Why were most Anatolians Turkified but most Greeks in Greece weren't?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,091
SoCal
#1
Why were most Anatolians Turkified but most Greeks in Greece weren't? Both Anatolia and Greece were under Ottoman rule for centuries, and yet the Christian presence in Anatolia by the early 20th century was relatively minor (especially for Greek Christians--Armenian Christians were a bit more numerous, I believe) while Greeks in Greece retained enough of their national identity to stage a successful uprising against the Ottomans in the early 19th century and then to subsequently expand their territory further north.

Why did Anatolia and Greece experience vastly different outcomes in regards to Turkification--especially considering that both of them were previously largely Greek-speaking?
 
Apr 2017
1,399
U.S.A.
#2
Proximity and time. Anatolia was conquered by the turks hundreds of years before Greece and the nomadic turks settled in large numbers there. By the time the Ottomans conquered Greece proper they were a more settled people. There were actually many turks settled in Greece, many fled after independence and with the greek-turk population exchange. Others were assimilated or are still there, just refereed to as "muslim greeks."
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,091
SoCal
#3
Proximity and time. Anatolia was conquered by the turks hundreds of years before Greece and the nomadic turks settled in large numbers there. By the time the Ottomans conquered Greece proper they were a more settled people. There were actually many turks settled in Greece, many fled after independence and with the greek-turk population exchange. Others were assimilated or are still there, just refereed to as "muslim greeks."
What was the Muslim percentage in Greece in or around 1800? Do you know?
 
Oct 2015
838
Virginia
#5
The 1919-1922 Graeco-Turkish war involved appalling massacres, "ethnic cleansing" and the exchange of 1,200,000+ Greeks and ethnic Turkish christians from Anatolia to European Greece, and about 400,000 muslim Turks from Greece to Anatolia.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,098
Republika Srpska
#6
especially for Greek Christians--Armenian Christians were a bit more numerous
According to the 1914 Ottoman census, there were 1,792,206 Greeks (Orthodox and Catholic) and 1,230,007 Armenians. So, Greek Christians outnumbered the Armenian Christians.
 
Likes: Kotromanic

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,098
Republika Srpska
#7
According to the 1914 Ottoman census, there were 1,792,206 Greeks (Orthodox and Catholic) and 1,230,007 Armenians. So, Greek Christians outnumbered the Armenian Christians.
I must somewhat correct myself. The Armenian population might have been undercounted by as much as 30%, according to Talaat Pasha. So, the Armenian population might have been around 1,5 million, still smaller than the Greek population though.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,091
SoCal
#8
I must somewhat correct myself. The Armenian population might have been undercounted by as much as 30%, according to Talaat Pasha. So, the Armenian population might have been around 1,5 million, still smaller than the Greek population though.
Very interesting; anyway, I stand corrected.

FTR, I was primarily thinking of eastern Anatolia here, but Yes, if one also includes western Anatolia, the number of Greeks is likely to significantly go up.
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,491
Athens, Greece
#9
Why were most Anatolians Turkified but most Greeks in Greece weren't? Both Anatolia and Greece were under Ottoman rule for centuries, and yet the Christian presence in Anatolia by the early 20th century was relatively minor (especially for Greek Christians--Armenian Christians were a bit more numerous, I believe) while Greeks in Greece retained enough of their national identity to stage a successful uprising against the Ottomans in the early 19th century and then to subsequently expand their territory further north.

Why did Anatolia and Greece experience vastly different outcomes in regards to Turkification--especially considering that both of them were previously largely Greek-speaking?
Probably because there were much denser ethnic Greek populations in Greece and Anatolian coastlands, compared to the interior of Anatolia. The East was Hellenised from the time of Alexander, but this doesn't mean that local traditions, languages and identities were deleted to be replaced by Greek ones. Syrians remained Syrians, for example, hellenised or not. Therefore, the transition from Hellenic culture to the culture of the new conqueror (Turks or Arabs) was much easier there. Ethnic Greeks were dispersed throughout the empire (during the Hellenistic and Roman periods), but compact ethnic Greek populations were mainly inhabiting old Greece and the lands around the old Greek colonies of the Mediterranean coast. I think that this pattern persisted, more or less, from ancient times, throughout the Hellenistic, Roman/Byzantine and Ottoman eras, up until the early 20th century and the decisive uprooting of ethnic Greeks from Anatolia. Some 3000 years of history.

The people of the Anatolian heartland may be one of the most exposed human populations on Earth to various civilisations, cultures, conquerors, languages and general mobility of human development. Hattians, Assyrians, Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, even Galatians, the list is long indeed. The region was Hellenised, but following the battle of Manzikert (1071) it slipped under the control of Seljuk Turks and the long process of gradual replacement of the Greek language and Christian religion by the Turkish language and Islamic religion begun. It was much more successful compared to the Anatolian coasts and Greece itself for the reasons I wrote before (less compact ethnic Greek populations), longer exposure to the culture of the new conqueror, and, because the Turks were initially nomadic, pastoral people, they preferred to settle in these lands in greater numbers. I think that the indigenous Anatolians were still a majority compared to the Turkic newcomers, but not as much as along the coastline. So, the cultural domination of the Turkic conquerors and the transition to their culture was made easier there in the Anatolian interior, and mainly in rural areas (the exception being some great urban centres). I might be wrong, but this is how I perceive the general picture more or less.

Greek colonies in 431 BC
1564597377500.png

1564596850785.png

1564596892750.png
Distribution of Greek dialects in Anatolia in the late Byzantine Empire through to 1923. Demotic in yellow. Pontic in orange. Cappadocian in green. (Green dots indicate Cappadocian Greek speaking villages in 1910.[249])
Byzantine Empire - Wikipedia
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,091
SoCal
#10
Probably because there were much denser ethnic Greek populations in Greece and Anatolian coastlands, compared to the interior of Anatolia. The East was Hellenised from the time of Alexander, but this doesn't mean that local traditions, languages and identities were deleted to be replaced by Greek ones. Syrians remained Syrians, for example, hellenised or not. Therefore, the transition from Hellenic culture to the culture of the new conqueror (Turks or Arabs) was much easier there. Ethnic Greeks were dispersed throughout the empire (during the Hellenistic and Roman periods), but compact ethnic Greek populations were mainly inhabiting old Greece and the lands around the old Greek colonies of the Mediterranean coast. I think that this pattern persisted, more or less, from ancient times, throughout the Hellenistic, Roman/Byzantine and Ottoman eras, up until the early 20th century and the decisive uprooting of ethnic Greeks from Anatolia. Some 3000 years of history.

The people of the Anatolian heartland may be one of the most exposed human populations on Earth to various civilisations, cultures, conquerors, languages and general mobility of human development. Hattians, Assyrians, Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, even Galatians, the list is long indeed. The region was Hellenised, but following the battle of Manzikert (1071) it slipped under the control of Seljuk Turks and the long process of gradual replacement of the Greek language and Christian religion by the Turkish language and Islamic religion begun. It was much more successful compared to the Anatolian coasts and Greece itself for the reasons I wrote before (less compact ethnic Greek populations), longer exposure to the culture of the new conqueror, and, because the Turks were initially nomadic, pastoral people, they preferred to settle in these lands in greater numbers. I think that the indigenous Anatolians were still a majority compared to the Turkic newcomers, but not as much as along the coastline. So, the cultural domination of the Turkic conquerors and the transition to their culture was made easier there in the Anatolian interior, and mainly in rural areas (the exception being some great urban centres). I might be wrong, but this is how I perceive the general picture more or less.

Greek colonies in 431 BC
View attachment 22009

View attachment 22006

View attachment 22007
Distribution of Greek dialects in Anatolia in the late Byzantine Empire through to 1923. Demotic in yellow. Pontic in orange. Cappadocian in green. (Green dots indicate Cappadocian Greek speaking villages in 1910.[249])
Byzantine Empire - Wikipedia
Where exactly is that second map from?