Comments by "PAPAZA TAKLA ATTIRAN İMAM" (@papazataklaattiranimam) on "Living Ironically in Europe"
channel.
-
Fun Fact: At the past, Turkic peoples like Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Avars, Huns, Onogurs, Utigurs, Sabirs, Saragurs, Kutrigurs, Kipchaks, Cumans, Tatars, Ottomans etc. were fighting with each other for Ukraine. But now, Slavic peoples are fighting for it👀
428
-
35
-
Khan-Tuvan Dyggvi, according to Omeljan Pritsak, was the name of a Khazar khagan of the mid 830s. He led a rebellion of the Kabars against the Khagan Bek. As this rebellion took place roughly contemporaneously with the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, Pritsak and others have speculated that the rebellion had a religious aspect. Omeljan Pritsak speculated that a Khazar khagan named Khan-Tuvan Dyggvi, exiled after losing a civil war, settled with his followers in the Norse-Slavic settlement of Rostov, married into the local Scandinavian nobility, and fathered the dynasty of the Rus' khagans.
Nevertheless, the possible Khazar connection to early Rus' monarchs is supported by the use of a stylized trident tamga, or seal, by later Rus' rulers such as Sviatoslav I of Kiev; similar tamgas are found in ruins that are definitively Khazar in origin.
29
-
21
-
Making an argument from silence, we may assume that the Khazars were the first permanent tribute-taking polity in the area. Kiev, which two centuries later was to become a key centre of a Rus' state formation, was founded by the Khazars as an outpost. When, in the ninth century, Vikings from the North appeared and formed the first polity centred on this area, it was the Khazars against whom they had to compete. Archaeological findings document a Scan- dinavian presence from the middle of the seventh century. By the beginning of the ninth century, they were residents (Noonan 1986: 339). By 839, we know from the Annals of St. Bertin that they had established a polity known as the Rus' Khaganate. To quote the leading Khazar scholar, Peter Golden,
As for the Rus' qaghanate, we know nothing concrete about its origins. Both Pritsak and the writer of these lines concluded that there must have been some marital connection between the Khazar qaghanal line and the Rus rulers. Pritsak suggested that the founder of the line was a Khazar Qaghan who fled the Kabar (Qabar) revolt in the 830's and 'found refuge in the Rus' factory (trading post) dominating the vital Volga-Donets route from the region near Iaroslavl'-Rostov. I also argued for a blood tie because anything less, in steppe Eurasia (the most important audience for such imperial pre- tentions), would have been meaningless.
(Golden 2001: 32)
17
-
Nikov is the first Bulgarian historian to pay special attention to, and attri bute great significance to, the Turkic components in the Bulgarian ethnogen esis (i.e., after the Bulgars) and among the ruling aristocracy. He elaborated on the issue of the "Turkic element's" influence upon Bulgarian history in a 1928 unpublished manuscript (delivered as a public lecture). Nikov began with the following policy-setting statement:
There is no period in our history on which the Turkic element did not exert its strongest influence and did not leave the deepest traces in the development of our people. [...] None of the Balkan peoples has experi enced the Turkic influence so strongly as our people,
The Turkic pressure began from Central Asia and had two directions to the northwest through southern Russia, and to the southwest through Persia and Asia Minor. The Bulgarian state was founded due to one of the Turkic peoples, the Bulgars, who themselves joined a number of Turkic tribal alliances (of Huns, Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Avars, and Khazars). During Byzantine rule, the Turkic Pechenegs and Uz came from the north; many of them crossed the Danube and were assimilated by the Bulgarian people. Then came the Cumans, without whose decisive help the uprising of Asenevtsi would hardly have succeeded. Thus, just as the First Bulgarian Kingdom was founded with the help of the Turkic Bulgars, the Second Kingdom was founded with "the decisive collabora tion of the Turkic Cumans."129 Not only did Cumans settle south of the Danube and become assimilated and absorbed by the Slavic-Bulgarian people, but they were also of great significance politically in the Second Kingdom, whose dynas ties all had Cuman blood in them. There were also many Bulgarian boyars of Cuman origin, including Balic in Dobrudzha. It could even be said that the Cumans acquired a dominant position in the political life of the state. 130 There followed the influence of the Mongol Tartars, who even supplied one Bulgarian king, Chaka. But of greatest importance were the Ottoman and Seljuk Turks, who conquered the Balkans from Asia Minor. Concerning the Cumans, Nikov considers the "transfusion of blood" from Turkic "elements" an asset, a means of rejuvenating and strengthening the "race" and enhancing the vitality of the Bulgarian people (in contrast with the conquering Turks).
16
-
Despite more than five hundred years of Turkish rule, the majority of present-day Bulgarians demonise and reject “non-Bulgarian” – that is, Turkish, Muslim, or Roma – influences in their history and culture. While the Bulgarian government’s harshest policies of ethnic cleansing concluded with the fall of communism, this exclusivist narrative of Bulgarian national history nevertheless continues to discriminate against such communities.
Bulgaria, since both its ancient and modern beginnings, has been invariably a multiethnic, mainly Slavic and Turkic, polity. School textbooks in Bulgaria lavish much attention on the ancient Bulgars, who in the Middle Ages founded several Bulgarias from the Volga to Italy, including the surviving one in the Balkans. However, the teaching materials employed in Bulgarian schools prefer to dub these Turkic-speaking Bulgars as “Bulgarians” (or sometimes “Proto-Bulgarians”), so that in Bulgarian vocabulary no distinction is maintained between Turkic Bulgars and Slavophone Bulgarians. In the Bulgarian language the same term “Bulgarians” (Българи Bılgari) is used for referring to these two different ethnic groups, thus suggesting – falsely – full historic and demographic continuity between both. Unsurprisingly after this kind of mis-education, most Bulgarians now see the ancient Bulgars as their “Slavic-speaking ancestors”.
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
8
-
The South Slavic tribal groups moved south and southwest from their Pripet homeland, eventually entering the Byzantine-controlled Balkan Peninsula as either allies of or refugees from the invading Turkic Avars during the second half of the sixth century. Their search for a new, permanent homeland proved successful. Today their descendants solidly inhabit virtually all of the northwestern, central, and southeastern regions of the Balkans.
Turks comprise a third ethnic component of the Balkan population. Although today numerically small-a little over 1 million people (about 2 percent of the total population) they have played a role in shaping the history of the Balkans far beyond their numbers.
In late antiquity the rolling plains of the Danube and Prut rivers in the Balkans' northeast served Turkic tribes from the Eurasian steppes as an open door into the heart of the peninsula and the riches of the Eastern Roman Empire. Huns and related tribes swept through the Balkans in the fifth and sixth centuries, followed by the Avars and their allies in the sixth and seventh. Among these latter were the Bulgars, who established a state south of the Danube. Unlike the Avars, whose settlements in the Balkans proved transitory, the Bulgar state persisted in the face of concerted Byzantine pressures. By the ninth century the Bulgars were challenging the Byzantine Empire for political hegemony in the Balkans, but by that time they also were well on the way toward ethnic assimilation into their Slavic-speaking subject population. The conversion of the Turkic Bulgar ruling elite to Orthodox Chris-tianity at midcentury opened the gate to their rapid and total Slavic assimilation. Within a hundred years of the Bulgar conversion, most traces of their Turkic origins had disappeared, except for their name-the Bulgars had been transformed into Slavic Bulgarians
Oğuz, Pecheneg, and Cuman Turkic tribes appeared in the Balkans between the ninth and eleventh centuries. Most of them eventually suffered an ethnic fate similar to the Bulgars and left little lasting impression, although the Gagauz Turks of Bessarabia, a region lying east of the Prut River (now known as Moldova), and some Turks living today in the eastern Balkans may be direct ethnic descendants of those medieval Turkic interlopers. Additionally, the Ottoman Turks' five-century rule over most of the Balkans established numerous scattered enclaves of Turkish- speaking groups throughout much of the southern portion of the peninsula, with a heavy concentration in the southeastern region of ancient Thrace.
8
-
8
-
Nikov is the first Bulgarian historian to pay special attention to, and attri bute great significance to, the Turkic components in the Bulgarian ethnogen esis (i.e., after the Bulgars) and among the ruling aristocracy. He elaborated on the issue of the "Turkic element's" influence upon Bulgarian history in a 1928 unpublished manuscript (delivered as a public lecture). Nikov began with the following policy-setting statement:
There is no period in our history on which the Turkic element did not exert its strongest influence and did not leave the deepest traces in the development of our people. [...] None of the Balkan peoples has experi enced the Turkic influence so strongly as our people,
The Turkic pressure began from Central Asia and had two directions to the northwest through southern Russia, and to the southwest through Persia and Asia Minor. The Bulgarian state was founded due to one of the Turkic peoples, the Bulgars, who themselves joined a number of Turkic tribal alliances (of Huns, Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Avars, and Khazars). During Byzantine rule, the Turkic Pechenegs and Uz came from the north; many of them crossed the Danube and were assimilated by the Bulgarian people. Then came the Cumans, without whose decisive help the uprising of Asenevtsi would hardly have succeeded. Thus, just as the First Bulgarian Kingdom was founded with the help of the Turkic Bulgars, the Second Kingdom was founded with "the decisive collabora tion of the Turkic Cumans."129 Not only did Cumans settle south of the Danube and become assimilated and absorbed by the Slavic-Bulgarian people, but they were also of great significance politically in the Second Kingdom, whose dynas ties all had Cuman blood in them. There were also many Bulgarian boyars of Cuman origin, including Balic in Dobrudzha. It could even be said that the Cumans acquired a dominant position in the political life of the state. 130 There followed the influence of the Mongol Tartars, who even supplied one Bulgarian king, Chaka. But of greatest importance were the Ottoman and Seljuk Turks, who conquered the Balkans from Asia Minor. Concerning the Cumans, Nikov considers the "transfusion of blood" from Turkic "elements" an asset, a means of rejuvenating and strengthening the "race" and enhancing the vitality of the Bulgarian people (in contrast with the conquering Turks).
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
Nikov is the first Bulgarian historian to pay special attention to, and attri bute great significance to, the Turkic components in the Bulgarian ethnogen esis (i.e., after the Bulgars) and among the ruling aristocracy. He elaborated on the issue of the "Turkic element's" influence upon Bulgarian history in a 1928 unpublished manuscript (delivered as a public lecture). Nikov began with the following policy-setting statement:
There is no period in our history on which the Turkic element did not exert its strongest influence and did not leave the deepest traces in the development of our people. [...] None of the Balkan peoples has experi enced the Turkic influence so strongly as our people,
The Turkic pressure began from Central Asia and had two directions to the northwest through southern Russia, and to the southwest through Persia and Asia Minor. The Bulgarian state was founded due to one of the Turkic peoples, the Bulgars, who themselves joined a number of Turkic tribal alliances (of Huns, Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Avars, and Khazars). During Byzantine rule, the Turkic Pechenegs and Uz came from the north; many of them crossed the Danube and were assimilated by the Bulgarian people. Then came the Cumans, without whose decisive help the uprising of Asenevtsi would hardly have succeeded. Thus, just as the First Bulgarian Kingdom was founded with the help of the Turkic Bulgars, the Second Kingdom was founded with "the decisive collabora tion of the Turkic Cumans."129 Not only did Cumans settle south of the Danube and become assimilated and absorbed by the Slavic-Bulgarian people, but they were also of great significance politically in the Second Kingdom, whose dynas ties all had Cuman blood in them. There were also many Bulgarian boyars of Cuman origin, including Balic in Dobrudzha. It could even be said that the Cumans acquired a dominant position in the political life of the state. 130 There followed the influence of the Mongol Tartars, who even supplied one Bulgarian king, Chaka. But of greatest importance were the Ottoman and Seljuk Turks, who conquered the Balkans from Asia Minor. Concerning the Cumans, Nikov considers the "transfusion of blood" from Turkic "elements" an asset, a means of rejuvenating and strengthening the "race" and enhancing the vitality of the Bulgarian people (in contrast with the conquering Turks).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
The South Slavic tribal groups moved south and southwest from their Pripet homeland, eventually entering the Byzantine-controlled Balkan Peninsula as either allies of or refugees from the invading Turkic Avars during the second half of the sixth century. Their search for a new, permanent homeland proved successful. Today their descendants solidly inhabit virtually all of the northwestern, central, and southeastern regions of the Balkans.
Turks comprise a third ethnic component of the Balkan population. Although today numerically small-a little over 1 million people (about 2 percent of the total population) they have played a role in shaping the history of the Balkans far beyond their numbers.
In late antiquity the rolling plains of the Danube and Prut rivers in the Balkans' northeast served Turkic tribes from the Eurasian steppes as an open door into the heart of the peninsula and the riches of the Eastern Roman Empire. Huns and related tribes swept through the Balkans in the fifth and sixth centuries, followed by the Avars and their allies in the sixth and seventh. Among these latter were the Bulgars, who established a state south of the Danube. Unlike the Avars, whose settlements in the Balkans proved transitory, the Bulgar state persisted in the face of concerted Byzantine pressures. By the ninth century the Bulgars were challenging the Byzantine Empire for political hegemony in the Balkans, but by that time they also were well on the way toward ethnic assimilation into their Slavic-speaking subject population. The conversion of the Turkic Bulgar ruling elite to Orthodox Chris-tianity at midcentury opened the gate to their rapid and total Slavic assimilation. Within a hundred years of the Bulgar conversion, most traces of their Turkic origins had disappeared, except for their name-the Bulgars had been transformed into Slavic Bulgarians
Oğuz, Pecheneg, and Cuman Turkic tribes appeared in the Balkans between the ninth and eleventh centuries. Most of them eventually suffered an ethnic fate similar to the Bulgars and left little lasting impression, although the Gagauz Turks of Bessarabia, a region lying east of the Prut River (now known as Moldova), and some Turks living today in the eastern Balkans may be direct ethnic descendants of those medieval Turkic interlopers. Additionally, the Ottoman Turks' five-century rule over most of the Balkans established numerous scattered enclaves of Turkish- speaking groups throughout much of the southern portion of the peninsula, with a heavy concentration in the southeastern region of ancient Thrace.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The noblest of these nations that were not interested in science are the Chinese and the Turks. The Chinese are the largest of the peoples by number, the most imposing by kingdom, and the most considerable by territory. The domains they occupy are in the eastern parts of the inhabited world, between the equinoctial line to the extreme of the seven climates to the north. His share in knowledge (ma'rifa) is to surpass all nations in mastery of handicrafts and perfection of graphic arts. They are the most suffered of men in the prolonged effort, which the improvement of the works [supposes], as well as in enduring the harshness of the penalties in the perfection of the arts (sana'i").
As for the Turks, [they] also form a great nation with numerous troops and an imposing kingdom. The domains they inhabit are found between the eastern regions of Juräsän, [on the side] of the Islamic empire, the western regions of China, northern India, and the extreme north of the inhabited world. Their virtue is that they stand out and achieve supremacy in doing war, as well as in the elaboration of weapons; for they are the most skilful of men in horsemanship and [warfare] tactics, and the keenest of eyes for spearing, striking with the sword, and shooting arrows.
Ahmad, A.S. ibn and Salgado, M.F. (1999) Libro de las categorías de las naciones: Vislumbres desde el islam clásico sobre la filosofía y la ciencia. Tres cantos: Akal., p.43
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1