so, what's with russia and turkey, anyways?

well, they've fought wars in the historical period, and not just geographic skirmishes, but deep cultural wars that featured wild card barbarian groups that would take the side of one religion or the other. but, as is so often the case, these deep wars were really actually civil in conflict, as the russians and turks truly represented opposing views in a deep civil war over control of the roman empire, which had long reverted to a greek empire. it's an intra-hellenic conflict.

if you were to map out the areas under the direct control of the actual influence of greek civilization, rather than it's romanized abstraction, it would include both the areas under historical byzantine control and the areas under the control of the orthodox church. broadly speaking, that is the areas in the russian and ottoman empires, with lost colonies along the mediterranean coast, from magna graecia through france and into spain.

historians acknowledge this privately, but seem weird about publishing it: the ottoman empire was really just the reconstruction of the byzantine empire, under a cultural shift to a new religious order, which was maybe even a little more liberal than the previous one, in some ways. there was a population replacement to accompany the shift in religious order, but the empire ultimately survived, albeit under a new ruling class. it should be thought of as a revolution in the empire, then, and not the end of history that the christian byzantines believed that it would be.

it's amazing how that myth - that the fall of constantinople would be the end of history, as jesus would return - has, itself, persisted through the centuries, to continue to colour how we view the events of 1453. this was a revolution, and yet we call it the fall of a civilization - or the beginning of a new one, depending on your perspective. but, the truth seems to rather be continuity in the empire itself - that the hard-headed constantinople, clinging to the past, was finally brought in line with the changes that had already occurred through the rest of the empire. nor did byzantine civilization truly fall, as it was exported to russia, where it carried on; the byzantines lost their empire, but then quickly built a new one.

if there is any process in history, it should lead to these halves of the same civilization re-uniting as the cultural forces that ripped them apart dissipate into history. but, are the societies of turkey and russia ready to move forwards as a new empire - not just politically, but culturally? not for a generation, at least.

the partition of the eastern empire into russian and turkish halves is something that took place over centuries, and is complicated by the absorption and expulsion of a third empire, that of the persians. the initial split happened during the arab expansion, which both led to the toppling of the persian state and to the seizure of much of the eastern mediterranean coast. but, this itself was only possible because the romans were in the process of actually annexing the persians; if accomplished, this would have geographically been a return to the achaemenid empire. it was the persians who were conquering the byzantines from the inside out. the persian empire itself was split by the campaigns of alexander, but continued to exist in a loose federation of hellenic states. this was itself a revolution, from persian to greek cultural norms. - but the empire survived it. the romans presented the next outside and existential threat to the empire, but, by the time of the arab invasions, a thousand years after the romans fought carthage, the empire was finally about to absorb them. what is it to be an empire without an existential threat? but, the arabs were absorbed far more easily than the romans, and it was in truth a new persian empire that spread outwards from the middle east at that time.

the next threat to the persian empire came from the devastating mongol invasions, which left wide swaths of destruction and virtual depopulation in some areas. this was the closest that the persian empire, the cultural continuation of both mesopotamian and greek civilization as well as the inheritor of arab religion, came to actual destruction. institutions throughout the empire ceased to exist, forcing the empire to retreat to the iranian plateau, leaving the majority of the geographic empire in anarchy. the persian empire has truly not recovered from this devastation that happened in the thirteenth century, although it is as close to recovering today as it ever has been.

the turks were the group that eventually re-imposed order in the western part of the persian empire, but they did so by taking control of byzantine institutions and converting them into instruments of their own power. the rise of turkish power should consequently be seen as a counter-revolution of the greco-roman empire against the arab/persian empire, even if it adopted the religion of the latter. and, so, what we see by the end of the sixteenth century is a new greco-roman-turkic empire on the eastern side of europe.

the empire survived, when it's culture did not.

it's culture, meanwhile, fled to moscow - along with aristocrats and clergy. russian expansion began in 1463. eventually, the ruler of russia became the new tsar - that is the new caesar, the new emperor. there were sufficient byzantine bloodlines in the russian ruling class for the western emperor to acknowledge the russian emperor as caesar as early as 1514.

the russians and turks fought their first war from 1568-1570 and their last from 1914-1918, leaving the civil war in a state without resolution, and the southern partition under threat of reabsorption from the western empire, which is on the brink of moving it's capital from london to washington.

i've said this before: if there is any process in history, the eastern emperor will return to constantinople, in time.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.