Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Forgotten
Knight
Joined: 11-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 63
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
Onogur
Janissary
Joined: 18-Feb-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
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...
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?!
|
|
Onogur
Janissary
Joined: 18-Feb-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
shinai
Shogun
Joined: 13-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219
|
Quote Reply
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,
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
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!
|
|
erkut
General
Persona non Grata
Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
Jagatai Khan
Chieftain
Jeune Turc
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1270
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
blue
Janissary
Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
blue
Janissary
Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
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!
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
blue
Janissary
Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
blue
Janissary
Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
bleda
Earl
Suspended
Joined: 07-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 283
|
Quote Reply
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. |
your hobby
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
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!
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
AyKurt
Shogun
Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
blue
Janissary
Joined: 02-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
shinai
Shogun
Joined: 13-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|