Henry Morgenthau Sr. was Ambassador to Turkey when the 'Young Turks' took over. He chronicled the beginning of the Armenian genocide and resigned his position. He credited the German Ambassador as the inspiration.
His diary is downloadable in the public domain and is rather chilling in its description of what was happening around him.
A well considered and well written piece; like always.
I do have one quibble.
Venice under 99 year old Doge Enrico Dandolo sacked and pillaged (the famous equestrian statue in Venice was one of the purloined items) Constantinople in 1204 in the 'Fourth Crusade which mortally wounded the 900 year fortress which was eventually defeated in 1453.
In my opinion without this sacking the nation of Turkey would be much different today
There’s a lot of history I could’ve added to this short essay, but I kept to the point of answering the question posed in my subtitle. There’re lots of very juicy information I might have added—the artificial creation of the Azerbaijani state for example and the methods used in its creation story. Much more about the Turkish War for Independence could have been included. And I made no mention at all about how the Ottomans ended up losing in WW1. I included many links for the interested to explore, and the internet is full of more info.
As for the Crusades weakening the Byzantines, most certainly yes. There’s another major historical tale that began roughly 200 years before the first crusade related to Byzantium and its conflict with the Roman Church that caused the political decision to spread Byzantine Christianity to the Slavs and to provide them with their own written language that they could use to worship with. That saga will have its day as it contributes context to today’s events.
The East–West Schism, also known as the Great Schism or the Schism of 1054, is the break of communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church since 1054. I don't believe the Patriarch of Rome's church and the Patriarch of Constantinople's church had much conflict before that, though some of their elites very likely did - always those Venetians! Koine Greek was the language of Constantinople.
"Old Church Bulgarian", also referred to as "Old Bulgarian" (9th to 11th centuries), was a literary norm of the early southern dialect of the Proto-Slavic language from which modern Bulgarian evolved. This Proto-Slavic language, or close to it, was likely what the Bulgars used in Old Great Bulgaria, which was most of central and eastern Ukraine and almost all of Crimea until the late 7th century.
Byzantines had the southern coast of Crimea, so Bulgars and Byzantines were neighbours since the ancient world, but in 2 different neighbourhoods - ain't history wonderful!
Thank you for this very informative and timely review. As for Turkey continuing to be part of NATO, I understand that second only to the US, they're the only member that could actually field an effective fighting force. It's pretty obvious that NATO members will put up with a lot from those who might be willing to spill their own blood to further the alliance's ambitions.
While all of that is true, I think the more relevant point for Turkey is that as long as it stays in NATO it won't be a NATO target. Basically, that means that Turkey has more freedom to maneuver in NATO than out of NATO.
Except now we have Trump threatening to invade two NATO members--Canada and Denmark. And being a NATO member didn't stop NATO from trying to eliminate Erdogan in the 2016 coup attempt--an Obama/Biden/Clinton project.
Or from blowing up Nord Stream. But neither Germany nor Turkey needs to worry about an invasion from the US or its proxies, because the US already has its bases there. NATO membership imposes some constraints on a country, and the threat of US hostilities impose other constraints. It's a weird world we live in.
And Trump isn't really threatening to invade. He's asking Canada and Greenland is they wouldn't be happier being junior members of the US instead of its junior vassals.
I found your article very interesting and informative. Here is a brief overview of what I think about the subject.
There is, and always has been, a powerful and unstable "whirlpool" in the Levant. An extremely fragile whirlpool in which the balance of one depends on the balance or imbalance of others. If we add to this the influence of the great powers, this balance becomes more unstable than it already is. Turkey, Erdogan, knows that in order to successfully complete his claims he must establish circumstantial "alliances", sometimes convenient but unwanted. The map of power is so unstable and changing (decline of the empire, rise of China, BRICS, emerging Russia, etc.) that it is difficult to establish a long-term strategy. Whether you like Erdogan and his ambiguous policy or not, it is not difficult to understand this ambiguity. Generally, countries, like people, do not choose where they are born and Turkey has been given a privileged but complicated geographical location.
By the way, "Turkish firm Baykar has been approved by the Italian government to buy Italian aviation giant Piaggio Aerospace". Erdogan looks to the East with one foot firmly planted in the West.
