@Chrior:
Sorry, I had to send a private message because the Random News topic wasn't the right place to discuss this. I can't say that you're wrong about the Turks taking over Anatolia in 1071, but the Byzantine period is soooo damn long that one can't make assumptions like "it was centered around here and here" that are valid through the 1000 years or so of the Empire's lifetime.
Except we're talking in the later contexts when Turkic migrations and invasions were around. Definitely after the Arab conquests at least. The earlier periods are less distinctly Hellenic to begin with then the latter times.
the only place that Constantinople exerted full influence over was Anatolia (and the islands, but they're islands, they're useless in terms of geopolitics).
….and the areas that make up modern Greece. Especially the northern tier (Macedonia, Thrace) like I listed. And that Anatolian control was again less so in the interior. More focused on the coasts (all three of them). And was itself more focused on the Marmara region.
Salonika (Thessaloniki) was the second city of the empire in this period after all, and that's in Macedonia.
Also islands are assuredly not useless in terms of geopolitics. Cyprus was and is considered prime real estate for any power in that region, and even powers NOT from the region who are interested in the area. Crete and Rhodes have also been hotly contested matters.
Anatolia formed the bedrock of the roman state from the 650s until the 1000s, with the entire Balkan hinterland being completely left to its own devices since Phocas' rebellion until Constantine V's reign;
What is your understanding of "Anatolia"? You seem to be emphasizing it as a tight contained unit, but even now its not. With the exception of Ankara and Eskisehir, even in modern Turkey there's a vast social and cultural difference between the Anatolian interior and the coastal cities.
When you're saying that the Byzantines had Anatolian focus…what are you saying? You need to be more specific because either I agree, or I disagree.
Otherwise though you're not actually disagreeing with me in saying what you're saying. The Byzantines lost influence in eastern Anatolia, and lost control of the interior Balkans to the Slavic kingdoms yeah.
But that doesn't just leave Anatolia, that also leaves most of modern Greece. And the center of that influence in that area would have been in the northern edge of this area, again this is Macedonia and Thrace. Which are directly adjacent to the Istanbul/Marmara area.
then he started carting Anatolian people off to Thrace and the Peloponnese to begin to repopulate the area with Greek speakers, since the place had been completely overrun with slavs.
Being invaded and suffering doesn't suggest depopulation. The Peloponnese wasn't a major area, heck south Greece in general wasn't the biggest of anything during the Byzantine era. I didn't claim it was.
Slavic invasions were problems for Macedonia and Thrace, and they changed hands some times yes. But they were never firmly Slavified like the interior Balkans were. Macedonia here you have to remember as being a region focused around Thessaloniki, and not think about the modern country Macedonia. Thrace too is larger than the areas that fell under Bulgarian control.
Macedonia was only a dream at this time.
Macedonia is a region of Greece, its basically the north central zone. And Thessaloniki is the heart of it, and was in the latter half (post Arabs) the second biggest and most important Byzantine city. You have to grasp Thessaloniki to understand that area post-Byzantium.
Because it was so important in this period, and retained that important afterwards under the Ottomans, it actually commands a sort of greater sense of importance to Greeks than Athens. And around the period where Balkan countries were becoming independent from the Ottomans most of those people also were obsessed with it (the Serbs and Bulgarians both).
Its in the same category as Istanbul for them as a historic cultural capital, also Smyrna (Izmir). Though that city was less important in the late Byzantine Empire and regained importance under the Ottomans.
So you really can't lose sight of that as an important part of Byzantine heritage and cultural memory.
When actual Greeks talk about "Macedonia" this is more what they mean, and not so much anything to do with Alexander the Great.
This also helps to understand the current silly scuffle over the name between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia. The hinterland of Macedonia became Slavic, and the core region around Thessaloniki remained largely Hellenic.
with Thessalonica barely being connected to the imperial territory.
Thessaloniki is a port city, the overland route to Istanbul is rocky and was not exactly easily traversable until modern times. I have actually been on this route irl, and it involved some winding hill roads and things that are only no problem with modern infrastructure.
Physical connection to the Marmara region is not important, Thessaloniki operated then and now on its sea access.
Greece was only reachable from Constantinople by ship. Only coastal cities were in the capitals control.
I fail to see the problem. Greece (and Anatolia) are in some ways comparable to your own Portugal. A land of rough interior. And here lots of that is topographic, Greece and Anatolia are both very craggy and mountainous not far (or immediately) into the land off the coast.
Greece is more or less a land OF coastal civilization, and always has been. Anatolia isn't even very different from that either.
And the ultimate proof that Anatolia was so important until the reconquest of the Balkans is that the second largest roman city for a while was Amorium
Until the Arab invasions, which is fairly early in Byzantine history all things considered. Thessaloniki never had to be reconquested btw. It got sacked sure, but I don't think it was conquered. Major cities popping up in Anatolia is an exception, not a rule. Even today's Ankara and other large cities (Konya etc) are recent phenomena.
The difference in population density between the Aegean coast and the eastern areas is also staggering, but that's explained by the constant warfare in the area.
You need to get more geography in your history. Anatolia is a dryish plateau surrounded by mountains, it is not a first candidate for population density just by nature. Even the major cities that do pop up there tend to be more like oasis cities, acting as intermediates in trade routes in lonesome fertile spots. That prosper as waypoints. The rim areas are mountains around that. Meanwhile the coast was easy access with some low lying spots that favored population. Eastern Anatolia is super mountainous even compared to the west. Warfare has its role, but only so much.