| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - People of Azerbaijan
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


People of Azerbaijan

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
Poll Question: ?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
17 [68.00%]
8 [32.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 01:46
Do you know that Shah Ismail had "Shah of Azerbaijan" title? How about that? And why capital of the Safavid empire was Tabriz, Azerbaijan and not "great land of Farsistan"?

No, I don't. Azeri word are a new, invented name. Today in Iran it is rarely used except the official usage. Ahmad Kasravi just tought of shortening Azerbaijan and invent "Azari" name, which he later used for his further propaganda. Even in Azerbaijan Republic itself it is Azerbaijani (Soviets changed it from Turk to Azerbaijani in 1936), not "Azeri".

Also, are you sure that Safavids did not care about their ancestry? Can you tell me why Safavid military language was Azerbaijani Turkish, and not Persian?

Shah Ismail wrote 1400 verses in Azerbaijani Turkish. While in Persian language, he only has 50. What does that tell about him to you?

About Shah Abbas, by the way, please read about the units Shah Abbas created after his military reforms.

They were named in Azerbaijani Turkish. "Topchu" and "Tufengchi", which means artillerymen and musketeer respectively. These units continued into Qajar era.







Edited by Qaradağlı - 11 Jan 2012 at 02:18
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 04:34
I don't even know what your point is.   They called themselves  Shahanshahs of Iran and foreigners knew them as Persian.  It doesn't matter a sh*t that they were of Turkic stock or not since they led a multi-ethnic empire. 

You can find their real titles on diplomatic letters to the Ottomans and on their coins.  And it is very funny how they even used the name of a Persian hero from the Shahnameh for two Shahs (Tahmasp).

Face it, they were Persianised Turks, a path which Ismail started for them, and they called their empire Iran.  But you can believe otherwise if you wish to fill a vacuum in your own history and make yourself feel better like so many others.

Today and in Iran's history of the last 600 years Turks have viewed themselves as Iranian, from Safavids to Nadershah, to the idiot Qajars.  Azerbaijan is a province of Iran and always has been with a relatively brief intrlude after the Islamic invasion.  That its inhabitants speak Turkish today is incidental.

"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 04:36
Of course, personally, I wish that they stayed in Anatolia and were crushed by the Ottomans and with them the cult of Ali and Hussein.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 08:50
A dynasty with it's roots in Azerbaijan, created on territorities of Azerbaijan, with it's capital in Azerbaijan, with it's military consisting of Turkoman tribes of Azerbaijan and Anatolia, and supposedly this state are equal "Iran" and "Persians"? Give me a break.

I already told you Shah Ismail had also "Shah of Azerbaijan" title. Why are you confusing geographical terms with what they considered themselves? "Shahanshah of Iran" are a merely geographical notion.

No they didn't, they called themselves Safavids. You should first of all grasp that they had nothing to do with modern states. But they were Azerbaijani Turks, and not Persian.

You know what is incidental? That "Eyeran" aka Farsistan exists today, based on a state created by us but taken over by Persians in 1925.

You really need to learn the history.



Edited by Qaradağlı - 11 Jan 2012 at 08:57
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 08:51
And what do you mean you don't understand what my point is? My point is clear, you talk about what they considered themselves.

For them, Azerbaijani language was always more important than Persian, even Ottomans did prefer to use Persian instead of Turkish.

These facts shows what they considered themselves.


Edited by Qaradağlı - 11 Jan 2012 at 08:57
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 23:06
Interesting bit from today.

http://anspress.com/index.php?a=2&lng=az&nid=133846

Medieval texts about Azerbaijan from Vatican archives.

It says that cities like Tabriz, Khoy, Ardebil, Urmia are Turkic speaking. It also says that people in region of Azerbaijan are Turks. Azerbaijan, it's population and language are classified under "Turkic" category, together with Cumans etc...

The book also contains texts in Azerbaijani Turkish, they are without Arabic and Persian influence in contrast to poetry texts we have from Nasimi and Fuzuli. The language in those texts are very similiar to the language used in "Dede Korkut" legends.

But in the texts Azerbaijan are only mentioned as a region, it's language and people are refered to as Turkic only, not "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani". And no Persian mentioning whatsoever. And no mentioning of supposed "Azari" language and people that supposedly existed on territority of Azerbaijan, claimed by Ahmad Kasravi, but obviously not proven.



This is not a modern perception, but medieval and a European one.




Edited by Qaradağlı - 11 Jan 2012 at 23:16
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 23:37
Medieval Europeans called all "Saracens" Turks, so no surprise there.
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 23:41
Not sure if serious? They surely knew the difference between Turkic, Arabic, Persian languagues for instance. There are texts in the said book from Azerbaijan, which is early Azerbaijani Turkish and classified as Turkic language.

Also, I m talking about Turkic definition. Cumans are also mentioned as Turkic in Vatican texts, and they were not Muslims. Heard of "Codex Cumanus"?

You can also see in Crusader texts that they knew the difference between Seljuq Turks and what they called as "Saracens", aka Arabs.




Edited by Qaradağlı - 11 Jan 2012 at 23:55
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 23:52
And I forgot to mention, in the book Turkic-Arabic-Persian distinction are clearly made.

They have divided literature of Azerbaijan in 3 categories, Turkic, Arabic and Persian. The latter two had lingua-franca status in Muslim world and widely used in poetry language, so it is not any definition of population or language of regular people. And exactly in the book they are limited to literature language, but Turkic are mentioned as the language of the population.




Edited by Qaradağlı - 11 Jan 2012 at 23:57
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 00:57
Originally posted by Qaradağlı Qaradağlı wrote:



It was not aimed at anyone, talking generally.



Thanks for clarifying. I am definitely not hostile to Azeris or so.

Originally posted by Qaradağlı Qaradağlı wrote:


Well, that surely isn't the case, most of Azeri Turks have nothing to do with Caucasus.

History of Azeri Turks or Azerbaijan cannot be limited into Caucasus, in fact it mostly has nothing to do with Caucasus. Center of Azerbaijan and Azeri Turks are Tabriz.


Culturally and ethnically it hasn't, you are right. Genetically though it is very close, having high frequencies of J2, J1 and G2 haplogroups. Practically, the difference Armenians have to Azeris or the opposite, is that they have high frequencies of R1b (which is low on Azeris) that is connected to their Balkan prehistory. All other data is connected to Caucasus more than anything else.

FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 01:11
Armenians are not even a Caucasian people and their mass-presence in Transcaucasia are a new one. They are actually Anatolians. Do you know that modern day Armenia was a Turkic land before Russian invasion? Russians settled Armenians in the region, and this settlement got even bigger during events in Anatolia. And I don't agree with you, "the genetic" stuff to defne ethnicities are invented, and we cannot be sure if they are legit or not. Anyway, you should really not mess your head with such BS stuff, personally even seeing such things like R1b bla bla makes me want to vomit. Totally senseless stuff.

I m not talking about genetics as whole, but it's recent use to somehow "define" ethnicities. A big BS if you ask me.

You can use it to understand the ancestry of populations, but that will lead all humans to Africa. And that's the only real thing behind genetics. Wink



Edited by Qaradağlı - 12 Jan 2012 at 01:16
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 02:20
Originally posted by Qaradağlı Qaradağlı wrote:

Armenians are not even a Caucasian people and their mass-presence in Transcaucasia are a new one. They are actually Anatolians. Do you know that modern day Armenia was a Turkic land before Russian invasion? Russians settled Armenians in the region, and this settlement got even bigger during events in Anatolia. And I don't agree with you, "the genetic" stuff to defne ethnicities are invented, and we cannot be sure if they are legit or not. Anyway, you should really not mess your head with such BS stuff, personally even seeing such things like R1b bla bla makes me want to vomit. Totally senseless stuff.

I m not talking about genetics as whole, but it's recent use to somehow "define" ethnicities. A big BS if you ask me.

You can use it to understand the ancestry of populations, but that will lead all humans to Africa. And that's the only real thing behind genetics. Wink

 
One might excuse nationalism in the context of politics. But to to deny historical fact is something else. Armenians have been living in Armenia since the word Armenian was known. Most Azeris are Armenians. Because they converted the only institution that kept Armenian language (the church) was no longer relevant to them.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 07:02
Originally posted by Qaradağlı Qaradağlı wrote:

And what do you mean you don't understand what my point is? My point is clear, you talk about what they considered themselves.

For them, Azerbaijani language was always more important than Persian, even Ottomans did prefer to use Persian instead of Turkish.

These facts shows what they considered themselves.


What do you mean Azerbaijani language?  Why would a Turkish language have a Persian name?  There is no such thing as an Azerbaijani language - you mean Turkish.  In Iran they don't call themselves Azari or Azarbaijani, they call themselves "Torks" - I should know, my landlord - also my dad's best friend, is a Tork from Zanjan.


Originally posted by Qaradağlı Qaradağlı wrote:

Interesting bit from today.

http://anspress.com/index.php?a=2&lng=az&nid=133846

Medieval texts about Azerbaijan from Vatican archives.

It says that cities like Tabriz, Khoy, Ardebil, Urmia are Turkic speaking. It also says that people in region of Azerbaijan are Turks. Azerbaijan, it's population and language are classified under "Turkic" category, together with Cumans etc...

The book also contains texts in Azerbaijani Turkish, they are without Arabic and Persian influence in contrast to poetry texts we have from Nasimi and Fuzuli. The language in those texts are very similiar to the language used in "Dede Korkut" legends.

But in the texts Azerbaijan are only mentioned as a region, it's language and people are refered to as Turkic only, not "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani". And no Persian mentioning whatsoever. And no mentioning of supposed "Azari" language and people that supposedly existed on territority of Azerbaijan, claimed by Ahmad Kasravi, but obviously not proven.



This is not a modern perception, but medieval and a European one.





It doesn't matter if they spoke Martian.  The empire they ruled they knew as Iran.  Simple as that.  Just like today Turks rule Iran but they still call it... wait for it... yes... Surprise surprise... Iran.

But you really are embarrassing yourself if you are claiming that Turks always lived in Azerbaijan.  In fact that is a positively deluded notion.  Azerbaijan means land of fire in Persian and Pahlavi (original pronunciation Azerbadegan).  Today's Azerbaijan Republic was actually Called Aran province before the Russians annexed it in 1812 after defeating the Qajars.  The language of the majority of its inhabitants from the time of the Medians until the Turkic invasions/migrations was Pahlavi.  Ever heard of Talysh people? I suppose you have they are the remnants that were not Turkicised.


Edited by Zagros - 12 Jan 2012 at 07:23
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 07:08
Ever heard of Evliya Celebi?  An Ottoman explorer.  A Turk. Go and find out what he said about the languages spoken in Azerbaijan and you will hear mention of Pahlavi even as late as the 1600s.  It really is astonishing how you can't just accept the fact that just like Anatolia, Iran and the Caucasus were subject to waves of Turkmen/Turkic migrations and invasions over the course of many centuries which eventually changed the language of the region despite historical studies and references available in Arabic, Persian, English, Russian and even Turkish.  Your agenda is clear when you ignore such a wealth of historical resource for the propaganda of fevered nationalism.  Something which seems to be a blight on many newly formed countries as if to somehow justify their rights and claims.


Edited by Zagros - 12 Jan 2012 at 07:15
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 09:22
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
One might excuse nationalism in the context of politics. But to to deny historical fact is something else. Armenians have been living in Armenia since the word Armenian was known. Most Azeris are Armenians. Because they converted the only institution that kept Armenian language (the church) was no longer relevant to them.
 
Al-Jassas


I hope you are not serious. Confused
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 09:34
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



But you really are embarrassing yourself if you are claiming that Turks always lived in Azerbaijan.  In fact that is a positively deluded notion.  Azerbaijan means land of fire in Persian and Pahlavi (original pronunciation Azerbadegan).  Today's Azerbaijan Republic was actually Called Aran province before the Russians annexed it in 1812 after defeating the Qajars.


No, I did not said such a thing as Turks always lived in Azerbaijan. You know, populations always changed, and there is nothing extraordinary here. There are many other examples, and Turks as nomads moving somewhere else should not shock anyone. Azerbaijan was specifically the most important westward migration zone of Oghuz Turks. My problem is the stupid theories that are insulting us, and which are pretty new, and only limited to theories only. Like I said, Reza Shah and his son obsessed with Aryanism probably could not accept their Turkic half. All theories were started during that area.

That is not true, Aran is still a region in Azerbaijan, you know, its not whole of Azerbaijan Republic, it's a specific area within Azerbaijan. We have such saying as "Aranlı" which means lowlander. Aran is only a region within Azerbaijan, which also includes Shirvan, Mughan etc...

As much as you would not like it, Azerbaijan spans from Derbent to Hamadan.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



the Russians annexed it in 1812 after defeating the Qajars.



Simple not true.

Do you know that Khanates existed on territority of Azerbaijan? Collectively called as Khanates of Azerbaijan, on both sides of Araz river. Azerbaijan was not a province, there were semi-independent and independent Khanates. There were constant wars between the Khanates and Qajars. Altough southern Khanates were mostly loyal to Qajars, same cannot be said about the norther Khanates.

It was one of the major reasons why Russians came in first place. Some Khanates demanded Russian help against Qajars and accepted to be vassals of the Russian empire in return.

Later in 1850s Tsar abolished vassal status of those Khanates and annexed into Russian empire.

Contrary to your misinformation and popular belief of Iranians, Russians did not annex territority of northern Azerbaijan from Qajar rule.

The treaty between Russian and Qajar empire are saying that Qajar empire should withdraw all of their claims against Khanates north of Araz river, it is not saying that Russia is annexing the said territorities from Qajars. Like said, annextion of northern Azerbaijan by Russian empire did only happen later on around 1850.






Edited by Qaradağlı - 12 Jan 2012 at 09:56
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 10:45
Also, Qajars were from (northern) Azerbaijan originally, so it was Azerbaijani Turks fighting Azerbaijani Turks. Khanates of Ganja, Karabakh and Quba belonged to Qajar lineage for instance.

But whatever floats your boats I guess.

It is Persians who are trying to create a fake history. There were no "Persian" hegomony over modern territorty of Iran since fall of Sassanids. If you want to find out a "vacuum" in some nation's history, that will be Persians, not Azerbaijani Turks.

We have had our dynasties like Seljuqs, Atabegs, Qara-Qoyunlu, Aq-Qoyunlu, Safavids, Afshars, Qajars ruling over Iran. 1000 years...






Edited by Qaradağlı - 12 Jan 2012 at 10:52
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 16:16
Originally posted by Qaradağlı Qaradağlı wrote:

Armenians are not even a Caucasian people and their mass-presence in Transcaucasia are a new one. They are actually Anatolians. Do you know that modern day Armenia was a Turkic land before Russian invasion? Russians settled Armenians in the region, and this settlement got even bigger during events in Anatolia.


If that is what you have been taught then it was terribly wrong. That region was the land of the Nairi, also called Urartu. When their Kingdom fell, the new Kingdom was called Armenia in the 7th century B.C. The Armenians populated Anatolia as well, but it was not their main seat. The part of the pre-Armenians were from the Balkans where they moved from towards Anatolia. What became the Armenians where those Balkan settlers, together with some Luwians and the Urartu. Russia or Azerbaijan were not even in the map when their Kingdom was settled.

If you wouldn't agree with that...You have to explain how come Armenian has picked up words from languages of that regions that disappeared 2700 years ago.

Originally posted by Qaradağlı Qaradağlı wrote:


And I don't agree with you, "the genetic" stuff to defne ethnicities are invented, and we cannot be sure if they are legit or not. Anyway, you should really not mess your head with such BS stuff, personally even seeing such things like R1b bla bla makes me want to vomit. Totally senseless stuff.

I m not talking about genetics as whole, but it's recent use to somehow "define" ethnicities. A big BS if you ask me.

You can use it to understand the ancestry of populations, but that will lead all humans to Africa. And that's the only real thing behind genetics. Wink



I don't use genetics to define ethnicities. In the beginning I was very sceptical until I needed some justification for some theories on migrations I had in mind. Yes, you need to be careful with genetics, but the data I gave you is 100% correct. If you check out 10 different papers on genetic studies of the area, they will tell you the same.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 21:55
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

If that is what you have been taught then it was terribly wrong.

It's actually correct. Throughout the 1800's and early 1900's, Russia & Armenian militias expelled Muslims from what became Armenia. Prior to this, Armenians were only about 20% of the population there.

Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

That region was the land of the Nairi, also called Urartu. When their Kingdom fell, the new Kingdom was called Armenia in the 7th century B.C. The Armenians populated Anatolia as well, but it was not their main seat. The part of the pre-Armenians were from the Balkans where they moved from towards Anatolia. What became the Armenians where those Balkan settlers, together with some Luwians and the Urartu. Russia or Azerbaijan were not even in the map when their Kingdom was settled.

This is also correct, but it doesn't contradict the above points about modern day Armenia being de-populated of its Muslim population, to be replaced by Armenians.

In fact if you look at the map of the Armenian kingdom when the Ottoman empire was beginning, you'll find they were much further south and west than today's Armenia



Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 00:58
Originally posted by Qaradağlı Qaradağlı wrote:

Also, Qajars were from (northern) Azerbaijan originally, so it was Azerbaijani Turks fighting Azerbaijani Turks. Khanates of Ganja, Karabakh and Quba belonged to Qajar lineage for instance.

But whatever floats your boats I guess.

It is Persians who are trying to create a fake history. There were no "Persian" hegomony over modern territorty of Iran since fall of Sassanids. If you want to find out a "vacuum" in some nation's history, that will be Persians, not Azerbaijani Turks.

We have had our dynasties like Seljuqs, Atabegs, Qara-Qoyunlu, Aq-Qoyunlu, Safavids, Afshars, Qajars ruling over Iran. 1000 years...



On one hand you write that the Persians have not had hegemony over Iran for 1400 years (Samanids and Safarids aside) and at the same time they claim hegemony over a territory that was controlled by Turks and still is.  How could the Turks allow such a thing? 

For the most part when people like you (be they Turks, Arabs or Kurds with a grudge) refer to Persians, you refer to a non-existent people.  Tell me who are these Persians you speak of?  I suspect you can't because actually the people who have written this history have come from a wide variety of backgrounds including Turkish over the course of over a millennium.

And everyone knows that Turkic origins are in North Eastern Central Asia and the only reason you can have for denying this is that you feel it gives you less legitimacy in the Caucasus.  But you need not worry since the vbast majority of your actual ancestors are native Caucasians, Armenians, Kurd, Persians and others.  Speaking Turkish doesn't make you any less entitled to your country.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 05:22
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

It's actually correct. Throughout the 1800's and early 1900's, Russia & Armenian militias expelled Muslims from what became Armenia. Prior to this, Armenians were only about 20% of the population there.


You missed something here. No matter what Russia did and how many muslims were there, that place was already Armenia.

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:



In fact if you look at the map of the Armenian kingdom when the Ottoman empire was beginning, you'll find they were much further south and west than today's Armenia





That is 3rd Armenia. Below you see the complete expansion of Armenia.





Now allow me to clear out that the maps are not taken from some website or whatever. There are scans from Cambridge - History of the Byzantine Empire and specifically pages 334 and 158 respectively.

In any case I was not here initially to talk about Armenia. I just happened to mention Armenians while analysing the genetics of the area. My point was that Azeris, not matter their ethnicity are mostly similar to the native populations previous living there.


FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 05:27
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


And everyone knows that Turkic origins are in North Eastern Central Asia and the only reason you can have for denying this is that you feel it gives you less legitimacy in the Caucasus.  But you need not worry since the vbast majority of your actual ancestors are native Caucasians, Armenians, Kurd, Persians and others.  Speaking Turkish doesn't make you any less entitled to your country.


I absolutely agree with this! Especially the last sentence should be read many times in order to understand that what Zagros and I said, has nothing to do with the right of Azeris being there.


Edited by Flipper - 13 Jan 2012 at 05:28
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 06:36
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



On one hand you write that the Persians have not had hegemony over Iran for 1400 years (Samanids and Safarids aside) and at the same time they claim hegemony over a territory that was controlled by Turks and still is.  How could the Turks allow such a thing? 

For the most part when people like you (be they Turks, Arabs or Kurds with a grudge) refer to Persians, you refer to a non-existent people.  Tell me who are these Persians you speak of?  I suspect you can't because actually the people who have written this history have come from a wide variety of backgrounds including Turkish over the course of over a millennium.

And everyone knows that Turkic origins are in North Eastern Central Asia and the only reason you can have for denying this is that you feel it gives you less legitimacy in the Caucasus.  But you need not worry since the vbast majority of your actual ancestors are native Caucasians, Armenians, Kurd, Persians and others.  Speaking Turkish doesn't make you any less entitled to your country.


Pahlavi taking of the power in Iran perhaps?

Do you know since that, there have been 1 attempt on separating from Iran, and one autonomy attempt right after Islamic revolution?

LOL, no it would not give "less legitimacy", quite the contrary. I feel Turk because I m one, I m a Turkoman, I m Qaradaghli. Qaradaghli are also mentioned as one of Turkoman Qizilbash clans in Safavid era.

The boundary was and is clear between the said peoples and Azerbaijani TUrks. And how on earth could those mountain peoples mix with Azerbaijani Turks? Confused

If we are not Turk, than you are not a Kurd, and a Persian is not a Persian, an Armenian is not Armenian. You know, I can also claim many things. Your "Eyeranian" origin was also somewhere else, all peoples moved somewhere, like mentioned. POPULATIONS DID CHANGE, ETHNICALLY. We actually do have sources about large, large amount of Turkic settlements which happend over course of centuries, like you earlier mentioned.

I don't have to repeat it for like million times, but Azerbaijani Turks consist of several clans and they are all Turkic. Some of them are still nomadic and still live in Yurts, like Shahsevens. Personally I belong to the Qaradaghli clan, like earlier mentioned. Shahsevens are our close relatives, but one major difference is that we are no longer nomadic. We settled in the area which we call as Qaradagh, during Safavid era.






Edited by Qaradağlı - 13 Jan 2012 at 06:58
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2012 at 07:21
A map from 1914 and 1923, pay attention to "Tatars" and "Tataren", I.E, Azerbaijani Turks...The ethnic name was changed to Azerbaijani and Azeri in Soviet Union and Iran respectively, in 1936.

http://i39.tinypic.com/fbvu3r.jpg



http://i40.tinypic.com/28s5v00.jpg





Edited by Qaradağlı - 22 Mar 2012 at 07:22
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 12:47
Azerbaijanis in Iran are not Tatars.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Qaradağlı View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 88
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qaradağlı Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2012 at 05:47
Tatar is just a name. Here the reference is not to modern ethnicity known as Tatars.

But during these times, we see that Tatar is refered to 3 groups: Kazan, Crimea, Azerbaijan. So if you would be from Azerbaijan, you would not be an "Azeri" but a "Tatar". Just like Azerbaijani Turks in fact isn't really "Azeri", but it is known as such today.

In short, the point is the name itself used during these times. A clear reference to the Turkic idenity.

And how the name "Azeri" really does not go further back than 1936. Because alot of people use this as some sort of argument to say that Azerbaijani Turks are "Iranic" hence the name "Azeri", and it's really funny to read the theory about so-called extinct "Iranic Azaris", but in reality "Azeri" name as ethnic or nation designation was not used before 1936.


Edited by Qaradağlı - 24 Mar 2012 at 05:59
Back to Top
ghyut View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ghyut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2012 at 13:53
Azeris are a mixture of tatars, chechens, ingush and indo-iranic race:such as sarmatian,sakas..
but are different from anatolian turk and persian
Back to Top
Bureus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2012
Location: Helsingfors
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bureus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2012 at 15:01
Actually, Azeris are Vikings as Heyerdahl claimed. Æsir-baijan. No, probably they are of native Caucasian stock with some Oghuz input.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2012 at 16:56
Originally posted by Bureus Bureus wrote:

Actually, Azeris are Vikings as Heyerdahl claimed. Æsir-baijan....................
LOL
 
Good one Bureus, and welcome to the forum Smile
 
BTW - who says it isn't so? Wink
 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jul 2012 at 06:10
Originally posted by Bureus Bureus wrote:

Actually, Azeris are Vikings as Heyerdahl claimed. Æsir-baijan. No, probably they are of native Caucasian stock with some Oghuz input.


Historical Azerbaijan (provinces in modern NW Iran) is not in the Caucasus and neither is most of historical Arran (modern Rep. Azerbaijan). The Turkmen influence I believe is a little more significant than just "some" although nowhere near as complete or exaggerated as some might claim.  Genetic studies, at least of Azeri Turks in Iran not sure about the Rep., place them most closely, surprise surprise, with their Iranian compatriots.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.158 seconds.