Looks of Turks in 7th century

Hakka Nyin · Mar 11, 2018

heavenly knight said:
The Arabs had difficulty distinguishing Turks and Tibetans

yes ofcourse will hard to distinguise them from tibetan, mongol, chinese, because turks are northeast asian people who have oriental look. :deadhorse:

why that is so hard to grasp? :deadhorse:

KAZAKH PEOPLE (CHINESE-LOOKING MUSLIMS SPEAKING RUSSIAN?!)

kirgiz president's daugther, the real turks should look like

not this mass mixed race turkey

(european-arab mix :deadhorse:

)

janusdviveidis · Mar 11, 2018

Hakka Nyin said:
turks look like mongol and chinese, period. there is no turks look like erdogan.

Probably it depends on person. I was in Turkey many times, for me majority of them look Mediterranean, same as Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians etc. Few have more oriental features, but same can be said about any country. Still, Turkey is big place I visited mostly Istambul, Ismir, Kusadasi, Antalya. In other regions people might look differently.

Knapf · Mar 11, 2018

janusdviveidis said:
Probably it depends on person. I was in Turkey many times, for me majority of them look Mediterranean, same as Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians etc. Few have more oriental features, but same can be said about any country. Still, Turkey is big place I visited mostly Istambul, Ismir, Kusadasi, Antalya. In other regions people might look differently.

When Hakka Nyin says "turks look like mongol and chinese, period", the "Turks" he is referring to are the original Turks from Northeast Asia before they came to Anatolia.

Hakka Nyin · Mar 11, 2018

janusdviveidis said:
Probably it depends on person. I was in Turkey many times, for me majority of them look Mediterranean, same as Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians etc. Few have more oriental features, but same can be said about any country. Still, Turkey is big place I visited mostly Istambul, Ismir, Kusadasi, Antalya. In other regions people might look differently.

The Untold Story Of White Slavery ( Ottoman Turks, Arab And Barbary Muslim Slave Trade)
https://archive.org/details/TheUntoldStoryOfWhiteSlaveryOttomanTurksArabAndBarbaryMuslimSlaveTrade

The Ottoman penetration into Europe in the 1350s and their capture of Constantinople later in 1453 opened new floodgates for slave-trade from the European front. In their last attempt to overrun Europe in 1683, the Ottoman army, although defeated, returned from the Gates of Vienna with 80,000 captives.

Lecture 3: The principles of Ottoman rule in the Balkans
The principles of Ottoman rule in the Balkans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman slavery in Central and Eastern Europe
In the devşirme, which connotes "draft", "blood tax" or "child collection", young Christian boys from the Balkans and Anatolia were taken from their homes and families, converted to Islam, and enlisted into the most famous branch of the Kapıkulu, the Janissaries, a special soldier class of the Ottoman army that became a decisive faction in the Ottoman invasions of Europe.[10]

The Untold Story of White Slavery (Ottoman Turks, Arab and Barbary Muslim Slave Trade)

European slaves in the slave market of the Ottoman Empire
European slaves in the slave market of the Ottoman Empire - Video Dailymotion

Demolishing the myth of the tolerant Ottoman Rule in Balkan
https://mightynose.wordpress.com/20...-myth-of-the-tolerant-ottoman-rule-in-balkan/

ofcouse they will look like mediteranian, do you realize ottoman empire literally owned eastern half of mediteranian? greek and other balkans countries was conquered by ottoman empire, they bring slave from balkans back to turkey.

many historian say the early ottoman ruler were all look like asian (chinese/mongol looking people).

Hakka Nyin · Mar 11, 2018

Knapf said:
When Hakka Nyin says "turks look like mongol and chinese, period", the "Turks" he is referring to are the original Turks from Northeast Asia before they came to Anatolia.

yes you are right, that is what i mean.

