Thread by @Varangian_Tagma

Some criticize the Byzantine Empire for failing to “Romanize” the lands it conquered from 934-1045 AD. However, there simply weren’t enough “Romans.” Arab depredations during the preceding 300 years had depopulated much of Anatolia.

People first came down from their troglodyte villages & resettled the productive plains. Some paleoenvironmental evidence is now emerging regarding this process in Cappadocia specifically. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…

Armenians, their mountainous homelands unable to support them, moved thickly into Melitene & Cilicia. After Manzikert an Armenian Kingdom survived in the latter, a testimony to their numbers there.

Had Byzantine rule been longer lasting it’s likely a slow “Romanization” would’ve taken hold, much like in the Balkans after the Slavic invasions. Areas that the Byzantines reconquered & held for generations gradually became “Roman.”

Another confounding factor in the “Romanization” of these eastern conquests was imperial policies encouraging the relocation of Christians from Muslim-held lands to settle in these new territories.

This ensured a friendly populace but Arab Christians, Armenian Apostolics, & Syriacs had identities of their own.

With the arrival of the Turks the interior of Anatolia was again scoured by raids & depopulated through conflict & flight to W. Anatolia & Cilicia. This demographic shift provided the basis for a Turkic nation in Anatolia.

The Komnenoi were less willing than the Macedonian Dynasty to conquer regions that were not populated by self-identifying Byzantines & thus the plateau were lost for good & with serious strategic consequences.

I should also add that the process of becoming “Roman;” Greek-speaking, Chalcedon Christian, occurred with much greater frequency in conquered or allied elites.

Many Slavs, Armenians, Arabs (think Digenes Akritas’s father), & later Turks (check out @Eadgifuu’s work) changed their identities in order to fully integrate into the political elite centered in Constantinople & find rich reward, although genuine conversions also occurred.

@Eadgifuu These elites often married into “Roman” families. Basil II was particularly keen to integrate Armenian & Bulgarian elites & stationed the Armenians in Bulgaria & vice versa, encouraging them to loosen their local allegiances & fully integrate into the Byzantine nobility.

@Eadgifuu For locals in conquered lands the process was much slower as there were fewer material incentives & influence from a lack of local “Romans.”The government in Constantinople recognized this and resettled populations across its territory to speed up integration & “Romanization.”

@StJohnLazar Also important to remember that this successful rebellion strengthened & emphasized Bulgarian indemnity to differntiate from the Byzantines, I suspect there was considerable but incomplete integration before.

@StJohnLazar Also important to note Byz & Ancient Romans rarely if ever adopted policies of cultural genocide, it was religious & political disputes that they took seriously.