MovieChat Forums > Attila (2001) Discussion > Huns are Türks The Thruth

Huns are Türks The Thruth

posted 18 years ago by kucukozel
21 replies | jump to latest

first and foremost, i should like to correct a mistake. Huns and Turks are not different and the Big Hun Empire was the first empire that was established by Turks as a empire.of course Turks had made so many small states but as i said Big Hun Empire was the first Empire that was made by Turks(Hun Turks is an arm of Turks who used to live in Middle Asia .)

Hun Turks used to live in Asia , the part of Mongolia and the northern west part of China. Hun Turks was a big threat for Chinese as well as the others because Hun Turks were expanding rapidly and they were prevailing the territories of their neigbours immediately.and this was so to China because of the martial capabilities of Turks especially in that time and now. so in the dynasty of Ming (actually,i looked it up in a encylopedia and it says so ) because of the limitless raids and triumphs of Turks it was started to built.bc 214 .

meanwhile , to be fair the supremacy of Huns and Turks a little because of the knights in that time. because Turks used to use the knights so well and they were so rapid in front of the slow two wheel cars of Chinese.

but it was not only enough to administrate and manipulate a whole country and even a country such China.( Chinese were in also that time at least ten times as big as Turks. but thanks to God Chinese Empire was not united and there were several princedoms. so it was not as difficult as to manage the Chinese as is thought.and Turks chose instead of immigrating the lands that they had prevailed, they just make Chinese princedoms to give taxes and bound to Big Hun Empire.(in order to prevent small Turk population to be assimilated infront of predominantly huge Chinese population.

Huns divided into two groups ,west and east Huns.

source: Jannisary

[–] kucukozel 18 years ago

Although in the past the Huns are thought to have been Mongolian emigrants, it is far more likely that they were of Turkic origin. This point has been repeated by thousands of historians, sinologists, turcologists, altaistics, and other researchers. Let me try to state how this idea began with Sinology researchers.

Sinology research in Europe

While the Mongol Empire was in the ascendancy, the power of the Catholic Church seemed to be fading, and the power of the Pope was somewhat shaky. At the same time, the Mongols opened the eastern roads for travel, and the Pope decided that there were now so many evident non-Christians that his power in the West was under severe threat. If he could convert these non-Christians he could regain power. As a result, Jesuit missionaries started to head east. Before spreading Christianity, they researched Chinese beliefs. They examined Chinese history and philosophy. There were some missioners who stayed twenty or thirty years in China, and built up healthy relations with Chinese scholars. They also started to translate Chinese books about both history and philosophy into Western languages. The first translations were made in Portuguese. Then this was translated to the other languages; Spanish, Italian and French. So the West started to learn about China from these Jesuit missionaries.

Sin means China in Latin and Sinology means “sciences of China." Sinology mainly started with these translations in the sixteenth century, and Turk history became part of this study. Later, the number of Sinology studies increased with many travellers from the West heading to China. The book written by de Guinness in the eighteenth century is accepted as one of the important collected studies about Turkish history. De Guinness did not know Chinese but he wrote the history of the Turks, Mongols and Tartars by using Jesuit missionaries' translations. It was printed under the name of “General History of Turks, Tatars and Mongols.”

All the information obtained to this point by the researchers showed that the Huns were of Turkic origin. We learn nearly all our current knowledge on the Huns from the information left to us by their contemporary neighbours.

For example. It is pretty definite that their language was Turkic. Chinese annals reveals that the Hunnic language was very close to that of the Töles, a Turkic tribe. The Byzantine Empire said that the language of the Huns was the same as the languages of the Bulgars, Avars, Szeklers (the last of whom were descended from the European Huns themselves - Ed.) and other tribes which were flooding into Eastern Europe from Central Asia. The historians of that period accepted that these Turkic-speaking tribes were no different from the Huns because their languages were the same.

