Turks are Anatolians under the hood?

[bigsnake49]

As always, imo, many of you take extreme positions, out of either hyper and uncritical nationalism, or atheism, or lack of detailed knowledge.

Human events, even great human events, are rarely as simple as some of you make them out to be.


There were a lot of reasons why people went on the Crusades, and to deny the religious element is to deny history. Were some just rapacious merchants eager for more markets and to cut out the Byzantines as middlemen, some second sons hungry for land, some men escaping from crime, some dragged along by their lords? Of course there were. Maybe they were even the majority. Who knows?

There were innocents too, however. What of the "Children's Crusade", none of which children even made it there? He was completely incompetent, but it really looks as if King Louis IX (Saint Louis, by the way) was sincere in his religion. We can tell from the writings of the time that emotions had been stoked high by tales of the slaughter of Christian pilgrims in the east and Christian religious sites being desecrated, tales which were largely true, if probably exaggerated. That motivated people.

For goodness' sakes, that sort of thing motivates people today. Don't you read the news?

Then there's the age old and ever present curse of ignorance and incompetence. The Franks and the knights from the Rhine in particular had no clue what they were doing, and refused to take advice. The only leader who had a good shot at a treaty allowing access to the holy sites was Frederick, and he could have done it with no war, but the other leaders hated him, and so, among other reasons, there went that.

Why do some of you always just try to score points for one side or the other instead of trying to "understand" it, and maybe, just maybe, learn from it?

Fwiw, I sincerely doubt that even a unified "Christian" front would have saved the east from the Muslims. The Byzantines were too weak by that point to help much. They eventually got to the very gates of Vienna let's not forget, and almost took the whole Mediterranean.

Oh there was. There was a People's crusade under Peter the Hermit. Misguided but probably of pure motives. But even those committed atrocities, perpetuating the Rhineland Jew massacres (the first Holocaust) and then the massacre at Zemun in which 4,000 Hungarians were slaughtered.

My only problem with all these Crusades was all of them were over land. Why would they not attack by sea?

I also think that it was too late for the Byzantine Empire by the time of the Crusades. It had been fighting on too many fronts for far too long. Constantinople shed too bright a light and everybody and their brother wanted to sack and plunder it. Lots of infighting first between the aristocrats and the emperors, religious schisms that the empire got dragged in, civil wars, etc., etc.

[Yetos]

As always, imo, many of you take extreme positions, out of either hyper and uncritical nationalism, or atheism, or lack of detailed knowledge.

Human events, even great human events, are rarely as simple as some of you make them out to be.

There were a lot of reasons why people went on the Crusades, and to deny the religious element is to deny history. Were some just rapacious merchants eager for more markets and to cut out the Byzantines as middlemen, some second sons hungry for land, some men escaping from crime, some dragged along by their lords? Of course there were. Maybe they were even the majority. Who knows?

There were innocents too, however. What of the "Children's Crusade", none of which children even made it there? He was completely incompetent, but it really looks as if King Louis IX (Saint Louis, by the way) was sincere in his religion. We can tell from the writings of the time that emotions had been stoked high by tales of the slaughter of Christian pilgrims in the east and Christian religious sites being desecrated, tales which were largely true, if probably exaggerated. That motivated people.

For goodness' sakes, that sort of thing motivates people today. Don't you read the news?

Then there's the age old and ever present curse of ignorance and incompetence. The Franks and the knights from the Rhine in particular had no clue what they were doing, and refused to take advice. The only leader who had a good shot at a treaty allowing access to the holy sites was Frederick, and he could have done it with no war, but the other leaders hated him, and so, among other reasons, there went that.

Why do some of you always just try to score points for one side or the other instead of trying to "understand" it, and maybe, just maybe, learn from it?

Fwiw, I sincerely doubt that even a unified "Christian" front would have saved the east from the Muslims. The Byzantines were too weak by that point to help much. They eventually got to the very gates of Vienna let's not forget, and almost took the whole Mediterranean.

That is 2 centuries after fall of Con/polis to Mohamet 2nd and 4 centuries after the 4rth crusade,

yet Genova and Venice, with the mercenairies East Romans and East Roman failed nobility, manage to hold, and hold for centuries.

It was other things, that drove Byzantium to weakness,
and one of those is considered the 4rth crusade, in fact the catalytic factor is 4rth crusade,
and while some other crusades help East Rome to stabilize,
4rth was a disaster for East Roman,

just to mention 2 other factors,
1 the ratio among monks and soldier, turn to monks with much heavier percentaces, it said that young boys at the age of 16 run to church instead of jobs, military, family, etc etc
2 the lost of Africa to Islam brought new roads of rare merchandise,
3 the Kiev Ross gained the almost zero taxation on merchandise from Con/polis, by providing the Warrangian guards
etc etc

the warning sign is considered Majikert battle,
the catalytic day of pass from empire collapse, to a local kings federation or confederation is the 4rth Crusade.

