Decree by Shah Ismail in Azeri Turkish discovered
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32441
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 18:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Decree by Shah Ismail in Azeri Turkish discovered
Posted By: Qaradag
Subject: Decree by Shah Ismail in Azeri Turkish discovered
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2012 at 20:32
 Əbülmüzəffər sözümüz Əmiri-əzəm əkrəm Musa Dorğut oğlu inayət və şəfqətimiz ümidvar olandan sonra şöylə bilsün kim, iftixarül-əazim vəl-əyan Əhməd ağa Qaramanlu ol tərəfə göndərdük və ol yerin ixtiyarligini kəndunə şəfəqqət etdük. Gərək kim, müşarileyh sözümdən və məsləhətimdən çıxmasun və mütabiət və yardım ona qılsun kim, inşaallah-təala hər nə kim, etmək muradi və istəgi olsa, hasildür. Gündən-günə hər iş vaqe bolsa. Əhməd ağa ittifaqi ilə dərgahi-müəllamizə bildirsünlər kim, hər növ buyruğumuz olsa, əməl etsün, könlümüzə xoş dutub mərhəmətimizə əmrdar olsun. Təhrirən 7 rəbiüləvvəl, sənə 917 Xətm Abulmuzaffar = Title of Shah Ismail. Its about apointment of a Qizilbash chief named Ahmad Agha Qaramanlu as a governor (Beylerbey) to a Safavid province. |
Replies:
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 09:46
| And what is the significance of this? And please, this is the English language section, give us a translation if you can. |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 10:45
|
The extent of usage of Azeri Turkish in Safavid Empire. This new document proves that it was beyond the private usage of Shahs at court and the army. I explained what it is about. |
Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2012 at 06:13
| Majority of Iranian dynasties after the Seljuks were all Turkic up until the last dynasty (Palavi). |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2012 at 13:48
And this is important because....................
 |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 02:41
|
That Azeri Turkish was a official language of Safavid Empire during Shah Ismail's reign. No one forces you to enter the thread if its not "important enough" for you.  |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 10:00
|
There are many folks here, that may not have knowledge of this, you took the time to post something that obviously has meaning to you.
I was merely asking you to give us more. If it's important, why? What impact did this have on history after etc.?
It has nothing to do with this not being important to me. Why is it important to you? That might make it interesting to others.
And as a last note, all posts on AE are important to me, it's the reason we're here.
|
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2012 at 09:33
|
I too would like to know what it means. Who was Shah Ismail, and what did he do?
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2012 at 10:01
| This person posted the same thread on WH, and has gotten no response of any kind. Perhaps for the same reason, why, what when, and of what importance is it now. |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 07:37
Shah Ismail was the founder and first Shah of Safavid Empire. Never heard of Safavid Empire? I can't translate the whole thing "perfectly", its understandable to a modern-speaker but would be difficult to translate perfectly. Amiri-Azam (means Great-Amir, a title) Akram Musa son of Dorghut shall know with our respect and sympathy that we sent Ahmad agha Qaramanlu to the other side and gave all executive rights of that place to him. He shall obey all of my advice and words, and God may help him in things he wish and want to do. May wishes come true by each day. By consulation with Ahmad agha tell dergahi-mualla (I don't know what dergahi-mualla means) that he shall execute all of our orders, keep our hearts warm and obey our merciness. More or less like that, some of it can be wrong but the meaning comes across perhaps. |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 07:45
Because it matters?  As for your repeated word of "importance", as I said, it is important to show us that Azeri Turkish was used at a state level in Safavid Empire during Shah Ismail's reign. Such a thing is not even mentioned in general topics about Safavid Empire, and I don't know if such state level documents from Safavid Empire in Azeri Turkish was found or not before, but this is the first time I see it. Of course if you are not familiar with the subject of Safavid Empire, then I don't know what it could mean to you anyway. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 13:31
|
Sorry Qaradag, i don't think i've heard of the Safavids as here in the UK history has always been taught from a eurocentric bias. Can you tell me who they were?