Yes, one needs to take a look at Ottoman Empire and most especially the English/French carve up of West Asia post WW! - where the big losers [others than what became Turkey] were the Kurds. Then post WWII we had the creation of the colonial Zionist state. The 1953 coup by UK/US (due to Cold War fears of Soviet agreement with Iran) led to 1979 revolution and restoration of sovereignty in IRI. Iraq and Syrian represented threats to Zionist state and onto 2003 etc etc
And now we have a brief alliance between Turkey and Zionism - which cannot end well.
From Crooke's piece which you linked to below:
"In any event, one clear outcome is that Erdogan’s ploy has re-ignited formerly (and mostly) quiescent Sunni sectarianism and Ottoman imperialism. The consequences will be many and will ripple across the region. Egypt is already anxious – as is King Abdullah in Jordan.
Many Israelis see themselves as the ‘winners’ from the Syrian up-ending – since the Axis of Resistance supply line has been severed at its middle. Israeli security chief Ronan Bar was most likely briefed by Ibrahim Kalin, Turkish Head of Intelligence, when they met in Istanbul on 19 November on the expected Idlib invasion – in time for Israel to institute the Lebanon ceasefire, and to obstruct the passage of Hizbullah forces into Syria(Israel immediately bombed all the border crossings between Lebanon and Syria).
Nonetheless Israelis may discover that a re-kindled Salafist zealotry is not their friend – nor ultimately to their benefit.
Iran will sign the long-awaited defence accord with Russia on 17 January 2025.
Russia will concentrate on the war in Ukraine and stay aloof from the Middle East quagmire – to focus on the slow global restructuring that has been happening ..."
17th of January. Not sure that Erdogan can expect much assistance from Islamic Republic of Iran or Russian Federation as he overextends himself and his economy in the Syrian "quagmire".
I thought about making a more explicit connection between Crooke's essay and mine on the issue of Turkiye, but went and explored his substack, which was a disappointing visit. Apparently, there were no Jews in Anatolia to persecute, which I find curious. I gave the indoctrination of Turks light treatment at the end because it's so obvious, or ought to be. The recent public performances of that ism in Anatolia chanting to reclaim Jerusalem is an example.
It seems the Turks might have a hard time ignoring the power vacuum in the former Syria.
Keeping Israel at triple arms length might seem obviously necessary. Who knows what evil the Americans and Zionists might come up with to keep Turkey and the region off balance. The Turks would be motivated to go after the Kurds more energetically too, another back door the U$ might exploit to harass Turkey. Who in their right mind would want to see Israel take more territory? The Turks, in concert with the Russians and Iranians might offer defacto control of former Syria. Keeping the U$ checked in the region might be job one. Financially troubled Turkey would have a lot of leverage in controlling the flow of refugees entering Europe. A job the Europeans might be happy to pay handsomely for.
I had a course in Balkan History many years ago and if I remember correctly, The Ottomans ruled with a light hand as long as the regional pooh-bahs paid their taxes and acknowledged that they were in fact part of the empire. If memory serves...
Yes, the Ottomans offered close to self-rule to its provinces, rather similar to the Mongols once you were subjugated by them. Another good trivia question: When did Constantinople become Istanbul? Another deeper question: Why is it no longer the capital city of Anatolia?
My guess from the following wikiP. blurb is "Byzantion" was lost in the defeat of WW1 and became regarded as too vulnerable to invasion, compounded perhaps by Turk shame of loss and occupation, and the Turks were aiming at a fresh start for the new polity.
"The Treaty of Lausanne was signed on 24 July 1923, and the occupation of Constantinople ended with the departure of the last forces of the Allies from the city on 4 October 1923.Turkish forces of the Ankara government, commanded by Şükrü Naili Pasha (3rd Corps), entered the city with a ceremony on 6 October 1923, which has been marked as the "Liberation Day of Istanbul" (İstanbul'un Kurtuluşu), and has been commemorated annually since...
On 29 October 1923 the Grand National Assembly of Turkey declared the establishment of the Turkish Republic, with Ankara as its capital. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk became the Republic's first President."
"Byzantium (667 BC–330 AD) - Romanized Byzantion - was colonized by Greeks from Megara in the 7th century BC and remained primarily Greek-speaking until its conquest by the Ottoman Empire in AD 1453." "The origins of Byzantium are shrouded in legend." wikiP.. Constantinople officially from 330 to 1453, henceforth Instanbul. 15.66 million population as of Jan.1, 2024 - WOW!
"The Ottomans ruled with a light hand..." is debatable: You'd be best advised not to with Balkan Slavs, for instance, or numerous other non-Turks or non-(Sunni) Muslims. I suspect many lived in constant fear, regardless of submitting to Ottoman taxation protocols. Your prof may have had the "official" view that "they may (not have been) be bastards, but they're our (NATO/anti-commie) (non-) bastards".