There is a castle at Thrace, called DIDYMOTEICHO
it is a castle that 3 emperrors were crowned there,
and famous for its relation with crusaders,

East Rome had problem with youth that went to church, and taxation,
but in 3rd and 4rth crusade the sacked from inside of crusaders, just droped the myth of unbeatable Roman,
and drop morale,

read the story od Didymoteichon castle against crusaders, you will understand very well,
you will find it very interesting for what happened that era,
especially the how many families from all over Europe West and East, North and South wanted it

[Dreptul Valah]

All of the Christian forces had literally no chance in the conflicts with Turks,during those periods.


The main problem with the Crusaders, South Slavs and even the Byzantines was that they were used(and even obliged) with highly ideological warfare,as the main form of the State/dynastic perpetuation,thus,making constant advancements and extremely energetic charges as their basic tactics.



Unfortunately, in these combats,with all the stamina drained... berserkely,we didn't see good defensive standstills...either-to the contrary,as a rule ,after the failed charges,panic followed.



This is what the Turks really wanted, because they knew very well how to counter these actions.


At Nicopolis,Mircea the Elder ,who was the Hungarian's king military advisor, as many of the Wallachian warlords, had advised the Crusaders for a more tactical start of the battle ,meaning, that his experienced infantry ,against the Ottomans, to form the first line;they were probably hardly to lure by the Ottomans.

[Dreptul Valah]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v_0-Vc7uA4g


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rn85RHrShrI


EDIT


Somehow related,I don't think that the Vlachs killed Samuil's brother,David,in Bulgarian lands,with a Comitopuli military hegemony, "knocking on heaven's door",and surely this is not an isolated action of this type.



https://books.google.ro/books?id=-71...prespa&f=false

[bigsnake49]

To amplify, monks or priests did not have to serve in the army or pay taxes. Eventually the monasteries owned so much land and did not pay taxes to the point where the taxes on the remaining peasants were crushing!

[Angela]

Gentlemen,

We have gotten way off topic. If you want to continue the conversation, let me know and I'll move every pertinent post to a dedicated thread.

[Parapolitikos]

The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here

when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says

in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands.


The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066.
In 1671, according to the first Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
by 1693 it had dropped to 91,230.
The Christian population of Crete certainly declined.Is this drop in Christian population the result of war and the departure of the Venetians, or is it the effect of Christian conversion to Islam? One traveler estimated that, within a few years of the conquest, 60% of the Cretan population had converted to Islam.

Another gave the population in1679 as 80,000: 50,000 Christians and 30,000 Muslims.

so from 1644 a populace of 257066 to war for 23 years, to cretans departure after 1669 to a populace of 133370 ..................thats 125000 cretans died and departed for the ionion islands

Never underestimate the impact of the barbarism of Ottomans. You should read some records about how they treated Venician prisoners after the fall of Cypriot and Cretan cities.
Here is a taste from the fall of FAmagusta:

Famagusta's defenders made terms with the Ottomans before the city was taken by force, since the traditional laws of war allowed for negotiation before the city's defenses were successfully breached, whereas after a city fell by storm all lives and property in the city would be forfeit. The Ottoman commander agreed that, in return for the city's surrender, all Westerners in the city could exit under their own flag and be guaranteed safe passage to Venice-held Crete; Greeks could leave immediately, or wait two years to decide whether to remain in Famagusta under Ottoman rule, or depart the city for any destination of their choice. For the next four days, evacuation proceeded smoothly. Then, at the surrender ceremony on August 5^[3] where Bragadin offered the vacated city to Mustafa, the Ottoman general accused him of murdering Turkish prisoners and hiding munitions. Suddenly, Mustafa pulled a knife and cut off Bragadin's right ear, then ordered his guards to cut off the other ear and his nose.
There followed a massacre of all Christians still in the city, with Bragadin himself most brutally abused^[4]. After being left in prison for two weeks, his earlier wounds festering, he was dragged round the walls with "sacks of earth and stone" on his back; next, he was tied to a chair and hoisted to the yardarm of the Turkish flagship, where he was exposed to the taunts of the sailors.^[5] Finally, he was taken to his place of execution in the main square, tied naked to a column, and flayed alive.^[6] Bragadin's quartered body was then distributed as a war trophy among the army, and his skin was stuffed with straw and sewn, reinvested with his military insignia, and exhibited riding an ox in a mocking procession along the streets of Famagusta. The macabre trophy, together with the severed heads of general Alvise Martinengo, Gianantonio Querini and castellan Andrea Bragadin, was hoisted upon the masthead pennant of the personal galley of the Ottoman commander, Amir al-bahr Mustafa Pasha, to be brought to Constantinople as a gift for Sultan Selim II

All Venician soldiers captured were massacred too.

