|
The Turks are latecomers to the scene, we actually know when they arrived. (Rather like we have a pretty good idea when the Slavs arrived in SE Europe.)
But your thesis is pretty much wrong.
Let's take the bit with the Babylonians/Egyptians/Palestinians vs. the newcomers at the time (assuming they really were newcomers). To some extent the construct today has these groups lined up against Israel. It's convenient to try to project it back. But Egypt was Hamitic and imperialist, and often owned the southern portion of the Levant. The Semites in the Levant weren't often united; the Phoenicians had a good run, of course. The Philistines were new arrivals; perhaps Luwians, one scholar suggests; perhaps from west of Greece, others suggest. The Semitic groups farther inland were all of a piece with the Hebrews and Semitic groups to the north. Babylon wasn't Semitic (Assyria was, at least in vernacular), and also often owned the Levant--more often the north than the south. Of course, you leave out the Hittites and numerous other groups.
There's no grouping of the dominant group along the Tigris/Euphrates, the Philistines, and the Egyptians (or even the Phoenicians). They all just vied for dominance and had nothing in common except that they usually wanted to control the Levant. If Israel was a separate kingdom, it fit right in. There's nothing Manichaean about it, unless you pick one nation's perspective to view everything from.
For kicks, let's try the "Turks" in Asian Troy vs the Achaeans--it's not like they were clearly Greek at the time, and in fact were fairly recent arrivals in Greece (with new tribes still showing up, IIRC). There used to be some controversy over the ethnic affiliation of the Trojans. They appear to be Luwian, but part of the Hittite Kingdom. (Not my thing--I turned down my chance to learn Luwian, and if I'm a bit wrong about the Hittites, eh.) Eventually Greek became the language of Asia minor, but not that early. The Hittites'--and Luwians'--main problems stemmed overland from Assyria and recalcitrant Semites (when they showed up) to the south. It meant that they were sometimes allies of Phoenicia, sometimes of Egypt (and on occasion provided mercenaries to Egypt); never really an ally of Assyria. Whatever grief the Achaeans caused the Luwians, the Hittites pretty much yawned at the Ahhiya and the problems they caused Wilusa.
We know that the Luwians fought others in Asia. That the Achaeans weren't much at peace, and the later Greeks had colonies in Italy and France and around the Crimea. Again, it's sort of every group for himself.
The later Greek expansion into Asia-after the Hittites were no longer a problem and Assyria out of the way--put them up against the Persians and the Medes (the Kurds were there already, Mede-related, but of no great interest to anybody it would seem). Mostly it was for who would control their lessers, sort of like Spain and France duking it out in the Caribbean for the same sorts of reasons. There wasn't really much ideology involved, no call for revolution or social justice, no big ideas involved. "You got land; Grog want land." Bonk.
In almost all these cases the response after conquering was to collect tribute and leave. They often found sufficient correspondences to form identies between pantheons. It was tougher between the West and East Indo-Europeans and Semites and Babylonians because their mythologies were sometimes quite different. Still, they found correspondences. Pay your tribute and that's that. Languages spread not by edict but by need and population. So Kurdish spread and displaced Urartean (as a guess), Assyrian squashed Sumerian, Greek (and, in places, Aramaic) blotted out Luwian and Hittite. Many of the elements of nationalism were missing.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