Thank you Karl. I fear you are correct. I wish the best for the Turkish people. But all families/tribes/cultures both benefit from and must pay the costs of the nature of their environment. Anatolia, one of the busiest intersections on the planet has, and may always, attracted power-hungry groups who wish to control and profit from it.
One common element of Anatolia's being is it's always been rich in human capital which was great in the days prior to higher technologies when economies were Ag-based. 21st Century Turkiye remains in the 20th Century. With its human capital, it ought to be as powerful as Germany was, but it's not, and that begs more questions.
Anatolia as a middle power that plays both sides goes all the way back to Hattusilis III who played both the Egyptians and Babylonians against each other.
Anatolia is a Greek-based (The East) geographic term, perhaps with various historical uses for a polity...The Hittite king you mentioned had an empire in the region, and it wasn't a middle-power. Even the greatest of empires play 1 against another, as an unchallenged global empire has never existed. He warred with his older brother against The Egyptians at the height of Egyptian power. The Late Bronze Age Collapse wrecked the empire a century or so after his death. This from wikiP. is great - "The Battle of Kadesh took place in the 13th century BC between the Egyptian Empire led by pharaoh Ramesses II and the Hittite Empire led by king Muwatalli II. Their armies engaged each other at the Orontes River, just upstream of Lake Homs and near the archaeological site of Kadesh, along what is today the Lebanon–Syria border.
The battle is generally dated to May 1274 BC, as accounted by Egyptian chronology, and is the earliest pitched battle in recorded history for which details of tactics and formations are known. It is believed to be the largest battle ever fought involving chariots, numbering at a total of 5,000 to 6,000."
The Bronze Age history of Anatolia is fascinating, but I didn’t want to get sidetracked into writing too much about it. I thought of relating the Hittite-Troy link, but the current evidence is too conflicting. And then there’s the unknown link between Troy’s fall and the so-called Dark Age that afflicted the region. Yes, history is fun when properly contextualized as a huge Saga.
I fully appreciate the fact that you can't possibly include EVERYTHING in your study and article writings. My comment was purely in response to Kenneth Griffith.
Just The Battle of Kadesh is marvelous and enlightening. For instance,. I learned that Rameses' regime were very "propagandistic" about its claims of him personally, via tactical genius and soldiering ability, turning defeat to victory though all indications were a stalemate by virtue of the "peace treaty" afterwards. This merely from WikiP mind you.
..not ALL indications, but likely indicative of a stalemate. The Egyptians were farther from home than the Hittites were, so a possible rematch the Egyptians were wary of, I suspect.
When I lived in Türkiye, it had a “democratically elected military dictatorship” supported by the US. The US/NATO then, and still today, occupied the country militarily. A bit of my youthful naïveté was shattered when I realized that I was considered just one of the new ‘barbarians.’ It wasn’t a personal insult, I had excellent relations with many Turks. It was merely an observation. Turkish culture, having developed in what was a major crossroads of human migration, has a tribal/family tradition of hospitality. Turks experience other people as fellow humans, not merely as a member of some political faction. Even an enemy is treated as an honored guest until they leave, at which point their status as ‘enemy’ resumes. Turks stoically accepted our occupation in the knowledge that this too will pass.
I lived in a city bearing the name it was given during the Greek occupation, on a street paved by the Romans, and my workplace was on a hill, where Genghis Khan had first arrived from Persia and, viewing the Black Sea in the distance, proclaimed: “The Sea!”, ignoring the thousands of years old city below. He sacked the city and the Mongols occupied Anatolia for more than a century.
Coming from an ‘old’ (300 years) US family, educated in US schools, I understood my country to be the pinnacle of human progress, with a government based on ideals formed during the Age of Enlightenment. Like the Spanish in the Americas, I had simply assumed that we were bringing civilization to the poor people of this ‘remote’ region.
Erdogan, no matter one’s judgement of his individual actions, has pursued the revival of Turkish sovereignty and culture. It is a very difficult pursuit, fraught with threats from multiple directions. If he succeeds, he will be revered similarly to Ataturk. If he fails, that setback too, will pass.
Thanks for your commentary! If Turkiye does regain its independence under Erdogan, I agree with your assessment, although IMO it will take longer than his remaining lifetime to accomplish.
