Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

16 Turk Empires
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Forgotten View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 63 		  Quote Forgotten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 16 Turk Empires
    Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 01:00
Originally posted by Nick

Originally posted by Savdogar

secondly, where did you get that Mongols pushed their culture and language.
they did not bring culture, the language was turkic and persian which existed before mongols.
mongols only raped women and ruled some time.
their influence only genetic.
 
BTW, central Asia is very large, whom you are poingting?
 
I am not pointing at anyone or anything, I am just bring up the facts.
 
 i wonder how many women get raped by teh turkic huns ?!


Edited by Maharbbal - 02-Mar-2007 at 20:40
Back to Top
Onogur View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Feb-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Onogur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2007 at 22:04

All right, is somebody able to tell me what is the right definition of a "Turk" nowdays. Is that somebody who speaks a language of this language group. Is that somebody, most of whose gens are of this ethnic group or that is somebody who leaves in the way the turks live?!

Back to the topic now...Smile
 
In the list of the Turk empires I do not see Great Bulgaria of Khan Kubrat of Dulo with capitol Phanagoria, Volga-Bulgaria with capitol Bolgar, and the Danube Bulgarian empire of Dulo, and later Krum and Asen dynasties. Are they not considered Turk's?!
Back to Top
Onogur View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Feb-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Onogur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 00:09
I agree with you, Xionqnu Hun, that there were a lot more turkic empires, then even mentioned here.
 
Antioxos, why should the Turks have different blood color?!
 
It may sound strange, but I think that anybody can equally consider himself a member of more then one ethnic group. Moreover, today almost everybody in the world is mixed. So, everybody, some of whose ancestors are Turkic  is a Turk, if he wants to be a Turk.
 
 
Back to Top
shinai View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 13-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219 		  Quote shinai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2007 at 23:29

some of these empires only are created by Pan_turkist brains, Turkic is a family of language like germananic group including german and English, can we say that the British empire was agermanic empire?

Also the turkic origin of some of this groups like Avars and white hun is not proved.
 
Spartakus the name of Turk is not only used by Turkish turks , 1/4 of Iranian people use the same term to call themselves,Their language and culture is too diffrent from each other. The iranian turks are called by outsider as azeri, but they are diffrent from the people of northern azerbaijan, so the question who are  the Turks will not be answered,
 
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120 		  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 12:39
Please continue the discussion about the nature and characteristic of Turkishness here. Any out-of-topic post will be deleted.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965 		  Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 12:52

Sorry gus i forgot that topic.

Attila'nın Hunları İ.S. değil de İ.. 5. yzyılın Trk devleti olarak tanıtılınca, ortaya 1000 yıllık bir fark ıkmış. Uygurların 'matbaa tekniği'ni 'keşfettikleri' de sylenmiş. Karahanlılar devletinde halk tamamen Trk ve kısmen İranlıdır denmiş. Bu da ancak Trklere zg bir marifet olsa gerek. Ayrıca, Altınordu devleti iinde yer alan bir Cuci ulusu varmış.
it says there are too many faults in 16 Turk Empire story. For ex. they said Huns of Atilla lived in BC.5 not AD.5 that means 1000 years of mistake. Or they said Uigurs invented printing. And they said all peopels of Karahan Turk only some of them Iranian. And they said there is Cuci nation in Golden Horde.
Coşkun ok, listeye girmeyi başaramayan 'Trk devletleri'ni (ancak bir kısmını sığdırabilmiş) sayıyor, bu arada Anadolu Seluklu Devleti'nin unutulmuş olduğunu belirtiyor
Coskun Ucok says some Turk states forgotten in list. For ex. they didnt add the Anatolian Seldjuks.
 
Back to Top
Jagatai Khan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Jeune Turc

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1270 		  Quote Jagatai Khan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 16:48
Yes they forgot the Rum Sultanate, which is the first Turkic-Anatolian(Turkish) state.So the list sucks.
Back to Top
blue View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote blue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 16:50
Originally posted by Onogur

In the list of the Turk empires I do not see Great Bulgaria of Khan Kubrat of Dulo with capitol Phanagoria, Volga-Bulgaria with capitol Bolgar, and the Danube Bulgarian empire of Dulo, and later Krum and Asen dynasties. Are they not considered Turk's?!
 
edit
 


Edited by blue - 03-Mar-2007 at 09:38
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 16:57
Provocation? don't Bulgar's have a right to claim their Bulgar heritage? Volga Bulgaria Bulgar's for example?
 
Volga Bulgaria is a Turkic area so why do you consider it a provocation?
 
If they were to count all Turk states and empires the list would go into the hundreds, I think they picked the most powerfull ones. I wonder why the Mamlukes arn't considered?
 
Seljuk's are already in the list, Seljuk of the Rum are a part of it.
 
 
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
blue View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote blue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 17:12
Bulgars were an Iranian tribe.The Volga Bulgars were Mongolidised and Turkicified so today they are righfully called tatars cos they have very very little to do with the original Bulgars!
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 17:25

Oh please...this is a history forum, not national propoganda forum, the only reason you find it hard to accept is due to modern day Bulgaria-Ottoman relations.

