled from Kay Khosrow, the son of Afrasiab, and became the Kinik tribe of the Turkmens." The Seljuks counted their fathers and stopped at Afrasiab after 35 generations, saying that they were the sons and descendants of Afrasiab."[10]

The term 'Turan' is iranian as well.

There's a difference here. These are the Seljuks of Central Asia. The seljuks of rum are the ones in Anatolia who married Greeks and integrated into the local culture.

 

[ReconElement]

The Seljuks identified strongly with Aryan too.

The term 'Turan' is iranian as well.

There's a difference here. These are the Seljuks of Central Asia. The seljuks of rum are the ones in Anatolia who married Greeks and integrated into the local culture.

Turks were massive persophiles and were always interested to identify themselves as descendants of famous Iranian tribes and conquerors, especially turkics who ruled over Persia, Middle East, India and Central Asia although in the later years this theme began to change in India some Mughal princes and emperors began to eulogise Indian myths and heroes but it was only in the Mid Mughal Era from 1000s to 1500s turkics were massive persophiles, Anatolian turkics were a minority and not even that important in the Turkic world until the rise of Ottomans and when Europeans really came to dominate central and eastern Europe don't forget the Tatars aka Turkics terrorized slavs and eastern Europeans very badly. Also the region of Turan is Central Asia so they were really Turanians.

 

[Balikesir]

The problem was the Turkics in India were islamic and persophiles so they were not very enamoured by local customs and traditions although somewhere and sought to make great connections, the Ottomans and Seljuks even though they liked the legitimacy of Roman heritage somewhat they were also persophiles modern Turkish identity was only revived cos the Turks wouldn't get the difference on why they and the Turkic Safavids were fighting especially the lower beys and troops so Turks went out of their way to reject Persian high culture to revive Turkish high culture as its own thing and for that they were ridiculed by both the Mughal and Safavid courts who saw themselves as the three civilised Turkic Empires

The Safavid wars were fueled by the conflict between Shia and Sunni sects of Islam.

It is an interesting position the ottomans choose. If you listen to modern Turanist nationalist they will make you believe the Ottomans fought for ethnic Turanism. This isn't true at all. The Ottomans expelled and massacred Shia Turkmens. In Anatolia there was one notable Shia warrior called Shahkulu

Şahkulu - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In the end the Turkmens lost in Anatolia, were expelled and to replace the empty eastern part of modern Turkey, Selim the grim invited the Kurds. Kurds were sunni and our allies. Ottomans were very focused on religion. Shah Ismail was focused on ethnicity and wrote poems in Turkmen. Selim wrote poems in Persian. Very funny difference i think.

 

[ReconElement]

The Safavid wars were fueled by the conflict between Shia and Sunni sects of Islam.

It is an interesting position the ottomans choose. If you listen to modern Turanist nationalist they will make you believe the Ottomans fought for ethnic Turanism. This isn't true at all. The Ottomans expelled and massacred Shia Turkmens. In Anatolia there was one notable Shia warrior called Shahkulu

Şahkulu - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In the end the Turkmens lost in Anatolia, were expelled and to replace the empty eastern part of modern Turkey, Selim the grim invited the Kurds. Kurds were sunni and our allies. Ottomans were very focused on religion. Shah Ismail was focused on ethnicity and wrote poems in Turkmen. Selim wrote poems in Persian. Very funny difference i think.

Yea but afaik it's only after safavids choose to convert everyone to Shiism jfl, why would you do that? Was this conflict even before that or just flared up cos safavids were shia fanatics?

 

[ReconElement]

The Safavid wars were fueled by the conflict between Shia and Sunni sects of Islam.

It is an interesting position the ottomans choose. If you listen to modern Turanist nationalist they will make you believe the Ottomans fought for ethnic Turanism. This isn't true at all. The Ottomans expelled and massacred Shia Turkmens. In Anatolia there was one notable Shia warrior called Shahkulu

Şahkulu - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In the end the Turkmens lost in Anatolia, were expelled and to replace the empty eastern part of modern Turkey, Selim the grim invited the Kurds. Kurds were sunni and our allies. Ottomans were very focused on religion. Shah Ismail was focused on ethnicity and wrote poems in Turkmen. Selim wrote poems in Persian. Very funny difference i think.

Mughals on the other hand really tried to hold on to their Chagatai Mongol and Timurid Identity they had hindus to fight so they had no time to brew wars with Shia Persian Safavids I think jfl tbh, Safavids even helped Babur's descendant

 

[Balikesir]

Turks were massive persophiles and were always interested to identify themselves as descendants of famous Iranian tribes and conquerors, especially turkics who ruled over Persia, Middle East, India and Central Asia although in the later years this theme began to change in India some Mughal princes and emperors began to eulogise Indian myths and heroes but it was only in the Mid Mughal Era from 1000s to 1500s turkics were massive persophiles, Anatolian turkics were a minority and not even that important in the Turkic world until the rise of Ottomans and when Europeans really came to dominate central and eastern Europe don't forget the Tatars aka Turkics terrorized slavs and eastern Europeans very badly. Also the region of Turan is Central Asia so they were really Turanians.

