|
Post by Asparuh on May 21, 2009 23:27:55 GMT 3
Ok,hahahaha,Nonsense ;D It sound funny,though. It's better then saying Bullnuts or Bullnutss for shure ;D Anyway,i hope we can behave as a grown up man here and do nice posts in this forum in the future,
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on May 29, 2009 6:58:17 GMT 3
At first I suggest in order to be definite stop using the term Persian for Iranian in historical context regarding Iranian people. Proto-Turks and proto-Iranians made one of the early cultural exchange in the history of Asia. There's an expansion of a famous saying, goes like this: "If you scratch a Russian you will find a Tatar, and if you scratch deeper you'll find an Iranian." However the so-called Iranian altered in many ways overtimes. Today from modern point of view some groups of Turks are counted as Iranian ethnicities but historically they were quite different people. I recall that Mahmud Kasgari also said something about Turks and Iranians but I forgot it.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 29, 2009 12:39:36 GMT 3
Yes indeed, he gave a famous saying among the Turks: "Tatsïz Türk bolmas, bašsïz börk bolmas (There would be no Turks without the Iranians, there would be no headgears without heads".
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 29, 2009 18:24:40 GMT 3
At first I suggest in order to be definite stop using the term Persian for Iranian in historical context regarding Iranian people. Proto-Turks and proto-Iranians made one of the early cultural exchange in the history of Asia. There's an expansion of a famous saying, goes like this: "If you scratch a Russian you will find a Tatar, and if you scratch deeper you'll find an Iranian." Interesting, this is the first time I see this saying. Usually, it just goes without "Iranian" part. However the so-called Iranian altered in many ways overtimes. Today from modern point of view some groups of Turks are counted as Iranian ethnicities but historically they were quite different people. I recall that Mahmud Kasgari also said something about Turks and Iranians but I forgot it. May be it's even better to talk about "Iranics" instead of Iranians, since most of those ancient interaction were between Scytho-Sarmatians and Turks. And Scytho-Sarmatians would be better called "Iranics" rather than "Iranians."
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 29, 2009 23:56:43 GMT 3
I agree, "Iranian" would mean anyone living in Iran, regardless of ethnicity. "Iranic" has a more cultural and ethnic side.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jun 4, 2009 0:32:54 GMT 3
The term "Iranian" is the term used by scholars regarding also history of all Iranians equally those inhabited Iranian plateau and those in Central Asia and the steppes. However for the early Iranians the term "proto-Iranians" is preferred which in fact also comprises times in which the terms like Sarmatians, Scythians, Achamaenids etc... never appeared. "Iranic" is good alternative which seems to be more general but in my opinion the priority is with what is used widely in scholarly texts.
|
|
|
Post by arnewise12 on Jun 23, 2009 2:05:45 GMT 3
is this true, its very conterventionell of what I read, I read that he said, " If u see a tat , hit him in the head",
I read that he thought turks got to much influence from the persian, he was refering to the great seljuks
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 23, 2009 12:22:51 GMT 3
No, I wrote the sentence directly from the book, I didn't take it from somewhere else nor did I change it Besides, he means all the Turks, not just the Seljuks.
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Jul 1, 2009 1:38:04 GMT 3
Hello, Hey guys do you know what is Dombra ? Does it mean the music instrument ? We Bulgarians say : Tambura. I found very nice video of it with some guy singing : And...do you know who is the man in the video ? Is this from the movie MONGOL ? www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfQ5V7ei9sw
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 1, 2009 9:14:48 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 1, 2009 16:56:48 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by arnewise12 on Jul 4, 2009 0:36:27 GMT 3
I actually got it from a site which have translated it from its original to english language, dont remember the site thought,
they wrote that kashgari hated persians and said in one of his poems that if u see the tat , that was he called the persians, that u hit him in the head, anyhow,
I ll check it out and come back with with some more info
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 4, 2009 11:32:35 GMT 3
You probably remember it wrong, or the website translated it wrong. The original is how I wrote above.
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Jan 29, 2010 22:56:58 GMT 3
Ok,Just want to say that there is one notable diference in the Turkish peoples and others. Most of turk-mongol origin people do take slaves in their war campaigns and everytime they conquer other countries. For example the Bulgars didn't take slaves and even if they did they were exchanged afterwards for prisoners,etc. So,the thing is all khanates and peoples of turkish,altaic and mongolian stock were active slave trades : Khazars,Tatars,Mongols,Turks,Persians,etc. I can't say i am agree with this but i don't think my opinion can change anything now.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 30, 2010 11:40:40 GMT 3
Well that's actually very true. During the wars, most of the people in cities captured were enslaved and sold as slaves to get income both to the state and to the soldiers. The important men were led away if they paid ransoms. However there are also istances when entire populations of some cities were allowed to go away freely if they accepted surrender.
|
|