«a city bearing the name it was given during the Greek occupation, on a street paved by the Romans, and my workplace was on a hill, where Genghis Khan had first arrived from Persia»
«Erdogan, no matter one’s judgement of his individual actions, has pursued the revival of Turkish sovereignty and culture.»
Which "turkish sovereignty and culture"? One of the many historical and contemporary ones or an invented one to act as a base for the rule of his party and to overwrite all those far older ones? Because to me it looks like the latter. The Osmanli occupation of Anatolia was about the same as their occupation of Greece or Serbia or Romania, a small minority lording over and imposing their religion and culture.
Thanks Karl for both the article and the various source material.
If anyone's interested, after looking at the bibliography of my own history project for my only source I found this little book and the synopsis written.
CAROLINE FINKEL "Osman's Dream - The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1923"
c. 2005/6. John Murray
"From its shadowy beginnings to its official ending the Ottoman empire presaged the Turkish state. This is a well-regarded narrative of the six-century phenomenon that eventually became identified as the modern 'Jihadic' force in the dynamic monotheistic battle for the hearts and minds of the populations of Europe and Asia Minor or Middle East. The first chapter is an enlightening synopsis of the political situation of the whole region and shows us the rise of a warlord who forged an entity that not only endured but expanded as others began around this period grew but then receded in other areas of the two elements of the Euro-Asian landmass. The Mongol, disintegrative influence and Christian Schism between the Latins and the Orthodox facilitated the rise of an acquisitive and pragmatic regime that only later adorned itself in Muslim purity. Its rise may well reflect the similar dynamic of aggressive economic war prevalent in Europe during the same period."
As to the next article you propose; I remember thinking that the Catholic/Orthodox division was an early manifestation of the East/West divide we experienced most recently as the so-called 'iron curtain'.
Precisely, but it's far more than that as the Vatican became the Creditor's Champion to enable its imperialism while it became Europe's major Feudal Landlord and oppressor of commoners. Enabling Slavs with their own language isn't recognized properly as the revolutionary move it was--the foundation for the Third Rome.
I recently viewed a doc which claimed the origin of "modern" state-finance by the Venetian Republic corresponds with its raising funds to fight against the expansion of The Papal States...Old Church Slavonic almost certainly came from Old Bulgarian that was "refined" a touch, and modern Bulgarian is likely closest to it. Old Church Slavonic is the first Slavic literary language and the oldest extant written Slavonic language attested in literary sources.
i think erdogans support for hts is more of his fantasy ottoman empire building attempt.. so far, it appears he's gotten some success in it too..
we were in turkey in 2012 for 1 month and did travel to anatolia - sinop, amasya,and kayseri. tokat is as far east as we got.. the people were wonderful and the beauty and cuisine are exsquisite... we wanted to go down to urfa, but we were discouraged due the dynamic in syria right next door...
it is hard to know which way erdogan will swing here into the next year.. all the best in your anatolia studies!
Yes, country and hospitality was great. My next focus on Anatolia will be the Byzantines and the geopolitics that caused the "educating" of the Slavs--giving them a written alphabet and Byzantine Christianity that created an entity that didn't previously exist to balance the Roman Church. Time traveling to better understand what's now happening.
«created an entity that didn't previously exist to balance the Roman Church»
Ironically it was the roman uniates of the Kingdom of Ruthenia (of Halych-Volhynia, Galicia and Lodomeria) and in particular the empire of Lev/Louis that shaped a lot of that history and nowadays too.
wow -very interesting article - also the legends are that the Atlanteans ( very civilized ) came from Atlantis through Ireland and divided - some going north - some going south but eventually - after many immigrants left behind thoughout the travels, ended up in Iran - and were met there by undomesticated terrors named Turinians.
I looked up backstabber in the dictionary and it said 1. Erdogan....
Henry Morgenthau Sr. was Ambassador to Turkey when the 'Young Turks' took over. He chronicled the beginning of the Armenian genocide and resigned his position. He credited the German Ambassador as the inspiration.
His diary is downloadable in the public domain and is rather chilling in its description of what was happening around him.
Thanks for that addition, Acco, and Happy New Year! Crooke reports that such methods continue to be used, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/01/01/imperial-hubris-and-its-consequences-in-syria/
A well considered and well written piece; like always.
I do have one quibble.
Venice under 99 year old Doge Enrico Dandolo sacked and pillaged (the famous equestrian statue in Venice was one of the purloined items) Constantinople in 1204 in the 'Fourth Crusade which mortally wounded the 900 year fortress which was eventually defeated in 1453.
In my opinion without this sacking the nation of Turkey would be much different today
There’s a lot of history I could’ve added to this short essay, but I kept to the point of answering the question posed in my subtitle. There’re lots of very juicy information I might have added—the artificial creation of the Azerbaijani state for example and the methods used in its creation story. Much more about the Turkish War for Independence could have been included. And I made no mention at all about how the Ottomans ended up losing in WW1. I included many links for the interested to explore, and the internet is full of more info.
As for the Crusades weakening the Byzantines, most certainly yes. There’s another major historical tale that began roughly 200 years before the first crusade related to Byzantium and its conflict with the Roman Church that caused the political decision to spread Byzantine Christianity to the Slavs and to provide them with their own written language that they could use to worship with. That saga will have its day as it contributes context to today’s events.
Thanks for the tutorial, Karl.
Happy New Year
The East–West Schism, also known as the Great Schism or the Schism of 1054, is the break of communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church since 1054. I don't believe the Patriarch of Rome's church and the Patriarch of Constantinople's church had much conflict before that, though some of their elites very likely did - always those Venetians! Koine Greek was the language of Constantinople.
"Old Church Bulgarian", also referred to as "Old Bulgarian" (9th to 11th centuries), was a literary norm of the early southern dialect of the Proto-Slavic language from which modern Bulgarian evolved. This Proto-Slavic language, or close to it, was likely what the Bulgars used in Old Great Bulgaria, which was most of central and eastern Ukraine and almost all of Crimea until the late 7th century.
Byzantines had the southern coast of Crimea, so Bulgars and Byzantines were neighbours since the ancient world, but in 2 different neighbourhoods - ain't history wonderful!
Thank you for this very informative and timely review. As for Turkey continuing to be part of NATO, I understand that second only to the US, they're the only member that could actually field an effective fighting force. It's pretty obvious that NATO members will put up with a lot from those who might be willing to spill their own blood to further the alliance's ambitions.
While all of that is true, I think the more relevant point for Turkey is that as long as it stays in NATO it won't be a NATO target. Basically, that means that Turkey has more freedom to maneuver in NATO than out of NATO.
Except now we have Trump threatening to invade two NATO members--Canada and Denmark. And being a NATO member didn't stop NATO from trying to eliminate Erdogan in the 2016 coup attempt--an Obama/Biden/Clinton project.
Or from blowing up Nord Stream. But neither Germany nor Turkey needs to worry about an invasion from the US or its proxies, because the US already has its bases there. NATO membership imposes some constraints on a country, and the threat of US hostilities impose other constraints. It's a weird world we live in.
And Trump isn't really threatening to invade. He's asking Canada and Greenland is they wouldn't be happier being junior members of the US instead of its junior vassals.
When you're right, you're right; that's a great point.
I found your article very interesting and informative. Here is a brief overview of what I think about the subject.
There is, and always has been, a powerful and unstable "whirlpool" in the Levant. An extremely fragile whirlpool in which the balance of one depends on the balance or imbalance of others. If we add to this the influence of the great powers, this balance becomes more unstable than it already is. Turkey, Erdogan, knows that in order to successfully complete his claims he must establish circumstantial "alliances", sometimes convenient but unwanted. The map of power is so unstable and changing (decline of the empire, rise of China, BRICS, emerging Russia, etc.) that it is difficult to establish a long-term strategy. Whether you like Erdogan and his ambiguous policy or not, it is not difficult to understand this ambiguity. Generally, countries, like people, do not choose where they are born and Turkey has been given a privileged but complicated geographical location.
By the way, "Turkish firm Baykar has been approved by the Italian government to buy Italian aviation giant Piaggio Aerospace". Erdogan looks to the East with one foot firmly planted in the West.
Yes, as Escobar frequently notes, Turkish big business is very Pro-NATO, which is one of the major considerations about Turkiye joining BRICS.
Yes, one needs to take a look at Ottoman Empire and most especially the English/French carve up of West Asia post WW! - where the big losers [others than what became Turkey] were the Kurds. Then post WWII we had the creation of the colonial Zionist state. The 1953 coup by UK/US (due to Cold War fears of Soviet agreement with Iran) led to 1979 revolution and restoration of sovereignty in IRI. Iraq and Syrian represented threats to Zionist state and onto 2003 etc etc
And now we have a brief alliance between Turkey and Zionism - which cannot end well.
From Crooke's piece which you linked to below:
"In any event, one clear outcome is that Erdogan’s ploy has re-ignited formerly (and mostly) quiescent Sunni sectarianism and Ottoman imperialism. The consequences will be many and will ripple across the region. Egypt is already anxious – as is King Abdullah in Jordan.
Many Israelis see themselves as the ‘winners’ from the Syrian up-ending – since the Axis of Resistance supply line has been severed at its middle. Israeli security chief Ronan Bar was most likely briefed by Ibrahim Kalin, Turkish Head of Intelligence, when they met in Istanbul on 19 November on the expected Idlib invasion – in time for Israel to institute the Lebanon ceasefire, and to obstruct the passage of Hizbullah forces into Syria(Israel immediately bombed all the border crossings between Lebanon and Syria).
Nonetheless Israelis may discover that a re-kindled Salafist zealotry is not their friend – nor ultimately to their benefit.
Iran will sign the long-awaited defence accord with Russia on 17 January 2025.
Russia will concentrate on the war in Ukraine and stay aloof from the Middle East quagmire – to focus on the slow global restructuring that has been happening ..."
17th of January. Not sure that Erdogan can expect much assistance from Islamic Republic of Iran or Russian Federation as he overextends himself and his economy in the Syrian "quagmire".
I thought about making a more explicit connection between Crooke's essay and mine on the issue of Turkiye, but went and explored his substack, which was a disappointing visit. Apparently, there were no Jews in Anatolia to persecute, which I find curious. I gave the indoctrination of Turks light treatment at the end because it's so obvious, or ought to be. The recent public performances of that ism in Anatolia chanting to reclaim Jerusalem is an example.
The future will remain cloudy for Turkey by refusing to alter altering its mind about its genocide.
Same old , same old vision of glory a hundred years later?
Same methods too as Crooke reports today, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/01/01/imperial-hubris-and-its-consequences-in-syria/
Thanks Karl. Great report. Boris Johnson has a familial connection to the Ottoman empire (link).
Maybe a useful data point in a future trivia contest.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/turks-welcome-ottoman-grandson-boris-johnson-as-british-leader-idUSKCN1UJ1E8/
It seems the Turks might have a hard time ignoring the power vacuum in the former Syria.
Keeping Israel at triple arms length might seem obviously necessary. Who knows what evil the Americans and Zionists might come up with to keep Turkey and the region off balance. The Turks would be motivated to go after the Kurds more energetically too, another back door the U$ might exploit to harass Turkey. Who in their right mind would want to see Israel take more territory? The Turks, in concert with the Russians and Iranians might offer defacto control of former Syria. Keeping the U$ checked in the region might be job one. Financially troubled Turkey would have a lot of leverage in controlling the flow of refugees entering Europe. A job the Europeans might be happy to pay handsomely for.
I had a course in Balkan History many years ago and if I remember correctly, The Ottomans ruled with a light hand as long as the regional pooh-bahs paid their taxes and acknowledged that they were in fact part of the empire. If memory serves...
Yes, the Ottomans offered close to self-rule to its provinces, rather similar to the Mongols once you were subjugated by them. Another good trivia question: When did Constantinople become Istanbul? Another deeper question: Why is it no longer the capital city of Anatolia?
My guess from the following wikiP. blurb is "Byzantion" was lost in the defeat of WW1 and became regarded as too vulnerable to invasion, compounded perhaps by Turk shame of loss and occupation, and the Turks were aiming at a fresh start for the new polity.
"The Treaty of Lausanne was signed on 24 July 1923, and the occupation of Constantinople ended with the departure of the last forces of the Allies from the city on 4 October 1923.Turkish forces of the Ankara government, commanded by Şükrü Naili Pasha (3rd Corps), entered the city with a ceremony on 6 October 1923, which has been marked as the "Liberation Day of Istanbul" (İstanbul'un Kurtuluşu), and has been commemorated annually since...
On 29 October 1923 the Grand National Assembly of Turkey declared the establishment of the Turkish Republic, with Ankara as its capital. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk became the Republic's first President."
"Byzantium (667 BC–330 AD) - Romanized Byzantion - was colonized by Greeks from Megara in the 7th century BC and remained primarily Greek-speaking until its conquest by the Ottoman Empire in AD 1453." "The origins of Byzantium are shrouded in legend." wikiP.. Constantinople officially from 330 to 1453, henceforth Instanbul. 15.66 million population as of Jan.1, 2024 - WOW!
