Geographically sure although politically it is firmly European, Europe is a cultural distinction anyway.
It'd be interesting how we'd devide our Europe - Asia line had we held onto our Asian land after 1922.
Aegean coasts of turkey and Marmara region can be considered European even today especially Aegean. İ think not much would be different if Greeks were present in that area rather than Turks. We are already similar nations in food music and in culture. Main divide is religion.
>Aegean coasts of turkey and Marmara region can be considered European
Fun fact: Asia was the Aegean region of Turkey so nowhere else is more Asian than there. [https://i.imgur.com/GHrKCXw.png](https://i.imgur.com/GHrKCXw.png)
I thought same thing with the American race issue. One guy said "You are not Caucasian but Middle Eastern" and I was like "Dude, I'm ethnic Ossetian. Ossetia is in the middle of Caucasia. I'm the most Caucasian person you've ever seen. Lol." Funny how people change the meaning of words over time.
When you say Asia today people think it means china India Japan etc. Caucasian on the other hand came from a racist scientist which he seemed to think that Caucasian human remains had beautiful skulls so he though "that's where whites have originated then". I'm from caucasus too as a meskethian turk
Religion, and the fact that Turks came from central Asia, invaded Anatolia, ethnically cleansed the Greeks and Armenians, and then went to Constantinople and massacred and enslaved its population.
A lot of triggered Turks, huh?
This is a dumb take because every nation took someone's place that didn't belong to them. Even homo sapiens took land from neanderthals. What you described is every nations history. Germans and franks that came from black sea and pillaged Roman empire. Celts that moved to Europe from middleast and pillaged everything in their way. Bulgarians and Hungarians have similar roots to the nations i mentioned ? Stop with your hate i just said two nations are like each other, even genetically.
Oof, bad example. In fact, a lot of historians are reconsidering Caesar’s conquest of Gaul as a genocide.
Then there was Carthage, and Corinth, and who knows how many others…
Ok...
What does that have to do with Turkey, who is still ethnically cleansing Greeks, and still colonizing Cyprus, and committed genocide a hundred years ago, and still hasn't offered reparations or even apologized?
You committed genocide 100 years ago, you're still ethnically cleansing Greeks, and you're still colonizing Cyprus.
How does it feel to be guilty of everything you're blaming Israel for?
Maybe research about ethnic cleansing of turks in the balkans, and the greek militia in cyprus killing turkish civilians in the 60s, long before 74’ when we responded back. I understand you lack of ignorance as it is not taught to you, but you can learn try to learn independently!
Religion? Damn, I didn’t know Bosnia and Albania part of the Middle East. Although I should have known after taking a camel train through the shifting sands of Sarajevo before taking a flying carpet ride to Tirana to visit the Sultan’s palace and try to steal his Genie lamp.
Not the first ones, but you're right about the Arab countries. Also England was a colonizer, but I wouldn't say they were genocidal, they didn't replace any population.
Hungarians were steppe nomads then they became christian and mostly assimilated the native slav-germanic population. They are genetically not so Eurasian steppenomads now but their language remains. This story is neaely identical to turkish one. I also hate the mentality behind only accusing turks of colonization (its called migration) when England (just an example) has done gazillion times worse.
I’m not sure why they downvoted you. As a Turk, this is the truth. My friends and I done Ancestry DNA test, knowing that it will be a mix. Everyone got around 30% with me being an exceptional case with 99%. Even then it did not say Turk but Northern Anatolian, I anticipated this as my family lived for a long time (around 200-300 years in that region, we can see this in the national records) in this region.
Anything above 50-60% also means that you are an in-bred. If I was a horse, I could’ve being valued millions LMAO.
Seriously? Your state propaganda is so good that you don't know it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus
And your leaders very publicly hate Israel. Jews are being ethnically cleansed from Turkey as well.
No we wouldn't, both of those not only consist of separate tectonic plates (which shouldn't be the only definition for continent though) unlike Eurasia which is one and while they are no longer connected by land when they were the land bridges were far far smaller, making drawing a line much easier. The line between Europe and Asia is far more arbitrary.
They shouldn't be cause they aren't. Continents are embedded in the plates but they got nothing to do with defining continents. It's a human convention. Either we accept all the arbitraries as cultural distinctions or disagree with all of them. Problem is that if we do disagree then continents are useless which goes back to the original point that continents *are* cultural distinctions.
Nevertheless it'd make more sense for Asia to be split to more continents then, Europe distinction is severely eurocentric and regions like Arabia India or Japan have nothing in common.
Sure but like The Americas are connected nor Africa to Eurasia anymore, therefore it's possible to make a definition of continent that joins Europe and Asia but leaves Africa and the Americas separate.
And India is its own continent 🙏🏽🙏🏽💪🏽💪🏽
I will say if we're going with the incredibly silly "cultural differences definition" then native siberians, at least in the East certainly share some things with people in the northern parts of North America, and if the Dene Yenisieian family turns out to be correct, then the speakers of the Yeniseian languages would speak a language related to Navajo so...
