Had the Byzantine Empire managed to survive and to hold onto Anatolia up to the present-day, would the present-day inhabitants of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have identified themselves en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than as Turks? With a strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?

On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
"Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
"Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
Turks in Anatolia.

Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:13:35 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
> survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
> present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
> identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
> as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
> The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
> "Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
> as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
> "Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
> Turks in Anatolia.
>
> Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
> they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

So, how would the residents of Anatolia identify themselves in this TL other than as Romans?

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:13:35 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
>> survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
>> present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
>> identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
>> as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
>> The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
>> "Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
>> as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
>> "Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
>> Turks in Anatolia.
>>
>> Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
>> they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.
>>
>> --
>> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
>> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
>
>So, how would the residents of Anatolia identify themselves in this TL other than as Romans?

Probably as they did in OTL : Romans politically, personally by
whatever ethnic heritage: Greek, Thracian, Galician, Syrian, etc and
so forth.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:13:30 -0500
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
>survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
>present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
>identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
>as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
>The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
>"Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
>as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
>"Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
>Turks in Anatolia.
>
>Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
>they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.

And the "Franks"
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 14:56:16 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:13:30 -0500
> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
>>survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
>>present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
>>identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
>>as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
>>The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
>>"Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
>>as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
>>"Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
>>Turks in Anatolia.
>>
>>Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
>>they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.
>
> And the "Franks"

Genetic studies of Turks today show that they are very close to Greeks.
This fact is clearly not pleasing to Turks today.

For the Byzantine Empire to survive, it does not need to convert these
people to Byzantinians. If it can do that, then the Greek population
outside of the region would be a feeder population for Anatolia today.

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:03:15 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 14:56:16 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:13:30 -0500
>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
>>>survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
>>>present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
>>>identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
>>>as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
>>>The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
>>>"Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
>>>as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
>>>"Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
>>>Turks in Anatolia.
>>>
>>>Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
>>>they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.
>>
>> And the "Franks"
>
>Genetic studies of Turks today show that they are very close to Greeks.
>This fact is clearly not pleasing to Turks today.

Or to the Greeks, for that matter.

>For the Byzantine Empire to survive, it does not need to convert these
>people to Byzantinians. If it can do that, then the Greek population
>outside of the region would be a feeder population for Anatolia today.

Detail - "Byzantine" is a term applied by westerners afterwards.
They considered themselves Roman. Greek speaking Romans, perhaps, but
Romans never the less. Just as in the Good Old Days when the Empire
surrounded the entire "middle of the world sea". Various parts of the
Empire had regional languages and cultures, but were still "Roman" and
the Educated used Greek (much as all Europeans who mattered spoke
Latin a thousand years after the Western Empire collapsed, or French
in the 18th & 19th century).
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 21:28:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:03:15 +1000 typed
> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 14:56:16 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>>> Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:13:30 -0500
>>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
>>>>survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
>>>>present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
>>>>identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
>>>>as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
>>>>The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
>>>>"Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
>>>>as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
>>>>"Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
>>>>Turks in Anatolia.
>>>>
>>>>Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
>>>>they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.
>>>
>>> And the "Franks"
>>
>>Genetic studies of Turks today show that they are very close to Greeks.
>>This fact is clearly not pleasing to Turks today.
>
> Or to the Greeks, for that matter.
>
>
>>For the Byzantine Empire to survive, it does not need to convert these
>>people to Byzantinians. If it can do that, then the Greek population
>>outside of the region would be a feeder population for Anatolia today.
>
> Detail - "Byzantine" is a term applied by westerners afterwards.
> They considered themselves Roman. Greek speaking Romans, perhaps, but
> Romans never the less. Just as in the Good Old Days when the Empire
> surrounded the entire "middle of the world sea". Various parts of the
> Empire had regional languages and cultures, but were still "Roman" and
> the Educated used Greek (much as all Europeans who mattered spoke
> Latin a thousand years after the Western Empire collapsed, or French
> in the 18th & 19th century).

Until the modern Greek State was established, many locals *Greeks now*
considered themselves Romans.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:43:04 PM UTC-7, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 21:28:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
> > SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> on Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:03:15 +1000 typed
> > in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 14:56:16 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >>
> >>> Rich Rostrom <rros...@comcast.net> on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:13:30 -0500
> >>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >>>>On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
> >>>>survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
> >>>>present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
> >>>>identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
> >>>>as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
> >>>>The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
> >>>>"Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
> >>>>as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
> >>>>"Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
> >>>>Turks in Anatolia.
> >>>>
> >>>>Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
> >>>>they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.
> >>>
> >>> And the "Franks"
> >>
> >>Genetic studies of Turks today show that they are very close to Greeks.
> >>This fact is clearly not pleasing to Turks today.
> >
> > Or to the Greeks, for that matter.
> >
> >
> >>For the Byzantine Empire to survive, it does not need to convert these
> >>people to Byzantinians. If it can do that, then the Greek population
> >>outside of the region would be a feeder population for Anatolia today.
> >
> > Detail - "Byzantine" is a term applied by westerners afterwards.
> > They considered themselves Roman. Greek speaking Romans, perhaps, but
> > Romans never the less. Just as in the Good Old Days when the Empire
> > surrounded the entire "middle of the world sea". Various parts of the
> > Empire had regional languages and cultures, but were still "Roman" and
> > the Educated used Greek (much as all Europeans who mattered spoke
> > Latin a thousand years after the Western Empire collapsed, or French
> > in the 18th & 19th century).
> Until the modern Greek State was established, many locals *Greeks now*
> considered themselves Romans.

