Comments by "PAPAZA TAKLA ATTIRAN İMAM" (@papazataklaattiranimam) on "MasterofRoflness"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
In the classical Persian literary tradition – the entire vocabulary of which consists of stock phrases and images - "Turk' and 'Tajik' are stand-in terms for easily recognizable social stereotypes: one simple but violent; the other wily but civilized. Rūmi turns this on its head, however, in the following couplet: Attack upon attack came the darkness of night/Be strong like a Turk, not soft like a Tajik' (Yek hamleh va yek hamleh, āmad shab va tārīkī/chosti kon va "Torki' kon, na narmī va ‘Tājīkī'). Often ‘Turk' was also used to refer to the poet's beautiful young (unattainable) beloved, as in the following lines from Sa'di: 'Maybe they'll tell the King/"Your Turk (i.e., your Beloved) has spilled Tajik blood" (Shayad ke be padshah begüyand/Tork-e tö berikht khūn-e Tājīk), or elsewhere, 'Show your Tajik face, not Abyssinian black/That the Heavens may obliterate the face of the Turks' (Ru-ye Tājīkāna-t benmā, tā dagh-e habash/ Asman chehre-ye Torkān yaghma'i keshad).
Since Turkic men often ‘married up’ and started families with Tajik women, the bloodlines tended to become increasingly mixed over the generations. (Recent DNA studies in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have shown no notable genetic difference between modern Uzbeks and Tajiks.) And since children typically spent their first years within the harem, the influence of Tajik mothers in constructing the identity of their mixed-race children was surely much greater than is admitted in the patriarchal written sources of the time. Military figures in particular often made much of their tough Turkic heritage, even as they sought to demonstrate their own cultivation by speaking Persian
and patronizing Persian courtly culture. The Tajik scribes, for their part, were
naturally required to flatter their patrons, but they flattered themselves as well
in whatever subtle ways they could.
— Richard Foltz, Chapter 4, Tajiks and Turks, The Turk–Tajik symbiosis
4
-
In the following centuries, a compilation of estimates indicates that Crimean Tatars seized about 1,750,000 Ukrainians, Poles and Russians from 1468 to 1695.137 Crimean export statistics indicate that around 10,000 slaves a year,
Indian slaves were also sold in Bukhara and Astrakhan. At the same time, the Safavid Iranians were also sold as slaves, in particular after wars between the Uzbeks and Safavids. Enslavement of Iranians lasted until the mid-nineteenth century, when Russian and British sources spoke of some 10,000 Iranian slaves in Khiva and over 100,000 slaves in the Khivan, Bukharan and Turkmen territories.82 In the eighteenth century, at the markets of Bukhara, Khiva and
After Oriental Despotism: Eurasian Growth in a Global Perspective pp.77
As a whole, we can estimate that there were about 200,000 Indian slaves in Bukhara, to which we may add other 200,000 Iranian slaves.
After Oriental Despotism: Eurasian Growth in a Global Perspective pp.90
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Turks indeed had a decisive role in triggering historical major events like the Migration Period, Crusades, Age of Discovery as well as ending the Middle Ages with the conquest of Constantinople, fall of the Roman Empire.
The Turks were considered as the best warriors due to their horsemanship and skill in archery.
Kaushik Roy., n.d. Military Transition in Early Modern Asia, 1400-1750: Cavalry, Guns, Government and Ships (Bloomsbury Studies in Military History). p.24.
The Turks too , the great warriors of the steppes , were almost haughty in the assumption that they inherited the jihad fighting spirit of the tradition and carried it half - way into Europe .
Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective p.94
The Seljukian Turks had had some great warriors ; the period of their power was during the eleventh and twelfth centuries ; they had taken the place of the Arabs as the great Moslem power of the east , though an Arab caliph still nominally reigned at Baghdad .
The Divine Aspect of History Volume 2 p.324
In the west the Seljuq invasion of Asia Minor began the process which was to make it the modern land of the Turks and the base from which the greatest Islamic empire of the past 600 years would expand into southeast Europe .
MacEachern, S., 2010. The new cultural atlas of the Islamic world. p.32.
