|
Post by Atabeg on Jan 31, 2007 20:13:26 GMT 3
I confused I thought the persian people of CA were allready assimilated or chased away by the Gok Turks.
Altaicmongols says it was after Genghis Khan
so wich one is it?
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Jan 31, 2007 23:00:43 GMT 3
I confused I thought the persian people of CA were allready assimilated or chased away by the Gok Turks. Altaicmongols says it was after Genghis Khan so wich one is it? You misunderstood me. I stated, the first Altaic people to invade and colonize CA were the Altaic Turks. But it wasn't a full-out invasion and it wasn't enough to replace the local populace, language, and culture. The Turks from 6th century to 11th century that invaded CA lived side by side with the Sogdians. Only until Genghis Khan mobilized a massive army to invade Central Asia and complete the ethnogenesis of Altaic people instead of Indo-Europeans. That is why the vast majority of CA countries speak an Altaic language and have a core Turko-Mongol identity, the black sheep is Tajikistan which still retains the original Iranic inhabitants that once used to encompass all of CA.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Jan 31, 2007 23:31:46 GMT 3
I confused I thought the persian people of CA were allready assimilated or chased away by the Gok Turks. Altaicmongols says it was after Genghis Khan so wich one is it? You misunderstood me. I stated, the first Altaic people to invade and colonize CA were the Altaic Turks. But it wasn't a full-out invasion and it wasn't enough to replace the local populace, language, and culture. The Turks from 6th century to 11th century that invaded CA lived side by side with the Sogdians. Only until Genghis Khan mobilized a massive army to invade Central Asia and complete the ethnogenesis of Altaic people instead of Indo-Europeans. That is why the vast majority of CA countries speak an Altaic language and have a core Turko-Mongol identity, the black sheep is Tajikistan which still retains the original Iranic inhabitants that once used to encompass all of CA. hmm I allways thought they got assimelated into the Turkic population earlier how do you explain the "mixed" bodies in the Kurgan graves?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 31, 2007 23:55:06 GMT 3
Well it's true that Turk was originially the name of a single people called Tujue by the Chinese, and when other peoples outside this people were called Turk in the 7th-8th centuries, it had a political meaning, showing political control. Soghdian and Tokharian city-states, as well as the Kashmiries, are called as Turks in Tang-period sources. However, during the Uyghur Empire period, the name Turk acquired more meanings, such as lingual, cultural and ethnical. What we call Turkic peoples today starting calling them Turk starting from the Uyghur period. There were of course Turkic and Turkic-speaking peoples centuries before the Tujue people even appeared.
For example, the real name of the Turks in Turkey, Balkans, Middle East and Türkmenistan is Oghuz, which was just one of the Turkic peoples.
Altaicmongol, I have realised that you are one of those Turk-history ignorants who think that there were no Turkic peoples before the 6th century. I think we don't need such Steppe and Turkic History ignorants here.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jan 31, 2007 23:57:17 GMT 3
Actually, they were never fully unified under the Holy Roman Empire and were just referred to as Frankish kingdoms. The Germans were actually united under Bismarck in the 1800's. But you are missing the point. These Germanic tribes were very diverse in origin and culture, and assimilated to many different cultures around it. But they were different on a micro-level compared to other people like the Italians or the British. Germany was basically a union of many tiny Germanic speaking kingdoms and peoples, they were never uniform in language or origin. Only until they were united into one German empire did they begin to assimilate into one unique German people. this is a little of-topic but this is not quite accurate. all Germanic people were never unified (like Scandinavian tribes, Anglo-Saxons, Vandals, Goths etc). even Bismarck didn't unified all German speaking tribes, Austria, Luxemburg, Lichtenstein and German speaking part of Switzerland remained independent even though language was basically the same. the German world was therefore already created earlier. Franks of France already spoke a Romanic language in 9th century. the origin of the mdoern German language also started in this time.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Feb 1, 2007 0:01:02 GMT 3
Well it's true that Turk was originially the name of a single people called Tujue by the Chinese, and when other peoples outside this people were called Turk in the 7th-8th centuries, it had a political meaning, showing political control. Soghdian and Tokharian city-states, as well as the Kashmiries, are called as Turks in Tang-period sources. However, during the Uyghur Empire period, the name Turk acquired more meanings, such as lingual, cultural and ethnical. What we call Turkic peoples today starting calling them Turk starting from the Uyghur period. There were of course Turkic and Turkic-speaking peoples centuries before the Tujue people even appeared. For example, the real name of the Turks in Turkey, Balkans, Middle East and Türkmenistan is Oghuz, which was just one of the Turkic peoples. Altaicmongol, I have realised that you are one of those Turk-history ignorants who think that there were no Turkic peoples before the 6th century. I think we don't need such Steppe and Turkic History ignorants here. Yes verry nicley said my Qagan. I have a question. Aren't the people who settled in the Balkans from Anatolia(they moved to conquerd lands just liek the Ahiska turks did well there was a "local" kypchak community) but what I'm trying to say is. The early Anatolian Turks(Beylik periode) were called Turkmens. So are all oghuz Turk Turkmen? Are the oghuz descendants of the Tujue(I mean direct) and did the Uigurs belong to the Tujue(the original Tujue)
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 1, 2007 0:25:27 GMT 3
Thank you my dear Atabeg Shad Well yes, Türkmen was the name given to Muslim Oghuz. There were non-Türkmen Oghuz groups like the Gagauz (also known as Ouzoi or Torki). And ah no the Oghuz were not the descendents of the Blue Turks (Tujue), they were a different people living in the Central Steppe north of the Aral Sea as early as the 9th century (and perhaps earlier). The Tujue as a people are not mentioned after the year 942. The Uyghurs were also not Tujue, they were a Gaoche/Tiele people.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Feb 1, 2007 0:39:46 GMT 3
So the Tujue got assimilated by other groups just like the Xiongnu
what about the shatuo tujue in china how long did they last? longer than 942?
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Feb 1, 2007 0:41:53 GMT 3
I have another question we all speak of the Number of Turkic soldiers in the Mongolian hordes
but what about the otherway around was the number of mongolian soldier in Turkic empire like The Gok Turks.
What Happend to the Mongolians in the Khanates after the Cingisids. Did they get Turkified.
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Feb 1, 2007 3:38:05 GMT 3
Well it's true that Turk was originially the name of a single people called Tujue by the Chinese, and when other peoples outside this people were called Turk in the 7th-8th centuries, it had a political meaning, showing political control. Soghdian and Tokharian city-states, as well as the Kashmiries, are called as Turks in Tang-period sources. However, during the Uyghur Empire period, the name Turk acquired more meanings, such as lingual, cultural and ethnical. What we call Turkic peoples today starting calling them Turk starting from the Uyghur period. There were of course Turkic and Turkic-speaking peoples centuries before the Tujue people even appeared. For example, the real name of the Turks in Turkey, Balkans, Middle East and Türkmenistan is Oghuz, which was just one of the Turkic peoples. Altaicmongol, I have realised that you are one of those Turk-history ignorants who think that there were no Turkic peoples before the 6th century. I think we don't need such Steppe and Turkic History ignorants here. I'm sorry, but you are the one that is ignorant my friend. I never said anything like you said I did. The progenitors of the GokTurks were proto-Turkic people, but that doesn't mean they were actually Turkic. Turkic started as a people when the GokTurks formed the steppe nomads into a huge confederation, and the assimilated masses took on the language, culture, and ancestry of the leaders. You are actually very ignorant, you don't know how the steppe works, you have a very European view of history, this is insanely ignorant. There is no such race as Turk, or Hun, or even Mongol. The most general thing you can say is that the people who formed these confederations were Asiatic Altaic people, Turko-Mongol race. To say that Turk is a race or separate ethnicity is insanely ludicrous. You haven't considered any of the dialogs or evidence I have provided, only going by what you think or wish for, that is pure ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Feb 1, 2007 3:42:43 GMT 3
I have another question we all speak of the Number of Turkic soldiers in the Mongolian hordes but what about the otherway around was the number of mongolian soldier in Turkic empire like The Gok Turks. What Happend to the Mongolians in the Khanates after the Cingisids. Did they get Turkified. There was no such thing as "Mongolian" during GokTurks. The word Mongol was from a tiny tribe that Genghis Khan was a part of. Mongol was a mix of Merkit, Urunkhai, Kereyait, Naiman, Tatar, Buryat, etc. clans. Over 90% of the Mongols were of former Turk allegiances, which just goes to show how stupid it is to differentiate the Mongols from Turkic people when more than 9 out of 10 Mongols were Turkic speaking people.
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Feb 1, 2007 3:52:55 GMT 3
Well it's true that Turk was originially the name of a single people called Tujue by the Chinese, and when other peoples outside this people were called Turk in the 7th-8th centuries, it had a political meaning, showing political control. Soghdian and Tokharian city-states, as well as the Kashmiries, are called as Turks in Tang-period sources. However, during the Uyghur Empire period, the name Turk acquired more meanings, such as lingual, cultural and ethnical. What we call Turkic peoples today starting calling them Turk starting from the Uyghur period. There were of course Turkic and Turkic-speaking peoples centuries before the Tujue people even appeared. For example, the real name of the Turks in Turkey, Balkans, Middle East and Türkmenistan is Oghuz, which was just one of the Turkic peoples. Altaicmongol, I have realised that you are one of those Turk-history ignorants who think that there were no Turkic peoples before the 6th century. I think we don't need such Steppe and Turkic History ignorants here. So under your logic, there were Swiss people before the forming of the Swiss confederations. Or Iraqi people before the forming of Iraq. British people before the forming of Great Britain. That is just silly man. Of course there were people before the formation of the alliances, but that doesn't mean their group name existed before the alliances were made. Your so called Turkic people were just bands and bands of nomadic steppe tribes, the only thing they shared amongst each other was their pagan religion. You think that the steppe people were mono-lingual or uniform in nature, that is an incorrect assumption. Now back to ethnicity. It depends on which one we are using. If you are talking about race, then no, Turkic is not an ethnicity. But if you are talking about "pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" then yes, I agree. So let us let this ethnic discussion die, unless you are pulling for the first argument.
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Feb 1, 2007 4:06:03 GMT 3
Altaicmongol, I have realised that you are one of those Turk-history ignorants who think that there were no Turkic peoples before the 6th century. I think we don't need such Steppe and Turkic History ignorants here. If you don't want me here, just say it without sugarcoating it. Either way, do you think I bask in enjoyment every time I have to look at the most ignorant posts about the Mongols and Chinnghis Khan every time? How can you call me ignorant of Turk history??? Many, I mean many, of your fellow Turkic brethren claim that the original Turks were white, indo-european, non-Asiatic people. If I am called ignorant for suggesting that Turks were a military confederation while your people go off spouting BS like that, then this forum is just worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Feb 1, 2007 9:27:43 GMT 3
I have another question we all speak of the Number of Turkic soldiers in the Mongolian hordes but what about the otherway around was the number of mongolian soldier in Turkic empire like The Gok Turks. What Happend to the Mongolians in the Khanates after the Cingisids. Did they get Turkified. There was no such thing as "Mongolian" during GokTurks. The word Mongol was from a tiny tribe that Genghis Khan was a part of. Mongol was a mix of Merkit, Urunkhai, Kereyait, Naiman, Tatar, Buryat, etc. clans. Over 90% of the Mongols were of former Turk allegiances, which just goes to show how stupid it is to differentiate the Mongols from Turkic people when more than 9 out of 10 Mongols were Turkic speaking people. hmm this all I wanted to know thanks(yes I should have said mongolic tribes)
|
|
|
Post by aca on Feb 1, 2007 16:43:01 GMT 3
You misunderstood me. I stated, the first Altaic people to invade and colonize CA were the Altaic Turks. But it wasn't a full-out invasion and it wasn't enough to replace the local populace, language, and culture. The Turks from 6th century to 11th century that invaded CA lived side by side with the Sogdians. Only until Genghis Khan mobilized a massive army to invade Central Asia and complete the ethnogenesis of Altaic people instead of Indo-Europeans. That is why the vast majority of CA countries speak an Altaic language and have a core Turko-Mongol identity, the black sheep is Tajikistan which still retains the original Iranic inhabitants that once used to encompass all of CA. hmm I allways thought they got assimelated into the Turkic population earlier how do you explain the "mixed" bodies in the Kurgan graves? "Mixed bodies" - this is easy. Conquerors were always interested in women of the conquered ones ;D But Altaicmongol is subjective when he sais that Genghis-khan completed the ethnogenesis of Altaic people instead of Indo-Europeans in CA. This must have happened earlier (after distruction of Gok Turk khaganate), and in Transoxiana after destruction of Iranic Samanides (which happened before Genghis-khan)
|
|