This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Khwarazm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
I notice that Korasmian redirects here, presumably because I created the redirect from Crusade :) But then today I also noticed that there are Korasmians mentioned in Herodotus' Histories...are they the same people? That's 1000 years before these Korasmians. (It was actually spelled Chorasmian in the version of Herodotus I have, so maybe they are entirely different.) Adam Bishop 21:54, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Kaz
I think a separate article may be needed for Khanate of Khiva - either that or remove the link as it just redirects back to Khwarezmia. Sikandarji 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Could some good soul provide a translation of the statement "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس"? I'm not even sure what language this is: Arabic? Persian? Khwarezmian? An additional comment: it is somewhat silly to provide a page number to an otherwise unreferenced source edition. Lambiam 17:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I object at why Khanate of Khiva gets redirected to Khwarezmia. It was an independent entity and only part of ancient Kwarezm and deserves its own article. For instance Bukhara khanate does Abdulnr 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Khwar" (لحم), and "-razm" (حطب) The former is read lhm not khwr, the latter htb, not rzm. Can someone clear this ?
Took care of it; Arabic words now match the English transliteration. Stoa 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually saying that Khwarezm is and was Persian is wrong. Khwarezm was a part of Achaemenid Empire for some time. But after the fall of Achaemenids it was independent until the Arabs arrived. Ancient population was indeed Iranic, but it does not mean that it was Persian. If we follow the same logic then Shakespeare was German because English is a Germanic language, and Voltaire was Italian because French is a Romance language) So, it is an undeniable fact that Persian and Iranic are not the same thing. All Persians are Iranic. But not all Iranics are Persians. Even the languages of Khwarezm and Achaemenid Persia were different. Old Persian of Achaemenid Empire is a Southwestern Iranian language meanwhile Khwarezmian as well as Soghdian are Eastern Iranian languages, just like Pashto is today. No person with a minimum knowledge of history or current events can say that Tajiks and Pashtuns are the same thing. So why claim that Khwarezmians and Persians were the same. So, after the Achaemenids Khwarezm was independent, under its own local dynasty. Turkic tribes began gradually arriving soon after the Arabs. Some here mentioned that Turkification of Khwarezm began with Mongols. That is also incorrect. Khwarezmshahs who fought against the Mongols were a Turkic dynasty. Khwarazmshah Ala al-Din Muhammad had and Oghuz Turk (possibly Turkmen) father and a Qipchaq Turk mother. His son Jalal al-Din, the last Kwharazmshah, was born to Aychichak, a Turkmen woman. Majority of Khwazamshahs generals were also Turkic, Timur Malik from Turkic tribe of Qangli being the most famous. So, qualifying Khwarazmshahs as a Pesian dynasty is wrong, for they were Turkic rulers, from a non-Persian region who conquered Iran from last Seljuks. They did not move their capital to Persia, and ruled Persia from their capital in Khwarezm. Calling them a Persian dynasty is like calling Byzantine emperors at the peak of their power an Egyptian dynasty, simply because Egypt was a part of their empire. After Mongol conquest Khwarezm became a part of the Golden Horde. Though, Iranic (not Persian) language of Kwarezm could still be heard in XIV century, but by that time majority of population was Turkified. After the Golden Horde it was ruled by Turkic Timurids, after them by Turkic Uzbeks as a Khanate of Khiva. Today, no one in Khwarezm speaks Persian, or any Iranic language as a first language. It is entirely Turkic. Some here also mentioned that until the arrival of Russians it was under the influence of Persia, and some went as far as calling it a Persian territory. Let's take a look at the period from Timurids until the arrival of Russians. All during this period Kwharezm was a Sunni Muslim region, and still is today. It was not under Shia Persian rule, and thousands of Persian slaves were sold on the markets of Khiva. If it was indeed a Persian territory, I don't see a reason why would a Shia Shah of Iran allow Persian Shia citizens to be sold as slaves to Sunnis in his own empire). The only ruler of Iran that did take control of Khwarezm was Nadir Shah (who was a Turkmen himself), but his rule there was short, and he is still remembered in Khwarezmian and Karakalpak tales and legends as a symbol of cruel, invading tyrant. So, how in the world can some people state that "Khwarezm is an was Persian"? It is not Persian and it was not Persian. It was an Iranic, but not Persian province of the Achaemenid Empire, and was independent from Persia for the past 2500 years. Egypt was a part of Persian empire under Achaemenids. So, can anyone say today that "Egypt was and is Persian"? Qozi Kalon (UTC)
I wasn't paying attention. The article had been tagged by the Iranians -- Khwarezm is and was PERSIAN. Now it has been tagged by the Russian/Turkish side of things, ignoring the Persian heritage. Neither view is particularly balanced. I'm grotesquely over-extended, but I'll see what I can do later. Zora 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Khwarezm wasn't part of Persia from the Achaemenids until 1878. That's just plain wrong. Utterly wrong. It was part of the Achaemenid Empire, then independent, then conquered by the Arabs and mixed into the "new" Persian culture. If Transoxania was so dang "Persian", then why is it called "Aniran", not Iran, in the Shahnameh? Zora 08:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Khwarezm was not a center of the Samanids. Bukhara was. Bukhara was a Samanid capital. And Bukhara is separated from Khwarezm by a vast desert. It is just wrong to keep saying that Khwarezm and Transoxiana are Persia. They were part of Persia for a short period of time, during Achaemenids. Calling them Persia just because they were part of Persian empire at one point of their history is the same as saying that Iran is Mongolia just because it was a part of Mongol empire at one time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.10.176 ( talk) 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe this. Khwarezm was independent from the 4th century BCE until the Arab conquest in the 8th century. That's 12 centuries of independence! After the Mongols in the 13th century, it became increasingly Turkified. See [2]. Y'all are so gung-ho for the Columbia Encyclopedia when it suits you -- are you going to pay attention to it here?
That encyclopedia account must be based on something more detailed (and complicated), so it may not be completely accurate, but I think that's enough to show that "it was part of Persia until the 19th century" is just wrong.
OK, how about we give two views? The "always Persia" view and the other view. But you have to come up with some quotes from Persian histories that say "always Persia," you can't just assert it. Zora 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I made some edits that should clarify this issue.--
Zereshk 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The map was a good addition too.-- Zereshk 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the basic problems here is that 'Iranian' is the name for a large ethnolinguistic group, like 'Slavic', but was adopted in modern times as the name of Persia--now Iran--on the basis of ancient usage (Eran, Arya, etc.). The adjectival form 'Persian' refers to both an inhabitant of Persia and the Persian language. At one or another time in its long history, Khwarizmia did indeed come under the rule of a Persian dynasty. That does not make it 'Persian', despite the fact that its language, Khwarizmian--which existed well into the Middle Ages--is an 'Iranian' language (which is like saying that Russian is a Slavic language). The name Persia in sensu strictu refers to modern Iran and, usually until modern times, much of what is now Iraq. In short, Khwarizm was never 'Persian' or a part of 'Persia' or 'Iran', though it was occasionally under Persian imperial rule--usually quite indirectly. The best, reliable source for much of Iranian history (including Khwarizmian and Persian history) is the Encyclopedia of Islam; another good source is the Cambridge History of Iran. Chris B 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
When i was a little girl i read a book which took place in Khorezm Empire. It's like a fairy tale and cought me with it's magic. Since then i wanted to go to Urganj to see the Tilali Garden (i found out that it's still lies under the ground in Turkmenistan and old palace of Jelal Ed Din is not excavated yet).
I was looking for something about the woman called Turkan Hatun. I wanted to now more about the characters in the book and i learned a lot about Jelal Ed Din, Muhamed II... But data i found about her were very confusing.
According to that book, she was very cruel, ruled the great Khorezm Empire and she was a mother of shah Muhamed II, grand mother of a brave prince Jelal Ed Din but not very fond of him. She promoted the people of Kipchak but majority in Khorezm were Turkmenian. There was also mentioned very brave turkmen hero Kara Konchar and his maid... And that lasted untill Mongols conquered Khorezm 1221.
But now i found the information that she lived centuries ago and she was a wife of Sultan Melikshah who died in 1092.
As my country was under the Osman Empire for 500 years and their language had a great influence, i am aware that Turkan Hatun was not her real name, it's more like Turkish Lady and probably was used to describe more than one woman who had ipmact to the history of muslim people.
I would really apreciate if you know something about the Turkan Hatun who lived in Khorezm or where to find something about her.
Thanks a lot. Boka
I don't know where have you guys getting your information from but, Khwarizmi is certainly not Persian. Let's put sources aside, if you know a Khwarizmi person or ever been to Khwarizm you would know that Turkish and Khwarizmi is almost identical. Khwarizmis should know better their roots which are not Persian. I don't know where this piece of information went wrong, possibly the fact that the area was once belonged to Persia? Anyways there a lot of smart people here, but some things you might be misinformed about and develop a strong belief about it, but you guys need to do a better job and learn that Khwarizm is Turkic, although geographically it was once belonged to Persia...
This article is full of inaccuracies, from top to bottom. To begin with, the claim that Khwarizm was mostly a part of 'Persia' or 'the Persian Empire' from primordial times down to the Russian conquest is complete nonsense, as is the idea that "Khwarezm has always been part of the Persian cultural sphere, even til the present day." If Khwarizmia was/is a part of "the Persian cultural sphere" then we need to add to that "sphere" also most of India, East Turkistan (Xinjiang), Turkey, and many other places where a Persian literary language was used, for a time, alongside the local language. Khwarizm/Khwarizmia appears in antiquity as an Iranian-speaking region. During its long history it was at times independent and at other times part of one or another empire, including one or another Persian empire; in the pre-Mongol period it was itself an empire that included large areas of Persia, among other regions; the Khwarizmians became Turkic-speaking in the Middle Ages, and the region remains solidly Turkic-speaking to the present day. All this needs to be pointed out explicitly, and the national biases taken out; there is no need for the article to reflect either the national views of the modern Iranians or the national views of the Russians, the Uzbeks or other Turks, or anyone else. It seems a lot of people are intensely interested in Khwarizm. That is good. But one or more of you needs to go to the library with this article and go through the Encyclopedia of Islam (or, use the CD edition of it) and the Cambridge History of Iran (N.B.: not 'Persia') and cite them and at least fix the major misstatements here. Chris B
In the section Khwārazm Empire it is claimed that Around 1141 Yelü Dashi took control of Khwarezm, making it part of the Kara-Khitan Khanate. Well I am not exactly sure. As far as I know, Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty was not a part of Kara Khitans and reached its peak in early 13th century. (see Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty) Year 1141 may refer to Karakhitans' victory over East Kara Khanids. But that has nothing to do with Khwārazm Empire. (incidently, Khwārazm Empire conquered West Kara Khanids.) I think this section needs the attention of an expert. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 13:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is all pseudo-history, much if of it is simply (and often incorrectly) summarising content in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.199.181 ( talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hua word in Chinese is Hua "side, country, Pashtun/Pahtun country" (huayend "sleepery", huadzedel "to ask to be let off")word in Afghan language.Well-known, that in the most different languages of a word with value " the side, the party " can have the single-root variants in the form of "to slide, wander, pass, extend". For example in a Hebrew: 'eber "side of river", la'avor "To pass, be forwarded", 'avar "has passed".Thus we see full concurrence with oldiranian word varah/var " a side, the party " and modern iranian avardan "to bring",avare "wandering, the tramp". In Iran there is also a river Auhar and the city Auhar.In Language of Caucasian Avars (<Auhar<Huar) hwa-deze is "to wander"/"-d" is a parameter of the speeded up action, and "-ze" the verbal termination/, and "hua-ze" to draw, spend a line, to draw " (the same value is available in Chinese). Old designation of the Caucasian Avars were "Auhar" (see W.Minorsky) is iranized form of Hua/hwar.On L.N.Gumilev Hua people (Hephthalites) is a part of chineze-tibetan (now it is possible with confidence and to tell more precisely that Sino-caucasian) caucasoid Di people.No doubt descendants of people "Di" are modern pashtuns (AparDi, Afridi) and the Caucasian Avars. The first having lost the language send on Afghani (Pashtun), the second on one of Nakh-Dagesthanian (Caucasian). See also Omeljan Pritsak: "On the northern Caucasus, which was the border zone between the Sassanids (and latter the Islamic Caliphate) and the Khazar Kaganate at the time of its flower, we find the same Proto-Mongol structures that we find on the northeastern Chinese border. The main role there was played by the "true Avars" (*Ahwar /Wuhuan), the *Sebirs (Hsien-pi), the K'u-mo and the *Qay+lan/Qay+dag (Hsi)". ssvit.iatp.org.ua/sum/sum96~1.htm. This Hua/Hwa/Hoa people really was under strong influence of Protomongols. The chinese classic Liang chih-kung-t'u describes Hepthalites (Afu/Hua/Avar) as of the same origin as the Hua Country (Huaguo). Meanwhile the western Hvar branch migrated into Hualazimu (花剌子模 aka Kua-Li-kia) and still exist to this day in Daghestan (Northern Caucasus). From this location they launched the European Avar empire, and enjoyed their last flourish of prowess under Kuber before settling in Transylvania to join the Magyar federation as the Havar. Several central European family names derive from the name of this tribe.And besides, the Byzantian sources directly speak that Avars lived on coast of the river. "Khwarezm is iranian HuarZamin (The Land of Sino-Caucasian People Hua/Huar).-- 81.24.80.50 ( talk) 09:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As others have already mentioned, this article needs a rewrite, mainly because it contradicts the Wikipedia entry on "Khwarezmid Empire" (or "Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty") to which it is linked. The main disagreement is concerning the ethnicity of these people but there are others.
Also, the long quotes from Mackay under the section titled "Khwarezmid Empire" are inappropriate. First, the page numbers referenced are wrong (at least compared to the version of the book I found online). Second, Mackay is clearly not an expert on the subject. He uses the name "Korasmins" (who others here have pointed out may be a people from another time/place) and calls their leader "Barbaquan" (a name I cannot find anywhere else). As suggested by the book title, his book is full of opinions about various times in history with only a couple references to "Korasmins". Third, the quotes stand alone with no explanation or context (other than the footnotes), and they exhibit clear, strong opinions about the "Korasmins" with no verifiable evidence. Can someone please replace these quotes with someone better? If not, I'm going to attempt to remove these quotes myself eventually.
Beck8888 ( talk) 01:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Takabeg ( talk) 23:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
In articles elsewhere about the Mongol conquest, one reads about Khwarezm's slaughter of emissaries as the instigation or rationale of Mongol assault and aggressive destruction. all this is absent in the article here. 202.179.16.76 ( talk) 05:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's just how it is for me today, but some portions are hard to read:
....and. so. must. some. at least. of. the. what?
Can we get rid of the uses of some latins here? Again, maybe I'm just having a bad reading day. Aforementioned edits were introduced by Nepaheshgar [3].-- JBrown23 ( talk) 11:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
logarithms were intoduced by the great muslim mathematicai Abu Muhammad Musa al-khawarizmi
This article is almost all based on two sources (listed in the reference section) - Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam plus some additional articles written by Bosworth and McKenzie who are also cited as contributors to the encyclopaedic entries - 14 out of 27 entries, however this does not include their repetition (i.e. a,b,c,d etc) , if I do that I count 22.
Other references appear to be padding - for example:
etc etc
The items listed as sources are again doubling up sources and an encyclopaedic entry. I searched that encyclopaedia for the topic and I can't see any similarities to what is in this article. Another source is a book by an historian - but it is a book on Alexander the Great, who is only mentioned in passing in a sentence discussing the guy no.10 reference.
This article appears to to be in breach of the following wikipedia policies: 1. Verifiable : referencing and source material makes the article unverifiable.
2. Neutral point of view : (just one example for you - by omission: does not mention their invasion of Syria in 1246AD (after fleeing the Mongols) and their defeat of the Sultans in the Levant e.g. Aleppo, Damascus)
3. No original research : since material is not verifiable by following up references and sources do not appear to in fact be sources I can only assume it is either mythology, propaganda or 'original research'.
11/05/16 BlimeyOut ( talk) 10:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)BlimeyOut
The article now says: "Persian compound of khwar (خوار), and razm (رزم), referring to the abundance of cooked fish as a main diet of the peoples of this area."
I do not speak Persian, and if I try to look up in the Internet some English meaning for the words, I get "despicable, contemptible" and "combat, battle". Huh? Nothing about fish or cooked... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:682:4710:7DEF:548E:867D:4982 ( talk) 01:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khwarezm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I propose that Xorazm be merged into Khwarezm. I think that the content in the Xorazm article can easily be explained in the context of Khwarezm, and the Khwarezm article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Xorazm will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. pablohoney ( talk) 06:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 13:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Khwarezm → Khwarazm – It has 16.000 more results in books, not to mention many major academic sources such as the Cambridge History of Iran and History of Civilizations of Central Asia use this spelling. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 08:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
*Oppose.
Britannica gives Khwārezm while
Merriam-Webster gives "Khwārizm or Khwarezm or Khwârazm". So the current title is accepted by both authorities. Regardless of the spelling, the vowel sound in the third syllable is /ə/. As for Khorezm/Khoresm, that's an "administrative subdivision of Uzbekistan."