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 14:23
|
What.............outrageous. Even we of Texas Tech know of the Safavids. They were discussed in History of World Civ 101. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 14:23
|
Qaradag or is it Qaradagii, no matter. You come here, post a partial thought and then get antagonistic when I question you on this. I was simply trying to get you to give some additional information, so that someone who does not know what the Safavid Empire was about, would find interest.
Qaradag, the founder of the forum is Iranian, having been a member here since 06, it would be sort of impossible for me not to know about the islamic Safavids.
Now to you- Your a posting member of World Historia, if you came here just to cause trouble, please go back.
If you came here to legitimately discuss the Safavid Empire, Mozeltov! Consider yourself welcome here. Just realize we aren't newbies, or a bunch of ignorant infidels. This isn't the first time the Safavid Empire has been mentioned.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32408&KW=safavid&PID=682461#682461 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32408&KW=safavid&PID=682461#682461
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=189&KW=safavid&PID=678725#678725 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=189&KW=safavid&PID=678725#678725
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21240&KW=safavid&PID=672233#672233 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21240&KW=safavid&PID=672233#672233
There is likely much more if you dig a little. The authority here on the Safavids is Cyrus Shamiri.
And Nick1986 knows very much who the Safavids were, I think he was being sarcastic, as much as he's capable of.
 |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 14:40
|
Lets do away with the word importance and replace it with "significance".
|
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 15:03
Nah you were safe.... as a synonym for importance was already a choice of significant, significance and or signification....among but a few  Personally I like paramountcy...... ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 15:20
|
AFAIK tthe Azeris were Indo-Europeans to start with, prior to the Turkifization after 11 century. The Anciient Azeri was an Indo-European, Iranian language. So, Turkefied Iranians or whatever were using Turkik Azeri in their Iranian state - seems normal to me.
------------- |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 16:04
Thats like making connection between ancient Macedonians and modern Slavic Macedonians. The word "Azeri" was never used for Turks of Azerbaijan before 1930s. And in fact even the existence of a such historical people or nation is a mystery, there were probably Iranian languagues spoken to the south of Araz river, while most likely Caucasian languages to the north of Araz river. So I don't think its really possible to make any connection between "ancients" peoples that might have existed on opposite sides of Araz and modern-day Oghuz Azerbaijani Turks that have most of its origins in Oghuz tribes and are centered on both sides of Araz river. The myth of "Turkification" is a different topic in itself, but for God's sake if anyone that were victims of a cultural assimilation was Turks themselves. Read a bit on Seljuq subject, and I'm sure you will see it yourself. But instead of wikipedia, real books (maybe you can find on net) would tell you much more. And your last sentence didn't really made any sense. Also, David Morgan puts it very well, the pattern of early Safavid state. David Morgan. "Shah Isma'il and the Establishment of Shi'ism" chpt. 12 of his Medieval Persia: 1040-1797, Longman, New York, 1988, pp. 112-123. The Formation of the Safawid Empire Safawid rule over Persia is conventionally dated from Shah Isma'ils capture of Tabriz in the aftermath of his victory over the Aq-Qoyunlu ruler Alwand at Sharur in 907/1501. But there was still a very long way to go before Isma'il could be regarded as anything more than a potential successor to the Aq-Qoyunlu in Azarbayjan. Nor, for some years, was the geographical shape of the new state by any means clear. It may be that Isma'il's expectation was that he would be able to set up an essentially Turkmen empire after the Aq-Qoyunlu pattern, consisting of eastern Anatolia, Azarbayjan, western Persia and Iraq. After all, the military following on which he depended was Turkmen in composition, he had fixed his capital at Tabriz, the now traditional Turkmen centre on the periphery of Persia proper, and he may have seen himself as in some sense the legitimate successor to his Aq-Qoyunlu grandfather, Uzun Hasan. The direction of Isma'ill's early campaigns certainly suggested that it was the Turkmen heritage he was primarily interested in. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst373/readings/morgan.html |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 16:13
Very well, so there is no problem I suppose. As for Cyrus and his views on Safavids and Safavid Empire, that is simple not corresponding to any kind of historical facts, I must say. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2012 at 17:36
Well, that is what a "discussion" is about. And no, there isn't a problem, I believe it was how my post was perceived. Probably my fault, I'm used to the regs here that know my abridged style of writing.
|
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2012 at 07:51
|
So the Savafids were the kings of Iran?
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: yomud
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2012 at 21:19
not only king of iran shah ismail also Create iran country which destroy by mongols u know after mongol conquest seljuk our country torn apart to small local khans which ruled by mongols and after that timur conquest and again torn apart to khans it was shah ismail who drive mongols out of this country and again united iran shah ismal also reinforce the east of iran with turkmens so they never can come back again he is great man ! ------------- yomud are free people |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 03:54
|
By Willem Floor & Hasan Javadi
"During the Safavid period Azerbaijani Turkish, or, as it also referred to at that time Qizilbash Turkish, occupied an important place in society, and it was both spoken at court and by the common people. Although Turkish was widely spoken in Safavid Iran this fact is rarely mentioned. Usually neither Persian nor European authors mention in which language people communicated with each other. The Turkish spoken in Safavid Iran was mostly what nowadays is referred to as Azeri or Azerbaijani Turkish. However, at that time it was referred to by various other names. It would seem that the poet and miniaturist Sadeqi Afshar (1533-1610), whose mother tongue was not Azerbaijani Turkish, but Chaghatay (although he was born in Tabriz), was the first to refer to speakers of Qizilbashi (motakallemin-e Qizilbash), but he, and one century later `Abdol-Jamil Nasiri were the exception to this general rule of calling the language “Turki.” The Portuguese called it Turquesco. Other Europeans and most Iranians called it Turkish or Turki. For the sake of simplicity and to avoid confusion we call the Turkic language used in Safavid Iran, Azerbaijani Turkish. Throughout the Safavid period there were two constants as to Azerbaijani Turkish as a spoken language in Iran. First, it was and remained the official language of the royal court during the entire Safavid period. Second, the language remained the spoken language of the Turkic Qizilbash tribes and also was spoken in the army. Browne observed that the Safavid army’s war cry «was not ‹Long live Persia!› or the like, but, in the Turkish language, ‹O my spiritual guide and master whose sacrifice I am!’» Until 1590, the Qizilbash tribes had a hold on certain provinces (e.g. Shiraz: Dhu’l Qadr; Yazd; Afshar; Herat: Shamlu). This had consequences for how Azeri Turkish was diffused. During the 16th century this meant that Azeri was also spoken by various groups outside NW Iran, but after the break-up of the Qizilbash links with certain provinces Azerbaijani Turkish mostly withdrew to NW Iran in the 17th century, certain Turkic pockets remained in the rest of Iran. As noted above, the fact that the court language was Azerbaijani Turkish of course promoted the use of that language in the capital cities (respectively, Tabriz, Qazvin, and Isfahan). In fact, at court more Turkish was spoken than Persian. In 1607, the Carmelites reported that “the Turkish language is usually spoken and understood and the Shah [`Abbas I] and chief men and soldiers generally speak in it. The common people speak Persian, and all documents and communications are in that language.” The court ceremonial was also in Azerbaijani Turkish. The Italian traveler Pietro della Valle wrote: «that the Qizilbash grandees told him that: ‹Persian is a very soft and sweet language, and really used by women for poetry, but Turkish is manly and fit for warriors; therefore, the shah and the emirs of the state speak Turkish.’» Under Shah `Abbas II, the Carmelites reported that “Turki [not Osmanli Turkish] was the language of the court and widely used in Isfahan and in the north.” Chardin explicitly states about the Qizilbash, “these people, as well as their language, are so widespread in the northern part of the country, and later at court, and therefore, mistakenly all Iranians are called Qizilbash.” In 1660, Raphael du Mans wrote: “the every day language of Iran is Persian for the common people, [Azerbaijani] Turkish for the court.” According to Kaempfer, who was in Iran in the 1670s, “[Azerbaijani] Turkish is the common language at the Iranian court as well as the mother tongue of the Safavids in distinction of the language of the general populace. The use of [Azerbaijani] Turkish spread from the court to the magnates and notables and finally to all those who hope to benefit from the shah, so that nowadays it is almost considered shameful for a respectable man not to know [Azerbaijani] Turkish.” The French missionary Sanson, who lived in Iran between 1684-1695, states that Iranians regularly invoked the spiritual power of the king by using expression such as «qorban olim, din imanum padshah, bachunha dunim.» Azerbaijani Turkish remained the court language till the very end of the dynasty and Shah Soltan Hoseyn was even nicknamed yakhshi dir (‹It is good’), because that is what he said to any official who submitted a proposal to him, as he was not interested in matters of state. Arthur Edwards, a merchant of the Muscovy Company reported in 1567 that four copies of the trading privileges granted by Shah Tahmasp I were made «by his Secretarie,» … «whereof two as I required, are in the Turkish tongue.» During the reign of Shah `Abbas I it is noted in Russian sources that “The great envoys (of Russia) desired in their talks to the courtiers [of the Persian Shah], Ikhtam-Davlet [E`temad al-Dowleh] and his colleagues that the reply of the Shah should be in the Turkish language but in Tatar script.” This was the logical consequence of the fact that in the 16th-18th century the Russian tsars employed a considerable number of secretaries to translate incoming and outgoing letters to and from rulers in Europe, Asia Minor and the Middle East. In 1789, the Russian court employed 22 of such translators, eight of whom knew the Tatar (Turkic) language, and some of them knew «the Turkish language,» which presumably was Ottoman Turkish. The Russian envoys and ambassadors that were sent to Iran all carried official letters written in Russian with a translation in «the old Tatar language.» In reply, the Safavid court wrote its official letters in Persian or «in the old Azerbaijan language.» In the 16th and 17th centuries the Russian court received more than 55 letters from the «Qizilbash kings» written in the «Persian and Azerbaijani Turkish languages.» In 1588, the Russian court for the first time wrote a letter in the Tatar language to the Safavid court. In short, Turkic languages and dialects played a much more important role in Safavid Iran than what has been the accepted wisdom so far, while Azerbaijani Turkish in particular was widely spoken and written in Safavid Iran. It was not only the language of the court and the army, but it was also used in poetry, even by renowned poets who usually wrote in Persian. The Safavid shahs, many of whom wrote poetry in Turkish themselves, promoted its literary use. Also, Turkish was used in the court’s official correspondence, both for internal and external affairs. |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 03:59
|
Also, it is known that Shah Ismail wrote approx 1400 verses in Azerbaijani Turkish (in comparision only 50 in Persian) under the pen name of "Khatai", for that very reason hes known as "Shah Khatai" among Azerbaijani Turks. This link contains all of his literature works. http://azerlit.info/index.php?author=25 |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 06:44
I'm haviing a distinct deja-vu on the Turkification  , so I won't repeat the whole stuff again. Take it or not, the Turks were not the first people per se, but qute late-comers, and lingustically and culturally assimilated others, just like almost every other culture did at one point or another.The word ""Äzari" omes from Persian Agari, btw. As for who reads what, there is enough literature to support the both points, so reading onne or the other is to a point selective. Here FYI Mister Henning states that Pesrian languages were spoken fisrt in Azerbaidjan, before the Turkik ones http://azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/henningazari/slides/heningazari1.htm - http://azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/henningazari/slides/heningazari1.htm Considering that the whoever Turks who went to Azerdaidjan in like 11th century didn't exerminate all the Iranians there, but merely mixed with them /as a rule the coming people are always less than the ones aldeary living in every given place/, so as a conscequence the Iranians there were culturally Turkefied, not killed one by one and replaced by some perfect Turkic people. I suppose the you will not like my last sentence as you defend the idea that the Safavid Empire was a Shia Turkish one /something that is highly suspiscious to me/. It makes perfect sence to me though. ------------- |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 07:01
|
