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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

16 Turk Empires

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 16 Turk Empires
    Posted: 18-May-2007 at 19:15
For your knowledge, there is no "proof" in history but elements supporting a thesis

I've edited your post as it led to a page that may have been offensive.

Finally, I don't see anything here supporting your thesis and I specially don't understand what Afghanistan is doing there.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Nick View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 12-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 113
  Quote Nick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2007 at 19:41
Don't worry boddy no-boddy is claiming Gurids, ever since Pan-Turkist started their project almost every sound turkic to them. the fact that turk is not a race but refers to people of comment root altiac langauge, the central asian turks were first brought in as slaves from siberia by the Arabs. and stationed to north of Bokara/Samarkand. According to arabs Slave from Siberia were reached over 200,000. and were  send everywhere. The real Altiac group later came like the Uglurs, and mongols. Anyways the only prove we have is that Samanids had had three Turkic genrals, of  whom two got killed and remianed with 5000 slaves and one brave guy who was also a slave, whom he was given a share of power and samanid's daughter and later he had married his daughter with another slave Siberian (Turkic) and then then their child Mahmmod was born 1/4 Afghan and 3/4 turkic. Mahmmod was the only Turkic in his empire and I think even he would not care about his siberian root (turkic Root) and never promoted Turkic langauge or turkic culture. He was very an Afghan but mixed. ANd the empire was an Afghan Empire not turkic, in fact he fought out the Turkics, and adapted Afghan culture.
 
We must respact to what he refered himself as "Ghaznawai" from Ghazni. and if he was turk then he would of said he was Turkic (Which he was) but not his empire. And what do you guys think all afghans would fall under him. No it can't be.
 
Back then only Islam was important, and back then there was no turkic nationalism, but there was always Ghazni and always local Islamic  empires who fought other for more land.
 
 
claiming Gurids is off the hook, first of all they must consider what ghur means. they must also consider the area and they people they controlled. they must also consider their langauge and their what tribe they belonged to.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2007 at 10:20
Nick
Don't worry boddy no-boddy is claiming Gurids, ever since Pan-Turkist started their project almost every sound turkic to them.
 
Sorry but who is claiming Ghurids? its not Turks, I don't know why your getting worked up over a minor dynasty.
 
Nick
 the central asian turks were first brought in as slaves from siberia by the Arabs. and stationed to north of Bokara/Samarkand.
 
Actually you'll find that the slaves were also Turks from Transoxia (including Bukhara/Samarqand) not from Siberia, infact few Turkic slaves were from Siberia, Arabs wern't in Siberia for goodness sake.
 
 
Nick
Anyways the only prove we have is that Samanids had had three Turkic genrals, of  whom two got killed and remianed with 5000 slaves and one brave guy who was also a slave, whom he was given a share of power and samanid's daughter and later he had married his daughter with another slave Siberian (Turkic) and then then their child Mahmmod was born 1/4 Afghan and 3/4 turkic. Mahmmod was the only Turkic in his empire and I think even he would not care about his siberian root (turkic Root)
 
So now your flipping and turning from the Ghurids to the Ghaznivids, you do realise that they are two different dynasties?
 
A powerfull Slave family within the Samanids turned on their masters, overthrew them and took command from within. This led to the collapse of the Samanids.
 
AlpTekin became leader of the Ghaznivids, who was followed by Sebuktekin and then Mahmed of Ghazni.
 
Your correct that only the leaders of the Ghaznivids were Turks, most the people they ruled were Afgans. We don't have the convenience of asking if he "cared" or not about his roots, its a subjective question. What we do know is that, they formed a millitary class, a millitary oligharchy made up of Turks. For example, one of Mahmud of Ghazi's famous generals was Ayaz son of Aymaq. Also Ghaznivids opened the doors to the "Karakhanids", who spread and developed Turkic arts, culture and literature and also bought a huge Turkic migration all over the "Turkistan" region.
 
The Ghurids who took control of the Ghaznivids were Afgan and ruled the region after.
 
 
 
Nick
 the fact that turk is not a race but refers to people of comment root altiac langauge
 
 
Your point being?
 
There is only one race, the human race, Afgans are not a race, Persians are not a race, English are not a race. There are no seperate races, and the differences we have due to geographical factors were made present thousands of years before any of todays nations existed.
 
Therefore, we have "nations", not races. Nations are socio-linguistic groups of people, united by some common kingship, identity, ties, history, feeling of belongin/ acceptance. Hence, you don't have to look like type "a" or type "b" to be of a nation, or have a certain genetic structure or fit a certain "stereotype" to be part of a nation. Therefore you and the other guy have absolutely no rights telling people if they "are" of "are not" Turks, only they do.
 
 
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 19-May-2007 at 10:21
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2007 at 14:57
Nick
the central asian turks were first brought in as slaves from siberia by the Arabs. and stationed to north of Bokara/Samarkand.




 I think this proves that he's no expertTongue
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2007 at 06:23
Originally posted by Bulldog

 
A powerfull Slave family within the Samanids turned on their masters, overthrew them and took command from within. This led to the collapse of the Samanids.
  
 
AFAIK, only Turkic dynasty originated from slaves was Mamluks. Turkic generals and troups dominated Samanid court from the very early formation of the dynasty. 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567

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 0.047 seconds.