Hakka Nyin · Mar 11, 2018

heavenlykaghan said:
Well, the stone head of Kul Tegin looks pretty Mongoloid:

ofcouse, they were mongoloid since beggining

because this forum forbid talk about DNa, i suggest you and other people who read my post to type in google or other search engine "Turkey: Not very Turkic". you are all will see wikipedia link which inside it contain picture of anatolian turk DNa, most of it are non-turk DNa, majority of it are european-arab (middle easterner). also you will see many other link which also provide the gene chart of anatolian turk, all are same, roughly 5%-25% turk DNa only.

The Ottoman Sultans Were Not Very Turkish
https://www.thoughtco.com/ottoman-sultans-were-not-very-turkish-195760

The Epic Story of How the Turks Migrated From Central Asia to Turkey
https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/the...e-turks-migrated-from-central-asia-to-turkey/

But groups of Turks ruled over many states in the Middle East and South Asia at this point in time. Why did they become the majority in Turkey? After the Seljuk victory, many Turks poured into Asia Minor, establishing little statelets, and ruling over the native population. Following the subsequent Mongol invasions, even more poured in, fleeing from their former lands in Persia and Central Asia. Unlike in many other cases, where a dominant minority eventually became assimilated into the majority population, because of the unstable, chaotic frontier situation, the Turks did not assimilate into the population. Indeed, many locals (ethnic Greeks and Armenians) attached themselves to Turkish warlords for protection as clients. This client-patron relationship spread out over many bands and tribes across Asia Minor and ensured that the majority of the population assimilated into the Turkish religion (Islam), language, and culture instead of vice versa.

This is a cultural process known as elite dominance, wherein a minority imposes its culture on the majority. The Turkification of Asia Minor is evident in the fact that genetically, the majority of today’s Turks are most closely related to Greeks and Armenians rather than Central Asian Turkic peoples, like the Uzbeks and Kazakhs. Thus, while the Turkic culture dominated in Asia Minor, the Turks themselves quickly merged genetically into the native population. This is not to say that there is no actual Central Asian genetic component among today’s Anatolian Turkish population. Genetic studies show that some 9 to 15 percent of the Turkish genetic mixture derives from Central Asia.

Why don’t Azeris and Turks look like other Turkic peoples such as Kazakhs and Turkmens?
https://www.quora.com/Why-don’t-Aze...r-Turkic-peoples-such-as-Kazakhs-and-Turkmens

Are Turkish people the descendants of Greek converts to Islam, Circassians, Bosniaks, Albanians Persian, and Arabs instead of the Turks from Central Asia?
https://www.quora.com/Are-Turkish-p...-Arabs-instead-of-the-Turks-from-Central-Asia

bananasinpajamas · Mar 11, 2018

Jangkwan said:
The Mongols are *not* the primeval horseriders of Steppes. Rather their ancestry, and some might say even appearance, is more similar to the Polynesians. They were likely a group of Polynesian-like islanders selected for their size and brought to China to be palace/royal guards probably around the Shang dynasty.

What in the...?

Jangkwan said:
In a sense, Koreans are culturally of the primeval horseriders more than any other people group...

Oh...right.

Devdas · Mar 11, 2018

Turks and Mongols share a same origin in the region around Mongolia in Steppes grassland. Turks spread westward and assimilated Central Asian Iranic people, Greeks, Anatolians, people in Caucasus mountains to their Turkic race.

janusdviveidis · Mar 11, 2018

Hakka Nyin said:
The Untold Story Of White Slavery ( Ottoman Turks, Arab And Barbary Muslim Slave Trade)
https://archive.org/details/TheUntoldStoryOfWhiteSlaveryOttomanTurksArabAndBarbaryMuslimSlaveTrade

The Ottoman penetration into Europe in the 1350s and their capture of Constantinople later in 1453 opened new floodgates for slave-trade from the European front. In their last attempt to overrun Europe in 1683, the Ottoman army, although defeated, returned from the Gates of Vienna with 80,000 captives.