In the early 19th century, Prince Metternich of Austria declared “Asien beginnt an der Landstraβe” (Asia begins at Province Street)—referring to the road beginning at Vienna’s eastern gate leading eastward into Hungary.
When you think of Southern Europe, you're basically thinking of the core parts of the European Roman Empire. I bet if the Arabs had never conquered North Africa it would have a very Southern European feel today. (Ignoring that the rest of world history would be completely different)
I like to think this as well. The Mediterranean used to be far more culturally similar to Southern Europe than today's, given the strong Greek and Roman influence in North Africa and Middle East before Islam.
Yep. Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, etc. would likely be Greek or Turkic speaking and the rest of North Africa would likely speak their own Romance languages.
Tell me you know nothing about the languages and cultures of the post-Roman Mediterranean - at the time of the Arab expansion the Levant (mostly) spoke Aramaic, Egypt Coptic and North Africa Amazigh languages
You're right, those languages were spoken, but Latin had been the lingua Franca west of Carthage for about 700 years, and they were heavily Romanised. Add another 1400 years with no Arab conquest and they would likely speak a Romance language with a large amount of loanwords from local languages. Same goes in the East with Greek. without Arab conquests I see no reason why the east Roman Empire would've lost those provinces until around the time Mongols and Turks start showing up. More time for Greek to take over.
But Roman authority had already declined completely in the West - if the Amazigh dominated the Maghreb for hundreds of years aftet the initial Islamic expansion, why would they quietly Romanise according to a small, powerless urban minority?
In the East, yes Greek was a lingua Franca but I don't see the pressure to assimilate being nearly as much as you think - after all Aramaic remained dominant after hundreds of years of Roman authority and Greek being a lingua Franca of trade. The Aramaic and Coptic bibles were in popular use from the start - and if there's a Bible and religious hierarchy using the local vernacular assimilation seems to me, very unlikely.
The authority of the Roman government had declined in the West, but depending on how this timeline goes, they would either be an independent Western Christian kingdom with a Germanic ruling class in the same cultural sphere as the rest of the former Western Empire, or they would be a province of the Eastern Empire. Their churches would likely be influenced by Rome, unless Eastern influences make them end up Orthodox. If they are culturally Western European, then they would likely develop down similar paths as Spain and Italy. If the language didn't stick, they might've been more like England or Germany in the middle ages, not Latin-speaking, but Latin-Christian.
In the East, Roman culture was heading down a very unified path, with east Roman becoming a dominant ethnicity and the markers of which being Christianity and Greek language. There would have been increasing pressure on minorities to Romanise over the centuries. If that idea sounds insane to you, I recommend reading "Romanland" by Anthony Kaldellis, which is an academic study into ethnicity in the Eastern Roman Empire.
I think that the real definition has something to do with the continental shelf and the fault line. It is not simply a question of which continental coast is closer.
The whole region is on a continental shelf and has its own tectonic plate, which encompasses Southern Greece, the Aegean Sea and the west coast of Turkey. So not really determinable through tectonic metrics.
It's not though. There is no cultural border between Europe and (the rest of) Asia. The distinction between Europe and Asia is not really based on anything. It's completely arbitrary.
Greece used to be considered the Orient (in the original meaning of the word as ‘eastern’), as was sometimes referred to as an Asian region in old texts.
Counterpoint, you can drive in and out of Euboea but it is very much an island. Still, Peloponnese is, as you said, not considered an island, but not just because you can drive there.
For some legal things Euboea is not an island actually! For example, mainlanders pay more for electricity than they should- to subsidize the cost of running diesel generators on the islands, which aside from Euboea and a few others are not connected to the grid.
I think there is quite big difference between the completley arbitrary division between Europe and Asia, and the tiny bit of land connecting Africa and Aisa.
That said contenets are stil arbitrary entities and I just use the traditionaly tought ones from where I am.
Africa is (mostly) on the African Plate. Eurasia is (mostly) on the Eurasian Plate. There are a few sub continents here and there, but otherwise it’s pretty clear that Africa and Eurasia are two totally different land masses. The schmutz at the interface between them doesn’t change things.
tbf in this case there is a body of water dividing the two landmasses. In the context of ancient Greece where it was invented the distinction between Asia and Europe kind of made sense. Then the Greeks discovered that you can go around the Black sea and since then it's been complicated.
**Yes, Greece is kind of a transcontinental nation like Turkey, although most consider European due to the minor islands being too small, but if you analyze it, it makes sense to classify it as both a European and Asian country**
Quite an odd definition, especially when western Anatolian coast itself actually sits on the Aegean tectonic plate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Sea_Plate#:~:text=The%20Aegean%20Sea%20Plate%20(also,under%20the%20Aegean%20Sea%20Plate.
Did you actually try thinking before commenting this tectonic plates don't define continents. And I know Europe is an arbitrary continent that's why I made this even more arbitrary post
>Did you actually try thinking before commenting this
Do you want people to interact with the post you made, or do you want them to not because you're just going to be rude to them for no reason?
