turks and etruscans are TRO�AN?

"what in the name of the Lord are you talking about?" asked Xi and the answer is simple history, historical models and materialist aberrations, that's what. Eaglecap is essentially correct in his surmises, nor should we forget that the original inhabitants of most places do not simply disappear just because a more aggressive group assumes leadership and control. We can more or less ascertain that the Slavic invasion of the Balkans and southward pretty much altered the makeup of the Greek genetically in much the same manner as the Bulgars did later. Not even contemporary Jews can claim the purity of Abraham no matter how much myth might be involved--and we wont even go into what ever happened to the Kazars. So, no, to speak of "purity of blood" is more than haphazard since "identity" is far more complex than that in terms of culture and custom.

what in the name of the Lord are you talking about?

I can't believe this thread is not closed yet

Ah but symbols do persist! Both the crescent and the star on the Turkish flag are old Byzantine imperial symbols and have nothing to do with Islam per se. The old 13th century bezants often bore the crescent and star as symbols of the "empire" and the city, and just as the Arabs essentially adapted both the architechture and urban market organization of the Eastern Empire (Al-Kaiseriya or al-qasr--Alc�zar--Caesar's place or the fortified suq) so too the the Ottomans viewed themselves as legitimate successors to the imperial ideal. People forget that the House of Osman consolidated its military organization not in Anatolia but in the Balkans subsequent to the Mongol incursions of the 13th century. Accordingly, some assign the crescent of Byzantium back to the 4th century BC; however, "flags" as such are a much later idea as a successor to the earlier standards and other clan symbols. Nevertheless, by the 7th century AD, the crescent moon was the common symbol Eastern Rome. Even the old Byzantine conception of Constantinople as The City survived and that is exactly what the Turkic Istanbul actually means. And yes, Tyranos is correct when he speaks of the intent by Mehmet II over the title of Caesar as well as the ethos of Rome. In fact, if you follow his military campaigns subsequent to the 1453 capture of Constantinople, he moved to reconstitute the old empire first in the Balkans (with the final destruction of Serb power), then to the Morea (the old Byzantine entrepot on the Black Sea) and finally the consolidation of control in Anatolia proper to the Euphrates, in effect restoring the old political extent of Constantinople in the 8th century. He achieved this not by relying on the old Turkic leadership but through the integration of varied ethnic groups into his own personal military, the Janissaries--which like his father served as a bulwark against the Turkic leadership and their group interests. Thus, it should be no coincidence that just as Mehmet II deployed the title of Caesar in the West, to the East he asserted the claim to the Caliphate. We are speaking of a masterful politician quite alert to the power of symbols.

Edited by drgonzaga - 05-Dec-2007 at 18:41

At that time Turks were in Central Asia. So Turks and Trojans cant have any relation etnichally, but when II Mehmed or Ataturk won a battle in Dardannels they both said ''we take the revange of Troy''(or something like that) 

Edited by erkut - 21-Nov-2007 at 10:07

I think the founders of Etruscan city states had origins from west coast of Asia Minor. As you know Phoenicians had many colonies like Cartaga. Also Hellenes (Dorians and Attians) had many colonies at Black Sea and Mediterranean. Why, I think Lydian and Luwi, original settlers of west coast of Asia Minor might had colonies like Etruscan cities.

Also, Modern Turkey Turkish nation is a mix of many nations including Western  Asia Minor people. I will not suprised that if Western Anatolian Turks have some genetic connections with the people from historic Etruscan lands.

my two cents.

Originally posted by Xiongnu Hun No,Turks exist but their name weren't "Turks".

They were probably proto Turks, which very likely also included other Altaic ehtinicities like Mongols and Manzhu. But I wouldn't call them "Turks"

BTW Name Turk, is documented the first time in 6 century AD

 

Edited by Sarmat12 - 26-Jun-2007 at 14:12

At the times of Trojans, Turks didn't exist. If one wants to prove the contrary he will have to rewrite history.

So trojans were hellens that means greeks,Thankou

moo