[torzio]

Then there are those who pretend their ancestors never committed any foul deeds, provoked or not, whose motives were always pure, never crass greed.

I do not know what you mean....the veneti where not part of the 4th crusades, only the venetians participated.....the veneti did not go under venice until circa 1400......besides my ancestors did not enter veneto from trentino until circa 1600

[torzio]

I do not know what you mean....the veneti where not part of the 4th crusades, only the venetians participated.....the veneti did not go under venice until circa 1400......besides my ancestors did not enter veneto from trentino until circa 1600

further on this IIRC

only Venetian held lands at the time of the 4th crusade was the Venetian lagoon area plus western istria

Treviso was held by the swabian, Carrera family
Padua by the Este family who eventually fled to Ferrara circa 1430
Vicenza by the Bavarian, Ezzellini family
Verona by the Swabian, Scaliger family ( italians sometimes call this family, La Scala )

All the above taken by Venetians circa 1400

Friuli plus croatia and Dalmatia was held by the Hungarians at the time of the 4th crusades and all given to the Venetians in 1436 after an on-off 400 year war

[Angela]

It's now quite clear, and I assure you I'll remember it. You're not a Venetian and don't have Venetian ancestry. You can claim none of their accomplishments for your ancestry. You can claim only things specifically done by people from the Trentino or whatever "Alpine" villages you hail from.

[torzio]

It's now quite clear, and I assure you I'll remember it. You're not a Venetian and don't have Venetian ancestry. You can claim none of their accomplishments for your ancestry. You can claim only things specifically done by people from the Trentino or whatever "Alpine" villages you hail from.

Never ever claimed i was venetian, veneto yes from circa 1600.....before this from towns of dermulo, tres, cles and smarano in trentno, val di non
I have done by paternal line via professionals
As for my mothers line.....they come from basically the bassano del grappa area....
Neither line ever saw the sea from what i have been given

[Angela]

Never ever claimed i was venetian, veneto yes from circa 1600.....before this from towns of dermulo, tres, cles and smarano in trentno, val di non
I have done by paternal line via professionals
As for my mothers line.....they come from basically the bassano del grappa area....
Neither line ever saw the sea from what i have been given

Yes, and the world is stunned by what those areas have given the world and how pivotal they were in world events. :)

[Cpluskx]

Edar frequency in Turkey is 0,5% suggesting either a very small or a heavily Caucasoid Turkic intrusion.

[Constantine]

Edar frequency in Turkey is 0,5% suggesting either a very small or a heavily Caucasoid Turkic intrusion.

Not so sure if the derived EDAR variant is a reliable indicator of East Asian ancestry. It's been found, last time I checked, in Swedish hunter-gatherers, Yamnaya, and even the Yoruba. And these were small sample sizes with no other "East Asian"-type DNA if I recall

[Cpluskx]

A group called Turkish Dna Project claims there is 10% East Asian (Mongoloid) and 45% total C.Asian total admixture in modern Turks. Needless to say i found their calculations insane.

[Angela]

A group called Turkish Dna Project claims there is 10% East Asian (Mongoloid) and 45% total C.Asian total admixture in modern Turks. Needless to say i found their calculations insane.

I would have to agree. Numerous studies have been done, and the highest I remember is about 20% total Central Asian admixture.

[Cpluskx]

I would have to agree. Numerous studies have been done, and the highest I remember is about 20% total Central Asian admixture.

Well, they have gotten very angry at me and started hurling insults for suggesting these calculations seem too high :)) Clearly some people who are into ancient dna are not very nice and mentally peaceful people.

[Angela]

Well, they have gotten very angry at me and started hurling insults for suggesting these calculations seem too high :)) Clearly some people who are into ancient dna are not very nice and mentally peaceful people.

Some people are blinded to the facts because they want to cling to the foundational myths they've been fed by their governments. My father was a bit like that, to be honest, because of holdovers in thinking from the Mussolini Era. He was, however, an intelligent and rational person,and he would have been persuaded by the science, I'm sure.

Indeed, a lot of people in this hobby are not quite mentally sound. It makes discussion a challenge, shall we say. :)

[Angela]

Not so sure if the derived EDAR variant is a reliable indicator of East Asian ancestry. It's been found, last time I checked, in Swedish hunter-gatherers, Yamnaya, and even the Yoruba. And these were small sample sizes with no other "East Asian"-type DNA if I recall

I have no idea how the Yoruba would fit in, but it makes perfect sense and indeed corroborates the genetics findings for Scandinavian hunter-gatherers and the Yamnaya, as these are precisely populations high in ANE.

[torzio]

A group called Turkish Dna Project claims there is 10% East Asian (Mongoloid) and 45% total C.Asian total admixture in modern Turks. Needless to say i found their calculations insane.

The turks from central asia only arrived in modern turkey about only 1000 years ago,