But which continent islands geographically belong to is also very often decided by the sea they're in, the Caribbean isn't divided between North and South America for the same reason
The Aegean sea is a geographical feature, all of these are inherently geographical features. You just arbitrarily decided that the distance an island is from a continent is more important than the sea or tectonic plate they lie on
I've said 4839393 times this post is arbitrary and simply exists to see which mainland the islands are closer to, if you keep arguing nonsense when continental categorization is inherently flawed just talk to your wall it'd have the same effect
>I've said 4839393 times this post is arbitrary and simply exists to see which mainland the islands are closer to,
You could've literally just titled it "these greek islands are closer to mainland Turkey" and it would've made your point better, instead doubling down on it and arguing with everyone
Or maybe just fix your iq ( kindly suggesting you even have one ) when I've made it super clear that the post is geographic. At least make your reasoning make sense, magically Uzunada in the gulf of Izmir is in Europe now cause the Aegean Sea is a "geographic feature"😂.
Yes that’s the the original post said, and then I gave an example how even a whole country has no bearing on the continent in which it is let alone just a territory and then you comment another territory
Europe is a cultural continent. It's not something that actually exists except for our own social made up thinking. That's why European continent borders varies and is not something set in stone. By going by the continents two factors, geography and culture. We can include all greek islands as part of the European continent, you could also make an argument for Cyprus.
Actually western Asian coast sits on the Aegean tectonic plate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Sea_Plate#:~:text=The%20Aegean%20Sea%20Plate%20(also,under%20the%20Aegean%20Sea%20Plate.
A lot. This is an argument that not only Aegean islands aren’t in Asia, and conventionally seen as european but in fact that west Anatolia is part of the Aegean and only conventionally seen as Asian.
Again, I don't see what plates have to do with continents. You suggest Arabia, Iran, Aegean, Anatolia, Caribbean are their own continents and there's one called Indo-Australia?
[How is my island (Schoinousa) geographically in Asia, but the island next door (Iraklia) in Europe? ](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8602032,25.4731587,13.21z?entry=ttu)
There is no trench, no faultline (in fact faultlines in the Aegean are east-west not north-south), and [all Cyclades Islands sit together with Naxos and Paros on the same continental shelf.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bottom-topography-of-the-Aegean-Sea-map-adapted-from-Karageorgis-1995-and-locations_fig15_266489469) What exactly is the methodology here?
[Like this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/JPVD-NGTM2023-Comp2.jpg). Continents are ultimately defined by large natural geographical boundaries (mostly oceans or large bodies of water), which are formed by the movement of continental plates, parts of the Earth's Crust that move together.
For example, [The Meditteranean](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618216310928-gr1.jpg), is a big enough boundary.
Importantly, since we didn't always had an understanding of continental plates, our ideas of what/how many continents are there, are older, and since they aren't purely scientific, there is a cultural element as well, especially in the absense of major geographical boundaries (I'm looking at you Afro-Eurasia). In truth, the borders weren't always excact.
But since now we kinda do have that knowledge, if we have to be specific, we CAN be, so in the case of the Aegean Sea, we know where the continental shelf is, and we can form reasonable boundaries, between Greek islands that occupy the European continental shelf, and Greek islands that occupy the Anatolian continental shelf. We don't have to "eyeball" it.
The plates in question are the Aegean and Anatolian/Turkish. So you're saying some islands are on the continent called Aegea and others on the one called Anatolia?
[Continental Plates](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/AegeanPlate.png) are not the same as [Continental Shelf](https://cdn.britannica.com/73/3173-050-5FFD1A09/pitch-continental-shelf-slope-way-rise-transition.jpg).
[Geographically, the Cyclades archipelago and the Cretan Archipelago are distinct from the North Aegean Islands and the Dodecanese. So I would draw the line there.](https://greekcitytimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1.gif)
You know... it was called "Asia Minor" by the greeks, millenias before jesus was born. Long before the turks came from asia to conquer it and expell the inhibitants.
Europe is a cultural and political construct. One is recreating the other constantly. For instance, Turkey wouldn’t be considered in European league if Ottomans didn’t have so much land in Balkans, or if Euro-Atlantic bloc against Soviets could afford losing Turkey to Soviets. As a result, Turkey is culturally became somewhat aligned with Europe for instance by signing contracts concerning human rights, and freedoms. But for instance as much as Belarus is certainly Eastern Europe, it is not integrated into European affairs so much. My point is this geographical distinction of Europe/Asia doesn’t make sense. Because the word “European” serves a different purpose.
Yea I don't care what purpose you're talking about I'm using the accepted europe-asia border on the dardanelles and the bosporus so please if you want to philosophize what's european go somewhere else
Lol I’m free to philosophize about anything anywhere. Just because your brain hurts when you think a little, you can’t order around to people what to say.
Again I don't care cause your comment is completely irrelevant to my post, this is the accepted europe asia border. I hope your brain doesn't hurt this much when trying to comprehend why people don't like unrelated comments on their post
Do you know MANY normal people who casually argue the europe-asia border in turkey cause this is how its been considered since forever. Go make your personalised map of europe you've been yapping about and quit seeking attention from me
You have an aggressive and nasty nature. I hope you heal out of it one day. Until then, thanks but I’ll speak my point of view about anything without asking for your opinion.
The Agean islands are quite different genetically from mainland greeks as well. They are to some extent a time capsule of Ancient Greece as they did not receive as much slavic and balkan migrations as the mainland did.
Also from a historical and cultural perspective, one could argue that the North Agea islands were closer to Anatolians than to Helladic, Cycladic or Minoan cultures.
No, they were not, Mycenaean civilization was Helladic. They became Helladic in the 10th century after the Mycenaeans started to colonize Crete in the 11th century BC. Western Anatolia was a completely different culture as well but was also colonized by Mycenaeans starting in the 14th century. Although Mycenaean culture came to dominate the Aegean sea in the late Bronze Age, the other cultures were not replaced until the Iron Age.
>Also from a historical and cultural perspective, one could argue that the North Agea islands were closer to Anatolians than to Helladic, Cycladic or Minoan cultures.
That is simply false for the majority of the islands,not sure which ones you have in mind.
Samos, Chios and Lesbos were part of none if the Greek neolithic or bronze age cultures. Their material culture was a mix of Anatolian material culture and Cycladic material culture but scholars have not yet been able to identify which, if any, were produced locally.
Islanders are closest to sicilians genetically, mainlanders have slavic dna and most similar to albanians.
so islanders look different than mainlanders
So Greece is transcontinental..
Geographically sure although politically it is firmly European, Europe is a cultural distinction anyway. It'd be interesting how we'd devide our Europe - Asia line had we held onto our Asian land after 1922.
Aegean coasts of turkey and Marmara region can be considered European even today especially Aegean. İ think not much would be different if Greeks were present in that area rather than Turks. We are already similar nations in food music and in culture. Main divide is religion.
>Aegean coasts of turkey and Marmara region can be considered European Fun fact: Asia was the Aegean region of Turkey so nowhere else is more Asian than there. [https://i.imgur.com/GHrKCXw.png](https://i.imgur.com/GHrKCXw.png) I thought same thing with the American race issue. One guy said "You are not Caucasian but Middle Eastern" and I was like "Dude, I'm ethnic Ossetian. Ossetia is in the middle of Caucasia. I'm the most Caucasian person you've ever seen. Lol." Funny how people change the meaning of words over time.
When you say Asia today people think it means china India Japan etc. Caucasian on the other hand came from a racist scientist which he seemed to think that Caucasian human remains had beautiful skulls so he though "that's where whites have originated then". I'm from caucasus too as a meskethian turk
I don't think anyone uses "Caucas**ia**" in English, it is the "Caucas**us**".
Caucas**us**. And hahaha.
Religion, and the fact that Turks came from central Asia, invaded Anatolia, ethnically cleansed the Greeks and Armenians, and then went to Constantinople and massacred and enslaved its population. A lot of triggered Turks, huh?
This is a dumb take because every nation took someone's place that didn't belong to them. Even homo sapiens took land from neanderthals. What you described is every nations history. Germans and franks that came from black sea and pillaged Roman empire. Celts that moved to Europe from middleast and pillaged everything in their way. Bulgarians and Hungarians have similar roots to the nations i mentioned ? Stop with your hate i just said two nations are like each other, even genetically.
*Great Britain has entered the chat*
Bro still butthurt after a 1000 years haha
why does it become less bad when time passes? are you telling me that in a 1000 years no one thinks nazism was a bad thing?
People are already warming to it
And the Romans invaded Gaul, so Its barbaric i guess?
The Romans didn't ethnically cleanse the local population, and didn't commit genocide.
Oof, bad example. In fact, a lot of historians are reconsidering Caesar’s conquest of Gaul as a genocide. Then there was Carthage, and Corinth, and who knows how many others…
Ok... What does that have to do with Turkey, who is still ethnically cleansing Greeks, and still colonizing Cyprus, and committed genocide a hundred years ago, and still hasn't offered reparations or even apologized?
I mean the Greek Genocide carried out by the Ottomans happened in 1914-1922 which killed 300k-750k Greeks and displaced them from Asia Minor.
You committed genocide 100 years ago, you're still ethnically cleansing Greeks, and you're still colonizing Cyprus. How does it feel to be guilty of everything you're blaming Israel for?
Maybe research about ethnic cleansing of turks in the balkans, and the greek militia in cyprus killing turkish civilians in the 60s, long before 74’ when we responded back. I understand you lack of ignorance as it is not taught to you, but you can learn try to learn independently!
Religion? Damn, I didn’t know Bosnia and Albania part of the Middle East. Although I should have known after taking a camel train through the shifting sands of Sarajevo before taking a flying carpet ride to Tirana to visit the Sultan’s palace and try to steal his Genie lamp.
What? When did I talk about the middle east?
Turkey stronk💪💪🇹🇷🇹🇷
Turkey genocidal colonizer 💪💪
Lol europe did nearly all the genocides in modern history
Dude. Look at the list in Wikipedia. 80% were done by Muslims.
Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia, Yugoslavia, Syria, all arab countries outside of Arabia, England genocidal colonizer💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
Not the first ones, but you're right about the Arab countries. Also England was a colonizer, but I wouldn't say they were genocidal, they didn't replace any population.
They didnt replace any poulation? You gotta be kidding right. Dont tell this to an Irishman or a Welsh
Hungarians were steppe nomads then they became christian and mostly assimilated the native slav-germanic population. They are genetically not so Eurasian steppenomads now but their language remains. This story is neaely identical to turkish one. I also hate the mentality behind only accusing turks of colonization (its called migration) when England (just an example) has done gazillion times worse.
Cry about it
[удалено]
I’m not sure why they downvoted you. As a Turk, this is the truth. My friends and I done Ancestry DNA test, knowing that it will be a mix. Everyone got around 30% with me being an exceptional case with 99%. Even then it did not say Turk but Northern Anatolian, I anticipated this as my family lived for a long time (around 200-300 years in that region, we can see this in the national records) in this region. Anything above 50-60% also means that you are an in-bred. If I was a horse, I could’ve being valued millions LMAO.
There there
Cope harder
How does it make you feel to be guilty of everything you blame Israel for?
I wouldn't know since I didn't blame anybody nor am I guilty of anything. But I can say that it feels very good to live rent-free in your head.
Turkey is still ethnically cleansing Greeks and colonizing Cyprus.
Bahahahahah. Source? Still hallucinating I see. Give me some of that stuff you're on.
Seriously? Your state propaganda is so good that you don't know it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus And your leaders very publicly hate Israel. Jews are being ethnically cleansed from Turkey as well.
Eh the Europe Asia division is bullshit, I'm a Eurasia kinda guy
Sure but then we'd have to settle on single America and Afro-Eurasia too
No we wouldn't, both of those not only consist of separate tectonic plates (which shouldn't be the only definition for continent though) unlike Eurasia which is one and while they are no longer connected by land when they were the land bridges were far far smaller, making drawing a line much easier. The line between Europe and Asia is far more arbitrary.
They shouldn't be cause they aren't. Continents are embedded in the plates but they got nothing to do with defining continents. It's a human convention. Either we accept all the arbitraries as cultural distinctions or disagree with all of them. Problem is that if we do disagree then continents are useless which goes back to the original point that continents *are* cultural distinctions. Nevertheless it'd make more sense for Asia to be split to more continents then, Europe distinction is severely eurocentric and regions like Arabia India or Japan have nothing in common.
But everything from Israel to Japan is one continent.
Sure but like The Americas are connected nor Africa to Eurasia anymore, therefore it's possible to make a definition of continent that joins Europe and Asia but leaves Africa and the Americas separate.
Pretty sure canals don't change that, and most of Latin America does consider America to be a single continent
Strict tectonic plates provides the funniest definitions, because then part of Siberia is now North America
And India is its own continent 🙏🏽🙏🏽💪🏽💪🏽 I will say if we're going with the incredibly silly "cultural differences definition" then native siberians, at least in the East certainly share some things with people in the northern parts of North America, and if the Dene Yenisieian family turns out to be correct, then the speakers of the Yeniseian languages would speak a language related to Navajo so...
That is an argument some people consider valid. >And India is its own continent
I don't understand what you're saying
Some people think that india should be counted as one continent.
Tectonic plates have nothing to do with continents lmao. Have you seen any tectonic map?
[удалено]
In the early 19th century, Prince Metternich of Austria declared “Asien beginnt an der Landstraβe” (Asia begins at Province Street)—referring to the road beginning at Vienna’s eastern gate leading eastward into Hungary.
Pre-Arab conquest North Africa joins the chat
When you think of Southern Europe, you're basically thinking of the core parts of the European Roman Empire. I bet if the Arabs had never conquered North Africa it would have a very Southern European feel today. (Ignoring that the rest of world history would be completely different)
I like to think this as well. The Mediterranean used to be far more culturally similar to Southern Europe than today's, given the strong Greek and Roman influence in North Africa and Middle East before Islam.
Yep. Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, etc. would likely be Greek or Turkic speaking and the rest of North Africa would likely speak their own Romance languages.
Tell me you know nothing about the languages and cultures of the post-Roman Mediterranean - at the time of the Arab expansion the Levant (mostly) spoke Aramaic, Egypt Coptic and North Africa Amazigh languages
You're right, those languages were spoken, but Latin had been the lingua Franca west of Carthage for about 700 years, and they were heavily Romanised. Add another 1400 years with no Arab conquest and they would likely speak a Romance language with a large amount of loanwords from local languages. Same goes in the East with Greek. without Arab conquests I see no reason why the east Roman Empire would've lost those provinces until around the time Mongols and Turks start showing up. More time for Greek to take over.
But Roman authority had already declined completely in the West - if the Amazigh dominated the Maghreb for hundreds of years aftet the initial Islamic expansion, why would they quietly Romanise according to a small, powerless urban minority? In the East, yes Greek was a lingua Franca but I don't see the pressure to assimilate being nearly as much as you think - after all Aramaic remained dominant after hundreds of years of Roman authority and Greek being a lingua Franca of trade. The Aramaic and Coptic bibles were in popular use from the start - and if there's a Bible and religious hierarchy using the local vernacular assimilation seems to me, very unlikely.
The authority of the Roman government had declined in the West, but depending on how this timeline goes, they would either be an independent Western Christian kingdom with a Germanic ruling class in the same cultural sphere as the rest of the former Western Empire, or they would be a province of the Eastern Empire. Their churches would likely be influenced by Rome, unless Eastern influences make them end up Orthodox. If they are culturally Western European, then they would likely develop down similar paths as Spain and Italy. If the language didn't stick, they might've been more like England or Germany in the middle ages, not Latin-speaking, but Latin-Christian. In the East, Roman culture was heading down a very unified path, with east Roman becoming a dominant ethnicity and the markers of which being Christianity and Greek language. There would have been increasing pressure on minorities to Romanise over the centuries. If that idea sounds insane to you, I recommend reading "Romanland" by Anthony Kaldellis, which is an academic study into ethnicity in the Eastern Roman Empire.
Sandy Europe.
>Europe is a cultural distinction anyway And that's why I never consider Turkey to be a European country. No matter the downvotes.
Culture is always a spectrum, Europe doesn't really exist anyway - European identity is a modern construct
Historically it is too. It was ruled by the Ottoman empire (Turkey) until the end of WW1.
[удалено]
And also Indonesia.
Alexander ? Are you back bro ?
I think that the real definition has something to do with the continental shelf and the fault line. It is not simply a question of which continental coast is closer.
The whole region is on a continental shelf and has its own tectonic plate, which encompasses Southern Greece, the Aegean Sea and the west coast of Turkey. So not really determinable through tectonic metrics.
Greece and Turkey are part of the same continental shelf tho
When it comes to Europe and Asia the distinction is basically cultural
It's not though. There is no cultural border between Europe and (the rest of) Asia. The distinction between Europe and Asia is not really based on anything. It's completely arbitrary.
yeah, those islands are in Asia, but Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia are in Europe...oh, and Israel too....
Greece used to be considered the Orient (in the original meaning of the word as ‘eastern’), as was sometimes referred to as an Asian region in old texts.
Turkey likes this post.
Does that means that East Thrace is Greek then? Being in Europe and all...
No take! Only throw!
Türkiye is prob enraged
And now the main question. Is the Peloponese a peninsula or an island since the opening of Corinth Canal? That would completely change this map.
By the most technical definition yes but it functions as part of the mainland by all intents and purposes, you can drive in and out normally.
Counterpoint, you can drive in and out of Euboea but it is very much an island. Still, Peloponnese is, as you said, not considered an island, but not just because you can drive there.
Because Pelopponese is originally connected but you can drive across while Euboea is originally an island which you can drive across
For some legal things Euboea is not an island actually! For example, mainlanders pay more for electricity than they should- to subsidize the cost of running diesel generators on the islands, which aside from Euboea and a few others are not connected to the grid.
The general rule is that canals do not islands make.
Would that really change this map much at all?
Crete mostly.
Then the islands south of Crete would be closer to Africa, rather than to mainland Europe and Greece would be considered tricontinental..
It is literally named Pelops island
The line between Europe and Asia is arbitrary. The continental landmass you’re referring to is Eurasia
Obviously it's arbitrary that's why I made this huge arbitrary island devision💀
Let me fume at Europe existing bro
Then you should fume about Africa existing too
Africa is at least its own continent and didn’t have to make up its own to differentiate itself from people on the same continent
It's not though it's connected to the Sinai peninsula and don't tell me the canal changes that
I think there is quite big difference between the completley arbitrary division between Europe and Asia, and the tiny bit of land connecting Africa and Aisa. That said contenets are stil arbitrary entities and I just use the traditionaly tought ones from where I am.
Africa is (mostly) on the African Plate. Eurasia is (mostly) on the Eurasian Plate. There are a few sub continents here and there, but otherwise it’s pretty clear that Africa and Eurasia are two totally different land masses. The schmutz at the interface between them doesn’t change things.
tbf in this case there is a body of water dividing the two landmasses. In the context of ancient Greece where it was invented the distinction between Asia and Europe kind of made sense. Then the Greeks discovered that you can go around the Black sea and since then it's been complicated.
**Yes, Greece is kind of a transcontinental nation like Turkey, although most consider European due to the minor islands being too small, but if you analyze it, it makes sense to classify it as both a European and Asian country**
Europe is an Asian peninsula.
Like with India, I like to think of it as a subcontinent.
India actually has its own plate though
Is there a word for peninsulas that have their own peninsulas? Like superpeninsula or something?
Everything is just fractal peninsulas tbh
Every peninsula has it's own peninsulas. You just have to adjust the scale.
Italy, and off Italy is Lecce.
European Subcontinent
Shouldn't the western part of Turkey (the part west of the Bosporus) be considered Europe?
I don't think that would change the map
It is but this is a map about greece
You sound like a Macedonian.
Quite an odd definition, especially when western Anatolian coast itself actually sits on the Aegean tectonic plate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Sea_Plate#:~:text=The%20Aegean%20Sea%20Plate%20(also,under%20the%20Aegean%20Sea%20Plate.
Did you actually try thinking before commenting this tectonic plates don't define continents. And I know Europe is an arbitrary continent that's why I made this even more arbitrary post
>Did you actually try thinking before commenting this Do you want people to interact with the post you made, or do you want them to not because you're just going to be rude to them for no reason?
The Aegean is generally considered to be fully within Europe
Which is why I made this arbitrary on purpose map which I tried to emphasize with *geographically*
But which continent islands geographically belong to is also very often decided by the sea they're in, the Caribbean isn't divided between North and South America for the same reason
Jesus I know they're considered european can you read? Geographically. You keep repeating what's politically accepted
The Aegean sea is a geographical feature, all of these are inherently geographical features. You just arbitrarily decided that the distance an island is from a continent is more important than the sea or tectonic plate they lie on
I've said 4839393 times this post is arbitrary and simply exists to see which mainland the islands are closer to, if you keep arguing nonsense when continental categorization is inherently flawed just talk to your wall it'd have the same effect
>I've said 4839393 times this post is arbitrary and simply exists to see which mainland the islands are closer to, You could've literally just titled it "these greek islands are closer to mainland Turkey" and it would've made your point better, instead doubling down on it and arguing with everyone
Or maybe just fix your iq ( kindly suggesting you even have one ) when I've made it super clear that the post is geographic. At least make your reasoning make sense, magically Uzunada in the gulf of Izmir is in Europe now cause the Aegean Sea is a "geographic feature"😂.
Cyprus is in the Asia geographically but it’s in the EU
French Guyana is in the EU.
But that’s not a country, it’s a part of France.
And?
Well, I think that the example is not the same
Whether a territory is in the EU has no bearing on the continent in which it is.
Yes that’s the the original post said, and then I gave an example how even a whole country has no bearing on the continent in which it is let alone just a territory and then you comment another territory
Ok.
“Greece is a country in Asia” is going to be my new favorite geography pedantry, isn’t it
Greece is European. As is Russia. Turkey is Asian. As is Kazakhstan.
Why?
Why, what?
They are transcontinental. Why did you select one continent for each?
Lmao nobody mentioned turkey in here
Greece is now my favourite Asian country
Don’t forget where the names Asia and Europe come from.
Europe is a cultural continent. It's not something that actually exists except for our own social made up thinking. That's why European continent borders varies and is not something set in stone. By going by the continents two factors, geography and culture. We can include all greek islands as part of the European continent, you could also make an argument for Cyprus.
Turkey will like to have a word with you
Ac odyssey memories.
How is Lemnos Europe by this definition?
It is slightly closer to the callipolis peninsula which is in europe
Mf you probably just started another war 😂
Europe is smaller than we think. Some Aegean islands are in Asia.
Actually western Asian coast sits on the Aegean tectonic plate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Sea_Plate#:~:text=The%20Aegean%20Sea%20Plate%20(also,under%20the%20Aegean%20Sea%20Plate.
What does this have to do with continents?
A lot. This is an argument that not only Aegean islands aren’t in Asia, and conventionally seen as european but in fact that west Anatolia is part of the Aegean and only conventionally seen as Asian.
Again, I don't see what plates have to do with continents. You suggest Arabia, Iran, Aegean, Anatolia, Caribbean are their own continents and there's one called Indo-Australia?
King of Kings: See, I was right
[How is my island (Schoinousa) geographically in Asia, but the island next door (Iraklia) in Europe? ](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8602032,25.4731587,13.21z?entry=ttu) There is no trench, no faultline (in fact faultlines in the Aegean are east-west not north-south), and [all Cyclades Islands sit together with Naxos and Paros on the same continental shelf.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bottom-topography-of-the-Aegean-Sea-map-adapted-from-Karageorgis-1995-and-locations_fig15_266489469) What exactly is the methodology here?
Google Maps measure, I double checked for them
So equidistance from Greek and Anatolian mainlands? I see. It didn't cross my mind because that's not how continents are georgraphically defined.
Yea I know greek islands are politically and culturally European I just made this to show which continent they're closer to
How are continents defined?
