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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Turk and Arab

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Kids View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 19-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 238
  Quote Kids Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Turk and Arab
    Posted: 21-Jan-2005 at 00:06
How did Muslim react to the migration of Turkish people from the Central Asia? Is it true that Truks were much formidable than that of Chritians, and it was Turks rulled over Arabs?
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: 21-Jan-2005 at 08:03

 

You can not say something as "Turks are much formidable than that of Christians". Every religion and nation is as respectable as others. There are Christian Turks too by theway.

In fact at the beginning Turks have reacted to Arab Muslims coming to Central Asia and Transoxiana to spread Islam. There were fierce fights between Turks and Muslims. Some Turks as a response to Islam had accepted Judaism as in the case of Khazars.

Eventhough many will not participate my view but the main reason which made better realtions of Turks and Arabs was Chinese pressure over Central Asia and Turks. Turks have fought with Arabs against Chinese in the battle of Talas and this alliance made their relations improved.

Muslims were very happy about converted Turks to Islam since they are very skillful soldiers to be used and during time Turks had played key role in the Islam armies. And gradually they took the political power.  



Edited by Alparslan
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: 23-Jan-2005 at 00:19
Turks were mainly used as slave soldiers taken from the eastern frontier of the Caliph's Arab empire. They eventually came to power through the military institution of the empire and started to be real influential. If you look at battles however Turks for the most part smashed the Arabs, nobody forced them to convert to Islam. Islam however was easy to adapt to for them, it allowed them to fight. But like Alparslan said, Kazar was a Jewish state and even before Islam, Turks were Buddhists + a little Nestorian Christianity. Gaugazia in Moldova today is an autonomous Turkish Christian province.
Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
  Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2005 at 01:24
This was already discussed in this thread

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=844& PN=1



Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2005 at 21:26

Originally posted by Turk

Turks were mainly used as slave soldiers taken from the eastern frontier of the Caliph's Arab empire. They eventually came to power through the military institution of the empire and started to be real influential. If you look at battles however Turks for the most part smashed the Arabs, nobody forced them to convert to Islam. Islam however was easy to adapt to for them, it allowed them to fight. But like Alparslan said, Kazar was a Jewish state and even before Islam, Turks were Buddhists + a little Nestorian Christianity. Gaugazia in Moldova today is an autonomous Turkish Christian province.

Not really, that is an interesting point.

The Turkish Mamelukes (there are alos Cerkez guys ) are the tribes living in the Samanid border. THese small tribes were converted by Persian Samanids. THey could have immigrated east but the Karahanli Turks would hurt them too. THey prefered to stay inside Iran. These guys called Mameluke for example. But later, Samanids encountered the  big boy of the steps, Karahanli Empire.

You know the story, Turks at the end, invaded Persia by terminating the Samanids.

Now, there were also Abbasid caliphs who bought mercenaries from Asian steps. Caliph Mutasim formed an imperial guard group of Turks in the 9th century I think. They were not really a war captive. Actually Abbasids did nothing concerned with a conquest except they fought against the aggressors who are aiming ti invade arabic empire lands.

Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2005 at 21:33

Originally posted by Kids

How did Muslim react to the migration of Turkish people from the Central Asia? Is it true that Truks were much formidable than that of Chritians, and it was Turks rulled over Arabs?

They were definetely pissed off because Turks were especially way too much dominant in the military skills. Umayyads were wipe cleaned by Turgish attacks in their strongest days. Only Franks and Turgish could defeat them in the world, with such a sound.

Turkish people, Seljuks immigrated (actually invaded) to arabic lands with the call for help of Abbasid Caliph. Buwayhid kurds were threatening him. Seljuks came, cleaned Buwayhids and became the emperor of islam.

Karahanli Turks invaded Iran because Iranians attacked them to convert them to islam, by force.

However, Karahanlis defeated them, draw them back, started for the invasion. At that moment, a Turkish Prince, Satuk Bugra Han became friend with a refugee Samanid Prince, and converted to islam. This can happen once in  million years. The invader, conqueror nation converted to the religion of the loser. Interesting.

