Did Persia have a significant influence on Turkish Culture?

**awalanche** · August 07, 2009, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible

I'm aware that Seljuks were highly Persianised.

(As a sidenote, they didn't adopt enough of Persian statecraft, imho. They didn't centralise and consolidate their huge empire. You can see they treated it very much like a family domain, a loose federation, which I think reflects a nomadic, tribal mentality - not really in the autocratic Persian tradition (even with people like Malik Shah and Nizam al-Mulk in charge). Of course it wasn't all their fault, they inherited things like the iqta from the Buyids, but still they only made the decentralisation worse.)

Back to Anatolia: of course the region had seen better days in the 11th century. But I would be surprised if the Turks, however Persianised, would have known how to exploit the farmland as well as Byzantines, who relied on the region so much.

Further, I don't think the Turks at that stage realised just how much they hurt Byzantium by taking most of Asia Minor. Or else they would have pushed on even further. This suggests they didn't really have a coherent policy about the region, besides letting the locals keep farming in peace.

But I am curious about which historians you're referring to. Could suggest some names or books to look up? Thanks.

You are right about nomadic mentality of Seljuks but as you already know this kind of change took a long time so we can not expect Seljuks to have a centralized structure. However Ottoman achieved such a structure also with Byzantine influence and had many advantages of central system. You could see this by observing Ottoman era of Interregnum between 1402-1413
You are also right about aglicultural issue. Rum Seljuks did not care about agliculture because they had not enough experience. However they saw that with trade infrastructure and supporting infrastructure of agliculture, farmlands wouldnt be efficient. So Rum Seljuks gave importance to trade and other infrastructure issues. Still they were capable wariors and some tribes continued their tribal lifestyle and deployed to lands near borders and Ottomans were one of them. Turks first policy in Anatolia was to settle nomadic Turkic tribes to Anatolia and kept the safety of borders. Then comes increase trade capacity and safety of trade routes. Plus they knew how they hurt Byzantine because once they captured rich and developed Byzantine cities and after the battle of Manzikert

Halil İnalcık and İlber Ortaylı are famous Turkish historians which have achieved a world wide reputation
At first glance do not consider them immediately as Turkish historians they are unbiased and they have theories about Turkish history which even suprised us. I'll try to find their books in English about this isssue.

**awalanche** · August 07, 2009, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by Chinggis Khan

well in one book I read about the Seljuks of Rum, there were numerous cases of marriages between Greeks in Anatolia and Turkic princes (I can't blame them tbh

)

Me either. And of course with Russians during Ottoman time

**ivan_the_terrible** · August 07, 2009, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by awalanche

You are right about nomadic mentality of Seljuks but as you already know this kind of change took a long time so we can not expect Seljuks to have a centralized structure. However Ottoman achieved such a structure also with Byzantine influence and had many advantages of central system. You could see this by observing Ottoman era of Interregnum between 1402-1413
You are also right about aglicultural issue. Rum Seljuks did not care about agliculture because they had not enough experience. However they saw that with trade infrastructure and supporting infrastructure of agliculture, farmlands wouldnt be efficient. So Rum Seljuks gave importance to trade and other infrastructure issues. Still they were capable wariors and some tribes continued their tribal lifestyle and deployed to lands near borders and Ottomans were one of them. Turks first policy in Anatolia was to settle nomadic Turkic tribes to Anatolia and kept the safety of borders. Then comes increase trade capacity and safety of trade routes. Plus they knew how they hurt Byzantine because once they captured rich and developed Byzantine cities and after the battle of Manzikert

I agree with everything.

I would just add, Turks were clearly the best warriors in the middle east from the 10th (maybe 9th) to 12th centuries. Hence they formed the core of the army in Abbasid times already.

Halil İnalcık and İlber Ortaylı are famous Turkish historians which have achieved a world wide reputation
At first glance do not consider them immediately as Turkish historians they are unbiased and they have theories about Turkish history which even suprised us. I'll try to find their books in English about this isssue.

Thanks, Ill look up english translations of them, as the subject is very interesting to me!

**Babur** · August 07, 2009, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by awalanche

Me either. And of course with Russians during Ottoman time

you mean Natashas?

**awalanche** · August 07, 2009, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Chinggis Khan

you mean Natashas?

No I am talking about for instance Roxanne Hürrem Sultan (Ukrainian though). Natasha are totally a different issue

**Big Pacha** · August 10, 2009, 07:04 AM

All things considered, Turkic people(s) & their minorities (including half of my ancestors) may soon have a good dose of Asian "Original Turkic" genes back, due to the future flood of Central Asian + Eastern Turkoman refugees.

SUPPORT THE PERSECUTED UIGHUR PEOPLE & CULTURE

LINK: BBC Video Reporting

Originally Posted by awalanche

No I am talking about for instance Roxanne Hürrem Sultan (Ukrainian though). Natasha are totally a different issue

Indeed... The most powerful & famous woman of the Ottoman Era was an Ukrainian slave girl whose beauty, exceptional intelligence and high ambitions led her to Suleiman's heart & trust, made her First Spouse (i.e. Sultan's wife=queen) and then led Ottoman politics, sometimes with violence & scheming.
See the German documentary "Roxalana, from the Harem to the Throne"

Her personality is quite ambiguous (manipulative & deadly) but in the West she was seen as a great empress, favoring arts, science & culture.
See Voltaire's Zadig and of course The Persian Letters.

**ivan_the_terrible** · August 10, 2009, 08:01 AM

In my opinion the Sultan had no shortage of beautiful women available to him, so it was probably her strong character that attracted him (and made him favour her).

A little bit like Cleopatra in that sense.

**Big Pacha** · August 10, 2009, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible

In my opinion the Sultan had no shortage of beautiful women available to him, so it was probably her strong character that attracted him (and made him favour her).

A little bit like Cleopatra in that sense.

Good comparison indeed: political genius, extremely ambitious, prone to murder & "morally adaptative".

Suleiman was really in love with her and as a First Spouse she ruled the Harem, who then became the informal center of power. Of course the Sultan could have sex with any of the harem girls but in these times that was not a problem between them. Muslims were then way more sexually liberated than Western fanatical christians...

That's OT but cool. Should we open a new thread?

**ivan_the_terrible** · August 10, 2009, 06:03 PM

I think Suleiman already had a son by his Serbian wife, (I think she was Serbian.....not that sure), so it's even more remarkable that Roxanna was able to oust her from her privelleged position.

**Big Pacha** · August 11, 2009, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible

I think Suleiman already had a son by his Serbian wife, (I think she was Serbian.....not that sure), so it's even more remarkable that Roxanna was able to oust her from her privelleged position.

Yes that's right, his 1st son was Suleiman's favored son & heir but Roxalana (or Roxana or Hürren) convinced him that he was plotting with the Persian arch-enemies to overthrow him, so Suleiman had him executed. Though times.

That reminds me of Cleopatra who had her nephew kid executed by Caesar's henchmen to seize the throne of Egypt. Dirty too.

**Lord de Lyonesse** · August 11, 2009, 06:45 AM

This thread seems really silly, almost any cilivlization, nation or kingdom that established contact or lived as neighbours or even lived on the same spot as people did 1000 years ago influence society somehow.

For example the romans influenced Britain and pretty much most of Europe even today with Latin and roman numerals still being used. And of course arguably the most influential of them all English has influenced the world so much that most western countries use English as it is so influential.

**Big Pacha** · August 11, 2009, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Emperor Richard

This thread seems really silly, almost any cilivlization, nation or kingdom that established contact or lived as neighbours or even lived on the same spot as people did 1000 years ago influence society somehow.

For example the romans influenced Britain and pretty much most of Europe even today with Latin and roman numerals still being used. And of course arguably the most influential of them all English has influenced the world so much that most western countries use English as it is so influential.

??? Who are you exactly to judge us like that, sir?

Maybe you got lost here or didn't read us. We were curently discussing about Roxalana as an example of mixed cultures in the Ottoman empire. We're well aware of the cultural permeability of all Civs.