But the word "Azari" was never used to describe modern-day Azerbaijani Turks before 1930s, and still not in Republic of Azerbaijan (the word is Azerbaijani and not "Azari"). And like said even the existence of such a people or nation is a mystery. You should be able to distinguish between theories and facts. However, like said, modern-day Azerbaijani Turks were never known with that name. There was mass-migration of Oghuz tribes (there were total of 24 main Oghuz tribes and alot of smaller clans), we are talking about very big numbers here, and it was a process of few centuries, not just with Seljuq invasion. Even the Ilkhanate invasion (whom were Mongols) brought a new wave of big migrations and settlements, aswell after them. The Oghuz Ak-Qoyunlu and Qara-Qoyunlu both were confederation of tribes, and all of their tribes settled in Azerbaijan. And there were Caucasian languages spoken to the north of Araz river, so what? Even when you look at the geographical distribution of Azeri Turks, that theory does not sound correct at all. And if we go by your logic, then why the centers of Seljuqs didn't become Turkic? Mind you that the center of Seljuq rule was not Azerbaijan, but modern-day Persian areas of Iran. All of lands somewhere were populated by some another people at some point, Norwegians don't become Samis just because Samis populated Norway before the arrival of Germanics. And the peoples you mention didn't dissapear at all, there are Iranic Talyshes in their respective region, or Caucasian Lezgins, and other peoples/nations. Just a century ago Azerbaijani Turks were described of leading a nomadic lifestyle, if you wish I can post the first-hand observation from early 1900s. Descriptions tells of a population that are very different from the sendentary, "soft" Persians and Iranians. However, can I ask how is this related to the topic? |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 07:16
Yes they were, not Turkish but Turkic, and what is it that sounds "highly suspicious" to you? The Safavid Shahs were Turks and spoke Azerbaijani Turkish as their mother tongue, the Safavid military was composed of Turkoman tribes of Azerbaijan and Anatolia, which were called "Qizilbash" and the first Safavid capital was Tabriz, Azerbaijan. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 09:53
Exatcly, the Turkeficatin of Azerbaidjan took several centuries; just like the Slavisization of the Balkans took some time to turn ancient Thracians into Bolgar-Slavs. And? The Iranians who lived in Azerbaidjan before the Tirks came didnt evaporate, they were more than the coming Turks, they just became assimilated. And yes, the word Asari was nt used to describe Turks, but the autonomous people of Azerbaidjan, who were Iranians; and they were Turkifiied. After being Turkeied they were called Azeries. It's related because the Azeries weren't Turks to start with. Exactly in the period of the Safavids, 1502-1736, the Azaries were just Turkefied. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 10:15
Only military means not much, otherwise all empires who used hired militry would be omething else. The Ottomans wiidely used the Yanichars who were Slvaics from the Balkans, so what? AFAIK, the iteraturre in the Safavid period was written in Old Aseri, being Iranian language, and culture is what is left after everything else. Thei werre Shia, alright, but Iranians, no Turks or as you put it, Turkic. The Safavid Empre was multunationl, for one, and one of the hard parts was to iron the problems between the Turkic-speakers and the Iranian population, that was far vaster. I syppuse one can say that the Safavid Dynasti was Turkic, but not that the Safavid Empire was Turkik, as an Empire iis related to all people in the said Empire. In the same way I suppose that the military power may claim it's victories as Turkik - but not the cultural achievements n the Safanid period, that are Iranian. ------------- |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 11:40
Centuries of migrations and settlements, and we meet a pretty big number of new population, why do you play with words? What you don't understand is, Turkics that arrived never ever imposed their language on others, but were often themselves assimilated. Seljuqs had become culturally assimilated into Persian culture, as an example. The word "Azeri" was not used to describe the people of Azerbaijan before 1930s, how is that not clear? And if you want, I can post evidences of it. What? |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 11:44
I think you are vastly mis-informed, if you are not just plain trolling. The literature was in Azerbaijani Turkish, as you can see the example of Shah Ismail I gave above. Azerbaijani Turkish was the language of court, and as we see in the first post of the thread, was also used at a state level. They were Shia Turks, nothing as "Iranian" existed back then. Most of the facts is enough to label Safavid Empire as Turkic one. As I said, the capital was also located at a Turkic city. Read some of the stuff I posted above. |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 11:46
And let me quote this, is it not clear? I would advice you to actually read the posts. Here you go, if you have something to say about it, then go ahead, instead of just twisting words with no factual basis. As you can see, Azerbaijani Turks were refered to as "Tatar" back then and not "Azeri", but read the actual words. He also makes a clear distinction between Azerbaijani Turks and other sedentary nations/peoples of Caucasus. Aderbeydzhanskie Tatars, the most predatory tribe in the Caucasus. While, for example., Nadtartsy as inhabitants deaf jungle gorges and forests are calm exterior, walk slowly, slowly, speak softly, slowly and without interrupting each other, aderbeydzhanskie Tatars, on the contrary, as the unclean children steppes, accustomed for centuries a nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life, lively, loud, talkative, daring riders, their raskochevok or village hustle and noise communicated to our ear is a very long distance. The first neat and tidy, the second grubby and conduct themselves with less dignity, though sober and correct in dealing with people. Adzhar - robber sneaks carefully, holding their breath, and the best shot kills its prey more often around the corner. Tartar makes broad daylight most desperate attack, for example., Omnibuses to the traffic and takes less cunning as extreme insolence and unusual skill and daring. Tatars people generally lazy, sluggish, violent, extremely ambitious and hot-tempered. Blasphemy, sacrilege, bribery, deceit, fraud, they have observed, however, rare. But the row over pastures, Spend, sheep, dogs, women are common and they are now and then a dagger violence, Tatar marriage to a Christian entails killing the offending relatives - Muslims. Nomads stay in the Alpine heights is the best time to perform the planned revenge, as on alpine pastures can not extend enough oversight authorities, and nomads living there as lived from 100 to 1000 years ago. On the ground, the winter residence of the Tatars predatory instincts unasleduemye from ancestors restrained administrative regime, acting as a place with their herds, nomads out completely from the power of our laws. (Доктор медицины Э.В. Эриксон. «Вести психологии, криминальной антропологии и гипнотизма». 1906.) |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 12:00
Centuries of migrations and settlements, and we meet a pretty big number of new population, why do you play with words? What you don't understand is, Turkics that arrived never ever imposed their language on others, but were often themselves assimilated. Seljuqs had become culturally assimilated into Persian culture, as an example. The word "Azeri" was not used to describe the people of Azerbaijan before 1930s, how is that not clear? And if you want, I can post evidences of it. What? [/QUOTE] There is no new population, there is an od assimilated one. Frrm Asari to Aseri is ne one linguistic step, so fr me is obvious that is comes one from another; when it was used is immaterial. Like every ther culture, Turks were assimilated and assimilated alike; that thhe Seldjuks became Persianazeed doesn't have anything to do with the Azeries becoming Turkefied. ------------- |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 12:05
|
I don't know what can be explained to someone with Turkophobia (a Bulgarian, big surprise). Your posts don't even answer any of the things I say, you still haven't got it that "Azeri" or "Azari" was never used for modern-day Azerbaijani Turks? You still repeat the same thing although it was explained for thousand of times. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 12:05
Excuse me, I had studied Erikson az a part of my Psychology course, but, AFAIK, he is not any authoruty in history. I'm not twsting anything, bro, and I'm giving you literature on teh question. That you don't like it is not my problem. The Aseries were Asaries before they became Tatars and Aseries as a result of Turkification. So you are inseting a far later info that I'm talking about. I'm not taking about the 19th century, but the time of the Safavids - when the Iraneans in the area were just Turkefied. ------------- |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 12:09
