This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turko-Iranian 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to know your opinion about this article. It seems to be supported by separatism and Pan-Turkism ideologists! It may be against Wikipedia:No original research! It is not NPOV. What do you think?
zandweb 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) _ ZANDWEB T
This is a dab page, which means when they type in a word they're looking for a certain subject. I highly doubt someone looking for " Azerbaijan" would type in "Turko-Iranian". Are there any sources that say this term is used in place of "Azerbaijan", "Turkmenistan", or "Uzbekistan"? — Khoi khoi 14:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture, make up about 90% of the republic’s population" [1] "The population of Azerbaijan is almost 90 percent ethnic Azeri. The minorities in the country consist of Russians, Armenians and Dagestanis. While Azerbaijan's culture is Persian, the national language is a Turkic derivative. Over 90 percent of the country is Muslim, most of whom are Shiite." [2]
-- ManiF 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"whether Iranian or Turkic speaking, have one culture, one religion This Iranologist how can't see that Iranians are Shiites and Central Asians are Sunnis. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :)Yes, I see now how Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan practise this great culture of Iranians hahahaa... Zaparojdik 23:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope everyone now sees Zaparodjik for who he is. Lets see the comments he has made here:
Oh really Zaparodjik? Whats your source for this? The city was founded thousands of years before Turks even started moving into central Central Asia. The Greeks knew the city as Markanda. I'm waiting to see the source for your claim.
A bit confused arent we Zaparodjik. At the time, the heroes that Uzbekistan today claims as its own and as Turkic, spoke Arabic not Persian. They were infact Iranians who wrote in Arabic during the Arabic occupation of Iran.
Who? Please do tell. Also, I can show you how much Iranian culture was part of the Ottoman Empire, if you want to go that route.
Um.... The religion is called Islam... Khosrow II 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
To all: I'm not denying that these countries have a culture similar to Iranian culture (as I've said in the edit summaries). I never said "Azerbaijan has no Iranian culture". Please note, however, that this is a disambiguation page. These types of pages are used, for example, when I want to learn about İsmet İnönü, but I forgot how to spell his first name. I therefore type in " Inonu", and this leads me to three options: the town of İnönü, İsmet İnönü, and his son, Erdal İnönü. If I am looking for Azerbaijan I probably wouldn't type in "Turko-Iranian", which is why it seems out-of-place for a disambig. page. Perhaps this could be turned into a real article? However, as it stands, it seems confusing. — Khoi khoi 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Among all modern Turkic-speaking nations, Uzbekistan is the closest to Persian culture and society (not Azerbaijan, as some here may believe). The Uzbek language, a direct descendant of the Chagatay language, is among all Turkic language the closest to Persian, and it is the one that has been influenced most (Uzbek has lost the typical Turkic vocal harmony, it has partly adopted Persian grammar, and more than 50% of the language's vocabulary is made of Perso-Arabic words). The Uzbek people are of mixed origin - Turkic and Iranian, as well as Mongolian and Slavic - just like the Tajiks. It just happens that they speak a Turkic language, while the Tajiks speak Persian. Throughout the past 500 years, Uzbeks have adopted the original Iranian culture of Central-Asia, to an extant that nowadays, many Uzbeks are known as Sart, a term that was originally only applied to Persians. Uzbeks have also adopted many typical Iranian cutoms, such as Nowruz or the use of espand. The "Uzbek dress" is the typical Central-Asian dress of the Sogdian era. Many Uzbek scholars, writers, and even the normal population use Persian and Uzbek in their works or every-day speech. Uzbek musicians, such as Yulduz Usmanova, sing in Persian and Uzbek (see here: [5]).
The term "Uzbek" (as well as "Tajik) was more or less forced on the Uzbek (and Tajik) peoples of Central-Asia by the Russians who "in 24 hours" created new ethnic groups and borders in Central Asia. Before that, the people were distinguished by their ways of life, rather than by language or origin (since almost everyone in Central Asia is of mixed origin and is naturally bi-lingual). The city dweelers and traders were universally known as "Sart", while the nomads were universally known as "Turk". When the Russians conquered Central Asia, the eliminated the terms "Turk" and "Persian" (because they feared Pan-Turkic and Pan-Iranian revolts), and they devided the population by language ("devide and conquer!"): they created two different ethnic groups that were previously one: Uzbeks and Tajiks.
