Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Behi
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2268
|
Topic: Why not Pan-Turkism? Posted: 01-May-2006 at 20:03 |
Originally posted by DayI
So is "greater Iran" same/similar project as Turan? From what i know is
Turan union is the unifycation of Turkic people living in Turkic
country's, not occupying other country's parts or occupying parts of
country's that where "once" of Turks. From what i see of "greater Iran"
posted above me by Land of Aryan is, the unify or clearly
"reoccupation" of some parts taht "belonged" to the Persians some
"ages" ago.
It
has (actually many) similarities with "megali idea" of Greece during
WWI, they also wanted some parts back that "belonged to them" but
couldnt.
|
Wierd!!!I was Sure sb would say somthing like that, it's reason for underlins & bold words
But "Greater Iran" was more of a cultural super-state, rather than a
political one to begin with.
other sources such as Richard Nelson Frye
give a more broader definition and define it to have included "much of
the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, with cultural influences
extending to China, India, and the semitic speaking world." According
to Frye, "Iran means all lands and peoples where Iranian languages were
and are spoken, and where in the past, multi-faceted Iranian cultures
existed." (p.xi, Gretaer Iran). | & for more info, Richard Frye is American Swede not Iranian
Originally posted by DayI
Everyday i learn something new about nationalism. |
Agreed, people read something & Interpret to totally new one
|
|
DayI
Sultan
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
|
Posted: 01-May-2006 at 20:03 |
Originally posted by Iranian41ife
LOL you didnt even read the article. the article is about a georgraphical term, it doesnt even mention unification. |
yea yea, whatever.
and as that article pionts out, many westerners also use that term to represent this geographical area.
so no, greater iran is not like turan. |
Ok, understood thanks for clearing it up.
and why do pan turks use the term turan? thats iranic. why dont you guys use turkistan.... |
i dunno why.
DayI, is this going to be another one of those discussion where you dont even read what others post and you continue to talk without posting information or sources of any kind?
i think it is, and im ready for it. |
I still remember that discussion what your talking about now, i posted there source of something that mamikon asked about. I think it whas about Bulgar-Turkic tribes that where settled in current region of Azerbaijan and where allied with the Byzantines against the sassanid empire. I posted taht source for mamikon but if you dared to read that post you could find your answer in it, so I decided "to avoid pointless discussion with guys who doesnt read other's post and comments about it".
|
|
|
Iranian41ife
Arch Duke
Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
|
Posted: 01-May-2006 at 20:06 |
Originally posted by DayI
I still remember that discussion what your talking about now, i posted there source of something that mamikon asked about. I think it whas about Bulgar-Turkic tribes that where settled in current region of Azerbaijan and where allied with the Byzantines against the sassanid empire. I posted taht source for mamikon but if you dared to read that post you could find your answer in it, so I decided "to avoid pointless discussion with guys who doesnt read other's post and comments about it".
|
no, your "source" was probably not reputable, and that is why you probably didnt show it to me because if you would have, i would have just proved you wrong again.
this happens everytime. we have had like 5 discussions and the same thing happens over and over again. you need to either start debating logically or not enter controversial discussions.
Originally posted by DayI
Originally posted by Iranian41ife
LOL you didnt even read the article. the article is about a georgraphical term, it doesnt even mention unification. | yea yea, whatever. |
if you did read the article then why did you say it was talking about unification? LOL i have no problem admitting my mistakes, why do you have problems admitting yours?
your english is good and i know you can read it good too, so if you would have read the article you would not have talked about "unification".
if any of you would have done the research, you would never have even brought the term "greater iran" into this discussion. but you guys didnt, and now you have been proven wrong.
Edited by Iranian41ife
|
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
|
|
DayI
Sultan
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
|
Posted: 01-May-2006 at 20:24 |
Originally posted by Iranian41ife
no, your "source" was probably not reputable, and that is why you probably didnt show it to me because if you would have, i would have just proved you wrong again. |
Anyway i dont know that subject anymore, we can continiue if you want from there. I dont take those discussion as an battle, but an exchange of mind-toughts.
if you did read the article then why did you say it was talking about unification? LOL i have no problem admitting my mistakes, why do you have problems admitting yours? |
Ok why i did talk about unification is bcuz when i readed "Greater Iran provinces" from the article, i saw some points that did fit in that way. An example, the allergy that you guys have to "Azerbaijan" name and allways claim as it yours belonged to you, did fit in my minds as "unification" it may be wrong, but i posted my vieuw about it.
|
|
|
Iranian41ife
Arch Duke
Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
|
Posted: 01-May-2006 at 20:28 |
lol, unification has nothing to do with claims.
we have no probably admitting they are turks now, infact, we know they are turks. but the fact is that they are descendents of the medes and were iranic until the turks came.
i dont know what problem you guys have with that. its the truth. and guess waht DayI, anatolians werent turks either, but they are now. did you also think that anatolians were origionally turks too?
but lets keep this on topic.
pan turkism has no place on this forum. this place is for historical realities. we can talk about the history of pan turkism and its origions and stuff, but pan turkism in general has no place on this historical forum.
Edited by Iranian41ife
|
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
|
|
DayI
Sultan
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
|
Posted: 01-May-2006 at 20:34 |
Originally posted by Iranian41ife
but lets keep this on topic.
pan turkism has no place on this forum. this place is for historical realities. we can talk about the history of pan turkism and its origions and stuff, but pan turkism in general has no place on this historical forum. |
Agree, any "pan" related stuff shouldnt be allowed here.
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 02-May-2006 at 12:16 |
Originally posted by mamikon
The section "Greater Iran" is a geographical description not a political one. And people dont post Iranian articles there pan-Iranism there...and Iran has been a place where many ancient Iranian Empires have risen and fallen. If you have a Greater Turkey section, who have have been in Anatolia for only 800 years, then you ignore all other nations who have created states there 2000 years before the arrival of the Turks. And lastly...do I sense jealousy? |
Call me ignorant but I hadn't heard the term "Greater Iran" before joining this forum.Iran as I know it, is name of a country.
I don't participate in activities where I see no chances of excelling.Jealousy is the domain of Females.
Edited by 0000
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Posted: 02-May-2006 at 12:28 |
I don't like "Greater Iran" in the header, so I made this thread with a suggestion:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11167&am p;PN=1
It should just be Ancient Near Eastern Civilisations with sub headers such as Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Iran, etc. It would make it consistant with the forum's current lay out.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 02-May-2006 at 12:33 |
Ya Zagros I went through that thread.The issue as I see it not about renaming a particular section.It's better if the section below
Topics by region or time period
is either converted into:
1]Topics by region.
or
2]Topics by time period.
I guess better would be Topics by region.
|
|
Behi
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2268
|
Posted: 02-May-2006 at 16:54 |
Originally posted by 0000
Call me ignorant but I hadn't heard the term "Greater Iran" before joining this forum.Iran as I know it, is name of a country.
I don't participate in activities where I see no chances of excelling.Jealousy is the domain of Females. | see the last page,
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 02-May-2006 at 22:43 |
Originally posted by Land of Aryan
see the last page, |
There's just one direct comment about jealousy on the last page.
On a serious note....I didn't know about the existense of Wikipedia too before I joined this forum.
|
|