Your (subjective) opinions about Turks

[Mete Han]

The thing is I have been writing this historical novel about a Turkish khan and I need some opinions concerning Turks from a variety of people. I am having some constipation in emulating empathy for understanding what other people thought about the Turks in like 200 AD's. Still your thoughts about mongols and Turks even after they (us) converted to Islam might light some spark. If you guys (European and Middle Eastern preferably) can list your negative and positive opinions about Turks it would be very helpful. Any but any sincere opinion, emotion or belief would be most welcome?

[Marshal Murat]

Before they took Constinantinople, my understanding is that Turks weren't considered to be real civilized. The hill-soldiers, warriors from the mountains.

[Mete Han]

Before they took Constinantinople, my understanding is that Turks weren't considered to be real civilized. The hill-soldiers, warriors from the mountains.

please elaborate on that

[Watchman]

Well... for starters it might be slightly difficult to find legit "Turkish" khans in 3rd century AD...

Before they took Constinantinople, my understanding is that Turks weren't considered to be real civilized. The hill-soldiers, warriors from the mountains.

Nomads mostly, actually. The Anatolian plateau is a sort of semi-steppe, and the Turks weren't even close to the first steppe émigres to set up shop there.

[Mete Han]

Well... for starters it might be slightly difficult to find legit "Turkish" khans in 3rd century AD...

It depends on what you call Turkish but still your opinions are welcome

[Watchman]

Well, the first ones to actually be known by that name were the 6th-century Gökturks... Turkic-speaking and proto-Turkic tribes had of course been around quite a bit longer, but AFAIK trying to figure out which of those ephemeral steppe empires were proto-Turkic and which proto-Mongol is something of a major headache and bone of contention among scholars.
Not helped one bit by the little detail the buggers weren't too prone of writing things down, or generally too fastidious about who they let into their federations/empires.

[Mete Han]

Well, the first ones to actually be known by that name were the 6th-century Gökturks... Turkic-speaking and proto-Turkic tribes had of course been around quite a bit longer, but AFAIK trying to figure out which of those ephemeral steppe empires were proto-Turkic and which proto-Mongol is something of a major headache and bone of contention among scholars.
Not helped one bit by the little detail the buggers weren't too prone of writing things down, or generally too fastidious about who they let into their federations/empires.

that's hardly what I'm asking, come on!!! what comes to your mind when you hear the word Turk?

[Watchman]

Steppe nomads.

Whose exact appereance and suchlike actually varied a fair bit from one end of the steppe belt to another - and once they got going, there were soon Turks from Syria and Anatolia to the gates of China, so not too much more specific to add. Doubly so as the early proto-Turks are sort of poorly documented (eg. I've seen the Huns tagged as both proto-Mongols and proto-Turks...).

[Vladimir]

Off the top of my head I'd say lots of arrows.

[Prince Cobra]

The thing is I have been writing this historical novel about a Turkish khan and I need some opinions concerning Turks from a variety of people. I am having some constipation in emulating empathy for understanding what other people thought about the Turks in like 200 AD's. Still your thoughts about mongols and Turks even after they (us) converted to Islam might light some spark. If you guys (European and Middle Eastern preferably) can list your negative and positive opinions about Turks it would be very helpful. Any but any sincere opinion, emotion or belief would be most welcome?

It's been ages I last posted something different than samurais and Byzantine stuffs.

Hm, to tell you the truth I preferred it in the Monastery... I think it will go too offtopic.

By the way, I read several posts above and I remembered one particular thread I posted almost year ago. It went the same in the middle of nowhere, only arguing... Anyway, it's not the time for very very long posts.

On the Balkan nationalism... (to those who are not very familiar with it) It hurts. Bulgaria lost at least one war (Second Balkan) in a very stupid way because of her own big ambitions and overconfidence (hm, not that the others were modest, but you certainly can not afford be too maximalistic when situated in the center). But it can also be funny: like fighting for two sqaure kilometres or be tragic (look Yugoslavia). We are very wierd people. Balkans. which of course is not an obstacle to be a little patriot (not more than enough):p

Back on topic: I certainly can not tell you much on the Turks in 200 AD. I also doubt you will get so much info on it, too. There is just not enough records.
They were certainly nomadic tribes. Later on, there was a huge Turkish khaganate which slowly but surely was falling apart (but I think it's after 200AD). Yet I can tell you that around VIII Century the Khaganate was ally of Byzantium (no, I do not confuse it with the Khazars, which were also allies of the Empire). In Xth century the Turkish tribes of Kharahanids accepted the Islam and then become very important part of the Islamic world. They were the main source of ghulams, elite Islamic warriors and were used by the local Muslim Persian and Arabian dynasties. Later, this Turkish hegemony gave the chance of Togrul beg to unite the area between Afganistan and Minor Asia under his rule. Then the Manzikert happened and I think the Turks become well known.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As a European in 200AD I think the word would be "irrelevant." Like Watchman said, Steppe Nomads still mostly on the Steppe. Bear in mind that in 200AD "Turkey" was all part of the Roman Empire.