Gothic migration to Eastern Europe

So what was their language when they migrated from the Black sea?

Originally posted by Diviacus So what was their language when they migrated from the Black sea?

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 15-Apr-2012 at 01:16

I agree with Menumorit - I had to dig in it due to my arguing with bunch of Bulgarians who believed that the Goths were Getae, hence Thracians, hence Bulgarians... and were waving Jordanes left and right; so I had to research a little from where this confusion came. In fact, Jordanes made a blunder, which is most misused by certain people with nationalist orientation.




Edited by Don Quixote - 29-May-2012 at 16:30

There was no confusion and there was also no migration, but just a cultural expansion, for example it is meaningless to say some historians confused Azeri with Azari, of course ancient Azaris, as in Iranian people, and modern Azeris, as a Turkic people, are culturally two different peoples but they are ethnically almost the same people. The interesting thing is that Azeris in the modern country of Azerbaijan differed ethnically from the ancient Azeris too.

Originally posted by TITAN_ Iranian languages are closer to Sanskrit, than Germanic languages in my opinion. The ancient Persian empire stretched as far as India after all.

Originally posted by Qaradag The only problem with your post is that an ancient ethnicity or nation named "Azari" did not exist, and it's a theory which is not proven. The second problem with that theory is that people of Azerbaijan was not named as "Azari" in Iran before Shah decided to change it from "Tork" to "Azari", part of assimilation policy by state. "Tork" are still far more used than "Azari" in Iran, to define people of Azerbaijan. Even Khamenei in his speech once said "Turks are brother of Persians, and Persians are brothesr of Turk. When you say you speak Azerbaijani in Iran, you say you speak Torki. I'm sure you as an Iranian are familiar with these facts. In Republic of Azerbaijan ethnic definition are "Azərbaycanlı" and the langauge "Azərbaycanca", I.E, no usage of "Azari". But that is actually for political reasons, right away after independence, in 1992, it said "Turk" for both ethnicity and language in state constitution, but after long debates it was changed for political reasons. When it comes down to ethnicity, Azerbaijani Turks are collection of many different Turkoman tribe/clans, like Afshars, Shahsevens, Qarapapaqs and so on. Historically referred to as Turkoman, Turk and Tatar (during Russian Empire period). No need for fantasy theories when facts are clear as day and night. Regards.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Originally posted by Qaradag The only problem with your post is that an ancient ethnicity or nation named "Azari" did not exist, and it's a theory which is not proven. The second problem with that theory is that people of Azerbaijan was not named as "Azari" in Iran before Shah decided to change it from "Tork" to "Azari", part of assimilation policy by state. "Tork" are still far more used than "Azari" in Iran, to define people of Azerbaijan. Even Khamenei in his speech once said "Turks are brother of Persians, and Persians are brothesr of Turk. When you say you speak Azerbaijani in Iran, you say you speak Torki. I'm sure you as an Iranian are familiar with these facts. In Republic of Azerbaijan ethnic definition are "Azərbaycanlı" and the langauge "Azərbaycanca", I.E, no usage of "Azari". But that is actually for political reasons, right away after independence, in 1992, it said "Turk" for both ethnicity and language in state constitution, but after long debates it was changed for political reasons. When it comes down to ethnicity, Azerbaijani Turks are collection of many different Turkoman tribe/clans, like Afshars, Shahsevens, Qarapapaqs and so on. Historically referred to as Turkoman, Turk and Tatar (during Russian Empire period). No need for fantasy theories when facts are clear as day and night. Regards.   I really didn't understand what you meant, it is clear that modern Azeri is a Turkic language and it differs from the old Azari language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Azari_language which was certainly an Iranian language, there was no decision to change the name of Turk to Azeri or Iranian to Persian, it is not true that all Turkic peoples speak Azeri and all Iranian peoples speak Persian, but an Azeri can call oneself a Turk and a Persian can call onself an Iranian.

What exactly you didn't understand in my post?

There was no "ancient Azeri langauge", it's just a recent unproven theory. And this is clear by the fact that usage of "Azeri" as a langauge or ethnicity term is a new one.

During Russian Empire period, ethnic designation for people of Azerbaijan was Tatar, which says alot about usage of "Azeri" word before modern times.

If you want proof, let me post it. And otherwise I would like to see proofs that an ancient non-Turkic "Azeri" language existed", it didn't and is just some theory. Surely some Iranian langauges existed in Azerbaijan and still do like Tat and Talysh, but it wasn't "Azeri".

The point is that population of Azerbaijan are formed up by Turkoman tribes, not non-existent "ancient Azaris" which only cosists of unproven theries, and allmost all of it created by Ahmad Kasravi, who worked for Shah specifically for this task.

And your entire wikipedia link are consisted of his books.

Take existing Iranian langauges, change it a little bit and claim that this is "ancient Azeri" langauge, this is exactly what Kasravi did. If you can prove that a language named as such existed, or an ethnicity, then these claims can have some meaning, but not when it doesn't go beyond a simple theory.

Surely Russians had no reason to call people of Azerbaijan as Tatar if there was already a usage of "Azeri".



Edited by Qaradag - 02-Jul-2012 at 23:29