Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 136

Thread: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

  1. #81
    Petar's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    306

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    This conversation is really starting to lose it's good tone... :-/
    If you sroll up and look to the left you will notice that the title is "Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic origin". Please keep it in mind!

    I'm glad to see that you all love history with a passion, but let us not forget that HISTORY is based on equity and unprejudiced research.

    I'd like to share a few thoughts which I hope everyone will agree with.


    Regarding the DNA analyses and blood-line theories:

    1. The population of the east part of Europe is very, very mixed (especially after the establishment of the Roman Empire)! Factors for this mixing are the tremendous migration waves, the constant wars, the plague waves, the religious and cultural boundaries defragmentation and so on.
    For example, think of a random European rich agricultural center and trace how many times it has been desolated by war and pillage or plague. Such lands always get repopulated. And usually the newcomers are moving from similar neighbouring regions (you won't see mountain folk coming down to grow crops on a deserted field). The directions of these migrations usually follow the trade routes or main transport lanes. So, even if historians can systemize the migration processes, it's still hard to say who exactly has moved where as no precise records have been kept on that matter.
    Even if you consider that all the nations in the past have been relatively closed and "pure", just think of the huge migrations because of the two World Wars...

    2. DNA markers cannot tell what the world has been 800 or 1500 years ago. Nations move, merge or split all the time, nothing remains the same. The genetic engineers work with real living people. If anyone wishes to prove a historical theory based on racial relations, then I suggest you use as evidence anthropological analyses on human remains (you know, skull shape, bone structure, height etc.)


    Regarding the historical sources:

    1. The Byzantine chronicles are undisputably the richest historian sources for this part of the world.
    The problem is, however, that they described mainly the events happening on the Roman borders or inside the empire and not what's happened in the Black Sea steppes.
    "Scythians" is as accurate name for the steppe nations as much as "Africans" is for all the black people in that contitent. It's a term used for all the "horse" people known during the early medieval ages. In the same manner "turks" was used for the latter wave of steppe nations who were mainly of turkic origin. I know in some languages there's no difference between "turkish" and "turkic" and it creates a lot of confusion but it's one of those situations "All apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples".

    2. Policitcs have always messed up with historical theories! In each country, after every single political shift a new mainstream theory of the nation's origins appear. I can name as examples Bulgaria, Russia, Romania, Greece, FYROM, Turkey and Albania, but I'm certain there are many many more.
    And what most of the propaganda theories have in common is that they all trace the history of the nation back in time, trying to inspire patriotism and so on...
    What I want to point out is that in the pastthe countries were not consistent with the concept of state organization as we know it today (or ever since the 19-20th century).



    I had much more in mind, but I’ll stop with the general talk now and get back on the topic. ;]

    Cumania was a big state and a steppe nation. Two facts that make it safe to say that the cumans were ethnically diverse.
    I am not much familiar with their place and race of origin, so what I am discussing is their state north of the Black Sea.

    So far we’ve got 3 different opinions about their looks.

    1. They were mongoloid in appearance.
    2. They were blond and pale.
    3. They were mixed, some blonde and pale(Alan/Slavonic origin), some mongoloid (Altaic or just generally Central-Asian origin)

    Although I’ve read when I was younger that they were blonde, I’d go for version 3.
    So, after some dig up I found an article from a renown Bulgarian historian prof. Bozhidar Dimitrov regarding the cumans.
    A large part of them were assimilated by the Bulgarian Empire and that’s the accent of the article, but what I find worth sharing were the dynastic relations.
    For example, Tzar Kaloyan (Bulgarian) married princess Tselguba (Cuman) and her brother became supreme commander of the Bulgarian cavalry. There are also hints for other dynastic bondings.
    In time, some of Cuman aristocracy with Slavonic names appeared. Keeping in mind that Bulgaria was just one of the European neighbours of Cumania I can only guess how many other bondings have taken place in the Cuman court.

    Why am I writing all of this? Well, because it’s often said that the nobility is the face of the nation. And with all these marriages it doesn’t sound all that weird for a nation coming from Central Asia to be described as Indo-European in appearance.



    Hope I haven’t bored you with such a long post! :]

    Keep the discussion going and please leave the chauvinism and ignorance out!


  2. #82
    Kaplony's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    also another thing, do you belive that there was personal union
    between croatia and hungary or that croatia was conquered?
    you are hungarian ultranacionalist so i wonder about answer
    I answer you this last question. You are right, Croatia was conquered by hungarians in 1091, but was having partial autonomy in a personal union with Hungarian Kingdom.

    Anyway I came here to discuss about the kypchaks - and especially the cumans and yelow uyghurs - and not to receive the offenses to my country.
    And I am not an ultranacionalist.. bye.
    „Hungary is the Nation of heroes, Germany represents virtue, France represents liberty, Italy represents glory among the nations of the world. Hungary is the incarnation of valour.” - Victor Hugo

    „The Hungarian Nation is the aristocracy of heroism, greatness of heart and dignity. When will we pay back our debt towards this blessed nation that saved the West? French historians should at last show their gratitute towards Hungary, hero of Nations. This Nation lifts us up and ennobles us with their heroic example. Hungarian heroism is a manifestation of high morals.” - Jules Michelet

    „The whole civilized world is in debt towards Hungary for Her past.” - Theodore Roosevelt

  3. #83
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    this is about cumans not others,i agree, but you started with "stolen lands" serbs and romanians andother stuff i just couldnt not react

  4. #84

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Quote Originally Posted by Petar View Post
    "Scythians" is as accurate name for the steppe nations as much as "Africans" is for all the black people in that contitent. It's a term used for all the "horse" people known during the early medieval ages. In the same manner "turks" was used for the latter wave of steppe nations who were mainly of turkic origin. I know in some languages there's no difference between "turkish" and "turkic" and it creates a lot of confusion but it's one of those situations "All apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples".

    I know this to be true. If anyone needs quick reference just google some old maps to see the lands of Scythia encompassing all of the western/lower steppe.

  5. #85
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Huns were mongolic, second khaganate of Avars were mongolic as well, and i think Magyars were mongolic as well, which comes to my question
    were Turkic mongolic before they have left steppes east of Kaspian lake and left south

  6. #86

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    Huns were mongolic
    Huns werent mongolic they were Turkic and they spoke Turkic language
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    second khaganate of Avars were mongolic as well
    Avars were Turkic too
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    i think Magyars were mongolic as well
    Magyars are Magyars not mongol

    Magyars and Turks are relatives

    Xiongnu (aka Huns) were Turkic, Xianbei were mongol

  7. #87
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    It is known that Huns were at Great Chinese wall and they have left for west
    how do you know the were turkic? they asimilated lot of peoples, steppe peoples as well others and these people served as auxila units so they werent realy asimilated, anyway after Atilla died Huns disapeared so how can you know it is hunnic and not language of some of conquered steppe people
    and it is known tah tey were mongolic because of skeletons, their skeletons are like mongolic and chinese and different than european and arab/persian, same thing with second avar khaganate, first, real Avars were europeid race.

  8. #88

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    please visit my profile and look at my Interests

  9. #89
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    they are your hobies or your job?
    and if it even is your job that doesnt mean you are right, than you should know that even among steppe people Huns were minority, and have disapeared soon after Atilla died, and that it can not be known were they turkic,
    it also cant realy be known were they mongolic, but with face descriptions of Huns a man can be very certain
    europeans described them as deamons, round heads and weird looking noses, and weirdly Mongols who arrived lot later were described in same way in Europe, also, their look was new in Europe and Europe has known for Sarmatians, Scythians, Parths so they wouldnt talk so much how weird their faces looked,
    Huns were mongolic that is certain, Avars were mongolic (seconnd khaganate)
    and please if you have claimings saying that something is because it is isnt enough, if you can prove me wrong doit, i ll be glad to read

  10. #90
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    they are your hobies or your job?
    and if it even is your job that doesnt mean you are right, than you should know that even among steppe people Huns were minority, and have disapeared soon after Atilla died, and that it can not be known were they turkic,
    it also cant realy be known were they mongolic, but with face descriptions of Huns a man can be very certain
    europeans described them as deamons, round heads and weird looking noses, and weirdly Mongols who arrived lot later were described in same way in Europe, also, their look was new in Europe and Europe has known for Sarmatians, Scythians, Parths so they wouldnt talk so much how weird their faces looked,
    Huns were mongolic that is certain, Avars were mongolic (seconnd khaganate)
    and please if you have claimings saying that something is because it is isnt enough, if you can prove me wrong doit, i ll be glad to read
    my point is when Huns arrived from Romans descriptions its obvius that they are mongolic

  11. #91

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Xiongnu (aka Huns) were Turkic
    There isn't really definitive proof Xiongnu were Turkic or that they were the same people as the Huns, but based on what little evidence we have, both are probably true even though many scholars still disagree. Even if the Xiongnu weren't actually Turkic speakers themselves, they had many cultural similarities to all later Altaic people and their coalition almost certainly contained Turkic people. The reason why there is doubt is that only a few of their words are known to us today and while some of them are obviously Turkic in origin, some really aren't.

    Hrobatos, I think the reason for your confusion is that you are using "Mongolic" as a racial term when it is actually an ethno-linguistic term.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #92
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    i did meant mongol as racian, so i will use asian rather than mongoloid race
    linguistic is unreliable, as i could prove in that way that croats are magyars, germans, romans, as there are lot of words from all those languages, because of influence of these people on croats
    huns were asian people by race, anything else is just guesing
    what lanuage have they spoken?we dont know
    Xiongnu or Hsiung-nu if they lived in what is now Mongolia they are probably racial and linguisic same or simialr as todays inhibitans of the Mongolia, and it very uncertain are they Huns

  13. #93

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    "The Empire of the Steppes", by René Grousset, a referencial book, its best to learn that to speak, I believe.....

  14. #94

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    linguistic is unreliable, as i could prove in that way that croats are magyars, germans, romans, as there are lot of words from all those languages, because of influence of these people on croats
    Comparative linguistics is more reliable than you think when enough words are known. A linguist wouldn’t look at Croatian and think that it is a language related to German or Magyar just because you have German and Magyar loan words. It is obvious to a linguist that Croatian is most closely related to the other South Slavic languages. Languages tend not to borrow words from other languages if they already have a word that works. So to figure out how related two languages are you have to look at the most basic words like body parts, family relations, and other words common to almost all languages.

    As an example, English has a lot of words of French origin in it, but it is obvious to any linguist that English is a Germanic language and not a Latin language like French.

    So compare these words in English and French:

    exceptional = exceptionnel
    designate = designer
    ensemble = ensemble
    fabricate = fabriquer
    attention = attention
    apparently = apparemment

    If you just saw this list you might think English and French are closely related, but instead you have to look at the basic words of the languages and you’ll see this:

    I = je
    God = Dieu
    water = eau
    father = père
    mother = mère
    daughter = fille
    son = fils
    elbow = coude
    eye = oeil

    They are obviously not that closely related, but if you compare those same words in English to Dutch you’ll see that Dutch and English are closely related:

    I = Ik
    God = God
    water = water
    father = vader
    mother = moeder
    daughter = dochter
    son = zoon
    elbow = elleboog
    eye = eye

    The problem with examining the Hsung-nu language is that only a few words are known to us so not much can be done. Of course comparing language is a good way to figure out linguistic and cultural relationships, but it tells us very little about genetics.
    Last edited by sumskilz; February 02, 2010 at 05:31 AM. Reason: spelling mistake
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  15. #95
    Marcus Bestia's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Posts
    193

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    It is known that Huns were at Great Chinese wall and they have left for west
    how do you know the were turkic? they asimilated lot of peoples, steppe peoples as well others and these people served as auxila units so they werent realy asimilated, anyway after Atilla died Huns disapeared so how can you know it is hunnic and not language of some of conquered steppe people
    and it is known tah tey were mongolic because of skeletons, their skeletons are like mongolic and chinese and different than european and arab/persian, same thing with second avar khaganate, first, real Avars were europeid race.
    hrobatos, i dont believe there are some significant differences between mongolic and turkic skeletons, both groups were altaic people with same style of life, so i doubt skeletons can tell us more about hun etnicity (if you shall choose from mongolic or turkic). Same thing with roman description of huns - if huns were mongolic or turkic, the description would remain the same. How can you distinguish early medieval mongol and early medieval turk visually?
    Ethnic origin of huns is still matter of debate, the majority tends to think huns were mongolic, probably due to hunnic teoretical identification with hiungnu, tribe who was living along the chinese border, while turkic nations are believed to live more westward.

  16. #96
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Bestia View Post
    hrobatos, i dont believe there are some significant differences between mongolic and turkic skeletons, both groups were altaic people with same style of life, so i doubt skeletons can tell us more about hun etnicity (if you shall choose from mongolic or turkic). Same thing with roman description of huns - if huns were mongolic or turkic, the description would remain the same. How can you distinguish early medieval mongol and early medieval turk visually?
    Ethnic origin of huns is still matter of debate, the majority tends to think huns were mongolic, probably due to hunnic teoretical identification with hiungnu, tribe who was living along the chinese border, while turkic nations are believed to live more westward.
    Hsiung-nu were probably turks
    but you are true man i not like those "historians"
    "huns are turks because they are" they dont say why they think huns are turks, and they think they are historians...

    you see what is historic way?
    i made claim
    i supported the claim with proofs
    main proof was that Huns are asian by race, and that their language is unpreserved and we dont know what language have they spoken, and that any linguistic proofs would be unreliable
    so if someone can prove that they werent asian by race than my claim would be proved to be wrong
    now i defend my claim

    since it seems to me there is lot of pan-turks( turks all and everybody) round here perhaps someone can try to prove that they were turks?

    but my claim ain finished yet, were Huns asian race? most believe so, me too, well can we know what race were they, which leads me to question i asked few posts earlier: thats way i asked about racial diference between them( mongols and turks), and about steppe people who were in europe before turks like sarmathians, scyths,parths, and other
    were they also part of turkic/altaic group of nations? and what about alans? where they turks too?
    and please, use the system, make claim, support it with STRONG proofs, and defend it
    Last edited by Hrobatos; February 02, 2010 at 05:23 AM.

  17. #97
    Marcus Bestia's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Posts
    193

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    Hsiung-nu were probably turks
    but you are true man i not like those "historians"
    "huns are turks because they are" they dont say why they think huns are turks, and they think they are historians...

    you see what is historic way?
    i made claim
    i supported the claim with proofs
    main proof was that Huns are asian by race, and that their language is unpreserved and we dont know what language have they spoken, and that any linguistic proofs would be unreliable
    so if someone can prove that they werent asian by race than my claim would be proved to be wrong
    now i defend my claim

    since it seems to me there is lot of pan-turks( turks all and everybody) round here perhaps someone can try to prove that they were turks?

    but my claim ain finished yet, were Huns asian race? most believe so, me too, well can we know what race were they, which leads me to question i asked few posts earlier: thats way i asked about racial diference between them( mongols and turks), and about steppe people who were in europe before turks like sarmathians, scyths,parths, and other
    were they also part of turkic/altaic group of nations? and what about alans? where they turks too?
    and please, use the system, make claim, support it with STRONG proofs, and defend it
    well, nobody can say i'm pan-turk, i hope
    describing differences between ancient mongol and turkic nations would be useful, so if anybody has something reliable to say, he is welcome naturally.
    in the meantime, i attach huns' description written by their contemporary ammianus marcellinus

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    The following circumstances were the original cause of all the destruction and various calamities which the fury of Mars roused up, throwing everything into confusion by his usual ruinous violence: the people called Huns, slightly mentioned in the ancient records, live beyond the Sea of Azov, on the border of the Frozen Ocean, and are a race savage beyond all parallel.
    At the very moment of their birth the cheeks of their infant children are deeply marked by an iron, in order that the usual vigor of their hair, instead of growing at the proper season, may be withered by the wrinkled scars; and accordingly they grow up without beards, and consequently without any beauty, like eunuchs, though they all have closely knit and strong limbs and plump necks; they are of great size, and bow-legged, so that you might fancy them two-legged beasts, or the stout figures which are hewn out in a rude manner with an axe on the posts at the end of bridges.
    They are certainly in the shape of men, however uncouth, but are sohardy that they neither require fire nor well-flavored food, but live on the roots of such herbs as they get in the fields, or on the half-raw flesh of any animal, which they merely warm rapidly by placing in between their own thighs and the back of their horses.
    They never shelter themselves under roofed houses, but avoid them, as people ordinarily avoid sepulchres as things not fitted for common use. Nor is there even to be found among them a cabin thatched with reed; but they wander about, roaming over the mountains and the woods, and accustom themselves to bear frost and hunger and thirst from their very cradles. And even when abroad they never enter a house unless under the compulsion of some extreme necessity; nor, indeed, do they think people under roofs as safe as others.
    They wear linen clothes, or else garments made of the skins of field-mice; nor do they wear a different dress out of doors from that which they wear at home; but after a tunic is once put round their necks, however much it becomes worn, it is never taken off or changed till, from long decay, it becomes actually so ragged as to fall to pieces.
    They cover their heads with round caps, and their shaggy legs with the skins of kids; their shoes are not made on any lasts, but are so unshapely as to hinder them from walking with a free gait. And for this reason they are not well suited to infantry battles, but are nearly always on horseback, their horses being ill-shaped, but hardy; and sometimes they even sit upon them like women if they want to do anything more conveniently. There is not a person in the whole nation who cannot remain on his horse day and night. On horseback they buy and sell, they take their meat and drink, and there they recline on the narrow neck of their steed, and yield to sleep so deep as to indulge in every variety of dream.
    And when any deliberation is to take place on any weighty matter, they all hold their common council on horseback. They are not under the authority of a king, but are contented with the irregular government of their nobles, and under their lead they force their way through all obstacles.
    Sometimes, when provoked, they fight; and when they go into battle, they form in a solid body, and utter all kinds of terrific yells. They are very quick in their operations, of exceeding speed, and fond of surprising their enemies. With a view to this, they suddenly disperse, then reunite, and again, after having inflicted vast loss upon the enemy, scatter themselves over the whole plain in irregular formations: always avoiding the fort or an intrenchment.
    And in one respect you may pronounce them the most formidable of all warriors, for when at a distance they use missiles of various kinds, tipped with sharpened bones instead of the usual points of javelins, and these bones are admirably fastened into the shaft of the javelin or arrow; but when they are at close quarters they fight with the sword, without any regard for their own safety; and often while their antagonists are warding off their blows they entangle them with twisted cords, so that, their hands being fettered, they lose all power of either riding or walking.
    None of them plough, or even touch a plough handle; for they have no settled abode, but are homeless and lawless, perpetually wandering with their wagons, which they make their homes; in fact, they seem to be people always in flight. Their wives live in these wagons, and there weave their miserable garments; and here, too, they sleep with their husbands, and bring up their children till they reach the age of puberty; nor, if asked, can any one of them tell you where he was born, as he was conceived in one place, born in another at a great distance, and brought up in another still more remote.
    In truces they are treacherous and inconstant, being liable to change their minds at every breeze of every fresh hope which presents itself, giving themselves up wholly to the impulse and inclination of the moment; and, like brute beasts, they are utterly ignorant of the distinction between right and wrong. They express themselves with great ambiguity and obscurity; have no respect for any religion or superstition whatever; are immoderately covetous of gold; and are so fickle and irascible that they very often, on the sameday that they quarrel with their companions without any provocation, again become reconciled to them without any mediator.
    This active and indomitable race, being excited by an unrestrainable desire of plundering the possessions of others, went on ravaging and slaughtering all the nations in their neighborhood till they reached the Alani, who were formerly called the Massagetae; and from what country these Alani came, or what territories they inhabit - since my subject has led me so far - it is expedient now to explain, after showing the confusion existing in the accounts of the geographers, who, at last, have found out the truth.

  18. #98
    Petar's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    306

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Quote Originally Posted by Hrobatos View Post
    since it seems to me there is lot of pan-turks( turks all and everybody) round here
    Hehe, it stroke me too when I first started reading the forums. Everyone from Hungary to Korea and North America are turks
    Fortunatelly, there are some well-educated people who manage to give us a much more unprejudiced insight on the turkic peoples..

    Anyway, regardnig the Huns - the main mistake is that you're looking for the ethnicity of a confederation. There is none!
    I know most of you are thinking about the first nation that swept their neighbours and turned all that in the avalanche that the Romans called "Huns". It's probably Altaic - be it turkic or mongolian.. but then mixed with iranian, and after that with slavonic, germanic and even Romans ( for example: Hey, we don't have enough smiths, let's take some from the lands south of Danube)

    And Xiongu are not yet proven to be the original "Huns".. it's a theory, but not yet fully supported by archeological findings. Might be true, might as well not be.. so arguing is a bit pointless

  19. #99

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    Xiongnu are "the Huns", all Turkic Empires have two parts: West and Est sometimes North and South, one part is ruled by the Khan, other part is ruled by a Yabghu.The theory is the following: the West Xiongnu are became the Huns, after some centuries of migration, its the Grousset's theory.

  20. #100
    Hrobatos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Re: Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

    marcus Bestia i didnt say you are pan-turk, infact im very happy with you, i waited for someone like you for few days, instdead of just saying that Hsiung-nu are Huns and Huns are turks like Rus-bey did (and with no proofs fot theory) you asked me to prove my claims, to prove that Huns are different from turkish/altaic( from now on i will use altaic , for me turks are people in Turkey)
    and it comes to this
    who were Parths? Sarmatians? Scythians? or even Alans
    i wanted to ask this question few days ago but i had to wait for real historian who doesnt just learns facts, or only see facts whe wants to see, but understands them as well
    +rep Marcus Bastia

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •