0
Turks today have very little original Turkic inputs. In a way, Oghuz Turks were Anatolian-washed (the original term being white-washed) by Anatolian peoples. They who were largely unaffiliated until the Oghuzs when they started to align with a group of conquerors, a first after many conquerors came to pass.
Modern Anatolians are a mixture of various migrants who came to the region in the past and of original Anatolian peoples like Hitties.
I believe the collapse of the Hittie Empire was a major life-changing event for many Anatolians. It gave way for various conquerors like Persians and Macedonians to easily shift control of the region to one other and force down several failed Persianizations, Hellenizations, Romanizations on the people.
If the Hittie Empire didn't collapse, a strong modern Anatolian identity indigenous to the region might have emerged.
But alas, that didn't happen, instead, a foreign Muslim Turkish largely the result of the Golden Horde conquered the region and for some reason a lot of Anatolians liked them and converted to their cause and religion. It was there, that single decision by Anatolians, made the forging of modern Turkish identity by likes of Ataturk inevitable.
Now, my question, as stated in the thread title, is... should Turks remain true to their identity their possible predecessors from far back adopted and further solidified by Ataturk or try to return to a more older, indigenous identity of the Hitties that could have emerged had the Hittie Empire avoided collapse?
Bookmarks