Is Turkey a Western country ?

Turkey is a contradiction in that they have started to develop and industrial base that is becoming increasingly sophisticated. But under Erdogan they also have become increasingly autocratic and theocratic. He fancies himself as a sultan and has expansionist plans which is worrying to his neighbors. Until the country becomes secular and more democratic, it will not be accepted in the EU.
 
It would be considered western and culturally Greek if the Turkic invaders didn't Turkify and Islamify the nation.
 
Only the western coasts of Turkey is " European " but even then, those days are over. Many turkish people look European but many others don't.
 
If you want to go by the original division of the "West" and "East" this is the map you are looking for:

1280px-Roman_Empire_with_dioceses_in_300_AD.png





And this is a modern interpretation.

800px-Christian_occident_west_-_orient_east.svg.png
 
If you want to go by the original division of the "West" and "East" this is the map you are looking for:

1280px-Roman_Empire_with_dioceses_in_300_AD.png





And this is a modern interpretation.

800px-Christian_occident_west_-_orient_east.svg.png

I don't understand the second map at all. Part of Africa is "western" and part is "eastern"?
 
If you want to go by the original division of the "West" and "East" this is the map you are looking for:

1280px-Roman_Empire_with_dioceses_in_300_AD.png





And this is a modern interpretation.

800px-Christian_occident_west_-_orient_east.svg.png

Bekas: The Map you are showing (1st one) is more tied to what the Pre-Nicene Catholic Church, and by Catholic I mean here the United West-Latin and Eastern Churches, which at this time would be centered in Rome, Antioch and Alexandria [ Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea recognized 3 Major Sees with Primacy, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria]. Constantinople was not yet founded and it would not be till later Councils. Contantinopile in 381 elevated it ahead of the other ones, which would be a point of contention in later councils (Ephesus and Chalcedon). Now you are correct, despite what some secularist here will argue, that it was Christendom, after ancient Greece and Rome, that defined what was Europe. The Greeks first defined Europa, and it was not the Europe today, the Romans expanded on the Greek definition and assigned Europe to areas that came under its jurisdiction. But from 450AD onward, and in particular by the time of the Holy Roman Empire, what became Europe was defined by the Pope in Rome and Christendom, specifically Latin Tradition. Around 1000 AD when Poland and Russia both became Christian, Poland accepted Latin-Rite (Roman) and thus came under direct jurisdiction of Rome. Hence, Poland would experience the Latin Tradition in Church Music (consider the great pieces by Palestrina, Allegri, etc) along with have more cultural contacts with the rest of Western Europe. Russia on the other hand accepted the Byzantine-Tradition and came under jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Well by 1054, the East-West Schism resulted in a drifting of West and East, of course the Ottoman-Muslims would conquer Constantinople 1453 further isolating many Orthodox Christians from their spiritual patrimony and history.

The border between Europe and Asia (Ural Mountains) is a 20th century boundary.

But if we are honest, there is no natural scientific boundary of Europe. Eurasia is one land mass, so in that context, Europe and Asia are really sub-continents or divisions of Eurasia. In fact, Europe and Asia sit on the same plate. India, called an Asian Sub-continent sits on a different plate from Eurasia (but is in Asia). Australia sits on its own plate, Greenland does not, it in fact sits on the North American plate hence called a North American sub-continent. One is a continent (Australia) one is not (Greenland). The Arabian peninsula is its own plate, but since the ancient Greeks put it in Asia, it still is. But is it a separate continent? Well it is attached to Asia. The Philippines and Indonesia sit on separate plates yet are part of Asia.

Africa sits on 2 plates, the Nubian and Somalian. But currently they are connected so 1 continent, but they are pulling apart. The Somalian is drifting towards the Arabian and Indian and in 10 million years or so, will totally break off from the rest of Africa. Since the Horn of Africa and parts of East Africa sit on a different plate from the rest of Africa, will it constitute a new continent? or follow the convention of how what is Asia actually is made up of countries on 4 different plates. The African-Nubian plate is retreating from Eurasia, and there was an article that this process caused those major earthquakes in Greece and Turkey in 2020.

Europe under no scenario is its separate plate. Yet it is its own Continent. To me this is based on the Greeks, Romans, enlightenment , renaissance and yes it influence from Christendom as well.
 
Last edited:
Bekas: The Map you are showing (1st one) is more tied to what the Pre-Nicene Catholic Church, and by Catholic I mean here the United West-Latin and Eastern Churches, which at this time would be centered in Rome, Antioch and Alexandria [ Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea recognized 3 Major Sees with Primacy, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria]. Constantinople was not yet founded and it would not be till later Councils. Contantinopile in 381 elevated it ahead of the other ones, which would be a point of contention in later councils (Ephesus and Chalcedon). Now you are correct, despite what some secularist here will argue, that it was Christendom, after ancient Greece and Rome, that defined what was Europe. The Greeks first defined Europa, and it was not the Europe today, the Romans expanded on the Greek definition and assigned Europe to areas that came under its jurisdiction. But from 450AD onward, and in particular by the time of the Holy Roman Empire, what became Europe was defined by the Pope in Rome and Christendom, specifically Latin Tradition. Around 1000 AD when Poland and Russia both became Christian, Poland accepted Latin-Rite (Roman) and thus came under direct jurisdiction of Rome. Hence, Poland would experience the Latin Tradition in Church Music (consider the great pieces by Palestrina, Allegri, etc) along with have more cultural contacts with the rest of Western Europe. Russia on the other hand accepted the Byzantine-Tradition and came under jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Well by 1054, the East-West Schism resulted in a drifting of West and East, of course the Ottoman-Muslims would conquer Constantinople 1453 further isolating many Orthodox Christians from their spiritual patrimony and history.

The border between Europe and Asia (Ural Mountains) is a 20th century boundary.

But if we are honest, there is no natural scientific boundary of Europe. Eurasia is one land mass, so in that context, Europe and Asia are really sub-continents or divisions of Eurasia. In fact, Europe and Asia sit on the same plate. India, called an Asian Sub-continent sits on a different plate from Eurasia (but is in Asia). Australia sits on its own plate, Greenland does not, it in fact sits on the North American plate hence called a North American sub-continent. One is a continent (Australia) one is not (Greenland). The Arabian peninsula is its own plate, but since the ancient Greeks put it in Asia, it still is. But is it a separate continent? Well it is attached to Asia. The Philippines and Indonesia sit on separate plates yet are part of Asia.

Africa sits on 2 plates, the Nubian and Somalian. But currently they are connected so 1 continent, but they are pulling apart. The Somalian is drifting towards the Arabian and Indian and in 10 million years or so, will totally break off from the rest of Africa. Since the Horn of Africa and parts of East Africa sit on a different plate from the rest of Africa, will it constitute a new continent? or follow the convention of how what is Asia actually is made up of countries on 4 different plates. The African-Nubian plate is retreating from Eurasia, and there was an article that this process caused those major earthquakes in Greece and Turkey in 2020.

Europe under no scenario is its separate plate. Yet it is its own Continent. To me this is based on the Greeks, Romans, enlightenment , renaissance and yes it influence from Christendom as well.

Completely agree.
 
Imo yes, especially the Western part.

Inviato dal mio SM-A125F utilizzando Tapatalk
 
This thread is now 20 years old. It's been debated at length (over 500 replies until 2022). Maybe the Harvard's School of International Relations can help settle the question. According to them Turkey is in the Western periphery, alongside former communist block countries that are now in the EU like Poland, Czechia, Romania or Bulgaria.

 
Turkey is two contradictions, and a country divided by location with burqas on one side and modern European-style girls on the other. What kind of country is Turkey? The Asian part of the country, which accounts for 97% of the country's area, occupies the westernmost peninsula of the Asian continent called Asia Minor or Anatolia. Here, Turkey borders Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq and Syria, as well as the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, an exclave of the Azerbaijani
 
Last edited:
This thread is now 20 years old. It's been debated at length (over 500 replies until 2022). Maybe the Harvard's School of International Relations can help settle the question. According to them Turkey is in the Western periphery, alongside former communist block countries that are now in the EU like Poland, Czechia, Romania or Bulgaria.


This is a geopolitical definition from the perspective of US global interests. Japan and South Korea are part of that concept, too. This being said, Turkey is not a Western country and never will be. There was a time when Turkey (prominently under Atatürk) aspired to modernisation which, at the time, was synonymous with europeanisation in respect to culture, science, economy and statecraft. All progressive forces all over the Islamic world were looking up to Europe as a model for modernisation just as were other non-Western and non-European countries like Japan. As far as traditionally Islamic societies are concened, Turkey is the only one where these efforts met with some success. I say with some because it was not the result of a progressive and democratic struggle from within the society but something that was forced upon a very conservative, patriarchal and illiterate society by an elite of modernist visionaries. Their success was limited because the system that Atatürk envisioned had to be guaranteed by the military. Turkey went through a series of military coups which is not exactly a sign of a stable system. Secularism and decreed laicism left a cultural impact on the big cities of the Western coast and perhaps Ankara but most of Turkey is still stuck in the Ottoman period and it's no surprise that Erdogan is constantly re-elected. Most of the Turks here in Austria, Germany and the rest of Europe come from the poor rural areas of Turkey which pretty much represents most of that country. I see them deifying Atatürk but none of them shares the values of that man. He is just a symbol of their nationalism. Culturally they represent everything that Atatürk wanted to get rid of.

So the verdict is clear: no, it is not a Western country. Is it a European country, at least geographically? Maybe because Asia Minor is not really Asia, let alone the Near or Middle East. I think Turkey fits the definition of Eurasia just like Russia.

Besides, what exactly is Western culture? Nowadays people mistake American fast food and pop culture for "Western culture." There is something called European culture and it is the tradition of science, philosophy, literature, the arts.
 

This thread has been viewed 299032 times.

Back
Top