Karamanlides

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by Dianatomia

Hi guys,

I am also new on this forum. I'd like to give my two cents.

The origin of the name does not mean a thing. Since names were given to Greeks by non-Greek administrations who at a certain period of time ruled the Greek population.

Karamanlides could not be of Turkic origin because they were Christian. So that leaves a few options. My guess is that they were of Anatolian origin. If they lived in the west of modern day Turkey they may have been Greeks. But this is obviously not the case cause the Karamanlides lived to the east of today's Ankara. Best guess is that they were Anatolian tribes who in the Byzantine era became Hellenized.
Later the Turks came and Turkofied most of the Anatolian population. Some of them though choose not to convert to Islam and thus only adopted the Turkish language.

So their roots are Anatolian. But Anatolians and Greeks were never that different to begin with. That's why Turks and Greeks sometimes resemble. Turks are 'primarily' Anatolian peoples who were Hellenised in the Byzantine era and were Tourkofied in the Ottoman era.

I believe that the Turkish people originates at 85-90% at least either from the ancient indoeuropean tribes of Asia Minor(Phryges,Lydoi,Kares,Leleges) whose hellenization started from the Hellenistic era or from the ancient Greek colonists.I remember that in a visit i made in Constantinople 18 years ago,i noticed that only a 10-15 % of the whole population had classical Turkish-Mongolian facial features(pure <Tourkofatses> as i said>.The rest was a typical sample of the mediteranean race and many of them were blond with light-coloured skin.I saw even a red-haired with freckles on his face in Tekirdag(Raidestos).

[Hellas7]

Originally Posted by Dianatomia

Hi guys,

I am also new on this forum. I'd like to give my two cents.

The origin of the name does not mean a thing. Since names were given to Greeks by non-Greek administrations who at a certain period of time ruled the Greek population.

Karamanlides could not be of Turkic origin because they were Christian. So that leaves a few options. My guess is that they were of Anatolian origin. If they lived in the west of modern day Turkey they may have been Greeks. But this is obviously not the case cause the Karamanlides lived to the east of today's Ankara. Best guess is that they were Anatolian tribes who in the Byzantine era became Hellenized.
Later the Turks came and Turkofied most of the Anatolian population. Some of them though choose not to convert to Islam and thus only adopted the Turkish language.

So their roots are Anatolian. But Anatolians and Greeks were never that different to begin with. That's why Turks and Greeks sometimes resemble. Turks are 'primarily' Anatolian peoples who were Hellenised in the Byzantine era and were Tourkofied in the Ottoman era.

I think that is very, very accurate. That has always been my thoughts also.

[Oka]

thank you, for your comments guys!

[Dianatomia]

Originally Posted by kostas68

I believe that the Turkish people originates at 85-90% at least either from the ancient indoeuropean tribes of Asia Minor(Phryges,Lydoi,Kares,Leleges) whose hellenization started from the Hellenistic era or from the ancient Greek colonists.I remember that in a visit i made in Constantinople 18 years ago,i noticed that only a 10-15 % of the whole population had classical Turkish-Mongolian facial features(pure <Tourkofatses> as i said>.The rest was a typical sample of the mediteranean race and many of them were blond with light-coloured skin.I saw even a red-haired with freckles on his face in Tekirdag(Raidestos).

Well, to say that Turks are primarily Anatolians is one thing, but to say that this equates being primarily Indo-Europeans is another. Not all the peoples of ancient Anatolia were indo-europeans. Even the ancient Greeks in peninsular Greece were only part indo European because they absorbed many pre-Greeks who were not of Indo-european origin.

Another thing about the alleged mongolic features the Turks are supposed to have. An Ottoman Turk does not equal a mongol. Turks were nomadic peoples and as they wandered around the world, they absorbed other peoples such as Persians and Arabs. So when they conquered the Byzantine empire it is very likely that they were heavily mixed allready. It is thus very difficult to make predictions as to how Turkish an Anatolian is, because we don't know to what degree the original Turks were mongolic. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that they are mostly Anatolians.

[Mygdonia]

There is enough evidence they held their christian faith very sternley.

It is possible they were of Armenian, Assyrian, Greek or local Anatolian peoples.

[Jordan Piperkata]

Originally Posted by Truth Bearer

Karamanlis means black Christian in turkish(Manlis shorthened for Christs name Emmanuil)They were Christians who became isolated once the Ottomans took over the region.We believe they were Greek speakers originally but due to being marginalised they lost the language but still kept their faith.

so it is more probable to change your language than to change your faith.....

[Draco]

Originally Posted by Jordan Piperkata

so it is more probable to change your language than to change your faith.....

Over a very long time I suppose yes. It was a capital offence to repudiate Islam in the Ottoman Empire.

[Jordan Piperkata]

Originally Posted by Draco

Over a very long time I suppose yes. It was a capital offence to repudiate Islam in the Ottoman Empire.

let me give you some examples of peoples that did not change their language but did change their faith...... Albanians, Bosnians, Pomaks and the Dönmehs just to name a few.....

could you give me an example of a people doing the opposite except the Karamanlides?

[Mygdonia]

Putting this into context:

Greeks in diaspora whose family has moved to the 'new world' in the 1950's majority of 3rd generation 'Greek-American' for example doesn't know a word of Greek.

...and it has only been 50 yrs....imagine 400 yrs...

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Jordan Piperkata

let me give you some examples of peoples that did not change their language but did change their faith...... Albanians, Bosnians, Pomaks and the Dönmehs just to name a few.....

could you give me an example of a people doing the opposite except the Karamanlides?

YOu fyromanians must have changed your language because it certainly is sharply different from the Slavic my relatives speak.Coming as I do from a village with a substantial pro-fyromanian minority,its amazing how many times Ive heard them say about the fyrom language that "I cant understand people from YUgoslavia".Even the stari who grew up in the old country say it.
SO tell me Jordan,was the language always different up there,or is the HUnt-Kolishevski codified language(Serbadonia I believe Lubi calls it) an artificial entity imposed on fyroms population by the Yugoslav communists?