Jump to content

Talk:Seljuk Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.107.89.84 (talk) at 01:56, 6 January 2012 (→The source for the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Turkish originated

Even though the article itself states that the Oghuz Turks founded the empire and academic resources and resources like Britannica state this fact, why do you remove the Turkic-origins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These "sources" you continue to push;


4) no need to state the same thing twice. The lead already explains that the dynasty was founded by Oghuz Turks. Tajik (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You consider "Iranica"-stuff as a source, and a university web site not a source? This is ridiculous. Why do you insist on removing "Turkish-originated" statement? So, remove "Persianate" then, too.
Also, don't you consider the site of University of Calgary a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Grousset reference clearly states, "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran.., It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The empire became Turko-Persian empire, persianate to some degree, but the origin of the empire is Turkish-Turkic. Why do you remove that fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.117.198 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called reference does NOT state the Seljuk Empire was "Turkic originated", which is WP:SYN. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you can't stand that the empire and dynasty was ethnic-Turkish is irrelevant. Why shall we continue to exchange opinions with someone who consider "Iranica" as a realibale source and a neutral university source as "so-called" reference? If you insist on expressing the so-called "persianate" in the first defining sentence, the Turkish-ethinicity and the Turkish-ness of the empire should also be expressed (before persianate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have nothing and your continued whining about Iranica just shows your animosity towards that ethnicity. This will be reported to an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to say to you via email that has not been said here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, from Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, by Canfield, p13, The Turko-Persian Islamicate culture that emerged under the Samanids and the Qarakhanids was carried by succeeding dynasties into Western and Southern Asia - in particular, by the Seljuqs..
p13, The Seljuqs, who brought this culture westward into Iran, Iraq, and Syria, were the successors of the Qarakhanids in Transoxiana. Also, pastoralists, although of more humble origin, the Seljuqs won a decisive battle with the Ghaznavids and then swept into Khurasan. Pressing westward they brought Turko-Persian Islamicate culture into western Iran and Iraq. Thereafter western Iran(Persia) and eastern Iran(Khurasan and Transoxiana) become the heartland of Persianate language and culture. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Seljuq", online edition, (LINK): "Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, you either have some logical problems or mixing up apples and oranges. Nobody here is contradciting that the Seljuq Empire has adopted Persian culture to some degree. What we say is: This empire and the dynasty is of Turkish origin. Can you understand that? Even the source you added states: "Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have the logic problem. This article is about the Great Seljuq Empire, not the Seljuqs. This Empire did not have Turkish originated. Which is clearly explained, in detail, by the numerous references(which you continue to ignore). Also, if you are capable, in the first sentence it states, ...established by the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks. Which is correct. Since establish is the correct term, whereas, there is NOTHING originated in the Seljuq EMPIRE that was Turkish. Which has been explained ad naseum to you, since you possess WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your racist attitude towards Persia, Persians, Turco-Persian is becoming well documented.[1],[2],[3],[4] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

] Kansas Bear, you are a Liar. you are trying to change and steal turkish history and culture. your racist and jelous claims will not change turkish empires and their history . cry out more please you are entertaining us.you want to show turkish empires as iranian . hahah you have some mental problems.please be normal and stop vandalizing turkish history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.202.72 (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Founder

The dynasty was founded by Tughrul Bey, not by Seljuq. Seljuq was only the eponymous ancestor. This needs to be corrected. Also, I think that it's best to remove any reference to ethnic origins from this article and instead put it into the Seljuq dynasty article. The Seljuq Empire was a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual empire that streched from Central Asia to Arabia, although it was Turkish- and Persian-ruled. This article should only focus on the empire, its geography, and its political importance.

I recently created this article by dividing the Seljuq dynasty article. There are couple of problems to be fixed in the article that's for sure. Deliogul 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I also think that the "Büyük Selçuklu Devleti" in the box is misleading an wrong. The modern Turkish language did not exist at the time of the Seljuqs, and it was certainly not the language of the Seljuq dynasty. While the dynasty itself was heavily Persianized and Islamized (Arabized), a heavily Persianized and Arabized Turkmen was the language of the tribal chiefs who served in the military of the Seljuqs (similar to the Ottoman language). Besides that, the Turkish identity of the Seljuqs is controversial anyway. For example, C. Fijnaut and L. Paoli write: "In the Seljuq periods, the authorities viewed Georgians, Iranians, and Slavs as the top ranking peoples, and Turks and Turkmens as the lowest. Turkish was a language only to be spoken by people of humble descent, and it is not difficult to find offensive and racist comments in the writings of Seljuq authors." (2004, Springer, pg 206) So I think that it should be removed. It is only relevant to the Turkish Wikipedia article, but not in the English Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.153.142 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who added this Turkish template to the English Wikipedia?!!!! Deliogul 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Note: It is normal now. Deliogul 08:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Main page: WP:Sockpuppetry

All Wikipedians have a main account from which they may edit. The main account (or primary account) is a prime username that may be the most important account to that person. It may be chief in size as far as number of edits or otherwise perceived by others to be the leading account of that person.

Although not common, some Wikipedians create alternate accounts. An alternate account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. There are limited, acceptable uses for alternate accounts. For example, a prominent user might create an alternate account to experience how the community functions for new users. If someone uses alternate accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them.

Multiple accounts include the main account and all alternate accounts. While use of the main account is encouraged, use of alternate accounts is not encouraged. In particular, using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making controversial edits with one account and non-controversial ones with another, or otherwise stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternate account may result in blocking of that account and will affect that Wikipedian's ability to operate alternate accounts.

A sock puppet (or sockpuppet) is a username used for purposes of multiple account deception. The actions of the sock puppet account typically are prompted or otherwise coordinate with the actions of a second account. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden. Where misuse of an alternate account may result in the blocking of that one account, abuse of a second username account may result in all access to Wikipedia being blocked.

Please, see Meatpuppetry section, too. E104421 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

Or else we will have to cquote every statement. The fact is that the statements thus far talk about Persian language, Culture and Persianization. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quotation: Encyclopædia Britannica article: "Seljuq", Online Edition, 2007.:"also spelled Seljuk ruling military family of the Oguz (Ghuzz) Turkmen tribes that invaded southwestern Asia in the 11th century and eventually founded an empire that included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and most of Iran. Their advance marked the beginning of Turkish power in the Middle East." Please, do not remove that sentence. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Stop editing to "Persian" origin. Seljuqs and all their states are Turkish states. Pan-Persian blanking should stop anymore. Encyclopedia Iranica is not a reliable source. IT states everyone is Persian. stop it.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say "Persian", it says "Persianate" which is something different. Read the article Persianate society. The Seljuqs were ethnic Turks, but they were Persianate in culture, language, and even identity. That's what most scholastic sources say:
  • "Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks." (Jonathan Dewald, "Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World", Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 24) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.130.148 (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Persianate" is ridiculous and racist expression. noone can except it. Go to Melik Şah and say "You are Persianate!" what doyou think answer?
They were Turkish. Of course Persian language were being used togather with Arabic as Lingua Franca. I ama Turksih man and i am writing in English. am I Anglicisied? of course not! Some orientalists think that they were "Persianated". IF they were Perisanated thus persianate, how do you think there would be A Republic of Turkey 1000 years after??? There tens of milions of Turks in Iran which is a Persian country. And those Turks are not Persianated. They speak Turkish. Their culture is Turkish. Lingua Franca and identity of a country are differnet things.
Finally what for to blank the references??? that is unexceptable! removing references is blanking which is vandalism.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring scholastic sources, and believe me: if you continue, it will get you banned. The Seljuqs did not identify themselvs as Turks or Persian, but simply as Seljuqs. The expression "Turk" was pejorative at that time and was a reference to "barbarian" Turkish nomads. Even in the Ottoman Empire, the word "Turk" was considered an insult:
  • ... in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages ... (Bernard Lewis quoted in O. Mehmet, "Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions", 1990, p. 115)
  • ... One consequence was to reinforce these officers sense of their Turkish nationality, and a sense of national grievance arising out of the contrast between the non-Muslim communities, with their prosperous, European-educated elites, and 'the poor Turks [who] inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plough.' Unlike the non-Muslim and non-Turkish communities, they noted with some bitterness, the Turks did not even have a proper sense of their own national identity, and used to make fun of each other, calling themselves 'donkey Turk' ... (Handan Nezir Akmeshe, "The Birth Of Modern Turkey: The Ottoman Military And The March To World War I", I.B.Tauris, 2005. p. 50)
It was no different in the Seljuq era:
  • ... The word Türk which was used at the beginning in such meanings as "nomad and peasant," later on departed from these meanings and came to be used to mean "stupid, doll-witted" (aptal, idraksiz). The Seljuqids [...] used the word to distinguish themselves from the nomadic Turcoman tribes ("Türk") and from those who were non-urban ... (Soykut, Mustafa. "Historical Image Of The Turk In Europe", Isis Press, Istanbul 2003, p. 14, ISBN 9754282471)
A famous poem of that time says:
  • ... Nedir bildin me sin âlemde Türk'ü -- Ola eğninde kürkü, başında börkü -- Ne meszheb bile, ne din, ne diyânet -- Yumaz yüzün ne abdest ü tehâret ... (translation: "Did you know who is the Turk in this world? -- The one who has fur on his back and a fur hat on his head -- He does not know about religion, or religious sects, or piety -- Never washes his face, perform ablutions, or cleans himself"; Agha Sırrı Levend, Divan Edebiyatı, Istanbul 1984, p. 597) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.130.148 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue your disruptive behavior, you will get banned. So please stop ignoring and deleting sources! "Persianate" is a common English word in scholastic sources. Just read the article Persianate society.




