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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

who are Turks? The current people in Anatolia?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 18>
Author
Chono View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: Mongolia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
  Quote Chono Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: who are Turks? The current people in Anatolia?
    Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 05:42
These some uzbeks and kirgiz, know nothing, have done nothing, don't possess even elementary skills of politeness, still maintain decades old soviet-fascist attitudes and think that's the very height of being civilized. Trying to deny that their very history has been shaped by mongols. Starting from Uzbek khan and Sheiban down to Tamerlane and Babur all had mongol blood, Tamerlane had slanted eyes, and this uzbek talking like this? Rediculous.
Back to Top
battleaxe View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
  Quote battleaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 21:15
Originally posted by perdon

For the chinese ,I have to say ,you people treat Turks in China too bad ,you are not quolified to say the other nation is racist!

i think insulting the eye-shape of east asians in general, not just chinese but mongols, koreans, japanese, etc...is a very bad way to promote sympathy for the turks being oppressed in china...and by the way, i don't think the chinese treat the mongols or manchus or koreans in the PRC THAT much better than they treat the turks.

 

[/QUOTE


Back to Top
Turk View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 23-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote Turk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 22:12

Originally posted by Chono

know nothing, have done nothing, don't possess even elementary skills of politeness, still maintain decades old soviet-fascist attitudes and think that's the very height of being civilized. 

 This is certainly a disease throughout Central Asia and rampant among many. Try having to put up with Azeris. Let's just forget about them.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2005 at 05:38

Ok. I think this topic really got out of the way! But the only single thing that I will mention is the difference between OGHUZ and other TURKC nations...

Firstly... Today, the Oguz people rule three countries...

Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan...

A Turkmen woman and two Turkmen girls...

An old Turkmen in a bazaar...

 The president of Turkmenistan, Trkmenba...

A traditional Turkmen girl.

The Oguz people were mostly living in central and western terrattorries even before the Gokturks, and during the Hun rule. They were nomads, so they migrated to eastern Caspian terrattorries and todays khazakstan during the Hun rule. In the Gktrk Writings, they are always called as "Oguz" and as a different group of people living under the rule of Gktrks, a western Turkish tribe...

The Oguz people were divided into two main groups. Eastern Oguz (BOZOK) and western Oguz (OK). The builders of the Seljuk Empire, Ottoman Empire are both western Oguz people, OK...

The Oguz are a Turkic group who speak a Turkic language, own a central asian culture and belong the mixed race of caucasian and central asian. And even today, a person who is travelling all Turkic republics would see that the Kyrgz, Kazak look very central asian, but others not. I know that lots of people in Turkmenistan looks some central asian, but they are not very much and most of them are Kyrgz and Kazak. Also I accept that lots of people, maybe more than the half of modern Turkey population is partly mixed with other nations. But this doesnt show that the reason that Turks dont look central asian ( most of Turkey's Turks) is because of mixing with Anatolians and Middle Easterns. This is because we were some Caucasian and some central Asian since we became nomads.

This is the destiny of the real nomad... I think from the beginning, being a "Turk" doesn't represent being the same race... From The Hun, Gktrk times to the Ottoman period, it was the common culture, common goal, and the common fathers that meant being a "Turk"...

Back to Top
Mustafa View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Mustafa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2005 at 16:48
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

Also I accept that lots of people, maybe more than the half of modern Turkey population is partly mixed with other nations. But this doesnt show that the reason that Turks dont look central asian ( most of Turkey's Turks) is because of mixing with Anatolians and Middle Easterns. This is because we were some Caucasian and some central Asian since we became nomads.

--I can almost assure you that pretty much *all* of the population of Turkey are mixed people. The nomadic turks that came to present day Turkey did not have enough numbers to settle newly conquered territories with their own people. So, people living there were "turkicized" and the few original turks themselves who remained there mixed into the population. That's reality and genetic and historic analysis can prove that easily. 

 "Maybe more half of the the population of modern Turkey is partly mixed" (as you said above) is just (once again) wishful thinking about a genetically distinct population in Turkey. It's just not reality. The vast majority of Turks today look either greek or middle eastern in general and a lot of them (especially from Trakya and Istanbul areas) even look like they are from the Balkans and other, more northerly parts of Europe. That's nowhere close to the look of the racially mixed populations of central asia today.