There are many words written in Chinese chronicles which were used by Huns in daily life. These are Turkic words. K Shiratoriy, reading a Hunnic sentence which has survived to the present day, has proven that it is Turkic. Hunnic-runic writings belonging to European Huns in Cafcasia [sic] has been read and has been proven to be of Turkic origin.

One area for backing up this claim is that of Hunnic names. It is difficult to explain the names belonging to Asian Huns because of fact that they were translated into Chinese in the form of Chinese names. The meanings of the names of European Huns can be comfortably explained in Turkish. One of the most striking features related to European Hunnic names is that they can't be explained by any language but Turkish. Some of the names belonged to the German language due to cultural interaction, but the majority of them were Turkish.

I will try to explain some of these:

(a famous hunnic leader) Balamir = Bala (child, kid) + Mir (king)

(the son of Attila) Dengizik = sea storm

(a general) Oniki, known to Europeans as Onegesios, = the number 12

(the son of Attila) Csaba = shepherd

(a Hunnic leader) Atakam = Ata (grandfather, father), Kam = the person who is responsible for the religious rituals (in shamanism)

Eskam = Es = couple + Kam = (as above)

Aybars = Ay = moon (and also the colour white in Turkish) + Bars (or Pars) = leopard, or a wild animal

The author W Bang has proven the name of Attila's wife was Arikan in Turkish in the result on his researches.

Some Hunnish Words

English
GOD
POLITICAL POWER
GIRL
WOMAN
HORSETAIL
MAGIC
ARMY
IRANIAN
GO
WOLF
STRONG/THICK
SWORD
COUNTRY

Hunnish
TENGRI*
KUT
KIZ
KATUN
TUG
BÜYÜ
ORDA
TAT
BAR
BÖRI
TOK
KILIÇ
EL

Turkish
TENGRI
KUT
KIZ
KATUN/KADIN/HATUN
TUG
BÜYÜ
ORDA/ORDU
TAT
BAR
BÖRI/KURT
TOK
KILIÇ
EL

* Tengri also means "God" or "Heaven" in Mongolian.

However, there are many names and captions belonging to Hunnish leaders which were written down in a document at Duro-Eropas, a border castle in Doma which was captured by the Persians in 260 BC. These names and captions are Turkish names and captions.

Aramaic writing in present-day Georgia appeared in the period following the Huns' penetration into the Caucuses. This writing was also used by the Bulgars. It is estimated that this writing was proto-Turkic and appeared before the Orkhun inscriptions in Mongolia.

A book written by Gyula Nemeth, the world famous Hungarian historian is recommended for further reading on this subject, and will greatly expand on this short feature. There are many Turkology institutes which study on the origins of the Turks in many European countries from Denmark and Germany to Russia and Japan. All of these contain a great number of resources regarding the origin of the Huns.

As stated, many sources claim the Huns were of Mongol origin, since European Huns were somewhat mongoloid in appearance. Some historians also accept Turks as Mongols. All of these views are somewhat back-to-front. The Chinese annals say the Mongols always lived to the east of the lands in which the Huns dwelt. The Mongols originate from what is now known as Manchuria.

The Mongol Empire was based on Turkic elements rather than Mongol elements. The governing structure of the empire was based on Turkic ideas of governing. The official language of the Mongol Empire was Uigrian, which is a Turkic language. Eighteen Turkish tribes played an important role in the founding of the Mongol Empire. There are many more examples that show the effects of Turkic elements on the Mongol Empire.

For example, the Indian Moghal Empire was established by Turks. But many scholars still hold the belief that the Moghals were of Mongol origin. The truth is that the language of the Moghals was Turkic, and that the founders of this empire were proud of being Turk.

You can come across many researchers who say the Huns are a nation whose origin is still mystery. When you look at bibliographies on internet sites you will see that those sites have referenced the work of historians such as McGovern and Haelfen-Manchen, but these sites don't say these authors already accept the Huns as Turkic. Haelfen-Manchen accepts that Asiatic Huns were in fact of Turkic origin and says that their language was also Turkic, but he raises an objection by adding that, in his view, European Huns are not descended from Asiatic Huns.

I don't know the reason for it but many European researchers still seem not to accept that Attila's Huns were of Turkic stock.

Hunnic Descendants

The word "Hun" comes from the word "kun" in Turkish ...It means people, or nation. Many now accept that the Bulgars are the descendants of the Huns. The ancestor of the Bulgars is Kobrat Han, who was the son of Irnek. Irnek was the son or grandson of Attila. So the Bulgars are directly descended from the Huns. Their writings were a different version of the Turkish-Runic writing used in Mongolia.

The Magyars (Hungarians) are also the descendants of the Huns (although modern Hungary itself also consists of a large number of Avar descendants mixed in - Ed). The dynasty of Arpad, which founded the present-day Hungary, is descended from the dynasty of Attila. The very name of the country comes from the name On-Ogur, which is a Turkish tribe. The Magyars consisted of six amalgamated Turkish tribes and one other Turkish tribe.

Magyars and Bulgars were accepted by the Byzantines as Turkic. for example, the Magyars were called Turks by the Byzantines during the ninth and twelfth centuries. Both of these tribes have since been assimilated into the native peoples in which they migrated and settled and have lost their own cultural features.

There are still hundreds of Turkish words in the Hungarian language. I hope these few examples will help you in clarifying the origin of the Huns.

Source: Kemal Cemal

[–] faithvampire 11 years ago

"The Magyars (Hungarians) are also the descendants of the Huns (although modern Hungary itself also consists of a large number of Avar descendants mixed in - Ed). The dynasty of Arpad, which founded the present-day Hungary, is descended from the dynasty of Attila. The very name of the country comes from the name On-Ogur, which is a Turkish tribe. The Magyars consisted of six amalgamated Turkish tribes and one other Turkish tribe.

Magyars and Bulgars were accepted by the Byzantines as Turkic. for example, the Magyars were called Turks by the Byzantines during the ninth and twelfth centuries. Both of these tribes have since been assimilated into the native peoples in which they migrated and settled and have lost their own cultural features.

There are still hundreds of Turkish words in the Hungarian language. I hope these few examples will help you in clarifying the origin of the Huns."

kucukozel, where do you get all this high and mighty Turkish propaganda from??
Magyars are NOT descendants of Huns, just a related nation. We are NOT Turkish or Turkic (or as you like to say Türk) at all! There are many other nations' descendants in Hungary now, then only Avars. Many of us have Slavonic origins, due to the territory being surrounded by mostly Slavonic countries.
The fact that ancient Romans called Hungarian tribes Turks doesn't prove anything, they called everybody who didn't belong to the Roman Empire barbarian without really giving a damn about their origins. It's like I call all Asian-looking people Asian as I cannot make out their nationality only by the looks. The word onogur is a Turkic word, that's true, but that's not how Hungarians called themselves.
Hungarians didn't assimilate or migrate anywhere, they conquered the land. That's why it's called Hungary today, not Wonderland, where Hungarians are the majority. They didn't assimilate, other nations assimilated to them. Besides, Hungarian people have many different kinds of looks, you cannot categorize them as easily as for example Turkish or Mediterranean people. You can find people with white skin, blue eyes and blond hair and also people with dark skin, dark eyes and black hair (I'm not necessarily talking about the Gypsies), just to name a few. Not to mention, Hungarians DIDN'T lose their cultural features.
Árpád WASN'T the one who founded today's Hungary, he was the one who led the Hungarians into the Carpathian basin. Our first king, István founded Hungary as it is today (or almost, due to deprived areas after World War I).
Yes, there are some Turkish words in Hungarian language thanks to the 150 years of Turkish suppression in the Medieval Ages. The Turks came and destroyed almost everything, wiped out whole villages, killing everybody (women, children, elderly people) on their way. That's when those Turkish words came into our language (you cannot find any of them in written texts from the ages before) and that's when most of our rich, medieval architectural and cultural knowledge vanished forever.
Hungarian belongs to the Finno-Ugrian language family, thus much more related to Finnish and Estonian than Turkish. I can personally confirm that, as I studied Finnish and it was really easy thanks to the similarities in both languages (although it's not even the closest related language). I read about a research a couple of years ago, where scientists compared DNA from ancient Hungarians graves to those of today's Hungarians, Székelys (who live in Transylvania) and Finns. The result was pretty surprising, it showed that the latter two had more in common with them than Hungarians living in Hungary nowadays. So it seems your theory of Hungarians being direct descendants of Turks fails here, or are you telling me they reached up that North too?

[–] kucukozel 18 years ago

First of all I want to say, that the general appearence of the Türks from the beginning till now are the same. Because of the Türks concurred many areas, of course there are gonna be some little mixes everywhere, but the origin of the Türkish appearence has always been the same.

here is a link of a picture drawn of Atilla. http://www.aysebulut.com/turktari/ATILLA.htm

[–] ragreen259 18 years ago

Dude, let it the *beep* go, you're coming across like a complete idiot.

[–] kucukozel 18 years ago

Dude, im just making things clear, i know kinds like you dont care at all, even if you are stating hatefully wrong things! Go *beep* yourself, youre the one who comes across like an idiot!

[–] rachid_usmc 17 years ago

Actually, your mixing up the two terms. Turkic and Turkish are two completely different terms. When refering to Turkish or *Turks*(and this is what constantly confuses people to think that the Huns originated from the Medditeranian/Persian area), its referring to the tribes and ethnic of the people from the area of present day Turkey (hence therefore, a more Persian/Medditerranian apperance).

Turkic however, is *not* an ethnic group but rather a *culture*, way of life, and language. Therefore, the vast majority of the area stretching out from parts of the Middle East all the way to the west of Korea can be composed of people who are considered "Turkic". Much of the countries that exists today especially in central Asia as well as Turkey itself are remenants of Turkic people. Thats why its possible for certain Turkic people to have a Mongoloid/Asian apperance while other Turkic people may have a Persian/Caucasian appearance, they both speak a similar language and have a similar culture.

The Huns themselves are the western remenants of the Xiongnu empire after they divided from the area now know as Mongolia (around 200 AD). And this did *not* occur during the Ming dynasty but during the Han dynasty (the Ming dynasty did not occur until 1368 AD). The Xiongnu are considered to be "proto-turkic" so its safe to say that the Mongols are of turkic origin. The western Xiongnu traveled westward, the continuosly conqured and assimilated different tribes and ethnic groups all the way until they reached Europe in the late 300s.

So by the time they arrived on the borders of the Roman empire, the Xiongnu or now called themselves Huns, were already a group of racially mixed people from Asia (among them were numerous Turkic tribes from Persia, central Asia, and parts of Russia and Ukraine - in essences, the Scythians). Note that tribes in eastern Europe that were conqured by the Huns would also refer to themselves as Huns also, thus causing the confusion even more.

[–] bozbeytug 17 years ago

Dear Ragreen259,

Your words reflect how mean you are,

Sincerely yours,

[–] paklkl 17 years ago

I totally agree with Kucukozel, this is not a spam message like ragreen says.

THESE ARE THE FACTS. HUNS ARE TURKS. Dont screw around.

Its a shame imdb hides this topic from main messageboard and doesnt hide a topicname included with a word like orgy. This also shows the human quality of imdb producers(admins, etc), likewise the other racist users, whom are not foreign anymore for us TURKS. We know your characters!!

I would suggest imdb should stop this kind of racism. What you people here are doing is realy disgusting.

[–] kucukozel 17 years ago

rachid_usmc, in respect to your post which is written honoustly, i want to say i dont agree with some parts, but that there are some parts i agree with. You dont have to come with these terms, because it is not needed. Why do you have to say Turkic and Turkish? The term 'Türk' is the true term and the only term. It is not english, so dont come up with english variatons, again, these things are filthy games of ones who hate Türks, and are not true. now going back to all other users, i want to write something generally to everyone.

As i said before, there are many Türk Republics in Central Asia. Türkiye is one of these countries, and the people who are living inside it are for 80% Türks. In history there are many Türks with several terms like HunTürks, GökTürks, SelçukTürks and OsmanlıTürks. All these people are Türks. In another post i wrote something short about Türk History. Concluding out that post, we can say that before and also after the time that Türks mixed with Mongolians Türks had other notable appearence. It is far more likely to say Mongolians and Persians have Türk blood, than otherwise like rachid said, history shows this.

Firstly all Türks are from Türk origin, of course there are mixes. Türks went to many many, i mean many areas, and because of their respect for each nation, they always lived side by side with other nations in Türkish Empires.
But there has always been a basic appearence of Türks. There are many kind of looks of Türks. What do we actually understand of mixing? Does it mean that if a Türk marries a non Türk, that their children are not Türks, of course not.

I mean, do people who are stating false information, really have been in Türkiye, and not as a tourist. Have you been able to see all the people who live in Türkiye? Of course there are mixed appearences, but there is a basic Türk appearence which is the most important that counts. And also being a Türk, is not about appearence. Everyone who says that he or she is a Türk, and also fits to The Türk character, which is a very strong character, and refers to Türk Culture and History, is a Türk.

My previous post about TürkHun History:

Before TürkHuns, Türks lived in Altay and SouthWest Sayan Mountains around 1700 before time. These people went from the Tanri Mountains Area to The Area of nowadays Kazakistan. They were called Andronovo Human and are brakisefal and white, whom are the Prototype of Türks. The Culture(Türk Culture) of this nation, whom where nomads and warriors, have spread to whole Central Asia.

Also in this period, in South Siberia, White and Mongoloid races mixed. Because of this there was no exactly race in South Siberia. This race mix which took long time, and finally, the population of South Siberia became Mongols.

In the time of The East(Asia) TürkHun Empire, people who were from The Andronovo Human origin(Türks), also collapsed The Area of The Altay and Tanri Mountains.
Again in the time of The TürkHuns, South Siberia became Türkish. The white race in The Altays, took the place of The Mongols in Yenisey Area, and also brought down the differences in race between The Area of Minusinsk and North Altay.
In this era, in Mongolia and West Baykal River there were Brakisefal Mongols. In The North of Altays, Dolikosefal Mongols and Brakisefal White Türks mixed.
In Noyun-Ula graves in Mongolia, there were found skeletons of Dolikosefal Mongols in the time of The East(Asia) TürkHun Empire. Tunguz are from Dolikosefal Mongol origin. Because of the foundings of such skeletons, we could say Tunguz people lived in The East Part of The TürkHun Empire. This doesnt mean Huns are Tunguz, but there were Tunguz people living in The TürkHun Empire.
In The Area of The Tanri Mountains, there was a race of Braki and Mezofal. A part of these Brakisefals, are descendents of Altay Brakisefals(Türks) and another part are descendents of The Amuderya and Sirderya Brakisefals.
With the beginning The East(Asia) TürkHun Empire Central Asia became a political union. Because of this there became a mix of Asian races. Also in The TürkHun Empire a part of the Türks got split eyes because of mixing, another part of Türks who lived in high places of Altay stayed same.

List of Türk Tribes:

1. ABAKAN TÜRKLERI
* Beltirler
* Çatlar
* Kaçlar
* Kamasinler
* Kizillar
* Koyballar
* Sagaylar
* Sorlar
2. ALTAY TÜRKLERI
* Kizillar
* Kijiler
* Kumandilar
* Lebedler
* Telengitler
* Teleütler
* Tubalar
3. AVRUPA TÜRKLERI
* Karaimler
* Litvanya Türkleri
* Gökoguz (Gagauz) lar
* Yugoslavya Türkleri
4. BATI TÜRKISTAN TÜRKLERI
* Karakalpaklar
* Kazaklar
* Kirgizlar
* Özbekler
* Türkmenler
5. DOGU TÜRKISTAN TÜRKLERI
* Kazaklar
* Sari Uygurlar
* Uygurlar
6. IRAN TÜRKLERI
* Avsarlar
* Hamseler
* Horasaniler
* Iran Azerileri
* Karaçorlular
* Karadaglilar
* Karayiler
* Karapapaklar
* Kasgaylar
* Kengerliler
* Koçarlar
* Sahsevenler
* Türkmenler
7. ITIL-YAYIK (Volga-Ural) TÜRKLERI
* Astrahan Türkleri
* Baskurtlar
* Çuvaslar
* Kazan Türkleri
* Kirim Türkleri
8. KAFKASYA TÜRKLERI
* Karaçaylar
* Kumuklar
* Kundurlar
* Malkarlar (=Balkarlar)
* Nogaylar
9. ÖN ASYA TÜRKLERI
* Anadolu Türkleri
* Azeriler
* Kerkük Türkleri
* Kibris Türkleri
* Suriye Türkleri
10. SIBIRYA TÜRKLERI
* Dolganlar
* Irtis ve Tobol Türkleri
* Karagaslar
* Sayanlar
* Yakutlar

[–] rachid_usmc 17 years ago

Lots of good information. I somewhat agree with your postings, but I must still stress of the importance of the word "Turk" and "Turkish". This is whats causing the major debates and confusions in all the message boards. A lot of people (including you from what it seems) tend to use the terms "Turkic", "Turks", and "Turkish" interchangebly. They do not mean the same thing in todays terminology. "Turk" and "Turkish" specifically refers to the ethnic people of the country of modern day Turkey. "Turkic" refers to a specific culture throughout history thats spans through several countries and ethnic groups throughout Persia and Asia.

This is why it in inaccurate for a lot of people to say that the Huns are "Turkish" or that Genghis Khan is "Turkish".

[–] kucukozel 17 years ago

And im saying the term Türk is the only term and it is not english, thats why its not even right to make this kind of mistakes at all. For example, people in Kazakistan are called KazakTürks, people in Özbekistan are called ÖzbekTürks, people in Azerbaycan are called AzeriTürks, people in Türkmenistan are called Türkmens and people in Türkiye are called Türks. Theyre all the same, Türk is the only term to be used. The kind of english variatons you are giving are filthy plans of west to divide Türks whom they fear, but they never can succeed in this, because a Türk knows what he or she is!

Do you understand my point?

[–] rachid_usmc 17 years ago

>The kind of english variatons you are giving are filthy plans of west to divide Türks whom they fear, but they never can succeed in this, because a Türk knows what he or she is

heheh..you're starting to sound like one of those jihadist. "those filthy westerners fear us" heheheh...but rest assure, nobody fears Turks...heheh..

Anyways, I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. Turkic people from central asia are not the same ethnic people from the country of Turkey. They may have similar culture, but are not ethnically the same, even though historically they share a similar origins through *culture*. That would be the same thing as saying that all the latino countries of south america are all the same spanish people, which is totally not the case. Or like saying that people from the US are all ethnic Americans, which is not the case either because there is no such thing. Americans have an American culture, but not of the same ethnic race, but yet all can say that they are Americans from America. Same as all those 'Stans Turkic countries, the majority of people throughout central asia can say that they are "Turks" but in fact most are not ethnically "Turkish". But if that were to be the case, then you can say that pratically all of Asia has mixed in with ethnic Turks at one point or another and logically, all of Asia is "Turkish".

So the Xiongnu (I guess you would call them "HunTurks") who battled with China for so long and would later migrate to Europe are in fact not "Turks" by racial ethnics, but a seperate race that follows a similar "Turk" culture.

[–] kucukozel 17 years ago

'nobody fears Turks...heheh..' You dont know Türk History, so dont talk.

'Turkic people from central asia are not the same ethnic people from the country of Turkey' Again, have you really been in Türkiye, and have you been able to see the people of it(not as a tourist)? Look, you dont know us better than we know, thats why its not even right to make some guesses, and follow them. How do you know the Türks in Central Asia are not from Türk origin? This is realy funny man. Theyre all the same ethnic people as the Türks in history.

Do you actually know the history of Türkiye? Do you know what happened in 1923? Türks went to many areas, there they mixed in different areas, but they have still same blood. As an example look at the the appearences of people in Balkan countries and of people in Türkiye, you will see similarities. In time after Atilla some of The TürkHuns stayed in Balkans. Most countries there like Bulgaria are from Türk origin. They appeared from OğuzTürks. And in time of Osmanlı Empire Balkans were also in control of Türks. What im trying to say here is that Türks mixed in many areas, but still are same racially, and also they have same basic appearences. I said before there are many kind of looks of Türks, and there are many Tribes.

As a conclusion, TürkHuns are the same as The Türks from now, looking to racial ethnics and culture!

[–] rachid_usmc 17 years ago

No, I know some Turk(not Turkey) history, not a lot, but enough to form an opinion of thought. And from what I understand, its not all that impressive or worth "fearing" heheh.

So if I follow your logic of understanding, then it is possible to say that all Chinese are the same ethnic race? All Native Americans are the same ethnic race? All Latinos are the same ethnic race? All South East Asians are the same ethnic race? They all look similar and have similar culture dont they? But are they all the same people? Of course not and they will *not* recognize themselves as being the same.

Lets examine South East Asia for example. Cambodia, Thailand, Loas, Vietnam were once all under the rule of the Khmere Empire. Yet after breaking up, each of these areas formed different countries and ethnic groups. Some of these people even spread to China, India, Malyasia, Buma, and Fillipines. Do they all have similar blood lines? Yep. Are the cultures similar? Yep. Do they look similar? Yep. But are the same people? Definately not.

Like I said before, distinct races may have the same culture, but it doesn't mean they are the same race. Granted, through racially mixing the race may spread to other parts of the world, but unless the bloodlines is kept intact, then that person is no longer part of that ethnic group. If that were the be the case, then I might as well be a "Turk" also (i would not be proud of it if I was, though).

[–] kucukozel 17 years ago

You clearly dont know our history, so i dont value your opinion.

I dont care about other races, were talking about Türks, i dont know how it is for other nations, but for us every Türk is the same, yes on etnical and cultural base. Let me ask you something, when do you think people from different areas(whom are same) would be the same? What must be done for you, to let you see the truth?
On which factors can be depended actually? Culture(lifestyle, language and character) and Appearence(basic appearence is importants, there are different kind of looks, but there is a notable basic appearence). I cant find anything else except these two factors, and there arent other factors, if you keep defending you r wrong guesses, it would be like an illusion, and disrespect for the one youre saying it.

I already said to you Türks mixed in different areas, but that its notable who a Türk is, because of the basic appearence. For example, if a Türk marries a Persian woman, does it mean that their child is not a Türk, and is not from the same ethnic race of other Türks? Of course not, and especially if most of the population are Türks.

What are you talking about man, bloodlines? If we are gonna think like you, no one is from same ethnic race, that is so bullcrap. Of course all Türks have same bloodlines, it doesnt mean if a Türk mixes that his bloodline will change.

At this point you also have prooven you are a Türk hater, you are also not believeble anymore!

[–] rachid_usmc 17 years ago

>At this point you also have prooven you are a Türk hater, you are also not believeble anymore!

I never once said or mentioned anything to be "Turk hater". As a matter of fact, I have an interest in Central Asia history and I find it very fascinating, which is why I'm even having this discussion with you. And this was never once an argument that you are making it into. Just an exchange of information. I'm willing to accept new ideas and information from you (which I learn a lot), you won't even consider any of mine. I may have thrown in a few jokes here and there, but I've never insulted you.

Are "Turks" the same everywhere? Yes, because its a culture, not a race of people. Turks have a basic appearance? Not quite. Do Turks from Turkey look like the Turks in western Mongolia? Nope. Because they are not the same people. Just the same Turkic culture. I'll leave it at that since this seems to be going no where.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm still trying to research and learn more about the area and its history. Why do I even bother? Because from my mothers side, my great great grand parents are from Kazahkstan and Mongolia....

[–] kucukozel 17 years ago

'Turks have a basic appearance? Not quite. Do Turks from Turkey look like the Turks in western Mongolia?'

Again, have you been able to see the people in Türkiye? There are differences in the appearences, but I will assure you that there is a basic appearence. Like i said before there are many Türk Tribes. AGAIN, there are many kind of looks. Yes in Türkiye there are also Türks who look exactly same as Türks in Mongolia, and some have less Asian skin, and some have darker skincolour like Muslim Arabs. These differences are because of mixes, but most importantly there is a basic appearence of Türks which is notable.

Look, its great if you are interested, but we see again that people just cannot interest theirself in something without prejudges or hate or dislike feelings. If i dont know much about another subject, i dont talk about it. If you had no prejudges, you would not make those jokes. It would be an honour to me if i gave you information about your grandparents, i hope we could make it a nicer discussion.

[–] bozbeytug 17 years ago

You are right kucukozel. There are at least 35.000.000 ppl in Turkey may be considered to be the descendants of Huns. Namely, "Yörüks".

As a Yörük myself, I see no difference between a mother in Mongolia and my grandmother the way thay accomplish daily routines, the way they adorn ceremonial affairs, the way they raise their children, and more.

Yes, Hunnic descendants are the founders of the Turkish Republic, (as well as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk) but the elite society of Turkey is dominantly of Greek, Armenian, Arabic, Kurdish, Georgean and Gypsy aboriginal.

Of course, normally Yörük in Turkey may not look as exactly as a Mongolian. However, it is fascinating how alike they are.

Incidentally, (this is for wanjeman), Turkic and Hunnic or Tartar (the name does not matter) people are not ugly, on the contrary, they are beautiful people. They are smart people. They are friendly people, and they really have great balls tailored to fit the needy............

I hope this point is clear.

[–] kucukozel 17 years ago

I totally agree with you bozbeytug. Only i want to say something about this sentence: 'but the elite society of Turkey is dominantly of Greek, Armenian, Arabic, Kurdish, Georgean and Gypsy aboriginal.'
Circa 80 a 85 procent of Türkiye are from Türk origin. Circa 10 a 15 procent of Türkiye are from Greek, Armenian, Arabic, Kurdish, Georgean and Gypsy aboriginal.
Some of the Türks are mixed with people from other ethnic groups, but they are still of Türk origin, just like some people of other ethnic groups mixed with Türks but they are still from their own ethnic groups origin. It is far more likely to say Türks are dominant.

[–] bozbeytug 17 years ago

Exactly!

The language, the name of the state and the dominant race, customs, adornments and the common history of these lands are founded mainly on the Turkic origin.

Synctians, Huns, Avars, Mongols, Turkmens, Tartars, Yoruks have been moving to the Anatolian peninsula for over a 30.000 years.

Maybe the Byzantine Empire's demographic composition is more heavily a Turkic one than Ottoman or Seljuk Empire. As well as the prior ages to the Byzantine Empire.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5955) 7 years ago

Please note that just because a polyglot tribe speaks a mainly Turkic language does not mean that all of the tribe members are ethnic Turks.

Also, if you go back in history far enough Mongols and Turks are basically one people.