Initially you should sign your comments.

First, there everytime were people, such as artists, poets, and officers, even Sultans, who were against Turkish identity. They did use the word "Turk" to mean bad things, or for to associate bad things. That is true. But this never make the word "Turk" an "insult word". Every nation experienced it including Jews, Armenians, Englishes, Irishes, Germans, etc. But the identity never changes and insults define insulters -in the history, as well as at present. You read a few pages and think "Turk" is an insult word for Seljuks and Ottomans. That shows how ignorant you are about Turkish history. "Turk" has been the name of the states Turks founded for thousands of years. including Seljuks and Ottomans. I will not teach you Turkish history. Becasue you do not deserve it. But you shoud know "mr. nameless" that Turks never used "Turk" with a bad meaning except those who were not Turk but among Turks.

Seljuqs, just like Otomans, Göktürks, Karahanids, Oghuz Yabgu State, and Republic of Turkey... and just like all states and empires "Turkish" people founded were Turkish. Manuplating words, using biased, nationalist, "anti-turkist", and racist "writings" as sources to define Turkish entities as "x-ated", "not-Turkish but Turkic" or whatelse is just teach me how Persians are cursed with inferiority complex.

Do not change the identity of Turkish people, dynasties, states, empires, scientists.

Do not blank references which are not devoted for "Persianated theory"

I am not vandal. I am contributing Wikipedia by putting the truth first. But those who begrudge other nations success, tend to be.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seljuqs were Persianate without a doubt. The important thing is to determine the degree of it. Imho, they were under heavy Persian influence, at least when we consider the noble class of the empire. Deliogul (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You don't understand. "Persianate" is not a legitimate word, nor a legitimate feinition, nor a legitimate term.


--Polysynaptic (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

polysynaptic haklı, arada sırada türk taklidi yapın, persinated da ne demek aq--Orkh (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use English for talk page discussions on the English wikipedia. john k (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Seljuq Empire was clearly a Turkish Empire. Stop non-sense pan-Iraninan propaganda with references like "Encyclopedia Iranica". You can visit the http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/encyclopedia/article_show/Seljuk_Empire/m0009478.html link and see that the empire was Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkadirbeyoglu (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Turk" was sometimes a prejorative term among the persians of the time. Seljuk rulers may distanced themselves from nomadic turcoman tribes in order to rule persian subjects. though they weren't denounced their identity. For example, alp arslan once wrote a letter to byzantine emperor and said; "turcomans are my relatives, do not kill them". At the time turcoman nomads whom are escaping from seljuk domination entered anatolia and clashed settled byzantines. so they weren't exactly "friends" of alp arslan but he still name them as his relatives and demanded their well being.

persian language was official because most of the civil officers was persians. though probably seljuk sultans used turkish for daily speech like ottoman, mameluke or indian turkish rulers. army's language was indeed turkish and the seljuk rulers' primary function was commanding armies.

ottoman language was mix of turkish, persian and arabic and scribes kept their records in this official tongue. though when a scribe quoted ottoman sultan's own speech, which clearly we can read in records, those speeches was common turkish, not in official ottoman language. it's logical to assume seljuks using turkish in everyday speech like ottomans while also being fluent in persian. so while persianate is correct term, i think degree of persianateness is overemphesized on language issue in this article.

on the other hand, persian society was arabianated under rule of caliphs. even the late persian language evolved from pahlevi under arabic influence. emphesizing seljuks' persianateness while nobody labeling persian culture as arabianate hints domination of indo-europeancentric culturalist views. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.86.72 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Helped Vandalism

please;

{{editprotected}}

I requested protection against IP Vandalism and blanking. But you protected the article after vandal edited the article.

please UNDO LAST ACTION of anonymous IP user 82.83.133.161.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Declined. See meta:Wrong version. Sandstein (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE NAME OF SELJUQ

The name of Seljuq comes from SALCIK -after Selcuk... Sal meaning in Turkish=RAFT and cık=little (supplementary) Selçuk=Little RAFT.. and Raft was very important for Seljuqs.For example Oğuz Turks couldnt pass to Volga river without Raft.Just winters when river freezed. Sorry for Bad english but anybody dont talk about their name origin. And Source "Jean Paul Roux" his book: Faune et Flore sacrees p134, and Turkish writer Doğan Avcıoğlu History Of Turks p372" Please add this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.224.87.216 (talk • contribs) 11:34, January 22, 2008 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

Name

from where does the prefix "Great" come from? Isn't it redundant or even POV?--Pejman47 (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The epithet serves to distinguish it from the Seljuk sultanates that split off from the Great Sultanate around the end of the 11th century, mostly upon the death of Malik Shah I, such as those of Anatolia, Kerman, Syria, and Iraq, all under the leadership of members of the Seljuk dynasty, descendants of Seljuk.  --Lambiam 00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits needed in the References

Ref. 13 loses its italic form roughly 2/3 of the way through, and ref. 16 shows as misaligned larger bold text. The regular Edit command doesn't offer the text of the Refs., so I couldn't fix these items (except for 16., which I didn't know what to do with.) Nikevich (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turko-Persian

http://books.google.com/books?q=Seljuk+turko-persian --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish expression Büyük Selçuklu İmparatorluğu is a modern expression and was unknown at the time of Seljuqs (most of all, because the New Turkish language did not exist at that time and developed much later). As such, it is irrelevenat, as the power-base of the Great Seljuqs was further in the east and because the official "state" language of the empire was Persian (and to some extent also Arabic). Tajik (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish origin

Too much discussion on the nationality. Seljuks were of Turkish origin. But as the word empire suggest, the country was multi-lingualthe . It was true that Persian was used in certain official writings. But what does it prove ? Remember Persian was lingua franca of the era, just like Latin of Europe. ( Do we call North Europeans Latin just because they used Latin in their letters ? )Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Empire, not about the Seljuq dynasty. And the empire was NOT Turkic. Tajik (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, er, the British empire was not Anglo-Saxon? john k (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad comparison. The British Empire started from a sedentary, well-organized kingdom and conquered territories around the world that were, usually, inferior in terms of military, science, culture, etc. It continued to remain "British" and "English" and exported its language, culture, and identity to the conquered territories. The Seljuqs were the leaders of a band of loosely-allied central Asian nomads, culturally inferior to neighboring peoples, who first overran the Persian territories, quickly adopted the local customs, and then began to move further West in the name of the conquered regions (both in the name of Muslim caliphate and that of the Persian kings). They never established their own language in any region, quite to the contrary. They adopted the literary languages of the conquered region, appointed locals to the highest positions, etc. Already Alp Arslan had started to replace the Turkoman militia with a trained army of Arab and Kurdish "ghazis". Tajik (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely their own language was (eventually) established in northwestern Iran, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, no? john k (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Turkish language was first established by the Karamanoğlu (under Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey) who were part of the Beylik era of Anatolia. In the end, it was Atatürk who made Turkish an official language. In court and court surroundings, Persian remained the official and dominant religion. That's the reason why Kayqubad I carved verses of the Shahnama in his palaces and why Suleiman the Magnificent compiled an entire divan in Persian. In Azerbaijan, the language was established by the Qara Qoyunlu and Aq Qoyunlu (and, after that, by the Qizilbash). The Seljuqs had nothing to do with it. In regard of Seljuqs conquests in Anatolia and Caucasus, the Encyclopaedia of Islam writes about Alp Arslan: "The securing of the rich lands of Djibāl and the reduction of the Būyids were thus his objectives, with Ādharbāydjān and the routes into the Caucasus, Armenia and Anatolia being left to the less-disciplined bands of Turkmens." These "less-disciplined bands of Turkmens" later founded the Beyliqs of Anatolia and - in the next centuries - (more or less) established Turkish dialects in the regions. The overwhelming majority of the Seljuq Empire remained non-Turkish. Tajik (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No the Turkish language existed way before beylik era of anatolia, the roots of Turkish language can be traced back to Central Asia. The oldest records of Turkic language, is the old Turkic Orkhon inscriptions of the 7th century Göktürk khaganate. Following the ADOPTION of Islam c. 950 by the Kara-Khanid Khanate and the Seljuq Turks, who are both regarded as the cultural ancestors of the Ottomans, the administrative language of these states acquired a large collection of LOANWORDS from Arabic and Persian. Turkish literature during the Ottoman period, particularly Ottoman Divan poetry, was influenced by Persian, including the adoption of poetic meters and a great quantity of IMPORTED words. What ataturk did was when creating the Republic of Turkey he REMOVED the Persian and Arabic LOANWORDS in favor of NATIVE variants and coinages from Turkic roots. Turkic language is spoken by Turkic peoples across a vast area from EASTERN EUROPE and the MEDITERRANEAN to CENTRAL ASIA, SIBERIA and WESTERN CHINA. Seljuqs origin is Turkic but Seljuq empire was based more on religion than race it was a multi lingual and multi ethnical empire. Turks in Seljuq era spoke turkic and those people are still living in iran. Today iran is full of turks irans population is around 74 million and 24% of that are azeri turks, 2% Turkmens and 1% Qashqai Turks. In total thats around 20 million turks in iran, thats all due to seljuq turks conquest of Iran. FFS Seljuq empire is turkic, it was created by Turks ruled by Turks and named after a turk, you dont have to be an einstein to understand that, do yaa? Mystery.sin (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This un-scholarly, un-encyclopedic, nationalistic comment is not worth of any comments. Your edit will be reverted, because it is wrong. You lack understanding of the subject, and you lack knowledge of the subject. Sorry. Tajik (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's you who should do a little research. Even in the wikipedia article of Turkic languages you will see that Turkish language goes way back to Asia.
And, by the way: it's Turkic languages - it's a family, not a single language. The Orkhon inscription was written in the 8/9th century, and it is - literally - filled with Non-Turkish words. The oldest inscription of the Göktürks, namely the Bugut Inscription, was not in any Turkic language but in Sogdian. In fact, the ethnonym türk is derived from Khotanese truka (which via Sogdian trukut became türküt and finally türk), the name of a Scythian tribe in the Altay region. Steppe people did not have a nationality, they formed alliances whenever the needed it. The Oghuz alliance was itself a mix of different peoples, and the Qynyq were one family within that confederation. Calling the Seljuq Empire "Turkic" is totally wrong. It did not act as a Turkish empire, it did not use Turkish (in fact, there is not a SINGLE written text in Turkish from the Seljuq era!), it did not identify as Turkish. And as has been already explained: this article is about the EMPIRE, not about the ruling family (which was totally mixed with local aristocratic families due to marriage-politics). As for the Ottomans: the Qarakhanids are not regarded their cultural ancestors. Tajik (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I told Mystery.sin, this has been addressed. And now, it has been addressed, AGAIN! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually believe in the nonsense you spat? Enought with the Iranic/Persian fairy tales, this is wikipedia not your private website in here people have to be neutral and not biased. The ethnonym Turk or term Turk applied to a Turkic group was in reference to the Göktürks in the sixth century. The Orhun inscriptions (AD 735) use the terms Turk and Turuk, and Chinese record of 1328 BC refer to neighbouring people as Tu-Kiu located on the Orkhon River south of Lake Baikal. The monuments of Kultigin and Bilge Kagan, situated near the Kosho-Tsaydam lake in the Orhun River valley to the south of the Lake Baykal, and that of Sage Tonyukuk the Deputy-Khan a little farther, are the three important memorials which make up what is known in general as the Orhun Monuments or old Turkic monuments, which are filled with Turkic words and form the base of Turkic language.
And about the Bugut monument: The Bugut monument was not written in old Turkic(Orhun script) but it was about Gokturk empire. It was basically a narrator of historical events, on three sides of it there was a Sogdian texts in Sogdian letters (Sogdian alphabet is derived from syriac, the descendant script of the aramic alphabet) and on the forth side there is a Sanskrit text in Brahmi letters. Having encountered many religions and cultures throughout the history, Turks have changed their alphabets within the centuries by the influence of these religions and cultures. Since then, Orkun, Sogdian, Uyghur, Chinese, Mani, Brahmi(sanskrit), Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Cyrillic and Latin alphabets were used in Turkish/Turkic texts. The longest used alphabet by Turks was the Arabic alphabet due to adoption of islam. Turks before stepping in iran converted to islam and used arabic. People in Iran also used arabic alphabet so thats why you dont see any written text in Turkish during the seljuq era. Arabic was lingua franca of that era, just like Latin of today and Turks didnt try to destroy others language or culture because it kept the empire unified, it kept people from not rebelling. Turks in Seljuq era spoke Turkic(Mother Tongue) but write in Arabic and those people still live in Iran. Today iran is full of turks, Irans population is around 74 million and 24% of that are Azeri Turks, 2% Turkmens and 1% Qashqai Turks. In total thats around 20 million turks in iran, thats all due to Seljuq Turks conquest of Iran. Seljuq empire was Turkic, it was created by Turks ruled by Turks and named after a Turk. Its quite simple to understand. The "Persinate Turkic medieval Sunni Muslim empire" definition stays, no more biased one sided bullcrap. Neutrality is kept. -- Mystery.sin (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical nationalistic whine. Since sunshine has difficulty reading REFERENCES, here are some facts taken from the article's references.....

  • It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians...
  • Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship ...
  • Not only did the inhabitants of Khurasan not succumb to the language of the nomadic invaders, but they imposed their own tongue on them. The region could even assimilate the Turkic Ghaznavids and Seljuks (eleventh and twelfth centuries)
  • While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as law, theology and science, the culture of the Seljuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in the early adoption of Persian epic names by the Seljuk rulers (Qubād, Kay Khusraw and so on) and in the use of Persian as a literary language.
  • Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks'.
  • As no literary Turkish existed in Western Asia at that time, the Seljuk court of Konya adopted Persian as its official language.
  • On the contrary, it was the Turkic invaders who were progressively Iranized...
  • Like the Ghaznavids before them, the Seljuks and their Turkish warriors soon succumbed to the spell of that Persian culture which had just been brought to its peak by Firdawsi. They rapidly adopted Persian as the language of the educated, and soon also as the language of daily life. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery.sin, you have absolutely no qualification in this subject. It's the usual nationalist stuff, but not a single reference to scholarly references. The Scythian origins of the founders of the so-called Göktürk Empire, is almost universally accepted. The German version of the article has long been updated, citing scholars such as Wolfgang-Ekkehard Scharlipp, Peter Benjamin Golden, András Róna-Tas. Have you ever read any publications by these scholars?! I doubt it. Golden says in An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, pp121-122 : "On the basis of the available data, it is unclear whether the A-shih-na were originally speakers of a language other than Turkic. It is certainly a possibility that should not be excluded. Clearly, they were profoundly influenced by their Iranian and Tokharian neighbors. As Kljastornyji and Kivsic point out, it is hardly accidental that the first Chinese envoy sent to Bumin in 545 was a Sogdian. Significantly, Sogdian merchants alsowere active among the Northern T'ieh-le, trying to create a counterbalance to the Jou-Jan. Subsequently, Sogdians were present in the Eastern and Western Qaganat courts and played important political, cultural and economic roles." Carter Vaughn Findley writes in The Turks in World History, p19: "The founders of the Türk Empire, Istemi and Bumin, both had non-Turkish names. Far from leading to a pure national essence, the search for Turkic origins leads to a multiethnic and multilingual steppe milieu". Róna-Tas gives - by far - the most detailed analysis. You can read it here. Tajik (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two remarks

  • The word Nationalism as we use today had no meaning in the Muslim world of Middle ages. The sense of belonging was Ummah and nothing else. In the Muslim world of Middle ages such names of Turk, Arab, Persian were almost out of usage. Such names are attributed by the historians of modern times. But they had reason to do so. In Seljuk Empire the ruling class as well as the army was Turkish. Although the original population of the country was not Turkish, the influx of Turkish tribes changed the demographics considerably. (Even today Azeris, Turkmens, Khorasanians etc of Iran make up a large Turkish community.) So it is no use to deny the Turkish character of the empire. But it is true that during fragmentation, the settled Turkish elite began to be Persianized. (Seljuks of Kerman, Seljuks of Hamadan etc.)
  • Tajik (talk on the 25 the Sep.) thinks Turkish is established by Mehmet of Karaman. I am not sure what establish means here. Is Turkish an artificially produced language just like Volapük or Esperanto. Why did he produce and with what magic he could succed ? It should be remembered that Mehmet controlled less than 1/4 of Turkey and he had almost no facility to force people to learn a new language ? By the way, maybe Tajik volunteres to give a sound explanation of how Kaşgarlı Mahmut who was a contemporary of Tuğrul and Alp Arslan, presented a 7500 word dictionary of ( yet unestablished  !) Turkish to caliph 200 years before Mehmet's decree.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has all been explained. There is no need to discuss this again. For laymen, what you say may sound (more or less) logical, but the actual process that lead to the establishment of Turkic languages in Western Asia (or the establishment of Indo-European languages in Africa, Australia, or South America) is much more complex. There are excellent scholarly sources and reference works, for example the article "Saldjūqs" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam or the book "The History of the Turkic Peoples" by Peter B. Golden.
a) The Seljuq Empire was not Turkish, it was only ruled by a dynasty of Turkic origins (to make it more complicated: the actual origins of the Qynyq tribe are totally unknown; all that is known is that at the time of the dynasty's foundation, they were Turkic-speaking). Turkic tribes were only a very small minority. They were not an "elite" either. Usually, they were treated as lower class and lived outside the cities. b) The Seljuq army had two columns: the first one was the semi-independent Turkoman tribes. They were the backbone of the Seljuq military power, but usually difficult to control. The second one - the real army - was professional army, consisting mostly of Arab, Daylamite, and Kurdish ghazis and commanded by slave soldiers of Persianized Turkic origin. It was this professional army and the militant Kurds and Arabs that secured Malik Shah's victory. Shortly after, Nizam ul-Mulk had the head of the Seljuqid family, Qavord, executed. The execution of the oldest member of the Seljuq family by the Persian divan demonstrated the power of the "ajam" or Persian elite within the Seljuq empire. c) The modern Turkic-speaking population of Asia (like all other peoples) are defined by language, not by descent. That means that the modern speakers of Turkic languages in Anatolia, Caucasus, etc are not direct descendants of Turks. They only adopted Turkic languages at some point in history due to the political dominance of succeeding Turkish rulers (Aq Qoyunlu, Ottomans, etc). The Turkification had already begun under semi-autonomous rulers connected to the Seljuq expansion, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the Seljuq dynasty itself. d) Mahmoud al-Kashgari was a writer and observer, not a modern linguist. Besides that, he was of Uyghur origin and his "Turkish" was significantly different from the Oghuz Turkish of the early Seljuqs. In fact, Kashgari considered Oghuz Turks to be "fake Turks", because their language was highly Persianized and because they had intermarried with local people.
I suggest you study some actual academic works, written by actual scholars. Tajik (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretations

I am not a man of polemics. But I feel it is my duty to correct some misinterpretations of my former remarks by Tajik. I had thought that my former remarks were clear enough and I am rather disappointed to see that I have to repeat myself.

a. I did not say that Seljuk Empire was completely Turkish. There is a distinction between a kingdom and an empire. In an empire there are many people of various stocks. No empire is national. (Seljukids, Ottomans, Safavids etc.) But the empires are usually classified by the origin of their ruling class. ( The percentage of Mongols in vast Mongolic Empire was probably not more than % 1. They were only a small minority everywhere. But still, the name of the empire is Mongol Empire.) So Seljuk Empire is a Turkish empire.

b.I didn’t call nomadic Turkmen tribes elite. The word elite refers to settled rulling class of Turks some of which were soon assimilated by the local population during fragmentation era.

c. I didn’t quite understand Qavort's (Kavurt) existence in this discussion. It was just an interfamily strife for the throne which was very common during Middle ages. Nizamülmülk was lucky to back the winning candidate. If Qavort was the winner, probably Nizamülmülk as well as Melikşah would be executed.

d. I didn’t claim that all Turkish speakers have a common genetical origin. I am not interested in genetic make up of people. In fact classifying people according to race and DNA is disgusting and considered as a crime against humanity.

e. Turkification had nothing to do with Karakoyunlu, Akkoyunlu or Ottoman dynasties. The language of Seljuk Turkey was Turkish. Yunus Emre, who lived in the 13 th century, (before the said dynasties) in what is now West Turkey, produced some of the most beautiful Turkish lyric poetry which is still popular.

f. Who called Kaşgarlı Mahmut (of 11 th century) a modern linguist ? I referred to Mahmut just to remind that Turkish was already well established with a vocabulary of 7500 words. (There is also a reference in this discussion page to Orkhun inscriptions of early 8 th century . But I preferred an example in Muslim era.)

Sincerely I hope my remarks are clear and I have no intention to continue the discussion.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers:
a) The Mongol Empire is known as the "Mongol Empire" not only because of the ruling elite, but because it represented a movement of nomadic steppe warriors - very "Mongol" in identity and way of life - that swept through well established civilizations, from China to Persia to Europe. It established a "Mongol" nomadic empire in a very short period, defined by Mongol rulers, Mongol laws (Yasa), and the expansion of a "Mongol" way of life (i.e. the expansion of nomadism). The Seljuq rule was nothing comparable. The Seljuqs were already Persianized to a large extent, and they never tried to established some kind of knew identity or way of life or laws. While the Mongols actively suppressed Islamic laws by introducing Genghis Khan's "yasa", the Turks actually fully submitted to Islam and the Perso-Islamic way of life. In terms of religion, way of life, identity, culture, literature, and polite language, the Seljuq Empire was no different from previous Non-Turkish empires. It was thoroughly Persianate and Persianized, to an extent that the Seljuqs of Rum claimed descent from the Sassanids.
c) Qāvord's assassination had a much wider political meaning. It was in fact a silent battle between Persians and Turks, and it demonstrated the immense influence of Persian noblemen (Nizam al-Mulk, Kamal al-Mulk, Sharaf al-Mulk, Kamal al-Dowla, etc.) within the state apparatus. All important positions, sometimes even the highest military positions, were given to Persians. The Persianization of the Seljuq family was the main reason for the Turkoman uprising in Khorasan which ended with the murder of Sultan Sanjar. (see: C.E. Bosworth, "Khurāsān", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, online ed.)
d) Using genetics is not a "crime against humanity". In fact, genetics is very helpful to determine the origin or the linguistic classification of certain ancient peoples (for example the Tocharians in China). Such a clear shirt from east to west (meaning from Mongolia to Anatolia) is almost totally absent. That means that modern speakers of Turkic language in Western Asia are mostly descendants of older populations of the region (Albanians, ancient Greeks, ancient Armenians, etc) who were linguistically Turkified to invading Turks.
e) Yonus Emre was not associated with the Seljuqs. He lived outside the centers of learning, his poetry was very simple and was supposed to convert nomads. At that time, the Turks were still a minority in Anatolia. Hajji Bektash Wali who was also associated with the Turkoman nomads was neither a Turkoman himself nor did he write anything in Turkish.
f) Mahmoud al-Kashgari's writings have significance in Turkology (because they represent the first Islamic writings in a Turkic language), but they do not have any wider significance in oriental studies. They do not represent any greater influence of Turkish. In fact, it's quite the contrary. While Mahmoud al-Kashgari opposed Persianization and the Persian language, the Seljuqs had actually no interest in Turkish but instead became great patrons of Persian and Arabic, totally contradicting Mahmoud al-Kashgari. As for Orkhon: it is in fact the first example of Turkich writing, but it is not a good example as it is filled with Non-Turkic expressions, names, titles, etc. And most of all: it is not the first writing of Turks. In fact, the earliest inscriptions of the very first Turks were in Sogdian (as was the name of the very first Turkic clan, the Ashina; modern scholars believe that the Ashina themselves were of Sogdian origin). Tajik (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Biritsh Empire and Maya Empire were Persian Empire. Look at Persian books. And the real real:) is Alexander the great was Persian!!! And Assyrians too!! What a joke!! Please Iranian people, the culture of Persian collapse after Conquest Of Islam. Everybody knows it!!

switching some sections

shouldn't the section titled "division of empire" be placed before the sections on the crusades? i feel that this is more chronologically accurate.

--Skydude176 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake flag

This flag of the Seljuks is fake and invented by TRT in 1969.[1]

Shall we remove the flag ? Or we have to add caption. Takabeg (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that created the flag needs to be notified and allowed to present his/her evidence for the legitimacy of the flag. IF the flag is fake then it should be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref.

  1. ^ Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız, "16 Devlet Masalı ve Uydurma Bayraklar" (16 State tales and fake flags), Ötüken , 65. sayı, 1969.

"Persian Empire"

Hello, I was hoping somebody could give me the exact quote stating that the Seljuk Empire was known as the "Persian Empire." I have attempted to find the source listed, but I could not get my hands on it. I have never seen the Seljuk Empire referenced to as the "Persian Empire," and my real question is whether the reference to the Seljuks as "Persian Empire" is a widespread thing, or merely one writer/historian's opinion. If this is so, I believe that adding the name "Persian Empire" to the info-box is unnecessary and maybe even misleading. If I am wrong, I will gladly accept my mistake. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from this edit[5], you might contact User:Mghotbi 85 on his/her talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Much appreciated. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Empire? are you guys serious? we are talking about Seljuq Turks here, their language could be Persian but they werent Persians. Redman19 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second the edit of User:Mghotbi 85 contains a dead link, there is no link to a source where it is stated that the Seljuq Empire was an Persian Empire. I will revert this edit keeping out both Persian and Turkish until somebody comes up with a clear source. Redman19 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing to do. Thank you for your support. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in this Article -- The Persian Identity of the Seljuqs

"Important to the Seljuqs' self image was their belief that they were destined to rule the world as a master race... Mahmud of Kashgar wrote 'I have seen that God has caused the Sun of Empire to rise in the house of the Turks.'

Although this 'master race' was Turkish, their bureaucrats and courtiers spoke Persian. Nizam al-Mulk describes the administration of the Seljuq sultanate and the pompous court rituals of former Persian dynasties. " The Cambridge Illusrated History of the Islamic World, page 39, Cambridge University Press, 1996

I believe it would be appropriate to add this somehow: the Seljuks thought themselves as Turkish, though their officials spoke Persian. I would not say they were entirely Persianized, as Persian was a lingua franca and their administration derived from whatever regimes were present in their area at that time, which indeed included heavy Persian elements, but (considering the quote above) if a Seljuk was asked whether they considered themselves Persian or Turkish, they would probably answer "Turkish" in Farsi.

I am also planning to reconstruct the sentence regarding the language and culture of the Seljuqs from "being highly Persianized" to something that includes "being heavily influenced by Arab-Persian elements, and the Byzantine court tradition as well as their own Turcoman past, though the Persian influence was the heaviest one" as this seems to be what Prof. Koprulu seems to be saying in the reference, if no one opposes. How about 'The Great Seljuks adopted Persian as their language, and their culture and identity was influenced by Arab-Persian elements, and Byzantine court traditions, as well as their own Turcoman past, though the Persian influence was heaviest." or something along those lines?

Instead of "Their reign is characterized by Persian astronomers such as Omar Khayyám, and the Persian philosopher al-Ghazali." That sentence should be rewritten as "During their reign the Seljuks gave patronage to intellectuals such as the Persian astronomer, poet, and mathematician Omar Khayyam and the Islamic philosopher and jurist al-Gazali." as this seems to be more appropriate. What is important is not the nationality of the intellectuals, but the fact that there were intellectuals, but right now the whole article seems to primarily focus on the Persians of the Empire. Also, the wording is awkward, if one reads carefully, this sentence basically breaks down to "The reign of the Seljuks is characterized by Persian astronomers and a Persian philosopher."

I have heard a lot of times that Encyclopedia Iranica is not neutral, but as I have no knowledge, I will not argue its neutrality.. However, if it is true, I believe the references to Encyclopedia Iranica should be removed. I should also add to this sentence that whenever encyclopedia iranica is cited, it is followed by two or three more definitely neutral references, so removing the source will not affect the article. If something is backed up by one or two reliable sources, there is no need to add another two sources, especially if their neutrality is disputed, so perhaps it will be best to remove the citations altogether as they are not necessary, even if its neutral. And if it is neutral, perhaps it should only be included in the references where there is no other reference cited. There is no need for a whole string of references for a single word or sentence, if one or two is enough. This applies for all sources, wherever there is four or five citations for a single word, at least some of them should be removed.

One other thing, would it be appropriate to remove the continous use of the word "Persian" (Persian Samanid Shahs, Persian Nizamulmulk...). It is true that these were all Persian, but as I have stated above, this article seems completely focused on the Persian aspect of the Empire, not the Empire itself. If one would like to know the nationality of Nizam-ul Mulk, they can just click the link. Is there any point in writing the nationality of a person or state behind its link, when we read an article about the War in Iraq is it written "the American" before each "George Bush," or "Black" before every "Obama?" Here, in this article, the word is overused.

Also, "Persianate" and "Turco-Persian tradition" are not the main articles for "Great Seljuk," and neither is "Seljuk dynasty." Instead of being identified as such, "See also: Seljuq dynasty" is more appropriate, while "Persianate" and "Turco-Persian tradition" should be under a section such as "Culture."

If no one opposes these, I will begin working on this article and I will begin with the things I have listed above. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a scholar about this subjet, I trust you mate, Im ensured you can turn this article in something nice thats accurate, the Seljuq Empire is a part of Turkish history and we should not allow it to be taken by others. Redman19 (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to massive changes and removal of published, peer-reviewed information. And statements like, ".....the Seljuq Empire is part of Turkish history and we should not allow it to be taken by others.", sounds to much like a battleground mentality, and not conducive to the building of an encyclopedia. As for Encyclopedia Iranica labeled as not neutral, yet you used the quote from Mahmud of Kashgar which was taken from the preface of a Turkish dictionary, which was conveniently not mentioned. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a scholar, but hopefully one soon :) Thank you for your trust. There are multiple issues in this article apart from those, I will dive in my library soon to fix them. Rigt now I am a bit busy, but by the end of the week hopefully I will get all the changes I mentioned above done. I am hoping to make this article at least a GA. This is a very important article about a very important Empire, and it deserves to be better. Right now its pitiful. And yes, they are Turkish, even if they are part of not only Turkish but Iranian history too. But right now, this article seems to be trying to push a "Seljuqs were Persian" point of view. No nation has a monopoly on the Seljuqs. They were a multinational empire that was an important part of Middle Eastern History. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Kansas Bear, you misunderstood my points. First of all, why do you oppose to "massive changes and removal of published, peer-reviewed information," if the changes will be helpful? If there is anything that I will change that you do not want it to be changed specifically, say so and state your reasons. Opposing to change because the changes will be massive or so is not a valid reason. Looking at the low level of the article, it seems it does require massive changes. Second, if you notice what I said, I said "And yes, they are Turkish, even if they are part of not only Turkish but Iranian history too." and "No nation has a monopoly on the Seljuqs. They were a multinational empire that was an important part of Middle Eastern History." Third of all, read again what I said. I said that I heard Encyclopedia Iranica is not neutral, but I have no information. So I just said that if it is true that it is not neutral, it should be removed. Another point, the preface from a Turkish dictionary was a dictionary written at the time of the Seljuqs, not an encyclopedia written in modern times. Plus I quoted from a Cambridge history, which happened to include the quote. So if you oppose to the dictionary quote you oppose to the encyclopedic history published by Cambridge. Also, what are you implying by using the word "conveniently"? My quote was completely taken from the Cambridge history, it was not my choice to not say "Turkish dictionary," it was the historians at Cambridge who chose to not say it. [I apologize. As Kansas Bear pointed out below, the Cambridge Islamic History did indeed say "Turkish dictionary. I was the one who left that out ---Seljuq--- (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)]. Also, did you care to read why I still want some references (may or may not include) Encyclopedia Iranica out? Because, if you notice, for a single word there are 5-6 references. It's overkill. 100 sources may agree with what is said, but this does not mean we should list 100 sources. If one or two sources are reliable, then it should be enough to cite only two, or three. It is useless to have 10 citations for every second word. Once more, if you are opposing to changes just because they are "big" changes, you cannot improve anything. If there is anything which you are opposing because of specific reasons, go ahead and say it. But opposing changes because they are "massive," is not valid. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not valid? So what changes exactly are you planning?? Removal of references stating the Great Seljuq Empire was a Turko-Persian Empire?
And as for your statement, "My quote was completely taken from the Cambridge history, it was not my choice to not say "Turkish dictionary," it was the historians at Cambridge who chose to not say it." That is an outright falsehood.
Taken from The Cambridge Illusrated History of the Islamic World, page 39, Cambridge University Press, 1996[6], "In a preface to a Turkish dictionary, the eleventh lexicographer Mahmud of Kashgar wrote, 'I have seen that God has caused the sun of empire to rise in the house of the Turks.'". The historians at Cambridge did include it, therefore you did not.
For someone supposedly new, you seem to be quite familiar to Wikipedia protocol. I do not see any reason for any references to be deleted. If you think you have some information that is pertinant to this article, bring it to the talk page. Deletion of information/references simply because, in your opinion, the article is "pitiful", is not a valid reason. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the changes I am planning. I am not posting them again.

You are right. I checked it again, it was me who choose to not include it. My apologies for that, that mistake will not be repeated.

Next, read my user page. I am new as a member, but I have spent time reading the protocols and familiarizing myself with them.

Now...
"Richard the Lionhearted was an English king (see book a, book b, book c, book d, book e, book f, book g, book h, book i, book j) who participated in the Third Crusade (see Book a, book c, book d, book l, book n, book x)"
OR "Richard the Lionhearted was an English king who participated in the Third Crusade(see book a, book d)
Which one is better? Provided that "Book a" and "Book c" are reliable sources I don't see the need for the first example.

This article is like the first example. Read the first and second paragraph.

Now, those are not the only changes I am going to do (read my post again). But I don't see anything wrong for wanting to improve an article if it's not a good article in order to make it a good article, even if it means changing and deleting recently published things.
And once more, I do not appreciate you attempting to imply things with italic font (supposedly) or with rather disturbing comments (outright falsehood... What happened to assuming good faith?), if you have anything to say, say it openly. Be constructive, and quit childlike things like that.

And may I wonder, why such an angry style? Once again, if you have a valid reason to oppose to any changes, say so and it will be appreciated. Now, if you decide to be constructive, I will enjoy talking with you here or on my talk page. If not, I see no reason to respond to you. And I do have better things to do then fight and argue in a pointless debate. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave out the "Turkish" or "Persian" part

Perhaps it is best to simply leave out any suggestions on wether the Seljuq empire was a Turkish or Persian empire. Because, there is no widespread agreement on this subject. It really depends on which sources you read. Indeed, any persian historian you ask, or many prominent, international historians such as Micheal Axworhty, Richard Frye, to name two, would not agree that an empire with its capital within Persia, using persian language as the official language of the court and even adopting persian customs from previous dynasties (such as the Nowruz) was somehow a "Turkish" empire.

This is not to mention the fact that the ancestors of these people were not even "Turks", but rather "Turcoman". Thus, "The Turcoman Empire" would be a more proper term to use.

---Mghotbi_85--- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Nonsense. I'm a Turcoman and Turcomans are of Turkic origin of course. Please read a translation of Orkhon inscriptions before you contribute. -F.Mehmet (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William the Bastard, Richard the Lionheart, none could speak English yet ironically they were kings of England.

But in the case of Seljuks, it is obvious they were a nomad empire, they Turkified Persia( even after a century of repression still Turkics have a considerable population in Iran), and used local sources to build a civilization for their own, which is not only Persian( Timurid architecture owes Persians more) but a fusion of central Asian and middle eastern (and later Byzantine and Armenian) architectures. Also Seljuks were a power before they were masters of modern Iran which was only a domain of Seljuks. I understand political motives in Iran that they want to assimilate their minorities peacefully into a single society, but history has to be objective. Also one shall never forget that after 16th century, what separates Persian from Turkic is not language but essentially it is religion. (Ottoman court used Farsi while (at least) Shah Ismail used Turki.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.84 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partition

In section Conquest by Khwarezm and the Ayyubids 9 parts of the former empire has been presented. But I couldn't see the name of the Seljuks of Iraq or Seljuks of Hamedan in the list. I assume they were not classified as one of the the parts. They were considered as the main branch of the empire. If so, why don't we see the names of the main branch sultans after Mehmet Tapar (except Tugrul III) ?. By the way, in the article Seljuq dynasty the names of the sultans after 1118 are given. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

This flag is not a historical one. Because this flag was created in 1969 for "the Calendar of Turkish History" (Türk Tarihi Takvimi ). In short, Seljuq(k)s had never used this flag. I think Wikipedia must not provide information to make a false indication or an indication that would mislead users. For details please see this page. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takabeg, I believe you can go head and remove the flag. No one has come forward to dispute its removal. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merci. Takabeg (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But in many other places this flag is used. It can be alleged but We can use this flag with a note. Like:
File:Seljuq Empire Flag.svg
Alleged Seljuq Empire Flag

AlperenGezer (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we can not use it, unless you have a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Seljuq Empire → Seljuk Empire – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC) per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH.[reply]

First of all, let't see whether "Great Seljuk/Seljuq" (Empire/Sultanate) is "common" or not ?

Now I understand that "Great Seljuk/Seljuq" is not so "common" and let's see simple Seljuk /Seljuq (Empire/Sultanate)

We saw some samples of another Seljuk /Seljuq (Empire/Sultanate) in the results of researches.

Now we understand:

  1. Great Seljuk Empire, Great Seljuq Empire, Great Seljuk Sultanate, Greate Seljuq Sultanate are not common name of this sultanate.
  2. Seljuk Empire & Seljuq Empire means this sultanate in common.
  3. Seljuk sultanate & Seljuq Sultanate can mean both this sultanate and Sultanate of Rum.
  4. Even the character ق is generally transliterated as q, "Seljuk Empire" is more common than "Seljuq Empire" in English sources.

Takabeg (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Turkish, this empire/sultanate is known as "Büyük Selçuk İmparatorluğu" (literally Great Seljuk Empire). This name is also a posteriori name and was created with the name of "Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti" (literally Seljukian State of Anatolia) or "Türkiye Selçuklu Devleti" (literally Seljukian Stete of Turkey) etc. in 1930s. The Turkish authority didn't use the term Rum that . I think those names are biased. But Seljuk Empire that is common name in English is not biased. Now I search the term Seljuk Empire used in Turkish books written in English language. We can find only 68 results ("Seljuk Empire" -Llc + Turkish). So we cannot think that Seljuk Empire is Turkish-biased name. Takabeg (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: If you search Google Books rather than just Google you will see more resuls for "Great Seljuk" (in whatever spelling you choose). This is the common name for it in English, to distinguish it from the other major Seljuk state, the Sultanate/Empire of Rum (and from the little Seljuk states in Syria). (Whether it should be "empire" or "sultanate", I don't know, but often we just say "Great Seljuk" without any other modifier, like "Great Britain".) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Modern Turkish alternative name

Modern Turkish alternative name is needless. This name was translated from other languages a posteriori. So this alternative name had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. -- Takabeg (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The source for the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan.

User Boabkal made an edit deleting this part:

The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran[25] The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century.[26]

and as argument:

(removed pan-turkic disinformation that posed itself as real, via a bad source, in the last sentence of second paragraph. it was originally added by user dragontiger23, who is well known for spreading pan-turkic black propaganda in other pages.)}

1.This User is personally attacking and accusing me falsely of Pan-Turkism and doing pan-Turkic edits. This is not true.


2.There is nothing wrong with the source, the user just doesnt likes the sentence and then declares the whole source as "bad".


3.The sources: (1)Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gábor Ágoston,Bruce Alan Masters, page 279, 2009 (2)Concise Encyclopaedia of World History, Carlos Ramirez-Faria, page 56, 2007

4.What is the point of denying the fact, of the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan under Seljuk rule? If the Turkification never started under the Seljuks, how did Azerbaijan become a 90% Turkic speaking country and Iranitself 25% Turkic speaking???DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To DragonMaster:

Your sources are bad, misleading and false.

These sources are also contradictory to majority accepted sources and research on the Seljuk Empire, which concluded that the Seljuks were patrons of the Persian language and culture and actually defended Iran from Turkoman raiders in the northeast.

Quoting from,

Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161,164; "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace."

This is a credible source already present in the article. The fact you try to falsely claim that Seljuks wanted to Turkify Iran is a contradiction to the very ideals and foundations which Seljuks stood for.

Furthermore, the Turkification of Azerbaijan is a different matter. Iran was not Turkified, so you cannot say that Seljuks wanted it to happen, neither can you say they had intentions of doing that, since they were heavily Persianized to the extent they identified with the Persians, as many sources have pointed out.

So for you to allegedly say Iran was 'turkified' is false. Because 1, it didn't happen. And 2, the Seljuks never instigated such thing.

Furthermore, Azerbaijan was Turkified by non-Seljuks. Azerbaijan was ruled by various small Turkic city-states after the Albanians fled that land. These city-states were never part of the great Seljuk Empire, and in fact they belong to a different era of time.

I can only conclude you're biased (i.e. pan turkic) and based on the other violations in your userpage history, I am certain of it.

Wa Salamu Alaikum BoAbkal (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The source does not become false or misleading, when you do not like it.

2. The source does not say the Seljuks Turkified Iran, read better, it says: The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran[25] gave impetusThat means that under the Seljuk rule, Iran started to Turkify. It doesnt say it was a plan of the Seljuk dynasty.

3.The source doesnt contradict other sources, and doesnt deny that the Seljuk dynasty was Persianate.

4. The source says: The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century.[26] Azerbaijan was part of the Seljuk empire and this is based on a source.

Do you have sources for your theory about the Turkification of Azerbaijan without the Seljuks??DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I never said I didn't like the source. 2. Gave impetus to Turkification of Iran is also a false statement and contradictory to other more academically qualified sources in that article. 3. Seljuks refers synonymously with Oghuz Tribes. The Oghuz tribes who turkified Azerbaijan were in a different era (much later) than the Seljuk Empire, and they weren't part of Seljuk's borders at that time.

Do you even know what Turkification means?BoAbkal (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what is your problem? Why are you denying the Turkification under Seljuk rule? Iran and Azerbaijan were not originally Turkic speaking, Later they became Turkified, that is why today Iran is 25% Turkic speaking and Azerbaijan 90% and Turkey 80%. The Turkification started under the Seljuk rule, we have sources for this, written by historians. If you can not understand history why are you editing? The Great Seljuk Empire started the era of Turkic dynasties in the middle east, after them the Turkic dynasties of Aq Qoyunlu Kara Koyunlu Ottoman Empire emerged, why are you trying to falsify history?

It is very very very interesting that some Turkic rulers learned Persian and wrote or read Persian poems, this can be important for the history of the Persian people, but for the world history it is far more important how these empires changed the ethnicity of large regions. How new political dynasties emerged and Turkic migration started in the middle east. In fact that the Seljuks were Persianate is not important at all, they were also muslims, does this makes them Arabs? No and they also did not become Persian.


The Authors : Gábor Ágoston [7]

And this is the other author: [8] They are both academics, experts on history, that User boabkal personally attacks them just shows how pathetic biased he is. Are there no admins to stop this nonsense??

With a quick search on google books I found many more sources on (Seljuks Turkification) seriously this is written in so many history books, I didnt make this up. here [[9]], [[10]]

on the matter of the Turkification of Iran/Azerbaijan. Because this is already a fact. But there is no way discussing with Boabkal, who would equally name all of those sources as bad and the authors as not academical. This is simple because Boabkal is not neutral he is trying to push his point of view, deleting sources when he doesnt like them.


This is the online version of the source The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran (so I didn't made it up, as he falsely claims) [11]

And here for The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century [12]



And the source ( Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), BoAbkal uses above to prove there was no Turkification, says further in page 164:

Nevertheless and this is perhaps one of the lasting results of Sanjars defeat by the Ghuzz in 1153-they were unable to prevent those Turkmen from establishing themselves in a dense mass.....in the ethnically de-iranized region ehich later became Turkmenistan. At the same time the Turkoman bands led by junior Seljuks on the Anatolia plateau unqestionably transformed those ancient Byzantine lands in to Turkic ones.......

online here [[13]] Posted by DragonTiger23


Salamu Alaikum,

Are you deliberately trying to falsify or mix statements?

Nowhere did Grousset or Rene mention that Seljuks helped in the turkification of some Iranian regions. Much to the contrary, they already stated that the Seljuks had no intentions on doing so.

Did the Seljuk presence turkify Anatolia? Yes - nobody is denying that. But did the Seljuk instigate turkification of Iran? No, it didn't. In fact, the Seljuk rulers who ruled over Persia were against that. They themselves voluntarily became Persian.

Furthermore, the Turkoman raiders who de-iranized modern day turkmenistan were part of the Khwarezmid era. The turkoman raiders attacked Khwarezmid empire, captured some areas of Khwarezm and turkified it. They were not part of the Seljuk era. In fact, during the era of Seljuk Persia, the Seljuks were enemies of the turkoman raiders.

So once again, to accuse Seljuks of giving impetus on turkifying Iran is to contradict what academics have said in various research publications. And it's also an insult to everything the Seljuks stood for. BoAbkal (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am explaining it again, I hope everybody can understand.

Rene and Grousset is 1 person not 2 different persons. First Seljuks are themselves Turkic they are leaders of Turkic nomads in Central Asia. They unite the tribes, defeat the Ghaznavids and conquer todays Iran. In the areas they conquered there live a dozens of ethnic groups and languages, not only Persian. After the conquest the Seljuk dynasty settles down and uses the local bureacracy to administer their new lands.


The Turkification of Iran is a fact( todays Iran's second language is Turkic). With the Seljuk conquest large groups of Turkic nomads come to Iran. Iran started to be ruled by a family from Turkic nomadic origin, This is already a fact for Turkification.


Iran is between Anatolia and Central Asia. The Turkic nomads who Turkified Byzantine Anatolia did not have wings and flew over Iran. They travelled through Iran and some of them settled in Iran, mostly in the Northwestern region known as Azerbaijan Province.


The Seljuk Sultans were Turkic in identity, muslims and the early Sultans spoke Turkic as motherlanguage, some knew Persian as second language. Most of the Seljuk sultans royal/family have Turkic names, they have also Arabic/Persian names because that was common in that age but an Arab or Persian would never have a Turkic name. That already proves that they were not totally assimilated and forget about their Turkic origin.


They were not only enemies of Turcoman raiders, they were enemies of all raiders who raided their empire. No matter what the ethnicity was.


The Turcoman nomads were under Seljuk control, After Iran was conquered the Sultans did not want them to further raid the conquered settled peoples and so mostly they sent the nomads to the border regions of their empire, and those places were Azerbaijan, northwest of Iran and Armenia. But they also tried to settle the Turkic nomads in Iran, by using a system called Iqta'.


When the Byzantines invaded Armenia to punish the nomads, the Seljuk Sultan Alparslan came to save the Turkic nomads and together they won the battle of Manzikert. After that the Seljuk sultan organised the conquest of Anatolia by sending a royal Seljuk family member Qutalmish (Turkic name) to lead the Turkic nomads.


The Seljuks were never Persian, never became ethnic Persians. All the medieval contemporary historians describe the Seljuks as Turks, Arabic historians, Persian historians example Jami' al-tawarikh and medieval European historians.


The Seljuk empire used the Persian language for administration, But they did not do that because they were Iranian nationalists or an ethnic Persian empire, they did it for practical reasons.

The Lingua Franca of that time in the middle east was mostly Persian language in the east and Arabic in the west, at the same time, Latin was the Lingua Franca of Europe. So in that time a writer of Turkic origin would write a history book in Persian language.


Later in the 19the century Orientalist European historians and later nationalist Iranian historians invented and misused all these terms of Persianate and influence of Persian languages to claim everything as being part of Persian ethnicity.


They wrote that because of nationalistic and racist ideas, The Europeans knew about Ancient Persia and saw Persian as Aryans as sort of white-europeans in the middle east, who were higher and more civilized then the non-white, non-european others, especially Turkic peoples.


On purpose they wrote a racist history which basically is:

That only the Persians (Iran has been multi-ethnic throughout history) were allways the scientists and builders, the other ethnicities are ignored and the Turkic peoples were allways the raiders and destroyers of civilization. Later modern Iranian nationalist historians have enthusiastically accepted these racist Orientalist ideas as it satisfies their ego and boasts their nationalism and Pan-Iranism.


They denied all peoples who they deemed as uncivilized not worthy of history. By using a lot of false arguments they promoted the racist idea:

That all most the entire history of the region is a Persian history and ignored all the other numerous nationalities, their descendants continue their work enthusiastically.

FYI: I am not Iranian, Kurdish, Armenian or of any other ethnic group from the Middle East. This is the first and last warning concerning this issue: Stick to the history and NOT the ethnicity of editors involved. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The conclusion is:

Under the first 3 Turkic Seljuk Sultans Tughril, Alp Arslan( both are Turkic names), Malik-Shah I (other name Barkyaruq is Turkic name), large numbers of Central Asian Turkic nomads migrated to Iran and from there later to Anatolia.

So the fact is:

The Seljuq rule gave impetus to the Turkification of Iran. DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is WP:TL;DR. Bottom line is, you can not dismiss scholars as "orientalists" etc, that's not your job as an editor. The source you're insisting on using , does not qualify as a WP:RS by an expert/scholar on this topic. You can not use a questionable random source you fished on Google books, to refute dozens of reputable scholars on a topic. And your own opinions on the topic, are also irrelevant, read WP:OR. If you feel you're right, and others are wrong, you may request WP:30, or put this up for a request for comment on the History and Geography section. But you cannot force your POV by reverting and re-reverting. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the questionable sources I am talking about are "Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire" and "Concise Encyclopaedia of World History," which are not secondary WP:RS sources written by academics, that can be used to make expectational claims or refute secondary scholarly sources. I accidentally removed Rene Grousset too, that an error on my part, as he is a historian and an acceptable WP:RS, who can be given appropriate weight, if cited in proper context. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first concern is that the "Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire" source is not the entire sentence and the snippet view I get indicates the sentence begins with the word, "Although". Would be helpful to know what the entire sentence says. Else this reeks of WP:Cherry.
Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, 164; "At the same time Turkoman bands led by junior Seljuks on the Anatolian plateau unquestionably transformed those ancient Byzantine lands into Turkic ones...". Is also a broken sentence and does not state any Turkicisation takes place.
Peter B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, ..posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk(1), Mongol(2) and Post-Mongol(3).
1 & 2: "In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan (Arran, the Mugan steppe)."
Note #1 & #2: Nothing said about Persia/Iran during the Seljuk period.
3: "In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran (derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran."
Note #3: Happens AFTER the Mongols, which was well AFTER the Seljuq Empire. Which therefore has nothing to do with this article.
Concise Encyclopaedia of World History, Carlos Ramirez-Faria, 56: "At the same time the Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century.". Sourcing this sentence, "The Seljuqs Turkified Azerbaijan between the 11th century and 12th century. Explain why this needs to be in the lede? It is unrelated to anything in the lede and appears to be WP:UNDUE. The Governance section would be an appropriate place for it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia by Rene Grousset, p154; "The Ghuzz or Turkomans, acting partly as independent bandits and partly under the command of their princes [the Seljuks], traversed all the countries lying between Chinese Turkestan and the Egyptian frontier and the Byzantine frontiers." Barthold adds that, to be rid of "their roving brothers" -the undisciplined bands of Ghuzz- and to prevent them from ravaging their fine Iranian domain, the Seljuk sultans apparently established them by preference in the marches of the sultanate, in Asia Minor. This fact explains why Persia proper escaped Turkification, while Anatolia became a second Turkestan.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Kansas it doesn't explain it at all. Iran was not a new world to flee for Muslims, it was already Muslim. Also very well developed for the technology of its time, that means sustaining as much as it already can. On the other hand Anatolia was not maintained for over a millennium. Very low population under high taxes, and a corrupt bureaucracy. It could sustain much more people especially nomads like Turkics(who made their way much earlier than Manzikert) who could exploit wilderness at no cost to settled population. Azerbaijan has a different story, it has been the frontier between Turkics and Iran(then arabs) for at least half a millennium. Frontiers would mean grazing opportunities to nomads, which was much more frequent than "raiding".

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seljuk_Empire&oldid=469827732"