Origins of the Ghurids

[wudang_clown]

KUR is a Polish word for rooster, actually.

It has several other meanings: a cocky man; a belligerent man.

Now, Ghor (with long "o") is a derivate of Polish "góry" ("ó" is a remnant of old Polish long "o"), which means "mountains". Nothing less, nothing more.

This is actually best possible explanation of the term Ghor, because Poles and Pashtuns not only share haplogroup R1a1a, and that means we share ancestry which dates long before any Turk even dared to think about jumping on any horse and travel on its back, but also certain other features, like belligerence (just please come to Poland, and walking down the street you will meet a dozen of different braves, small and big, wanting to duel with you bare nuckles for whatever reason) and both nations love to be independent.

Obviously, there is also structural similarity between Polish language and Pashto. Obviously, both are Indo-European, which is attested best in clearly Polish origin of the word "Ghur"/góry/mountains. Ergo, Ghur is Urheimat of Polish people. There is a saying in Polish: "Pole and Hungarian cousins be":

Pole and Hungarian cousins be,
good for fight and good for party.
Both are valiant, both are lively,
Upon them may God's blessings be.

This text dates to late XVIII c., but clearly this has to be bollocks made up by Panturkists. If its author had any brains, it should go:

Pole and Pashtun brothers be,
good for fight and good for party.
Both are valiant, both are lively,
Upon them may God's blessings be.

Seriously, given the proof I've just presented, how could anyone claim that Ghur region is not Polish and that our Pogórze is not Pashto??? In fact, Poles and Pashtuns should claim back what's theirs (that is most of Central Asia).

Wait a minute... Am I spamming the forum?

[King of the Ring]

Taking into account the religious writings,the first man was Adam and the first woman was Eve and they spoke the primordial language

If their origin was divine they were the first 2 humans and not 2 mutated monkeys;they had sons which had sons on their own and so on..
Supposing that they lived at first in a single community after they were exiled from paradise they spoke the same language.They argued over different issues and the community splitted into 2 parts.The exiled part developed its own language and habits.Then we repeat the process again and again.So there are many connections between distant languages which can lead to ancestry connections and mistaked.

Coming back to the Ghorids, they were probably native persians mixed with settled turks and arabs from the current Oman region, advancing their own characteristics(just as other countries).

We will know for sure if we travel back in time(where are you Einstein?) and live in that era.

[Farwest]

This is actually best possible explanation of the term Ghor, because Poles and Pashtuns not only share haplogroup R1a1a, and that means we share ancestry which dates long before any Turk even dared to think about jumping on any horse and travel on its back

I have evidence for my every assertion, do you have yours? I am asking, like about what you share on your common ancestry? There can be common things, I don't care. We are all humans and we all derived from same family of Adam and Eve. Some branches migrated, some families settled. Those migrated ones took the language with them and spread it. They settled in new lands, they married with locals.

Ghor (with long "o") is a derivate of Polish "góry" ("ó" is a remnant of old Polish long "o"), which means "mountains". Nothing less, nothing more.

I can gladly agree. There can be this word relation. If we research on common words between Turkish and Polish, i think we can find something interesting. Because it is now Scientific fact that Turkish or Turkic petroglyphs and stone letters are more ancient than anybody else. Around 16.000 BC in Şöl-gen-Taş Cavern in Bashkurdistan, Russia (Central Asia).. In Anatolia, around 8000 BC. All with distinctive Turkic symbols which are still widely used in Turkic carpets, which we can say they are still living.

Am I spamming the forum?

Thank you for your irony, but I am just answering a forum which includes my messages. Otherwise, I don't love to be here.

So basically only thing you have to support your claim is a stupid comparison between words ?

It is not for stupid people to be an etymologist or being a researcher on that. So I don't care what you say.

This forum is largely for children so it is normal and I am not looking to be understood everytime. Just writing for who has reason to discuss something seriously, experience a good debate, and learning from each other something new.

[Silesian_Noble]

So basically only thing you have to support your claim is a stupid comparison between words ?

Exactly. Language comparison is often used as an additional clue that supports other evidences (like achaeological or written) but none of respected historians would make it a base for a serious historical statement (especially when written reliable sources claim something opposite - like in Ghurids case). And here we hit the essence - Farwest is not a historian at all. A fantast rather I would say

[Tureuki]

Its stupid because you have nothing else, that kind of argument can be only a small side hint(Although its not even true), not a base to claim something huge as that.

Btw since there are many Poles, I always wondered why we call Poles Leh and Polish language Lehçe(Country called Lehistan as well in the past) I couldn't find any logical etymologic explanation.

[wudang_clown]

I haven't got a decent insight into newest Polish historiography, but I have had an impression while reading some stuff that there is some discussion going on among scholars about so-far-accepted Polish ethnonym "Polacy". It is traditionally derived from medieval "Polish" or rather Western Slavic tribe, Polanie, which allegedly played prominent role in formation of early "Polish" state.

The thing is, some prominent Polish scholars recognise the ethnonym as a construct of certain political need. For example, names "Polonia" and "Polanie" appear rather late in medieval historiography, which directs some to conclusion that it is Latinised "Polonia" that in fact later gave birth to mythical tribe of "Polanie", and not other way around. It is assumed that the name "Polonia" was accepted by Bolesław Chrobry to differentiate his dominion from other Slavic "states" in the region. That could be because Western Europeans didn't recognise whole complexity of Western Slavic political scene, which was divided into many different "states". In Western historiography Western Slavonia was just that - the land of the Slavs. Chrobry probably didn't want to be just another Slavic dux on geopolitical scene, he had his aspiration and he wanted to be recognised as Dux Poloniae/Polonorum... "Poloni" was just a general name for all his subjects, no matter their local tribal affiliation.

As for "Lachy"/"Lechici"/"Lechitae", these are usually derived from actual tribe of Lędzianie/Lędzice ("Lendzanenoi" of Constantine Porfirogennetos, "Lendizi" of the Bavarian Geographer). The tribe's immediate neighbours firstly used its name to describe Lędzianie only, and later the name was transferred to describe whole population under rule of "Polish" Piast princes. Thus Lithuanian "Lenkas", Ruthenian "Liachy" and Hungarian "Lengyel". Turkish and Tatar "Lechistan" was borrowed from Russians, and that's why now Turks call us Leh and Poland is Lehçe in Turkish.

[hameem123]

This discussion started in another thread, so I've moved it to a new to avoid off-topic posting - wudang.

Persians were like Ottomans, which was a multi-national empire. There were lots of things in the antique Persian culture, which were embedded from ancient Turkic culture (like some inscriptions, symbols, weapon technology, horse tactics and so on).
It can be said, that is because of Turkish horsemen's presence in the Sasanid, Parthian, Persian armies as mercenary cavalries, according to the Roman/Latin sources.

Nevertheless, Turkish armies, especially their cavalry had been in the service of these Persian Empires, in addition, we also see them as Vardariotai and Skythikon or "some local mercenaries" in the Byzantine Empire army roster (also in the MTW). These and lots of other Turkic tribes spread throughout the Eastern Anatolia and Persia, in the period of Persian Empire. These tribes gave their protection money to the local or central rulers, and in return they could travel the whole Empire lands freely with their flock and valuables, with their gained rights by protection money or by military service.

For Ghurids, yes, they were Turkic origined country. Apart from their leadership class (mostly Turkish), their armies usually formed with Turkish infantry and cavalry, but the army were largely supported with locals.

well a lot of Persian culture,tradition and language until now can be seen as borrowed by the Persians from the Arab.

[Silesian_Noble]

well a lot of Persian culture,tradition and language until now can be seen as borrowed by the Persians from the Arab.

Well I read that in middle ages Arabs borrowed more from Persians as the latter, though conquered, had more advanced civilisation.

[Ansar Warrior]

Well I read that in middle ages Arabs borrowed more from Persians as the latter, though conquered, had more advanced civilisation.

You would be right in a sense they both are neighbours and so obviously it's a bit of both with regards to sharing culture however I do agree that the Abbasid Caliphate and onwards borrowed heavily from rich Persian history, this was not so much before though during the Ummayads who were more traditional arabic as rulers.

At the core though (and being half Arabic) I don't see any similarities at all between the two, grass roots level the Arab bedouin tribal way of life which is the basis of how that society operates has no relevance with the Persian urban lifestyle and centralised power structure that has always ruled the region.

[deus_eggs]

Wow this is still going! Haha, glad to the see Mahmud Ghaznavi sporting Khushal Khan Khattak's picture, big pashtun folk hero. Anyhoot, as to what Silesian_Noble said nearly all of the countries immediately surrounding Iran have absorbed Persian culture (in varying degrees) due to their imperial history in the region.