That is probably because islamic in reality Persian civilization was highest one of these years. It was probably one of the boldest decision of the Turkic history, really Persian culture helped Turks to establish more long living empires. Greek culture will help more, Ottomans will etsbalish an empire with the melting of Greco-Roman, Persian cultures.

Back to Top
Infidel View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
  Quote Infidel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 10:12

Originally posted by HulaguHan

This can happen once in  million years. The invader, conqueror nation converted to the religion of the loser. Interesting.

Same thing with Romans conquering Greece and being conquered back by its culture. It's the classic example!

An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
Back to Top
ihsan View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
  Quote ihsan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2005 at 18:19

HulaguHan, the Qara-Khanids conqered Soghdiana not Iran nor Persia.

Btw, the Trgish weren't always succesful against the Umawwids. For example, Salur (Sulu in Chinese) Qaghan could not capture Samarkand and he was soundly defeated by the Umawwids at the battle of Juzjan.

[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

Steppes History Forum
Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 00:08

Karahanids conquered more than Sogdhiana. Khwarizm was also conquered. The truth is they conquered and collapsed the Persian Samanid Empire. I wanted to say the empire of Iran attacked us, we finished them. It is not about geograpy, it is about diplomacy. Even if it established in South Africa, conquering Persian Empire is a conquest of a Persian Empire. Well I do not know the difference between Iranian, Persian, wthatever, your words remind me that there is a difference. For me Iranian is an Iranian, Turkic is a Turkic.

Turgish, likewise Gokturks lost battles against Umawwids, that is not a problem, well Grousset says in 707 Gokturks  or Eastern T'u-chueh commanded by Kul Tegin was beaten by Qutaiba. In 712 Gokturks conquered each city except Semerkand, in 713 Qutaiba forces the Gokturks to retreat. He mentiones Gokturks wanted to help them, but the truth is nobody helps noone for nothing, Probably Turkish Kagans did not want Arabs to penetrate Mongolia or Western Turkish region of these days. But truth is aggressor forces are Turkish Empires of Turgish and Gokturks. Turgish or Gokturk is attacking Umawwids. Not vice versa... And they were not always successful but they were mostly successful. The major thing is, arabs were stopped .

That is your mistake I think in your notes in this website. Turkistan was not existing in those days. Turkistan today is not the Turkish populated areas of that day. Most of Khurasan including Merv is today inside Turkmenistan borders but in those days it was a Persian/Iranian land, we had nothing to do with it. Infact not only conquering Khurasan, we have never been there in those centuries.  but Turkistan includes Khurasan today, Turkmenistan is there. In those days Western Turkistan is north of Soghdia and Khwarizm, in other words todays Kazakhstan. North of Syr Derya, there is Tashkent and it is the only city that Arabs conquer in the north of Syr Derya. It is the place where Iranic life ends and Turkic life starts. Soghdia is a city land, have nothing to do with the nomadic life Turkic lands. Also Turkicizition of Kashgaria and Transoxiana starts with Karakhanids (page 144 of Grousset). But Soghdiana was still Iranic lands, statrt of the Turkicization of those lands should wait the Cengiz Kagan' s times. What do you think, wouldn't it be nice if we do not call there Turkistan?

The important thing is, what do we understand by being beaten? Attila was beaten in Chalons too in 451 right?. What happened 1 year later? Where was that victorious Roman Army? The soundly defeat is not mentioned in the history of Turgish' s covered by Grousset, while he covers the defeat of Kul-Tigin. Anyway, withdrawel of raiders is not really a defeat. Raiders raid and get back. I have never read Turgish tried to conquer Soghdia.

