Samarkand

Marakanda. The etnonym Mar and its variants appear in some tribes: Medes called Mar in Armenian sources, Mauryas in India, Merw called Maura, Amyrgians, Moor and Moravians in Europe. Perhaps one of 5 Kangju tribes gave this name to Marakanda? The Saka Amyrgians were the closest.

It's interesting that one of the Kangju tribes - Juni, sounds close to Xion - Chionites while we know that the Chionites forced Sogd from the North much later? 

Bear with me, I'm too lazy to go back and quote people here.

Samarkand was called by the Greeks during Alexander's time Marakanda, there is no doubt about this.  The Greeks basically always attempted to produce foreign names accurately when giving names to places.  Marakanda is the name that appears in the Greek texts and there's no reason to doubt its relative validity; it's not even remotely Greek sounding.  I honestly cannot see how some of you can see more similarity between SemizKent and Samarkand than Marakanda and Samarkand.  In addition, the Greeks reported Soghdians in the area (Alexander's generals had difficulty dealing with them and Bessos without Alexander helping), not Turks.  The Sakae were the Scyths, the Scythian language, IIRC, is related to the Persian language.

The Greeks didn't consider non-Greeks to be barbarians, but non-Greek speakers.  The word "barbaros" came about because all foreign languages sounded like to Greeks was "barbarbarbarbar."  The Romans adopted this word.  They, however, took an interesting turn with it.  A "barbarus" could be merely a foreigner or stranger or uncivilized.  Romans considered peoples that sported beards barbarians, which is where the Roman word for beard:  barba.  Ultimately, the English word "barber" is derived from barbarian

The Greeks considered the Persians to be descendents of Perseus, hence the corruption of Parsi/Farsi.

Ihsan wrote:The "Iranians" (more correctly "Iranics") I'm talking about are the Eastern Iranic Soghdians.

I belive you mean various Saka tribes dwelled in Central Asia before Turkic conquest. Digs showed that the antropological type of these people hadn't changed for ages. Seems that following waves of steppe invadors like Kushans, Chionites [and the domination of the Hephtalites] were not accompanied with the migration of the whole tribes.

"Yes, only on that. That's why his state broke up immediately after his death, whereas Chinggis Kha'an's state didn't for several decades."

Timur's state didn't break up after his death, his successor was Shah Ruk, although its true that his empire became smaller in that many parts of his conquest declared their independence.

Aha! Assaults on me on many fronts! All right, I shall face all of you on my own

What's bane?

It's more likely that it might have been Tem�r or Teym�r.

Vandal, Wild and Brutal are perfect words to describe Timur.

I would consider him a bloodsplitting vandalic barbarian of one of the worst types anyway. Just my two cents

I would consider them barbarians too.

Yeah, what about Iran? Turkey? The Qypchaq Steppes?

First, you should quit defending such a brutal butcherer.

Why are you guys trying to defend that guy so much? Because he was Turkic? Oh c'mon, Turkics ain't angels all throughout their history and this guy wasn't for sure (just remember those Turkomans he massacred in Syria, they were Turkic too).

Yes, I know. He was more barbaric (in the meaning of blood-splitting butcherer) than Timur.

Not only.

Yes, only on that. That's why his state broke up immediately after his death, whereas Chinggis Kha'an's state didn't for several decades.

Hey, who are you btw? Do I know you? Were you a member of the old AE?

That is funny what you wrote because after his death many people called him "the inhabitant of the paradise".

If I was a resident of Samarkand, I would have called him like that. But remember the people who lived in India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Qypchaqia.

AFAIK modern Samarkand and Timur's Samarkand are located inside each other whereas the Ancient Samarkand (the one before Mongol destruction) lies outside the city, in ruins. That's what I saw in one of TRT's documents.

We're talking about Timur here, not Alexandros III of Macedon. But anyway, Alexandros was a brutal killer too, you ever heard of what he did to Tyre? Or the Greek cities that didn't surrender to him?

I never heard that Samarkand was the ancient Iranian town. Your statement is simply untrue. Archeologists discovered ancient settlements in Samarkand dating back 40-12 thousand years; Neolitic period - 4000-3000 B.C.; and finally Bronze period - 1500 B.C. Nothing indicates that Samarkand was the Iranian city. Apparently, by the time Iranians first appeared in the area, Samarkand already existed.

You all seem to be reading my words with your organs that you use to sit on, that's why you all get me wrong (and it pissess me very much when people don't understand what I say).

The Samarkand which Chinggis Kha'an destroyed was Eastern Iranic (or more correctly, Turkified Iranic, by the 11th century), Soghdians still lived there. Of course Iranics didn't exist in the region since the beginning of history, AFAIK they appeared in history during the 2nd millenium BC.

Oh, you got me totally wrong!!   The "Iranians" (more correctly "Iranics") I'm talking about are the Eastern Iranic Soghdians. Now, don't tell me that they were Turkic because they weren't for sure

Tajiks? Persian-speaking? I thought they spoke a different Iranic language

Nonsense? Me? It's you and all the nationalists (Iranians, Turkics and others) who speak nonsense all the time. Thanks God I'm not.

Ah, you are like those Turkish nationalists who think I use one-sided "Western" sources, you also think that I'm one of those Western-licker communist neo-liberal masonic jewish-convert traitors. Poor you    

(it's your fault [or incapability] to realise that I'm not supporting a side - a historian can't and shouldn't support any sides, did you know that, nationalist?)

Ok, corrected that, Iranic. Samarkand was Iranic for centuries before being Turkified.

By whom? How? I'm sure you're more...

No, I didn't and never would consider myself a guru of Turkish history, when did I?! Yalancı!!!  

WTF?

The Soghdians, even if Turkified up to a point, were still living in Samarkand before the Mongols came. The Soghdians were Eastern Iranic, did you know that? And by the 11th century, they were bilingual (speaking both Iranic Soghdian and Turkic).

The last Kh�rezm-Sh�h dynasty that grew into a large empire was Turkoman, yes; but it's subjects were made up of many ethnic groups. Just like the Ottomans. Now, don't tell me that only Turks lived in the Ottoman Empire!

Of course Turkic states were founded in the region, this doesn't mean that Soghdiana's entire inhabitors living under Turkic rule before the 13th century were all Turkic. There were Turkic and Iranic inhabitors living in the region. Starting from the late 6th century AD, the Soghdians and Turkics, with the Soghdians being the majority before the Mongol Destruction, lived in the cities whereas the Turkics became the majority outside urban places after that date.

You don't seem to have the capability to think that different peoples lived togteher at the same place at the same time. You're too narrow-minded.

Then please explain me the sacking and looting of Bursa. I'm also waiting from you an explanation of the lack of archive documents of the Ottoman State before Timur's Invasion.

Ok. But he still sacked and looted Bursa which didn't resist (AFAIK).

He did take pleasure from killing people - I've given you a short list of some of his massacres (which incluedes Turks).

Bah, you nationalists would never give up your biased views, would you?

Stop talking nonsense and derived by one-sided sources. You have to be respectful to every other national hero. If you talk about massacre in Isfahan as an act of an idiot barbar that cannot be seen in civilized societies I remind you Dresden bombing in II WW, atomic bombs in Japanese cities........etc. War is war. You cannot measure the civilization level by only looking at this.

An Iranian city !! Sorry but you are misguided but you consider youself as a guru of Turkish history. (Turk universitelerinin acinacak durumu!!) Just to reply a few questions.

1) When did Mongols destroyed the city? A: In early 1200s.

(Turks were already even in Anatolia at least starting from 1071 and established there Anatolian Seljuk state until Mongol conquest)

2) Against whom did Mongols fight in Transoxiana? A: Khwarizmshahs. Were they Turkic? A: YES.

3) What were the other Turkic states found in the area and around it? A: You can answer it I guess.

4) Timur did not give too much harm to the Anatolian city. Since he was allied with great majority of Turkish tribes in Anatolia against Ottoman Turks.

5) Ottoman garrison in Sivas did not surrendered and refused it when Timur offered it. They fought until the end and they surrendered when the situation become hopeless. But they have been killed. Timur was right to do this.

That is funny what you wrote because after his death many people called him "the inhabitant of the paradise".

How do you come to this kind of conclusion? In kyrgyz language, iron is TEMIR. In siberian tuvan language, it's DEMIR. There are names like Temir, Temir Ali and Demir among eastern turks including kyrgyz people. Don't forget about Suleyman Demirel in Turkey. So, Temirlang is a turkic name from the very beginning!

What is your definition of word "barbarian"? 

Longman Dictionary:
Barbarian - someone from a different tribe or land who people believe to be wild not civilized

Webster's New Complete Thesaurus:
Barbarian - relating to, or charasteristic of people that are not fully civilized. E.g. The barbarian tribes that sacked Rome

Dal's Russian Dictionary:
Barbarian - vandal, uncivilized, uneducated, wild ...

Oxford Spanish Dictionary;
Barbaric - primitivo, brutal

How word barbarian came to use?
Ancient Greeks called everybody who wasn't greek a "barbaroi". Later Romans called everybody who wasn't roman or greek a "barbari". Basicly this word meant a foreigner, often with the meaning asian for ancient Greeks and Romans.
So, Persians were barbarians for Greeks; Germanic tribes were barbarian for Romans. Interestingly, word Persian is a greek corruption of word Farsi/Parsi.
The word Barbarian passed to other languages around the world with the meaning uncultured, uncivilized and brutal.

To summarize, Temirlang wasn't barbarian for sure!! He was brutal, but not uncivilized. Otherwise Christian Crusaders should be called barbarians after mass killings in Kudus (Jerusalem) as well as Napoleon who killed turks in thousands in Egypt, and european settlers in Northern America who killed native american indians like animals, sometimes for reward. Remember righteous mormons who offered $50 per killed indian from devoted christians in Utah? Why nobody calls them barbarians?

In addition, if Temirlang would've been a barbarian, he'd never left such a rich scientific and archiological legacy to mention a few.

Selective labeling is extremely unfare. So let's quit calling names Temirlang!!

And they are highly exaggarated too. Chinggis Kha'an was a state creater, an empire builder who relied on strong laws, Timur built an empire only on looting and pillaging.

Anyway, Timur wasn't an angel like you describe.

Timur's Turkic name would be Tem�r or Teym�r.

Anyway, Timur was great in some aspects, but he was also a blood thirsty barbarian. For example, he massacred the entire population of Isfahan because his small garrison at the city was killed; he executed 30,000 war captives in India; he built two tall towers made from the skulls of massacred Turkomans in Syria; he destroyed many Anatolian cities; burnt the entire Ottoman archive, etc etc... At the siege of Sivas, he promised that no one's blood should be spilled if the Ottoman garrison surrendered to him. When the garrison surrendered, he burried them alive.

His campaigns against the Ottomans caused that state to fall into an 11 year lasting civil war and his Golden Horde campaigns later helped Russians to gain strength and create a huge Russian Empire.

The only good things he did was to re-built Samarkand (yes, the modern city of Samarkand was founded or at least re-built by him - the ancient Iranian town was destroyed by the Mongols and it's still in ruins) and improve arts, trade and agriculture.