Bulgar's were part of the "Ogurs".

Before the Bulgar's there were Finnish tribes in the Volga Bulgaria region not Iranian ones.

The Bulgar's of Volga Bulgaria are Turkic, were Turkic go there today if you like its living proof.

Today's "Bulgaria" had some Bulgar rulers and adopted the name Bulgar, they today don't speak Bulgar's language.

Bulgars are called Tatars, all settled Turkic muslim people's are called Tatars by Russians, what a silly argument to try and use.



Edited by Bulldog - 02-Mar-2007 at 17:28
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
blue View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote blue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 17:39
Originally posted by Bulldog

Oh please...this is a history forum, not national propoganda forum

yeah exactly,history is my hobby.So by estimating all the existing archeological and written sources i came to the conclusion that Bulgars were most probably of Iranian origin.Not that i have something agaist the Turkic theory,it just lacks real arguments.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 17:45
Hah, like the Iranian theory has any credibility, it's a joke to historians outside of Bulgaria, nothing but pseudo-history with relying on very few credible sources and facts.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
blue View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote blue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 17:55
Originally posted by Bulldog

but pseudo-history with relying on very few credible sources and facts.
The same can be said about the Turkic theory,don't you think,so go figure
Back to Top
bleda View Drop Down
Earl
Earl

Suspended

Joined: 07-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 283 		  Quote bleda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 20:32
Originally posted by blue

Originally posted by Bulldog

Oh please...this is a history forum, not national propoganda forum

yeah exactly,history is my hobby.So by estimating all the existing archeological and written sources i came to the conclusion that Bulgars were most probably of Iranian origin.Not that i have something agaist the Turkic theory,it just lacks real arguments.


LOL your hobbyLOLLOL
LOL
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120 		  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 20:34
Guyz if you go on like that, we won't get anywhere: give your sources or quite the dogfight!
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 09:06

The whole idea of Bulgar's according to some Bulgarians in Bulgaria being anything but Turkic stems from their Ottoman-Bulgaria relations. It has nothing to do with history, if there was no Ottoman-Bulgaria conflict, it woudn't bother them if Bulgar's were Turkic or not.

Historically speaking, all major historians and research into the matter conclusively shows the Bulgars were and still are Turkic, there is nothing to argue about and the only one's who are so sensitive and care so much are characters like "Blue".
 
Prior to Bulgars, Finnish tribes lived in Volga Bulgaria, then the Ogur Turkic confederacy which included Bulgars migrated to the region, the Finnish tribes were influenced by the Turkic one's, the region adopted a Turkic language and from then on the Bulgar's grew in the region. Later some migrated to the Balkans others stayed in Volga Bulgaria.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236 		  Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 09:52
The evidence supporting a Turkic origin of the Bulgars (Volga Bulgars) are actually quite plenty.
 
They were ruled by Khans.  Other noble titles were Kavkan, Tarkan and Boritarkan.  They also had Boylars.
They worshipped the Turkic god Tangra.
There alphabet was similar to Orkhon script.  the words found on Bulgar stone inscriptions were Turkic.  Also some inscriptions were in Greek or Slavic letters and corroborate the Turkic origin of these words.
The present day Turkic people who are closest, geographically and linguistically, to the ancient Bulgars are the Chuvash.
 
The only historians who argue an Iranian origin are Nationalist Bulgaarian historians.
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
Back to Top
blue View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote blue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 12:48
Originally posted by AyKurt

The evidence supporting a Turkic origin of the Bulgars (Volga Bulgars) are actually quite plenty.
 
They were ruled by Khans.  Other noble titles were Kavkan, Tarkan and Boritarkan.  They also had Boylars.
There are inscriptions from 3 Bulgar rulers of the pre Christianisation period,where their title is mentioned.It's canasuvigi,not khan.
 
Originally posted by AyKurt

They worshipped the Turkic god Tangra.
There are no written sources about the religion of the Bulgars.
Only fragments of 1(one) stone inscription is found near a pagan temple with the word taggra.
Originally posted by AyKurt

There alphabet was similar to Orkhon script.  the words found on Bulgar stone inscriptions were Turkic.  Also some inscriptions were in Greek or Slavic letters and corroborate the Turkic origin of these words..
There are no inscriptions found in Bulgaria written with the so called
Orkhon script.There are around 100 stone inscripions found all written in Greek(except 2) written with Greek letters in a language that has both Iranian and Turkic words (mainly titles as Kavkan, Tarkan,Boritarkan) and that's actually the main evidence of the supporters of the Turkic theory.
 
Originally posted by AyKurt

The present day Turkic people who are closest, geographically and linguistically, to the ancient Bulgars are the Chuvash.
 
Probably.And Chuvash is the most distinctive of the Turkic languages and thus cannot be understood by speakers of other Turkic tongues,strange isn't it?.And many scientists doubt that it's Turkic language at all.
 
There are many more arguments against the Turkic theory such as the names of Bulgars(many of them of Iranian origin) and so on.
Back to Top
shinai View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 13-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219 		  Quote shinai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 13:06

Bulgars,eh, I guess when you asked them what is their origin , most of them would say they are slav, not iranic or Turkic.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.