Cyrus the Great was defeated and killed by a women

[Charon]

Tomyris is an Persian name: تهم*رییش‎ Tahm-Rayiš. If Turks are proud to give their daughters Persian names, I've no problems with that.

Tomyris and Massagataes were living in Central-Asia long before Turks migrated to it.

Tahm-Rayis? I've never heard about this name sorry. Tomyris comes probably from the Turkic word "iron" which was also the name of Timur. Temür (demir in modern Turkish) means "iron". It still doesn't change the fact that there is no iranic women with the name Tomyris but dozens of Turkic women

 

[RZAWT]

Tahm-Rayis? I've never heard about this name sorry. Tomyris comes probably from the Turkic word "iron" which was also the name of Timur. Temür (demir in modern Turkish) means "iron". It still doesn't change the fact that there is no iranic women with then name Tomyris but dozens of Turkic women

Tomyris is an Iranian name. Read here;

books.google.nl/books?id=Fbm0nGoZo58C&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=tomyris+etymology&source=bl&ots=EZFQAJCh2T&sig=xBQ2BLPIeEt3bHPY2XRSkdHRsR0&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=7ANKUpyPF4nAtQagnYGgAQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tomyris%20etymology&f=false

They spoke an Iranic language, so how on earth could the name be Turkish? Use some logic.

 

[Charon]

But Scythians and other Iranian groups had Caucasian features, while the original Turks had Mongoloid features. There seems to be a contradiction in this. But even if these Iranian groups mixed with Turkish groups, its wrong to name these original Iranian groups Turkic. It would be more correct to state that the only linguistic decedents of the Sarmatians are the Ossetians, while the rest merged into all kinds of ethnic groups: Slavs, Turkic, etc.

They did not spoke an Turkic language, so them being Turkic is utterly wrong.

There is no genetical proof for it that the Proto-Turks were fully Mongoloid. The first Turks probably arose from several clashes between Caucasoids and Mongoloids in Central Asia. If consider the fact that Turks, Azeris and Uzbeks are the three biggest Turkic groups than we can easily say that the majority of Turkics are Caucasoid. Turks and Azeris are predominiantly Caucasoid with Mongoloid admixture while Uzbeks are also genetically half Caucasoid

 

[RZAWT]

There is no genetical proof for it that the Proto-Turks were fully Mongoloid. The first Turks probably arose from several clashes between Caucasoids and Mongoloids in Central Asia. If consider the fact that Turks, Azeris and Uzbeks are the three biggest Turkic groups than we can easily say that the majority of Turkics are Caucasoid. Turks and Azeris are predominiantly Caucasoid with Mongoloid admixture while Uzbeks are also genetically half Caucasoid

Only Turks in West-Asia have predominantly Caucasian features, while the ones in Central-Asia have predominantly Mongoloid features. That is because the Turks in West-Asia have mixed with Caucasian groups like the Greeks, Armenians, Iranians, etc, while the ones in Central-Asia not this scale.

But you are saying that the first Turks were a mixture of Iranian and Mongolian people?

 

[Charon]

Only Turks in West-Asia have predominantly Caucasian features, while the ones in Central-Asia have predominantly Mongoloid features. That is because the Turks in West-Asia have mixed with Caucasian groups like the Greeks, Armenians, Iranians, etc, while the ones in Central-Asia not this scale.

But you are saying that the first Turks were a mixture of Iranian and Mongolian people?

No I say that the first Turks were probably a mixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples. The predominantly Mongoloid looking Kazakhs and Kyrgyz are just as mixed as the Turks and Azeris. The ancestors of the Kyrgyz and Kazakhs the Kipchaks were known for their blonde hair, blue eyes and primarily Caucasoid features by all historians who wrote about them.

 

[RZAWT]

No I say that the first Turks were probably a mixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples. The predominantly Mongoloid looking Kazakhs and Kyrgyz are just as mixed as the Turks and Azeris. The ancestors of the Kyrgyz and Kazakhs the Kipchaks were known for their blonde hair, blue eyes and primarily Caucasoid features by all historians who wrote about them.

Almost all Caucasoid groups in Central-Asia were/are part of the Iranian people, so when you argue that the original Turks were a mixture between these Caucasian and Mongolian groups, it is like saying that the first Turks were a Iranian/Mongolian mix?

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

.




.















Undoubtedly they are Turkics. First of all their culture and customs are Turkic.

they are nomads, fight on horse back use bows thats typical.

But drinking blood of their horses is the ultimate proof that's an ancient Turkic ritual/custum Hun/Gök and other Turks use to do that to. No other people than Turks do that.

-Most eurasians fought horseback, including Iranic peoples such as parthians, scythians, sassanids.
-Yes some Turks and Scythians would have (some) similarities because they lived near each other. But that does not make them Turks Scythians or Scythains as Turkics. Also the Scythians are older, mentioned earlier, I think it would be more correct to say some turks their culture and customs were from Scythians than other way around.
-Some Turks were called Persians by the Romans, are Turks Persians? no
-Alans were Iranic speaking people who were from Scythians. Todays ossetians speak an eastern-Iranic language and their ancestors are the Alans.
- Scythian religion is assumed to have been related to the earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, and to have influenced later Slavic, Hungarian and Turkic mythologies, as well as some contemporary Eastern Iranian and Ossetian traditions.
- Mounted archery was a defining characteristic of the Eurasian nomads during antiquity and the medieval period, including Iranian peoples (Scythians, Sarmatians, Sassanids) and Indians in antiquity, and by the Mongols and the Turkic peoples during the Middle Ages.
- They did horse sacrifice: Many Indo-European religious branches show evidence for horse sacrifice, and comparative mythology suggests that they derive from a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ritual. Other elements of their religion was also Indo-European
- Their names, small fragments of text appear to be Eastern-iranic

 

[RZAWT]

^

You forget about the Persians. The Persians are known for being the first to use heavy cavalry in military warfare, against the Greeks. The Persian word 'cataphract' has come into Western lexicon due to the Greeks.

 

[Targon]

Actually, Kurdish women is traditionally heavily oppressed, that oppression, treating women no better then a potato sack, honor killings etc. are considered a major problem in Turkey, the reason PKK has female fighters is because in a level they follow a mix of Communist and Nationalist agenda.

Turkish/Turkic women traditionally is more free and treated better, despite of the influence of Islam.

Culture has nothing with ethnicity(for my fellow Turkish friends here), for example Hungarians were steppe nomads as well, but they were not Turkic.

 

[niaz]

Quote

Tomyris sent a message to Cyrus denouncing his treachery, and with all her forces, challenged him to a second battle. In the fight that ensued, the Massagetae got the upper hand, and the Persians were defeated with high casualties. Cyrus was killed and Tomyris had his corpse beheaded and then crucified, and shoved his head into a wineskin filled with human blood. She was reportedly quoted as saying, "I warned you that I would quench your thirst for blood, and so I shall"

Unquote.

No doubt Cyrus died in battle but the rest I find very hard to believe. His tomb lies at Pasargadae near Persepolis north of Shiraz. It doubtful if Cyrus was captured and killed as above his corpse would have been given back to the Achaemenids for formal burial at his capital. This version of events is certainly a spin.

 

[Charon]

-Most eurasians fought horseback, including Iranic peoples such as parthians, scythians, sassanids.
-Yes some Turks and Scythians would have (some) similarities because they lived near each other. But that does not make them Turks Scythians or Scythains as Turkics. Also the Scythians are older, mentioned earlier, I think it would be more correct to say some turks their culture and customs were from Scythians than other way around.
-Some Turks were called Persians by the Romans, are Turks Persians? no
-Alans were Iranic speaking people who were from Scythians. Todays ossetians speak an eastern-Iranic language and their ancestors are the Alans.
- Scythian religion is assumed to have been related to the earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, and to have influenced later Slavic, Hungarian and Turkic mythologies, as well as some contemporary Eastern Iranian and Ossetian traditions.
- Mounted archery was a defining characteristic of the Eurasian nomads during antiquity and the medieval period, including Iranian peoples (Scythians, Sarmatians, Sassanids) and Indians in antiquity, and by the Mongols and the Turkic peoples during the Middle Ages.
- They did horse sacrifice: Many Indo-European religious branches show evidence for horse sacrifice, and comparative mythology suggests that they derive from a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ritual. Other elements of their religion was also Indo-European
- Their names, small fragments of text appear to be Eastern-iranic

Why was there no historian or scholar in the antiquity who mentioned that Persians and Scythians spoke related languages? Isn't it strange that Herodotus never mentioned language similarities between Persians and Scythians? He wrote so many times about Scythians and Persians but strangeley never mentioned any cultural or language similarities between them

Wikipedia is a hypocrite when they say that there is no evidence for it that the Scythians spoke only one language but they keep saying in that article that Scythians spoke only Eastern Iranian languages

Scythian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately, we know next to nothing about the Scythian of that period [Old Iranian] – we have only a couple of personal and tribal names in Greek and Persian sources at our disposal – and cannot even determine with any degree of certainty whether it was a single language.

Oh and can you please explain me why Byzantine sources used the name "Scythian" in reference to twelve different Turkic peoples between 400 CE and the 16th century?

I also want you to explain me this:

Theophan the Byzantian (5 c.) renders Huns as Scythians. He writes: Meanwhile Scyth Attila, son of Omnudiy, brave and proud man, removed his senior brother Vdela, assumed sole authority over Scythians, which also are named Unns, and attacked Thracia (Theophan the Byzantian, 1884, 81). On the other side, he depicts Türks as Massagets: East from Tanaid live Türks, in antiquity called Massagets. Persians in their language call them Kermikhions (Byzantian Historians. SPb., 1861, 492).

In this record of Theophan deserves an attention the fact that he knew well both Massagets (one of the Scythian tribes), and Persians. If Scythians-Massagets spoke Persian, he would inevitably note this detail. But Theophan identifies Massagets with Türks, not the Persians.

 

[Targon]

Byzantines were often using ancient names to describe contemporary peoples based on their life style or the area they live, Scythikon or Turkoi were the popular terms they used to describe steppe people of their times.

Herodot not telling anything about it is not a proof but I agree that its impossible to know if they spoke more the one language(which would be normal I explained why), after all even the evidence directs us to Iranian theory is very limited.

 

[Charon]

Byzantines were often using ancient names to describe contemporary peoples based on their life style or the area they live, Scythikon or Turkoi were the popular terms they used to describe steppe people of their times.

Herodot not telling anything about it is not a proof but I agree that its impossible to know if they spoke more the one language(which would be normal I explained why), after all even the evidence directs us to Iranian theory is very limited.

Then why did Theophan the Byzantine depicted the Türks as the former Massagets. Theophan knew about the Massagets and Persians but he identified the Massagets with the Türks and not with Persians

 

[Targon]

Probably same logic applies, as I said they were infamous on linking contemporary peoples with ancient ones taking life style and area as base.

 

[RZAWT]

Charon, Scythians and Persians communicated with each other in antiquity without the use of a translator. Look it up.

Then why did Theophan the Byzantine depicted the Türks as the former Massagets. Theophan knew about the Massagets and Persians but he identified the Massagets with the Türks and not with Persians

Source? That sounds untrue. Long before the Turks were known in Central-Asia, Iranian tribes were inhabiting the region.