Tājik 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
nomads were not known as turks you idiot they were known as kipchaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.144.66 ( talk) 06:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Iranian, tajik, and afghan chauvinists like Khosrow are so full of it. They feel threatened by Turkic unity and therefore try and compromise Uzbek, Azeri and other Turkic cultures by claiming they have iranian origins. It's plain ridiculous. Fact is, Turkic people have dominated Central Asia and Iran since the 4th century and Atilla the Hun. The huns were indeed the first turkic empire, and they were a confederation of both indo-european people and other tribes mixed together speaking a Turkic language. To call Turks barbarians and Mongols is a typical Tajik thing to do in the post soviet era. This is attributed to propaganda spreading out of Iran which happens to be sandwiched and pressured between Turkic countries. Fact is, you may make false iranic propaganda claims here in wikipedia, but you are not fooling anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.144.66 ( talk) 06:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the order Turko-Iranian should refer to its better to be first 'countries' and then the various 'minorities'. as for Nowruz (which i saw in the last edit summary by Zaparojdik), i am not an expert, but what i see from the respective article is that it is an ancient persian holiday, link to Zoroastrianism, so, i can't see any dispute of it having to do anything with the Turkic peoples... Hectorian 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with some the least academic experience would know that Iranian doesn't mean Persian.. Azeris are not Iranian people that speak Turkish.. They might be Persian, but they are definitely NOT Iranian.. It is like claiming that ancient Romans are all Italians!!! French and Spanish are all originally (more or less) Roman, but they are NOT Italian.. I mean, is this not clear for some people or what????? Iranian and Persian, Italian and Roman define specific things, they are not the same, in fact, they are not even similar.. Iranians are shias whereas Turks are Sunni, so much for same culture, same religion.. A note to pan-Iranian POV pushers: stop pretending that Iran is Persia and that all the peoples who lived next to/under the Persians are Iranian. I mean, where do some people get these ideas that Turkic peoples of Central Asia are Iranian??? I mean, have u ever been to Central Asia?? They don't look at all like Iranians, maybe in the past they could be considered Persian for other reasons, but it is exactly these same reasons that make that THEY ARE NOT IRANIANS TODAY.. Again, Iran is not Persia, never was and never will be, stop living in this dream world... Baristarim 03:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right: Iranian is not Persian - but here, you yourself are confusing some things. You say Persian, while you mean Iranian. And while you say Iranian, you do not mean Iranian, you mean Iran, which is wrong (just click on the Wiki-links to see what I mean). Azeris are Iranian by culture and - possibly - origin, but not by language. The same goes to Uzbeks, and even - partly - to Anatolian Turks. What is for sure is that they are not Persian, because the Persian people are a specific ethnic group. Your comments about religion are baseless. Azeris are Shia Muslims, just like Persians, while Anatolian Turks are Sunnis, just like Kurds and most Arabs. Belief has not much to do with ethnic groups. And your comparison about the looks of certain people in Central Asia is not correct either. In fact, MOST Turkic peoples have Mongolian looks (as did their forefathers, the Göktürks), while modern Oghuz-speaking Turks (the majority by number) have Caucasian (Mediterranian) looks. So, why then do you consider yourself and most citizens of Turkey "Turks"?! Noone in Turkey looks Mongolian/East Asian, noone in Turkey lives the original Turkic culture and habits; in fact, genetical studies have shown that the number of people in Turkey who have some "East Asian" genetic markers is less than 5% (see Turkish people and Azerbaijani people). This thread is not about genetic markers or looks, it's about a certain culture. And - wether you like it or not - the entire so-called "Islamic culture" is built on ancient Persian culture, and ALL invading nomads - Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and others - have sooner or later adopted this culture. The same way European nomads - most of all the Germanic people - have adopted the ancient Greek and Roman cultures of Europe. Just compare modern Turcophone people of West Asia with the Turkic peoples of Siberia. Except for distant language similarities, there is notihng else. "Turco-Iranian" or "Turco-Persian" (since Persians had the biggest influence on Turkic peoples) are terms given to hybrid culture in which the Persian element is dominating, It's not like "Perso-Arabic" where two - seemingly - equal elements mixed (while in the fields of language and literature Arabic is dominating, architecture, art and science were without doubt