Also, please stop spreading that jingoist BS around. It has nothing to do in this thread. Nobody is "superior" to anybody, It's just a matter of context & time.

**Lord de Lyonesse** · August 11, 2009, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Big Pacha

??? Who are you exactly to judge us like that, sir?

.

I am not judging you at all, I am just explaining what i think based around the title, I am glad you are all well aware of cultural permability, but the title 'Did Persia have a significant influence on Turkish culture' seems not to.

Originally Posted by Big Pacha

Maybe you got lost here or didn't read us. We were curently discussing about Roxalana as an example of mixed cultures in the Ottoman empire. We're well aware of the cultural permeability of all Civs.

Also, please stop spreading that jingoist BS around. It has nothing to do in this thread. Nobody is "superior" to anybody, It's just a matter of context & time.

When did i meantion anything about one side being 'superior' to the other.. note the 'arguably the most influential' please rethink your argument as it is lacking criticism to what i have said.

Originally Posted by Big Pacha

Maybe you got lost here or didn't read us.

I replied based on the title..

Originally Posted by Big Pacha

Also, please stop spreading that jingoist BS around.

Its not jingoistic at all, its just opinions which im stating.. I dont expect you to accept and adhere to what I say.. I just want to express myself.. is that so bad?

Originally Posted by Slurricane

Do you think that Persia had a significant influence on Turkish culture? Feel free to discuss.

I feel free to discuss..

**Big Pacha** · August 11, 2009, 07:51 AM

Not bad at all but then please allow me to disagree as I find that quite ethnocentric IMO and totally OT here.

I still don't see what's (I quote) silly about admitting that all Civs are permeable, as this is also your point.
This is why I stated that you might have not gotten us.

The thread title is a question not a statement and like you we all said how much It was obvious.

This is to clarify my previous post, nothing personal, my point was: please don't be so judgmental (the "silly") as we all basically agree here.

EDIT: now if you have anything to add about Persian or Turkish cultural influences please be my guest and go on

**Lord de Lyonesse** · August 11, 2009, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Big Pacha

Not bad at all but then please allow me to disagree as I find that quite ethnocentric IMO and totally OT here.

I still don't see what's (I quote) silly about admitting that all Civs are permeable, as this is also your point.
This is why I stated that you might have not gotten us.

The thread title is a question not a statement and like you we all said how much It was obvious.

This is to clarify my previous post, nothing personal, my point was: please don't be so judgmental (the "silly") as we all basically agree here.

Dude, im sorry you reacted the way you did. Maybe I shouldnt of used the word 'stupid' in the context i did, but looking at the question it just seemed obvious to anyone of any competence in history would be inclined to say yes. I am sorry that my words struck a chord with you they didnt mean to.

**Big Pacha** · August 11, 2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Emperor Richard

Dude, im sorry you reacted the way you did. Maybe I shouldnt of used the word 'stupid' in the context i did, but looking at the question it just seemed obvious to anyone of any competence in history would be inclined to say yes. I am sorry that my words struck a chord with you they didnt mean to.

No offense taken at all pal! Just making a point as I didn't understand yours at first.

**awalanche** · August 13, 2009, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Big Pacha

Good comparison indeed: political genius, extremely ambitious, prone to murder & "morally adaptative".

Suleiman was really in love with her and as a First Spouse she ruled the Harem, who then became the informal center of power. Of course the Sultan could have sex with any of the harem girls but in these times that was not a problem between them. Muslims were then way more sexually liberated than Western fanatical christians...

That's OT but cool. Should we open a new thread?

Good post. Actually we should have another thread about Ottoman harem and its hierarchy. I believe harem is just like survival of fittest. Character plus beauty plus ambition were keys for becoming the Sultan's popular women. Another interesting thing is that harem is the only place where Sultan's power was limited by his mother. The goal of harem was to find the best genetics of women composed of health, beauty and character so that heirs of Sultan would be clever and has a strong character. Note that during that period healthiest royal family was Ottoman which also increase possibility of continuation of royal family