Org Mobile Site
Thread: Ethnic make-up of Turks
What is the ethnic make-up of turkish people?
I have seen paintings of the earyl turks and they look like Mongols, but today they look like a mix of Iranian, Armenian and Greek. How extensive was mingling within the empire?
I have seen paintings of the earyl turks and they look like Mongols, but today they look like a mix of Iranian, Armenian and Greek. How extensive was mingling within the empire?
They looked like Mongols cause thats what they were. The Turks were a central Asian Mongolic people, who eventually migrated westwards. After the migrations, I am willing to bet that they mixed quite a bit with the Arab populations on the way. Also, northwestern Turkey does have Greek influence in it just as there are northeastern Greeks who who Turkish blood, as there was quite a bit of mixing around in those areas during the Ottoman occupation, lasting for quite a long time until everything settled down during the campaigns for the independance of Greece.
Maybe somebody has more detailed information, but thats what I know about what you are asking. Hope it helps.
Maybe somebody has more detailed information, but thats what I know about what you are asking. Hope it helps.
They mixed with the local populations already living in Central Asia. There were plenty of Iranian tribes like the Scythians and Sarmatians (and their descendants) with whom the Turks mixed with once they conquered them.
-
Like all things mentioned, the mongolic stuff is also a mix. Ancient Turks were asiatic but definitely not Mongoloid. However, endogamy (sp?) was never practiced and mixing was inevitable.
Today a Turk is simply someone who speaks Turkish as mother toungue.
-
Like all things mentioned, the mongolic stuff is also a mix. Ancient Turks were asiatic but definitely not Mongoloid. However, endogamy (sp?) was never practiced and mixing was inevitable.
Today a Turk is simply someone who speaks Turkish as mother toungue.
-
A lot of Turks look completely white which I didn't know until recently. I guess the people of Asia Minor might also have been white and that would explain it. 
I've already explained this. Turks were a ethnicity of numerous tribes of steppe. Some came in, and ended up settling in Turkey. While there, they mixed with the Iranians, and other "white" people.
And Turks were asiatic, but not Mongoloid. Of course they mixed a lot, but they were a seperate bunch of tribes, different languages, etc.
And Turks were asiatic, but not Mongoloid. Of course they mixed a lot, but they were a seperate bunch of tribes, different languages, etc.
The Turks were people originating from modern day Turkmenistan....That's why the country is called like that....There were many "types" of Turks. The Selgiucid Turks is one type.....
When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
Does anyone know if Turks actually believe this tosh? Presumably they think being able to claim they are the indigenous people gives them some sort of advantage, heaven knows what since I hardly think the Byzantines are going to come back to try to kick them out.
Does anyone know if Turks actually believe this tosh? Presumably they think being able to claim they are the indigenous people gives them some sort of advantage, heaven knows what since I hardly think the Byzantines are going to come back to try to kick them out.
Originally Posted by English assassin:
When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
Does anyone know if Turks actually believe this tosh? Presumably they think being able to claim they are the indigenous people gives them some sort of advantage, heaven knows what since I hardly think the Byzantines are going to come back to try to kick them out.
Actually, most of those Turks I have had the pleasure to discuss history with seem to accept that the contemporary Turks, the people of modern Turkey, are an integrated people, and that they have no greater ties to the Central Asian steppes than to the mountains of Anatolia. A heterogeneous people, with an amalgamated culture, like modern North Americans.When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
Does anyone know if Turks actually believe this tosh? Presumably they think being able to claim they are the indigenous people gives them some sort of advantage, heaven knows what since I hardly think the Byzantines are going to come back to try to kick them out.
The hilarious claim that they originated in Turkey seems like nationalist propaganda, something I am not entirely unfamiliar with. Interestingly enough, some nationalists also claim that the Scythians, and especially the Etruscans, and a few other peoples were of Turkish ancestry. Very amusing.
However, Turkish nationalism should not be underestimated. Thus, the claim of ancestry in Asia Minor presumably stems from the long rivalry with the Greeks.
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh:
Actually, most of those Turks I have had the pleasure to discuss history with seem to accept that the contemporary Turks, the people of modern Turkey, are an integrated people, and that they have no greater ties to the Central Asian steppes than to the mountains of Anatolia. A heterogeneous people, with an amalgamated culture, like modern North Americans.
The hilarious claim that they originated in Turkey seems like nationalist propaganda, something I am not entirely unfamiliar with. Interestingly enough, some nationalists also claim that the Scythians, and especially the Etruscans, and a few other peoples were of Turkish ancestry. Very amusing.
However, Turkish nationalism should not be underestimated. Thus, the claim of ancestry in Asia Minor presumably stems from the long rivalry with the Greeks.
You have to be the first Iranian to ever grace our boards! Actually, most of those Turks I have had the pleasure to discuss history with seem to accept that the contemporary Turks, the people of modern Turkey, are an integrated people, and that they have no greater ties to the Central Asian steppes than to the mountains of Anatolia. A heterogeneous people, with an amalgamated culture, like modern North Americans.
The hilarious claim that they originated in Turkey seems like nationalist propaganda, something I am not entirely unfamiliar with. Interestingly enough, some nationalists also claim that the Scythians, and especially the Etruscans, and a few other peoples were of Turkish ancestry. Very amusing.
However, Turkish nationalism should not be underestimated. Thus, the claim of ancestry in Asia Minor presumably stems from the long rivalry with the Greeks.
welcome!
Dariush, you really live is in Parsa? I find that hard to believe.
Parsa is the ruins of Persepolis.
Parsa is the ruins of Persepolis.
No, sadly I do not live in Iran. But I have Iranian blood. 
Hmm. No nifty little edit button. Perhaps a moderator could merge this into my post above? 
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince:
Dariush, you really live is in Parsa? I find that hard to believe.
Parsa is the ruins of Persepolis.
Pārsā is also a province. Now it is called Fārs.Dariush, you really live is in Parsa? I find that hard to believe.
Parsa is the ruins of Persepolis.
The Turks, like the Mongols, are Asiatic. But they are not Mongol-Tungusic. They are Altaic, like all Turkic peoples.
The Turks first assessed their position in history under the Köktürk khanate, which is Old Turkish for 'Blue Turks' or 'Celestial Turks'. The collapse of that power (including the second, or eastern Köktürk khanate) in Central Asia and Mongolia led to several of the tribes living under its rule to migrate to the west, such as the Bulgars and the Khazars. Although it must be noted that the newest theories propose the ancient Bulgars as being Iranian, like the Alans.
What remained were the Tokhuz Oghuz (Old Turkish for 'Nine Tribes'), from which the Oghuz sprang, from which such powers as the Selçuks and Ghaznavids emerged as they migrated through Iran. I do imagine that there was 'crossbreeding' as the biological term goes, but not so much as to make the Turks radically different from their cousins in a nation like Turkmenistan. Their 'whiteness' can be attributed to their pretty cold nation -- like the Arabs, Berbers and Jews, they remain very white when not exposed a lot to the sun, while getting an olive color if they are.
The Turks are a distinct ethnical identity, and are related to the Turkmenbashi of Turkmenistan, as they are to the other Turkic nations such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Not sure if Kyrgyzstan is Turkic, though, while Tajikistan is Iranian (Tajiks are the last remaining Transoxanian Iranians).
~Wiz
The Turks first assessed their position in history under the Köktürk khanate, which is Old Turkish for 'Blue Turks' or 'Celestial Turks'. The collapse of that power (including the second, or eastern Köktürk khanate) in Central Asia and Mongolia led to several of the tribes living under its rule to migrate to the west, such as the Bulgars and the Khazars. Although it must be noted that the newest theories propose the ancient Bulgars as being Iranian, like the Alans.
What remained were the Tokhuz Oghuz (Old Turkish for 'Nine Tribes'), from which the Oghuz sprang, from which such powers as the Selçuks and Ghaznavids emerged as they migrated through Iran. I do imagine that there was 'crossbreeding' as the biological term goes, but not so much as to make the Turks radically different from their cousins in a nation like Turkmenistan. Their 'whiteness' can be attributed to their pretty cold nation -- like the Arabs, Berbers and Jews, they remain very white when not exposed a lot to the sun, while getting an olive color if they are.
The Turks are a distinct ethnical identity, and are related to the Turkmenbashi of Turkmenistan, as they are to the other Turkic nations such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Not sure if Kyrgyzstan is Turkic, though, while Tajikistan is Iranian (Tajiks are the last remaining Transoxanian Iranians).
~Wiz
Welcome Dariush. Your member level is "Junior Member" which does not allow you an "edit" button. You should soon see your member level upgraded to "Member" and with that will come the "edit" button. I know it is inconvenient, but it is a protective measure against any troublemakers who happen to join our forums - they can't edit their posts to remove any incriminating evidence before the moderators can see it.
Originally Posted by :
When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
Wow. That's ... um... nuts. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as the whole Aryan race crap that the Nazis invented... When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
But why would they do such a thing? Turkish history is very interesting and very militaristic, no need to make things up to make people proud...
We call them Turks because they speak a Turkish language. They might not all be the same physically. Some look far more like our idea of the Mongols while others look like Iranians or Slavic.
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc:
Wow. That's ... um... nuts. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as the whole Aryan race crap that the Nazis invented...
But why would they do such a thing? Turkish history is very interesting and very militaristic, no need to make things up to make people proud...
Well, it's a different culture - different way of thinking. Maybe they don't, as a nation, take that much pride in their military. Or, you know, maybe they're trying to downplay that whole military thing, what with the Armenian Genocide issue being such an important issue in the news lately.Wow. That's ... um... nuts. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as the whole Aryan race crap that the Nazis invented...
But why would they do such a thing? Turkish history is very interesting and very militaristic, no need to make things up to make people proud...
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc:
Wow. That's ... um... nuts. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as the whole Aryan race crap that the Nazis invented...
But why would they do such a thing? Turkish history is very interesting and very militaristic, no need to make things up to make people proud...
Maybe it's meant as a counter-claim against the Kurds who say they are the original inhabitants and call the Turks invaders?Wow. That's ... um... nuts. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as the whole Aryan race crap that the Nazis invented...
But why would they do such a thing? Turkish history is very interesting and very militaristic, no need to make things up to make people proud...
Originally Posted by English assassin:
When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
Does anyone know if Turks actually believe this tosh? Presumably they think being able to claim they are the indigenous people gives them some sort of advantage, heaven knows what since I hardly think the Byzantines are going to come back to try to kick them out.
-When on holiday in Turkey a few years ago, I came across a completely ridiculous (but it seemed widely propagated) view of turkish origins in a museum. Basically this claimed that the Turkish people originated in TURKEY, mysteriously all migrated into Asian in about 3000 BC, and mysteriously all "returned" to Asia minor in about 1300 AD or whenever the historical arrival of the Turks was.
Does anyone know if Turks actually believe this tosh? Presumably they think being able to claim they are the indigenous people gives them some sort of advantage, heaven knows what since I hardly think the Byzantines are going to come back to try to kick them out.
That's an ancient "official", never popular, claim of the proto-fascist governments of the 20s-30s. AFAIK it's been dropped for long but some museums might still be sticking to the крап.
-
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre:
-
That's an ancient "official", never popular, claim of the proto-fascist governments of the 20s-30s. AFAIK it's been dropped for long but some museums might still be sticking to the крап.
-
Aha, that explains a lot, very interesting, thanks. Probably this place just hadn't updated its captions or something-
That's an ancient "official", never popular, claim of the proto-fascist governments of the 20s-30s. AFAIK it's been dropped for long but some museums might still be sticking to the крап.
-
I think that belief is still held by some Turks.
What's left of the Greeks of Asia Minor still get abuse of the "foreigners go home" variety.
What's left of the Greeks of Asia Minor still get abuse of the "foreigners go home" variety.
They should just come back to Greece. There's nothing there for greeks anymore. I am pretty sure that "they'll be ours again" mentality in Greece is beginning to fade.
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince:
They should just come back to Greece. There's nothing there for greeks anymore. I am pretty sure that "they'll be ours again" mentality in Greece is beginning to fade.
What ? Giving up after a mere 600 years ?They should just come back to Greece. There's nothing there for greeks anymore. I am pretty sure that "they'll be ours again" mentality in Greece is beginning to fade.
Well it's just not the same anymore. We tried to reclaim what was ours back in the 20's and we lost because of our overconfidence. Now there are different rules and regulations. We could never invade, ever. That would be lunacy. Turkey's army is enormous now, not to mention NATO and the fact that Greece is in the European Union and doezens of other organizations.
I think we can all safely say that Asia Minor belongs to the Turks now, only reasons of pride and can be used to contest that.
The English (well, British now) might as well try to claim France again.
The English (well, British now) might as well try to claim France again.
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince:
They should just come back to Greece. There's nothing there for greeks anymore. I am pretty sure that "they'll be ours again" mentality in Greece is beginning to fade.
-They should just come back to Greece. There's nothing there for greeks anymore. I am pretty sure that "they'll be ours again" mentality in Greece is beginning to fade.
No single person should be forced out of their mother/fatherland, unless they decide to leave willingly. And NO, they should not be "convinced to leave willingly" either... My personal opinion, they should not leave at all, even willingly.
-
Originally Posted by doc_bean:
I think we can all safely say that Asia Minor belongs to the Turks now, only reasons of pride and can be used to contest that.
The English (well, British now) might as well try to claim France again.
-I think we can all safely say that Asia Minor belongs to the Turks now, only reasons of pride and can be used to contest that.
The English (well, British now) might as well try to claim France again.
"Nation state" and nationalisme are simply out of time. Whether people resist or not, they will fade out, taking together the last remnents of neolithic societies.
-
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre:
-
No single person should be forced out of their mother/fatherland, unless they decide to leave willingly. And NO, they should not be "convinced to leave willingly" either... My personal opinion, they should not leave at all, even willingly.
-
We are not wanted there. I know there's good people, but there's a lot of racists as well. Also we already lost there, why shouldn't they come back to the mainland to become proper Greeks?-
No single person should be forced out of their mother/fatherland, unless they decide to leave willingly. And NO, they should not be "convinced to leave willingly" either... My personal opinion, they should not leave at all, even willingly.
-
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince:
We are not wanted there. I know there's good people, but there's a lot of racists as well. Also we already lost there, why shouldn't they come back to the mainland to become proper Greeks?
because its their home there. My grandfather was of cretan origin but born in Nicomedia. He came back to Greece and settled with his parents and rest family in Corinth. Even when he was 87 years old he still remembered their house there. Its not easy to leave home even if somebody is trying to force you in many ways.We are not wanted there. I know there's good people, but there's a lot of racists as well. Also we already lost there, why shouldn't they come back to the mainland to become proper Greeks?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO