well the Ghaznavids were turks as well as Samanids b4 them but the Ghorids r not. the Ghorids (house of AL-Hussain started rebellion ) r were one of the major and leading families of the Ghor people (Afghanistan now) and their people were the original people of the land. and they seems to had independent rule under the Ghaznavids and in the war between Sultan Behram and his brother Arslan they joined Arslan's side but he was defeated and the Sultan killed the ghorid's leader and that what started their rebellion.
Last edited by nnnm; April 06, 2012 at 07:59 AM.
- Samanid dynasty was Persian
- the majority population of Samanid Empire was Persian
- the majority of Samanid army was Persian (all infantry plus some cavalry - Dekhans)
- the language spoken on Samanid court was Persan (Farsi? don't really remember)
- all the administration structure was Persian
- all the culture was Persian
Ghaznavid dynasty started from Turkic slave so we may considered Ghaznavid state in some way as Turkic though they majority of Ghaznavid population was non-Turkic and the Ghaznavid culture/administration was rather Persian (Ghaznavids built their empire by grabbing Samanids land and conquering the Hindu state of Kabul Shahi).
So what is Persian?
Nearly all corners of ancient Persia were settled by Turkic tribes. And they are largely speaking Persian. Still they are speaking Persian in today's Iran; additionally, half of Iran is defining themselves from some Turkic tribes, like Afshar, Kirgiz, Ozbek, and some other Oghuz tribes. Ask them, what is their etnicity, and you will have your answer as Turkic. But you will get your answer speaking with Persian.
Meanwhile, nearly all of the Turkic kingdoms adopted the other languages as their palace language. Persian, Chinese, Arabic, Russian, Indian and so on... Ottomans too adopted, other than Turkic language. So after 100 years, some can start to say, "Ottoman was not Turkic!"
This is like this.
There were some kingdoms and countries which were founded in Iranian and Iraq lands and they are called today, Persian. There were some kingdoms, which were founded in China, and today they are called Chinese, but we can clearly trace their lineage to the Oghuz Khan of the Hunnic Turks. But they were speaking Chinese, accustomed to having Chinese names and so on... This example is similar for the other places we can include.
So what makes a country Turkic, (if we have a contradiction about that), according to my researches, in my perspective:
-Their military elite. Turkic countries always ruled with strong military which was always origined from Turkic (except Khazars, who embraced using mercenaries largely in their military campaings)
-Their state symbols, standards, and banners. Like symbol of wolf, eagle, two-headed eagle, peacock, arrow with bow; or some other Turkic runes.
-Records in neighbour countries, about their rulers, ethnic, and their family relationships
-Dynasty, especially if we can trace their lineage back to some roots
For Samanids, I can not say Turkic about them clearly by their dynasty; but there is a distinctive evident that Saman is a Turkic word. Because of this word, their origin is usually confused by investigators. The word could be really Turkic or it could be just a homonymous word which also can have another meaning. But nevertheless, I don't know very much about Samanids, so I would not include any additional words about Samanids.
^ Dude I don't know where you get half of this from my friend.
I have a lot of relatives and friends who are Persian and they are proper Iranians not Turkic in fact I don't know any one who is Persian/Turkic or have ever heard of that?
Persians have a very distinct culture, race and country and it has no Turkic traits, peoples use Persian traits not the other way around as they have a much richer history in the east.
Samanids also were a Persian dynasty, as I said with the Ghurids it does not matter if there were many Turks in the army as there was many races and tribes which made up Islamic kingdoms however a dynasty is measured on where the royal family originate and the aristocracy of the Samanids was Persian.
You have to be realistic when trying to identify a ruling class, the Abbasids are called that because that is the family name of the dynasty hence it is Arabic same way as the Samanids.
That's like saying the Ottomans were Slavic and not Turks just because the Jannisaries were balkan and slavic.
I think you should a little investigate about demographic structure of today's Iran. Then you will see, nearly half of today's Iran have Turkic origins, like Azer, Qaskay, Turkmen, Kirgiz people. I don't include families and people who blended with local ethnics.
Seljuks, Safavids, Kharezmshahs were all Turkic kingdoms and they exchanged much with local Persian cultures. And saying, "it has no Turkic traits" should be a distinctive mistake, because Ottomans was influenced very much by Persian culture and literature. Nearly all the work of arts were written with Persian in Ottomans and Seljuks. So it is very difficult to distinguish Turkish and Persian people from outside. What I am trying to say is this.
I am saying this again. What is Persian?
In the encyclopedias, it is commonly said, "whoever live in Iran area is considered Persian". But true Persians, who founded the ancient empires in the history is a very minor society and some other local people also included in this identity. But the Luri, Mazandarani, Gilaki, Talyshi, Tajik are different peoples and aren't considered as Persian in Iran. But they speak Persian.
So, if we want to say about Samanids, they were Persian speaking Tajiks. Not Persian, but Tajik people.
But I am thinking, as you state for realism, why their name is a Turkish word, or it is similar for a Turkish family name - 'Saman'ids ? Saman is an agricultural term in Turkish language and largely meaning 'straw'.
And after Samanids, there are always Turkic states in Iran, and Iran is ruled by Turkic (except 1750-1794) until 1925.
Ghaznavids, Seljuks, Khwarezmshahs-Ilkhanate, Timur, Safavid, Afshar, Kachar and they are all influenced more or less with Persian language in both politics and literature.
What about cultural absorption?
A variety of invasions - and the imposition of new languages, foods, and customs that come with invaders - the people of the larger culture often simply adopt a little the customs of the invaders while the invaders by intermarriage and being a small minority adopt slowly the language, manners, and majority of customs of the conquered people. Manchus, Normans, Ottomans, Greeks, and many others. The biggest exceptions to this are the Abrahamic religions though for the larger part of their existence they were mostly a thin veneer over older traditions.
Turks were moving along the steppes since just after the Scythians and over 1,000 years settled everywhere from Hungary to Spain to Egypt to India to China... does that make everywhere they settled Turkic? Not really... I'd say that at first just having a ruling caste be Turkic doesn't make the entire people Turkic but over centuries there is a blend and then if a new Turkic dynasty arrives this blend moves the people closer to being Turkic over time, although some places the Turkic customs did not last very long at all while in other places huge numbers of the native population were killed or driven out in the invasions, Greeks, Huns, Mongols, Timurids, etc all did this type of invasions. However as we see in Persia... many of the 'newer' cultures adopted the language of the majority older culture- Persian. Doesn't mean they aren't originally of Turkish but if only a few of their customs remain Turkish while they speak Persian, eat Persian food, etc... what do you consider Turkish?
Last edited by Ichon; April 08, 2012 at 08:17 PM.
STAINLESS STEEL Historical Improvement Project (SSHIP) - v0.7 Beta released!
Norway 180 turn SS/BGR AAR- http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...71#post8479471
Lithuania SS/BGR AAR- http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=369607
1390 SS submod WIP
People assimilate and cultural exchanges occur ... the last real "Iranian" dynasty was probably the Safavids but after the Muslim conquest Turks seemed to have been the rulers and administrators of the land of Iran most of the time ...
But if you notice that east of Baghdad the Muslim dynasties seemed to be heavily influenced by Iranian culture rather than Arab culture ... even the Turkish rulers of Persia were "Persianized" ... the Ottoman Turks who controlled Arab lands and were Turks were more "Persianized" than "Arabized"
Turks have historically lived near Iran and have been in direct contact with the Persian people for centuries ... so its not a real surprise that they would adopt Persian culture ...
The Ghorids were an Afghan people that were fairly isolated in the center of Afghanistan, to answer the thread question
Ghorids were not Turkic but Iranian but they had many Turkic slaves -Ghulams/Mamluks- and destroyed by Turkic Slaves -Qutb-ud-din Aibak-
Samanids weren't Turkic but Iranian
Khwarezmians were Turkic
Seljuks were Turkic
Ghaznavids were Turkic
and please don't tell to any kurds there were an empire named Ghurids they will try to rewrite history again and claim they were kurds too
btw, afaik, ghurids werent call themselves as Ghur but Shansabaniyan
We are Thracians, We are Bithynians, We are Cappadocians, We are Scythians, We are Phrygians, We are Galatian Gauls, We are Lazs, We are Armenians, We are Persians, We are Hellenes! We are People of Pontos!
ok wait.... u lost me....soo.. wat are the origins of the Ghurids?
Source.GHURIDS (or Āl-e ansab), a medieval Islamic dynasty of the eastern Iranian lands. They began as local chiefs in Ḡūr (q.v.) in the heartland of what is now Afghanistan, but became a major power from the mid-12th century until the opening years of the 7th/13th century. Ḡūr was then the nucleus of a vast but transient military empire which at times stretched from Gorgān (q.v.) in the west to northern India in the east, only to be overwhelmed by the Ḵᵛārazmāhs (q.v.; see also CHORASMIA ii) and to disappear, as far as the eastern Iranian lands were concerned, on the eve of the Mongol cataclysm.
The Ghurids came from the ansabānī family. The name of the eponym ansab/anasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Winasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282). After the Ghurids had achieved fame as military conquerors, obsequious courtiers and genealogists connected the family with the legendary Iranian past by tracing it back to Żaḥḥāk, whose descendants were supposed to have settled in Ḡūr after Ferēdūn had overthrown Żaḥḥāks thousand-year tyranny. The ansab family was then brought into the framework of Islamic history by the story that its chiefs received Islam from the hands of Imam ʿAlī, subsequently aiding Abū Moslem Ḵorāsānīs uprising against the Omayyads and having its power legitimized by being invested with Ḡūr by the caliph Hārūn al-Raīd (Jūzjānī, Ṭabaqāt I, pp. 318-27, tr. Raverty, I, pp. 300-16, citing a versified genealogy of the Ghurids compiled for Sultan ʿAlāʾ-al-Dīn Ḥosayn Jahānsūz by Faḵr-al-Dīn Mobārakāh b. Ḥosayn Marvrūdī, q.v.). It goes without saying that we have no concrete evidence for any of this. The chiefs of Ḡūr only achieve firm historical mention in the early 5th/11th century with the Ghaznavid raids into their land, when Ḡūr was still a pagan enclave. Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the ansabānīs in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks.
Let's assume they were Turkics. How would it be possible that the Muslim Ghaznavids allowed some pagan Turks to dominate (as a ruling elite) a population of a region right in the Ghaznavid neighbourhood ("district of Mandē on the upper Harīrūd near modern Āhangarān")? Just a thought.
Under the patronage of m_1512
Ghazvanids rulers were Turk, but that is like saying the late Fatimid were Armenians (all their Emir from Badr Al-Jamali until Shawar's was Armenian Mamluk or their decendents) . There were considerable difference between them and the Seljuqs / Kwarezmids, which was that their Turks were individuals, not tribes.
As for Ghurids, they are mostly shrouded in mystery, hell we didn't even know about the Minarate of Jam until half a century ago.
What's the basis of that symbol BC is using for them though?
1180, an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in East Asia, it's technology and wealth is the envy of the world. But soon conflict will engulf the entire region with great consequences and lasting effects for centuries to come, not just for this region, but the entire known world, when one man, one people, unites.....
The Ghorids and the Ghaznavids were both of Turkish origin. However, after having lived amongst the Pashtun population of central Afghanistan for generations, it is believed that, like most of their brethren, they stopped being 'Turks' and became locals.
Other tribes from Central Asia that became Pashtunised include the Khiljis and perhaps even the Abdalis.
In fact, most of the Pashtun tribes became Muslim under the Ghaznavids. Mahmud of Ghazni used his Muslim Pashtun allies to fight against the non-Muslim Pashtun tribes until almost all the Pashtuns in that region submitted to Islam. It was then that he began his raids on Hindustan.
Last edited by Mahmud Ghaznavi; January 16, 2013 at 02:52 AM.
Send me a PM when Rome II is announced.
ugh not more pan-turk garbage, I bet op is from turkey
Today, being said Turkish is just means, Anatolian Turks. But there are lots of other branches of Turks in all over Asia and they are all named under the curtain of being Turkic/Turk-ic. Clearly, being Turkic or Turkish is the same thing, however being called "Turkish" formally means a citizen of Turkey. But that doesn't seperate other Turkish branches in Asia like Kirgiz, Kazakh, Ozbek, Tatar kind of Turks or Turkic people.
In every time of Turkic history, there were/are always different Turkic branches with different names. All these names have different Turkic Damgas (Runes) and Figures which are unique to the Turkic culture.
These are like: UR,TUR, GUR, OGUR, GUZ, OĞUZ, KOMAN, SU, İSKİT (Scytian), ETRÜSK (Etruscans), ETÜRÜK, SAKA (Scytian), SOKO, UYGUR, ONGUR and HUNGAR.
If you look closely on some of these branches' names, you would see the word GUR. If you would know Turkish languages, you would know all the words are all additive words, which every group of letter has different meanings and when become, they explain different things. See GUR and O-GUR. GUZ or O-ĞUZ. UY-GUR. ON-GUR. HUN-GAR/HUN-GUR.
In Turkish (Let's say with your way, in Turkic languages), GUR means Great, Majestic. GUR-HAN means Great Khan, Jamoka who was the rival of Temuchin took GUR-HAN title, when Temuchin took the title of GENGHIS.
GUR/KUR word alteration is also very convenient as Turkish words. KÜR (same with KUR) means big, large bodied. KER means steady, or strong.
If we put T to the end of GUR (All the Turkish words have additions like that, with making different words), it become GURT. Which is so Turkish (or Turkic, let's say with your way). GURT is the ancient symbol of ALL Turkich people. And there are lots of Turkic branches and tribes, who are named with the name of GURT. With local accents, sometimes some letters drop, but the meaning not changed.
So basically only thing you have to support your claim is a stupid comparison between words ?
Den kuken som kommer fra det iskalde vannet i havet
Talk about bumping a thread, this has been going for almost a year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)