"The Ottomans ruled with a light hand..." is debatable: You'd be best advised not to with Balkan Slavs, for instance, or numerous other non-Turks or non-(Sunni) Muslims. I suspect many lived in constant fear, regardless of submitting to Ottoman taxation protocols. Your prof may have had the "official" view that "they may (not have been) be bastards, but they're our (NATO/anti-commie) (non-) bastards".
Thank you Karl. I fear you are correct. I wish the best for the Turkish people. But all families/tribes/cultures both benefit from and must pay the costs of the nature of their environment. Anatolia, one of the busiest intersections on the planet has, and may always, attracted power-hungry groups who wish to control and profit from it.
One common element of Anatolia's being is it's always been rich in human capital which was great in the days prior to higher technologies when economies were Ag-based. 21st Century Turkiye remains in the 20th Century. With its human capital, it ought to be as powerful as Germany was, but it's not, and that begs more questions.
Anatolia as a middle power that plays both sides goes all the way back to Hattusilis III who played both the Egyptians and Babylonians against each other.
Anatolia is a Greek-based (The East) geographic term, perhaps with various historical uses for a polity...The Hittite king you mentioned had an empire in the region, and it wasn't a middle-power. Even the greatest of empires play 1 against another, as an unchallenged global empire has never existed. He warred with his older brother against The Egyptians at the height of Egyptian power. The Late Bronze Age Collapse wrecked the empire a century or so after his death. This from wikiP. is great - "The Battle of Kadesh took place in the 13th century BC between the Egyptian Empire led by pharaoh Ramesses II and the Hittite Empire led by king Muwatalli II. Their armies engaged each other at the Orontes River, just upstream of Lake Homs and near the archaeological site of Kadesh, along what is today the Lebanon–Syria border.
The battle is generally dated to May 1274 BC, as accounted by Egyptian chronology, and is the earliest pitched battle in recorded history for which details of tactics and formations are known. It is believed to be the largest battle ever fought involving chariots, numbering at a total of 5,000 to 6,000."
The Bronze Age history of Anatolia is fascinating, but I didn’t want to get sidetracked into writing too much about it. I thought of relating the Hittite-Troy link, but the current evidence is too conflicting. And then there’s the unknown link between Troy’s fall and the so-called Dark Age that afflicted the region. Yes, history is fun when properly contextualized as a huge Saga.
I fully appreciate the fact that you can't possibly include EVERYTHING in your study and article writings. My comment was purely in response to Kenneth Griffith.
Just The Battle of Kadesh is marvelous and enlightening. For instance,. I learned that Rameses' regime were very "propagandistic" about its claims of him personally, via tactical genius and soldiering ability, turning defeat to victory though all indications were a stalemate by virtue of the "peace treaty" afterwards. This merely from WikiP mind you.
..not ALL indications, but likely indicative of a stalemate. The Egyptians were farther from home than the Hittites were, so a possible rematch the Egyptians were wary of, I suspect.
Turkiye is arguably not a middle power today. It has the largest NATO army in Europe.
I’d rate it as a secondary power, behind Iran.
When I lived in Türkiye, it had a “democratically elected military dictatorship” supported by the US. The US/NATO then, and still today, occupied the country militarily. A bit of my youthful naïveté was shattered when I realized that I was considered just one of the new ‘barbarians.’ It wasn’t a personal insult, I had excellent relations with many Turks. It was merely an observation. Turkish culture, having developed in what was a major crossroads of human migration, has a tribal/family tradition of hospitality. Turks experience other people as fellow humans, not merely as a member of some political faction. Even an enemy is treated as an honored guest until they leave, at which point their status as ‘enemy’ resumes. Turks stoically accepted our occupation in the knowledge that this too will pass.
I lived in a city bearing the name it was given during the Greek occupation, on a street paved by the Romans, and my workplace was on a hill, where Genghis Khan had first arrived from Persia and, viewing the Black Sea in the distance, proclaimed: “The Sea!”, ignoring the thousands of years old city below. He sacked the city and the Mongols occupied Anatolia for more than a century.
Coming from an ‘old’ (300 years) US family, educated in US schools, I understood my country to be the pinnacle of human progress, with a government based on ideals formed during the Age of Enlightenment. Like the Spanish in the Americas, I had simply assumed that we were bringing civilization to the poor people of this ‘remote’ region.
Erdogan, no matter one’s judgement of his individual actions, has pursued the revival of Turkish sovereignty and culture. It is a very difficult pursuit, fraught with threats from multiple directions. If he succeeds, he will be revered similarly to Ataturk. If he fails, that setback too, will pass.