Why did arabic invasions stoped while invading Irano-Turkic Sogdhiana? Why didn' t they cross Syr derya except the invasion of Tashkent, another city. Did the Turgish really want to conquer Sogdiana or set the natives free? Or because of the treassure? Actually Fergana is still an Iranian or Tajik country, anyway. Just one Turk rules the city with full of Iranians. If we observe they are all raids to get tressure. Todays Uzbekistan was not a Turkic country, and it was not Western Turkistan

We should all thank Turgish, else we would be speaking arabic now...

But arabs do not forget these occasions, Turks attacking them from North-east, invading Baghdad in Toghril Begh' s days. We select the non muslim tribes name them as Mongol, call them non Turkic, but arabs do not behave like that. They blame the backwardness comes from the slaughter of Turk happened in 1258.

They were pissed off, and I do not care. Living in Mongolia would not be a fun for me.  Coming to this beautiful place, sorry Iran and arabia was over our path.



Edited by HulaguHan
Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 01:29

Abbasid Caliph Mutasim (833-842 I think, mother was probably a Turkic, sent as a gift to Abbasids) hired Turkic Soldiers from Turkish tribes. Those soldiers were the guards of the Caliph. They immediately took power and assigned Caliphs in their own will. This is the first actual Turkic pressure over arabs. The arabs think Mutasim should never have hired those Turkics from the steps. But what do they expect? Mutasim should ecpect that Turkic soldiers would seize power because they were rented soldiers, they were not fighting for their country, they were fighting for gold. They did not owe allegience to caliph.

Also Seljuks were invited by caliph of Baghdad just to eliminate the Buwayhids. arabs were under Turkish occupation from that moment 1055 till 1917. Arabs again think they should not have called Seljuk aid.

Last visit of Turks in 1258 is out of discussion, noone expects arabs to like Turkish immigration after that event.

Balkans were under Turkish rule too but when we lost the place, most of Balkans immigrated back to the main land, so few remained there. Likewise we lost Soghdia when Gokturks crashed, the Soghdian city states were independent. Samanids are Soghdians btw.

Being a neigbor with Turks is the most dangerous thing in the world. Take a look at the Chinese walls. THey built it just to prevent the country from Turkic attacks. After the battle of talas, arabs thought the trouble was ended, Turkics were now allies, but it didn' t end. I, my self also afraid of Turks too. Because we do the worst things to ourselves. 



Edited by HulaguHan
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-Mar-2005 at 01:05
Originally posted by HulaguHan

Last visit of Turks in 1258 is out of discussion, noone expects arabs to like Turkish immigration after that event.

by that you mean the mongols were turks?

 

Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2005 at 01:19

Well no one is Turk in reality except us and Azeris. Turkmen calls himself Turkmen, Uzbek as Uzbek, Kirghiz as Kirghis. None of them considers each other as brothers. What we are all sure is, in the history written by Turkish historians, non muslim Turks are picked and shown as Mongol. However, they forget some other facts, One of the tribes before Timur (Tamerlane) is called as Mongoloid: Uzbeks. Grousset mentions it (he has an unstable book with stupid mistakes, if you do not except this book OK). But today they are Turk, why? Because before Timur none of them were Muslims!!!!!!! now if you ask anyone, Uzbeks are Turk. Well what is Turk, they can not answer?

Lets name them as precise. Ihsan warned me not to use Ghaznawids for the tribes captured by Samanids. He was right, these tribes established their country in Ghazni, this is the name of their country not their tribe. Lets be precise always then, Turk is a word for the Gokturks. The middle asian nations do not have a natinal name, like German, Chinese, Greek, Arab, etc... and this is normal, we do not have a cultural background. For instance we are the Oguz tribes, one division named Kiniks, first called by Karahanlis to Soghdia, invaded Khurasan, called by Caliph to Baghdad, and invaded islamic world. Some fractions of them stood in Khurasan. They were ancient enemy of Gokturks (real Turks) who were reingning Mongolia. They established the Kagan rank in the steps. Cengiz Kagan (not Han) used this title, as the official inheritor of their throne like the Uighurs before.

I ask you what is Turk? I think in the first hand, we should alltogether sat on the table with Kirghiz, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kazaks (I do not think they may come.  ) and Mogols to assign a name to our nation. Well one stupid idea from me is Huns.

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-Mar-2005 at 23:20
^I'm laughing at the thought of us Turks having anything in common with Azeris other than some language. Azeris are related to Persians, they have no nomadic or Turkic background. They just adapted to langauge a bit and now they're quite communized...We have nothing to do with them.




Edited by Turk
Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2005 at 04:03

But do you understand what I mean Turk? Only we call ourselves Turk. I respect what our middle asian brothers do, but I think we should define a nation name after gathering with Uighurs, Moguls, Kirghiz, Uzbeks, Turks, Turkmens, Kazaks, etc... We lack culture mate, all we need is this. One common alphabet, one common language... Keep on dreaming Mehmet, keep on dreaming....

Back to Top
ihsan View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
  Quote ihsan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2005 at 17:36

Hmm HulaguHan I don't have enough time to read and answer all of your posts but I'll have to reply one claim here:

Kl Tigin did not campaign in Transoxiana at 707 and he wasn't defeated by Qutaiba bin Muslim. I know it very well because I have an article on the military works of Kl Tigin.

[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

Steppes History Forum
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: 11-Mar-2005 at 23:07
Originally posted by HulaguHan

But do you understand what I mean Turk? Only we call ourselves Turk. I respect what our middle asian brothers do, but I think we should define a nation name after gathering with Uighurs, Moguls, Kirghiz, Uzbeks, Turks, Turkmens, Kazaks, etc... We lack culture mate, all we need is this. One common alphabet, one common language... Keep on dreaming Mehmet, keep on dreaming....



I agree with you bro but Azeris aren't even Turkic ethnically. They're related to Persians and have a Shia background (I say background because today they have little or no culture left), the only thing we have to do with them is some linguistic similarities. They never had the nomadic steppe culture/history that we share with the other Central Asians.
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: 13-Mar-2005 at 07:54

Originally posted by Turk


I agree with you bro but Azeris aren't even Turkic ethnically. They're related to Persians and have a Shia background (I say background because today they have little or no culture left), the only thing we have to do with them is some linguistic similarities. They never had the nomadic steppe culture/history that we share with the other Central Asians. 

Where did you get this? Read a bit history.

Being Turks and being Sunni Islam is not related at all. Who were the Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu and other Turkish state found in Iran? There are many non-sunni Muslim Turk in Turkey today.

Azeris are Oghuz Turks and they are the closest Turks to Anatolian Turks in Turkic world.

I hope you could save yourself from cold war era propaganda documents.

Cold war is over. There are no communism in those countries. Relax man. You have saved your religion against "religion eaters" of communism.  But you still could not find your identity.

I wonder if you are an Armenian under the nickname Turk?



Edited by Alparslan
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2005 at 10:56
There are also lots of Alevi Turkmens in all over Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan...
Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2005 at 20:01
Originally posted by ihsan

Hmm HulaguHan I don't have enough time to read and answer all of your posts but I'll have to reply one claim here:

Kl Tigin did not campaign in Transoxiana at 707 and he wasn't defeated by Qutaiba bin Muslim. I know it very well because I have an article on the military works of Kl Tigin.

Ihsan I am not challenging you.

Infact I asked your guidance in this issue before as you can remember. Kol Tigin is claimed to be defeated by Qutaiba in the book of Grousset.

I know there are many mistakes in Grousset' s book anyway, probably this is another one of them.

But I advise you to observe the difference between a soundly defeat and a defeat. First we should analyse what did Turgish wanted to do? to conquer Sogdia, or to gain tressure and turn back.

This is the question, am I right?

Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
  Quote HulaguHan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2005 at 20:03
Alparslan in reality Turk is a little bit right. Azeris are way too much Persianized. I mean there are previous examples, for example Ghaznawids. They claimed to be the descendants of Sassanids. Take a light from here (buyur buradan yak )...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

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 0.141 seconds.