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  <1234 7>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
selah View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard

Suspended

Joined: 16-Mar-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote selah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 16 Turk Empires
    Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 07:12
Originally posted by erkut

 
 
Some of these states not Trkish and some of them not even state. İts just propoganda.


What can we expect  from someone who is avatar is betrayer? The link is getting us to to Murat Belge Smile we all know that who is Murat Belge....

Of course it is possible that 16 states can not be Turkic. But I can say you something that will surprise you : It does not write everywhere The memluks are Turk ...The Turks who were slaves to Araps. Memluk means Kle -  Slave.

You must explore more I think...
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 15:53
Originally posted by barbar

It is not odd at all. My grandfather came here and expelled others built some houses, then the others came to expel my father, and I started fighting to take my father's land. Wink
 
Again your explanation sounds reasonable but is not the only one. Smile
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 15:51
Originally posted by barbar

And aslo from famous historians, and encyclopedias. LOL
also called  Bulgarian,   member of a people known in eastern European history during the Middle Ages. One branch of this people was an ancestor of the modern Bulgarians.

The Bulgars probably originated as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia and arrived in the European steppe west of the Volga River with the Huns about AD 370; retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and

 
Not so long ago neurons were considered as only bearers of information in the brain. Nowadays nonexcitable glial cells are found to have the same role played in a different way. This is one example for you that basic principles are chaged in science that is free of policial claims.  Science do not stay on the same place and Encyclopaedia Brittanica reflects current position of the major scholars. Geek And what is this "probably" in you citation? Does this word mean "had been finally proved"? Wink
 
Galinus: "Surmata have small eyes, so they can see far."
Not convincing Tongue


Edited by Anton - 11-Mar-2007 at 17:41
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 15:43
Originally posted by barbar

Typical revisionist. LOL
How do you interprete the title then?
Even Turcologists interpret it in a different way. But one interpretation as I said is from two slavonic words -- "Kniaz U Boga"
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 15:40
Originally posted by barbar

Can is Kan--Khan--Han.
Suvigi-subegi is the highest military title equals to General in the early Turkic military structure.
 
Kan-Khan-Han is linguistically proven transitions? Explanation you proposed is reasonable but not the only one. Regarding Kanes -- "Kniaz" or "Knes" and Ubigi -- "U Boga" i.e. "with God" sounds reasonable too. As far as I know scholars supporting Iranian elements in Bulgars have another explanation as well. Also, in most Turkic languages khan stands after the name whereas here we have different situation.
 
It is very normal. They were the earliest Turkic migrants, they have strong contact with neighbouring groups.
 The burdon is on your side to prove that Chuvash isn't a Turkic language.
 
Chuvash is very uncommon Turkish language and stands in a separate subfamily. The second thing -- evaluation of the ethnicity of Danube Bulgars making paralels with Chuvashs and Tatars is not very reasonable. People in Old Great Bulgaria might be non-homogenious. We don't know how much. So it is better to consider every language separately. Besides, those languages also chaged being influenced by Turkic tribes invaded later. Especially this is concerned to Tatar language.
.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781 		  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 07:48
Originally posted by Anton

And the last moment. In several sources Bulgarians invaded Macedonia and Thrace invaded are described as "seeking of their fathers cities (or lands)". Who are those Turkic fathers living in Macedonia and Thrace? Shocked
 
It is not odd at all. My grandfather came here and expelled others built some houses, then the others came to expel my father, and I started fighting to take my father's land. Wink
 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781 		  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 07:43
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by AyKurt

What concerns me is why do some (of course not all and presumably not the majority) Bulgarians (Danubians Tongue) wish to rewrite history with their revisionist nonsense.  If they are so ashamed of the Turkic origin of the Bulgars then why not just petition to change the name of their country to Slavia or Danubia or somethin like that? 
 
No, it is easier to protect name of our state from pan turkist claims Tongue
 
 
And aslo from famous historians, and encyclopedias. LOL
 
 
 
also called  Bulgarian,   member of a people known in eastern European history during the Middle Ages. One branch of this people was an ancestor of the modern Bulgarians.

The Bulgars probably originated as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia and arrived in the European steppe west of the Volga River with the Huns about AD 370; retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and

 
Originally posted by Anton

 
It does get rediculous when claims of originating in the Pamirs or Hindu Kush because of some words of probable Iranic origin when the most likely reason would be remnant Sarmatians or the Onogur warriors who fought for the Persians.
 
That is right. It is rediculous indeed. How about searching the origin of Bulgars in the north of Black Sea from around 4 centuries AD, where they are plased slightly later by dfifferent sources? The only problem is that you can hardly find many Turkic tribes of that time in that region. Well, you may find Sarmatian culture I don't think it is less rediculous to try to make Scythian and Sarmatian tribes turkic.
 
Galinus: "Surmata have small eyes, so they can see far."
 


Edited by barbar - 11-Mar-2007 at 07:43
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781 		  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 07:35
Originally posted by Anton

 
 
 
The mislead comes with the salvic title "Knyaz" that might be also reffered to Kanas-ubigi, but the second part of the title is "subigi", not "ubigi". Heh... the San-graal or the Sang-raal?! Big%20smile
Hold on, how did you know that the second part is subigi not ubigi? as far as I remember there were no spaces between words. So, how are you going to determine whether it was Kanes Ubigi or Kane Subigi or Kanesubigi?  
 
 
Typical revisionist. LOL
 
How do you interprete the title then?
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781 		  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 07:30
Originally posted by blue

 
What Im saying is that the recorded title of the Bulgar rulers is canasuvigi not khan.What's the translation of canasuvigi in any Turkic language by the way?
 
Can is Kan--Khan--Han.
 
Suvigi-subegi is the highest military title equals to General in the early Turkic military structure.
 
AFAIK, Volga Bulghars used "Yiltiwar" --- "Iltebar" as those of the eastern Oghur alliances (Uyghurs), before they became Qaghans.     
 
Originally posted by blue

 
Turkic calendar?It's the ancient Chinese calendar
 
Why did they used this Chinese Calendar? What's the difference between Turkic lunar calendar?
 
Originally posted by blue

 Again you sound too hypocratical trying to find excuses why Chuvash is so different from the rest of the Turkic languages.
 
It is very normal. They were the earliest Turkic migrants, they have strong contact with neighbouring groups.
 
The burdon is on your side to prove that Chuvash isn't a Turkic language.
 
Either make a history or become a history.
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: 10-Mar-2007 at 20:21
I don't understand the problem, Bulgars were and those in Volga Bulgaria still are Turkic. Bulgars were Turkic since they formed as Bulgars, prior to their entry to the Volga-Bulgaria region the area was inhabbitted by Finish-Uralic tribes who were most probobly assimilated by the new-commers.
      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
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2007 at 17:14
Originally posted by Bulldog

Nope it was the Turkic calender as they were Turkic.
So, resuming the whole discussion:
1. Bulgars are Turkic since they had Turkic calendar.
2. The calendar was Turkic since they were Turkic tribe.
WackoTongue
 
.
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: 10-Mar-2007 at 14:34
Nope it was the Turkic calender as they were Turkic.
      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
Krum View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-Oct-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 412 		  Quote Krum Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2007 at 07:48
Originally posted by Bulldog

Nope its the Turkic calender.


Nope.The bulgars calendar was unique and closer to the chinese one.It was far more complicated and accurate than the turkic.
It is only the dead who have seen the end of war.
Plato
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 18:26
And the last moment. In several sources Bulgarians invaded Macedonia and Thrace invaded are described as "seeking of their fathers cities (or lands)". Who are those Turkic fathers living in Macedonia and Thrace? Shocked
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 18:16
Originally posted by Onogur

 
There are still two theories for the origin of the Bulgars - Turkic and Iranian.
 
