Altaic Family Tree

[Porus]

Ottomans massacred many Turks and expelled them to Azerbaijan and Iran. Between the 13th and 16th centuries Turks were dominant in Anatolia. Nowadays it is a mess.

The Ottomans were themselves Turks, why did they kill "many Turks" and forcibly pushed them eastwards?

 

[Targon]

Few weeks of practice is enough to fully understand as far as I heard(we can partly understand each other without practice)

Porus

Ottomans were Sunni, they massacred or forcedly settled Kizilbash Turcomans because they were religiously more closer to Safavids.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I dnt know but seriously... turks frm turkiye look like our "fairer lookin" cousins...lol... and the central asians... they look like the caucasian lookin cousins of japan..... the "central asianic" turks are the ancestors of all these turkic nations includin turkey... alot of "interacial weddings" took place in with other natives of the dominated areas.... so thts why they look different but still have dominant genetics of their forefathers.

 

[Cem_]

Ottomans massacred many Turks and expelled them to Azerbaijan and Iran. Between the 13th and 16th centuries Turks were dominant in Anatolia. Nowadays it is a mess.

Why did they commit such a horrible act?? Was it because of sectarianism or they had considered them a threat to their rule, Actually Ottomans are notoruis when it comes to rivals, they even used to assasinate own brother in order to keep the power!

For the same reason they created the "Jannisaries" made out of non-Turk slavic children from the balkans with no connection to any other being than the Sultan himself! this was to secure themselves from potential Turk rivals inside the empire!

 

[RazPaK]

What is the difference between Turks, Tartars, and Mongols?

They all seem to be from the steppes of Asia.

 

[Cem_]

What is the difference between Turks, Tartars, and Mongols?

They all seem to be from the steppes of Asia.

They are all Turks only difference are branch and the clans.

 

[RazPaK]

They are all Turks only difference are branch and the clans.

But they don't speak Turkish in Mongolia??

 

[Porus]

Porus

Ottomans were Sunni, they massacred or forcedly settled Kizilbash Turcomans because they were religiously more closer to Safavids.

Yes, it makes sense. Many Kizlbash live in the western province of Pakistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and they adhere Shia Islam. Thanks for your reply.

 

[Cem_]

But they don't speak Turkish in Mongolia??

Well we are just able to understand some simple words. Its because we have been under heavy Persian/Arab/Greek/Armenian influence while they had been under Russian/Chinese influence.. After 1000 year of assimilation its normal that we cannot understand eachother however its not the same with Kazakh and Azeri Turks i'm able to understand them little more easier than the others.

Yes, it makes sense. Many Kizlbash live in the western province of Pakistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and they adhere Shia Islam. Thanks for your reply.

@porus

By the way fyi Safavids were Turks too, ruling elite of persia were shia turks for long time they challenged the Ottomans.

 

[Targon]

Mongolian language is not Turkic, just related, of course we can't understand it. But there is some words coming from common root.

 

[Cem_]

Mongolian language is not Turkic, just related, of course we can't understand it. But there is some words coming from common root.

Mongols did not have own language It is eliticated from Turkic..

 

[kalu_miah]

East Bengal was the south-eastern border of the Eurasian continent-wide Turko-Mongol push:

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft067n99v9;brand=eschol

Introduction

Sometime in 1243–44, residents of Lakhnauti, a city in northwestern Bengal, told a visiting historian of the dramatic events that had taken place there forty years earlier. At that time, the visitor was informed, a band of several hundred Turkish cavalry had ridden swiftly down the Gangetic Plain in the direction of the Bengal delta. Led by a daring officer named Muhammad Bakhtiyar, the men overran venerable Buddhist monasteries in neighboring Bihar before turning their attention to the northwestern portion of the delta, then ruled by a mild and generous Hindu monarch. Disguising themselves as horse dealers, Bakhtiyar and his men slipped into the royal city of Nudiya. Once inside, they rode straight to the king’s palace, where they confronted the guards with brandished weapons. Utterly overwhelmed, for he had just sat down to dine, the Hindu monarch hastily departed through a back door and fled with many of his retainers to the forested hinterland of eastern Bengal, abandoning his kingdom altogether.[1]
This coup d’état inaugurated an era, lasting over five centuries, during which most of Bengal was dominated by rulers professing the Islamic faith. In itself this was not exceptional, since from about this time until the eighteenth century, Muslim sovereigns ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent. What was exceptional, however, was that among India’s interior provinces only in Bengal—a region approximately the size of England and Scotland combined—did a majority of the indigenous population adopt the religion of the ruling class, Islam. This outcome proved to be as fateful as it is striking, for in 1947 British India was divided into two independent states, India and Pakistan, on the basis of the distribution of Muslims. In Bengal, those areas with a Muslim majority would form the eastern wing of Pakistan—since 1971, Bangladesh—whereas those parts of the province with a Muslim minority became the state of West Bengal within the Republic of India. In 1984 about 93 million of the 152 million Bengalis in Bangladesh and West Bengal were Muslims, and of the estimated 96.5 million people inhabiting Bangladesh, 81 million, or 83 percent, were Muslims; in fact, Bengalis today comprise the second largest Muslim ethnic population in the world, after the Arabs.[2]

Genetic connection of Arabs and then Turko-Mongols with spread of Islam is a well known fact. Some places the Turkish language became predominant, in other more populous places, the cultural influence became more religious than linguistic.

But nationalism like Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanism (Bozkurts?) sometimes promote many false and wrong headed ideas and pseudo facts. It was partly responsible for the breakup of Ottoman, by creating Arab nationalism as a reaction, as it is alleged.

Russia is still the winner in CAR's, but if Pakistan, Iran and Turkey can form a closer economic partnership and develop their region, the CAR's Turkics and Mongolians may join up, when this union may look more attractive. For now the Russians still provide jobs for CAR's migrant labor. But the future will be different, I am sure. Russia does not provide warm water port and direct land connection to South and South East Asia or Europe, which the southern Muslim countries provide.

 

[Cem_]

However ofcourse i can be wrong about the Mongols and their language just correct me if im wrong.

 

[BronzePlaque]

They are all Turks only difference are branch and the clans.

I dont think Mongols are Turkic..Mongols and Turkic people are the leafs of Altaic Family Tree..Like relatives..

 

[Targon]

Mongols did not have own language It is eliticated from Turkic..

Mongolian is a completely different language, its just related to Turkic languages in some cases