Mustafa

Back to Top
blitz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote blitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 05:22
I don t understand why the Rep.Turkey is called so. It called before it Osmanli, but after Ottoman Empire, suddenly Turkey. In my opinion, this name doesn t match, because the majority of these people have non turkic origin. 





     
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 06:50

Originally posted by blitz

I don t understand why the Rep.Turkey is called so. It called before it Osmanli, but after Ottoman Empire, suddenly Turkey. In my opinion, this name doesn t match, because the majority of these people have non turkic origin.  

i think they belive that they are Turkic orgin

and the name turkey may be chosen by Mustafa kamal Ataturk 

 

?

Back to Top
blitz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote blitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 07:56
I read, his real name was Mustafa Kemal. He gave himself the titel "Ataturk",
which means "horseman turk".

I think, the leading people of Turkey of that time needed a "role model" from the past after the breakdown of Ottoman Empire or Osmanli on turkic and they liked the history of the true turks of 6t century. So they called themselves Turkey, though they were not turkic.  


Edited by blitz
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 09:24

I don't underestand what do you mean by that but being a turk has nothing with genetics or racial history.Turkish is language and culture like Latin Arabic Indian and .....

This epic that all real turks are completely or mostly are descendent of Cental Asia is actually was invented in 20s and 30s because turkish leaders at that time thaught that they need a new identity and theory that could replace Islam and Empire and rise a sense of nationalism to unify their people and guard them against new doctorines like communism and fashism.

If this doctorine today is synonyme with dogmatism, fashism and racism modern followers must be blamed because they think an archaic thing thing that was good 80 years ago still must be good and this is wrong.Modern Turkey does not need such stories.

Actually until the foundation of Panturkism theory in the late of 19th Century ,only people of Ottoman empires were called Turks by others.(Although in time of Hamidian Pan Islamic era this term was used for poor anatolian peasants in the empire itself and osmanli was used insteasd of it because they feared using word turk would intensify seperatist movement).

Turkey is Turkey and will be remained Turkey and this does not have any contradiction with democracy ,and human rights and having respect with minorities rights.(for example kurds)

Turkey's nation for achieiving prosperity will have many works to do than changing the name of their country and in my view name of Turkey has nothing with Panturkism ideaology.

Back to Top
Turk View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 23-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote Turk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 15:19

Wow, okay......

First of all, Ataturk means "Father Turk", not "horseman turk" (where do you people come up with this stuff?). Ata is not the Turkish word for horse, it is the old Turkish word for father. Do not confuse it with the word at (meaning horse).

The Osmanli Imparatorlugu (Ottoman Empire) was named after it's founder, Osman. You forget that after the disentegration of the Seljuk Empire there were NUMEROUS Turkic clans in Anatolia attempting to reassert control. The clan of Osman happened to be the most successful obviously, but they were all Turks part of a certain clan. That simple. For example in Japan there were numerous clans (named after their founders) during the civil wars, but they were all still Japanese.

If someone back in those days asked what ethnicity you were, "Ottoman" was not a sufficient answer. There were always Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Hungarians, Egyptians, etc. These ethnic groups and cultures did not disappear after the entity known as the Ottoman Empire asserted control over their homelands.

Mustafa is right in saying that Turks being part of an exact or distinct ethnic group is just wishful thinking. Turkish is a culture not based whatsoever on your physical description. Identifying the similarities or differences etc of cultures by how much the peoples face's look like one another is absolutely absurd.

Omid, your political beliefs about us have no relevance to the topic. If you want to rant about Turks and our politics (an irani national pastime) do it elsewhere without hijacking a thread.

Back to Top
Mustafa View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Mustafa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 22:48

Blitz,

Where the heck are you getting this type of ridiculous information from? As "Turk" has said above, "Ata" means "father" or "forefather" and "Ataturk" means "father of the turks."  "Ata" is still used in many other Turkic languages as the word for "father" (as in Uzbek, for example).  This is what happens when someone knows of fragments of Turkish.....such a person makes a horse out of a father.

