|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 3, 2006 8:46:16 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by tengrikut on Sept 3, 2006 16:11:04 GMT 3
bawýrsaq, could you give us some more information about Abilai Xan?
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 3, 2006 21:22:30 GMT 3
Now that's a great painting  |
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 3, 2006 23:00:55 GMT 3
bawýrsaq, could you give us some more information about Abilai Xan?  Abilay Khan- Kazak khan1711 - 1781 One of the most prominent figures in the Kazak history, the legendary ruler of Kazaks who dedicated his life to the struggle against the invasion of Oirats and the colonization attempts by Russian empire and Qing dynasty of China. He managed to restore the power of the Kazak khanate, destroy the Oirat state, and keep the balance between the policies towards Russia and China. |
|
|
|
Post by Boorchi Noyan on Sept 5, 2006 0:24:17 GMT 3
wooooooooooowwwwwww, that is really (I can't find any words to describe).
Thanks a lot bawir$ar
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 5, 2006 0:43:28 GMT 3
By the way, what is the difference between ý and ï?
|
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 5, 2006 3:38:07 GMT 3
By the way, what is the difference between ý and ï? is the same as in Turkish ï is like ee in word "keep", "feed' |
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 5, 2006 3:40:01 GMT 3
wooooooooooowwwwwww, that is really (I can't find any words to describe). Thanks a lot bawir$ar You're very welcome |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 5, 2006 11:12:51 GMT 3
ý is the same as in Turkish ï is like ee in word "keep", "feed' Hmm ok thanks. I asked it becuse normally, many Turkologists use ï as a transcription letter for ý while they use î for long i. |
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 6, 2006 7:12:53 GMT 3
normally, many Turkologists use ï as a transcription letter for ý while they use î for long i. There is no standard Latin-based Kazak alphabet. We still oficially use Cyrillic. The one I used with the painting is one of the many suggested ones, it is currently used by the national news agency KazInform and, therefore, is more widespread among other Kazak Latin alphabets. This alphabet is also featured on the website of Turkey's Ministry of Culture |
|
|
|
Post by Bor Chono on Sept 7, 2006 7:57:59 GMT 3
Nice & Huge pic!  I can see Kultegin & Atilla -role in Kazak history?  I don`t see The Great Khaan!?  -the person who claimed, moved & mixed Kazak ppl.  |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 7, 2006 11:25:53 GMT 3
Yes, Köl Tigin somehow marched across Qazaqstan in the 710-711 Western Campaign but Attila? He never visited that region! ;D
And yes, Chinggis Khan is much more important than Attila in Qazaq history.
|
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 7, 2006 18:53:12 GMT 3
Nice & Huge pic! I can see Kultegin & Atilla -role in Kazak history? and the Second Turkic qaghanate had an impact on the whole Turkic history. I wouldn't necessary put him on "top" of this painting, but his Orkhon-Enisey inscriptions are considered a great legacy of all Turkic peoples. At that time, there was no such thing as Kazakstan, so it's incorrect to tie him to the exact territory. He ruled in what now is known as Mongolia, and roots of Kazaks and all Turks lie in that area east of Altay. Kazak historians believe thart Atilla (Edil qağan) was born near the Volga river (which is called Edil by Kazaks, and Atil by Arabs). Attila's Huns migrated from the steppes east of Altay to Europe through Kazakstan, and on the territory of Kazakstan and southern Russia they intermixed with Sarmatians and started their move towards Europe. So yes, we have a link to Attila there. Şıñğıs han is still a very controversial figure in Kazak history. Over 70 years Soviets taught Kazaks that he was a foreign invader that invaded Kazakstan and etc. But, in fact, as I said before, there was no Kazaks and Kazakstan at that time, and we only emerged after the breakup of Golden Horde, so there's no point in saying that Şıñğıs attacked Kazaks. Secondly, around 40% of today's Kazaks comprise of tribes like Nayman, Kerey, Qoñırat and Jalayır, who lived in what is now Mongolia, and came to Kazakstan with Şıñğıs han. Most of them (Naymans and Kereys for sure) were Turkic-speaking tribes, because Turks lived there for centuries. Thirdly, most of the population of 13-century Kazakstan was nomadic Turks who, in most cases, willingly came under Şıñğıs han's command, because they saw him as a all-nomadic unifier regardless of the language. As you all know, Şıñğıs proclaimed himself as a ruler of "all people living in the felt tents", so Kipchaks and other tribes of Kazakstan saw him as a friendly nomad in the struggle against the sedentary Khwarazmian empire, that was organizing raids on Kipchaks. That is why it is not correct to say that Şıñğıs conquered Kazakstan's territory, he only conquered the sedentary south, but the most of the nomads willingly joined him. BTW, painting includes Joşı han, who's lived and died in Kazakstan, and who's dynasty and Golden Horde played a large role in Kazakstan's history. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 7, 2006 20:03:30 GMT 3
Sorry, I got another question about the spelling: do you use Þ for "Sh" or "Ch"? Because we use it for "Sh".
|
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 8, 2006 0:01:34 GMT 3
Sorry, I got another question about the spelling: do you use Þ for "Sh" or "Ch"? Because we use it for "Sh". You're right. We use it for "Sh". Qazaqs don't have the sound "Ch". Instead, we use "Sh". |
|
-the person who claimed, moved & mixed Kazak ppl. 
