India, Iran cradles of great civilizations: Iranian envoy

[jester]

I'm here just for the lulz. Do go on...

not trying to stir **** up , dude nice one .

 

[roadrunner]

read my post attentively please. I already told you that these days they are more Turkic than Persian, so you said nothing new to me, just you repeated me.

The Uzbeks weren't Turkic before the 16th century, now count down the centuries by your fingers and conclude what people lived in Greater Khorasan at that time. Even today the region is highly influenced by the Persian culture, that doesn't mean they are not Turkic but it shows that they are related to Persia historically.
go here and you'll see that Persian is still spoken in the region: Persian language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You lack the minimum knowledge of history required to talk about this as your posts suggest.


Really? That should be chosen as the joke of the year. Most of the speculations and theories of historians are motivated by such similarities, then you say it says nothing?


It's not clear, It is clear he was a Persian scientist. In fact it's way clearer that he was Persian than he was a Muslim.

Uzbekistan was part of Greater Persia as i mentioned above. They were not Persian. Uzbeks never have been Persian. They have always been Uzbeks, and have lived under the Persian Empire.

Your attempt to link Uzbeks as Persian is weak.

Persians and Muslim are not exclusive. Persians can be Muslims, in fact most are.

 

[xataxsata]

Why pakistanis are felling jealous and derailing this thread?????????????

This thread is about India and old friend Iran.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Uzbeks are Uzbeks. Most think they're Turkic, not Persian.



So what? It's just a name, it doesn't mean the people have roots from the same place.

It is clear al-khwarizm was an orthodox Muslim, but also he was given the title al Mujusi. He was given other titles that would suggest other areas. It's not clear what his ethnicity was.

You talking some serious nonesence, the arab even tries saying ibn sina is an arab, they are trying to rob our history becaue they dont have crao of their own.
just because he wrote his work on algebra that makes him a orthodox muslim?

persian race existed before tuks so how can you say uzbecs are turks? even if they are now its because they converted, that does not mean they are originally turks, its like you saying Iranians were always muslim just becayse they follow that religion in Iran today.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

read my post attentively please. I already told you that these days they are more Turkic than Persian, so you said nothing new to me, just you repeated me.

The Uzbeks weren't Turkic before the 16th century, now count down the centuries by your fingers and conclude what people lived in Greater Khorasan at that time. Even today the region is highly influenced by the Persian culture, that doesn't mean they are not Turkic but it shows that they are related to Persia historically.
go here and you'll see that Persian is still spoken in the region: Persian language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You lack the minimum knowledge of history required to talk about this as your posts suggest.


Really? That should be chosen as the joke of the year. Most of the speculations and theories of historians are motivated by such similarities, then you say it says nothing?


It's not clear, It is clear he was a Persian scientist. In fact it's way clearer that he was Persian than he was a Muslim.

My friend ignore him, you're just wasting your time.

 

[BLUE_ Pheonix]

Why pakistanis are felling jealous and derailing this thread?????????????

This thread is about India and old friend Iran.

post something new bro..its coffe time since i am feeling sleepy after reading there trolls

 

[roadrunner]

I give up. You can't just convert from Turkic to Persian and they're not races. Uzbeks have always been Uzbeks.

They only lived under the Persian Empire. It did not make them Persian.

 

[Hussein]

the joke is roadrunner first said he is arab . i didn't know uzbeks are arabs.
anyway as said Arian this was the Persia all was in the same land same country.. so whatever you discuss with country of now doesn't mean anything.

it is like you say that an arab in Algeria is not Algerian
OR a berbere in Libya is not a Libyan
Non sense

 

[Arian]

Uzbekistan was part of Greater Persia as i mentioned above. They were not Persian. Uzbeks never have been Persian. They have always been Uzbeks, and have lived under the Persian Empire.

Your attempt to link Uzbeks as Persian is weak.

Persians and Muslim are not exclusive. Persians can be Muslims, in fact most are.

My dear friend, my attempt to link Uzbeks to Persians is weak? lol
Are you suggesting that the Uzbekistan page on wikipedia is biased toward Persians? It's just their history, Uzbek nomads conquered the area in the 16th century and just like many other conquerers they imposed their culture on the region, as the result, the region lost much of its previous culture. just like Mongols tried to do the same thing in Iran.

read this part again please:

Once part of the Persian Samanid and later Timurid empires, the region was conquered in the early 16th century by Uzbek nomads, who spoke an Eastern Turkic language. Most of Uzbekistan’s population today belong to the Uzbek ethnic group and speak the Uzbek language, one of the family of Turkic languages.

The earliest Bronze Age colonists of the Tarim Basin were people of Caucasoid physical type who entered probably from the north and west and probably spoke languages that could be classified as Pre- or Proto-Tocharian, ancestral to the Indo-European Tocharian languages documented later in the Tarim Basin. These early settlers occupied the northern and eastern parts of the Tarim Basin, where their graves have yielded mummies dated about 1800 BC. They participated in a cultural world centered on the eastern steppes of central Eurasia, including modern northeastern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

At the eastern end of the Tarim Basin, people of Mongoloid physical type began to be buried in cemeteries such as Yanbulaq some centuries later, during the later second or early first millennium BC. About the same time, Iranian-speaking people moved into the Tarim Basin from the steppes to the west. Their linguistic heritage and perhaps their physical remains are found in the southern and western portions of the Tarim. These three populations interacted, as the linguistic and archaeological evidence reviewed by Mallory and Mair makes clear, and then Turkic people arrived and were added to the mix.[16]

The first people known to inhabit Central Asia were Iranian nomads who arrived from the northern grasslands of what is now Uzbekistan sometime in the first millennium BC. These nomads, who spoke Iranian dialects, settled in Central Asia and began to build an extensive irrigation system along the rivers of the region. At this time, cities such as Bukhoro (Bukhara) and Samarqand (Samarkand) began to appear as centers of government and culture. By the 5th century BC, the Bactrian, Soghdian, and Tokharian states dominated the region.

As China began to develop its silk trade with the West, Iranian cities took advantage of this commerce by becoming centers of trade. Using an extensive network of cities and settlements in the province of Mawarannahr (a name given the region after the Arab conquest) in Uzbekistan and farther east in what is today China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, the Soghdian intermediaries became the wealthiest of these Iranian merchants. Because of this trade on what became known as the Silk Route, Bukhoro and Samarqand eventually became extremely wealthy cities, and at times Mawarannahr was one of the most influential and powerful Persian provinces of antiquity.[17]
Map of the Sassanid Empire.
The Registan.
The Russians taking over the city of Khiva.

Alexander the Great conquered Sogdiana and Bactria in 327 BC, marrying Roxana, daughter of a local Bactrian chieftain. The conquest was supposedly of little help to Alexander as popular resistance was fierce, causing Alexander's army to be bogged down in the region that became the northern part of Hellenistic Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. For many centuries the region of Uzbekistan was ruled by Persian empires, including the Parthian and Sassanid Empires.

In the 8th century Transoxiana (territory between the Amudarya and Syrdarya rivers) was conquered by Arabs.

In the 9th – 10th centuries Transoxiana was included into Samanid State.

The Mongol conquest under Genghis Khan during the 13th century, would bring about a dramatic change to the region. The brutal conquest and widespread genocide characteristic of the Mongols almost entirely exterminated the indigenous Indo-Persian (Scythian) people of the region, their culture and heritage being superseded by that of the Mongolian-Turkic peoples who settled the region thereafter.

read the rest of the story here: Uzbekistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[roadrunner]

an arab in algeria is algerian.

an arab in French Algeria is not French, he's still ethnically Algerian.

An uzbek in Greater Persia is still ethnically an Uzbek, not a Persian.

It is that simple.

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

What is wrong with you Arian?

The Persians did conquer Uzbekistan. I acknowledge this.

This did not make the people of Uzbekistan ethnically Persian. They were still Uzbeks ethnically. That is something really simple.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

I give up. You can't just convert from Turkic to Persian and they're not races. Uzbeks have always been Uzbeks.

They only lived under the Persian Empire. It did not make them Persian.

read my posts i said to you and stop talking crap please.

 

[justanobserver]

roadrunner is pdf's resident revisionist historian. Don't bother arguing with him

 

[Arian]

an arab in algeria is algerian.

an arab in French Algeria is not French, he's still ethnically Algerian.

An uzbek in Greater Persia is still ethnically an Uzbek, not a Persian.

It is that simple.

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

What is wrong with you Arian?

The Persians did conquer Uzbekistan. I acknowledge this.

This did not make the people of Uzbekistan ethnically Persian. They were still Uzbeks ethnically. That is something really simple.

What is even simpler is that the Uzbek nomads only conquered the region in the 16th century. Were were they before that time?
You're mixing two different things, nationality and ethnicity are different things.

 

[arcane]

roadrunner is pdf's resident revisionist historian. Don't bother arguing with him

u are right dude, i left this thread cos of him

 

[gubbi]

Basically,i understand the difference between these languages is like diff between punjabi,haryanvi and pahaari.

Your understanding is wrong. The complexity of languages is something beyond the grasp of capabilities as limited as yours.

 

[Kadamba]

b) Whoever was born in the Gupta Empire at the time of the map was a citizen of the Gupta Empire. They weren't Indians or Pakistanis. However, if they were born in the geography of Pakistan, they were Ancient Pakistanis as that is the history of that region.

Everyone in Greater Persia was not Persian. Greater Persia consisted of Uzbekistan, the people of Uzbekistan aren't Persian.

OK sir. Great logic. However I am afraid there seems to be no takers for it in your own country.

If true, Why don't your history books are shying away from acknowledging your glorious past (Pre-Islamic) ?

Why you guys are depriving the credit due to your ancestor's achievements ? (Is it because they failed to stop the invaders from destroying what they achieved ? )

Or you guys think that such inventions are not worthy enough to take pride in ?

p.s. It would be helpful if you explain your logic to your Chinese brothers; so that they can try to apply the same, before claiming territories of other countries which were part of some of their historical dynasties.