Nine Zulu queens (
talk) 00:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The parts of texts have been taken from another articles in Wikipedia: Toprak-Kala and Akchakhan-Kala. If these articles contain copivio delete them too. Khorazmiy ( talk) 20:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Ibn Khaldun says the area was inhabited by the Turks at the time of his writing The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. No mention of Persians. Please review the below passage and tell me what you understand from it:
In the Iraq are al-Kufah, al-Qadisiyah, Baghdad, the Reception Hall of Khosraw (at Ctesiphon), and al-Hirah. Beyond that live non-Arab nations such as the Turks, the Khazars, and others. The Arabian Peninsula comprises the Hijaz in the west, the Yamamah, al-Bahrayn, and Oman in the east, and in the south the Yemen along the coast of the Indian Ocean.
In the cultivated area, they say, there is another sea to the north in the land of the Daylam. This area has no connection with the other seas. It is called the Sea of Jurjan and Tabaristan (Caspian Sea). Its length is 1,000 miles, and its width 600. To the west of it lie Azerbaijan and the Daylam territory; to the east of it the land of the Turks and Khuwarizm; to the south of it Tabaristan; and to the north of it the land of the Khazars and the Alans.
176.54.25.24 ( talk) 17:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
So you admit Iran was ruled by the Turks since then and until 1926. All of the dynasties were of Turkic origin until the Shah's revolution. 176.55.84.83 ( talk) 21:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The below is from Uzbeks#Turkification of Transoxiana:
"The dominance of Ghazna was curtailed, however, when the Seljuks led themselves into the western part of the region, conquering the Ghaznavid territory of Khorazm (also spelled Khorezm and Khwarazm).[45] The Seljuks also defeated the Qarakhanids, but did not annex their territories outright. Instead they made the Qarakhanids a vassal state.[47] The Seljuks dominated a wide area from Asia Minor to the western sections of Transoxiana in the 11th century. The Seljuk Empire then split into states ruled by various local Turkic and Iranian rulers. The culture and intellectual life of the region continued unaffected by such political changes, however. Turkic tribes from the north continued to migrate into the region during this period.[45] The power of the Seljuks however became diminished when the Seljuk Sultan Ahmed Sanjar was defeated by the Kara-Khitans at the Battle of Qatwan in 1141.
In the late 12th century, a Turkic leader of Khorazm, which is the region south of the Aral Sea, united Khorazm, Transoxiana, and Iran under his rule. Under the rule of the Khorazm shah Kutbeddin Muhammad and his son, Muhammad II, Transoxiana continued to be prosperous and rich while maintaining the region's Perso-Islamic identity. However, a new incursion of nomads from the north soon changed this situation. This time the invader was Genghis Khan with his Mongol armies.[45]"
176.54.25.24 ( talk) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries, almost all of the land was inhabited by and ruled by Turks. See this template: History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century
Ibn Battuta says of its city that it is “one of the largest, most beautiful and most well-kept cities of the Turks”. Again, it was Iranian before but became Turkic both in culture and looks over time. 786wave ( talk) 05:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I might have forgotten to login. It seems that whatever does not fit your narrative is considered an unreliable source then. Is that it? 786wave ( talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I never added that info here and no, the book is by a respectful professor of history. Whatever happened to “assuming good faith”? Your tone is pretty aggressive. I suggest you take a break. 786wave ( talk) 17:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I came across some writings in Turkish by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi stating the area was Turkified already before the arrival of the Seljuks. Might want to do some research on this point and add it along with a reliable source. 786wave ( talk) 14:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Our studies have led us to believe that the supposed conditions of exclusively nomadic life and small population did not exist, but that: (a) Turks were already in the regions of Khurasan and Transoxania at the time of the Arab conquest, and remained there after the Arab domination. The Turkicization of these districts had, therefore, begun long before the Saljuqs. (b) Turks were town and village dwellers except in regions where natural conditions imposed a nomadic life on them. (c) They probably had a relatively large population in Central Asia and infiltrated in fairly large numbers into the Near East. (p.195)
The situation was much the same in Khwarazm. We have already mentioned a statement of Awfi concerning the existence of Turks there in pre-Islamic times. In 728 Tabari mentions Turks aiding the people of Kardar, a Khwarazmian village, against the Arabs under Ashras. (p.203)
The following passage taken from Mas'udi ... indicates clearly that the large Turkish army of Mu'tasim was largely recruited from the districts of Khurasan and Transoxania (p.199) ... In fact, we have already seen that Turks lived in many cities in these regions, and that the Turkish armies fighting the Arabs there usually did not come from beyond the Yaxartes. (p.200)
Throughout its history Dahistan has been the habitat of nomads, quick to raid and pillage. -Abdullah ibn Tahir (830-844) built a fort for protection against the ancestors of the Turk-mans.103 The Turks of this district were not only nomads, but they also peopled the numerous irrigated oases.'04 The situation was much the same in Khwarazm. We have already mentioned a statement of Awfi concerning the existence of Turks there in pre-Islamic times.105 In 728 Tabari mentions Turks aiding the people of Kardar, a Khwarazmian village, against the Arabs under Ashras.
Who were the "Khwarezmians" (Khwarezmian tribes/mercenaries) who took & destroyed Jerusalem in 1244 & helped the Egyptians defeat the Crusaders and the Ayyubid emirs allied with them at the Battle of La Forbie? I mean ethnicity, language, geographic origin. Were they just from Chorasan/Khwarezm, or from the much larger empire ruled by the Khwarazmian dynasty? All that's usually said is that they were fleeing the Mongols, which fits both options. Arminden ( talk) 20:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
In the opening of the article it gives the Old Chinese equivalent *qʰaljɯʔmriɡ (呼似密) without citation. Axel Schuessler in contrast gives this "驩潛 Huánjiàn huɑn-dziam 107 B.C.E., ca. [SJ 123] , Khwarezm (Pelliot, see Pulleyblank 1981:280)." So, quite a different citation. SJ is the Shiji of Simaqian, and the article by Schuessler is "Phonological Notes on Hàn Period Transcriptions of Foreign Names and Words" Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 249-292. -- Tibetologist ( talk) 08:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Khwarazm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
I notice that Korasmian redirects here, presumably because I created the redirect from Crusade :) But then today I also noticed that there are Korasmians mentioned in Herodotus' Histories...are they the same people? That's 1000 years before these Korasmians. (It was actually spelled Chorasmian in the version of Herodotus I have, so maybe they are entirely different.) Adam Bishop 21:54, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Kaz
I think a separate article may be needed for Khanate of Khiva - either that or remove the link as it just redirects back to Khwarezmia. Sikandarji 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Could some good soul provide a translation of the statement "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس"? I'm not even sure what language this is: Arabic? Persian? Khwarezmian? An additional comment: it is somewhat silly to provide a page number to an otherwise unreferenced source edition. Lambiam 17:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I object at why Khanate of Khiva gets redirected to Khwarezmia. It was an independent entity and only part of ancient Kwarezm and deserves its own article. For instance Bukhara khanate does Abdulnr 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Khwar" (لحم), and "-razm" (حطب) The former is read lhm not khwr, the latter htb, not rzm. Can someone clear this ?
Took care of it; Arabic words now match the English transliteration. Stoa 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually saying that Khwarezm is and was Persian is wrong. Khwarezm was a part of Achaemenid Empire for some time. But after the fall of Achaemenids it was independent until the Arabs arrived. Ancient population was indeed Iranic, but it does not mean that it was Persian. If we follow the same logic then Shakespeare was German because English is a Germanic language, and Voltaire was Italian because French is a Romance language) So, it is an undeniable fact that Persian and Iranic are not the same thing. All Persians are Iranic. But not all Iranics are Persians. Even the languages of Khwarezm and Achaemenid Persia were different. Old Persian of Achaemenid Empire is a Southwestern Iranian language meanwhile Khwarezmian as well as Soghdian are Eastern Iranian languages, just like Pashto is today. No person with a minimum knowledge of history or current events can say that Tajiks and Pashtuns are the same thing. So why claim that Khwarezmians and Persians were the same. So, after the Achaemenids Khwarezm was independent, under its own local dynasty. Turkic tribes began gradually arriving soon after the Arabs. Some here mentioned that Turkification of Khwarezm began with Mongols. That is also incorrect. Khwarezmshahs who fought against the Mongols were a Turkic dynasty. Khwarazmshah Ala al-Din Muhammad had and Oghuz Turk (possibly Turkmen) father and a Qipchaq Turk mother. His son Jalal al-Din, the last Kwharazmshah, was born to Aychichak, a Turkmen woman. Majority of Khwazamshahs generals were also Turkic, Timur Malik from Turkic tribe of Qangli being the most famous. So, qualifying Khwarazmshahs as a Pesian dynasty is wrong, for they were Turkic rulers, from a non-Persian region who conquered Iran from last Seljuks. They did not move their capital to Persia, and ruled Persia from their capital in Khwarezm. Calling them a Persian dynasty is like calling Byzantine emperors at the peak of their power an Egyptian dynasty, simply because Egypt was a part of their empire. After Mongol conquest Khwarezm became a part of the Golden Horde. Though, Iranic (not Persian) language of Kwarezm could still be heard in XIV century, but by that time majority of population was Turkified. After the Golden Horde it was ruled by Turkic Timurids, after them by Turkic Uzbeks as a Khanate of Khiva. Today, no one in Khwarezm speaks Persian, or any Iranic language as a first language. It is entirely Turkic. Some here also mentioned that until the arrival of Russians it was under the influence of Persia, and some went as far as calling it a Persian territory. Let's take a look at the period from Timurids until the arrival of Russians. All during this period Kwharezm was a Sunni Muslim region, and still is today. It was not under Shia Persian rule, and thousands of Persian slaves were sold on the markets of Khiva. If it was indeed a Persian territory, I don't see a reason why would a Shia Shah of Iran allow Persian Shia citizens to be sold as slaves to Sunnis in his own empire). The only ruler of Iran that did take control of Khwarezm was Nadir Shah (who was a Turkmen himself), but his rule there was short, and he is still remembered in Khwarezmian and Karakalpak tales and legends as a symbol of cruel, invading tyrant. So, how in the world can some people state that "Khwarezm is an was Persian"? It is not Persian and it was not Persian. It was an Iranic, but not Persian province of the Achaemenid Empire, and was independent from Persia for the past 2500 years. Egypt was a part of Persian empire under Achaemenids. So, can anyone say today that "Egypt was and is Persian"? Qozi Kalon (UTC)
I wasn't paying attention. The article had been tagged by the Iranians -- Khwarezm is and was PERSIAN. Now it has been tagged by the Russian/Turkish side of things, ignoring the Persian heritage. Neither view is particularly balanced. I'm grotesquely over-extended, but I'll see what I can do later. Zora 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Khwarezm wasn't part of Persia from the Achaemenids until 1878. That's just plain wrong. Utterly wrong. It was part of the Achaemenid Empire, then independent, then conquered by the Arabs and mixed into the "new" Persian culture. If Transoxania was so dang "Persian", then why is it called "Aniran", not Iran, in the Shahnameh? Zora 08:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Khwarezm was not a center of the Samanids. Bukhara was. Bukhara was a Samanid capital. And Bukhara is separated from Khwarezm by a vast desert. It is just wrong to keep saying that Khwarezm and Transoxiana are Persia. They were part of Persia for a short period of time, during Achaemenids. Calling them Persia just because they were part of Persian empire at one point of their history is the same as saying that Iran is Mongolia just because it was a part of Mongol empire at one time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.10.176 ( talk) 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe this. Khwarezm was independent from the 4th century BCE until the Arab conquest in the 8th century. That's 12 centuries of independence! After the Mongols in the 13th century, it became increasingly Turkified. See [2]. Y'all are so gung-ho for the Columbia Encyclopedia when it suits you -- are you going to pay attention to it here?
