![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The dynasty was founded by Tughrul Bey, not by Seljuq. Seljuq was only the eponymous ancestor. This needs to be corrected. Also, I think that it's best to remove any reference to ethnic origins from this article and instead put it into the Seljuq dynasty article. The Seljuq Empire was a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual empire that streched from Central Asia to Arabia, although it was Turkish- and Persian-ruled. This article should only focus on the empire, its geography, and its political importance.
Who added this Turkish template to the English Wikipedia?!!!! Deliogul 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Note: It is normal now. Deliogul 08:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Or else we will have to cquote every statement. The fact is that the statements thus far talk about Persian language, Culture and Persianization. -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
please;
{{ editprotected}}
I requested protection against IP Vandalism and blanking. But you protected the article after vandal edited the article.
please UNDO LAST ACTION of anonymous IP user 82.83.133.161.
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
from where does the prefix "Great" come from? Isn't it redundant or even POV?-- Pejman47 ( talk) 09:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ref. 13 loses its italic form roughly 2/3 of the way through, and ref. 16 shows as misaligned larger bold text. The regular Edit command doesn't offer the text of the Refs., so I couldn't fix these items (except for 16., which I didn't know what to do with.) Nikevich ( talk) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?q=Seljuk+turko-persian -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Too much discussion on the nationality. Seljuks were of Turkish origin. But as the word empire suggest, the country was multi-lingualthe . It was true that Persian was used in certain official writings. But what does it prove ? Remember Persian was lingua franca of the era, just like Latin of Europe. ( Do we call North Europeans Latin just because they used Latin in their letters ? ) Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Typical nationalistic whine. Since sunshine has difficulty reading REFERENCES, here are some facts taken from the article's references.....
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not a man of polemics. But I feel it is my duty to correct some misinterpretations of my former remarks by Tajik. I had thought that my former remarks were clear enough and I am rather disappointed to see that I have to repeat myself.
a. I did not say that Seljuk Empire was completely Turkish. There is a distinction between a kingdom and an empire. In an empire there are many people of various stocks. No empire is national. (Seljukids, Ottomans, Safavids etc.) But the empires are usually classified by the origin of their ruling class. ( The percentage of Mongols in vast Mongolic Empire was probably not more than % 1. They were only a small minority everywhere. But still, the name of the empire is Mongol Empire.) So Seljuk Empire is a Turkish empire.
b.I didn’t call nomadic Turkmen tribes elite. The word elite refers to settled rulling class of Turks some of which were soon assimilated by the local population during fragmentation era.
c. I didn’t quite understand Qavort's (Kavurt) existence in this discussion. It was just an interfamily strife for the throne which was very common during Middle ages. Nizamülmülk was lucky to back the winning candidate. If Qavort was the winner, probably Nizamülmülk as well as Melikşah would be executed.
d. I didn’t claim that all Turkish speakers have a common genetical origin. I am not interested in genetic make up of people. In fact classifying people according to race and DNA is disgusting and considered as a crime against humanity.
e. Turkification had nothing to do with Karakoyunlu, Akkoyunlu or Ottoman dynasties. The language of Seljuk Turkey was Turkish. Yunus Emre, who lived in the 13 th century, (before the said dynasties) in what is now West Turkey, produced some of the most beautiful Turkish lyric poetry which is still popular.
f. Who called Kaşgarlı Mahmut (of 11 th century) a modern linguist ? I referred to Mahmut just to remind that Turkish was already well established with a vocabulary of 7500 words. (There is also a reference in this discussion page to Orkhun inscriptions of early 8 th century . But I preferred an example in Muslim era.)
Sincerely I hope my remarks are clear and I have no intention to continue the discussion.
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 11:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
shouldn't the section titled "division of empire" be placed before the sections on the crusades? i feel that this is more chronologically accurate.
-- Skydude176 ( talk) 23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This flag of the Seljuks is fake and invented by TRT in 1969. [1]
Shall we remove the flag ? Or we have to add caption. Takabeg ( talk) 12:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop editing to "Persian" origin. Seljuqs and all their states are Turkish states. Pan-Persian blanking should stop anymore. Encyclopedia Iranica is not a reliable source. IT states everyone is Persian. stop it.
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 11:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Initially you should sign your comments.
First, there everytime were people, such as artists, poets, and officers, even Sultans, who were against Turkish identity. They did use the word "Turk" to mean bad things, or for to associate bad things. That is true. But this never make the word "Turk" an "insult word". Every nation experienced it including Jews, Armenians, Englishes, Irishes, Germans, etc. But the identity never changes and insults define insulters -in the history, as well as at present. You read a few pages and think "Turk" is an insult word for Seljuks and Ottomans. That shows how ignorant you are about Turkish history. "Turk" has been the name of the states Turks founded for thousands of years. including Seljuks and Ottomans. I will not teach you Turkish history. Becasue you do not deserve it. But you shoud know "mr. nameless" that Turks never used "Turk" with a bad meaning except those who were not Turk but among Turks.
Seljuqs, just like Otomans, Göktürks, Karahanids, Oghuz Yabgu State, and Republic of Turkey... and just like all states and empires "Turkish" people founded were Turkish. Manuplating words, using biased, nationalist, "anti-turkist", and racist "writings" as sources to define Turkish entities as "x-ated", "not-Turkish but Turkic" or whatelse is just teach me how Persians are cursed with inferiority complex.
Do not change the identity of Turkish people, dynasties, states, empires, scientists.
Do not blank references which are not devoted for "Persianated theory"
I am not vandal. I am contributing Wikipedia by putting the truth first. But those who begrudge other nations success, tend to be.
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 10:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
polysynaptic haklı, arada sırada türk taklidi yapın, persinated da ne demek aq-- Orkh ( talk) 04:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Great Seljuq Empire was clearly a Turkish Empire. Stop non-sense pan-Iraninan propaganda with references like "Encyclopedia Iranica". You can visit the http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/encyclopedia/article_show/Seljuk_Empire/m0009478.html link and see that the empire was Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkadirbeyoglu ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The term "Turk" was sometimes a prejorative term among the persians of the time. Seljuk rulers may distanced themselves from nomadic turcoman tribes in order to rule persian subjects. though they weren't denounced their identity. For example, alp arslan once wrote a letter to byzantine emperor and said; "turcomans are my relatives, do not kill them". At the time turcoman nomads whom are escaping from seljuk domination entered anatolia and clashed settled byzantines. so they weren't exactly "friends" of alp arslan but he still name them as his relatives and demanded their well being.
persian language was official because most of the civil officers was persians. though probably seljuk sultans used turkish for daily speech like ottoman, mameluke or indian turkish rulers. army's language was indeed turkish and the seljuk rulers' primary function was commanding armies.
ottoman language was mix of turkish, persian and arabic and scribes kept their records in this official tongue. though when a scribe quoted ottoman sultan's own speech, which clearly we can read in records, those speeches was common turkish, not in official ottoman language. it's logical to assume seljuks using turkish in everyday speech like ottomans while also being fluent in persian. so while persianate is correct term, i think degree of persianateness is overemphesized on language issue in this article.
on the other hand, persian society was arabianated under rule of caliphs. even the late persian language evolved from pahlevi under arabic influence. emphesizing seljuks' persianateness while nobody labeling persian culture as arabianate hints domination of indo-europeancentric culturalist views.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.86.72 ( talk) 18:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was hoping somebody could give me the exact quote stating that the Seljuk Empire was known as the "Persian Empire." I have attempted to find the source listed, but I could not get my hands on it. I have never seen the Seljuk Empire referenced to as the "Persian Empire," and my real question is whether the reference to the Seljuks as "Persian Empire" is a widespread thing, or merely one writer/historian's opinion. If this is so, I believe that adding the name "Persian Empire" to the info-box is unnecessary and maybe even misleading. If I am wrong, I will gladly accept my mistake. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 04:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Persian Empire? are you guys serious? we are talking about Seljuq Turks here, their language could be Persian but they werent Persians. Redman19 ( talk) 21:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Second the edit of User:Mghotbi 85 contains a dead link, there is no link to a source where it is stated that the Seljuq Empire was an Persian Empire. I will revert this edit keeping out both Persian and Turkish until somebody comes up with a clear source. Redman19 ( talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Best thing to do. Thank you for your support. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 00:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In section Conquest by Khwarezm and the Ayyubids 9 parts of the former empire has been presented. But I couldn't see the name of the Seljuks of Iraq or Seljuks of Hamedan in the list. I assume they were not classified as one of the the parts. They were considered as the main branch of the empire. If so, why don't we see the names of the main branch sultans after Mehmet Tapar (except Tugrul III) ?. By the way, in the article Seljuq dynasty the names of the sultans after 1118 are given. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 09:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Great Seljuq Empire → Seljuk Empire – Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC) per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH.
