what is the best warrior turan history
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6095
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 15:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: what is the best warrior turan history
Posted By: merced12
Subject: what is the best warrior turan history
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 07:15
|
ALL OF THEM GREAT BUT CHOOSE ONE ------------- http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/ 16th century world; Ottomans all Roman orients Safavids in Persia Babur in india `azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim`` |
Replies:
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 07:35
|
Genghis Khan was a turan guy?
*Such dreaming can often turn a battle of wits into a nightmare. The Dungeon might clear the senses*
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: merced12
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 07:40
|
WHY CENGIZ KHAN A MONGOL WARRIOR AND MONGOL IS TURAN NATIONS.MONGOLS ,MAGYAR ,TURKS,KOREAN.FINNISH...... IS TURAN NATIONS. I THINK YOU LOOK HISTORY BOOK OR SEARCH GOOGLE OK AND I DONT LIKE DREAM I LIKE REAL FACTS DREAMS ONLY STUPID PEOPLE ------------- http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/ 16th century world; Ottomans all Roman orients Safavids in Persia Babur in india `azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim`` |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 08:03
|
merced12, r u 12 years old?
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: merced12
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 08:12
|
I AGREE BUT SOMEONE IS AGREE TURAN FOR TURKS BUT IN FACT TURAN IS MIDDLE ASIA NATIONS AND TURKS DIDNT FOUND TURAN IDEA MAGYAR IS FOUND IT.URAL ALTAI LANGUAGE IS TURAN NATIONS. ------------- http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/ 16th century world; Ottomans all Roman orients Safavids in Persia Babur in india `azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim`` |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 08:23
|
merced12, you can use another word such as "central asians", "nomads", turks, mongols etc. But turan is not accepted by all of mongols, finnish people, hungarians etc. Turan originally related only with turks of sertain region. As I wrote turkic nationalists misuse this word and mean that all this people(finnish, mongols, hungarians) are turks or something like.
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 08:29
|
I'd also like to vote for people like Oghuz Qan and Iltirish Qaqan also... ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: merced12
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 11:16
------------- http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/ 16th century world; Ottomans all Roman orients Safavids in Persia Babur in india `azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim`` |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 15:28
|
I don't have any sypathy for Turanism but it was first created by some Hungarians. Of course there are different versions of Turanism. Some just include Turkic people and some include all Ural-Altaic family... ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: Sultan
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 14:02
|
All Of Them Are great And There Are Alot Just Like What "gok_toruk" Posted. i Voted For Temujin. ------------- Turkistan is a door to two worlds, Turkistan is a cradle of the Turks, Living in beautiful Turkistan Is Tengri's blessing to the Turks. FREEDOM FOR EASTERN TURKISTAN |
Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 22:04
| Oh damn this was a hard vote, I didn't know who to vote for but I chose Timur. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 09:53
| I voted for Attila, the scourge of God. |
Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 10:13
|
Chingis Khan. -------------  Jai Badri Vishal
|
Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 13:43
|
Blitz, do you really feel, you should attack Turks here? http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4757&KW=blitz - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4757& ; ;KW=blitz You know Mongols a lot. Most of our words and legends are similar mate, you should chek it more. Our religions are the same and Shamanism has no missionary concept. It is not like Turks today Muslim so that they should be same with Arabs. Shamanism was never adopted by outsiders... Probably two nations are coming from same origin, from the times when there was no Mongol and no Turk. It is very normal when Turks try to embrace their cousins. Though I must state that Mongols are not Turkic people. Just cousins... |
Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 13:48
BTW, off course Timur. 
|
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 07:03
|
HulaguHan, I didn't attack anybody, spec. Turks. I just said that Turan relates only with turks not with mongols.
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 12:07
|
No Turan is a fake idea which is as far as I know first introduced by Hungarians. It is just trying to find a cousinship between Ural Altaic loanguage speakers. Though I do find it a Nazism of East. But if you ask my humble opinion, I just say, We Turks are just Turks and Mongols is our cousin. We are not the same nation (brothers), but we are two cousin nations. The best name for the topic would be Altaic rulers. Cenghis is not Turkic so as Solomon is not a Mongol. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 11:39
|
Hi there Merced... How's it going? ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 11:40
|
And especiall greetings too my brother, Sultan... Yaqshi ming qartashim? ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 13:47
|
gok_toruk, you can ask how they are by PM... ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 18:59
|
Attila, because he almost destroyed the greatest empire ever.
And about the Ottoman Emperors, Mehmed and Selim... They were not Turkic (or Turanoid) ethnically. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 20:41
|
By the time Attila became King, the Eastern Roman Empire had already faced incursions from Goths. He did not necessarily want their land as much as he desired tribute in gold. The Romans vacillated between payments and withholdings. Once he dominated the market, burned villages and incorporated other ethnic tribes, he solidified his tribute and pursued his policies to the west. Against Aetius and Theodoric the Huns were checked at Chalons. They could have been crushed were it not for politics. Instead Attila was allowed retreat. He continued to overrun lands up to Rome. Cengiz gets my vote because he always dictated terms and was victorious in his battles. What were those two Ottoman Sultans if not 'Turk'? ------------- |
Posted By: OSMANLI
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 05:58
|
I think his refering to the Sultans having foreign having children with foreign womens. But i suppose this comes down to what your opinion on how 'pure' you must be in order to actually be a Turk, which i think is off the subject, although would make and interesting topic. BTW. Fatih Sultan Muhammad, wins hands down. If he had not died when he did then iam sure that Italy do would have become Ottoman. Completed the Islamic prophecy of taking Istanbul. Previous Turks, Arabs and Persions all tried Very wise man indeed -------------  
|
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 06:57
|
Kotumeyil, I'll choose where and how I should write, MYSELF; it has nothing to do with you, alright? ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 14:13
|
You shouldn't hijack a topic about warriors to ask how your friends are. You can ask it through PM... ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 14:42
|
sshhht! ayib oluyo beyler for me its Alparslan with his wise words. EDIT: kotumeyil, modsun anladikta, abartma... ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 15:14
|
You know, had Alp Arslan been on the list, I would be entitled to choose him as my sentimental favorite. A few really good victories, but still not enough to put him at the top of the list. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 15:18
Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not racist, but we are talking about Turanoid warriors, remember? They were "Turk" but not "Turkic". ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 15:26
|
Yes. I know what you are saying. 'Turanoid' Turkic for central asians and Turkish Turk for the anatolians etc. I like to simplify matters by believing that they are all Turks. ------------- |
Posted By: Janissary
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 18:23
|
I think it is Gul Tegin, becouse, many of Great Ottoman Sultans did not fought, bu He did. But i am not Against that ha ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 10:42
|
I vote 4 genghis khan he was truly a great leader and a wise man . ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 03:43
False. Mongols werent Turk but Gengis Khan was a Turk.He was a member of Golden Family. My vote is for Fatih Sultan Mehmed. ------------- |
Posted By: Turkoglu
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 10:23
The Turanians are a family of related ethno-linguistic groups: the Hungarians, the peoples of the Caucasus, the Uralic group (Finnic and West Siberian peoples), and the Altaic group (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, Korean and Japanese peoples). ------------- 
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 16:42
|
something like Turanian does not exist. period. if the fantasy continues, topic will be closed. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 22:54
|
Turkoglu, you are mistaken.
Turanoid does not include every race, which is related to Ural-Altaic language group. Turanoid and Turkic are more or less the same thing. By the way, the Japanese are not a part of Altaic. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 22:56
| I voted for Attila. I think his rivals were more powerful than Genghis'. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 09:14
|
My vote goes to Genghis Khan. I (70%) agree with all members from Turkey. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 12:38
|
i would deff vote for Kursat.... with only 40 men .. take over the chiniese place .. kill the emporer .. and run like hell .. thats a real hero rest are great generals and head of states ------------- |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 23:09
|
Attilas huns were a weaker steppe tribe pushed into the unfavourable grasslands of hungary by more powerful Xiongnu tribes,thus losing the battle of chalons as they didnt have enough horsemen by that time. Genghis khan who else |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 13:08
|
Guys Turanian is some kind of a wrong decision here. Topic' s name should be Altaic Warriors. Mongols and Turks are the continutiy of the Altaic nation. We are same people, originally, but it was before our natinal identites were shaped. Now, Merced used a term Turanian, a term created by Hungarians which is a cousinship of Finnics, Ugorics, Turkics, Mongolics and Tunghusics, it is I think not really reliable... |
Posted By: Luv_ya_Azerbaijan
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 18:58
|
Cengiz Khan the great warrior...this guy was the mans man... Oh and I support Turan 100% ------------- Turk milletlerinin birlik yoluna!!!! |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 20:45
------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 02:29
|
Attila the Hun, Pole ristiline,aga kas olen? Aga arutagem ära |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 22:25
|
WHY CENGIZ KHAN A MONGOL WARRIOR AND MONGOL IS TURAN NATIONS.MONGOLS ,MAGYAR ,TURKS,KOREAN.FINNISH...... IS TURAN NATIONS. I THINK YOU LOOK HISTORY BOOK OR SEARCH GOOGLE OK AND I DONT LIKE DREAM I LIKE REAL FACTS DREAMS ONLY STUPID PEOPLE If Finns are counted, then the greatest Turan warrior was Fieldmarshal Mannerheim. |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 13:28
|
Probably Sheikh Shamil ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
and other heroes that fought for independence of Eastern Turkestan(Sinkiang) and achieved that for a while...Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 13:31
|
By the way, it is not "Atilla, Sword of God", the true one is "Attila, Scourge of God" ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 01:18
|
Attila the Hun, Pole ristiline,aga kas olen? Aga arutagem ära |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 23:04
|
Definitely Atilla Wish u guys had put Alp Er Tunga, or Kur-Shad... But if it includes recent times, then Ataturk(the guy never lost a single battle!!! & against like 7 diff. peoples! ------------- |
) Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 23:38
|
Ohh also i saw the dispute between Genghis Khan being Turkic or Mongol... well i have some opinions: First of all, even if we claim that history is a positive science we can never accept the preciseness of it. Because we get different information from many different sources, in which the best thing to do is to combine all those sources. Such as, a historian(European) says that in the battle of Nigbolu there were 120,000 Turks against 80,000 Crusaders... while a Turkish historian says there were 100,000 Turks and 200,000 Crusaders... so in these situations we have to believe both.(the real numbers were 110,000 Turks & 140,000 Crusaders as accepted by many sources if you were curious One such topic is the root of Genghis Khan... There have been many stupid suggestions(such as him being French 1-) He spoke Turkish as well as he could speak Mongolian. (we can't know which one was his primary language but we know he sent his international messages in Turkish.) 2-) On many places he introduced himself as a Turk, yet he also introduced himself as the Khan of the Nomads on many occasions... He may have called himself "Turk" because the Arabs called all the nomads Turks. 3-) According to the Chinese, Genghis Khans' roots go back to the Sha-To, who are, also according to the Chinese, descents from GokTurks. 4-) Based on descriptions, physically he didn't look Mongol. He had brown hair and colored eyes, just as the GokTurk Khans. 5-) According to legend, Genghis Khans blood traces to the wolf. At the time the Mongols considered the dog sacred, while the Turks had even made banners of wolves... 6-) ''Uturkû al-Turka ma tarakûkum" which means "Do not mess with the Turks as long as they don't mess with you", the words of Prophet Mohammad, mentioned during a meeting between Vahideddin Fuþanci, a Muslim alim, and Genghis Khan when he asked him "He sounds like a wise, foreseeing man. Did he say anything about me?" and on the reply "He spoke true, it doesn't do good to mess with us" 7-) An Arab told Ogedei Khan one day, that he saw his father(Genghis Khan) in his dream, and he spoke to him. On this the Khan asked "What language did he speak?" , the Arab guy told him it was Arabic and the Khan's reply was "My dad only knew Turkish and Mongol". 8-) Most of his army was made of Turks. Sources 1)Secret History of Mongols NOTE: This had been roughly translated from http://lostlibrary.org - http://lostlibrary.org ------------- |
Posted By: Turkoglu
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 10:28
don't forget Osman Batur.. -------------
|
Posted By: köroglu
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 18:42
|
All of them are heroes... But ATATURK is the hero of the heroes!!!! http://www.kanalturkcu28.tr.cx/ - http://www.kanalturkcu28.tr.cx/ http://www.kanalturkcu28.tr.cx/ - http://www.kanalturkcu28.tr.cx/ http://www.kanalturkcu28.tr.cx/ - http://www.kanalturkcu28.tr.cx/ ------------- |
Posted By: dirtnap
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 20:31
|
1) Genghis Khan
I think Khan is the greatest warrior(general, ruler, dude with an army) ever in the history of man followed by Alexander the great. Attila is top 5 material but number 2 out of these choices... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Suevari
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 15:51
Yes, Mongols are not Turkic, but it doesn't matter wheter or not Genghis Khan was a Turk or not because Mongols ARE Turanic. Turanic doesn't neccesarily mean Turkic - Turanic tends to colloctivize all Altiac (and possibly Uralic) peoples - this includes Mongols. ------------- |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2006 at 11:39
|
In that case Turanic becomes a nonsense term. As Culturally and racially, Japanese, Koreans, Finnish or some other groups has nothing to do with other Turkic groups. This is just a linguistical term. The problem is Altai-Uralic language theory is not firmly established. If there is one group which is Turanic, then they shoud have some specific cultural commonity. Actually when it's recreated by Hungarians, it only based on linguistic ties. When it was used by Persian texts (such as Shahname) it was designated to the nomadic Indo-European tribes who had continuos battles with them. When it's used by Chinese historians earlier than that, it was used for the nomadic people's who were descendents of Hunnic peoples. When its used by the people themselves, it was Tura. It included almost all of the Turkic tribes. So Turanic should be more or less limitted to the Turkic people. The mongols during the time of Chengis can be included due to excesssive contact with and later intergration into Turkic people.But the present day Mongols were mainly Tungustic.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 13:20
|
It was a hard choice between atilla cengis and timur because the others were ottoman sultans they were military geniuses but not real warrior they didn't engage in the campaings i think i think you know what I mean ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 10:12
|
CONQUEROR FATIH
Im living Istanbul, thanks to him! ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:07
| fatih! because attila didnt conqure rome. maybe he got reason but... and i believe that at the age of suleyman maybe ottoman look like strong but at the inside ottoman was getting worst. cengiz did some thing wrong. he divide his country for his childeren. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:12
|
ATATÜRK WAS BİGGER THAN THAT GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 28-May-2006 at 01:14
|
you call this a poll for turan fighters i think who posted this poll I think said that turan is a "nation" of turks mongols fins koreans and japanese right? so why do I only see turks one hun and one "turkefied" mongol and one "monglofied" turk? what about a samurai we all know that the samurai was verry effective in one on one combat isn't that a real warrior. So my vote is ROurouni kenshin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
nah I vote Miyamoto Musashi