Great comment. The Turks were very fascinated by Persians. You can tell by looking at modern Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The culture, architecture is very Persian. The love Turks had for Persian art, culture and history cannot be denied.

The Anatolian Turcomans were an insignificant group that was busy with infighting in Anatolia. The smart move the ottomans did, what differentiated them from the rest, was that they capitalized on the balkan infighting and claimed the balkan lands. They grew rich with European lands and afterwards headed east and took the rest of the small bickering beyliks with relative ease.

The Tatars used to kidnap Slavic women in Crimean coast and ship them off to Constantinople. They are quite brutal.

 

[ReconElement]

Great comment. The Turks were very fascinated by Persians. You can tell by looking at modern Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The culture, architecture is very Persian. The love Turks had for Persian art, culture and history cannot be denied.

The Anatolian Turcomans were an insignificant group that was busy with infighting in Anatolia. The smart move the ottomans did, what differentiated them from the rest, was that they capitalized on the balkan infighting and claimed the balkan lands. They grew rich with European lands and afterwards headed east and took the rest of the small bickering beyliks with relative ease.

The Tatars used to kidnap Slavic women in Crimean coast and ship them off to Constantinople. They are quite brutal.

They were very enamored by Persian women cos of their big eyes, hairy bodies, lots of pubic hair with pink slits lmao, their long black curls and side whiskers lmao, meanwhile Anatolian Turcomans were very attracted to European foids with their pubes shaven and bodies polished, pink nipples, puffy boobs and fleshy pale bodies and lighter hairs

 

[Balikesir]

Yea but afaik it's only after safavids choose to convert everyone to Shiism jfl, why would you do that? Was this conflict even before that or just flared up cos safavids were shia fanatics?

The Ottomans at that point had become the caliphs of the Sunni world. The demonstrate this power they tried to take out their main rival.

Its important to remember that eastern turkey was very Shia. The ottomans massacred these people, which caused the Safavids to retaliate and do the same.

Selim, the sultan at the time, was known for his brutality. He is called Yavuz Selim in Turkish. Meaning Selim the Grim. Selim had killed 15 Pashas in his short reign as sultan. Pashas were your ministers. Imagine Joe Biden executing 15 vice presidents.

Later the Turks would cross over to Iran and take it. They succeeded in a pyrrhic victory. Iran was too mountainous and the ottomans quickly lost their gains. Selim relied on the Jannisarries, but in such a mountainous terrain, no one found success. This is also an issue the allies had in Anatolia during the great war.

 

[ReconElement]

The Ottomans at that point had become the caliphs of the Sunni world. The demonstrate this power they tried to take out their main rival.

Its important to remember that eastern turkey was very Shia. The ottomans massacred these people, which caused the Safavids to retaliate and do the same.

Selim, the sultan at the time, was known for his brutality. He is called Yavuz Selim in Turkish. Meaning Selim the Grim. Selim had killed 15 Pashas in his short reign as sultan. Pashas were your ministers. Imagine Joe Biden executing 15 vice presidents.

Later the Turks would cross over to Iran and take it. They succeeded in a pyrrhic victory. Iran was too mountainous and the ottomans quickly lost their gains. Selim relied on the Jannisarries, but in such a mountainous terrain, no one found success. This is also an issue the allies had in Anatolia during the great war.

So for this single Ottoman sultan, now the Ayatollahs are ruling Iran jfl, sending this to a nationalist Persian right now, he'll hate the Turks even more

 

[Balikesir]

They were very enamored by Persian women cos of their big eyes, hairy bodies, lots of pubic hair with pink slits lmao, their long black curls and side whiskers lmao, meanwhile Anatolian Turcomans were very attracted to European foids with their pubes shaven and bodies polished, pink nipples, puffy boobs and fleshy pale bodies and lighter hairs

Yes.

The Byzantines noted this as well. They wrote that the Turks seem to hate their own women, because turks would only marry Greeks. This is why modern Turks are predominantly local. The invaders loved the natives too much

 

[ReconElement]

Yes.

The Byzantines noted this as well. They wrote that the Turks seem to hate their own women, because turks would only marry Greeks. This is why modern Turks are predominantly local. The invaders loved the natives too much

Turkics were part asian so their women were most probably flat and uncultured so can't blame them for not marrying some Turkic whore unless she's the daughter of some Bey or Khan

 

[Balikesir]

So for this single Ottoman sultan, now the Ayatollahs are ruling Iran jfl, sending this to a nationalist Persian right now, he'll hate the Turks even more

Trust me its good the Ottomans lost. The fall of the Ottoman empire was a total disaster that led to many genocides. Iran would be in the same spot. The Ottomans could never hold Anatolia, former byzantine lands and Persia at the same time. The ottomans could barely hold Hungary. A country at their doorstep.

Iran would fall into another extremist state I believe. Fueled by anti sunism. They'd be shia again.

 

[Balikesir]

Turkics were part asian so their women were most probably flat and uncultured so can't blame them for not marrying some Turkic whore unless she's the daughter of some Bey or Khan

True.