Hm.. There are much more theories.
 
 
 
On other hand,  the Turk theory is better proven - the bulgar language was a distinct branch of the Turk language, with some words of Ugro-Finn and Iranian origin.
Proven by whom?  How much s this some?
 
Most of the habits, rituals, way of life, values were Turkic. 
Name some of those which you believe to be Turkic but are not met in Sarmatian tribes. Or even in Moesi Wink
 
 
 
The mislead comes with the salvic title "Knyaz" that might be also reffered to Kanas-ubigi, but the second part of the title is "subigi", not "ubigi". Heh... the San-graal or the Sang-raal?! Big%20smile
Hold on, how did you know that the second part is subigi not ubigi? as far as I remember there were no spaces between words. So, how are you going to determine whether it was Kanes Ubigi or Kane Subigi or Kanesubigi?  
 
 
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 18:05
Originally posted by AyKurt

What concerns me is why do some (of course not all and presumably not the majority) Bulgarians (Danubians Tongue) wish to rewrite history with their revisionist nonsense.  If they are so ashamed of the Turkic origin of the Bulgars then why not just petition to change the name of their country to Slavia or Danubia or somethin like that? 
 
No, it is easier to protect name of our state from pan turkist claims Tongue
 
 
It does get rediculous when claims of originating in the Pamirs or Hindu Kush because of some words of probable Iranic origin when the most likely reason would be remnant Sarmatians or the Onogur warriors who fought for the Persians.
 
That is right. It is rediculous indeed. How about searching the origin of Bulgars in the north of Black Sea from around 4 centuries AD, where they are plased slightly later by dfifferent sources? The only problem is that you can hardly find many Turkic tribes of that time in that region. Well, you may find Sarmatian culture I don't think it is less rediculous to try to make Scythian and Sarmatian tribes turkic.


Edited by Anton - 07-Mar-2007 at 11:17
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 17:55
I see hot discussion here. Could not pass it Tongue
Actually there are some more solid Bulgars had turkic element but those that AyKurt have shown are wrong. Here are one by one.
 
Originally posted by AyKurt

 
 
They were ruled by Khans. 
 
Their rullers were not Khans. Before using it as a proof find proof for that statement first.
 
Other noble titles were Kavkan, Tarkan and Boritarkan. 
Yes, those titles seem to be Turkic. Does it surprise you after 100 and something years under Avar rule (or co-state if you wish) and some 100 years of Turkic Khanate rule? Another thing to think about -- some of Russian knjazes were called Kagans but Russian tribes are clearly not Turkic are they? Of course if we don't keep in mind some of the modern scholars suggesting that Rus were initially Turks but then became traitors of Turkic world and the Great Steppe itself. I am not joking, this is what I read in some modern books. Well, for our dear friend Bulldog, probably this is not as much bull sh..t as for me LOL
 
They also had Boylars.
No, this one you may explain as turkic but may not. They are present in many other slavonic nations some of them very far from Balkans and the great steppe.
 
 
 
They worshipped the Turkic god Tangra.
Proofs for that are not solid at all. Much more proofs I can post for the fact that many of them worshiped international god God and His son Jesus.
 
There alphabet was similar to Orkhon script. 
 
This alphabeth is similar to many other alphabeths around the world.
 
 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.
Yes, some of them were Turkic. Others (including their names) are Greek, Slavonic, Latin, Iranian, Thracian and even latinized form of Slavonic. The last one is something weird and I don't actually understand what the hell does that mean but this is how it is.
 
 
The present day Turkic people who are closest, geographically and linguistically, to the ancient Bulgars are the Chuvash.
The present day Chuvash are not closed geographically to Turkic people. I mean not only. Instead they are surrounded by Slavonic and Finish people.  
 
 
The only historians who argue an Iranian origin are Nationalist Bulgaarian historians.
 
That kind of crap does not deserve to be commented. But you should keep in mind that the only historians who created Turkic version of Bulgar origin are the same "Nationalistic Bulgaarian" historians. All others just believe us. Don't believe me? Spend some time reading old (late 19th early 20th century) articles about Bulgarian history and you will see who they cite.
 
 
.
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: 05-Mar-2007 at 22:07
AyKurt,
 
I almost completely agree with what you have wrote!Smile
 
I wanted to add most of this information but my post was going to become too long.
 
Anyway, Bulgarians, of the present day Bulgaria are not ashamed of the Turkic origin of the Bulgars. May be there are some people who might be... but there are usually people who just want to be different or unique..... everywhere.. ....Ermm I even can say that we are proud of being descendents of the Bulgars and proud of the fact that our country is named Bulgaria.
 
About the title "knyaz".... yes, Khan Asparukh was the first recorded to have simultaniously the title "knyaz", but there are some suggestions that his father - Kubrat/Kurt was the first Bulgar Khan who used it, because of the relations with the Slavs. The main political aim of the most of Bulgar Khans was "the absorbing" of the Slavs. Anyway, the outcome is that Bulgars were pretty much assimilated by the Slavs in Bulgaria (present day Bulgaria). Still, the founders were the Bulgars!
 
I just want to add something about the relations between the Avars and the Bulgars. Both people were of common origin, and the social structure was very similar.
 
The wars between them, and may even include the Khazars here, could be seen as another type of "civil war".... may sound strange, but all of them were struggles between certain ruling clans for a domination over the "steppe" people - the very people whose ancestors formed the Hunnic military alliance few centuries before that. Anyway, this is only my personal opinion.
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: 05-Mar-2007 at 17:03

Blue, there is a r/z divide in the Turkic languages with Chuvash belonging to R Turkic with most other Turkic languages being Z Turkic.  Bulgaric Turkic broke away from the main grouping of Turkic peoples in Inner Asia at an early date, probably before the 1st Century.  Old Turkic is Z but also has some R Turkic in it so its debatable which one was original.  Probably a bit of both.  If you understand the main sound shifts in Chuvash then its Turkic origin becomes better understood.  Other changes over time include y > j > s and  l > r.  For example Turkic Yil becomes Chuvash ser.  Volga Bulgarian jr is Old Turkic yuz.  Its certainly not true that some "scientists" doubt its a Turkic language.  It most definately is. 

There were as well as the inscriptions evidence of Bulgar Turkic on the tombs of Bulgars.  An example would be djiaty djr.  Applying the sound shifts i just mentioned this would be yede yuz in Common Turkic.  700.
I should also mention that some of these sound shifts happen in Common Turkic too.  For example the y > j shift happens in Kypchak Turkic.
 
A well known occurence of z>r is  the Turkic Oguz - Ogur.
 
The Bulgars established a federation which included the Kutrigur/Utigur and Onok-undur (sometimes called unogundur).  The Utigur split after being defeated by the Avars and those under Avar rule became known as Kutrigur and those free kept the name Utogur.
These Onogur Bulgars would most likely also include Finnic tribes living in the Volga region since their wide distribution and ancient history in that land is unquestionable.  Also its likely that remnants of the Sarmatians would have been incorporated too.  This only means that the Bulgars were not exclusively Turkic, although the core Turkic but also including other peoples, including possibly Iranic speakers.  However what Inner Eurasian state wasn't multiethnic?  A bad comparison LOL would be like the Roman Empire.  Noone denies it was a Latin based Empire but it included many non latins and even some of their leaders were of Germanic or Gothic origin.
 
Onogur - About the title of the Bulgar rulers - logically it was Khan (Bulldog), BUT according to several sources as "Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans", some were also called or adopted the title "Knyaz" which is of Slavic origin. 
 
Wasnt the title Knyaz adopted by Asparukh and his descendants, Asparukh being the founder of Danube Bulgaria? 
 
 
A Bulgar continuum still exists to this day in the Volga region.  Among the Volga Tatars the name Bulgar was used until the 19th Century. 
"Present Kazan and Siberian Tatars, bearing the khalats in the streets of the Russian cities, call themselves Bulgarlyk 'Bulgardom' " [Grigorjev V.V., 1836, 24]
 
I remember talking with a Kazan Tatar some time ago and he explained that even today among some of the older rural Tatars, they still call themselves Bulgar.
 
The two main towns of the Great Bulgaria were Bulgar and Suvar (water people).  in the tenth century, because of the sound shifts i mentioned earlier, became Suvas. 
The Mari still today call the Volga Tatars Suvas, and the linguistic descendents of the Bulgars derive their ethnonym from Suvas.  Chuvash.
 
Evidently the true descendants of the Bulgars are to be found still in the Volga region. 
What concerns me is why do some (of course not all and presumably not the majority) Bulgarians (Danubians Tongue) wish to rewrite history with their revisionist nonsense.  If they are so ashamed of the Turkic origin of the Bulgars then why not just petition to change the name of their country to Slavia or Danubia or somethin like that?  It does get rediculous when claims of originating in the Pamirs or Hindu Kush because of some words of probable Iranic origin when the most likely reason would be remnant Sarmatians or the Onogur warriors who fought for the Persians.
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
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429 		  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 04:07
This is what I found in Wikipedia http:///en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hun regarding the white Huns whom are claimed to have been turkic in this thread.




The origins of the Hephthalites are uncertain. Many theories have been discussed, of which the "Indo-European" and "Turkic" theories are the most prominent ones.

For many years scholars suggested that they were possibly of Tibetan or Turkic stock[3], and it seems likely that at least some groups amongst the Hephthalites were Turkic-speakers [4]. In 1959 Kazuo Enoki put forward the hypothesis that they were probably East Iranians as some sources indicated that they were originally from Tokharestan, which is known to have been inhabited by Iranian peoples in antiquity. [5]. Richard Frye is cautiously accepting of Enoki's hypothesis, whilst at the same time stressing that the Hephthalites "were probably a mixed horde". [6] More recently Xavier Tremblay's very detailed examination of surviving Hephthalite personal names has indicated that Enoki's hypothesis that they were East Iranian may well be correct, but the matter remains unresolved in present scholarship. [7]

Our earliest information about the Ephthalites comes from the Chinese chronicles, in which it is stated that they were originally a tribe of the great Yuezhi (and thus related to their Indo-European neighbours), living to the north of the Great Wall, and in subjection to the Juan-Juan, as were also the Turks at one time. According to these chronicles, their original name was Hoa or Hoa-tun; subsequently they styled themselves Ye-tha-i-li-to after the name of their royal family, or more briefly Ye-tha[8].

Most scholars today[9][10][2][11] regard the Hephthalites - or at least their ruling elite - as speakers of an Eastern Iranian language or possibly another Indo-European language such as Tocharian.

Various theories about their origins are documented by ancient Chinese chroniclers, as well as by Procopius of Caesarea:

  • They were related in some way to the Visha (Indo-Europeans known to the Chinese as the Yuezhi or Yeh Chih),
  • They were a branch of the Kao-ch`e,
  • They were descendants of the general Pahua,
  • They were descendants of Kang K
  • Their origins cannot be made clear at all.
For some time, it was believed that the Hephthalites were speakers of the Bactrian language. However, modern researches have revealed that while Bactrian was the traditional language of administration, it was not the native tongue of the Hephthalites themselvs[10]. The usage of Turkic royal titles (such as Khaqan) is attested in ancient writings found in Afghanistan. While it indicates an important influence of Turco-Mongol peoples on the Hephthalites, it does not prove a Turkic or Mongolian origin of the tribe. According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the Hephthalites "probably sprang from a strong Eastern Iranian element"[11]

Edited by omshanti - 05-Mar-2007 at 04:15
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 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 0.109 seconds.