Thanks for your commentary! If Turkiye does regain its independence under Erdogan, I agree with your assessment, although IMO it will take longer than his remaining lifetime to accomplish.
«a city bearing the name it was given during the Greek occupation, on a street paved by the Romans, and my workplace was on a hill, where Genghis Khan had first arrived from Persia»
«Erdogan, no matter one’s judgement of his individual actions, has pursued the revival of Turkish sovereignty and culture.»
Which "turkish sovereignty and culture"? One of the many historical and contemporary ones or an invented one to act as a base for the rule of his party and to overwrite all those far older ones? Because to me it looks like the latter. The Osmanli occupation of Anatolia was about the same as their occupation of Greece or Serbia or Romania, a small minority lording over and imposing their religion and culture.
Thanks! He seemed to be gushing, Don't forget Bulgaria.
Thanks Karl for both the article and the various source material.
If anyone's interested, after looking at the bibliography of my own history project for my only source I found this little book and the synopsis written.
CAROLINE FINKEL "Osman's Dream - The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1923"
c. 2005/6. John Murray
"From its shadowy beginnings to its official ending the Ottoman empire presaged the Turkish state. This is a well-regarded narrative of the six-century phenomenon that eventually became identified as the modern 'Jihadic' force in the dynamic monotheistic battle for the hearts and minds of the populations of Europe and Asia Minor or Middle East. The first chapter is an enlightening synopsis of the political situation of the whole region and shows us the rise of a warlord who forged an entity that not only endured but expanded as others began around this period grew but then receded in other areas of the two elements of the Euro-Asian landmass. The Mongol, disintegrative influence and Christian Schism between the Latins and the Orthodox facilitated the rise of an acquisitive and pragmatic regime that only later adorned itself in Muslim purity. Its rise may well reflect the similar dynamic of aggressive economic war prevalent in Europe during the same period."
As to the next article you propose; I remember thinking that the Catholic/Orthodox division was an early manifestation of the East/West divide we experienced most recently as the so-called 'iron curtain'.
Best wishes to you and yours in 2025 and beyond.
Precisely, but it's far more than that as the Vatican became the Creditor's Champion to enable its imperialism while it became Europe's major Feudal Landlord and oppressor of commoners. Enabling Slavs with their own language isn't recognized properly as the revolutionary move it was--the foundation for the Third Rome.
I recently viewed a doc which claimed the origin of "modern" state-finance by the Venetian Republic corresponds with its raising funds to fight against the expansion of The Papal States...Old Church Slavonic almost certainly came from Old Bulgarian that was "refined" a touch, and modern Bulgarian is likely closest to it. Old Church Slavonic is the first Slavic literary language and the oldest extant written Slavonic language attested in literary sources.
Thanks Karl for that concise brief history lesson.
i think erdogans support for hts is more of his fantasy ottoman empire building attempt.. so far, it appears he's gotten some success in it too..
we were in turkey in 2012 for 1 month and did travel to anatolia - sinop, amasya,and kayseri. tokat is as far east as we got.. the people were wonderful and the beauty and cuisine are exsquisite... we wanted to go down to urfa, but we were discouraged due the dynamic in syria right next door...
it is hard to know which way erdogan will swing here into the next year.. all the best in your anatolia studies!
Yes, country and hospitality was great. My next focus on Anatolia will be the Byzantines and the geopolitics that caused the "educating" of the Slavs--giving them a written alphabet and Byzantine Christianity that created an entity that didn't previously exist to balance the Roman Church. Time traveling to better understand what's now happening.
thanks karl.... i am looking forward to reading what you have to say - as always!
«created an entity that didn't previously exist to balance the Roman Church»
Ironically it was the roman uniates of the Kingdom of Ruthenia (of Halych-Volhynia, Galicia and Lodomeria) and in particular the empire of Lev/Louis that shaped a lot of that history and nowadays too.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Louis%27s_kingdoms_and_his_vassal_territories.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Galicia%E2%80%93Volhynia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lithuanian_state_in_13-15th_centuries.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rzeczpospolita_voivodships.png
Interesting reading. Thanks.
wow -very interesting article - also the legends are that the Atlanteans ( very civilized ) came from Atlantis through Ireland and divided - some going north - some going south but eventually - after many immigrants left behind thoughout the travels, ended up in Iran - and were met there by undomesticated terrors named Turinians.