Why did the Anatolians submitted so easily to the Mongoloid Turks?

Jul 2015
679
Near East
#4
then why are you opening a thread about it? You won't understand it anyway. Right?
I suggest ignoring that agenda-driven novice. He is a Punjabi chauvinist whose existence on Historum is solely dedicated to disparaging other nations and claiming that many modern ethnic groups are not "real", and he often does so by asking stupid questions or posting pictures of random people in order to make a point about "race". Not surprising, given that Punjab was under the boots of foreign rulers throughout most of its pathetic history, so we get a lot of Punjabis trying to compensate for their historical inferiority.
 
Jul 2014
1,834
Yes
#5
I suggest ignoring that agenda-driven novice. He is a Punjabi chauvinist whose existence on Historum is solely dedicated to disparaging other nations and claiming that many modern ethnic groups are not "real", and he often does so by asking stupid questions or posting pictures of random people in order to make a point about "race". Not surprising, given that Punjab was under the boots of foreign rulers throughout most of its pathetic history, so we get a lot of Punjabis trying to compensate for their historical inferiority.
Hi Kartir
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,669
USA
#7
It is an interesting topic. Byzantines lost at Manzikert in 1171, and Constantinople was conquered in 1453. The elapsed time is 282 years. During this time almost all the population of Anatolia seemed to have lost their self-identity. Not only had they become Muslims, but they also seemed to have adopted a new identity - Turks. It is one of the most remarkable transformations of a people in history.

I would like to know how it all happened.
 
Aug 2014
1,009
Canada
#9
Great topic - this has always been a puzzle to me ! The Greek-speakers of the Eastern Roman Empire in fairly heavily populated Anatolia were clearly not all killed off and ethnically cleansed. Yet, what we find a 1000 years later is that the descendants of the same people - inheritors of a magnificent Greco-Roman heritage extending to at least 1000 BC, having discarded all remnants of their original culture, religion and heritage and now speaking a language from outer Mongolia and following a new religion.

We may understand this process in the present by observing Pakistan - this is why probably the topic fascinates Indians and those of Indian descent. What is today the contiguous area of Pakistan was until 1947 racially, culturally and linguistically indistinguishable from what is now known as North India. Yet, even just 68 years later, the Pakistani Urdu has been de-Sanskritized and re-Arabized, the culture is now barely recognizable with its emphasis on minority persecution and increasingly radical forms of Islam. And the populace is taught/wants to believe that they are all descended from Arabs.

Say what you might about the Persians, they are not this UNTRUE to themselves and their heritage. At least, they celebrate the Pre-Islamic Nowruz, name their children after their Pre-Islamic Kings and hold on to the slightly unique Twelver strain of the Islamic religion (as contrasted with the dominant adherents of the Sunnah in the Islamic world).
 
Aug 2013
298
Germany
#10
After all these civilisations this is beyond my understanding.
Turks weren't fully Mongoloid when they migrated to Anatolia. They were phenotypically Eurasian and if we look at genetics of modern Turkmens we can assume they were genetically even more Caucasoid than Mongoloid. Turkmens mixed with indigenous Anatolians which diluted their Mongoloid genes and that's the reason why modern Turks look more Caucasian .
 

Similar History Discussions