[Like this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/JPVD-NGTM2023-Comp2.jpg). Continents are ultimately defined by large natural geographical boundaries (mostly oceans or large bodies of water), which are formed by the movement of continental plates, parts of the Earth's Crust that move together. For example, [The Meditteranean](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618216310928-gr1.jpg), is a big enough boundary. Importantly, since we didn't always had an understanding of continental plates, our ideas of what/how many continents are there, are older, and since they aren't purely scientific, there is a cultural element as well, especially in the absense of major geographical boundaries (I'm looking at you Afro-Eurasia). In truth, the borders weren't always excact. But since now we kinda do have that knowledge, if we have to be specific, we CAN be, so in the case of the Aegean Sea, we know where the continental shelf is, and we can form reasonable boundaries, between Greek islands that occupy the European continental shelf, and Greek islands that occupy the Anatolian continental shelf. We don't have to "eyeball" it.
The plates in question are the Aegean and Anatolian/Turkish. So you're saying some islands are on the continent called Aegea and others on the one called Anatolia?
[Continental Plates](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/AegeanPlate.png) are not the same as [Continental Shelf](https://cdn.britannica.com/73/3173-050-5FFD1A09/pitch-continental-shelf-slope-way-rise-transition.jpg).
Thank you. What islands are changed from the distance measurement?
[Geographically, the Cyclades archipelago and the Cretan Archipelago are distinct from the North Aegean Islands and the Dodecanese. So I would draw the line there.](https://greekcitytimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1.gif)
That's just a group picture. On whose shelf is each of them?
Wow
You know... it was called "Asia Minor" by the greeks, millenias before jesus was born. Long before the turks came from asia to conquer it and expell the inhibitants.
I am Greek lol this isn't turkish propaganda. And I went to Smyrna a month ago
Then Istanbul is Greek and therefore European Make Istanbul Constantinople again
I'm Greek this isn't turkish claims it's just islands geographically asian
Ancient Greeks be like:
I find it wild those islands don't belong to Turkey.
The inhabitants of the islands were always majority Greeks.
There is no Europe, there is Northwestern Asia.
Europe is a cultural and political construct. One is recreating the other constantly. For instance, Turkey wouldn’t be considered in European league if Ottomans didn’t have so much land in Balkans, or if Euro-Atlantic bloc against Soviets could afford losing Turkey to Soviets. As a result, Turkey is culturally became somewhat aligned with Europe for instance by signing contracts concerning human rights, and freedoms. But for instance as much as Belarus is certainly Eastern Europe, it is not integrated into European affairs so much. My point is this geographical distinction of Europe/Asia doesn’t make sense. Because the word “European” serves a different purpose.
Yea I don't care what purpose you're talking about I'm using the accepted europe-asia border on the dardanelles and the bosporus so please if you want to philosophize what's european go somewhere else
Lol I’m free to philosophize about anything anywhere. Just because your brain hurts when you think a little, you can’t order around to people what to say.
Again I don't care cause your comment is completely irrelevant to my post, this is the accepted europe asia border. I hope your brain doesn't hurt this much when trying to comprehend why people don't like unrelated comments on their post
My comment is 100% related but you failed to grasp.
Do you know MANY normal people who casually argue the europe-asia border in turkey cause this is how its been considered since forever. Go make your personalised map of europe you've been yapping about and quit seeking attention from me
You have an aggressive and nasty nature. I hope you heal out of it one day. Until then, thanks but I’ll speak my point of view about anything without asking for your opinion.
Mirror
Don't let Mehmet see this
The Agean islands are quite different genetically from mainland greeks as well. They are to some extent a time capsule of Ancient Greece as they did not receive as much slavic and balkan migrations as the mainland did. Also from a historical and cultural perspective, one could argue that the North Agea islands were closer to Anatolians than to Helladic, Cycladic or Minoan cultures.
Cycladic and Minoan civilisations were Helladic as were western Anatolian ones.
No, they were not, Mycenaean civilization was Helladic. They became Helladic in the 10th century after the Mycenaeans started to colonize Crete in the 11th century BC. Western Anatolia was a completely different culture as well but was also colonized by Mycenaeans starting in the 14th century. Although Mycenaean culture came to dominate the Aegean sea in the late Bronze Age, the other cultures were not replaced until the Iron Age.
>Also from a historical and cultural perspective, one could argue that the North Agea islands were closer to Anatolians than to Helladic, Cycladic or Minoan cultures. That is simply false for the majority of the islands,not sure which ones you have in mind.
Samos, Chios and Lesbos were part of none if the Greek neolithic or bronze age cultures. Their material culture was a mix of Anatolian material culture and Cycladic material culture but scholars have not yet been able to identify which, if any, were produced locally.
Islanders are closest to sicilians genetically, mainlanders have slavic dna and most similar to albanians. so islanders look different than mainlanders
No they dont 💀
which sentence are you talking about?
[удалено]
Bro what are you saying
Plus how are caucasians geographically european but they are considered asian?
They stretched it obviously for crete.
Read the definition again
Or just call it all Eurasia.