Lecture 3: The principles of Ottoman rule in the Balkans
The principles of Ottoman rule in the Balkans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
Ottoman slavery in Central and Eastern Europe
In the devşirme, which connotes "draft", "blood tax" or "child collection", young Christian boys from the Balkans and Anatolia were taken from their homes and families, converted to Islam, and enlisted into the most famous branch of the Kapıkulu, the Janissaries, a special soldier class of the Ottoman army that became a decisive faction in the Ottoman invasions of Europe.[10]

The Untold Story of White Slavery (Ottoman Turks, Arab and Barbary Muslim Slave Trade)

European slaves in the slave market of the Ottoman Empire
European slaves in the slave market of the Ottoman Empire - Video Dailymotion

Demolishing the myth of the tolerant Ottoman Rule in Balkan
https://mightynose.wordpress.com/20...-myth-of-the-tolerant-ottoman-rule-in-balkan/

ofcouse they will look like mediteranian, do you realize ottoman empire literally owned eastern half of mediteranian? greek and other balkans countries was conquered by ottoman empire, they bring slave from balkans back to turkey.

many historian say the early ottoman ruler were all look like asian (chinese/mongol looking people).

And how early these rulers supposed to be? Mehmed the Conqueror already looked pretty European. Most historians agree, that by the time when Ottoman Turks arrived to Istanbul they already were looking pretty much same as today.

Jangkwan · Mar 11, 2018

heavenly knight said:
The Arabs had difficulty distinguishing Turks and Tibetans

The Nazis believed their Aryan horseriders originated from Tibet. I would not be able to say that this is accurate. But they do seem to have gotten the basic horserider bodily profile correct in their uniforms, where we see the puffed out legs that look thick relative to a thinner look for the upper body.

There is the possibility that the old Germanic aristocracy were descended from Attila the Hun whom might have surrounded himself with Germanic field-commanders. Such a narrative would entail that the Germanic invasions were an extension of the Hunnic invasions. It's a fact that the Huns were mostly made up of Germanics who were vassals of Attila. Even the name Attila is thought to be a Germanic appellation. So, where would all that experience and successful fighting power go after the Huns lost? Probably it would re-emerge and keep going. We might consider it a trivial that the Brits called the Germans Huns during WW1. But maybe there was a strong kernel of truth to it.

specul8 · Mar 11, 2018

Hakka Nyin said:
yes ofcourse will hard to distinguise them from tibetan, mongol, chinese, because turks are northeast asian people who have oriental look.

why that is so hard to grasp?

KAZAKH PEOPLE (CHINESE-LOOKING MUSLIMS SPEAKING RUSSIAN?!)

kirgiz president's daugther, the real turks should look like

not this mass mixed race turkey (european-arab mix)

Turks / Turkic : Nationality / Ethnicity .

Dreamhunter · Mar 11, 2018

Hakka Nyin said:
turks look like mongol and chinese, period. there is no turks look like erdogan.

Apparently you hv not seen many people from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan & Turkmenistan. Now, I'm not really sure if we're going to call them Turk, or semi-Turk, or non-Turk. But easily half of them wud look to me like your so called Erdogan type. The Turko-Iranic look, I wud call it. Or Turko-Caucasic, if you prefer.

That day about a week ago I saw a group of them in Kuala Lumpur. Uzbeks, I guessed, from their speech & general appearance, although they had like a large range of looks between them. And one of them, a ...., had what I wud call that Istanbulian look. She was big & tall too, like a slightly bigger than average European woman.

It does not take a dozen generations or more for a full blooded CA Turk to produce Iranic or Caucasic looking offspring. If one of them marries a full blooded Iranic or Caucasic type - which happens practically all the time in their culture & environment, even way back in 4th - 5th centuries AD, or even earlier, like the time of Xiongnu or Yuezhi - half of her or his brood could already be more Iranic or Caucasic looking than Oriental Turkic looking.

There is no such thing as 'should look like this', 'should not look like that' etc. among free-riding nomadic steppe people. In their culture & environment, everything has always been fairly fluid.

