This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The dynasty was clearly of Turkish origin. I added reference from Encyclopedia BRitannica. The empire they founded might have adopted Persian culture and traditions to some degree, but the dynasty was definitely Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.55.115 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
What is the second letter of "Oðuz" supposed to be? As encoded, it appears as the Icelandic/Old English letter "eth", but I wasn't aware that this letter was used in Turkish. Perhaps your computer uses a non-ISO character set?
Good idea. This letter is named as soft G in Turkish. It is not possible to describe its pronunciation, because there is no sound like it in English. On the other hand it can not be pronounced alone without a concomitant vowel. It is half a vowel and half a consonent. You can imitate this sound, if you imagine how you gargle water in your throat. It also resembles R in the way French people pronounce it. --ErdemTuzun
Is there a standard way to anglicize the six problematic letters mentioned in Wiki special characters/Turkish? If so, please add that there--I know character sets well, but I don't know enough about the language to make appropriate recommendations.
I am not aware of a standard way. I'll look for it. But shortly, there are no easy ways for anglicizing the uppercase or lowercase letters g with breve accent and lowercase dotless i.
Uppercase and lowercase s with cedilla are pronounced in the same way and it can be written as "sh" (like the last sound of English). Uppercase dotted i is simply pronounced like English letter "e".--ErdemTuzun
What does "all middle east" refer to - I would consider the Arabian Penninsula as part of the middle east but also iran, iraq, etc. How widespread did they get?
This term has shifted its meaning over the last 50 years or so. It used to refer to roughly those areas most conveniently reached from the northern Indian Ocean, with the Far East starting at about Singapore and the Near East being the area also called the Levant - eastwards of Italy and most conveniently reached from the Mediterranean. So the Turks actually dominated that, under the older meaning. PML.
As I mentioned in Middle East article, this term is quite arbitrary and it may correspond to different countries. Seljuks had invaded Iran, all territories between present Turkey and Saudi Arabia (Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria etc.), and most of the Arabian peninsula (obviously they had not invaded the desert located in the middle of the peninsula, but had captured the cities around). Surely, the borders of the countries were not as strictly drawn as they are today and it is difficult to guess the exact territories of ancient civilizations. Therefore, there is an inconsistency about the southernmost cities of Arabian peninsula and some historical maps show these cities within the borders, while some does not. But, probably, ancient gigantic feudal empires were controlling territories located far beyond their official borders. Present Egypt was not under Seljuk control ErdemTuzun.
Something seems to be wrong with the Persia link in the first paragraph. Clicking on it produces the Mesopotamia page. Clicking on the Mesopotamia link that immediate follows it also (and correctly) produces the Mesopotamia page. Typing Persia into the Wikipedia search box correctly produces the Persia page, so it doesn't appear to be a redirection issue. Furthermore, editing the Seljuk Turk page shows clearly that the Persia link is:
[[Persia]]
which is the correct Wikipedia markup that should produce the Persia page. (Also, the Persia link and other links in this comment, upon preview, work just fine.) Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally odd with the Seljuk Turk page? -- Jeff Q 03:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No problem here (Opera 7.50 P3). — Jor (Talk) 04:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that I'm using Opera 7.23, the latest official release. I discovered that the problem is related, oddly enough, to the size of my browser window. If the Persia link is the last word on the line, Opera thinks it's the next link (Mesopotamia). I confirmed this by hovering over Persia to find Opera's tooltip describing it as Mesopotamia. So it's an Opera bug. Never mind. -- Jeff Q 06:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's a known problem in Opera 7.2x: links at the Window edge will "bleed over" into other links. — Jor (Talk) 12:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where are they now?
Where do the Seljuk Turks live now? Are the Azeris descended from them? 67.183.81.48 20:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Selçuklu is not an ethnic denomination actually. It is the name of a dynasty primarily. Its meaning changed in time. When we say Seljuk Turks now, we mean the subjects of the house of Selçuk, in line with Osmanli, subjects of the house of Osman. We can say that all muslim-oghuz people(a.k.a Turkomans, Turkmens) at some time were Seljuk Turks. They in time came to be called different names as the dynasty fell out of power. We can say that peoples called Turks, Azeris, Turkmen, Turkoman today are descendants of Seljuk Turks.(But we are talking about a vast area with much more racial mixing and less interest in genealogy than say Iceland or Korea)
It is Seljuk Turks, not "Seljukids", which I believe is a term made up by someone who confused them with the Seleucids. Naturally, a Google search gives an overwhelming support for Seljuk Turks. /The Phoenix 12:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
decline
I have a problem with saying the dynasty declined during the 13th century, I'm writing a paper on Alaaddin Kayqubad, who made his territory properous with a long term building campaign.
You can build as many palaces or fountains as you want, but if you're empire's domain doesn't stretch as far as you can see, then its in decline. Asoka of India (wrong spelling) who converted to Buhdism built many great buildings and temples, yet his empire fell to bits after his death. The Byzantine emperor Isaac Angeloi ( i wish i knew how to spell) tried to bribe of the bulgarians by building fountains for them yet his empire was going down faster than it had ever been before. So a dynasty that builds may simply be directing its money towards a foolish cause (foolish because there's no point building something that you can't defend). Tourskin 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The Angeloi or "the Angels of Death" as a contemporary Greek historian called them, were officially the worst rulers in Byzantine history. The empire practically falls under their rule. Miskin 02:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was justusing him as an example of how extensive building (though not very extensive under the angeloi) does not equate to power, especially military power which is the most necessary and raw power any kingdom needs if it is to be held together, at least in the medieval times. Tourskin 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Name
User:Tajik suggests that this article should be titled "Seljuqs", which is a more current spelling. Of course there are various ways to transliterate their name...Sel-, Sal-, -uq, -uk, -j-, -dj-, -ch-, -u-, -ü-, Seljuqid (and all variants!)...did I miss any?
To match our other medieval Arab and Turkic dynasties, perhaps the best solution is "Seljuq dynasty". Adam Bishop 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you ask, I think you did miss one ... the current Turkish spelling is -ç-, isn't it? Someone will correct me if I'm wrong. But yes, "Seljuq dynasty" looks good to me. Andrew Dalby 08:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
== History Of Iran ??? ==--Tigeroo 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What does the History-Of-Iran-Chart do on this page ??? It is totally irrelevant. Iran was part of Seljuk Empire, Seldjuk Empire was not a part of Iran. If we look for the history of the Moors , do we see a list of the History of Spain just because they once occuptied the Iberian Peninsula ??? 62.143.76.166 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Seljuks not only spoke the Persian language and practiced Iranian culture, but they also saw themselves as heirs to the Persian Empire, and though themselves to be descendents of the Sassanids. Basically, they believed themselves to be Iranian. Its pretty safe to say that history of Iran belongs here.Khosrow II 23:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
They actuallly saw themselves as the conquerers of the Pesrian Empire. The fact, that the (Seljuk) Turk and Persian people never mixed up proofs, that there was no relationship between the conquerers and the defeated at all. They never were (biologically) descendents of the Sassanids and Persia only made one third of their Empire. You can also add a histoy-chart of Turkey, Syria, Irak Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. This makes no sence. If you don't offer me some kind of reasonable compromise, this will be deleted again. Sorry. 62.143.76.166 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You are the same person that vadalized the Rumi page, no one here trusts what you say anymore. This article has had that tag up for a long with no one disagreeing until you come along, and we all already know your motives.
The Turks and Persians did mix. Infact, the Turks mixed with every ethnic group in the region, that is why they do not have Mongoloid features anymore and that is why Turks west of Central Asia are not ethnically Turkic, only linguistically. You want to hear a big surprise? Only 9% of Turks in Turkey have any Turkic genes in them, the rest have no connection to Turkic peoples other than language. Turks west of Central Asia are mostly Turkified Anatolians, Caucasians, Iranics, Semetics, Armenians, Indo-Europeans, Slavs, etc...
The Seljuks spoke Persian and practiced Iranian culture. Infact, they promoted both over their own Turkic. They even thought themselves as Persians, even though we know today that they werent.
Also, the Seljuk came no where clost to the size of the Sassanid Empire, nor the Achaemenid Empire.
You have already shown your bias and agenda, stop vandalising the page!Khosrow II 00:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Big LOL, when you are out of arguments, you simply accuse me of vandalism. 9% of Turks with turk genes ? I think you pulled the number out of your nose. The article about Mevlana is simply false, but science often does not mean anything at Wikipedia. I have other things to do than starting an edit-war, you know there are peolpe who actually have a private life besides the computer, but if you insist that seljuks were persians (lol, i can't belive what i just wrote), just to push your ego, go ahead and tell your lies to the world. In real Encyclopedias, there is no "Iran-chart" in a seljuk empire article, Mr.Ahmedinejad. P.S. give the uranium back to the russians !
Nowhere did I say that Seljuks were Persians, do you even read what I'm writing? You really dont want to be on Wikipedia very long do you?Khosrow II 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, alright, this is pointless...stop editing the page and accusing each other of vandalism. I don't know or care who is what side here, I just want to ask: what does it mean to say the Seljuks adopted the Persian language and culture? What language did the sultan speak? What language did his subjects speak? What language did his ancestors speak? What language did the caliph speak? What language did they speak to each other? Adam Bishop 02:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Seljuks adopting Persian language and culture means exactly what it means, that the Seljuks started practicing Persian language and culture instead of their own.
I dont believe the Seljuks used the term Shah, not sultan (I could be wrong), and the answer is Persian.
His subjects also spoke Persian.
His ancestors ofcourse, if you go back to the time before they adopted Persian language and culture, spoke a Turkic langauge.
Which Caliph are you talking about? The later Arab Caliphs also became Persianized, and the Abbasid Caliphate was basically Persian for the most part.
They spoke Persian to each other.Khosrow II 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Ghaznavids user Persian before as the language of state as did all further Turks including the Mughals, so it would not be strange that the Seljuqs taking over the western Ghaznavid territory adopted the same. I know the Abassids had adopted the Persian the beauracracy, not sure if it was the official language of the state but the languaged was definitely was in wide usage in the region approximating Iran after the Samanids and can be seen in many literary works such as the those by Rumi, Ferdowsi etc. having already incorporated a great deal of vocabulary including the script from Arabic by this time into the modern Persian language. In the Council of Clermont the Pope also refers to the Seljuks as Persians at any rate the "Persian culture" had itself by this time been syncretically transformed substantially after the advent of Islam and Arab rule. I doubt they however necessarily spoke it with each other and were likely multi-lingual, the Turkish language however was not an officialy state language itself anywhere until 1277 in Anatolia. Hands down however Arabic was the lingua franca until after the Mongol Invasion. The Seljuks themselves were polyglots operating under both Arabic and Farsi as well as maintaining their own language and no doubt the culture was syncretic but dominated by the peoples of the land, in their heartland that was doubtless Persian and heading outward Arab and in Anatolia Turkic. At anyrate I don't see any reason why History of Iran does not belong here, Modern Iran and old persian territories formed the the heartland and bulk of the Seljuqs, it was only after the Khwarezms displaced them here that the Turc central shifted to Anatolia and upper mesopotamia.--Tigeroo 08:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
@ Adam Bishop: as already explained in the text, the very first Seljuqs were Turkic-speakers, belonging to the so-called "Oghuz confederation", which is largly accepted as "ethnic Turkic". In the 9th century, the Kinik Oghuz Turks moved into northeastern Persia and allied themselvs with the Persian Samanids against the Uyghur Karakhanids. This is the point when the originally nomadic, "uncultured" Seljuqs started to adopt Iranian customs, clothing, etc, started trade within Persian areas, and eventually intermarriage took place. By the end of the 10th century, the Seljuqs were already "Persianized" in culture, but probably not in language. However, it is assumed that by the time of Malik Shah, the Seljuqs had become Persianized in language, too - comparable too al the people who migrate to America and Europe and sooner or later become "Americanized" in language and culture. Persian-Oghuz relations started in the 6th century (before Islam), and at the time of the Seljuq empire, the nomadic Kinik had become assimilated by the large majority of Persians in the empire, that it is not easy to find out wherther the Seljuqs were "Persians" or "Turks" - comparable to the British royals who are Germans by ethnicty, but English in language and culture. Like the family of the Queen, the Seljuqs were ethnic Oghuz Turkic descent, strongly mixed with native Iranians (the Seljuq Sultans had also Persian wives, usually of noble descent), and with - with a high probability - Persian in language and culture. There are absolutely no proofs for the claim that the major Seljuq Shahs (staring with Malik Shah) were Turkic-speaking or had any interest in their Turkic origin. All sources (all in Arabic and Persian) point to a highly Persianized family of originally Turkic Oghuz origin, who by the time of Malik Shah had become Persian in thinking, culture, and language. Tājik 10:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok see, I would figure Malik Shah not as the first Major Seljuq Shah but the last, because the entire Turkic concept of Beys as a form governance had split the Seljuqs, and both Toghrul and Alp Arslan grew up and operated as non-muslims and much further North than the Samanid areas of political influence, albeit not culture. The Anatolians Seljuks held onto Turkic roots until quite late and the Mamelukes looked down upon the Seljuks because of their imperfect grasp of Arabic grammar. I am not saying that they were not being Persianized, but that their clan/ tribal affiliations with Turkic roots was important, even while the Turkic tribes adopted Persian culture as their ideal, and Farsi as the language of state they always differentiated themselves and were known as "Turks". Even during the expansion into India who were also Persianized, there was a strong differentiation of "Turks" and local indians, and Arabs and seeing the strong identification with "Turk" in Anatolia in the West, and India in the East and the existance of seperate "Turkmen" localities in the Iraq, Syria even today I would reckon the Turk connection was not lightly lost. I accept this is OR still its something. Once again not sure if I lost the plot I accept they Persianized themselves, but not so sure that they lost their sense of familial ties and connections with the Turkic communities.--Tigeroo 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with this. The Seljuqs were still "Turks" in regard of tribal life, loyalty within the family, etc. They were even "Turkic" in their look, meaning that they had East Asian features and were thus distinguished from the "Caucasian/Mediterrainian" native population of Iran.
Yet, the total lack of ANY Turkic sources (meaning that almost all reliable sources are in Persian, with only a few being Arabic), and that - starting with Malik Shah - the Seljuq Shahs were raised and schooled by their Persian wezirs (most notable Nizam al-Mulk and Taj al-Mulk) whom they considered "Atabegs" ("father"), does not allow us to assume any "Turkishness" or interest in the Turkish language among the Seljuq rulers. At the end, it was the Seljuqs who replaced the exclusive role of Arabic within the Muslim society of West Asia with Persian, and who turned Persian into the "language par excellence".
It should also be noted that the Seljuqs had to fight back a few Turkish rebelions within the Turkic clans, because they regarded the Seljuqs not as "Turks" anymore.
As for the term "Turk": within the Persian-speaking world up to this day, neither the Seljuqs, nor the Ghaznavids, or Gurkanis (="Mughals") are regarded as "Turks", while other dyansties, such as Ottomans or Karakhanids are regarded "Turks".
And as the name "Mughal" suggest, the Baburids were not considered "Turks" by the local Indian population either, but "Mongols".
The "Turkic rulers" of India were the previous slave dynasties, starting with Qutb ud-Din Aibak ... it was a well-known fact that these rulers were a dynasties of slaves (= "Slave dynasty of India"), and were thus clearly diffenciated from previous Persian (for example the Ghurids) or Arab rulers.
Why do Iranians writes something appearing connections with Turkic people?
Khosrow II; you claim Turkish sources are not reliable even you say Republic of Turkey Ministy of education is incorrect, Encyclopedia Iranica is national encyclopedia of Iran, and Iran has inchoate history informations, it maybe feel you better not talking about Islamic Iran:) but respect to Turkish historical society because its respectable and not has incredible claims which has accepting by just Turkey, but Iranian historicans and Encyclopedia Iranica actually not reliable and no world historians respect it's informations because as i said it's inchoate, use western sourses. This is not your place for pan-iranism, at least I won't let you put incorrect, partial and nationalist writes here! -Zaparojdik 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Iranica is not the "national encyclopaedia of Iran", but a grand project of the Columbia University. It is one of the most powerful works of oriental studies, though not finished yet, and it is regarded by scholars as a reliable and authoritative source (see here!).
Your claims about the Seljuqs of Rum are wrong. None of the Seljuq sultans ever supported a "renaissance of Turkish literature" (which - in general - did not exist at that time and was "invented" 300 years later in Central Asia). In fact, Turkic languages were regarded backward and unworthy of supporting. The rise of the Turkish language in Anatolia began AFTER the fall of the Seljuqs, when the so-called "Beyliqs" - local Turkic Khans - filled the political vacuum in Anatolia. They have never been part of the greater civilized court-life of the Seljuq dynasty and had - in general - no big knoeldge about Arabic or Persian. Therefore, they began to use their own native Turkic tongues, and thus, the modern Turkish language emerged and was forced on the native population of Anatolia which was not Turkic-speaking before.
If you take a look at the sources given in the article, you will notice that at least two of them are actually written by Turkish scholars, especially the one about "Persian literature in the Ottoman Empire".
And my last point: you are changing SOURCED information. This is regarded "vandalism". Either you provide your claims with valid sources and mention them NEXT to the information already given, you you simply STOP vandalizing the article.
Zaparojdik, do you know even what you're talking about?Khosrow II 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
"Persian literature in the Ottoman Empire" Yes, that's right because there were believes to use Arabic and Persian after being Muslim and Arabic used for religious activities and Persian used for literature and science, that's what Avicenna used Persian, but if you look his productions there are oftenly Turkic words. Today even Muslims use Arabic for to pray, is it make Islam Arab's own religion? Whatever, common Turkish peoples of Anatolia ALWAYS used Turkish. -Zaparojdik 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about?Khosrow II 19:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I say I WON'T LET YOU DO YOUR IRANIAN PROPOGANDA, MAKE YOU IRANIANS SATISFIED YOUR NATIONALITS FEELS HERE AND CREATE INCORRECT INFOS REGARDING TURKIC PEOPLES! - Zaparojdik 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Zaparojdik, please try to stay cool. I've tried a compromise version—what do people think? —Khoikhoi 20:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This user obviously feels a bit insecure. He wants to do everything in his power to take out everything that relates the Seljuks to Iranian civilization. This article is not about the Seljuks of Rum, this is about the Seljuk Empire. The Seljuks of Rum came about after the collpase of the Seljuk Empire correct? We have sources that acknowledge that the Seljuks embraced Persian language and Iranian culture. We cant give every user who pops up with complaints as outrageous as the ones Zaparojdik is making a compromise. Remember that Zaparojdik is the same user who insists the the Ottoman Empire was a colonial power, that any Russian autonomous state with a Turkic minority is Turkic, and that half of Iranian territory is inhabited by Turkic speakers. Obviously Zaparojdik is not a man who bases his opinions on facts, but rather on emotion.Khosrow II 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Before we break out into personal attacks, let me remind you that this discussion is not about Zaparojdik, but about this article. Khosrow, are you refering to the Sultanate of Rûm? Perhaps he could add the information to that article. —Khoikhoi 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not pan-Turkist, even nationalist, I'm very humanist person. This is not the topic what we're talking about but I would like to say, It doesn't make me happy if Ottoman empire is colonical empire. I'm accepting which is "current" French wikipedia claims that Ottoman empire is colonical also this image; And yes man, Iran's populations just %50 exists by Iranians, who are the others? Aliens? or Azarbaijanis? :) And I have a recommend for you, please apply to Encyclopedia Iranica for being an editor, you will add your incredible theories and claims there easly, but not here! -Zaparojdik 23:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not attacking Zaparojdik, I am criticizing his views, which are not based on fact but on fiction.Khosrow II 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Saying "this user obviously feels a bit insecure" is more than just "criticizing his views"... —Khoikhoi 21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
From what he is saying, it seems as though he is afraid to have Wikipedia mention any of the connections between Seljuks and Iran. He even goes as far as saying Iranica is not credible. So what word other than insecure applies here?Khosrow II 22:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether he actually is insecure or not. I could call someone who actually is retarded a retard (in the same way you called him insecure), but that doesn't stop it from being an attack. —Khoikhoi 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
OK I'm sorry Zapordjik if I offended you. Anyway, lets get back to the topic. zaparodjik presents no real argument here, so he needs to stop making his POV edits. If he has something about the Seljuks of Rum that he wants to add, he needs to do it on the correct page.Khosrow II 22:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect: Zaparojdik's comments about Iranica, about the Seljuqs, about the history in general proves that he is absolutely no expert but a common amateur trying to present his own views (without any reliable sources) as "facts".
He claims that Abu Ali Sinā "was a Turk", although there have been so many researches and so many works about this, and the great majority of those works do not support his views. He claims that "Iranica is the national Encyclopaedia of Iran" ... only this comment totally disqualifies him from being taken serious. He claims that the Seljuqs of Rum supported a "renaissance of Turkish language and literture", a totally stupid comment by someone who - very obviously - has no idea of what he is talking about. a) There was no "Turkish literature" at that time, but was eventually "invented" 300 years later by Ali Sher Navā'i in Central Asia, and b) the Seljuqs of Rum had absolutely no interest in Turkish literature, but rather collected and supported Persian scholars and saints who had left their homeland Khorasan because of the Mongol invasion (for example Rumi and his teacher, Shams). In fact, the Seljuqs of Rum were the ones who claimed to be "Persians", considered themselvs descendants of the old Iranian Kings of the past, and gave their sons names like "Kay Qubad" and "Kay Khusrow", names taken from the Shāhnāma - the Persian "Book of Kings".
Zaparojdik should leave this articles to people who know what they are talking about, or at least to those who can provide their claims with facts and reliable sources.
Again, no personal attacks. Please knock it off. No one owns any article, he has a right to edit this page as much as you or Khosrow do. —Khoikhoi 00:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Anyone who can follow wikipedia policies and guidelines is permitted to edit whatever they wish, and it is not at all polite to tell them otherwise. --InShaneee 01:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone. OR is not allowed, nor POV, nor propaganda. Zaparodjik has crossed all those lines on Wikipedia so far.Khosrow II 01:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
And if you really believe that is the case, take it elsewhere for it to be decided by non-involved parties. --InShaneee 15:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
So anyways, did you guys decide whether or not Seljuks are Iranians? Tourskin 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Melik Şah I
Tajik, the "this is English Wikipedia" argument only applies to titles. I don't see anything wrong with giving his Turkish name here as an alternate. —Khoikhoi 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not the "Turkish name", but the Turkish spelling of his Arabic name "Mālik Shāh". The version I have given is not his "Persian name", but the proper transliteration from the Arabic script into English/Latin. I see no reason why the Turkish spelling should also be mentioned in THIS article (note that the Turkish spelling is mentioned in the main article!). Maybe we should also add the Hebrew, Chinese, and Cyrillic versions of his name ... !?!?! Tājik 19:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This individual is not Israeli, Chinese, or Slavic—he's a Turk, right?. By this logic, shouldn't his name in Turkish be given? —Khoikhoi 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It is in the main article. For Example, in English Koroush is spelled Cyrus, therefore, its Cyrus the Great on English Wikipedia. So every where Cyrus the Great is mentioned, we should also put Koroush? This is English Wikipedia, not Persian Wikipedia or Turkish Wikipedia.Khosrow II 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
@ Khoikhoi: no, Mālik Shāh was not a Turk in the modern sense. He had Turkish ancestors (they same way Khomeini had Indian ancestors), but claiming that he "was a Turk", that he "spoke Turkish", etc is nothing but assumption (just like assuming that Khomeini was "Indian" and that "he spoke Hindi"). Sticking to the facts: there was no "Turkish alphabet" back then, and the Arabic alphabet was used thorughout the Islamic world. He himself was given the name "Jalāl ad-Dowlah Mālik Shāh" - very obviously an Arabic name - and thus, the correct transliteration of his name is: Mālik Shāh. All other versions of his name - including the Turkish version - have nothing to do in THIS article. Tājik 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I see what you're saying. Also, he probably didn't speak any Turkic language, right? —Khoikhoi 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Since Mālik Shāh was Alp Arslans son, it's highly possible that he knew Oghuz Turkic perfectly. Yet, considering the fact that Alp Arslan died at age 40, and that Mālik Shāh was raised by his "step-father" ("Atabeg") Nizām al-Mulk, and that the Persianization fo the Seljuq court had begun much much earlier (going back to the Seljuq-Samanid contacts), it is very unlikely that Mālik Shāh spoke Oghuz Turkish "at home" or that he had any interest in Turkish culture, way of life, etc. Only a very few "Turkic elements" had survived within the Seljuq family, the most important being the tribal-like loyalty toward other family members (the Seljuq sultans appointed their brother/cousins/in-laws into high offices, making them governors of entire provinces). Another element was the general illitarcy of the Seljuq Shahs - in comparison to other ruling houses of that time - that was very much rooted in their Turkic background, because the Turks had not much interest in literature or culture but were still "barbarian nomads" (at least in the eyes of their Persian counterparts). Mālik Shāh himself was probably highly educated (being raised and educated by Nizām al-Mulk), he was interested in Islamic theology (he initiated many Shia-Sunni debates, which - at the end - was the main reason for his assassination), he was urban and sedentary (which is the opposite of "being a Turk"), and since there was no Turkic literature back then, his entire education was based on Arabic and Persian literature. He was more "Persian" or "Arab" than "Turk", and that was nothing uncommon 1000 years ago, when the first ruling Turkic dynasties began to immitate their Arabic and Persian masters, teachers, and subjects.
Nowadays, children of Turkish, Iranian, Afghan, Indian, etc families in the US or Europe have troubles speaking their own mother-tongues. They are more "Europeans" or "Americans" than "Turks", "Iranians", or whatever. The situation 1000 years ago, when the first Turkic nomads arrived in main-land Persia, was extreme and the Persian civilization had a much stronger influence on the Turks than American culture on modern Turks or Iranians. The Turks, who had no "civilized" background, began to adopt the new culture as fast as they could - especially the ruling houses who tried to immitate previous kings and dynasties (in this case, the Seljuqs immitated the Ghaznavids and Samanids).
I have protected the page, because you are all annoying me and I no longer want to see it appear on my watchlist. Find a better way to solve your problems, and I'll unprotect it. Adam Bishop 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Seljuks were a Turkish dynasty and Seljuk of the Rum led a Turkish renaissance
Sadly yet another topid is being hi-jacked by the Wikipedia pan-Iranist extremist.
The Seljuks always spoke Turkish among themselves, initially Persian was the langauge of state affairs.
This all changed when the Seljuk Empire moved its capitol to Konya and Alanya Turkey. In the 13th century after the landmark move of Karamanoglu's who made Turkish the official language of the state, law, science and all other departments.
The Seljuks adopted this change aswell, it was a period were the Turkish arts and culture flourished. Philosophers like Yunus emre, Haci bektashi great poets, writers and historians like Asik Pasa, Sait Emre and Nasreddin hoca. Turkish dictionaries were written, Turkish was promoted and became the official language of all Turkic states in the region.
This environment gave way to the Ottoman Turks whose official state language always was Turkish.
Unfortunately this obivous part of history, I mean its the basics of history of the Seljuks is AVOIDED, MISSED AND HIDDED.
I mean what is this? Wiki is meant to be objective yet all that ever happens is Iranians trying to make everything Iranain.
I had to work for AGES! to get Babur Khan recognised as a Turk, I literally had to go and proove this basic fact as some Pan-Iranist had actually fooled one of the Admins into thinking Babur was actually not a Turk. When all anybody has to do is read the "Baburname" where he EXPLICITLY says,"I'm a Turk, everyone in Andijan is a Turk and speaks Turki good looks is common among us"
Now will I have to proove another BLATENT fact that Seljuks were Turks and after moving the capitol to Konya-Alanya Turkey triggered a Turkish renaissance, or will Wiki Admin put a stop to this Pan-Iranic fest and add this very important material into the article.
Why dont you prove it? Bring up your sources. Please, also contact the acadamians at Iranica and Britannica and tell them you are right and they are wrong. And for the last time the Seljuks of Rum and the Seljuk Empire are two different things.Khosrow II 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
As always, you are talking a bunch of nonsense, John! Yunus Emre was one of the very few poets of that time who wrote in Turkish; as a Sufi mystic, he influenced the nomadic Ghuz tribes of Anatolia, not more and not less. I would not call that a "flourished Turkish literature". Mowlā Nasr ud-Din is a legendary character in many Islamic societies - from India to Marocco. Calling him a Turk is more than hillarious. We do not even know if that person existed at all. Go to Afghanistan and ask the people about "Mollāh Nasruddīn" and they will attest that he was an "Afghan" and lived in this or that city! Hājjī Baktāš Valī's (Turkish: Hunkar Hacı Bektaş Veli) Persian origin was proven by Turkish historian Abdübaki Gölpinarli. Even Medieval Turkish sources call him "Horasani erleri" (Turkish for "Khorasanian saint"), and his birthplace - Nishapur (in modern Iran) is also attested (see: H. Algar, "Khorāsanian Sufī Hāji Bektāŝ", Encyclopædia Iranica, v, p. 117). He himself did not write ANY poems in Turkish - ALL of his works are in Arabic. What you may know are nothing but Turkish translations. In this case, I advise you to read Köprülü, "Hacı Bektaş Veli", p. 295, 1920 (English translation). As you can see, this book is also written by a Turkish scholar (since you seem not trust Iranian scholars) and he, too, proves the well-known fact that Hājjī Baktāš was Persian, not Turkish!
It is a known fact that up to the time of the late Ottoman kings, Persian remained the "language par exellence" of the Anatolian courts. And the Ottomans were not even that much influenced by Persians as the Seljuqs had been. The Oghuz had always been a tiny minority in the middle of an overwhelming Iranian majority. Ghaznavid sources prove that at the time of Sultan Mas'ud Ghaznavi, there were not more than 70,000 Oghuz nomads IN TOTAL. Out of these 70,000, maybe 50% moved to Anatolia, among them the extremely Persianized Seljuq family with their Persian "Atābegs" and "Mawlās".
The rise of the Anatolian Turkish language (which itself is a deformed version of the original Oghuz dialects, pointing to the Non-Turcophone origin of the Anatolian Turks) was marked by the FALL of the Seljuqs. Unlike Persia or Mesopotamia, former Christian Anatolia had no Muslim noble families to fill the political vacuum. Therefore, Anatolia and other critical parts of former Seljuq territories became battle-fields for various nomadic clan-chiefs, Sufi saints, etc all struggeling for power. This gave rise to the Anatolian "Beyliqs" - small territories ruled by usually "uncivilized" Turcoman warlords, who had not enough knowledge of modern governments, Islamic theology, or Persian literary culture. Because they had no knowledge of Persian administration or Islamic theology, they used their own "house-languages" - i.e. the Oghuz dialects, for communication, and over the centuries, the entire Anatolian landscape became Turcophone (with many Non-Turkish islands in between). The "final blow" to the Non-Turcophone population was the "Young Turk" movement and Atatürk's victory, forcing the reformed Turkish language on EVERYONE in Anatolia. Today, noone in Turkey has any knowledge of the Ottoman "house-language" or the Persian administrative language (except for countless Perso-Arabic words in Turkish, from "ateş" - Persian for "fire" - to "halk" - Arabic for "people").
The "literary renaissance" at the Rum-Seljuqid court was not Turkish, but Persian. The Sultans were patrons of Persian philosophy and literature, and protected scholars such as Rumi or his father, the former Seikh of Balkh. There Persian saints ("Horasani erleri") were the center of that literary renaissance (after the Mongol invasion of Khorasan), not the few Turkish poets who were not even noticed by the Sultans.
Noone in here denies the Oghuz Turkic origin of the House of Seljuq - but your claims that the family was "pure Turkic speaking" is nothing but nonsense with no valid sources. ALL available sources point to the established fact that over the decades, the Seljuq family had become extremly Persianized in culture and language, to an extent that they were regarded "Persians" by outsiders (they were considered "Persians" at the Council of Clermont - see Robert the Monk: "... From the confines of Jerusalem ... a horrible tale has gone forth ... namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, ... has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword ..."[1]!) and insiders (they were considered "Persians" by their Persian nobles and Turkish military leaders) ... not to mention their own claims of being "descendants of the Sassanids and of the old Iranian Shahs of the legendary past".
Robert the Monk did not necessarily know they were "Persian" - he probably didn't know or care what they were, except filthy heathens. He could be classicizing the reference, where "Persians" is an allusion to the Achaemenids. (Likewise, Fatimid Egypt is sometimes called "Babylon", although I know that's not for quite the same reasons.) Adam Bishop 01:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You may be right on this one. But yet, please note that later Muslim invaders were generally regarded as "Turks" because Turkic warriors were the ones they had come in contact with on the battle field - and these Turkic fighters not necessairily represented their masters. At the same time, it also important to note that the Byzantinians did differenciate between "Arabs" and "Persians", and "Turks" and "Persians" ... yet, in this specific text, it's not the case. Obviously, they did not see any difference between the ruling Seljuqs and the former Persians they had already known. It's not important anyway - there is not a single credible source proving John's claim that the Seljuqs were Turkish-speaking or even enhanced a - what he calls - "renaissance of Turkish culture and literature". Tājik 10:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again, its a shame people are so warped by their "own" national sentiments and feelings that their willing to distort history.
Let me categorise this into some key areas.
The Seljuks initially were warriors, the language of the Army and Rulers was Turkish, the language of the polliticians and runners of state affairs was Persian. The area the Seljuks initially overtook did not have a Turkic majority, the majority of people were Persian and Arabic speakers.
The Seljuks adopted and influenced culture from the Persians it wasn't simply one-way traffic.
Later on, after successive waves of Turkic peoples, after their population grew to a substantial number becomming majorities in some areas and after the Key victory of AlpArslan Sultan, Turks entered Anatolia in large numbers.
Here in the 13th Century the Karamanogulu dynasty declared Turkish to be the official state of all state affairs and no other langauge was to be used.
Seljuks adopted this same resolution.
This continuity followed through to the Ottomans and is why Turkish was the official lanuage of the state.
And the claim made by somebody above that Seljuks didn't promote Turkish and lead a renaissance, that instead the only Turkish writer was Yunus Emre really has no knowledge about the matter.
Asik Pasa 13th C, promoted Turkish and was patroned by the Seljuks, he wrote a twelve thousand couplet work the "Garip", he wrote many famous poems and became a popular literary figure.
Baba Ilyas 12 C, Turkish spiritual leader, keeping the Old Turkic ways and new Islamic influences, merging them and spreading this thinking among Turks.
I just came across this article, from the discussion I read so far, there seems to be some claims that Seljuks were not Turkish or something like that (or maybe I am wrong).. Seljuks are considered to be part of Turkic peoples by all academicians in the world and they were the standard bearers of Turkish culture back then, all other claims are false.. The fact that they were the vassals of the Persians doesn't mean anything.. The Hungarian king was the vassal of the Ottoman Sultan for centuries, but he was never a Turk.. They might have blended with others, but that doesn't mean that they became less turkish.. One of the citations above says a race from the kingdom of the persians.., well that exactly proves my point - that they were a different race that lived in the persian kingdom, much like the Hungarians and Greeks that lived in the Ottoman Empire for centuries.. I can use the term a race from the empire of the ottomans to define approximately 50 distinct ethnicities - Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, Arabs, Azeris etc... As for the weird comment about Turks using only Arabic alphabet because they didn't have one of their own, please take a look at these [2], [3] and [4] (if you need more sources, pls leave me a message) Gokturks were the Turkish tribes that lived hundreds of years before the Seljuks. I am going to keep an eye on this article and notify some other users if neccessary if such lame POV pushing continues.. Baristarim 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It is one thing to say that they got influenced by the Persian culture, and it is a different thing to say that they became assimilated and forgot their language.. Greeks lived under the Ottoman Empire for centuries and were never considered to be half-Turkish, half-Greek.. If Seljuks were not Turkish and didn't speak Turkish there was absolutely no way that Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey would exist and Turkish spoken in Turkey, Azerbaidjan etc.. Malik Shah's father's name was Alp Arslan, a typical Turkic name since 400AD.. As for him using the title Shah to prove that he was persian, i got one thing to say: German emperors used the title kaiser derived from ceasar and Russian emperors used the title tsar derived from the same word, that doesn't make them Roman.. The claim that he was persian of some sort is illogical as much as claiming that Alexander the Great was Roman.. Baristarim 02:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
No, this is not the claim. In fact, the Oghuz Turkish origin of the Seljuqs is mentioned in the very first sentense of the article. The subject of discussion is whether the Seljuqs AFTER Alp-Arslan were Turkic-speakers or Persian-speakers. All sources - so far - point to the well established fact that by the time of Malik Shah and his sons, the Seljuqs had adopted the Persian language - not only as a language of administration and culture, but also as their "house language" (this point is really critical, because since the Seljuq princes had mothers of all kinds of nationalities, every single Seljuq prince had his own "mother-tongue"). The use of old Turkish titles, such as "Khan" and "Atabeg" are well attested. However, this is no proof for the claim that they were Turkic-speakers, because there are even more attested titles of Arabic or Persian origin (Sultan, Shah, Malik, etc).
As for the culture: no, the Seljuqs were NOT bearers of "Turkic culture". In fact, ALL Turkic nomds quickly gave up their Turkic culture and adopted the Persian and Islamic culture. The Turkic ruling houses - most of all the Seljuqs - quickly promoted intermariages with local nobles in order to strengthen their own power, that's why certain Seljuq princes had Persian mothers, while others had Turcoman, Arab, or Greek mothers. Turkic culture was regarded "barnaric" and "pagan", and the Seljuqs - as bearers of the new Perso-Islamic culture of the Middle East - did not promote the culture of their fore fathers. Instead, they promoted the old Iranian customs of Central Asia (that's why modern Anatolian music is so similar to Iranian or Central-Asian music, and that's why Turkish folk clothing is so similar to those of Central Asia), they promoted Persian art and literature (the Seljuqs were the MAIN REASON for the replacement of Arabic with Persian as the new administrative "lingua franca" of Western Asia). There are NO sources providing any evidence of the use of Turkic proper among Seljuq Sultans, there is NO evidence for poetry written by the Sultans themselvs, ALL official documents are in Persian, almost ALL religious documents are in Arabic. The Seljuq Sultans were the most important patrons of Persian literature duing the Mongol invasion. At that time, Turkish literature was almost non-existant.
Another important point is that - accoring to official Seljuq geneology - the roots of the Seljuqs were "Sassanid Persian". Of course, this was a myth created by the Seljuqs in order to undermine their "legitimacy to rule Persia". The intersting point is that they did NOT claim to be descendants of the Prophet or descendants of ancient Turkish heroes (as did other Turkic ruling houses, such as the Karakhanids who claimed to be descendants of Alp Er Tunga), which would have also strengtrhened their legitimacy. They willingly chose the old Persian Shahs - just like the Ghaznavids. The Ghaznavids were an extremly Persianized dynasty - to an extent, that it would be totally wrong to call them "Turkic". Now the question is: were the Seljuqs like the Ghaznavids a totally Persianized dynasty of Turkic origin (this is supported by almost ALL available sources), or were they still "Turks", living like nomads and being influenced by old Turkic, Shamanistic culture?!
Your comparison with the Hungarian king is wrong. You should have better used the Eglish royals as an example. Although the English royals are of German heritage, they are assimilated by their English subjects to an extant, that they are being regarded "English" by their subjects and by everyone else in the world. Noone would say that the Queen is "German" ... they do not even know German. The situation of the Seljuq Shahs was pratically identical to that of the English royals: a family of Turkic origin, bound to Persian noble families and court-life, and almost totally assimilated by its Persian subjects (including the high-officials of the court) over the course of more than 300 years (!!!). The Turks - and the Seljuqs in particular - have always been a tiny minority within a large Non-Turkic majority.
As for the Turkic language: as alraedy discussed (in many other toppics as well), the Turkish language was NOT promoted by the Seljuqs. The rise of the Turkish language in Anatolia was marked by the FALL of the Seljuqs. When the Seljuq Empire collapsed, noble families throughout their empire grabbed whatever they could get: land, titles, soldiers, etc. They fought each other, and - eventually - they lost everything to the new "masters of the universe": the Mongols. Anatolia - formerly a Christian nation - was far away from the Mongols. There were no Muslim nobles in Anatolia to fill the "political vacuum" during the breakoff of the Seljuq Empire. That's why - as an exception - a new group emerged to power in that region: nomadic Turcoman "Beyliqs". Countless clans of mostly nomadic Oghuz Turks fought each other for land and power. They were not familiar with the court-life of the Seljuq "Darbār", they were not familiar with the "civilized" Persian court language or with Arabic literature. That's why they promoted their own "house languages" - the Oghuz Turkish dialects - and their subjects were politically forced to learn those languages in order to communicate with the new rulers. At the end of the great war, only the Ottoman "Beyliqs" were left - and soon, they realized that they had to adopted the Persian court-life of the previous rulers in oder to organize their kingdom. Since the Ottomans came to power as a nomadic clan, they had not been influenced by Arabs or Persians that much. Yet still, in the following centuries, they, too, were influenced to an extent that their language, the Ottoman language, had become a "mix-language", even containing Persian and Arabic grammar (not to mention the large number of Perso-Arabic loan words). Just comparing the Ottomans to the Seljuqs, it should be totally clear that the Seljuqs were much much more influenced by Persians and Arabs as their successors, the Ottomans. This already proves that the Seljuqs were a totally assimilated dynasty - a, now, Persian-speaking Muslim dynasty of original Turkic origin. Tājik 02:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you joking?? Are you even aware of how much par-iranism is there in what you wrote?? You are first of all assuming that just because Seljuqs spoke Persian in court, that should imply that they were assimilated.. i had read your second post already way above in the talk page.. Persian was only the court language, much like Latin during the Roman Empire, most of the people in the lands didn't even understand one word of it and it was only used in court.. The parallel has many logical flaws, and for this I am going to refer to the Latin language.. Persian, like Latin, was the most developped and universal language for nobles in huge swathes of land and anyone that wanted to attain a position of power had to learn it, that doesn't make them neither Latin nor Persian.. Kinda like English today, if you want a comparison.. Just because we are writing to each other in English doesn't mean that we are English nor it implies that we are assimilated.. It is a neccessity, that's it.. There is no proof that Seljuqs ever gave up their language (the fact that turkish is still spoken in turkey is a proof of that, I am extremely aware of how modern Turkish got to where it is, I also know the story of Ottoman language, had the Seljuqs given up their language along with the rulers, Turkish wouldn't exist today).. As for religion and nomadic life, the same thing, just because they changed their religion or they became settled down doesn't make them any less Turkish - I am an atheist, so following your logic, I am not Turkish either because I don't have the same religion as my great-great-great-great-grandfather or dance like he did at the local village festival.. The fact that they adopted a culture doesn't mean that they were assimilated, you are tweaking the corners.. It was a Turkish dynasty that conquered Persia, settled there and adopted to its ways.. That's it, they were not a Muslim dynasty either - Alp Arslan converted to Islam later.. gees, where do you get all this pan-iranism???? Baristarim 05:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This talk is about the Seljuqs as a family, not about the people of Anatolia (who still - up to the last century - were largly Non-Turkish speaking). You are right about the Persian language. Persian and Arabic are the "Latin & Sanskrit" of the Islamic world. But it had also a more profane status within the Islamic world. While in Europe, Latin was the language of a minority, Persian had developed to a language of a large portion of the population after the Arab conquest. It was not just the language of administration and poetry, but also the mother tongue of millions of people from Central-Asia to Mesopotamia. The Oghuz, in contrast, were a small group of nomads. As already shown in other discussions, by the time of Sultan Mas'ud Ghaznavi, the entire Oghuz population of Central Asia was ca. 70.000 people - that's nothing compared to millions od Non-Turks at that time, most of all the Persian-speaking Dihgānān. The Encyclopaedia of Islam writes:
“
... We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large, for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the Ghaznawid historian Bayhaki as present on the battle field of Dandankan (Tarikh-i Masudi, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khurasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). ...
”
The Seljuqs were just one family (not even a tribe) ... and they have already had long lasting contacts and family relations with the Samanids - decades before they became rulers.
You have absolutely no proof for your claim that the Seljuqs never gave up their Oghuz language. Of course, the Seljuqs DID know Oghuz Turkic, the language of their Turcoman military Khans and personal "Atabegs" (except Nizam al-Mulk, all other "Atabegs" of the Seljuqs were Turkic military leaders). But this does not change the fact that all sources are in either Persian or Arabic, and that there is no evidence for the use of the Turkish language by the Sultans themselvs. Not even personal notes, such as personal letters or personal poetry, were in Turkic.
Because the Seljuqs were always in need of Turcoman tribal chiefs and their fighters, there must have also been a need for keeping the Oghuz language alive. But the Seljuqs themselvs were neither a Turcoman tribe anymore, nor part of the larger nomadic tradition of the "Begs" - they had transformed into a highly Persianized urban family of typical oriental royals. The princes grew up in a highly Persianized court, they were taught religious practices by their Persian and Arabic teachers, and they were schooled by their Persian nobles, scientists, and scholars.
Claiming that "they stayed Turkic" (keeping in mind that "ethnic identification" did not exist back then) is totally baseless and nothing but pure assumption. They were neither Turks, nor Persians, or Arabs - they were "Seljuqs", a royal family that tried to legitimized it's rule by claiming descent from the old Iranian Shahs. We have quoted authoritative sources in here, clearly proving that the Seljuqs considered themselvs part of the Iranian lands (unlike other Turkic ruling dynasties, such as the Karakhanids who never forgot their nomdic background) and legitimate descendants of the anciant Iranian Shahs of the epic tradition (unlike the Karakhanids who claimed descent from the legendary Turkic hero Alp Er Tunga). These are facts that one cannot deny.
The Seljuqs were first Muslims, then "Seljuqs" (loyal to their own family), and then Iranians. Your claim that Muhammad bin Da'ud Chaghri (better known as Alp Arslan) was the first Muslim Seljuq is wrong.
??? Are you trying to claim that they were not even Turkish?? There are so many articles in Wiki that try to prove that Azeris are Iranians by jumping through so many hoops yes, they speak turkish, but that's because they were turkified or yes, they speak turkish but Baku is an Iranian name, so they must be Iranians.. When you accept the fact that they chose to speak Turkish and they still choose to speak Turkish instead of Persian you people still try to prove that they were Iranians, after all this, you present the fact that there is no proof that the Seljuqs spoke Turkish, so therefore you argue that they must have been Persianized.. Back than lingua franca was Persian, so it is normal that there are no traces of their fire-side chats with their families.. Ottoman sultans also had Jewish, Greek and Armenian teachers, but they were still Turkish (or Turkic whatever u prefer), in my life time I had Arabic, American, Turkish and French teachers but I am still Turkish, so that argument falls flat out..
The fact that the court was persianized is normal coz they conquered and ruled Persia, so it is kinda normal. As for these Turkish numbers that keep on appearing here and there, well I got one thing to say: what is important is how they considered themselves, there were many peoples of the Turkish lands that started to consider themselves as Turks even they were ethnically not (analogy - America of today). As for this claim that is floating around kinda like some sort of Domocles' sword about who spoke Turkish where and when in Anatolia: That argument is not being able to consider things in context and give them appropriate meanings, until last century many people in France didn't speak French, they spoke Norman, Breton, Provençal etc.. They speak French today because of a process called nation-state, there can be many claims as to how this happened in Turkey and late Ottoman Empire, but to say that they are not Turkish (in the modern sense) just because they were not Turkic (ethnically from Central Asia) is also adding new meanings and twisting the old ones of certain political and ideological movements that happened in Europe after the French Rev.
I clearly understand the underlying pan-Iranist argument under this, you are trying to prove that the underlying culture for the Islamic culture, Turkish culture, Ottoman culture were all Persian, so don't worry about that - I perfectly see the underlying arguments here.. Seljuqs were Turkish, then Muslim and they ruled Persia - the fact that they adopted to Persian ways doesn't mean anything.. Do I have to prove so common sense that Seljuq dynasty was Turkish??? It is accepted as such by the whole global academic community.. And that's where I have to say stop.. The fact that there is no proof that they didn't speak turkish between themselves doesn't prove that they lost their language, we are talking about events that happened a thousand years ago, there were no TV cameras at every corner back then.. Considering that they were originally Turkish (and as such spoke Turkish), it is up to you to prove that they lost their language, not for others to prove that they didn't. Alp Arslan was the commander of Turkish forces at Malazkiert, so u r trying to tell me that he didn't speak Turkish with his generals?? Of course he had to speak Persian in the court coz there were so many more Persians (anology, I am living in France, I have to speak French every day coz there are so many French people, but I am still Turkish, got it??) I mean isn't this getting through or what?? They adopted to the Persian ways but it is up to you to prove that they were no longer Turkish, they adopted Islam, right, that makes them less Turkish?? I gave u an example above, I am an atheist, so that must also mean that I am not Turkish?? Your basic argument is that they became so civilized and mannered that they can no longer be considered Turkish, well that's a bit fascist thing to say: r u trying to say that when Turks became civilized they lost their Turkishness coz being civilized was against the nature of being a Turk??Cultures change and people can improve, they can stay still who they are..
His name was not some jacked up Iranian or Persian name, his name was pure and simply Sultan Alp Arslan of the Seljuq Turks.. He was not the first Muslim Seljuq Turkish Sultan of Persia, that's not what I meant..
Alp-Arslan - second sultan of the Seljuq Turks (1063-72), who inherited the Seljuq territories of Khorasan and western Iran and went on to conquer Georgia, Armenia, and much of Asia Minor (won from the Byzantines).
Nizam al-Mulk - Persian vizier of the Turkish Seljuq dynasty sultans.
Seljuq dynasty - (c. 11th-13th centuries) Muslim Turkmen dynasty that ruled Persia, Iraq, Syria, and Anatolia.
Manzikert, Battle of - (1071) Battle near the town of Manzikert (present-day Malazgirt, Turk.), in which the Seljuq Turks (see Seljuq dynasty) under Sultan Alp-Arslan defeated the Byzantines under Romanus IV Diogenes.
Enough?? Or do you want more?? Maybe you have the impression that I am some sort of light-weight in these history matters, but you are mistaken - I know much more than you think about political sciences and history, about how Ottoman history unfolded, how Turks came to where they are and etc.. I can bring the sources whenever you want, but I am not going to waste my time digging up sources to prove something so common sense.. This is a back-door attempt to persianize the Seljuqs.. I was asked to check into this via e-mail, I have also notified some other users about this, and this pan-iranism will stop, period... Baristarim 11:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, for your claim that ethnic identification didn't exist back then, I am afraid that your own citations prove you wrong ...namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians...', well if they were able to make the difference between the kingdom of Persia and a race from the kingdom of persia, i think that they were aware of certain basic ethnic differences that existed back than in the kingdoms and empires of that era... Otherwise he would have said the empire of persia has invaded..., no? Baristarim 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As soon as it gets unprotected I am going to change a Muslim dynasty to a Muslim Turkmen dynasty and add the source [6] from Encyclopedia Brittanica.. I will also move the page to Seljuk Turks or Seljuk Turkish Dynasty per above source and another one here [7], it is always mentioned as Seljuk Turks.. As for Alp Arslan:
the second sultan of the dynasty of Seljuk Turks, in Persia, and great-grandson of Seljuk, the founder of the dynasty. He assumed the name of Muhammed when he embraced Islam, and on account of his military prowess he obtained the surname Alp Arslan, which signifies "a valiant lion." ... The dominion of Alp Arslan now extended over much of western Asia. He soon prepared to march to the conquest of Turkestan, the original seat of his ancestors.
Google test - This is the English Wikipedia, as such the most common name must be used:
There is no room for pan-iranism here.. Period.. Baristarim 12:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop trying to circumvent the issue with your long speeches which dont even touch on the subject. Again, if you cannot disprove our evidence, which we have brought up from countless sources (Britannica, Iranic, and E. of Islam), then stop wasting our time, and stop wasting your time, I'm sure we all have better things we can be doing. You claim to be an educated lawyer, so why can you not understand that we are not saying the Seljuks were not Turks. Khoikhoi already pointed this out to you on your talk page.Khosrow II 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It touches something very fundamental about the subject: its title. So why in the intro a muslim dynasty instead of a Muslim Turkmen dynasty?? That is clearly the definition used by Brittanica, I don't know what part of Brittanica you are referring to. I know that they spoke Persian, but to say that they have completely lost their Turkicness is going way over the top.. Seljuk Turks is still the common name used in English to define what they were, have a look at the google test above, I cannot see how u can claim that Seljuq Dynasty is the proper way to call them given the results above - that is a POV fork, the whole world knows them as Seljuq Turks much more than the Seljuq Dynasty.. That's the name it was given to them by the global academic community for decades in English.. Doesn't matter how they are referred to as in iranian, chinese, martian or whatever.. In English they are called Seljuq Turks, period.. Do you have any sources to prove otherwise? And when the hell was this vote taken?? Baristarim 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You totally miss the point, Baristarim. The discussion is not about the Turkic origin of the Seljuqs which has NEVER been disputed (see the very first sentense of the article: The Seljuqs ... Muslim dynasty of Oghuz Turkic descent that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries.) The discussion is about whether the Seljuqs were still Turkic-speaking after decades of rule in Persia, or linguistically assimilated by the Persian majority, the same way the British and Dutch royals were assimilated by their subjects. THIS IS THE POINT. Your quotes from Britannica do NOT ANSWER this question. You cann call them "Seljuk Turks", "Seljuk Turkomans", or whatever you want ... this still does NOT answer the question.
You purposely ignore FACTS that there is not A SINGLE HISTORICAL DOCUMENT left from the Seljuq era that was written in Turkish.
Comparing the Seljuqs to other Iranian royals of Turkic origin, it seems clear that the Seljuqs, too, were assimilated by the Persians just as did the Ghaznavids, Ilkhans, Timurids, Mughals, Qajars, and Pahlavis. This was nothing uncommon in that region, because almost ALL ruling houses sooner or later adopted the Persian language as their "house languages". Even the Pashtun kings of Afghanistan, the Muhammadzai, had become Persian-speaking, to en extent that the last king of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah - though nominally a Muhammadzai Pashtun - does not even know Pashto.
What you are doing is very clearly a push for a Pan-Turkist POV. You may call yourself "communist", but your writing prove that in real you are a Turkish nationalist, ignoring facts!
Instead of quoting useless sentenses from Britannica (which have nothing to do with this discussion), try to find authoritative and historical documents proving that the Seljuqs remained Turkic-speaking! You own opinion and words are nothing but hot-air!
And btw: while we are at "googeling" the proper name for this article (which is your silly idea), you should have also googled the term "Seljuks" which receives 124000 hits: [12]. So I guess that "Seljuks" is the only acceptable name for this article, do you agree?!
Tājik 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't really want to get involved in another one of those silly ethnic arguments, but it might be wise not to make blanket statements like "there is not A SINGLE HISTORICAL DOCUMENT left from the Seljuq era that was written in Turkish", when there are—at least—the poems of Dehhânî (دهانى). Admittedly, this is not much, and is heavily influenced by Persian (he also wrote extensively in Persian), but it's certainly Turkish, and enough (I would hope) to help you realize that making blanket and (THANKS TO THE CAPS) verging-on-fanatical statements is not always the best way to go about things. Cheers. —Saposcat 22:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I want you to read this very carefully, this is not an ethnic dispute. How many times do we have to say this for you guys to understand?Khosrow II 22:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
6,349; otherwise, it just don't fit inside our heads. —Saposcat 09:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
@ Saposcat: sorry that I did not express myself correctly. I am not talking about Turkish poets or other Turkish writers in the Seljuq Empire, I am talking about the Seljuq family itself. There are no historical documents of the Seljuqs themselvs (i.e. poetry of the Sultans, letters of the Sultans, memoires of the princes and royals, etc) that are in Turkish. Of course, there were some Turkish writings in the Seljuq Empire, Yunus Emre is another good example. But this discussion is about the Seljuq ruling family, not about their subjects. In the Ghaznavid Empire article, for examples, sources were provided proving that Sultan Mahmoud and Sultan Mas'ud (and eventually other sultans of that dynasty), wrote poetry in Persian and Arabic, yet none in Turkic, although Turkic documents of their Turkic military leaders are well preserved. This proves that Turkic-speakers DID write docuements or poetry in their own mother-tongues, so the question remains: why did the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs NOT use that language?! Why are there NO poems, docuements, or letters of the Sultans left in Turkic? The only logical assumption is that the Seljuqs had given up their Turkish language in favour of Persian, the native language of their teachers and nobles.
You see, in case of Babur, Pan-Turkists always argue that "Babur was a Turk because he wrote poetry in Chagatay Turkic, totally ignoring the fact that he was evidently Mongol by ancestry (that's why his descendants became known as Mughals = "Mongols"). However, when it comes to the Seljuqs, the Pan-Turkists change their strategy, now suddenly claim that poetry and historical docuements are not important, and that "they must have been Turkic-speakers, because the names of their forefathers were Turkic". That's pure nonsense. In case of Babur, we have all agreed to mention his Mongolian origin, and that FACT that his tribe had been largly assimilated into Turkic culture, and that his native tongue was not Mongolian, but Turkic (see Babur). Why shouldn't we use the same methode in this article?! Noone denies the Turkic origin of the Seljuqs (this is mentioned in the VERY FIRST sentense). But we should also get back to the facts that ALL historical documents of the Seljuq court point to the well-established fact that the Seljuq family had given up its Turkic language in favour of Persian. Of course, Oghuz Turkish remained an important language, because it was the language of the Seljuq military. But the "house language" of the Seljuq family, meaning the "every day language" of the princes and Sultans, was with high probability NOT Oghuz Turkic, but Persian. This should be mentioned in the article!
Do you have sources that can attest to this? The fact that the court adopted Persian as the official language does not mean the same. It is only a hypothesis, and just from which point in the seljuk dynasty that this become a factor? The early were too close to their turkish heritage to lose touch, and the dynasty short enough for this to mean that for a siginificant portion of them this was not true--Tigeroo 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm let me try to sum things up hopefully it cuts the rhetoric and brings peace.
1) Every one agrees that the Seljuqs were Oghuz Turks, therefore Turks.
2) The name Seljuq dynasty has more to do with the fact that they were one family, and in a sense ran the Abassid Caliphate.
3) It is agreed that they were Persianized, the contention is over how much or wether they lost touch with their Turkishness.
I contend Persianized means no such thing, look at Turkey, it is the most Westernized Muslim country, it means little beyond which civilization they lean towards as role model to emulate in contrast to the options. User:Baristarim, I think you may have gotten carried away in the heat arguments. Let quite down and reformulate our specific problem vis-a-vis the article as it stands and then work with that. I don't think anyone is saying being Turkish is inferior to being persian or vice versa. User:Tajik and User:Khosrow II I would also like to remind that we can only hypothesize at this point to the extent of Seljuk persianization. True they professed to be identified with sassanids and inter-married with and were heavily influnced by Persians, but I think the impression being inadvertently cast is that they lost touch with their base of Turks or that sense of identity. This is unlikely since as you pointed out nationality did not play as great a part back them, but tribal affiliations certainly did, and so it is unreasonable to beleive they lost contact with that affiliation as well as their base of political support and power, just as it is unreasonable to assume that they did not persianize to consolidate their base power or that growing up surrounded by persian culture they managed to remain absolutely untouched. Remember Anatolia became the seat of the Sultnante of Rum and the region existed under a different social and political context than did the regions in the Iranian plateau and mesopotamia, the seat of the Seljuks. That region made concious efforts to reassert its turkish identity which lends some credence to what was becoming seen as wide-spread persianization. Remember the Persians themselves underwent a similar situation with Arabs and Arabic. Both parties have valid points, lets not get carried away in wide sweeping heated arguments and focus on specifics. The Seljuks were a Turkish dynasty that grew persianized. Cool heads please, focus. I think we have even lost sight of the point being debated.I don't even think there is something in particular in the article that is being argued over.--Tigeroo 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Tigeroo, thanks for your comments. Noone in here is disputing the Turkic origin of the Seljuqs. This is an established and well attested fact. Of course, you are true that we can only ASSUME the degree of Persianization or Turkic identity amongs them. But again, both, the Persian and Turkic identity of the dynasty is nothing but pure assumption.
As I have mentioned above, the "Persianization of language and culture" amongst the Turks does not mean that they had totally lost their language. Let me give you an example: German-Turks of the 2nd or 3rd generation usually communicate in German and not Turkish amongst themselvs. Good examples would be Cem Özdemir or the singer Muhabbet. In case of Muhabbet, it's noteworthy that he sings in German, although his music is influenced by oriental music. he has explained many times that he cannot write lyrics in Turkish, because it's easier for him to speak German than Turkish. Of course, almost all assimilated German-Turks still know the language of their parents or grand-parents, in varying degrees. But after 50 years in Germany, the Turkish community has become Germanized to a heavy degree. Many Turks even use German in their everyday life rather than Turkish, and they communicate with each other in German and not Turkish (the same goes to Iranians, Afghanistans, Indians, or whatever, who are the 2nd or 3rd generation in the West).
The contrast of cultures 1000 years ago - the contrast between the Persianized Islamic world and the nomadic way of the Turks - was much much bigger than that of modern Turks and modern Germans. When the Turks, as a nomadic warrior people, conquered large parts of the weakened Islamic Empire, they were confronted with the most advanced civilization of that time, a civilization that was de facto run by Persian nobles, scholars, and politicians. The Turks quickly realized that in order to rule these lands, they had to adopt the already established way of life, including the language. Of course, large parts of the Turkic tribes (who were not more than 100,000 people in total) remained nomads - but the ruling elite, most of all the Seljuq family, quickly sociealized with the Persian aristocracy. The base of the Seljuq dynasty was not only the strong Turcoman military, but also the Persian court - the de facto center of the Seljuq Empire. The most important officers of the Seljuqs were not the military leaders (who even served as Atabegs to the princes), but the Persian vizirs. At certain stages, the vezirs were even more powerful than the Sultans - yet, the vezirs did not have the obedience of the Turcomans.
The Seljuq princes were more in contact with the Persian nobles of the court than with military Begs or nomad children.
Now, we are assuming certain things based on logic and sources - and both, logic and available sources, lead to the assumption that the Seljuq family had become Persian-speaking over the time. This does not mean that they had totally lost their Turkic roots or language, but that they - sooner or later - began to use Persian as their "house language" rather than Turkic dialects. Intermarriage with Iranian nobles further underlined this "switch of culture and language".
You see, Russians rule in central Asia lasted only 70 years, but their influence - and especially their language - is still a major element of central Asian life. The Seljuq family was being ruled by the Persian culture and language more than 200 years. Rejecting this influence and claiming that they had "only adopted the literary language as their court-language" is totally illogical.
The Seljuks initially were warriors and a very powerfull well organised millitary group, the language of the Army and Rulers was Turkish, the language of the polliticians and runners of state affairs was Persian. The area the Seljuks initially overtook did not have a Turkic majority, the majority of people were Persian and Arabic speakers.
The Seljuks primary aim was protecting the caliphate. Mahmud Kashgari's Turkic encyclopedia and manual on Turkic culture, history etc was written and a copy handed to the Caliph.
The Seljuks created a millitary oligarchy, they controlled the Caliphate from within yet kept the pollitical power of the Caliph intact as a figure-head.
The Seljuk millitary was most definately Turkic and spoke Turkic and carried on their culture and ways.
They entrusted local polliticians to govern the people again as "figure-heads". This was a very smart move by the Seljuks. They would install local rulers from the population of a specific region and tell them what to do. The locals didn't feel as distressed having their own people giving the orders.
Later, after successive waves of Turks and large migrations the Seljuks brought back the Turkish elements in strength as there was now many Turks to govern aswell.
The Seljuks adopted and influenced culture from the Persians it wasn't simply one-way traffic.
Later on, after successive waves of Turkic peoples, after their population grew to a substantial number becomming majorities in some areas and after the Key victory of AlpArslan Sultan, Turks entered Anatolia in large numbers.
Here in the 13th Century the Karamanoglu dynasty declared Turkish to be the official state of all state affairs and no other langauge was to be used.
Seljuks adopted this same resolution.
This continuity followed through to the Ottomans and is why Turkish was the official lanuage of the state.
If it wasn't for the Seljuks, there would be no Ottoman state. If the Seljuks had forgotten their language and ways the Ottomans would also have been Persian and spoke Persian. However, they were Turks, spoke Turkish and spread the language. So your theory is ridiculous.
And the claim made by somebody above that Seljuks didn't promote Turkish and lead a renaissance, that instead the only Turkish writer was Yunus Emre really has no knowledge about the matter.
Asik Pasa 13th C, promoted Turkish and was patroned by the Seljuks, he wrote a twelve thousand couplet work the "Garip", he wrote many famous poems and became a popular literary figure.
Baba Ilyas 12 C, Turkish spiritual leader, keeping the Old Turkic ways and new Islamic influences, merging them and spreading this thinking among Turks.
"History of Iran" is irrelevant section. Seljuk Empire is a Turkic empire, a part of the history of Turks. So the "History of Turks" is more relevant to this topic.--Karcha 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I am really sicked and tired of this pan-Iranism show. Why do you put History of Iran? To prove that Selcuks were actually Persians? I agree to my friend Karcha. History of Turks is much much more relevant to this topic. I am going to change this after I prepared such a column. ( I prepared "History of Turks" according to [13] but couldn't change the page. )
Totally stupid comment. The Seljuqs are like many other kings and rulers also part of Iran's history, the same way they are part of Syria's, Afghanistan's, and Turkmenistan's history. You also forget that they ruled as Iranian kings in mainland Persia. Isfahan was their capital. Tājik 11:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're looking something stupid, maybe you should read your comment. You say: "The Seljuqs are like many other kings and rulers also part of Iran's history". That sentence doesn't make Selcuks, Persian. That only shows Iran have been captured and conquered by many kings through out history. Cenghiz Khan ruled China as its leader. But it doesn't make him Chinese. As well as ruling Persian doesn't make Selcuks, Persian. I cannot believe your comments. Don't be obsessed your pan-iranism theory. Iran was just a country conquered by Turks. That's all. Don't try to undercover Iran's weak past by saying; "Actually we are not conquered, because they are not Turks, they are Persian." That's all you're trying to do. You are manuplating and fabricating history to prove that Persian was never captured. In fact you're wrong. That's just hiding information. Why can't you admit, Turks had conquered and captured Iran? Admit it and we will come to reasonable point. The question is very simple: What are the origins of Selcuks? If you still say, they are Iranians; well my friend you're just a historian liar. If you say they are Turks, then what else can you say? That's all we need to know. If they are Turks, then they are just Turks; not Persian as you are trying to prove. And that's why you should use History of Turks rather than History of Iran.
If you see Seljuk Empire as a part of Iran History, we should understand that Turks did not only constitute Turkish history but also constitutes Iran history. However there is an important difference here; Turks administrated Iranins so centralism of Isfahan is very normal thing. Because when Isfahan was inside of Turkish territory, was administrated by Turks. Besides if you accept that "iran history was written by non-iranian forces and these forces form iranian history because of Iranians' lack of administration ability" there is no problem for me but I know that "history is written by administrators, rulers, ables not being have disabilities...--Karcha 11:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course Turks conquered Persia and ruled Persia, the same way Turks themselvs were conquered and ruled by others. Genghis Khan was not an ethnic Chinese or an ethnic Persian, but he is - without doubt - part of the history of China and part of the history of Persia. The Turkic peoples of Central Asia were conquered and ruled by various other people, including Afghans and - especially - Russians. The history of the USSR is an important part of Uzbek history and Turkmen history.
The Seljuks are as much part of the history of Iran as the Arabs and Alexander the Great. The Persian Samanids are as much part of the Turkish history as are the Byzantine Empire or Kurdish Ayyubids. I do not understand your problem. Tājik 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Okey, everybody knows wrong about USA-Iraq war, G.W. Bush was an Iraqi nomadic, not American. Iraqians should feel proud of him. Also Cenghiz was a chinese. Yes I am Napoleon Bonaparte and I am a Spanish. Please change your infos.--Karcha 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about?! Are you trying to say that the US-Invasion of Iraq is NOT part of the history of Iraq?! Or is all of this about "being proud of someone"?! Why shouldn't Persians be proud of the Seljuqs?! The Seljuqs were the ones who promoted Persian culture and language, replaced Arabic with Persian, were patrons of Persian poets (ever heared of Rumi?!), and even declared themselvs descendants of the ancient Persian Shahs of the epic. Why shouldnt Persians be proud of that?! What hav Seljuqs done for the Turks?! Were they patrons of Turkish language or poetry?! No! Were they acting in the name of Turks as an ethnic group?! No! This is not about "Turks" or "Persians" or "Greeks"! or "Arabs" ... this is about ONE FAMILY that at one time ruled a vast area from Central Asia to Anatolia. And therefore, this family is part of the history of every modern nation that exists in the lands that were once ruled by this family. Tājik 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, firstly your samanids is not a part of Turkish History, i did not hear samanids. Besides i do not put a History of Turks section to samanids article. Because it is not a Turkish x ( i'm saying x because i don't know what is it, an empire? a tribe? or what?) Actually i could not understand you. This is very clear, Seljuks are ethnically, culturally Turks. Seljuk Empire is 11. Great Turkish Empire... --Karcha 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The Samanids are part of the Turkish history, because the Samanids were the first who systematically converted Turks to Islam. However, the Samanids are not part of the History of Turkey. The Seljuqs, on the other hand, played an important role in the history of Persia (meaning all of it's regions: modern Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Central Asia). They have influenced the history of Iran, and - most of all - they themselvs were immensly influenced by the Iranians. The Seljuqs and their assimilation of by the established Iranian culture and tradition marks the cultural switch of the Turks from nomadic traditions to a highly civilized and urban people. What you call "Turkish culture" is in reality "Persian culture", the "Persian culture" that was brought to Anatolia by the Seljuqs. That's why Turkish music sounds like Persian and Central Asian music, that's why Turkish food is almost identical to the food in Afghanistan and Iran, and that's why Turkish national clothing is similar to that of other regions influenced by Persian culture. Tājik 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't be funny, Mevlana was Turkish. If we talk about Persian language, Turkish Empires have a big tolerance about these subjects. Seljuks like Ottomans did not restrict any cultural rights. They provide easiness to people of conquered lands. Not only about persia, when istanbul cnquered, no church destroyed and there is no restrictions about language. This is tolerance policy of Turks... --Karcha 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
My dear friend Tajik; ok I accept Selcuks were an important part of Iran history. But why don't you also agree, Selcuks are ancestors of Turks? They are also our important historical ancestors. If you accept this, why do you deny to put a same column such as History of Iran for Turks? Why don't you approve a column such as History of Turks like History of Iran?
Seljuqs are not the ancestors of modern Turks, because the Seljuqs were only one family, consisting of not more than 150 people. Not even the entire Oghuz population (according to Ghaznavid chronologists not more than 60,000 people arround the year 1100 AD) was enough to form the modern population of Turkey. 90%+ of the ancestors of Turks are actually Non-Turks (mostly Greeks and related peoples), the remaining 10% seem to be somehow related to Central Asian Turkic and Mongol hords.
The Seljuqs are only the cultural ancestors of modern Turks, the same way the Sassanids are the cultural ancestors of Persians, but not their "biological ancestors". Information from the Encyclopaedia of Islam: "... We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large, for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the Ghaznawid historian Bayhaki as present on the battle field of Dandankan (Tarikh-i Masudi, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khurasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). ..."
I am sorry but showing just a few sources doesn't make Turkish society greek or persian. Today Turkey has a population of 70 million. Let's assume that, Turkish population was 60.000 in 1100 A.D. as you say. The average growth for Turks is about %0.18. If you have a population of 60.000 in year 1100 and have a growth rate of %0.18; you would have 563,834,246,858 people of Turks. Even much much more than world population. I am trying to show you 60.000 people is not a small number to underestimate, 900 years ago. In another article you said there's no such a thing as Turkish culture. Now you say, there's no such as Turks. You're saying, Turks are mostly Greek. What's next; a cultural genocide against Turks? Be reasonable. In the beginning you even didn't accept Selcuks as Turks. After a while, you accepted that they are Turks but under Persian culture. And we return to the beginning and again you say, that they are not Turks. If you are objective and not so obsessed about pan-Iranism; then you would support History of Turks column. It's okay to stay History of Iran. But it's not okay not to put History of Turks into this article.
What the hell are you talking about?! Tājik 00:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I second that.Khosrow II 01:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Of you are going to argue and give silly responses. It's something we expect from pan-Iranist.
The ancestors of Turks are actually Non-Turks (mostly Greeks and related peoples), the remaining 10% seem to be somehow related to Central Asian Turkic and Mongol hords.:)
Ok, after this funny story, we shoul look some history, a real history and learn whose ancestors greek ? or,is there an ancestors of persians? We will learn now with documentaries;
Berkeley University Lectures about the Origin of Persians
Becoming "Greek"
The range of civic (e.g., Athenian) and regional (e.g., Macedonian) affiliations used to identify foreign settlers in third-century BCE papyri from Tebtunis demonstrates the lack of homogeneity for what we term "Greek." Tax records identify as "Greeks" not only individuals from locales previously considered "Greek" (including Athenians, Samians, Thebans, Cyrenaeans, Boeotians, Cretans), but also persons from unexpected cities or regions (including Alexandrians, Thracians, Macedonians, PERSIANS, Jews, Idumaeans, Arabs), some considered the antithesis of "Greeks" by former generations. A number of texts from Tebtunis demonstrate the impermanence of these ethnics, which allowed people to move from one category to another. Given the diversity of identities encompassed by "Greek," it may have only become a meaningful category when it was opposed to "Egyptian," although these boundaries were themselves permeable.
Other ethnics: Syrians, Arabs, Jews and PERSIANS
The papyri from Tebtunis record several sites in the Fayum, which appear to have been founded as ethnic communities in the third century BCE. These include the "Village of the Syrians" (Syrôn kômê), "Village of the Arabs" (Arabôn kômê) and Samareia, which contained a sizable Jewish population and was probably named after the city in Palestine.
Although ethnic designations like Boeotian, Macedonian, Syrian, Arab and Jew probably refer to geographic origin, "PERSIAN" proves problematic. Its precise origin or significance is disputed. In the early Ptolemaic period it seems to describe people with Greek names functioning in a Greek context; although they enjoy a privileged status, they are counted separately from Greeks in tax lists. In late Ptolemaic and Roman contracts, "Persian of the epigonê" refers to the legal status of a debtor who had waived certain personal rights in order to secure the collection of a debt.
Persians
6 June 12 BCE
(A Papyrus doocument, a real history document)
In this Demotic contract, summarized in Greek at the bottom, Pakemis son of Pakemis, acknowledges the loan of the dowry of his wife Tameische (Greek, Tameischis), daughter of Sokonopis, and promises to repay it. Here "Persian" does not seem to indicate descent, but describes a man with the status of a debtor. In this example, the subject has an Egyptian personal name, but "Persian of the epigonê" is just as frequently used to describe people with Greek names. (P.Tebt. II 386)
This is becoming so funny. Tajik, who always says what the hell are you talking about, who never don't understand, please firstly learn your ancestors, if there are, after you maybe learn ancestors of Turks...--Karcha 10:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Its precise origin or significance is disputed
(What a statement:)))
What the hell are you talking about? What the hell are you talking about? What the hell are you talking about? :)))--Karcha 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This info attack will continue in "persians" entry... Please give up this pan-iranism, Especially in Mevlana, Haci Bektash veli, Alans, etc. end of course please remove that irrelevant history of iran column...--Karcha 18:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you remove History of Turks?
Please read this: [14]. I don't understand why you removed this. If you put "History of Iran", we have right to put it as much as you do. Everybody knows they're Turks even Persanized or not. They are part of Turkish history; nothing can explain this vandalism. Yes, this is a vandalism! By removing history of Turks, you proved that you can vandalise everything for pan-Iranism.
If you want other sources please look:
[15], [16], [17], [18]
Dont know, you'll have to contact Tajik.Khosrow II 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The tag was POV, and the article it was linked to is POV. There is already a tag "Turkish history" attached to the article, so there is no need to have another "Turkish brief history" tag.
Most of the names given in the tag, like the Huns and Mughals, were not Turks - neither in ethnicity, nor in culture or language. Other names included in that tag are actually disputed issues. And none of the sources you have provided above are scholarly sources.
It's stupid anyway to have a tag about the history of the Turkic peoples (which you wrongly call "Turkish"). There is not a tag about the "history of Indo-European peoples" either. The Turkic peoples are NOT an ethnic group - they are NOT genetically related to each other. They are simply members of a loosely related language family.
The only tags neede din the article are one about the "History of Iran" and one of the "History of Turkey". Both tags are given, no other is needed.
If you look to articles, I've given, you'll see Selcuks are refered as ancestors of Turks. If you search in Google, then you'll see many more resources that refers Selcuks as Turks. Therefore I demand to include History of Turks.
The Sejuqs (the dynasty!) are NOT the ancestors of the Turks. The Seljuqs were only ONE family. And google is not a source, it's a search engine. 90% of the information found in google is not reliable. Tājik 12:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think what Tajik is trying to say is that since this Article also covers the Seljuk period prior to the splintering of the Sultanate of Rum, it has reason to accomodate the History of Turkey. I think if you rework your sidebar to be one for Turkic dynasties maybe you would have a case. I don't think he is denying the Turkic link or heritage at all. The appanage system of rule ensured that the entire Seljuk clan was involved in a portion of the rulership, just as the Oghuz Turks who they led, also played a significant role. There exists a link for the History of Turkey, though maybe it needs to moved a bit. The Seljuk while a Turkic dynasty while rightly belonging in the history of both nations is more a part of the History of Iran than Turkey because they primarily ruled the area of Iran and were based here. The splintering of the Sultante of Rum meant that from very early on after the intial conquests, under Alp Arslan to the rule of Malik Shah, Anatolia left the ambit Greater Seljuk meaning for most of the time of the dynasty was influencing history in the Iranian region. Note in a sense I agree they are ancestors because Qutulmush, challenged Alp Arslan for the throne and his son's also Seljuk, seperated from Greater Seljuk to establish the Seljuk dynasty in the Sultanate of Rum from Konya vs. Nishapur. So you are both correct though Tajik is slightly more technically correct.--Tigeroo 12:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Tajik says, Selcuks were a family. They can be a family, but that doesn't stop Tajik to put Iranian History sidebar. When I gave sources, no one didn't care. Please look at the sources. Everybody sees them as an important part of Turkish culture and History. None of us don't deny great influence of Persian culture on Selcuks. But also, none of us should not deny Selcuks being Turks. This article is not just about Selcuks dynasty. It also covers a history of Selcuks and states they found. Therefore, i believe, I've right to put History of Turks. If you still insist to tell "you cannot put, because it is only about dynasty", then I believe History of Iran must also be removed. Turks have rights on Selcuks as much as Iranians do.
OMG ... this anon is totally misunderstanding the "History of Iran" template ... he is talking about "having a right on Seljuqs" ... this is pure nonsense ... I am out of the discussion. Tājik 15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't mislead people by twisting my words. What I meant was clear. If you can put History of Iran, no one should argue about putting History of Turks. That's all! The question is: "Are we going to remove History of Iran or add History of Turks?"
I don't see how your side bar will add to it's coverage of Turk related articles. There is already a template called Topics in Turkey Template attached to the article', which has links to both the history and culture of the Turkic peoples, its listed in the category History of Turkey as well as Anatolia and Turkic peoples. I don't see how the article has claimed disproportionately claimed the "Seljuks" for Pan-Iranians, its seem quite clear on reading that is about a Turkish dynasty that ruled Iranian lands. There is only the one side bar for Iranian History one category listing for the History of Pakistan. It is entirely missing in its converage of Iraqi, Syrian and Jordanian histories. I think what you need to do is define what do you mean by History of Turks and fix it to fit seamlessly with the two other articles Turkic peoples and Turkic migration that cover the same concept and then we can see how we can add it so that it doesn't duplicate the links to Turk related topics that are already existant.--213.42.21.75 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
By using History of Turks, I try to show important Turkic Empires through out history. you can look at Template:Turkish_History_Brief.
Is this somehow not accomplished by the existing Turkey topics template? If so maybe you should consider merging your template into that one to have a comprehensive singular point of nagivation.--Tigeroo 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
When someone says "Seljuks are more a part of history of Iran than of Turkey" he is missing the facts that present Turkish people, language, culture, state tradition are directly descended from Seljuks. But yes, maybe we could say Seljuks are more related to history of Turks rather than history of Turkey. Filanca 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a point to make. The Seljuk Turks invaded the Byzantine empire alot earlier than 1068. They captured the town of Ceasarea in Anatolia in 1067, so they must have in fact invaded the Byzantine empire alot earlier than that. The Byzantines managed to recapture Ceasarea shortly before Manzikert but lost it again after Manzikert. I have proof if anyone asks for it.
Just a note... Wherever I read (in Hungfarian textbooks and encyclopedies as well) seljuks are referred to as SELJUK-TURKS. Whatever the dynasty's origin is, they RULED peoples that were the ancestors of TURKS. SO, in my view, they DO have a pőlace in the History of Turkish people! --TeemeahGül Bahçesi 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but are some people still sane? You put History of Iran there but NOT THE MAIN THEME: History of Turkey?? I am sorry but this shows the great disadvantage of wikipedia: Some irresponsible and obsessed poeple obviously really CAN WRITE WHATEVER THEY WANT. Please change this IMMEDIATELY, I personnaly do not trust any history or politics related article on wikipedia anymore. --Some visitor (sorry I am no member) 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
