Talk:Avar Khaganate

Merge back

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

N Stale: Please participate in a new discussion if you would like to merge these pages. Dekimasuよ! 15:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Whoever split the articles into Avars people and Avar khaganate was wrong. There isnt enought material for the two to exist separately, Its not like France and the French people who have two thousand years to discuss. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Avar Khaganate was a political entity, a state. It lasted more than 200 years. Its history is not equal with history of Avar people. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. If there is double content, they can be eliminated. But there is absolutely no reason to merge the articles. --Mttll (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This was an incomplete page that has been split into two fragments that lack context without the other part. If there were more content, perhaps a split would be warranted. But as it is, one must read both for them to be coherent. Each of the pages equates one term with the other: The Eurasian Avars page states, "Being an "Avar" seems to have meant being part of the Avar state"; this page states that Avar ethnicity disappeared when the khaganate fell and quotes a source stating, "It simply proved impossible to keep up an Avar identity after Avar institutions and the high claims of their tradition had failed." If the two terms use the other to define themselves, then the history of the state is apparently equal with that of the people, and there is no need for separate pages. The split pages end up incomplete and incoherent without the other. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A hundred years later the Avar people were still there, cited: "They (the Avars) slowly merged with the Slavs to create a bilingual Turkic–Slavic-speaking people who were subjected to Frankish domination; it is this composite people that the invading Magyars found in the late 9th century. (András Róna-Tas)", if you know results of Hungarian archaeology in connection with Avars you will know that the number of Avar graves at the eve of the Hungarian conquest is very high. Their history is not equal with the Avar Khaganate. And what about Avars before 567? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But as the initial Merge Back proposal states, there simply isn't enough material on these pages to warrant a split. In theory a split makes sense. In practice, the lack of content creates two incoherent fragments. The pages need more content added or should be merged back together. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Merging is by far the best option for this terrible start-class article. Either merge the two articles together or don't bother keeping this article intact at all. Al Khazar (talk) 03:20, 05 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Fakirbakir's arguments.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Was a silly idea in the first place , and is still a silly idea. Farkirbarkis arguement is inccorect, on this occasion, as the Avars were synonymou with the khaganate. Not to mention, need less duplicatin, and separation. Merging this back to the Avars (people) article will not make it excessively lengthy, either Slovenski Volk (talk)

So, if I follow your reasoning, page of Cumania should merge with article of Cumans? Or, page of Hunnic Empire should merge with article of Huns? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes - or at least, possibly. In all articles, there is a whole lot of duplication of data, which is unneccesary IMHO. And 'Hunnia', 'Cumania', and 'Avaria' are hardly modern countries, like France or Sweden, which obviously in all right deserve separate articles. In contrast, Cumania existed ephemerally (despite modern place names), as did Avaria, etc. As I said, at leat for the Avars, neither the article on the people, nor the khagante is particularly lengthy that warrants separation. Bu to be honest, on re-appraisal, I am only slighly in support of merger back. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Fakirbakir's arguments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This article includes everything we want to know about the entity that the Europeans called the "Avars" who certainly seem to have been nothing but Kazarigs who went by a different name in Pannonia. The early Avars to all intents and purposes seem identical with the Kutrigurs whose ruler posed under different name, the later Avars seem to have been identical with the Khazars still known to the west as Avars but not calling themselves by that term. The only thing that distinguishes these "Avars" (or Pseudo-Avars as they were also called) and the others was their independent state. This article deals with the reality of that state without worrying about who the "Avars" were, while the other article deals with the hypothetical question of who the "Avars" may have been. 78.148.63.63 (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• 'Support These topics are so closely related that all relevant information can be found in one article + redirect from the second one. Ditinili (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili:, the current discussion on this issue is found here, this discussion is here is no longer active.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Czech Republic point of view

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C

http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update the Avar Khaganate. This is the only artifact that I know about that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Century. It is located 8km from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first enter Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. It's written in Latin and Greek from the time but there are many citie's and rivers named. None of these are on todays Czech Lands, http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhine, Danube. . Also there is no recorded battle between the Wends and the Avars. http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/III1a.html . Also name the rivers and towns and dates that that Avars plundered. Also the chronicle of fredegar "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatful. Casurgis from Sydney

Lastest update 2015, Here is a map taken out of the book " History of the Czech Lands. Prior to 7th century note where the AVAR's are located and the river names.. Best regards casurgis https://pdf.yt/d/KT5hjKqbbwMBko6Q -CZECH REPUBLIC MAP PRIOR TO 7TH CENTURY SAMO/ AVAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.251.75 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

until 804 ?

according to the germman Wikipedia the Avar-Khaganate kept existing until 828as an tributarian state of Francia within the Avar-march — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.224.135 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why this happens only Turkic related pages

I really don't understand, there is enough reliable sources, yet, some people keep removing them when if it's related to Turks. People on wiki changed Seljuks from Turks to Turko-persian, now they changed Ashina clan to Indo-Europeans-East iranian (Yes, according to wiki profs, the first people call themselves as Turks are not Turks) and it grows every day. Now, Avars became unknown origin people. What next? Ottomans were Greko-Slav or something? Mongol Empire founded by blue-eyed, aryan, eastern iranians? I always try to be nice to people and don't want to talk like this but people here are ridiculous.

I've never met any person who claimed Ayyubids as Arabo-Kurdish empire. Why? They talked kurdish in early years -only dynasty- and it just disappeared. yet, there isn't a single mention about how Arabized those people. Yet, people try to find something non-Turkic in every single Turkish/Turkic empire and add them shamelessly.

People claim Seljuks were Turko-persian and say; "they disliked Turks" (sorry but lmao) and after that, they say, Azerbaijanis were Iranians and Seljuks assimilated them and they became Turks. Oh, God!

Is there any people who make sense when he/she speaks?

Anyway, I'm done with this site. I barely edit something but people who have power in this site keep changing your edit to BS. And people who don't want to involve in Edit war asks his comrades to change it and the friendless one became the one who involve edit war only.

Wikipedia is nothing but the toy of some nationalists. Enjoy your toy guys. BöriShad (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason fort this is simpel, the orrigin of the Avars is uncertain, the Turkic hypothesisis the one with the most invedenc, but since there not much left from their language, we can´t say it for shure. The Seljuk-Empire was turko-persian, persian was the official court language, not obly innitially like kurdish within Ayyubid-Empire. I´m sorry but I have experienced the opposit, there are turkish people claiming that Skythians, Huns and hepthalites were turkish althought ther is no invedence. take a look at the turkish wikipedia, it´s full of propaganda, they calim that Xiong-Gnu, Huns and Hepthalits were the same people and ofcorse they were all turkic and turkic was the only language which was poken within there empires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.244.55.141 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Something strange did happen about the Pannonian Avars on Wikipedia, nevertheless, the article needs better context. However, take into consideration that the modern scholars increasingly take into account the heterogeneity of these nomadic tribal confederations. Currently am working on the article and along the way will see what eminent scholars currently consider, at least generally about the ethnogenesis and culture of the leading elite, which from my personal knowledge didn't had Indo-European origin yet Altaic-Turkic and Altaic-Turkic culture, or Indo-European origin and Altaic-Turkic culture, or parts of that culture like military titles for example. More coming soon after the edit.--Crovata (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

lingua franca

Finally! That's correct. Slavic was lingua franca in Avar Empire but removing Turkic language from the page is just Turkophobic. This time, thank you Kansas Bear. Btw, there are enough ref for their background from names like Bayan (pure Turko-Mongol name) and their imperial titles, the ruling class were Turkic and army of Turkic , Mongols, Uralic peoples and Steppe Iranians (Sarmatians, Alans etc.) BöriShad (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Manchu Tungus

According to Eugene Helimski the Avars spoke a Manchu Tungus idiom.[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, page 258, note 66, "The Avars seem to have spoken an Eastern Turkic language...." --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter Heather clearly describes Avars

Quotes from P. Heather. He is a reliable source unlike encyclopedia iranica or britanica.

[The Avars] were the next major wave of originally nomadic horse warriors, after the Huns, to sweep off the Great Eurasian Steppe and build an empire in central Europe. Thankfully, we know rather more about them than about the Huns. The Avars spoke a Turkic language and had previously starred as the dominant force behind a major nomadic confederation on the fringes of China. In the earlier sixth century they had lost this position to a rival force, the so-called Western Turks [Gokturks], and arrived on the outskirts of Europe as political refugees, announcing themselves with an embassy that appeared at Justinian's court in 558 (401). BöriShad (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

One incidental mention by one historian is insufficient to prove that fact. Historiography is heavily divided over what type of language the Avars spoke, as it is with most nomadic groups of the era. See this article Pannonian Avars. Rwenonah (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That page edited by pan-iranians, check former version of that page. These page was quiet clear until pan-iranians destroyed them. They claims Turkmens, Uzbeks, Azeri Turks and most of Turkey Turks are actually iranians. I'm trying to discuss like a civilized people but they can't understand, they just removes your addition if they don't like. I mean there musn't be the words Turk, Turkic or Turkish in any page because those actually iranic and the word Turk must replace with iranic. BöriShad (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge this with Pannonian Avars?

N Stale: Please participate in the new discussion at Talk:Pannonian Avars if you have an opinion on merging these pages. Dekimasuよ! 15:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Right now this article handles the history of the Avars, while the article Pannonian Avars is solely concerned with their origins. Might it make more sense to merge the articles so that all of this info is found in one place?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I support this. T8612 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Revert Back

No consensus was made to merge the articles so I will revert them back. Iingling (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)