Knapf · Mar 11, 2018

Dreamhunter said:
Apparently you hv not seen many people from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan & Turkmenistan. Now, I'm not really sure if we're going to call them Turk, or semi-Turk, or non-Turk. But easily half of them wud look to me like your so called Erdogan type. The Turko-Iranic look, I wud call it. Or Turko-Caucasic, if you prefer.

That day about a week ago I saw a group of them in Kuala Lumpur. Uzbeks, I guessed, from their speech & general appearance, although they had like a large range of looks between them. And one of them, a ...., had what I wud call that Istanbulian look. She was big & tall too, like a slightly bigger than average European woman.

He's referring to the Turks to the northeast of China before they came to Anatolia.

Dreamhunter · Mar 11, 2018

Knapf said:
He's referring to the Turks to the northeast of China before they came to Anatolia.

Even including that time. With all due respect, these guys are Hybridisation Central.

They were interbreeding with Tocharians & Yue Zhi.

Now, Tocharians were full blooded, out-and-out Indo-Iranians or Indo-Caucasians. As for Yue Zhi, a substantial part were Indo-Iranic or Indo-Caucasic, e.g. the Gui Shang aka Kushan. And then there were the dozens or more of other Indo-Iranians like Scythians, Cimmerians, Sarmatians etc.

Jangkwan · Mar 12, 2018

bananasinpajamas said:
What in the...?

Oh...right.

I guess it might seem unexpected. But there really is no other way to explain it. (Unless you want to believe the ancient Egyptians colonized America in ancient times. There are people who believe that. And it would leave a hole wide open.) (Well on second thought i suppose it can be true without any problems. The earliest seafaring Indo-Europeans were probably the Greeks who i think probably came from Egypt and they might have landed in eastern America, arriving roughly at the same time as the horserider group colonizing it from the west/Alaska. But we can ignore this possibility for now even though it may prove interesting.)

The northwestern part of North America particularly Alaska has a backend trail of Mongolic-Austroloid lineages while the forward parts of America are dominated by the more common horserider lineage associated with Chinese and Indo-European.

We find a similar pattern in Oceana. But this time its Polynesia that is the forward end with the same pattern of strong horserider lineages in the forward end and the slightly back end Australia and Papua New Guinea Melanesia having Mongolic/Australoid lineage dominance.

The Mongolic/Australoid lineage is also "missing" in Tibet and and the western Eurasian areas commonly associated with the Indo-Europeans.

Yet at the same time the Mongolic-Australoid lineage has to be more ancient and should have had more time to spread than the horserider components, but it didn't. So we know they were trapped on the islands of southeast asia and Australia until the horserider types arrived there and enabled them to migrate and leave the area.

bananasinpajamas · Mar 12, 2018

I'm pretty sure this can all be explained with Reptilians and their genetic engineering of Earth primates with alien DNA to create various branches of Mongoloids.

Jangkwan said:
I guess it might seem unexpected. But there really is no other way to explain it. (Unless you want to believe the ancient Egyptians colonized America in ancient times. There are people who believe that. And it would leave a hole wide open.) (Well on second thought i suppose it can be true without any problems. The earliest seafaring Indo-Europeans were probably the Greeks who i think probably came from Egypt and they might have landed in eastern America, arriving roughly at the same time as the horserider group colonizing it from the west/Alaska. But we can ignore this possibility for now even though it may prove interesting.)

The northwestern part of North America particularly Alaska has a backend trail of Mongolic-Austroloid lineages while the forward parts of America are dominated by the more common horserider lineage associated with Chinese and Indo-European.

We find a similar pattern in Oceana. But this time its Polynesia that is the forward end with the same pattern of strong horserider lineages in the forward end and the slightly back end Australia and Papua New Guinea Melanesia having Mongolic/Australoid lineage dominance.

The Mongolic/Australoid lineage is also "missing" in Tibet and and the western Eurasian areas commonly associated with the Indo-Europeans.

Yet at the same time the Mongolic-Australoid lineage has to be more ancient and should have had more time to spread than the horserider components, but it didn't. So we know they were trapped on the islands of southeast asia and Australia until the horserider types arrived there and enabled them to migrate and leave the area.