As to the Ottomans, "Turk" already explained above, but let me add that Europeans themselves at that time would call the Ottomans simply Turks and not "Ottomans", when they were refering to them. Everyone knows that...you're not the best informed person out there, are you, "Blitz?"

Mustafa

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2005 at 06:18
Originally posted by Turk

Omid, your political beliefs about us have no relevance to the topic.

It was not political view it was an answer to blitz quotes.

Originally posted by Turk

 do it elsewhere without hijacking a thread.

I tell whatever I want and if you have any objection there are moderators who will hear you.

Originally posted by Turk

(an irani national pastime)

National Iranian pastimes are Arabs,Islam,and mullahs.You are not interesting enough.

Originally posted by Turk

 If you want to rant about Turks and our politics 

This is the last time I will answer such meaningless quotes.

And now the Topic:

I will confirm one time more :

It is impossible for a group of nomads to do any significant changes in the genetics of a sedentary nation,unless they sweep all of the population and no seljuks and no other turkomens tribes and no ottomans did such a thing i the Anatolia.
So the most populations of turkey nowadays are remenants of the older populations of Anatolia.

Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2005 at 07:51

Originally posted by maximilian

Or, the nomadic people of central asia??? Can anyone tell me what is the ethnical structure of Turks? are they indo european, middle eastern, central asian or what? Do they look like their ancestors??? ( Well, I don't think so...
>>

I will try to explain shortly.

Originally posted by perdon

uyhgur's ancestor is oghus ,(Tiele ) ,the same with nowday turkish ,but later they moved to Xinkiang ,mixed with tochorien (indu european),

Societies are not rigid structures.  Are Germans of Germany today are the same as their ancestors of 1500 years ego? Or what about Austrians? It is supposed Germans to be blond but even in countries considered German in origin, we see a very important non-blond population. We see an important Arab influence on Spanish people even on their culture, just look at their music. Or are the English people look like their Angle-Saxon ancestors?

Todays Turks are a mixture of Oghuz Turks (Uighurs, Tocharians, Sakas, Sogdians, Uzbeks, Persians and Mongolians), Kuman-Kipchaks Turks (Crimean Tatars), converted Anatolian and Balkan populations including Albanians, Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks etc., Caucassians including Caucassian Turks, Adige, Georgians and Armenians and same Middle Eastern peoples such as Kurds and Arabs to a lesser extent.

If we dig in we get a more complicated issue since when we say Balkan populations, we also include an important number of Turkish tribes who were living in Balkans even before Turks arrived to Anatolia but most of them have been converted during time. For example Bulgars are a Turkic tribe. The name of the Bulgar ruler who first accepted Christianity is Omurtag Kagan was Turkic. Later due to religious and growing Slavic influences they have lost their Turkic identity. Along with Bulgars we know that there were important Turkish tribes such as Pechenegs, Guz (Oghuzs), Kumans who had come and settled in Balkans and later accepted Christianity and disappeared.  Some of them have been settled in Anatolia by Byzantines and they served in Byzantine armies.  Before this, Huns in Europe were the first known Turkic tribe, which doesnt mean that they were the first since we simply do not know if there were other Turkic elements came before them to Europe. Again Avars who were possibly Turkic had played important role in European history too. I think even the name Bavaria (Avaria) in Germany may be a heritage of them.

We dig in more and we saw that Selchuk Beg, the founder of Selchuks who will be the first known Turks came to Anatolia from the east was the son of one of the commanders of Khazar Kagan, has accepted Islam in Cend, Iran in 985. His sons name were Mikhail, Israil showing a big possibility that he was a Jews. (Khazars were a Turkic tribe forming the western edge of Kokturk Empire who were accepted Judaism. It is tought that Eastern Europes Jews have Khazar and so Turkic origin. If you watch Discovery Channel you will see Karaim Turks Jews who were living in Lithuania and Poland speaking Turkish and they are caucausoid. It seems like they are the latest one who remember their roots but we see Turkish in the surnames of many East European (Askhenazi) surnames.) I have written this to indicate how this issues are complicated.

