Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
16 Turk Empires |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 7> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||
Maharbbal 
Sultan 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 08-Mar-2006 Location: Paris Online Status: Offline Posts: 2120 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: 16 Turk EmpiresPosted: 04-Mar-2007 at 22:52 |
|||
|
Thanks Onogur, great post!
Just one thing you're confusing theory and hypothesis. A theory being "proved" or to be correct supported. |
||||
|
I am a free donkey!
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Onogur
Janissary 
Joined: 18-Feb-2007 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 20:09 |
|||
|
Guys, please, stop arguing and repeating yourself. You are both partly right.
There are still two theories for the origin of the Bulgars - Turkic and Iranian.
The Iranian theory (which is a new theory) relies on the several words in bulgarian with iranian origin, on the few grammar differences with the Turks, and similarities with Iranian, on some rituals and habits. Also, some authors called Bulgars - Sarmantians. But it is still not completely proven and remains a theory.
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. Most of the habits, rituals, way of life, values were Turkic. Moreover, the members of Dulo dynasty after Kubrat pretended that they are direct descendents of Attila, and it is very possible according to the fact, that the Kubrat's uncle Organa was of Ermy clan (also Octar's and Rua's clan, Attila's predecessors).
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. Here comes the interesting part - "subigi" means "highest", so Khan Subigi means Highest Khan. Khansubigi is really not far away from "Kanasubigi" (Blue)....
 ... especially, if we are trying to write it in present day English! 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?!  It becomes even more complicated, because the politics of Krum dynasty during the First Bulgarian empire were to involve the Slav population into the administration and the politics. And here comes the title Knyaz. Willingly or not that was the beginning of the "slavonising" of Danube Bulgaria. "A hug more formidable then a sword"... as one of my favorite authors says about the Slavs.
Bulldog, I have an impresion that in your opinion we feel bad about Bulgars being of Turk origin, because of the Osmans or Ottomans being of a Turk origin too. Am I wrong? Or it is more possible that there are not two different words in English for a citizen of Turkey and a member of the Turkic ethnic group and it may sound offensive to some people, their origin to be considered Turk (of Turkey)? It is probably pretty much the same as to have the same word for German and Germanic - then how does it sound "Oh, you are from England?! Then you are of German origin!"   No offense, I am just trying to explain where the problem is.  Edited by Onogur - 04-Mar-2007 at 20:12 |
||||
|
||||
|
Bulldog
Caliph 
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 14:26 |
|||
|
Blue
What Im saying is that the recorded title of the Bulgar rulers is canasuvigi not khan.
Well who was Khan Kubrat, Khan Batbayan, Khan Krum, Khan Omurtag etc etc why are you denying this?
Blue
Turkic calendar?It's the ancient Chinese calendar
Nope its the Turkic calender.
Bllue
Again you sound too hypocratical trying to find excuses why Chuvash is so different from the rest of the Turkic languages.
Hypocritical? are you ok
 Chuvash is a Turkic not Iranic so its not doing much for your alternate psuedo-history is 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: 04-Mar-2007 at 13:14 |
|||
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?
It's an inscription of Perssian/Pressian(strange name for a Turkic ruler don't you think) in Greek and it's " but God see" no Tengri there.
Turkic calendar?It's the ancient Chinese calendar
Again you sound too hypocratical trying to find excuses why Chuvash is so different from the rest of the Turkic languages.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 13:11 |
|||
|
Blue
There are inscriptions from 3 Bulgar rulers of the pre Christianisation period
So? your saying prior to Christianity they were Turkic then after turned Iranic.
Plus the main Bulgar population always stayed in Volga Bulgaria. A branch adopted Islam and the Chuvash adopted Christianity.
Blue
There are no written sources about the religion of the Bulgars.
Not only were they Tengrist, they also followed the Turkic calender.
What did that wise Bulgar Khan say..."We helped the Christians many times but they have forgetten this but Tangri knows"
Blue
There are no inscriptions found in Bulgaria written with the so called
Orkhon script.
Try, Volga Bulgaria. Blue
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?.
Nope, there is nothing strange.
1. Its a Turkic language.
2. The Chuvash Turks lived in relative isolation to other Turkic peoples as they migrated North.
3. As they were Christian it further caused them to be more seperate from their majority muslim brethren.
|
||||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
blue
Janissary
Joined: 02-Jan-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 12:48 |
|||
There are inscriptions from 3 Bulgar rulers of the pre Christianisation period,where their title is mentioned.It's canasuvigi,not khan.
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.
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.
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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!
|
||||
|
||||
|
bleda
Earl 
Suspended Joined: 07-May-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 283 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 20:32 |
|||
 your hobby
|
||||
|
||||
|
blue
Janissary
Joined: 02-Jan-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 17:55 |
|||
The same can be said about the Turkic theory,don't you think,so go figure
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 17:39 |
|||
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 17:25 |
|||
|
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 17:12 |
|||
|
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 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 16:50 |
|||
edit
Edited by blue - 03-Mar-2007 at 09:38 |
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 7> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
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.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