First of all, let't see whether "Great Seljuk/Seljuq" (Empire/Sultanate) is "common" or not ?
Now I understand that "Great Seljuk/Seljuq" is not so "common" and let's see simple Seljuk /Seljuq (Empire/Sultanate)
We saw some samples of another Seljuk /Seljuq (Empire/Sultanate) in the results of researches.
Now we understand:
Takabeg ( talk) 02:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Modern Turkish alternative name is needless. This name was translated from other languages a posteriori. So this alternative name had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. -- Takabeg ( talk) 21:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This flag is not a historical one. Because this flag was created in 1969 for "the Calendar of Turkish History" (Türk Tarihi Takvimi ). In short, Seljuq(k)s had never used this flag. I think Wikipedia must not provide information to make a false indication or an indication that would mislead users. For details please see this page. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 19:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
AlperenGezer ( talk) 16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it is best to simply leave out any suggestions on wether the Seljuq empire was a Turkish or Persian empire. Because, there is no widespread agreement on this subject. It really depends on which sources you read. Indeed, any persian historian you ask, or many prominent, international historians such as Micheal Axworhty, Richard Frye, to name two, would not agree that an empire with its capital within Persia, using persian language as the official language of the court and even adopting persian customs from previous dynasties (such as the Nowruz) was somehow a "Turkish" empire.
This is not to mention the fact that the ancestors of these people were not even "Turks", but rather "Turcoman". Thus, "The Turcoman Empire" would be a more proper term to use.
---Mghotbi_85--- ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC).
William the Bastard, Richard the Lionheart, none could speak English yet ironically they were kings of England.
But in the case of Seljuks, it is obvious they were a nomad empire, they Turkified Persia( even after a century of repression still Turkics have a considerable population in Iran), and used local sources to build a civilization for their own, which is not only Persian( Timurid architecture owes Persians more) but a fusion of central Asian and middle eastern (and later Byzantine and Armenian) architectures. Also Seljuks were a power before they were masters of modern Iran which was only a domain of Seljuks. I understand political motives in Iran that they want to assimilate their minorities peacefully into a single society, but history has to be objective. Also one shall never forget that after 16th century, what separates Persian from Turkic is not language but essentially it is religion. (Ottoman court used Farsi while (at least) Shah Ismail used Turki.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.84 ( talk) 01:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
User Boabkal made an edit deleting this part:
The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran[25] The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century.[26]
and as argument:
(removed pan-turkic disinformation that posed itself as real, via a bad source, in the last sentence of second paragraph. it was originally added by user dragontiger23, who is well known for spreading pan-turkic black propaganda in other pages.)}
1.This User is personally attacking and accusing me falsely of Pan-Turkism and doing pan-Turkic edits. This is not true.
2.There is nothing wrong with the source, the user just doesnt likes the sentence and then declares the whole source as "bad".
3.The sources: (1)Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gábor Ágoston,Bruce Alan Masters, page 279, 2009
(2)Concise Encyclopaedia of World History, Carlos Ramirez-Faria, page 56, 2007
4.What is the point of denying the fact, of the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan under Seljuk rule? If the Turkification never started under the Seljuks, how did Azerbaijan become a 90% Turkic speaking country and Iranitself 25% Turkic speaking??? DragonTiger23 ( talk) 21:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
To DragonMaster:
Your sources are bad, misleading and false.
These sources are also contradictory to majority accepted sources and research on the Seljuk Empire, which concluded that the Seljuks were patrons of the Persian language and culture and actually defended Iran from Turkoman raiders in the northeast.
Quoting from,
Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161,164; "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace."
This is a credible source already present in the article. The fact you try to falsely claim that Seljuks wanted to Turkify Iran is a contradiction to the very ideals and foundations which Seljuks stood for.
Furthermore, the Turkification of Azerbaijan is a different matter. Iran was not Turkified, so you cannot say that Seljuks wanted it to happen, neither can you say they had intentions of doing that, since they were heavily Persianized to the extent they identified with the Persians, as many sources have pointed out.
So for you to allegedly say Iran was 'turkified' is false. Because 1, it didn't happen. And 2, the Seljuks never instigated such thing.
Furthermore, Azerbaijan was Turkified by non-Seljuks. Azerbaijan was ruled by various small Turkic city-states after the Albanians fled that land. These city-states were never part of the great Seljuk Empire, and in fact they belong to a different era of time.
I can only conclude you're biased (i.e. pan turkic) and based on the other violations in your userpage history, I am certain of it.
Wa Salamu Alaikum BoAbkal ( talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
1. The source does not become false or misleading, when you do not like it.
2. The source does not say the Seljuks Turkified Iran, read better, it says: The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran[25] gave impetusThat means that under the Seljuk rule, Iran started to Turkify. It doesnt say it was a plan of the Seljuk dynasty.
3.The source doesnt contradict other sources, and doesnt deny that the Seljuk dynasty was Persianate.
4. The source says: The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century.[26] Azerbaijan was part of the Seljuk empire and this is based on a source.
Do you have sources for your theory about the Turkification of Azerbaijan without the Seljuks?? DragonTiger23 ( talk) 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
1. I never said I didn't like the source. 2. Gave impetus to Turkification of Iran is also a false statement and contradictory to other more academically qualified sources in that article. 3. Seljuks refers synonymously with Oghuz Tribes. The Oghuz tribes who turkified Azerbaijan were in a different era (much later) than the Seljuk Empire, and they weren't part of Seljuk's borders at that time.
Do you even know what Turkification means? BoAbkal ( talk) 07:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I dont understand what is your problem? Why are you denying the Turkification under Seljuk rule? Iran and Azerbaijan were not originally Turkic speaking, Later they became Turkified, that is why today Iran is 25% Turkic speaking and Azerbaijan 90% and Turkey 80%. The Turkification started under the Seljuk rule, we have sources for this, written by historians. If you can not understand history why are you editing? The Great Seljuk Empire started the era of Turkic dynasties in the middle east, after them the Turkic dynasties of Aq Qoyunlu Kara Koyunlu Ottoman Empire emerged, why are you trying to falsify history?
It is very very very interesting that some Turkic rulers learned Persian and wrote or read Persian poems, this can be important for the history of the Persian people, but for the world history it is far more important how these empires changed the ethnicity of large regions. How new political dynasties emerged and Turkic migration started in the middle east. In fact that the Seljuks were Persianate is not important at all, they were also muslims, does this makes them Arabs? No and they also did not become Persian.
The Authors : Gábor Ágoston [2]
And this is the other author: [3] They are both academics, experts on history, that User boabkal personally attacks them just shows how pathetic biased he is. Are there no admins to stop this nonsense??