Turks came to Anatolia from the east during hundreds of years starting with Menzigert in 1071 until Chenggis Khan attacks on Transoxiana and Khorasan. Especially number of refugees escaping from Ghenggis Khan was huge.  

Originally posted by Christscrusader

Most turks on the coast lines are converted Greeks and now are part of the Turkish mainstream. The Turkish basketball team doenst look central asian? ALL the important political figures have the European Medditteranian look, not the Central Asian look.

This is wrong claiming in that most Turks on the coast lines are converted Greeks. First of all great majority of Anatolian Greeks are converted Anatolians. Akhas from whom the name of Hellenes derived had come to Anatolia from the Dorian pressure and we do not know if the Dorians were speaking a Greek language at the beginning. What we known, after a dark period in Greece, Dorians (mainland Greeks) were speaking a sort of Greek. It is not possible to claim that Dorians were kin to Akhas. From that point of view the famous Trojan War parties are related with todays Anatolian Turks but not mainland Greeks. So calling Hellenes for todays Greeks is wrong. Only in times of Macedonian Alexander the Greek culture has started to spread even if Greeks were not considered him as Greek but they were forced to accept him so. All of these happened nearly 2500 years ego. It is very hard to claim that todays Greeks are related with ancient Greeks or to some extent they are related with them. The population structure of the area was changed so that Athens was a small village in 15th century.

The Anatolian Turks do not look Central Asian since the population structure has changed in Central Asia too. We can not say that Turks were originally Mongoloid or not, since talking about an origin is beyond our scope of knowledge. The homeland of nations is still a matter of discussion in academic arena and there is not a consensus on it neither for Indo-Europeans nor Turks. Even if we get concrete information that they were Mongoloids, this will not change the fact that they have mixed with all other nations on their long way to Anatolia and gained their caucausoid features. It is generally accepted that Turks homeland is in Altais. We have both Caucosid and Mongolid skeletons there.    

Originally posted by Chono

In ancient chinese documents turkic speakers have frequently been described as caucasian looking. Probably, turkic speaking people have been a mixture all along.

Chono is right. Look at the Chinese chronicals. You can also look at Byzantine choronicals who have been diplomatic relations with Kokturks, who send and accepted diplomatic envoys. Byzantines relates Turks with Scythians.

Originally posted by Omid

This epic that all real turks are completely or mostly are descendent of Cental Asia is actually was invented in 20s and 30s because turkish leaders at that time thaught that they need a new identity  

It is not like this. There is not a concept like real Turk which was invented in 20s and 30s. It is an undeniable fact that there is a clear link between Turkeys Turks and Central Asia. A new identity was a must since as the main body of Ottoman Empire Turks had preserved their stance of Ottoman identity until the end, which in fact emptied by nationalism of other components of the Empire. Like every other nation states Turks have established their own nation state and as a nation how do you expect that they can deny their past in Central Asia? But they have also included Anatolian civilization in this identity too. For example the symbol of new capital, Ankara is the symbol of Hittites (the Hittite Sun).   

Originally posted by blitz

I don t understand why the Rep.Turkey is called so. It called before it Osmanli, but after Ottoman Empire, suddenly Turkey. In my opinion, this name doesn t match, because the majority of these people have non turkic origin. 

Originally posted by blitz

they liked the history of the true turks of 6t century. So they called themselves Turkey, though they were not turkic.  

So I think blitz says that we should change the name of our country. So what do you propose blitz? LOL

Anatolia had first called as Turkey by Crusaders in 11th century.

Originally posted by Mustafa

Turks being part of an exact or distinct ethnic group is just wishful thinking..  

You are thinking the same for all nations, I hope Mustafa..

 

Originally posted by Omid

I will confirm one time more :

It is impossible for a group of nomads to do any significant changes in the genetics of a sedentary nation,unless they sweep all of the population and no seljuks and no other turkomens tribes and no ottomans did such a thing i the Anatolia.
So the most populations of turkey nowadays are remenants of the older populations of Anatolia.

It seems like you do not know the old saying "Nomads do it better". (An old Persian (not Iranian) proverb)

Anyway, they were not all nomads. I think you have to get more info about steppes social structure and Turkish settled cities in Central Asia and Iran. 



Edited by Alparslan
Back to Top
Christscrusader View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 13-Nov-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
  Quote Christscrusader Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2005 at 19:25

ALPARSLAN

I was talking about the Byzantine times, not the ANCIENT times. Most of the peoples in Anatolia were Byzantine greeks, and when TUrkish rule came apon them, many converted for various reasons, some for taxes, and some were taken and to be converted and trained in the great jannisary, or just overtime lost  contact with there greek culture and became accepted in the mainstream. Of course, there are always exceptions.

Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 01:20

i read something intersting about Turkish orgin

it is not Logic but it was written hunderds of years ago in an Arabic History books written by Ibn Katheer  the books name is (Albedayah wa Alnehayah)  which means (The Beginning and The End)

any way it mention that Prophet Noah had three sons Ham, Sam and Yafath (Japheth) in english

and from Japheth the Turkish came and they were called Turk is from the Arabic word Tarak which means (left behind 

why?

because when Dhu alqarneen (Two Horned man) locked Yajoj and Majoj (Gog and Magog) he left a third group which called the Turk ( the left behind)

 which means Dhu algarneen left them behind and didnt lock them with Gog and Magog in the Dam.

 

 

Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 03:54
Originally posted by Christscrusader

ALPARSLAN

I was talking about the Byzantine times, not the ANCIENT times. Most of the peoples in Anatolia were Byzantine greeks, and when TUrkish rule came apon them, many converted for various reasons, some for taxes, and some were taken and to be converted and trained in the great jannisary, or just overtime lost  contact with there greek culture and became accepted in the mainstream. Of course, there are always exceptions.

You are too much undermining both Byzantines and Turks. Byzantine Greeks and Anatolia cannot be converted with a few hundred thousands Turks. Anatolia has been ruined both structurally and economically by crusades during 12 and 13 th centuries. Turks had come to Anatolia during hundreds of years. In addition to this there were converted Turks inside Byzantine society too.  

It is sure that there are also converted Byzantine Greeks to Islam but their number was not that much from which you conclude that "Turks are converted Greeks".

As far as jannisaries are concerned young Christian childs have been collected every 2, 3 or sometimes 5 years according to needs of the state and army. The parties were usually containing 2 or 3 thousands youngsters. This system has been used for around 350 years. Jannisaries were not allowed to get married until they are retired. They were living in barracks. So their influence on Turkish society today is not as much as you think. 

 

Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 03:59
Originally posted by azimuth

i read something intersting about Turkish orgin

it is not Logic but it was written hunderds of years ago in an Arabic History books written by Ibn Katheer  the books name is (Albedayah wa Alnehayah)  which means (The Beginning and The End)

any way it mention that Prophet Noah had three sons Ham, Sam and Yafath (Japheth) in english

and from Japheth the Turkish came and they were called Turk is from the Arabic word Tarak which means (left behind 

why?

because when Dhu alqarneen (Two Horned man) locked Yajoj and Majoj (Gog and Magog) he left a third group which called the Turk ( the left behind)

 which means Dhu algarneen left them behind and didnt lock them with Gog and Magog in the Dam.

 

 

Very scientific indeed!!!



Edited by Alparslan
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 04:17

 

well i mentioned that it is not logic

that was how people long time ago think of turks

 

 

Back to Top
Turk View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 23-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote Turk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 04:49
Originally posted by azimuth

 

well i mentioned that it is not logic

that was how arabs thought long time ago and still think of turks

 

 

corrected.

It's sickening how some people manipulate religion to make other Muslims believe something when they are really just preaching their own culture (I'm referring to the author of that article you read).



Edited by Turk
Back to Top
Mustafa View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Mustafa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 06:01

Hello Alparslan,

Glad you joined the discussion. My comments are below.

 

Originally posted by Alparslan

Societies are not rigid structures.  Are Germans of Germany today are the same as their ancestors of 1500 years ego?

 

--Actually, they probably are very similar. Germanic people have been a very homogeneous society, although recently that might be changing. I lived in Germany for most of my life and know Germany's and Europe history very well. Since these people were sedentary they would not leave their villages and settlements pretty much all their lives. Until modern times the typical German or central european would not go further than maybe 30km within the circumference of his/her village/settlement. They would pretty much be born an die in the same place. There was not a whole lot of mixing going on there if at all.

 

When wars took place and different rulers gained or lost land they new ruler would just take over and start collecting taxes. They would not settle new people in the conquered areas. So...again..no mixing.

 

You have to admit that this is vastly different from what we are talking about here. Steppe nomads would cover more space in a day than a German would cover in his/her whole lifetime!

 

Plus...with Turks we are talking about mixture between caucasians and asians. In Central Europe it would just be different tribes of caucasians and it would not make such a huge difference on their genotype and  phenotype.

 

Or what about Austrians? It is supposed Germans to be blond but even in countries considered German in origin, we see a very important non-blond population.

 

--Nobody ever seriously says that ALL Germans should be blondes. That's ridiculous. Blondes are generally rare among caucasians although they occur at higher frequencies in northern Europe and among Germanic people. Even places like Sweden or Norway are not all blonde or red haired. In any case...see above...these are all caucasian..blonde or not. Not all asians have jet-black hair either by the way. I know some chinese people personally who have pretty light brown hair with an asian face and they are not mixed with caucasians. Also, there was quite a bit of mixture going on in asian countries, too, but you would not notice that all that much in the phenotype. If Turks, assuming they were originally asian, which makes total sense by the way, had mixed with Koreans, you would not consider Turks a "mixed population" today. So the comparison with a "mixed" German population is like comparing apples with oranges.

 

We see an important Arab influence on Spanish people even on their culture, just look at their music. Or are the English people look like their Angle-Saxon ancestors?

 

--All caucasian people and all sedentary people. See above. Plus, the Maurs that conquered half of spain back then are probably, at least to a degree if not fully, genetic descendants of tribes like the Vandals that migrated to North Africa from Northern Europe and probably mixed with the original population. 

 

Todays Turks are a mixture of Oghuz Turks (Uighurs, Tocharians, Sakas, Sogdians, Uzbeks, Persians and Mongolians),

 

--Since when are Uighurs part of the Oguz? Since when are Tocharians even Turkic? Since when are Sakas Turkic? Persians? Mongols? I hope you were just enumarating the different peoples that *might* have mixed with the turks instead of implying that the poepl ementioned int he parantheses are Oghuz.

 

 Again Avars who were possibly Turkic had played important role in European history too. I think even the name Bavaria (Avaria) in Germany may be a heritage of them.

 

--I'm sorry but this is just total nonsense. The real name of "Bavaria" in German is actually "Bayern", which does not sound anything like "Avar" and the name "Bayern" was derived from the name of a Germanic tribe called "Bajuwaren" in German. They had absolute NOTHING to do with the avars. Where in the heck are you getting *misinformation* like that? This is the type of typical Turkish "wishful thinking" I have been refering to all over this thread. It's as if Turks had a hand in EVERYTHING that happened in world history....this is simply not reality.

Chono is right. Look at the Chinese chronicalsE. You can also look at Byzantine choronicals who have been diplomatic relations with Kokturks, who send and accepted diplomatic envoys. Byzantines relates Turks with Scythians.

 

--Umm...so what the Byzantines compard the Turks to Scythians? This just says that they compared them culturally and NOT genetically or by look. After all...the Scythians were the nomads known best to the Byzantines from antinquity. This does not prove anything. And as I have already told Chono, the couple times chinese pointed out unusual featers among *SOME* Turkic tribes does not mean that Turks always had caucasian blood in them or, as some extremists claim, descended from caucasians. Obviously, the vast majority of the time the Chinese did NOT point out any unuusual physical features about the Turks, which should imply that they were just as asian lookin as anyone else in that area of Asia at that time.

 

 

[

Originally posted by Mustafa

Turks being part of an exact or distinct ethnic group is just wishful thinking..  

You are thinking the same for all nations, I hope MustafaE

 

--Yes....I am...but to different degrees as I have tried to demonstrate with the Germans above. But again....don't compare apples with oranges. Turks were nomads and most of the world wasn't. So, you can compare turks best only to other nomads.

 

 

Mustafa

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 18>

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 0.203 seconds.