That encyclopedia account must be based on something more detailed (and complicated), so it may not be completely accurate, but I think that's enough to show that "it was part of Persia until the 19th century" is just wrong.
OK, how about we give two views? The "always Persia" view and the other view. But you have to come up with some quotes from Persian histories that say "always Persia," you can't just assert it. Zora 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I made some edits that should clarify this issue.--
Zereshk 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The map was a good addition too.-- Zereshk 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the basic problems here is that 'Iranian' is the name for a large ethnolinguistic group, like 'Slavic', but was adopted in modern times as the name of Persia--now Iran--on the basis of ancient usage (Eran, Arya, etc.). The adjectival form 'Persian' refers to both an inhabitant of Persia and the Persian language. At one or another time in its long history, Khwarizmia did indeed come under the rule of a Persian dynasty. That does not make it 'Persian', despite the fact that its language, Khwarizmian--which existed well into the Middle Ages--is an 'Iranian' language (which is like saying that Russian is a Slavic language). The name Persia in sensu strictu refers to modern Iran and, usually until modern times, much of what is now Iraq. In short, Khwarizm was never 'Persian' or a part of 'Persia' or 'Iran', though it was occasionally under Persian imperial rule--usually quite indirectly. The best, reliable source for much of Iranian history (including Khwarizmian and Persian history) is the Encyclopedia of Islam; another good source is the Cambridge History of Iran. Chris B 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
When i was a little girl i read a book which took place in Khorezm Empire. It's like a fairy tale and cought me with it's magic. Since then i wanted to go to Urganj to see the Tilali Garden (i found out that it's still lies under the ground in Turkmenistan and old palace of Jelal Ed Din is not excavated yet).
I was looking for something about the woman called Turkan Hatun. I wanted to now more about the characters in the book and i learned a lot about Jelal Ed Din, Muhamed II... But data i found about her were very confusing.
According to that book, she was very cruel, ruled the great Khorezm Empire and she was a mother of shah Muhamed II, grand mother of a brave prince Jelal Ed Din but not very fond of him. She promoted the people of Kipchak but majority in Khorezm were Turkmenian. There was also mentioned very brave turkmen hero Kara Konchar and his maid... And that lasted untill Mongols conquered Khorezm 1221.
But now i found the information that she lived centuries ago and she was a wife of Sultan Melikshah who died in 1092.
As my country was under the Osman Empire for 500 years and their language had a great influence, i am aware that Turkan Hatun was not her real name, it's more like Turkish Lady and probably was used to describe more than one woman who had ipmact to the history of muslim people.
I would really apreciate if you know something about the Turkan Hatun who lived in Khorezm or where to find something about her.
Thanks a lot. Boka
I don't know where have you guys getting your information from but, Khwarizmi is certainly not Persian. Let's put sources aside, if you know a Khwarizmi person or ever been to Khwarizm you would know that Turkish and Khwarizmi is almost identical. Khwarizmis should know better their roots which are not Persian. I don't know where this piece of information went wrong, possibly the fact that the area was once belonged to Persia? Anyways there a lot of smart people here, but some things you might be misinformed about and develop a strong belief about it, but you guys need to do a better job and learn that Khwarizm is Turkic, although geographically it was once belonged to Persia...
This article is full of inaccuracies, from top to bottom. To begin with, the claim that Khwarizm was mostly a part of 'Persia' or 'the Persian Empire' from primordial times down to the Russian conquest is complete nonsense, as is the idea that "Khwarezm has always been part of the Persian cultural sphere, even til the present day." If Khwarizmia was/is a part of "the Persian cultural sphere" then we need to add to that "sphere" also most of India, East Turkistan (Xinjiang), Turkey, and many other places where a Persian literary language was used, for a time, alongside the local language. Khwarizm/Khwarizmia appears in antiquity as an Iranian-speaking region. During its long history it was at times independent and at other times part of one or another empire, including one or another Persian empire; in the pre-Mongol period it was itself an empire that included large areas of Persia, among other regions; the Khwarizmians became Turkic-speaking in the Middle Ages, and the region remains solidly Turkic-speaking to the present day. All this needs to be pointed out explicitly, and the national biases taken out; there is no need for the article to reflect either the national views of the modern Iranians or the national views of the Russians, the Uzbeks or other Turks, or anyone else. It seems a lot of people are intensely interested in Khwarizm. That is good. But one or more of you needs to go to the library with this article and go through the Encyclopedia of Islam (or, use the CD edition of it) and the Cambridge History of Iran (N.B.: not 'Persia') and cite them and at least fix the major misstatements here. Chris B
In the section Khwārazm Empire it is claimed that Around 1141 Yelü Dashi took control of Khwarezm, making it part of the Kara-Khitan Khanate. Well I am not exactly sure. As far as I know, Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty was not a part of Kara Khitans and reached its peak in early 13th century. (see Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty) Year 1141 may refer to Karakhitans' victory over East Kara Khanids. But that has nothing to do with Khwārazm Empire. (incidently, Khwārazm Empire conquered West Kara Khanids.) I think this section needs the attention of an expert. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 13:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is all pseudo-history, much if of it is simply (and often incorrectly) summarising content in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.199.181 ( talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hua word in Chinese is Hua "side, country, Pashtun/Pahtun country" (huayend "sleepery", huadzedel "to ask to be let off")word in Afghan language.Well-known, that in the most different languages of a word with value " the side, the party " can have the single-root variants in the form of "to slide, wander, pass, extend". For example in a Hebrew: 'eber "side of river", la'avor "To pass, be forwarded", 'avar "has passed".Thus we see full concurrence with oldiranian word varah/var " a side, the party " and modern iranian avardan "to bring",avare "wandering, the tramp". In Iran there is also a river Auhar and the city Auhar.In Language of Caucasian Avars (<Auhar<Huar) hwa-deze is "to wander"/"-d" is a parameter of the speeded up action, and "-ze" the verbal termination/, and "hua-ze" to draw, spend a line, to draw " (the same value is available in Chinese). Old designation of the Caucasian Avars were "Auhar" (see W.Minorsky) is iranized form of Hua/hwar.On L.N.Gumilev Hua people (Hephthalites) is a part of chineze-tibetan (now it is possible with confidence and to tell more precisely that Sino-caucasian) caucasoid Di people.No doubt descendants of people "Di" are modern pashtuns (AparDi, Afridi) and the Caucasian Avars. The first having lost the language send on Afghani (Pashtun), the second on one of Nakh-Dagesthanian (Caucasian). See also Omeljan Pritsak: "On the northern Caucasus, which was the border zone between the Sassanids (and latter the Islamic Caliphate) and the Khazar Kaganate at the time of its flower, we find the same Proto-Mongol structures that we find on the northeastern Chinese border. The main role there was played by the "true Avars" (*Ahwar /Wuhuan), the *Sebirs (Hsien-pi), the K'u-mo and the *Qay+lan/Qay+dag (Hsi)". ssvit.iatp.org.ua/sum/sum96~1.htm. This Hua/Hwa/Hoa people really was under strong influence of Protomongols. The chinese classic Liang chih-kung-t'u describes Hepthalites (Afu/Hua/Avar) as of the same origin as the Hua Country (Huaguo). Meanwhile the western Hvar branch migrated into Hualazimu (花剌子模 aka Kua-Li-kia) and still exist to this day in Daghestan (Northern Caucasus). From this location they launched the European Avar empire, and enjoyed their last flourish of prowess under Kuber before settling in Transylvania to join the Magyar federation as the Havar. Several central European family names derive from the name of this tribe.And besides, the Byzantian sources directly speak that Avars lived on coast of the river. "Khwarezm is iranian HuarZamin (The Land of Sino-Caucasian People Hua/Huar).-- 81.24.80.50 ( talk) 09:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As others have already mentioned, this article needs a rewrite, mainly because it contradicts the Wikipedia entry on "Khwarezmid Empire" (or "Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty") to which it is linked. The main disagreement is concerning the ethnicity of these people but there are others.
Also, the long quotes from Mackay under the section titled "Khwarezmid Empire" are inappropriate. First, the page numbers referenced are wrong (at least compared to the version of the book I found online). Second, Mackay is clearly not an expert on the subject. He uses the name "Korasmins" (who others here have pointed out may be a people from another time/place) and calls their leader "Barbaquan" (a name I cannot find anywhere else). As suggested by the book title, his book is full of opinions about various times in history with only a couple references to "Korasmins". Third, the quotes stand alone with no explanation or context (other than the footnotes), and they exhibit clear, strong opinions about the "Korasmins" with no verifiable evidence. Can someone please replace these quotes with someone better? If not, I'm going to attempt to remove these quotes myself eventually.
Beck8888 ( talk) 01:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Takabeg ( talk) 23:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
In articles elsewhere about the Mongol conquest, one reads about Khwarezm's slaughter of emissaries as the instigation or rationale of Mongol assault and aggressive destruction. all this is absent in the article here. 202.179.16.76 ( talk) 05:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's just how it is for me today, but some portions are hard to read:
....and. so. must. some. at least. of. the. what?
Can we get rid of the uses of some latins here? Again, maybe I'm just having a bad reading day. Aforementioned edits were introduced by Nepaheshgar [3].-- JBrown23 ( talk) 11:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
logarithms were intoduced by the great muslim mathematicai Abu Muhammad Musa al-khawarizmi
This article is almost all based on two sources (listed in the reference section) - Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam plus some additional articles written by Bosworth and McKenzie who are also cited as contributors to the encyclopaedic entries - 14 out of 27 entries, however this does not include their repetition (i.e. a,b,c,d etc) , if I do that I count 22.
Other references appear to be padding - for example:
etc etc
The items listed as sources are again doubling up sources and an encyclopaedic entry. I searched that encyclopaedia for the topic and I can't see any similarities to what is in this article. Another source is a book by an historian - but it is a book on Alexander the Great, who is only mentioned in passing in a sentence discussing the guy no.10 reference.
This article appears to to be in breach of the following wikipedia policies: 1. Verifiable : referencing and source material makes the article unverifiable.
2. Neutral point of view : (just one example for you - by omission: does not mention their invasion of Syria in 1246AD (after fleeing the Mongols) and their defeat of the Sultans in the Levant e.g. Aleppo, Damascus)
3. No original research : since material is not verifiable by following up references and sources do not appear to in fact be sources I can only assume it is either mythology, propaganda or 'original research'.
11/05/16 BlimeyOut ( talk) 10:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)BlimeyOut
The article now says: "Persian compound of khwar (خوار), and razm (رزم), referring to the abundance of cooked fish as a main diet of the peoples of this area."
I do not speak Persian, and if I try to look up in the Internet some English meaning for the words, I get "despicable, contemptible" and "combat, battle". Huh? Nothing about fish or cooked... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:682:4710:7DEF:548E:867D:4982 ( talk) 01:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khwarezm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I propose that Xorazm be merged into Khwarezm. I think that the content in the Xorazm article can easily be explained in the context of Khwarezm, and the Khwarezm article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Xorazm will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. pablohoney ( talk) 06:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 13:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Khwarezm → Khwarazm – It has 16.000 more results in books, not to mention many major academic sources such as the Cambridge History of Iran and History of Civilizations of Central Asia use this spelling. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 08:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
*Oppose.
Britannica gives Khwārezm while
Merriam-Webster gives "Khwārizm or Khwarezm or Khwârazm". So the current title is accepted by both authorities. Regardless of the spelling, the vowel sound in the third syllable is /ə/. As for Khorezm/Khoresm, that's an "administrative subdivision of Uzbekistan."
Nine Zulu queens (
talk) 00:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The parts of texts have been taken from another articles in Wikipedia: Toprak-Kala and Akchakhan-Kala. If these articles contain copivio delete them too. Khorazmiy ( talk) 20:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Ibn Khaldun says the area was inhabited by the Turks at the time of his writing The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. No mention of Persians. Please review the below passage and tell me what you understand from it:
In the Iraq are al-Kufah, al-Qadisiyah, Baghdad, the Reception Hall of Khosraw (at Ctesiphon), and al-Hirah. Beyond that live non-Arab nations such as the Turks, the Khazars, and others. The Arabian Peninsula comprises the Hijaz in the west, the Yamamah, al-Bahrayn, and Oman in the east, and in the south the Yemen along the coast of the Indian Ocean.
In the cultivated area, they say, there is another sea to the north in the land of the Daylam. This area has no connection with the other seas. It is called the Sea of Jurjan and Tabaristan (Caspian Sea). Its length is 1,000 miles, and its width 600. To the west of it lie Azerbaijan and the Daylam territory; to the east of it the land of the Turks and Khuwarizm; to the south of it Tabaristan; and to the north of it the land of the Khazars and the Alans.
176.54.25.24 ( talk) 17:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
So you admit Iran was ruled by the Turks since then and until 1926. All of the dynasties were of Turkic origin until the Shah's revolution. 176.55.84.83 ( talk) 21:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The below is from Uzbeks#Turkification of Transoxiana:
"The dominance of Ghazna was curtailed, however, when the Seljuks led themselves into the western part of the region, conquering the Ghaznavid territory of Khorazm (also spelled Khorezm and Khwarazm).[45] The Seljuks also defeated the Qarakhanids, but did not annex their territories outright. Instead they made the Qarakhanids a vassal state.[47] The Seljuks dominated a wide area from Asia Minor to the western sections of Transoxiana in the 11th century. The Seljuk Empire then split into states ruled by various local Turkic and Iranian rulers. The culture and intellectual life of the region continued unaffected by such political changes, however. Turkic tribes from the north continued to migrate into the region during this period.[45] The power of the Seljuks however became diminished when the Seljuk Sultan Ahmed Sanjar was defeated by the Kara-Khitans at the Battle of Qatwan in 1141.
In the late 12th century, a Turkic leader of Khorazm, which is the region south of the Aral Sea, united Khorazm, Transoxiana, and Iran under his rule. Under the rule of the Khorazm shah Kutbeddin Muhammad and his son, Muhammad II, Transoxiana continued to be prosperous and rich while maintaining the region's Perso-Islamic identity. However, a new incursion of nomads from the north soon changed this situation. This time the invader was Genghis Khan with his Mongol armies.[45]"
176.54.25.24 ( talk) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries, almost all of the land was inhabited by and ruled by Turks. See this template: History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century
Ibn Battuta says of its city that it is “one of the largest, most beautiful and most well-kept cities of the Turks”. Again, it was Iranian before but became Turkic both in culture and looks over time. 786wave ( talk) 05:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I might have forgotten to login. It seems that whatever does not fit your narrative is considered an unreliable source then. Is that it? 786wave ( talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I never added that info here and no, the book is by a respectful professor of history. Whatever happened to “assuming good faith”? Your tone is pretty aggressive. I suggest you take a break. 786wave ( talk) 17:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I came across some writings in Turkish by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi stating the area was Turkified already before the arrival of the Seljuks. Might want to do some research on this point and add it along with a reliable source. 786wave ( talk) 14:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Our studies have led us to believe that the supposed conditions of exclusively nomadic life and small population did not exist, but that: (a) Turks were already in the regions of Khurasan and Transoxania at the time of the Arab conquest, and remained there after the Arab domination. The Turkicization of these districts had, therefore, begun long before the Saljuqs. (b) Turks were town and village dwellers except in regions where natural conditions imposed a nomadic life on them. (c) They probably had a relatively large population in Central Asia and infiltrated in fairly large numbers into the Near East. (p.195)
The situation was much the same in Khwarazm. We have already mentioned a statement of Awfi concerning the existence of Turks there in pre-Islamic times. In 728 Tabari mentions Turks aiding the people of Kardar, a Khwarazmian village, against the Arabs under Ashras. (p.203)
The following passage taken from Mas'udi ... indicates clearly that the large Turkish army of Mu'tasim was largely recruited from the districts of Khurasan and Transoxania (p.199) ... In fact, we have already seen that Turks lived in many cities in these regions, and that the Turkish armies fighting the Arabs there usually did not come from beyond the Yaxartes. (p.200)
Throughout its history Dahistan has been the habitat of nomads, quick to raid and pillage. -Abdullah ibn Tahir (830-844) built a fort for protection against the ancestors of the Turk-mans.103 The Turks of this district were not only nomads, but they also peopled the numerous irrigated oases.'04 The situation was much the same in Khwarazm. We have already mentioned a statement of Awfi concerning the existence of Turks there in pre-Islamic times.105 In 728 Tabari mentions Turks aiding the people of Kardar, a Khwarazmian village, against the Arabs under Ashras.
Who were the "Khwarezmians" (Khwarezmian tribes/mercenaries) who took & destroyed Jerusalem in 1244 & helped the Egyptians defeat the Crusaders and the Ayyubid emirs allied with them at the Battle of La Forbie? I mean ethnicity, language, geographic origin. Were they just from Chorasan/Khwarezm, or from the much larger empire ruled by the Khwarazmian dynasty? All that's usually said is that they were fleeing the Mongols, which fits both options. Arminden ( talk) 20:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
In the opening of the article it gives the Old Chinese equivalent *qʰaljɯʔmriɡ (呼似密) without citation. Axel Schuessler in contrast gives this "驩潛 Huánjiàn huɑn-dziam 107 B.C.E., ca. [SJ 123] , Khwarezm (Pelliot, see Pulleyblank 1981:280)." So, quite a different citation. SJ is the Shiji of Simaqian, and the article by Schuessler is "Phonological Notes on Hàn Period Transcriptions of Foreign Names and Words" Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 249-292. -- Tibetologist ( talk) 08:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)