Now?

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:03:15 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>
>>>Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
>>>they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.
>>
>> And the "Franks"
>
>
>
>Genetic studies of Turks today show that they are very close to Greeks.
>This fact is clearly not pleasing to Turks today.

This is very disturbing to both groups. But in 1922 when the
various ethnic groups repatriated it was largely done on the grounds
of Religion: Muslim = Turk, Orthodox = Greek.
What the Greeks (and Turks) do not want to admit is that with the
fall of the Empire and the establishment of the Sultanate, a lot of
Greeks decided for various reasons to become Muslim: to lighten their
taxes, career / education opportunities closed off to dhimmis, social
pressures, etc, etc. All the usual reasons for assimilation to the
dominate culture.
So by 1922, there were a lot of genetically Greek Muslims in
Anatolia (and Hellas), just as there were still culturally Greek
Orthodox in Anatolia whose ancestors may have come from Hellas before
the Romans invaded.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 11:43:04 PM UTC-7, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 21:28:51 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>> > SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> on Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:03:15 +1000 typed
>> > in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> >>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 14:56:16 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Rich Rostrom <rros...@comcast.net> on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:13:30 -0500
>> >>> typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>> >>>>On 6/30/21 3:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:> Had the Byzantine Empire managed to
>> >>>>survive and to hold onto> Anatolia up to the present-day, would the
>> >>>>present-day inhabitants> of Anatolia (now Turkey in real life) have
>> >>>>identified themselves> en masse as Greeks and/or as Romans rather than
>> >>>>as Turks? With a> strong sense of brotherhood with Greece?
>> >>>>The whole area would be considered "Roman" in the sense of
>> >>>>"Romaoi". There would be no "Greek" (Hellenic") nationalism
>> >>>>as such. There would be an ethnic consciousness, differentiating
>> >>>>"Hellenes" from Armenians, Albanians, Slavs, and any Kurds or
>> >>>>Turks in Anatolia.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Though one would think that for the Byzantines to keep Anatolia,
>> >>>>they have to keep the Turks and Kurds out.
>> >>>
>> >>> And the "Franks"
>> >>
>> >>Genetic studies of Turks today show that they are very close to Greeks.
>> >>This fact is clearly not pleasing to Turks today.
>> >
>> > Or to the Greeks, for that matter.
>> >
>> >
>> >>For the Byzantine Empire to survive, it does not need to convert these
>> >>people to Byzantinians. If it can do that, then the Greek population
>> >>outside of the region would be a feeder population for Anatolia today.
>> >
>> > Detail - "Byzantine" is a term applied by westerners afterwards.
>> > They considered themselves Roman. Greek speaking Romans, perhaps, but
>> > Romans never the less. Just as in the Good Old Days when the Empire
>> > surrounded the entire "middle of the world sea". Various parts of the
>> > Empire had regional languages and cultures, but were still "Roman" and
>> > the Educated used Greek (much as all Europeans who mattered spoke
>> > Latin a thousand years after the Western Empire collapsed, or French
>> > in the 18th & 19th century).
>> Until the modern Greek State was established, many locals *Greeks now*
>> considered themselves Romans.
>
>Now?

Under the Ottomans, Christians were considered "an ethnic group" -
"Roman". Even if, as under the Romans, they had been "Romans of Greek
/ Thracian/ Syrian /etc Heritage."

With the rise of nationalism, the residents of "Hellas" began to
identify as "Greek" to the extent that for many still "GreekOrthodox"
is one word. Following the establishment of the Turkish Republic and
the defeat of the Greek Army, many "Greeks" still in Anatolia were
"repatriated" to their "homeland", never mind if they had been there
since before the Sultan.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 7/10/21 9:32 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Under the Ottomans, Christians were considered "an ethnic group" -
> "Roman".

That's nonsense. The Empire had a _millet_ for each non-Moslem
religious group. Eastern Catholics were one, Armenians another,
Maronites another, Jews yet another.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> on Sun, 11 Jul 2021 13:41:08 -0500
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On 7/10/21 9:32 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Under the Ottomans, Christians were considered "an ethnic group" -
>> "Roman".
>
>That's nonsense. The Empire had a _millet_ for each non-Moslem
>religious group. Eastern Catholics were one, Armenians another,
>Maronites another, Jews yet another.

True. OTOH, in Istanbul and Anatolia "Christian" mapped to
"Orthodox". At least in the 15th century.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"