Persian). "Turco-Persian" stands for a society in which a nomadic society adopted the - seemingly - superior culture of the urban civilization. The Turks may have kept their languages (despite the fact that the are extremly influenced by Persian and - through Persian - by Arabic), but they have TOTALLY lost their original culture. The more they moved to the West and South, the more they became "Iranian". That's why NONE of the Turco-Persian rulers of the past is considered a "foreigner" by the native Iranian population: from Ghaznavids up to the Qajars, they are all considered "native Iranians", because these dynasties represented Persian language, culture, and way of life. "Turco-Iranian" in no means insults the Turkic heritage. Most of the "Turco-Iranian" dynasties were in fact of Turkic or Mongolian origin: Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Ilkhans, possibly Khwarizmids, partly the Safavids, the Qajars, the Afshars, and even the Pahlavis. But these dynasties NEVER tried to replace the existing and ruling Persian culture by pagan, nomadic Turkic culture. In fact, among all invaders in Persia, the Turco-Mongols were the ones who showed much respect for the Persians and for the Persian culture and identity. Unlike the Arabs who - first - tried to eliminate Iranian culture and heritage, the Turks and Mongols openly devoted themselvs to this culture. Persians owe Turks and Turkic people a lot, because they - the Turks - were the ones who promoted Persian identity and culture, as well as the Persian language. Turks and Mongols were the ones who replaced Arabic with Persian, and who brought this culture to Anatolia, Western-Europe, Africa, and India. This symbiosis of Tōrk & Tādjīk is the actualy meaning of "Turco-Iranian", not Persian nationalism, and not what Turkic nationalists interpret into it. Tājik 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
“ | ... The transmission of Persian culture to Anatolia begun with the foundation of the Saljuq state in the 12th century and gained speed after the Mongol invasion of Persia in the 13th century. Many Persian scholars, writers, and poets fled to the empire of the Saljuqs of Rum, following the Mongol onslaught on the Iranian lands. These highly educated men played an important role in the revival of Persian culture and literature, which had begun already at the beginning of the 13th century. Subsequently, many works in Persian, dealing with history, literature, philosophy and Sufism, were produced in Anatolia in the 13th and 14th centuries. As a result, Persian became the language of instruction at several madrasas, and Persian words were often used for place-names, personal names, and occupational activities, as well as in certain religious, legal, and official records. As a result of those developments, in the 13th century, Anatolia was thus intensively influenced by Persian culture. Intellectual life developed very effectively in the cities, where scholars copied or created religious works. [...] Scholars of Persian origin who had emigrated to Anatolia continued their activities in the cities of their new home (Aya Sofya, no. 3605), and many of them stayed in contact with their native lands. Students of the scholars active in Anatolia generally consisted of youngsters from princely families and palace officials [...] During the period of the Anatolian beyliks, following the COLLAPSE of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance, and consequently the influence of Persian culture and language weakened in Anatolia to a certain degree. ... | ” |
“ | ... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ... | ” |
As for this claim that is floating around kinda like some sort of Domocles' sword about who spoke Turkish where and when in Anatolia: That argument is not being able to consider things in context and give them appropriate meanings, until last century many people in France didn't speak French, they spoke Norman, Breton, Provençal etc.. They speak French today because of a process called nation-state, there can be many claims as to how this happened in Turkey and late Ottoman Empire, but to say that they are not Turkish (in the modern sense) just because they were not Turkic (ethnically from Central Asia) is also adding new meanings and twisting the old ones of certain political and ideological movements that happened in Europe after the French Rev. The same processes also happenned in Italy, until the last century, there were approx 20 languages spoken in Italy and today they have all been wiped by the same process.. Read some political sciences and political history before you gang up on Turkey as if it were the big daddy of nationalism in Europe.. Such nationalism was common in Europe at the time in every single country, please put things in context and avoid anachronisms.. Ataturk's extreme reforms?? loooool. I lived in Saudi Arabia for years and seen all the Middle East, I am used to this Ataturk-bashing.. Well, compared to Iran, I would say that Turkey is in a better situation at the moment... At least Turkey doesn't chop people's hands for stealing or sells heroin to make balance its economy.. You catch my drift??
Well you want a source?? This is not Encyclopaedia Iranica but Encyclopaedia Brittanica, a bit better, u know, just a bit :)) :
I was asked to check into this via e-mail and therefore I am going to be keeping an eye in these articles for a moment, pan-iranist has to stop. Period.. Baristarim 12:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
AS FOR PERSIAN AND IRANIAN, you didn't need to explain me the difference, I already knew, and more then you did I am afraid, you are not talking to a fifth-grader here.. In English, and in MANY languages, as well as in political sciences and history, Iran and Iranian refers to the nation-state after the Shah in the 50s (when he decided to impose the name Iran to the world), that is the turning point, everything before that is considered Persia and Persian (NOT persian empire btw, that is the empire that was ended by Alex the Great).. Iran or Iranians cannot impose on the English language, Iran refers to a recent period of greater Persian culture, before Iran is Persia proper.. (anology: Constantinople is the city before its renaming in the 20s, after that is Istanbul, even though the name Istanbul was used on and off for centuries by Ottomans to refer to the city) So please don't lecture others on what it means to be Greater Iranian, Smaller Iranian, Greater Persian, Smaller Persian or whatever.. That is historical revisionism, there is no such thing as Greater Iran, and there will never be, there was Greater Persia and Greater Persian culture, but Iran refers to the state after the 50s Baristarim 12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Your basic argument is that they became so civilized and mannered that they can no longer be considered Turkish, well that's a bit fascist thing to say: r u trying to say that when Turks became civilized they lost their Turkishness coz being civilized was against the nature of being a Turk?? Cultures change and people can improve, they can stay still who they are.. Baristarim 12:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
“ | ... Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship ... | ” |
Khosrow II 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Turko-Iranian (disambiguation) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 8#Turko-Iranian (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
16:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turko-Iranian 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to know your opinion about this article. It seems to be supported by separatism and Pan-Turkism ideologists! It may be against Wikipedia:No original research! It is not NPOV. What do you think?
zandweb 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) _ ZANDWEB T
This is a dab page, which means when they type in a word they're looking for a certain subject. I highly doubt someone looking for " Azerbaijan" would type in "Turko-Iranian". Are there any sources that say this term is used in place of "Azerbaijan", "Turkmenistan", or "Uzbekistan"? — Khoi khoi 14:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture, make up about 90% of the republic’s population" [1] "The population of Azerbaijan is almost 90 percent ethnic Azeri. The minorities in the country consist of Russians, Armenians and Dagestanis. While Azerbaijan's culture is Persian, the national language is a Turkic derivative. Over 90 percent of the country is Muslim, most of whom are Shiite." [2]
-- ManiF 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"whether Iranian or Turkic speaking, have one culture, one religion This Iranologist how can't see that Iranians are Shiites and Central Asians are Sunnis. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :)Yes, I see now how Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan practise this great culture of Iranians hahahaa... Zaparojdik 23:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope everyone now sees Zaparodjik for who he is. Lets see the comments he has made here:
Oh really Zaparodjik? Whats your source for this? The city was founded thousands of years before Turks even started moving into central Central Asia. The Greeks knew the city as Markanda. I'm waiting to see the source for your claim.
A bit confused arent we Zaparodjik. At the time, the heroes that Uzbekistan today claims as its own and as Turkic, spoke Arabic not Persian. They were infact Iranians who wrote in Arabic during the Arabic occupation of Iran.
Who? Please do tell. Also, I can show you how much Iranian culture was part of the Ottoman Empire, if you want to go that route.
Um.... The religion is called Islam... Khosrow II 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
To all: I'm not denying that these countries have a culture similar to Iranian culture (as I've said in the edit summaries). I never said "Azerbaijan has no Iranian culture". Please note, however, that this is a disambiguation page. These types of pages are used, for example, when I want to learn about İsmet İnönü, but I forgot how to spell his first name. I therefore type in " Inonu", and this leads me to three options: the town of İnönü, İsmet İnönü, and his son, Erdal İnönü. If I am looking for Azerbaijan I probably wouldn't type in "Turko-Iranian", which is why it seems out-of-place for a disambig. page. Perhaps this could be turned into a real article? However, as it stands, it seems confusing. — Khoi khoi 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Among all modern Turkic-speaking nations, Uzbekistan is the closest to Persian culture and society (not Azerbaijan, as some here may believe). The Uzbek language, a direct descendant of the Chagatay language, is among all Turkic language the closest to Persian, and it is the one that has been influenced most (Uzbek has lost the typical Turkic vocal harmony, it has partly adopted Persian grammar, and more than 50% of the language's vocabulary is made of Perso-Arabic words). The Uzbek people are of mixed origin - Turkic and Iranian, as well as Mongolian and Slavic - just like the Tajiks. It just happens that they speak a Turkic language, while the Tajiks speak Persian. Throughout the past 500 years, Uzbeks have adopted the original Iranian culture of Central-Asia, to an extant that nowadays, many Uzbeks are known as Sart, a term that was originally only applied to Persians. Uzbeks have also adopted many typical Iranian cutoms, such as Nowruz or the use of espand. The "Uzbek dress" is the typical Central-Asian dress of the Sogdian era. Many Uzbek scholars, writers, and even the normal population use Persian and Uzbek in their works or every-day speech. Uzbek musicians, such as Yulduz Usmanova, sing in Persian and Uzbek (see here: [5]).
The term "Uzbek" (as well as "Tajik) was more or less forced on the Uzbek (and Tajik) peoples of Central-Asia by the Russians who "in 24 hours" created new ethnic groups and borders in Central Asia. Before that, the people were distinguished by their ways of life, rather than by language or origin (since almost everyone in Central Asia is of mixed origin and is naturally bi-lingual). The city dweelers and traders were universally known as "Sart", while the nomads were universally known as "Turk". When the Russians conquered Central Asia, the eliminated the terms "Turk" and "Persian" (because they feared Pan-Turkic and Pan-Iranian revolts), and they devided the population by language ("devide and conquer!"): they created two different ethnic groups that were previously one: Uzbeks and Tajiks.
Tājik 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
nomads were not known as turks you idiot they were known as kipchaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.144.66 ( talk) 06:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Iranian, tajik, and afghan chauvinists like Khosrow are so full of it. They feel threatened by Turkic unity and therefore try and compromise Uzbek, Azeri and other Turkic cultures by claiming they have iranian origins. It's plain ridiculous. Fact is, Turkic people have dominated Central Asia and Iran since the 4th century and Atilla the Hun. The huns were indeed the first turkic empire, and they were a confederation of both indo-european people and other tribes mixed together speaking a Turkic language. To call Turks barbarians and Mongols is a typical Tajik thing to do in the post soviet era. This is attributed to propaganda spreading out of Iran which happens to be sandwiched and pressured between Turkic countries. Fact is, you may make false iranic propaganda claims here in wikipedia, but you are not fooling anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.144.66 ( talk) 06:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the order Turko-Iranian should refer to its better to be first 'countries' and then the various 'minorities'. as for Nowruz (which i saw in the last edit summary by Zaparojdik), i am not an expert, but what i see from the respective article is that it is an ancient persian holiday, link to Zoroastrianism, so, i can't see any dispute of it having to do anything with the Turkic peoples... Hectorian 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with some the least academic experience would know that Iranian doesn't mean Persian.. Azeris are not Iranian people that speak Turkish.. They might be Persian, but they are definitely NOT Iranian.. It is like claiming that ancient Romans are all Italians!!! French and Spanish are all originally (more or less) Roman, but they are NOT Italian.. I mean, is this not clear for some people or what????? Iranian and Persian, Italian and Roman define specific things, they are not the same, in fact, they are not even similar.. Iranians are shias whereas Turks are Sunni, so much for same culture, same religion.. A note to pan-Iranian POV pushers: stop pretending that Iran is Persia and that all the peoples who lived next to/under the Persians are Iranian. I mean, where do some people get these ideas that Turkic peoples of Central Asia are Iranian??? I mean, have u ever been to Central Asia?? They don't look at all like Iranians, maybe in the past they could be considered Persian for other reasons, but it is exactly these same reasons that make that THEY ARE NOT IRANIANS TODAY.. Again, Iran is not Persia, never was and never will be, stop living in this dream world... Baristarim 03:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right: Iranian is not Persian - but here, you yourself are confusing some things. You say Persian, while you mean Iranian. And while you say Iranian, you do not mean Iranian, you mean Iran, which is wrong (just click on the Wiki-links to see what I mean). Azeris are Iranian by culture and - possibly - origin, but not by language. The same goes to Uzbeks, and even - partly - to Anatolian Turks. What is for sure is that they are not Persian, because the Persian people are a specific ethnic group. Your comments about religion are baseless. Azeris are Shia Muslims, just like Persians, while Anatolian Turks are Sunnis, just like Kurds and most Arabs. Belief has not much to do with ethnic groups. And your comparison about the looks of certain people in Central Asia is not correct either. In fact, MOST Turkic peoples have Mongolian looks (as did their forefathers, the Göktürks), while modern Oghuz-speaking Turks (the majority by number) have Caucasian (Mediterranian) looks. So, why then do you consider yourself and most citizens of Turkey "Turks"?! Noone in Turkey looks Mongolian/East Asian, noone in Turkey lives the original Turkic culture and habits; in fact, genetical studies have shown that the number of people in Turkey who have some "East Asian" genetic markers is less than 5% (see Turkish people and Azerbaijani people). This thread is not about genetic markers or looks, it's about a certain culture. And - wether you like it or not - the entire so-called "Islamic culture" is built on ancient Persian culture, and ALL invading nomads - Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and others - have sooner or later adopted this culture. The same way European nomads - most of all the Germanic people - have adopted the ancient Greek and Roman cultures of Europe. Just compare modern Turcophone people of West Asia with the Turkic peoples of Siberia. Except for distant language similarities, there is notihng else. "Turco-Iranian" or "Turco-Persian" (since Persians had the biggest influence on Turkic peoples) are terms given to hybrid culture in which the Persian element is dominating, It's not like "Perso-Arabic" where two - seemingly - equal elements mixed (while in the fields of language and literature Arabic is dominating, architecture, art and science were without doubt Persian). "Turco-Persian" stands for a society in which a nomadic society adopted the - seemingly - superior culture of the urban civilization. The Turks may have kept their languages (despite the fact that the are extremly influenced by Persian and - through Persian - by Arabic), but they have TOTALLY lost their original culture. The more they moved to the West and South, the more they became "Iranian". That's why NONE of the Turco-Persian rulers of the past is considered a "foreigner" by the native Iranian population: from Ghaznavids up to the Qajars, they are all considered "native Iranians", because these dynasties represented Persian language, culture, and way of life. "Turco-Iranian" in no means insults the Turkic heritage. Most of the "Turco-Iranian" dynasties were in fact of Turkic or Mongolian origin: Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Ilkhans, possibly Khwarizmids, partly the Safavids, the Qajars, the Afshars, and even the Pahlavis. But these dynasties NEVER tried to replace the existing and ruling Persian culture by pagan, nomadic Turkic culture. In fact, among all invaders in Persia, the Turco-Mongols were the ones who showed much respect for the Persians and for the Persian culture and identity. Unlike the Arabs who - first - tried to eliminate Iranian culture and heritage, the Turks and Mongols openly devoted themselvs to this culture. Persians owe Turks and Turkic people a lot, because they - the Turks - were the ones who promoted Persian identity and culture, as well as the Persian language. Turks and Mongols were the ones who replaced Arabic with Persian, and who brought this culture to Anatolia, Western-Europe, Africa, and India. This symbiosis of Tōrk & Tādjīk is the actualy meaning of "Turco-Iranian", not Persian nationalism, and not what Turkic nationalists interpret into it. Tājik 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
“ | ... The transmission of Persian culture to Anatolia begun with the foundation of the Saljuq state in the 12th century and gained speed after the Mongol invasion of Persia in the 13th century. Many Persian scholars, writers, and poets fled to the empire of the Saljuqs of Rum, following the Mongol onslaught on the Iranian lands. These highly educated men played an important role in the revival of Persian culture and literature, which had begun already at the beginning of the 13th century. Subsequently, many works in Persian, dealing with history, literature, philosophy and Sufism, were produced in Anatolia in the 13th and 14th centuries. As a result, Persian became the language of instruction at several madrasas, and Persian words were often used for place-names, personal names, and occupational activities, as well as in certain religious, legal, and official records. As a result of those developments, in the 13th century, Anatolia was thus intensively influenced by Persian culture. Intellectual life developed very effectively in the cities, where scholars copied or created religious works. [...] Scholars of Persian origin who had emigrated to Anatolia continued their activities in the cities of their new home (Aya Sofya, no. 3605), and many of them stayed in contact with their native lands. Students of the scholars active in Anatolia generally consisted of youngsters from princely families and palace officials [...] During the period of the Anatolian beyliks, following the COLLAPSE of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance, and consequently the influence of Persian culture and language weakened in Anatolia to a certain degree. ... | ” |
“ | ... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ... | ” |
As for this claim that is floating around kinda like some sort of Domocles' sword about who spoke Turkish where and when in Anatolia: That argument is not being able to consider things in context and give them appropriate meanings, until last century many people in France didn't speak French, they spoke Norman, Breton, Provençal etc.. They speak French today because of a process called nation-state, there can be many claims as to how this happened in Turkey and late Ottoman Empire, but to say that they are not Turkish (in the modern sense) just because they were not Turkic (ethnically from Central Asia) is also adding new meanings and twisting the old ones of certain political and ideological movements that happened in Europe after the French Rev. The same processes also happenned in Italy, until the last century, there were approx 20 languages spoken in Italy and today they have all been wiped by the same process.. Read some political sciences and political history before you gang up on Turkey as if it were the big daddy of nationalism in Europe.. Such nationalism was common in Europe at the time in every single country, please put things in context and avoid anachronisms.. Ataturk's extreme reforms?? loooool. I lived in Saudi Arabia for years and seen all the Middle East, I am used to this Ataturk-bashing.. Well, compared to Iran, I would say that Turkey is in a better situation at the moment... At least Turkey doesn't chop people's hands for stealing or sells heroin to make balance its economy.. You catch my drift??
Well you want a source?? This is not Encyclopaedia Iranica but Encyclopaedia Brittanica, a bit better, u know, just a bit :)) :
I was asked to check into this via e-mail and therefore I am going to be keeping an eye in these articles for a moment, pan-iranist has to stop. Period.. Baristarim 12:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
AS FOR PERSIAN AND IRANIAN, you didn't need to explain me the difference, I already knew, and more then you did I am afraid, you are not talking to a fifth-grader here.. In English, and in MANY languages, as well as in political sciences and history, Iran and Iranian refers to the nation-state after the Shah in the 50s (when he decided to impose the name Iran to the world), that is the turning point, everything before that is considered Persia and Persian (NOT persian empire btw, that is the empire that was ended by Alex the Great).. Iran or Iranians cannot impose on the English language, Iran refers to a recent period of greater Persian culture, before Iran is Persia proper.. (anology: Constantinople is the city before its renaming in the 20s, after that is Istanbul, even though the name Istanbul was used on and off for centuries by Ottomans to refer to the city) So please don't lecture others on what it means to be Greater Iranian, Smaller Iranian, Greater Persian, Smaller Persian or whatever.. That is historical revisionism, there is no such thing as Greater Iran, and there will never be, there was Greater Persia and Greater Persian culture, but Iran refers to the state after the 50s Baristarim 12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Your basic argument is that they became so civilized and mannered that they can no longer be considered Turkish, well that's a bit fascist thing to say: r u trying to say that when Turks became civilized they lost their Turkishness coz being civilized was against the nature of being a Turk?? Cultures change and people can improve, they can stay still who they are.. Baristarim 12:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
“ | ... Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship ... | ” |
Khosrow II 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Turko-Iranian (disambiguation) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 8#Turko-Iranian (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
16:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)