You know better than him, who witnessed it first-hand? He also wrote about other peoples of Caucasus, and makes a clear distinction between Azerbaijani Turks and other peoples of Caucasus. There is no difference between "Azari" or "Azeri", are you making these things up yourself? The word "Azari" or "Azeri" was never used for modern-day Azerbaijani Turks before 1930s like said, and today still not used in Republic of Azerbaijan, the word is "Azerbaijani". You don't even make a sense, do you read what I posted? So according to you the originally "Iranian Azeris" were assimilated to lead a nomadic lifestyle like that of Turkics? These were the times (19-20th century) that Azeri Turks began to leave their largely semi-nomadic lifestyle. During Safavids the nomadic traditions should have been stronger, and it was. Tabriz was already described as a Turkic city during Ilkhanate era, and it was the Turkoman centre of region well before Safavids. So how did "Iranians just become Turkified during Safavids" when the area was long ago already Turkic before Safavids? |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 12:25
|
Ericson is talking about what 20th century? I'm talkng about the vefore 11 to 15, so your choice of source has nothing to do with what i'm saying. And no, I'm not trolling, ad I provided a source. You may disagree with my opinion, I don't mind, but I'll keep it, thank you very much. Of course a culture can be assimilated to any style of life, his is not even an argument. And my English is not any of your concern. Funny that you didn't give remarks like that when my location was marked US, /in another time and place, same topic/. Please, refrain of personal remarks, such are forbidden on this forum. Amd this is your first warning. ------------- |
Posted By: yomud
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 13:36
|
first Azerbaijan is name of place not people ! dont forget this and Azerbaijan it self i thin k if we add h( kh) it will become hazerbaijan(khazerbaijan) khazar are turkic people bai or bay means master or lord and jan means spirit so khAzerbaijan means spirit of khazarian lord !near khazar sea this is about Azerbaijan second PEOPLE OF Azerbaijan !even before seljuks turks enter iran and anatoly where they hired in army of eastern romen empier as turkopol and after that seljuks came and with them so many turkmen came to ! they live at Azerbaijan after that mongolis attck from north so many turkic clan like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuman - Cuman or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipchak - Kipchak flee to south later they make mamluks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk#cite_note-Istv.C3.A1n_V.C3.A1s.C3.A1ry_2005-0 - after mongols timur came and defeat yilderm bayazid of ottoman empier ! and took youmd clan as slave bring them to tabriz settled there near other turkmens ! 200 years after timur gone turks cam form turkey ( said from samsun ) and setteld in tabriz which make safavid empier and they are modern - - - - - - - - - - Azerbaijan turks they send other turkmens and few kurd to east to reinforce east of country which u call it today iran ! and now plz enlighten me how could you sure about your theory Azerbaijan is land of so many people some pople force to setteld there some people forced to move form there so your theory is nothing but a joke ------------- yomud are free people |
Posted By: yomud
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 13:59
|
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30751 this is the linke of this web about land of Azerbaijan and turkmens it's show so many map that call Azerbaijan as turkmenia and no Azerbaijan ------------- yomud are free people |
Posted By: yomud
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 14:20
|
we have qizilbash clans list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qizilbash as u see we have 7 major clan
tekke are 95% of turkmens in turkmenestan they rule iran after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_I - Shah Ismail I and b4 tahmaseb and be4 tekke it was rumlu ruled and after tekke it was shamlu caln ruled iran after shamlu tahmaseb grow up enough to rule as king ! tekke and yomud and solar play key rule in rise of ottoman empier ! tekkelu means come from tekke (antalya) and yomud come from dyarbek we are supporter of Nur ad-Din Zangi in crusade as i said before timur force yomuds to settled tabriz in 3 different sources say that yomud turkmens are kizilbashthe turkish persian and afghan ! it is impossible to connect safavid or tabriz turks to iranian ------------- yomud are free people |
Posted By: yomud
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 14:29
Don Quixote 
------------- yomud are free people |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2012 at 14:31
|
Qaradag, I don't recall anyone who is a successful member here, just showing up and display complete disrespect for anyone with green stars or for that matter, red stars.
Using terms such as "Turkiphobic" and showing a lack of respect for DQ's ethnicity, not only doesn't make sense, it will earn you a permanent trip out of here. I believe I have been more than patient, so consider this your Official Warning.
|
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2012 at 03:46
|
Sorry for that but when you have to repeat the same thing for a millionth time, then it becomes a bit annoying. People talk with myths they read on wikipedia or other sources, deliberately made by some of the so-called scholars that are known to be anti-Turks, for instance Ahmad Kasravi who is the founder of that theory, or Vladimir Minorsky. First of all I don't see a relation to the thread, secondly its really boring and annoying that you have to repeat the same thing over and over in different threads of the forum. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2012 at 08:13
|
If this thread's so boring, why did you start it Qaradag? Personally, i'd like to find out more about the ancient Iranian kings as i don't know much about Middle Eastern history
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2012 at 15:43
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/persiatimelines/qt/080909TimelineAncientPeria.htm - http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/persiatimelines/qt/080909TimelineAncientPeria.htm And there's always The Cambridge History of Iran. V1-3. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2012 at 16:52
I meant the discussion on supposed origins of Azeri Turks, which is not related to the thread. And yes its boring when the same topic is brought up over and over, seriously its just a interwebz thing (Azeri Turks are a branch of Oghuz, and this is the only fact), but is it annoying? Yes, definetly it is. And our friend are supposedly not agreeing with that I talk of Safavids as a Turkic empire, which they were. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2012 at 07:41
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Qaradag
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2012 at 09:32
|
Here Shah Ismail refers to his father Shaykh Haydar. Əzəldən şah bizim sultanımızdır, Pirimiz, mürşidimiz, xanımızdır. Shah is our Sultan since the dawn of time, He is our Pir, Murshid, Khan. Şaha qurban gətirdik biz bu canı, Şahın sözü bizim imanımızdır. We sacrificed our lives for our Shah, His words are our belief/faith. Həsudə yoxdurur, yalançıya mərg, Şah, gerçək söhbəti bürhanımızdır. No place for liers, Shah is our true evidence. Şahı həq deyibən girdik bu yola, Hüseyniyüz, bu gün dövranımızdır. We put ourselves in this path considering (our) Shah as the sole truth, We are followers of Hussein ibn Ali, today is our day. Biz imam qullariyüz sadiqanə, Şəhidlik, qazilik nişanımızdır. We are the faithful servants of Imam, Martydom is our target. Yolumuz incədir, incədən-incə Bu yolda baş verək, ərkanımızdır. Our path is thin, We shall dedicate ourselves in this path, its our salvation. Xətayiyəm, özüm şah Heydər oğlu. Şahı həq bilməyən düşmanımızdır. I'm Khatai, myself son of Shah Haydar. He who doesn't recognize our Shah is our enemy. PS: Shaykh Haydar was considered as a holy-figure among Qizilbash tribes, and the Qizilbash battle-cry (in Azeri Turkish) was "‹O my spiritual guide and master whose sacrifice I am!’" referring to Shaykh Haydar. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2012 at 16:45
Ah yes an extreme heterodox 'twelver' type..... much done under his reign to develop the Safaviyya as a political entity....believed to be divine iirc. Hmmm. Surely the Prophet would have objected.  Divinity beyond Allah the Great and merciful? Heresy.
------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2012 at 08:10
|
I don't think it's heretical. The Shah was descended from Ali who, in turn, was related to Muhammed
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: yomud
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2012 at 08:38
|
Nick1986 your mistaking there is no source saying
The Shah was descended from Ali if you saying this because they take title of seyyed than u must know shah's father and grandfather wasn't seyyed this was a political action against ottoman empier as sultan selim force Caliph to surrender the title of Caliphatlo muslemin ( Caliph of all muslims which give supremacy over the muslim include safavid and Gurkanian of india . gurkanian accept selim as caliph as every sunni muslem but ismail didn't he also chose being shia than sunni so he cut off ottoman influence over his dominion he take title seyyed so he could contest with selim and his title heydar baba and uzun hasan neither of was seyyed ! ------------- yomud are free people |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2012 at 14:42
So....even if there is a nebulous connection... and that's debatable tis hersey..... “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.” Note what that says...messenger not divine not god. Hence any reference or belief in support of other lesser mortals divinity; to include Ali or the Shah or the Prophet is heresy. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |