3 ms·
> But the Turks, they were Central Asian tribes (closer to the Mongols than to Arabs or Europeans) who ended up conquering the Eastern Roman Empire (over centur
by gkya 8y ago
> But the Turks, they were Central Asian tribes (closer to the Mongols than to Arabs or Europeans) who ended up conquering the Eastern Roman Empire (over centuries) and eventually ended up at the gates of Vienna.
This is Turkey's official rhetoric, but hardly the general truth. In today's Turkey, and in the Ottoman Empire, the only thing that was really Central Asian was the Turkish language. The reality is that most possibly the Turkification of Asia Minor was a case of "elite dominance", as allowed by the gap of historical knowledge in the region for many centuries during the Middle Ages and as backed by contemporaneous genetical studies (which relate the local population to Mediterraneans rather than Central Asians).
The fact is lots of pseudo science was involved in building a Turkish identity decoupled from Islam during the process of the establisment of the modern Turkish Republic. That's not unlike the similar and similarly funny stories some Hungarians entertain these days, and based mostly on linguistic relations. The Central Asian Turks migrated, thoroughout decades and centuries, westwards, and firstly became Persianised and Islamised, and then became the Muslim warrior elite, and then they built multiple states during some centuries around and in Asia minor, and they begat ultimately the Ottoman Empire, and the peoples were Turkified; but the only concrete thing that change were the lords. At least, this is what genetical data suggests (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001, Hodoğlugil, and Yardumian are some examples).
I take an issue with this narrative as a Turk because that's a fundamental lie the current national identity that we sport is based on, which renders it unsound.
> It took another 700 years and Mehmet's use of cannon to bring the walls down and really change history.
That's debated too. But cannons or not, what remained for him to conquer was the crumbs of the empire, fitted into a city which you can walk across in both axes with slow tempo in a bit more than an hour. The west left them alone, and the 4th crusade had already rendered them terminally moribund. It's indeed fascinating that he declared himself the new Emperor of Rome, but it's still so w/o the mythology.
- aaron-lebo 8y agoThanks for the detailed response. I did not mean to oversimplify things, but your post is good stuff.
- gkya 8y agoYou're welcome! Nothing personal, this is kind of my pet peeve (and possible future research topic), so I just feel the need to write somethings when I see it mentioned.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Jun8 8y agoI'm curious as to what part of the assertion that cannon superiority was one of the biggest factors in the Fall of the City is being debated, can you provide some resources? The bombards (muzzle loaded cannons) were widely known and used in Europe, e.g. the famous Mons Meg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Meg); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Meg); what distinguishes the cannons that Mehmet had Orban built (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban) were their sheer size and the technological knowledge in casting such massive bronze bombards, that Western Europe lacked at that time. For an informal description of Orban's work see http://www.camrea.org/2017/09/11/orban-the-man-who-brought-down-the-walls-of-constantinople-part-i/ http://www.camrea.org/2017/09/11/orban-the-man-who-brought-d... Note that just having this massive cannon did not make it a done deal: due to overheating, the bombard had to be cooled for a long period after each shot in which time the Byzantine defenders quickly mended the walls with rubble and any other materials they could find. In the end they just got overwhelmed.
- jcranmer 8y agoThe Ottomans had the men and materiel to besiege Constantinople for an extended period of time, and the Byzantines didn't have much means to bear the siege or relieve it (although the Venetians were en route). Note that Mehmet also pulled off the trick of moving his navy into the Goldern Horn, thus completing the encirclement on sea and on land. Constantinople would likely have fallen anyways, it was just a matter of how long it would have taken and how many lives would have been lost.
- PeterMikhailov 8y agoWhat do you think of the theory that Erdogan is Dönmeh?
- gkya 8y agoEverybody is, at some point. There is no eternal religion.