With a quick search on google books I found many more sources on (Seljuks Turkification) seriously this is written in so many history books, I didnt make this up. here [ [4]], [ [5]]
on the matter of the Turkification of Iran/Azerbaijan. Because this is already a fact. But there is no way discussing with Boabkal, who would equally name all of those sources as bad and the authors as not academical. This is simple because Boabkal is not neutral he is trying to push his point of view, deleting sources when he doesnt like them.
This is the online version of the source The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran (so I didn't made it up, as he falsely claims) [6]
And here for The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century [7]
And the source ( Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991),
BoAbkal uses above to prove there was no Turkification, says further in page 164:
Nevertheless and this is perhaps one of the lasting results of Sanjars defeat by the Ghuzz in 1153-they were unable to prevent those Turkmen from establishing themselves in a dense mass.....in the ethnically de-iranized region ehich later became Turkmenistan. At the same time the Turkoman bands led by junior Seljuks on the Anatolia plateau unqestionably transformed those ancient Byzantine lands in to Turkic ones.......
online here [ [8]] Posted by DragonTiger23
Salamu Alaikum,
Are you deliberately trying to falsify or mix statements?
Nowhere did Grousset or Rene mention that Seljuks helped in the turkification of some Iranian regions. Much to the contrary, they already stated that the Seljuks had no intentions on doing so.
Did the Seljuk presence turkify Anatolia? Yes - nobody is denying that. But did the Seljuk instigate turkification of Iran? No, it didn't. In fact, the Seljuk rulers who ruled over Persia were against that. They themselves voluntarily became Persian.
Furthermore, the Turkoman raiders who de-iranized modern day turkmenistan were part of the Khwarezmid era. The turkoman raiders attacked Khwarezmid empire, captured some areas of Khwarezm and turkified it. They were not part of the Seljuk era. In fact, during the era of Seljuk Persia, the Seljuks were enemies of the turkoman raiders.
So once again, to accuse Seljuks of giving impetus on turkifying Iran is to contradict what academics have said in various research publications. And it's also an insult to everything the Seljuks stood for. BoAbkal ( talk) 09:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I am explaining it again, I hope everybody can understand.
Rene and Grousset is 1 person not 2 different persons. First Seljuks are themselves Turkic they are leaders of Turkic nomads in Central Asia. They unite the tribes, defeat the Ghaznavids and conquer todays Iran. In the areas they conquered there live a dozens of ethnic groups and languages, not only Persian. After the conquest the Seljuk dynasty settles down and uses the local bureacracy to administer their new lands.
The Turkification of Iran is a fact( todays Iran's second language is Turkic). With the Seljuk conquest large groups of Turkic nomads come to Iran. Iran started to be ruled by a family from Turkic nomadic origin, This is already a fact for Turkification.
Iran is between Anatolia and Central Asia. The Turkic nomads who Turkified Byzantine Anatolia did not have wings and flew over Iran. They travelled through Iran and some of them settled in Iran, mostly in the Northwestern region known as Azerbaijan Province.
The Seljuk Sultans were Turkic in identity, muslims and the early Sultans spoke Turkic as motherlanguage, some knew Persian as second language.
Most of the Seljuk sultans royal/family have Turkic names, they have also Arabic/Persian names because that was common in that age but an Arab or Persian would never have a Turkic name.
That already proves that they were not totally assimilated and forget about their Turkic origin.
They were not only enemies of Turcoman raiders, they were enemies of all raiders who raided their empire. No matter what the ethnicity was.
The Turcoman nomads were under Seljuk control, After Iran was conquered the Sultans did not want them to further raid the conquered settled peoples and so mostly they sent the nomads to the border regions of their empire, and those places were Azerbaijan, northwest of Iran and Armenia.
But they also tried to settle the Turkic nomads in Iran, by using a system called
Iqta'.
When the Byzantines invaded Armenia to punish the nomads, the Seljuk Sultan
Alparslan came to save the Turkic nomads and together they won the
battle of Manzikert. After that the Seljuk sultan organised the conquest of Anatolia by sending a royal Seljuk family member
Qutalmish (Turkic name) to lead the Turkic nomads.
The Seljuks were never Persian, never became ethnic Persians. All the medieval contemporary historians describe the Seljuks as Turks, Arabic historians, Persian historians example
Jami' al-tawarikh and medieval European historians.
The Seljuk empire used the Persian language for administration, But they did not do that because they were Iranian nationalists or an ethnic Persian empire, they did it for practical reasons.
The Lingua Franca of that time in the middle east was mostly Persian language in the east and Arabic in the west, at the same time, Latin was the Lingua Franca of Europe. So in that time a writer of Turkic origin would write a history book in Persian language.
Later in the 19the century
Orientalist European historians and later nationalist Iranian historians invented and misused all these terms of Persianate and influence of Persian languages to claim everything as being part of Persian ethnicity.
They wrote that because of nationalistic and racist ideas, The Europeans knew about
Ancient Persia and saw Persian as Aryans as sort of white-europeans in the
middle east, who were higher and more civilized then the non-white, non-european others, especially Turkic peoples.
On purpose they wrote a racist history which basically is:
That only the Persians (Iran has been multi-ethnic throughout history) were allways the scientists and builders, the other ethnicities are ignored and the Turkic peoples were allways the raiders and destroyers of civilization. Later modern Iranian nationalist historians have enthusiastically accepted these racist Orientalist ideas as it satisfies their ego and boasts their nationalism and Pan-Iranism.
They denied all peoples who they deemed as uncivilized not worthy of history. By using a lot of false arguments they promoted the racist idea:
That all most the entire history of the region is a Persian history and ignored all the other numerous nationalities, their descendants continue their work enthusiastically.
The conclusion is:
Under the first 3 Turkic Seljuk Sultans Tughril, Alp Arslan( both are Turkic names), Malik-Shah I (other name Barkyaruq is Turkic name), large numbers of Central Asian Turkic nomads migrated to Iran and from there later to Anatolia.
So the fact is:
The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran. DragonTiger23 ( talk) 14:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
DragonTiger23 ( talk) 17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
My first concern is that the "Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire" source is not the entire sentence and the snippet view I get indicates the sentence begins with the word, "Although". Would be helpful to know what the entire sentence says. Else this reeks of
WP:Cherry.
Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, 164; "At the same time Turkoman bands led by junior Seljuks on the Anatolian plateau unquestionably transformed those ancient Byzantine lands into Turkic ones...". Is also a broken sentence and does not state any
Turkicisation takes place.
Peter B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, ..posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk(1), Mongol(2) and Post-Mongol(3).
1 & 2: "In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan (Arran, the Mugan steppe)."
Note #1 & #2: Nothing said about Persia/Iran during the Seljuk period.
3: "In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran (derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran."
Note #3: Happens AFTER the Mongols, which was well AFTER the Seljuq Empire. Which therefore has nothing to do with this article.
Concise Encyclopaedia of World History, Carlos Ramirez-Faria, 56: "At the same time the Seljuqs
Turkified
Azerbaijan between the
11th century and
12th century.". Sourcing this sentence, "The Seljuqs
Turkified
Azerbaijan between the
11th century and
12th century. Explain why this needs to be in the lede? It is unrelated to anything in the lede and appears to be
WP:UNDUE. The Governance section would be an appropriate place for it. --
Kansas Bear (
talk)
02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, as per, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia by Rene Grousset, p154; "The Ghuzz or Turkomans, acting partly as independent bandits and partly under the command of their princes [the Seljuks], traversed all the countries lying between Chinese Turkestan and the Egyptian frontier and the Byzantine frontiers." Barthold adds that, to be rid of "their roving brothers" -the undisciplined bands of Ghuzz- and to prevent them from ravaging their fine Iranian domain, the Seljuk sultans apparently established them by preference in the marches of the sultanate, in Asia Minor. This fact explains why Persia proper escaped Turkification, while Anatolia became a second Turkestan.". -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
No Kansas it doesn't explain it at all. Iran was not a new world to flee for Muslims, it was already Muslim. Also very well developed for the technology of its time, that means sustaining as much as it already can. On the other hand Anatolia was not maintained for over a millennium. Very low population under high taxes, and a corrupt bureaucracy. It could sustain much more people especially nomads like Turkics(who made their way much earlier than Manzikert) who could exploit wilderness at no cost to settled population. Azerbaijan has a different story, it has been the frontier between Turkics and Iran(then arabs) for at least half a millennium. Frontiers would mean grazing opportunities to nomads, which was much more frequent than "raiding". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.84 ( talk) 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The article suggests : "The fractured states of the Seljuqs were on the whole more concerned with consolidating their own territories and gaining control of their neighbours than with cooperating against the crusaders during the First Crusade. The Seljuqs easily defeated the untrained People's Crusade arriving in 1096, but could not stop the progress of the army of the subsequent Princes' Crusade, which took important cities such as Nicaea, Iconium, Kayseri, and Antioch on its march to Jerusalem, and in 1099 finally successfully captured the Holy Land, setting up the first Crusader States. The Seljuqs had already lost Palestine to the Fatimids, who had recaptured it just before its capture by the crusaders."
Why is it even here? During Time of Kilicarslan, Sultanate of Rum, was already independent, today we call them Seljuks(because of their common ancestry) but at that time, it was only Sultanate of Rum. Great Seljuks never faced Crusaders at least not in First crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.84 ( talk) 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
"Important to the Seljuqs' self image was their belief that they were destined to rule the world as a master race... Mahmud of Kashgar wrote 'I have seen that God has caused the Sun of Empire to rise in the house of the Turks.'
Although this 'master race' was Turkish, their bureaucrats and courtiers spoke Persian. Nizam al-Mulk describes the administration of the Seljuq sultanate and the pompous court rituals of former Persian dynasties. " The Cambridge Illusrated History of the Islamic World, page 39, Cambridge University Press, 1996
I believe it would be appropriate to add this somehow: the Seljuks thought themselves as Turkish, though their officials spoke Persian. I would not say they were entirely Persianized, as Persian was a lingua franca and their administration derived from whatever regimes were present in their area at that time, which indeed included heavy Persian elements, but (considering the quote above) if a Seljuk was asked whether they considered themselves Persian or Turkish, they would probably answer "Turkish" in Farsi.
I am also planning to reconstruct the sentence regarding the language and culture of the Seljuqs from "being highly Persianized" to something that includes "being heavily influenced by Arab-Persian elements, and the Byzantine court tradition as well as their own Turcoman past, though the Persian influence was the heaviest one" as this seems to be what Prof. Koprulu seems to be saying in the reference, if no one opposes. How about 'The Great Seljuks adopted Persian as their language, and their culture and identity was influenced by Arab-Persian elements, and Byzantine court traditions, as well as their own Turcoman past, though the Persian influence was heaviest." or something along those lines?
Instead of "Their reign is characterized by Persian astronomers such as Omar Khayyám, and the Persian philosopher al-Ghazali." That sentence should be rewritten as "During their reign the Seljuks gave patronage to intellectuals such as the Persian astronomer, poet, and mathematician Omar Khayyam and the Islamic philosopher and jurist al-Gazali." as this seems to be more appropriate. What is important is not the nationality of the intellectuals, but the fact that there were intellectuals, but right now the whole article seems to primarily focus on the Persians of the Empire. Also, the wording is awkward, if one reads carefully, this sentence basically breaks down to "The reign of the Seljuks is characterized by Persian astronomers and a Persian philosopher."
I have heard a lot of times that Encyclopedia Iranica is not neutral, but as I have no knowledge, I will not argue its neutrality.. However, if it is true, I believe the references to Encyclopedia Iranica should be removed. I should also add to this sentence that whenever encyclopedia iranica is cited, it is followed by two or three more definitely neutral references, so removing the source will not affect the article. If something is backed up by one or two reliable sources, there is no need to add another two sources, especially if their neutrality is disputed, so perhaps it will be best to remove the citations altogether as they are not necessary, even if its neutral. And if it is neutral, perhaps it should only be included in the references where there is no other reference cited. There is no need for a whole string of references for a single word or sentence, if one or two is enough. This applies for all sources, wherever there is four or five citations for a single word, at least some of them should be removed.
One other thing, would it be appropriate to remove the continous use of the word "Persian" (Persian Samanid Shahs, Persian Nizamulmulk...). It is true that these were all Persian, but as I have stated above, this article seems completely focused on the Persian aspect of the Empire, not the Empire itself. If one would like to know the nationality of Nizam-ul Mulk, they can just click the link. Is there any point in writing the nationality of a person or state behind its link, when we read an article about the War in Iraq is it written "the American" before each "George Bush," or "Black" before every "Obama?" Here, in this article, the word is overused.
Also, "Persianate" and "Turco-Persian tradition" are not the main articles for "Great Seljuk," and neither is "Seljuk dynasty." Instead of being identified as such, "See also: Seljuq dynasty" is more appropriate, while "Persianate" and "Turco-Persian tradition" should be under a section such as "Culture."
If no one opposes these, I will begin working on this article and I will begin with the things I have listed above. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be a scholar about this subjet, I trust you mate, Im ensured you can turn this article in something nice thats accurate, the Seljuq Empire is a part of Turkish history and we should not allow it to be taken by others. Redman19 ( talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No, not a scholar, but hopefully one soon :) Thank you for your trust. There are multiple issues in this article apart from those, I will dive in my library soon to fix them. Rigt now I am a bit busy, but by the end of the week hopefully I will get all the changes I mentioned above done. I am hoping to make this article at least a GA. This is a very important article about a very important Empire, and it deserves to be better. Right now its pitiful. And yes, they are Turkish, even if they are part of not only Turkish but Iranian history too. But right now, this article seems to be trying to push a "Seljuqs were Persian" point of view. No nation has a monopoly on the Seljuqs. They were a multinational empire that was an important part of Middle Eastern History. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Read the changes I am planning. I am not posting them again.
Next, read my user page. I am new as a member, but I have spent time reading the protocols and familiarizing myself with them.
This article is like the first example. Read the first and second paragraph.
And may I wonder, why such an angry style? Once again, if you have a valid reason to oppose to any changes, say so and it will be appreciated. Now, if you decide to be constructive, I will enjoy talking with you here or on my talk page. If not, I see no reason to respond to you. And I do have better things to do then fight and argue in a pointless debate. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
How can a "Highly Persianized" state initiate a "Turkification" in Asia Minor? The statement that the Seljuqs were highly Persianate is just ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.40.28.173 ( talk) 13:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{History of Turkey} 94.122.91.173 ( talk) 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
After Janicar's edit warring including his numerous IPs, I would like to hear the reasoning for this odd over Categorization of this article. Turkic topics? Category:Historical Turkic states, Category:Turkic dynasties, Category:History of the Turkic peoples, Category:Turkic peoples, Category:Turkic tribes. All these seem to be a coatrack. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This flag is more fake than i can say fake. According of all sources i know that the flag of Seljuq Empire includes the Lion and Sun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekogreeko ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello all,
Is this really the flag of the Seljuk empire? Is there a source somewhere? (I would also be concerned that putting standardised flags in infoboxes just like modern national flags can be anachronistic)
bobrayner (
talk)
01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
founders and all rulers and army and everything were Turkic and how one can name this Turkic empire Turko-Persian!!!? It is more logic to name Turko-Islam or even Turko-Arab but not at all Turko-Persian?! read a little bit hostory and then write in wikipedia!
The result of the move request was: Move. We have a rough but decisive consensus to follow the evidence suggesting the proposed name is the the most common option. Cúchullain t/ c 19:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Seljuq Empire →
Seljuk Empire – per reasons in talk page.
elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR)
09:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
So any comments on that? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The dynasty was founded by Tughrul Bey, not by Seljuq. Seljuq was only the eponymous ancestor. This needs to be corrected. Also, I think that it's best to remove any reference to ethnic origins from this article and instead put it into the Seljuq dynasty article. The Seljuq Empire was a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual empire that streched from Central Asia to Arabia, although it was Turkish- and Persian-ruled. This article should only focus on the empire, its geography, and its political importance.
Who added this Turkish template to the English Wikipedia?!!!! Deliogul 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Note: It is normal now. Deliogul 08:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Or else we will have to cquote every statement. The fact is that the statements thus far talk about Persian language, Culture and Persianization. -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
please;
{{ editprotected}}
I requested protection against IP Vandalism and blanking. But you protected the article after vandal edited the article.
please UNDO LAST ACTION of anonymous IP user 82.83.133.161.
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
from where does the prefix "Great" come from? Isn't it redundant or even POV?-- Pejman47 ( talk) 09:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ref. 13 loses its italic form roughly 2/3 of the way through, and ref. 16 shows as misaligned larger bold text. The regular Edit command doesn't offer the text of the Refs., so I couldn't fix these items (except for 16., which I didn't know what to do with.) Nikevich ( talk) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?q=Seljuk+turko-persian -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Too much discussion on the nationality. Seljuks were of Turkish origin. But as the word empire suggest, the country was multi-lingualthe . It was true that Persian was used in certain official writings. But what does it prove ? Remember Persian was lingua franca of the era, just like Latin of Europe. ( Do we call North Europeans Latin just because they used Latin in their letters ? ) Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Typical nationalistic whine. Since sunshine has difficulty reading REFERENCES, here are some facts taken from the article's references.....
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not a man of polemics. But I feel it is my duty to correct some misinterpretations of my former remarks by Tajik. I had thought that my former remarks were clear enough and I am rather disappointed to see that I have to repeat myself.
a. I did not say that Seljuk Empire was completely Turkish. There is a distinction between a kingdom and an empire. In an empire there are many people of various stocks. No empire is national. (Seljukids, Ottomans, Safavids etc.) But the empires are usually classified by the origin of their ruling class. ( The percentage of Mongols in vast Mongolic Empire was probably not more than % 1. They were only a small minority everywhere. But still, the name of the empire is Mongol Empire.) So Seljuk Empire is a Turkish empire.
b.I didn’t call nomadic Turkmen tribes elite. The word elite refers to settled rulling class of Turks some of which were soon assimilated by the local population during fragmentation era.
c. I didn’t quite understand Qavort's (Kavurt) existence in this discussion. It was just an interfamily strife for the throne which was very common during Middle ages. Nizamülmülk was lucky to back the winning candidate. If Qavort was the winner, probably Nizamülmülk as well as Melikşah would be executed.
d. I didn’t claim that all Turkish speakers have a common genetical origin. I am not interested in genetic make up of people. In fact classifying people according to race and DNA is disgusting and considered as a crime against humanity.
e. Turkification had nothing to do with Karakoyunlu, Akkoyunlu or Ottoman dynasties. The language of Seljuk Turkey was Turkish. Yunus Emre, who lived in the 13 th century, (before the said dynasties) in what is now West Turkey, produced some of the most beautiful Turkish lyric poetry which is still popular.
f. Who called Kaşgarlı Mahmut (of 11 th century) a modern linguist ? I referred to Mahmut just to remind that Turkish was already well established with a vocabulary of 7500 words. (There is also a reference in this discussion page to Orkhun inscriptions of early 8 th century . But I preferred an example in Muslim era.)
Sincerely I hope my remarks are clear and I have no intention to continue the discussion.
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 11:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
shouldn't the section titled "division of empire" be placed before the sections on the crusades? i feel that this is more chronologically accurate.
-- Skydude176 ( talk) 23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This flag of the Seljuks is fake and invented by TRT in 1969. [1]
Shall we remove the flag ? Or we have to add caption. Takabeg ( talk) 12:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop editing to "Persian" origin. Seljuqs and all their states are Turkish states. Pan-Persian blanking should stop anymore. Encyclopedia Iranica is not a reliable source. IT states everyone is Persian. stop it.
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 11:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Initially you should sign your comments.
First, there everytime were people, such as artists, poets, and officers, even Sultans, who were against Turkish identity. They did use the word "Turk" to mean bad things, or for to associate bad things. That is true. But this never make the word "Turk" an "insult word". Every nation experienced it including Jews, Armenians, Englishes, Irishes, Germans, etc. But the identity never changes and insults define insulters -in the history, as well as at present. You read a few pages and think "Turk" is an insult word for Seljuks and Ottomans. That shows how ignorant you are about Turkish history. "Turk" has been the name of the states Turks founded for thousands of years. including Seljuks and Ottomans. I will not teach you Turkish history. Becasue you do not deserve it. But you shoud know "mr. nameless" that Turks never used "Turk" with a bad meaning except those who were not Turk but among Turks.
Seljuqs, just like Otomans, Göktürks, Karahanids, Oghuz Yabgu State, and Republic of Turkey... and just like all states and empires "Turkish" people founded were Turkish. Manuplating words, using biased, nationalist, "anti-turkist", and racist "writings" as sources to define Turkish entities as "x-ated", "not-Turkish but Turkic" or whatelse is just teach me how Persians are cursed with inferiority complex.
Do not change the identity of Turkish people, dynasties, states, empires, scientists.
Do not blank references which are not devoted for "Persianated theory"
I am not vandal. I am contributing Wikipedia by putting the truth first. But those who begrudge other nations success, tend to be.
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 10:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
polysynaptic haklı, arada sırada türk taklidi yapın, persinated da ne demek aq-- Orkh ( talk) 04:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Great Seljuq Empire was clearly a Turkish Empire. Stop non-sense pan-Iraninan propaganda with references like "Encyclopedia Iranica". You can visit the http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/encyclopedia/article_show/Seljuk_Empire/m0009478.html link and see that the empire was Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkadirbeyoglu ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The term "Turk" was sometimes a prejorative term among the persians of the time. Seljuk rulers may distanced themselves from nomadic turcoman tribes in order to rule persian subjects. though they weren't denounced their identity. For example, alp arslan once wrote a letter to byzantine emperor and said; "turcomans are my relatives, do not kill them". At the time turcoman nomads whom are escaping from seljuk domination entered anatolia and clashed settled byzantines. so they weren't exactly "friends" of alp arslan but he still name them as his relatives and demanded their well being.
persian language was official because most of the civil officers was persians. though probably seljuk sultans used turkish for daily speech like ottoman, mameluke or indian turkish rulers. army's language was indeed turkish and the seljuk rulers' primary function was commanding armies.
ottoman language was mix of turkish, persian and arabic and scribes kept their records in this official tongue. though when a scribe quoted ottoman sultan's own speech, which clearly we can read in records, those speeches was common turkish, not in official ottoman language. it's logical to assume seljuks using turkish in everyday speech like ottomans while also being fluent in persian. so while persianate is correct term, i think degree of persianateness is overemphesized on language issue in this article.
on the other hand, persian society was arabianated under rule of caliphs. even the late persian language evolved from pahlevi under arabic influence. emphesizing seljuks' persianateness while nobody labeling persian culture as arabianate hints domination of indo-europeancentric culturalist views.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.86.72 ( talk) 18:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was hoping somebody could give me the exact quote stating that the Seljuk Empire was known as the "Persian Empire." I have attempted to find the source listed, but I could not get my hands on it. I have never seen the Seljuk Empire referenced to as the "Persian Empire," and my real question is whether the reference to the Seljuks as "Persian Empire" is a widespread thing, or merely one writer/historian's opinion. If this is so, I believe that adding the name "Persian Empire" to the info-box is unnecessary and maybe even misleading. If I am wrong, I will gladly accept my mistake. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 04:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Persian Empire? are you guys serious? we are talking about Seljuq Turks here, their language could be Persian but they werent Persians. Redman19 ( talk) 21:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Second the edit of User:Mghotbi 85 contains a dead link, there is no link to a source where it is stated that the Seljuq Empire was an Persian Empire. I will revert this edit keeping out both Persian and Turkish until somebody comes up with a clear source. Redman19 ( talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Best thing to do. Thank you for your support. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 00:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In section Conquest by Khwarezm and the Ayyubids 9 parts of the former empire has been presented. But I couldn't see the name of the Seljuks of Iraq or Seljuks of Hamedan in the list. I assume they were not classified as one of the the parts. They were considered as the main branch of the empire. If so, why don't we see the names of the main branch sultans after Mehmet Tapar (except Tugrul III) ?. By the way, in the article Seljuq dynasty the names of the sultans after 1118 are given. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 09:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Great Seljuq Empire → Seljuk Empire – Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC) per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH.
First of all, let't see whether "Great Seljuk/Seljuq" (Empire/Sultanate) is "common" or not ?
Now I understand that "Great Seljuk/Seljuq" is not so "common" and let's see simple Seljuk /Seljuq (Empire/Sultanate)
We saw some samples of another Seljuk /Seljuq (Empire/Sultanate) in the results of researches.
Now we understand:
Takabeg ( talk) 02:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Modern Turkish alternative name is needless. This name was translated from other languages a posteriori. So this alternative name had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. -- Takabeg ( talk) 21:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This flag is not a historical one. Because this flag was created in 1969 for "the Calendar of Turkish History" (Türk Tarihi Takvimi ). In short, Seljuq(k)s had never used this flag. I think Wikipedia must not provide information to make a false indication or an indication that would mislead users. For details please see this page. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 19:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
AlperenGezer ( talk) 16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it is best to simply leave out any suggestions on wether the Seljuq empire was a Turkish or Persian empire. Because, there is no widespread agreement on this subject. It really depends on which sources you read. Indeed, any persian historian you ask, or many prominent, international historians such as Micheal Axworhty, Richard Frye, to name two, would not agree that an empire with its capital within Persia, using persian language as the official language of the court and even adopting persian customs from previous dynasties (such as the Nowruz) was somehow a "Turkish" empire.
This is not to mention the fact that the ancestors of these people were not even "Turks", but rather "Turcoman". Thus, "The Turcoman Empire" would be a more proper term to use.
---Mghotbi_85--- ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC).
William the Bastard, Richard the Lionheart, none could speak English yet ironically they were kings of England.
But in the case of Seljuks, it is obvious they were a nomad empire, they Turkified Persia( even after a century of repression still Turkics have a considerable population in Iran), and used local sources to build a civilization for their own, which is not only Persian( Timurid architecture owes Persians more) but a fusion of central Asian and middle eastern (and later Byzantine and Armenian) architectures. Also Seljuks were a power before they were masters of modern Iran which was only a domain of Seljuks. I understand political motives in Iran that they want to assimilate their minorities peacefully into a single society, but history has to be objective. Also one shall never forget that after 16th century, what separates Persian from Turkic is not language but essentially it is religion. (Ottoman court used Farsi while (at least) Shah Ismail used Turki.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.84 ( talk) 01:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
User Boabkal made an edit deleting this part:
The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran[25] The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century.[26]
and as argument:
(removed pan-turkic disinformation that posed itself as real, via a bad source, in the last sentence of second paragraph. it was originally added by user dragontiger23, who is well known for spreading pan-turkic black propaganda in other pages.)}
1.This User is personally attacking and accusing me falsely of Pan-Turkism and doing pan-Turkic edits. This is not true.
2.There is nothing wrong with the source, the user just doesnt likes the sentence and then declares the whole source as "bad".
3.The sources: (1)Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gábor Ágoston,Bruce Alan Masters, page 279, 2009
(2)Concise Encyclopaedia of World History, Carlos Ramirez-Faria, page 56, 2007
4.What is the point of denying the fact, of the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan under Seljuk rule? If the Turkification never started under the Seljuks, how did Azerbaijan become a 90% Turkic speaking country and Iranitself 25% Turkic speaking??? DragonTiger23 ( talk) 21:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
To DragonMaster:
Your sources are bad, misleading and false.
These sources are also contradictory to majority accepted sources and research on the Seljuk Empire, which concluded that the Seljuks were patrons of the Persian language and culture and actually defended Iran from Turkoman raiders in the northeast.
Quoting from,
Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161,164; "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace."
This is a credible source already present in the article. The fact you try to falsely claim that Seljuks wanted to Turkify Iran is a contradiction to the very ideals and foundations which Seljuks stood for.
Furthermore, the Turkification of Azerbaijan is a different matter. Iran was not Turkified, so you cannot say that Seljuks wanted it to happen, neither can you say they had intentions of doing that, since they were heavily Persianized to the extent they identified with the Persians, as many sources have pointed out.
So for you to allegedly say Iran was 'turkified' is false. Because 1, it didn't happen. And 2, the Seljuks never instigated such thing.
Furthermore, Azerbaijan was Turkified by non-Seljuks. Azerbaijan was ruled by various small Turkic city-states after the Albanians fled that land. These city-states were never part of the great Seljuk Empire, and in fact they belong to a different era of time.
I can only conclude you're biased (i.e. pan turkic) and based on the other violations in your userpage history, I am certain of it.
Wa Salamu Alaikum BoAbkal ( talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
1. The source does not become false or misleading, when you do not like it.
2. The source does not say the Seljuks Turkified Iran, read better, it says: The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran[25] gave impetusThat means that under the Seljuk rule, Iran started to Turkify. It doesnt say it was a plan of the Seljuk dynasty.
3.The source doesnt contradict other sources, and doesnt deny that the Seljuk dynasty was Persianate.
4. The source says: The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century.[26] Azerbaijan was part of the Seljuk empire and this is based on a source.
Do you have sources for your theory about the Turkification of Azerbaijan without the Seljuks?? DragonTiger23 ( talk) 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
1. I never said I didn't like the source. 2. Gave impetus to Turkification of Iran is also a false statement and contradictory to other more academically qualified sources in that article. 3. Seljuks refers synonymously with Oghuz Tribes. The Oghuz tribes who turkified Azerbaijan were in a different era (much later) than the Seljuk Empire, and they weren't part of Seljuk's borders at that time.
Do you even know what Turkification means? BoAbkal ( talk) 07:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I dont understand what is your problem? Why are you denying the Turkification under Seljuk rule? Iran and Azerbaijan were not originally Turkic speaking, Later they became Turkified, that is why today Iran is 25% Turkic speaking and Azerbaijan 90% and Turkey 80%. The Turkification started under the Seljuk rule, we have sources for this, written by historians. If you can not understand history why are you editing? The Great Seljuk Empire started the era of Turkic dynasties in the middle east, after them the Turkic dynasties of Aq Qoyunlu Kara Koyunlu Ottoman Empire emerged, why are you trying to falsify history?
It is very very very interesting that some Turkic rulers learned Persian and wrote or read Persian poems, this can be important for the history of the Persian people, but for the world history it is far more important how these empires changed the ethnicity of large regions. How new political dynasties emerged and Turkic migration started in the middle east. In fact that the Seljuks were Persianate is not important at all, they were also muslims, does this makes them Arabs? No and they also did not become Persian.
The Authors : Gábor Ágoston [2]
And this is the other author: [3] They are both academics, experts on history, that User boabkal personally attacks them just shows how pathetic biased he is. Are there no admins to stop this nonsense??
With a quick search on google books I found many more sources on (Seljuks Turkification) seriously this is written in so many history books, I didnt make this up. here [ [4]], [ [5]]
on the matter of the Turkification of Iran/Azerbaijan. Because this is already a fact. But there is no way discussing with Boabkal, who would equally name all of those sources as bad and the authors as not academical. This is simple because Boabkal is not neutral he is trying to push his point of view, deleting sources when he doesnt like them.
This is the online version of the source The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran (so I didn't made it up, as he falsely claims) [6]
And here for The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century [7]
And the source ( Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991),
BoAbkal uses above to prove there was no Turkification, says further in page 164:
Nevertheless and this is perhaps one of the lasting results of Sanjars defeat by the Ghuzz in 1153-they were unable to prevent those Turkmen from establishing themselves in a dense mass.....in the ethnically de-iranized region ehich later became Turkmenistan. At the same time the Turkoman bands led by junior Seljuks on the Anatolia plateau unqestionably transformed those ancient Byzantine lands in to Turkic ones.......
online here [ [8]] Posted by DragonTiger23
Salamu Alaikum,
Are you deliberately trying to falsify or mix statements?
Nowhere did Grousset or Rene mention that Seljuks helped in the turkification of some Iranian regions. Much to the contrary, they already stated that the Seljuks had no intentions on doing so.
Did the Seljuk presence turkify Anatolia? Yes - nobody is denying that. But did the Seljuk instigate turkification of Iran? No, it didn't. In fact, the Seljuk rulers who ruled over Persia were against that. They themselves voluntarily became Persian.
Furthermore, the Turkoman raiders who de-iranized modern day turkmenistan were part of the Khwarezmid era. The turkoman raiders attacked Khwarezmid empire, captured some areas of Khwarezm and turkified it. They were not part of the Seljuk era. In fact, during the era of Seljuk Persia, the Seljuks were enemies of the turkoman raiders.
So once again, to accuse Seljuks of giving impetus on turkifying Iran is to contradict what academics have said in various research publications. And it's also an insult to everything the Seljuks stood for. BoAbkal ( talk) 09:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I am explaining it again, I hope everybody can understand.
Rene and Grousset is 1 person not 2 different persons. First Seljuks are themselves Turkic they are leaders of Turkic nomads in Central Asia. They unite the tribes, defeat the Ghaznavids and conquer todays Iran. In the areas they conquered there live a dozens of ethnic groups and languages, not only Persian. After the conquest the Seljuk dynasty settles down and uses the local bureacracy to administer their new lands.
The Turkification of Iran is a fact( todays Iran's second language is Turkic). With the Seljuk conquest large groups of Turkic nomads come to Iran. Iran started to be ruled by a family from Turkic nomadic origin, This is already a fact for Turkification.
Iran is between Anatolia and Central Asia. The Turkic nomads who Turkified Byzantine Anatolia did not have wings and flew over Iran. They travelled through Iran and some of them settled in Iran, mostly in the Northwestern region known as Azerbaijan Province.
The Seljuk Sultans were Turkic in identity, muslims and the early Sultans spoke Turkic as motherlanguage, some knew Persian as second language.
Most of the Seljuk sultans royal/family have Turkic names, they have also Arabic/Persian names because that was common in that age but an Arab or Persian would never have a Turkic name.
That already proves that they were not totally assimilated and forget about their Turkic origin.
They were not only enemies of Turcoman raiders, they were enemies of all raiders who raided their empire. No matter what the ethnicity was.
The Turcoman nomads were under Seljuk control, After Iran was conquered the Sultans did not want them to further raid the conquered settled peoples and so mostly they sent the nomads to the border regions of their empire, and those places were Azerbaijan, northwest of Iran and Armenia.
But they also tried to settle the Turkic nomads in Iran, by using a system called
Iqta'.
When the Byzantines invaded Armenia to punish the nomads, the Seljuk Sultan
Alparslan came to save the Turkic nomads and together they won the
battle of Manzikert. After that the Seljuk sultan organised the conquest of Anatolia by sending a royal Seljuk family member
Qutalmish (Turkic name) to lead the Turkic nomads.
The Seljuks were never Persian, never became ethnic Persians. All the medieval contemporary historians describe the Seljuks as Turks, Arabic historians, Persian historians example
Jami' al-tawarikh and medieval European historians.
The Seljuk empire used the Persian language for administration, But they did not do that because they were Iranian nationalists or an ethnic Persian empire, they did it for practical reasons.
The Lingua Franca of that time in the middle east was mostly Persian language in the east and Arabic in the west, at the same time, Latin was the Lingua Franca of Europe. So in that time a writer of Turkic origin would write a history book in Persian language.
Later in the 19the century
Orientalist European historians and later nationalist Iranian historians invented and misused all these terms of Persianate and influence of Persian languages to claim everything as being part of Persian ethnicity.
They wrote that because of nationalistic and racist ideas, The Europeans knew about
Ancient Persia and saw Persian as Aryans as sort of white-europeans in the
middle east, who were higher and more civilized then the non-white, non-european others, especially Turkic peoples.
On purpose they wrote a racist history which basically is:
That only the Persians (Iran has been multi-ethnic throughout history) were allways the scientists and builders, the other ethnicities are ignored and the Turkic peoples were allways the raiders and destroyers of civilization. Later modern Iranian nationalist historians have enthusiastically accepted these racist Orientalist ideas as it satisfies their ego and boasts their nationalism and Pan-Iranism.
They denied all peoples who they deemed as uncivilized not worthy of history. By using a lot of false arguments they promoted the racist idea:
That all most the entire history of the region is a Persian history and ignored all the other numerous nationalities, their descendants continue their work enthusiastically.
The conclusion is:
Under the first 3 Turkic Seljuk Sultans Tughril, Alp Arslan( both are Turkic names), Malik-Shah I (other name Barkyaruq is Turkic name), large numbers of Central Asian Turkic nomads migrated to Iran and from there later to Anatolia.
So the fact is:
The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran. DragonTiger23 ( talk) 14:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
DragonTiger23 ( talk) 17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
My first concern is that the "Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire" source is not the entire sentence and the snippet view I get indicates the sentence begins with the word, "Although". Would be helpful to know what the entire sentence says. Else this reeks of
WP:Cherry.
Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, 164; "At the same time Turkoman bands led by junior Seljuks on the Anatolian plateau unquestionably transformed those ancient Byzantine lands into Turkic ones...". Is also a broken sentence and does not state any
Turkicisation takes place.
Peter B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, ..posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk(1), Mongol(2) and Post-Mongol(3).
1 & 2: "In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan (Arran, the Mugan steppe)."
Note #1 & #2: Nothing said about Persia/Iran during the Seljuk period.
3: "In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran (derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran."
Note #3: Happens AFTER the Mongols, which was well AFTER the Seljuq Empire. Which therefore has nothing to do with this article.
Concise Encyclopaedia of World History, Carlos Ramirez-Faria, 56: "At the same time the Seljuqs
Turkified
Azerbaijan between the
11th century and
12th century.". Sourcing this sentence, "The Seljuqs
Turkified
Azerbaijan between the
11th century and
12th century. Explain why this needs to be in the lede? It is unrelated to anything in the lede and appears to be
WP:UNDUE. The Governance section would be an appropriate place for it. --
Kansas Bear (
talk)
02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, as per, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia by Rene Grousset, p154; "The Ghuzz or Turkomans, acting partly as independent bandits and partly under the command of their princes [the Seljuks], traversed all the countries lying between Chinese Turkestan and the Egyptian frontier and the Byzantine frontiers." Barthold adds that, to be rid of "their roving brothers" -the undisciplined bands of Ghuzz- and to prevent them from ravaging their fine Iranian domain, the Seljuk sultans apparently established them by preference in the marches of the sultanate, in Asia Minor. This fact explains why Persia proper escaped Turkification, while Anatolia became a second Turkestan.". -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
No Kansas it doesn't explain it at all. Iran was not a new world to flee for Muslims, it was already Muslim. Also very well developed for the technology of its time, that means sustaining as much as it already can. On the other hand Anatolia was not maintained for over a millennium. Very low population under high taxes, and a corrupt bureaucracy. It could sustain much more people especially nomads like Turkics(who made their way much earlier than Manzikert) who could exploit wilderness at no cost to settled population. Azerbaijan has a different story, it has been the frontier between Turkics and Iran(then arabs) for at least half a millennium. Frontiers would mean grazing opportunities to nomads, which was much more frequent than "raiding". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.84 ( talk) 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The article suggests : "The fractured states of the Seljuqs were on the whole more concerned with consolidating their own territories and gaining control of their neighbours than with cooperating against the crusaders during the First Crusade. The Seljuqs easily defeated the untrained People's Crusade arriving in 1096, but could not stop the progress of the army of the subsequent Princes' Crusade, which took important cities such as Nicaea, Iconium, Kayseri, and Antioch on its march to Jerusalem, and in 1099 finally successfully captured the Holy Land, setting up the first Crusader States. The Seljuqs had already lost Palestine to the Fatimids, who had recaptured it just before its capture by the crusaders."
Why is it even here? During Time of Kilicarslan, Sultanate of Rum, was already independent, today we call them Seljuks(because of their common ancestry) but at that time, it was only Sultanate of Rum. Great Seljuks never faced Crusaders at least not in First crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.84 ( talk) 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
"Important to the Seljuqs' self image was their belief that they were destined to rule the world as a master race... Mahmud of Kashgar wrote 'I have seen that God has caused the Sun of Empire to rise in the house of the Turks.'
Although this 'master race' was Turkish, their bureaucrats and courtiers spoke Persian. Nizam al-Mulk describes the administration of the Seljuq sultanate and the pompous court rituals of former Persian dynasties. " The Cambridge Illusrated History of the Islamic World, page 39, Cambridge University Press, 1996
I believe it would be appropriate to add this somehow: the Seljuks thought themselves as Turkish, though their officials spoke Persian. I would not say they were entirely Persianized, as Persian was a lingua franca and their administration derived from whatever regimes were present in their area at that time, which indeed included heavy Persian elements, but (considering the quote above) if a Seljuk was asked whether they considered themselves Persian or Turkish, they would probably answer "Turkish" in Farsi.
I am also planning to reconstruct the sentence regarding the language and culture of the Seljuqs from "being highly Persianized" to something that includes "being heavily influenced by Arab-Persian elements, and the Byzantine court tradition as well as their own Turcoman past, though the Persian influence was the heaviest one" as this seems to be what Prof. Koprulu seems to be saying in the reference, if no one opposes. How about 'The Great Seljuks adopted Persian as their language, and their culture and identity was influenced by Arab-Persian elements, and Byzantine court traditions, as well as their own Turcoman past, though the Persian influence was heaviest." or something along those lines?
Instead of "Their reign is characterized by Persian astronomers such as Omar Khayyám, and the Persian philosopher al-Ghazali." That sentence should be rewritten as "During their reign the Seljuks gave patronage to intellectuals such as the Persian astronomer, poet, and mathematician Omar Khayyam and the Islamic philosopher and jurist al-Gazali." as this seems to be more appropriate. What is important is not the nationality of the intellectuals, but the fact that there were intellectuals, but right now the whole article seems to primarily focus on the Persians of the Empire. Also, the wording is awkward, if one reads carefully, this sentence basically breaks down to "The reign of the Seljuks is characterized by Persian astronomers and a Persian philosopher."
I have heard a lot of times that Encyclopedia Iranica is not neutral, but as I have no knowledge, I will not argue its neutrality.. However, if it is true, I believe the references to Encyclopedia Iranica should be removed. I should also add to this sentence that whenever encyclopedia iranica is cited, it is followed by two or three more definitely neutral references, so removing the source will not affect the article. If something is backed up by one or two reliable sources, there is no need to add another two sources, especially if their neutrality is disputed, so perhaps it will be best to remove the citations altogether as they are not necessary, even if its neutral. And if it is neutral, perhaps it should only be included in the references where there is no other reference cited. There is no need for a whole string of references for a single word or sentence, if one or two is enough. This applies for all sources, wherever there is four or five citations for a single word, at least some of them should be removed.
One other thing, would it be appropriate to remove the continous use of the word "Persian" (Persian Samanid Shahs, Persian Nizamulmulk...). It is true that these were all Persian, but as I have stated above, this article seems completely focused on the Persian aspect of the Empire, not the Empire itself. If one would like to know the nationality of Nizam-ul Mulk, they can just click the link. Is there any point in writing the nationality of a person or state behind its link, when we read an article about the War in Iraq is it written "the American" before each "George Bush," or "Black" before every "Obama?" Here, in this article, the word is overused.
Also, "Persianate" and "Turco-Persian tradition" are not the main articles for "Great Seljuk," and neither is "Seljuk dynasty." Instead of being identified as such, "See also: Seljuq dynasty" is more appropriate, while "Persianate" and "Turco-Persian tradition" should be under a section such as "Culture."
If no one opposes these, I will begin working on this article and I will begin with the things I have listed above. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be a scholar about this subjet, I trust you mate, Im ensured you can turn this article in something nice thats accurate, the Seljuq Empire is a part of Turkish history and we should not allow it to be taken by others. Redman19 ( talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No, not a scholar, but hopefully one soon :) Thank you for your trust. There are multiple issues in this article apart from those, I will dive in my library soon to fix them. Rigt now I am a bit busy, but by the end of the week hopefully I will get all the changes I mentioned above done. I am hoping to make this article at least a GA. This is a very important article about a very important Empire, and it deserves to be better. Right now its pitiful. And yes, they are Turkish, even if they are part of not only Turkish but Iranian history too. But right now, this article seems to be trying to push a "Seljuqs were Persian" point of view. No nation has a monopoly on the Seljuqs. They were a multinational empire that was an important part of Middle Eastern History. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Read the changes I am planning. I am not posting them again.
Next, read my user page. I am new as a member, but I have spent time reading the protocols and familiarizing myself with them.
This article is like the first example. Read the first and second paragraph.
And may I wonder, why such an angry style? Once again, if you have a valid reason to oppose to any changes, say so and it will be appreciated. Now, if you decide to be constructive, I will enjoy talking with you here or on my talk page. If not, I see no reason to respond to you. And I do have better things to do then fight and argue in a pointless debate. ---Seljuq--- ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
How can a "Highly Persianized" state initiate a "Turkification" in Asia Minor? The statement that the Seljuqs were highly Persianate is just ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.40.28.173 ( talk) 13:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{History of Turkey} 94.122.91.173 ( talk) 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
After Janicar's edit warring including his numerous IPs, I would like to hear the reasoning for this odd over Categorization of this article. Turkic topics? Category:Historical Turkic states, Category:Turkic dynasties, Category:History of the Turkic peoples, Category:Turkic peoples, Category:Turkic tribes. All these seem to be a coatrack. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This flag is more fake than i can say fake. According of all sources i know that the flag of Seljuq Empire includes the Lion and Sun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekogreeko ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello all,
Is this really the flag of the Seljuk empire? Is there a source somewhere? (I would also be concerned that putting standardised flags in infoboxes just like modern national flags can be anachronistic)
bobrayner (
talk)
01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
founders and all rulers and army and everything were Turkic and how one can name this Turkic empire Turko-Persian!!!? It is more logic to name Turko-Islam or even Turko-Arab but not at all Turko-Persian?! read a little bit hostory and then write in wikipedia!
The result of the move request was: Move. We have a rough but decisive consensus to follow the evidence suggesting the proposed name is the the most common option. Cúchullain t/ c 19:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Seljuq Empire →
Seljuk Empire – per reasons in talk page.
elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR)
09:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
So any comments on that? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)