THE TURKS AND THE WEST. Europe stood in awe of the Ottomans who crushed many states and conquered vast territories, going, as all patriotic Turks will proudly point out, "all the way to the gates of Vienna." European literature is replete with the depictions of the Turk as the hated enemy. The English often thought of the Turk as awe-inspiring and destructive. Thomas Fuller wrote in The Holy Warre (1639): "The Turkish Empire is the greatest... the sun ever saw. ...Grass springeth not where the grand signior's horse setteth his foot."
Halman, T. and Warner, J., 2007. Rapture and revolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, Crescent Hill Publications, p.9.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries , understanding the Turks ' military organization , given the credit for the greatest empire since antiquity , became a major European preoccupation .
Speake, J., n.d. Literature of travel and exploration. p.891.
By the middle of the 16th century, the Turks arguably possessed the greatest empire in the world.
A History of the Middle East Paperback – March 15, 2006 by Saul S. Friedman (Author) p.181
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Arab dominance did not, however, continue in the political sphere, and one may describe the premodern history of Islam as falling into three periods of political regime. Until the tenth cen- tury, most regions of Islamdom were under the rule of Arabs; in the 10th and 11th centuries, many regions came under the rule of Persians; and from the 11th until the 19th century, almost all areas of the Muslim world were ruled by ethnic Turks or Mongols, whose dominance continued in the Middle East until World War I and the abolishment of the Ottoman Empire in 1924. For nearly a millennium in the Persianate world, the upper echelons of society were seen as divided along ethnic lines into Turks, who constituted the military and ruling class, and Tajiks, Persians, or non-Turks, who were the administrators, accountants, tax-collectors, and land owners. The division was viewed as natural and not unfair because Turks and Mongols were considered ethnically suited to military exploits because of their sturdiness, fierce nature, ability to endure hardship, and superior skills in horsemanship and archery. Even in contexts where Turks did not make up the bulk of the military, rul- ers often used troops belonging to foreign ethnic groups because of their military skills, internal solidarity, lack of attachment to the local populace, and direct allegiance to the ruler. The Fatimids in Egypt (969-1171) employed both troops who belonged to the Berber Kutama tribal confederation from North Africa and "Suda- nese" troops from sub-Saharan Africa. The 14th-century historian Ibn Khaldun argued, reflecting primarily on the Berber dynasties of North Africa, that there was a strong relationship between the life of political regimes and ethnic groups. Tribal groups from outside settled regions have much stronger ethnic solidarity than settled peoples, and this enabled them to work as efficient military units, conquering territories and establishing new dynasties. The settled life of the conquerors, however, corrupted them and made them lose their ethnic solidarity in just a few generations, and this made them vulnerable to new tribal invaders.
4
-
3
-
3
-
@nenenindonu Iranians were sold as slaves to central asia by Safavids :-)
In the following centuries, a compilation of estimates indicates that Crimean Tatars seized about 1,750,000 Ukrainians, Poles and Russians from 1468 to 1695.137 Crimean export statistics indicate that around 10,000 slaves a year,
Indian slaves were also sold in Bukhara and Astrakhan. At the same time, the Safavid Iranians were also sold as slaves, in particular after wars between the Uzbeks and Safavids. Enslavement of Iranians lasted until the mid-nineteenth century, when Russian and British sources spoke of some 10,000 Iranian slaves in Khiva and over 100,000 slaves in the Khivan, Bukharan and Turkmen territories.82 In the eighteenth century, at the markets of Bukhara, Khiva and
After Oriental Despotism: Eurasian Growth in a Global Perspective pp.77
As a whole, we can estimate that there were about 200,000 Indian slaves in Bukhara, to which we may add other 200,000 Iranian slaves.
After Oriental Despotism: Eurasian Growth in a Global Perspective pp.90
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yaqubleis6311 keep coping about more than 1500 years of Turkic rule on Iranics whose languages are all mutually unintelligible 👁️👅👁️
By the end of the tenth century, with the Qarākhānid Turks conquering Sāmānid Central Asia and ushering in a millennium of Turkic rule across Iran and much of the Islamic World, the dynamic of the frontier had changed qualitatively.
The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia (Early and Medieval Islamic World) Hardcover – June 27, 2019
The new cities were predominantly Muslim , and Iran became one of the most influential regions of Muslim intellectual activity . From around 1000 on the independent Iranian dynasties rapidly gave way to new dynasties of Turkic origin .
Embree, A.T. (1988) Encyclopedia of Asian history. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. P.156
In fact, Turkic-speaking peoples have played a major role in Iranian history, ruling the country from the eleventh century up to the early twentieth. Even today they represent more than a quarter of Iran's population.
Foltz, R. (2016) Iran in world history. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. p.61
Homa Katouzian, "Iranian history and politics", Published by Routledge, 2003. p. 128: "Indeed, since the formation of the Ghaznavids state in the tenth century until the fall of Qajars at the beginning of the twentieth century, most parts of the Iranian cultural regions were ruled by Turkic-speaking dynasties most of the time.
The Azerbaijanis derive in part from a heritage of Turkic rule over Iran, during most of the past 1,000 years. Iran adopted the Shi'a version of Islam under the rule of the Safavid Azerbaijani Turks beginning in 1500. The Turkic Qajar Dynasty (1779–1924) controlled all of present-day Iran and extensive territory in the Caucasus and Central Asia. When Colonel Reza Khan Pahlavi overthrew the Qajars, he promoted Persian language, culture, and identity at the expense of Azeri Turkish.
Zartman, J.K. (2020) Conflict in the modern middle east: An encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and regime change. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. p.136
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@larshofler8298
This can be surmised by analysing the names of Hunnic princes and tribes. The names of the following Hunnic princes are clearly Oghuric Turkic in origin: Mundzuk (Attila’s father, from Turkic Muncˇuq = pearl/jewel; for an in-depth discussion of the Hunnic origin of this name in particular see Schramm (1969), 139–40), Oktar/Uptar (Attila’s uncle, Öktär = brave/powerful), Oebarsius (another of Attila’s paternal uncles, Aïbârs = leopard of the moon), Karaton (Hunnic supreme king before Ruga, Qarâton = black-cloak), Basik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, early fifth century, Bârsig˘ = governor), Kursik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, from either Kürsig˘ , meaning brave or noble, or Quršiq meaning beltbearer). For these etymologies see Bona (1991), 33. Three of Attila’s known sons 40 have probable Turkic names: Ellac, Dengizich, Hernak, and Attila’s princi pal wife, the mother of the ‘crown prince’ Ellac, has the Turkic name Here kan, as does another notable wife named Eskam. See Maenchen-Helfen (1973), 392–415. See also Bona (1991), 33–5, and Pritsak (1956), 414. Most known Hunnic tribal names are also Turkic, Maenchen-Helfen (1973), 427–41, e.g. Ultincur, Akatir etc. The cur suffix in many of these names is a well-known Turkic title and as Beckwith (1987), 209, points out the To-lu or Tardus tribes (Hunnic in origin) of the Western Turkish On Oq were each headed by a Cur (noble). Zieme (2006), 115, speculates that the title cur belongs to a pre-Turkic Tocharian stratum of the Turkic language, which, if true, again highlights the essential heterogeneity of Central Asian peoples and even languages. See also Aalto (1971), 35. In addition to this primary language (Oghuric Turkic), Priscus informs us that Latin and Gothic were also understood by the Hunnic elite. See Priscus, fr. 13.3, Blockley (1983), 289.
Mclaughlin, Professors Hyun & Lieu, Rome and China: Points of Contact (Routledge, 2021)
The Xiongnu became politically dominant in the steppes around 300
BC, and although the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu proper is still a matter of dispute, their political confederation certainly contained a significant Turkic component. By both ethnohistorical and linguistic considerations this component may in the first place be identified with the Bulgharic (Bulghar Turkic) branch of Turkic, today represented by the Chuvash language in the Volga region.
The Turkic component of the Xiongnu is, however, unambiguously signalled by a number of Bulgharic loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic, such as *yür 'hundred'. The Bulgharic (Proto-Bulgharic) speakers are likely to have entered Southern Siberia , the location of Proto-Samoyedic , not earlier than the last century BC. At the same time, a number of local words, notably *kadï 'conifer' (> Chuvash xïra„ ~ xïr 'birch '), were borrowed from Proto-Samoyedic into Bulgharic.
Review: J. Janhunen (ed.),The Mongolic languages, London, New York : Routledge, 2003
In the case of Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic, certain loanwords in the Mongolic languages point to early contact with Oghur (Pre-Proto-Bulgaric) Turkic, also known as r-Turkic. These loanwords precede Common Turkic (z-Turkic) loanwords and include:
• Mongolic ikere (twins) from Pre-Proto-Bulgaric ikir (versus Common Turkic ekiz)
• Mongolic hüker (ox) from Pre-Proto-Bulgaric hekür (Common Turkic öküz)
• Mongolic jer (weapon) from Pre-Proto-Bulgaric jer (Common Turkic yäz)
• Mongolic biragu (calf) versus Common Turkic buzagu
• Mongolic siri- (to smelt ore) versus Common Turkic siz- (to melt)
The above words are thought to have been borrowed from Oghur Turkic during the time of the Xiongnu.
Later Turkic peoples in Mongolia all spoke forms of Common Turkic (z-Turkic) as opposed to Oghur (Bulgharic) Turkic, which withdrew to the west in the 4th century. The Chuvash language, spoken by 1 million people in European Russia, is the only living representative of Oghur Turkic which split from Proto Turkic around the 1st century AD.
Words in Mongolic like dayir (brown, Common Turkic yagiz) and nidurga (fist, Common Turkic yudruk) with initial *d and *n versus Common Turkic *y are sufficiently archaic to indicate loans from an earlier stage of Oghur (Pre-Proto-Bulgaric). This is because Chuvash and Common Turkic do not differ in these features despite differing fundamentally in rhotacism-lambdacism (Janhunen 2006). Oghur tribes lived in the Mongolian borderlands before the 5th century, and provided Oghur loanwords to Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic before Common Turkic loanwords.
Golden 2011, p. 31.
An earlier date for the separation of proto-Turkic, preceding 209 BC would support the identification of Xiongnu language with proto-Bulgharic or one of its subgroups, while a later date of separation would make its association with proto-Turkic more plausible.
Alexander Savelyev, Martine Robbeets, Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2020
As this time depth coincides with the beginning of the Xiongnu empire (209 BCE–100 CE), the association of Xiongnu with Proto-Bulgharic does not seem unreasonable. However, given the relatively large credible interval involved in the Bayesian dating, the breakup of proto-Turkic may also be connected with the first disintegration of the Xiongnu confederation under influence of the military successes of the Chinese in 127–119 BCE (Mudrak 2009). In sum, the time depth of the breakup of Proto-Turkic can be estimated between 500 BCE and 100 CE.
Martine Robbeets, Remco Bouckaert, Bayesian phylolinguistics reveals the internal structure of the Transeurasian family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 3, Issue 2, July 2018
The language of the European Huns is sometimes referred to as a Bulghar Turkic variety in general linguistic literature, but caution is needed in establishing its affiliations.
The predominant part of the Xiongnu population is likely to have spoken Turkic (Late Proto-Turkic, to be more precise).
Cite this article: Savelyev A, Jeong C (2020). Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2, e20, 1–17.
Xiong-nu language in Chinese inscriptions
撑犁 (Chēng lí)
撑犁 term in Chinese inscriptions is associated with the old Turkic tengri. Tengri means sky.
瓯脱 (Ōu tuō)
瓯脱 means room[7].
Borrowed from Proto-Turkic *otag[8], also reconstructed as *ōtag. Although linguists concentrate on *otag, since long vowels are not preserved in languages that need to be protected, there are also those who claim that it is derived from the Proto-Turkic word *ōtwhich means fire(see Proto-Turkic Vocabulary lesson). *otag means tent or room, but also fireplace is suggested.
头曼 (Tóu màn)
The name Touman is likely related to a word meaning '10,000, a myriad' Old Turkic tümän
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3