Haakbus · Mar 12, 2018

bananasinpajamas said:
I'm pretty sure this can all be explained with Reptilians and their genetic engineering of Earth primates with alien DNA to create various branches of Mongoloids.

As an ex-Reptilian I can verify that fact.

Naomasa298 · Mar 12, 2018

bananasinpajamas said:
I'm pretty sure this can all be explained with Reptilians and their genetic engineering of Earth primates with alien DNA to create various branches of Mongoloids.

...we do not talk about genetics on Historum.

specul8 · Mar 12, 2018

Jangkwan said:
I guess it might seem unexpected. But there really is no other way to explain it. (Unless you want to believe the ancient Egyptians colonized America in ancient times. There are people who believe that. And it would leave a hole wide open.) (Well on second thought i suppose it can be true without any problems. The earliest seafaring Indo-Europeans were probably the Greeks who i think probably came from Egypt and they might have landed in eastern America, arriving roughly at the same time as the horserider group colonizing it from the west/Alaska. But we can ignore this possibility for now even though it may prove interesting.)

The northwestern part of North America particularly Alaska has a backend trail of Mongolic-Austroloid lineages while the forward parts of America are dominated by the more common horserider lineage associated with Chinese and Indo-European.

We find a similar pattern in Oceana. But this time its Polynesia that is the forward end with the same pattern of strong horserider lineages in the forward end and the slightly back end Australia and Papua New Guinea Melanesia having Mongolic/Australoid lineage dominance.

The Mongolic/Australoid lineage is also "missing" in Tibet and and the western Eurasian areas commonly associated with the Indo-Europeans.

Yet at the same time the Mongolic-Australoid lineage has to be more ancient and should have had more time to spread than the horserider components, but it didn't. So we know they were trapped on the islands of southeast asia and Australia until the horserider types arrived there and enabled them to migrate and leave the area.

'Horse rider type ' Indo-Europeans arrived in Australia and enabled the Mongolic-Australoid people there to migrate and leave the area ?

Thats an 'interesting' twist on Australia's pre-history !

Tulius · Mar 12, 2018

Jangkwan said:
I guess it might seem unexpected. But there really is no other way to explain it. (Unless you want to believe the ancient Egyptians colonized America in ancient times. There are people who believe that. And it would leave a hole wide open.) (Well on second thought i suppose it can be true without any problems. The earliest seafaring Indo-Europeans were probably the Greeks who i think probably came from Egypt and they might have landed in eastern America, arriving roughly at the same time as the horserider group colonizing it from the west/Alaska. But we can ignore this possibility for now even though it may prove interesting.)

The northwestern part of North America particularly Alaska has a backend trail of Mongolic-Austroloid lineages while the forward parts of America are dominated by the more common horserider lineage associated with Chinese and Indo-European.

We find a similar pattern in Oceana. But this time its Polynesia that is the forward end with the same pattern of strong horserider lineages in the forward end and the slightly back end Australia and Papua New Guinea Melanesia having Mongolic/Australoid lineage dominance.

The Mongolic/Australoid lineage is also "missing" in Tibet and and the western Eurasian areas commonly associated with the Indo-Europeans.

Yet at the same time the Mongolic-Australoid lineage has to be more ancient and should have had more time to spread than the horserider components, but it didn't. So we know they were trapped on the islands of southeast asia and Australia until the horserider types arrived there and enabled them to migrate and leave the area.

Those are “theories” quite… hmmm… how shall say… out “of the box”? Exoteric?

Search

Search

Looks of Turks in 7th century

Hakka Nyin

janusdviveidis

Knapf

Hakka Nyin

Hakka Nyin

Hakka Nyin

bananasinpajamas

Devdas

janusdviveidis

Jangkwan

specul8

Dreamhunter

Knapf

Dreamhunter

Jangkwan

bananasinpajamas

Haakbus

Naomasa298

specul8

Tulius

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions