| 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  123 9>
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 Topic: People of Azerbaijan
    Posted: 21 Aug 2012 at 22:56
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

There is only a government, dominated by Turks it has to be said


Yes, when it doesn't suit you, its Turks.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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: 21 Aug 2012 at 12:07
The medieval Azerbaijani poet Fuzuli of Oghuz Bayat origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuz%C3%BBl%C3%AE


Edited by Qaradağlı - 21 Aug 2012 at 12:07
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: 21 Aug 2012 at 11:05
What kind of logic is that? Are we also related to stone-age people that lived in Azerbaijan? "Well documenter Zoroastrian roots"?

What you talk about btw are cultural relations, not genetical. You should be able to distinguish between the two.

"although lots of people have families north and south of the Aras today"

Yes, with fellow ethnic Azeris. Whats the relation with Persians?


Edited by Qaradağlı - 21 Aug 2012 at 12:29
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: 18 Aug 2012 at 04:16
The historical relationship between Georgia and Azerbaijan is nothing like as intertwined as that between Iran and Azerbaijan, mostly because they kept and preserved their Christian identity, whereas Iran and Azerbaijan have well documented Zaroastrian roots, then Sunni, then Shia and have been joined as one for most of history, being split only in 1812 where North Azerbaijan became Russified to an extent, although lots of people have families north and south of the Aras today.  Religion is the biggest barrier and conduit for intermarriage which continued and continues long after Turkification of the region.

I love this vision some Kurds and Turks from outside Iran have that their respective ethnicities live in isolated, repressed enclaves without any civil interaction with the rest of Iran and have the most bitter hatred of these big bad mythical Persians they describe.   Such Persians don't exist.  There is only a government, dominated by Turks it has to be said, with a national language of Persian who press their own Islamo-Shiite agenda.




Edited by Zagros - 18 Aug 2012 at 04:17
"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: 17 Aug 2012 at 04:00
Georgians are our geographical neighbours yet we don't share any history or genetics with them. Its not like Azeri Turks are actually totally surrounded by Persians or "Iranics" geographically. Confused


Edited by Qaradağlı - 17 Aug 2012 at 04:00
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: 16 Aug 2012 at 23:00
As you say there is no Azerbaijani ethnicity, it is just a national demonym for the modern republic. My question was to that Turk moron who swore at me. There is nothing more special than anybody else about Azerbaijanis or Turks.  To pretend its people do not share history and genetics with their neighbours is just deluded or cynical hyper nationalist revisionism.
"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: 09 Aug 2012 at 07:23
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



Funny how the mighty Oghuz warrior race would use the word Azer for their demonym and land since it is a Persian word. 


They didn't, "Azari" demonym was adopted by Reza Shah as part of wider assimilation policy, which included changing person names and place names among other things.

Traditionally, population of Azerbaijan was known as Turkoman, later Turk, and non-Turk minorities just by their own names.

But I guess it would not make sense to change it when it has already been established. Besides, in Republic of Azerbaijan its Azerbaijani for demonym, ethnicity and language and not "Azeri".

When Azerbaijan gained its independence again in 1991, it was stated in constitution that language are Turk, aswell are the ethnic designation. But after long debates, it was changed to Azerbaijani. 1: It was already used in Turkey. 2: It could cause "discrimination" against ethnic minorities, as Azerbaijani term are applied to all of citizens of the Republic.
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: 09 Aug 2012 at 06:59
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

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.


You might want to update your basic geographic knowledge. Republic of Azerbaijan are situated in a region known as Southern Caucasus, and part of its territority are also situated to the north of big Caucasus ridge, which is known as north Caucasus. Besides, there are over 300 thousand ethnic Azeris in Georgia, and 150 thousand in Dagestan, specially in city of Derbent.

Also, "Arran" are Arabized form of Albania (Caucasian Albania) but its usage was obsolote long ago and was only used to designate western-half of Azerbaijan, but like said its usage have long been obsolote. There is nothing as historical Azerbaijan, as a geographical term, Azerbaijan scratches from Derbent to Hamadan.

The Turkoman or Oghuz influence ARE the strongest element, after that other elements probably would come. I don't know how many times I have to mention it, but there is nothing as single "Azeri" ethnicity, but several tribe/clans which are of Oghuz origin that makes-up the ethnicity we know as Azerbaijani Turks. Even Great Soviet Encylopedia writes: "Ayrim, Padar, Qaradaghli, Qarapapakh, Shahsevens are groups which forms Azerbaijani ethnicity." These are just some of mentioned tribes, there are much more, like Afshars whom are one of the most numerious in numbers.

Yeah, if we were to believe these "genetic studies" then Azeri Turks to north and south of Araz river are different peoples. So please. LOL




Edited by Qaradağlı - 09 Aug 2012 at 07:14
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: 27 Jul 2012 at 05:20
@ Rugila.
 
You have used an expression / calling names towards another member which is strichtly against the Code of Conduct.
 
Given your newbie status, I shall not take this any further at this time, than to give you an unofficial warning. Please refrain from such behavior in the future.
 
~ Northman
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: 27 Jul 2012 at 03:01
Originally posted by jjmuneer jjmuneer wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

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.
Zagros I know this is off topic, but what part of NW London are you from? You see I thought I might ask you directly.


I live in Brentford, near South Ealing, but will be moving soon.  What do you want to ask me directly?


Edited by Zagros - 27 Jul 2012 at 03:03
"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: 27 Jul 2012 at 02:59
Originally posted by Rugila Rugila wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

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.



You *deleted* don’t affiliate azeris with persians, azeris are oguz, they ‘are your ancestors, they are fraction of parthians , massagetians, scyths, even their great king Kay-Oguz you ascribe to persians, believe me soon everything will be put in right place, you *deleted* will occupy your duly low place


Funny how the mighty Oghuz warrior race would use the word Azer for their demonym and land since it is a Persian word. 


Edited by Northman - 27 Jul 2012 at 05:33
"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
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: 23 Jul 2012 at 20:19
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

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.
Zagros I know this is off topic, but what part of NW London are you from? You see I thought I might ask you directly.
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: 20 Jul 2012 at 03:44
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

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.



You *deleted* don’t affiliate azeris with persians, azeris are oguz, they ‘are your ancestors, they are fraction of parthians , massagetians, scyths, even their great king Kay-Oguz you ascribe to persians, believe me soon everything will be put in right place, you *deleted* will occupy your duly low place


Edited by Northman - 27 Jul 2012 at 05:32
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
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
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 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: 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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.152 seconds.