PDA

View Full Version : Has Islam "destroyed" Anatolia?



Vinnie
24-07-14, 09:50
An ancient land of many cultures, indigenous and Indo-European. Much of important history and culture got lost?

Vinnie
24-07-14, 09:51
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d80eafb38985.gif

Vinnie
24-07-14, 09:54
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1989.281.11.jpg

Vinnie
24-07-14, 10:12
http://www.judithstarkston.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Hittite-goddess-and-child-15th-to-13th-century-BC-%C2%A9-PHGCOM-Wikimedia-Commons.jpg

FBS
24-07-14, 11:29
I guess we could say the same for every other Abrahamic religion.

Vinnie
24-07-14, 11:40
I guess we could say the same for every other Abrahamic religion.

Maybe, but the Turks also forced their mongolian language upon the IE speakers.

John Doe
24-07-14, 11:50
Maybe, but the Turks also forced their mongolian language upon the IE speakers.

1. Turkish isn't Mongolian, it's Turkic, there's a difference.
2. I'm pretty sure modern Turks are descendants of the Anatolians rather than Turkic invaders genetically speaking, this is also the case for Hungarians, who seem to be descendants of native peoples of pre Magyar Hungary.

bicicleur
24-07-14, 11:57
I suppose much remains to be discovered about ancient Anatolia, it has a very rich history.

I don't know much about the recent history : Byzantium was taken by Turkic people who were converted to Islam.
But after that, influence of Turkic culture seems to have been restricted?
What was the influence of Islam?

LeBrok
24-07-14, 17:04
IE changed it, Christians changed it, Turks changed it, Muslims changed it. Change is very normal for any country.

dodona
24-07-14, 18:04
1. Turkish isn't Mongolian, it's Turkic, there's a difference. 2. I'm pretty sure modern Turks are descendants of the Anatolians rather than Turkic invaders genetically speaking, this is also the case for Hungarians, who seem to be descendants of native peoples of pre Magyar Hungary. ad 1: Turkish ist much closely related to Mongolian ad 2: I agree 100%

dodona
24-07-14, 18:05
An ancient land of many cultures, indigenous and Indo-European. Much of important history and culture got lost? the Turks destroyed Anatolia, not the Islam!

Vinnie
24-07-14, 18:37
the Turks destroyed Anatolia, not the Islam!

I think it is a combination. The Islam probably destroyed many non-muslim religious sites, churches, monasteries etc.

John Doe
24-07-14, 19:27
ad 1: Turkish ist much closely related to Mongolian ad 2: I agree 100%

Turkish belongs to the Turkic family which belongs to the greater Altic languages that include languages such as Japanese, Korean etc. Mongolian belongs to the Mongolic tree, and the greater Altic family. In other words, Turkish is no more related to Mongolian than it is to Japanese, or English is to Greek.

Alan
25-07-14, 12:56
ad 1: Turkish ist much closely related to Mongolian ad 2: I agree 100%

Turkish just like Mongolian belong to the Altaic language family. But the Iranic component is heavy in Turkic tongues. It is so heavy that a Turkic group couldn't exist without the Iranic contribution. I go that far and claim Turkic is 50% like Mongolic and 50% like Iranic.

2. I agree on the basis of this argument but notable contrary to Turks who do have a significant East Eurasian admixture. Hungarians are 99% West Eurasian. Averg Turk is 93% West Eurasian and 7% East Eurasian. But the "Turkic" contribution was most definitely higher than 7%. When the Turkic tribes came to Iran they must have been already 50% West Eurasian. And when they reached Anatolia they must have been already predominantly West Eurasian. So the Turkic component can be estimated at 15-30%

Ottoman Islam didn't change Anatolia much more than Byzantine Christianity. And as I said previously the Eastern portion of Turkey is not part of the traditional Anatolia.
6518

John Doe
25-07-14, 12:59
Turkish just like Mongolian belong to the Altaic language family. But the Iranic component is heavy in Turkic tongues. It is so heavy that a Turkic group couldn't exist without the Iranic contribution. I go that far and claim Turkic is 50% like Mongolic and 50% like Iranic.

2. I agree on the basis of this argument but notable contrary to Turks who do have a significant East Eurasian admixture. Hungarians are 99% West Eurasian. Averg Turk is 93% West Eurasian and 7% East Eurasian. But the "Turkic" contribution was most definitely higher than 7%. When the Turkic tribes came to Iran they must have been already 50% West Eurasian. And when they reached Anatolia they must have been already predominantly West Eurasian. So the Turkic component can be estimated at 15-30%

That's what I said, Mongolic and Turkic families belong to the Altaic family tree. I didn't know the Iranic influence was so large. Yeah, obviously there's still some east Eurasian influence in modern Turks, much more than what modern Hungarians have, thanks for the extra info.

Alan
25-07-14, 13:04
I didn't know the Iranic influence was so large. Yeah, obviously there's still some east Eurasian influence in modern Turks, much more than what modern Hungarians have, thanks for the extra info.

In Altais and Central Asia it is already so heavy that basic grammer in Turkic tongues show signs of Iranism. Anatolian Turkish shows that much of additional Iranic influence that it is impossible to form two straight sentence without using Iranic words. And I guarantee you that. Anyone who disagrees can try it and I will prove him.

John Doe
25-07-14, 13:06
In Altais and Central Asia it is already so heavy that basic grammer in Turkic tongues show signs of Iranism. Anatolian Turkish shows that much of additional Iranic influence that it is impossible to form two straight sentence without using Iranic words. And I guarantee you that.

Thanks for the info.

bicicleur
25-07-14, 16:01
In Altais and Central Asia it is already so heavy that basic grammer in Turkic tongues show signs of Iranism. Anatolian Turkish shows that much of additional Iranic influence that it is impossible to form two straight sentence without using Iranic words. And I guarantee you that. Anyone who disagrees can try it and I will prove him.

Turkic are haplo N1a and N1b , Mongols are haplo C3 , of course both mixed later
After the Sintashta culture, Indo-Iranic R1a tribes conquered the steppe from the Dniestr till the Altai mountains, and split into Indic and Iranic
Some Iranic tribes stayed on the steppe, the Scyths and Sarmats.
They were driven out of the steppe by the Turks. Later the Turks arrived in Turkey as well, with some Iranic loanwords.

Alan
25-07-14, 16:11
Turkic are haplo N1a and N1b , Mongols are haplo C3 , of course both mixed later


As far as I know N is more typical for Uralic speakers. While Turkic speakers are predominantly Q1a, C* and R*(the Iranic impact). Only exception are Yakuts.

joeyc
25-07-14, 17:03
As far as I know N is more typical for Uralic speakers. While Turkic speakers are predominantly Q1a, C* and R*(the Iranic impact). Only exception are Yakuts.

This. Most of the mongoloid dna among original Turkic speakers was on the female side of course.

Modern day Central Asians like the Kazakhs are Turkic/Mongolian hybrids. Turkmens are less Turkic and more Iranic.

LeBrok
25-07-14, 17:58
Modern day Central Asians like the Kazakhs are Turkic/Mongolian hybrids.There were more Slavic Kozaks in Western Ukraine than you can imagine, I guess. They are pretty much all "civilized" into Western life style these days.

The Kazakhs tradition of "the steppe horse warrior" go much further in the past, to IE Scythians, the Saka nations of the steppe. These traditions had spread to other ethnicities like Mongols and Turks, who came to dominate steppe after Scythian dominance collapsed and big migrations started, from East to West.

bicicleur
25-07-14, 20:19
As far as I know N is more typical for Uralic speakers. While Turkic speakers are predominantly Q1a, C* and R*(the Iranic impact). Only exception are Yakuts.

the Uralic were N1c , not N1b/N1a
N1c branched off from N1 much earlier, some 13000 years ago, and 9000 years ago, they were allready at the Ural Mountains, they were the ones that brought the first pottery from China to Europe
Yakuts returned east on horseback, much later and switched from Uralic to Turkic

bicicleur
25-07-14, 20:22
As far as I know N is more typical for Uralic speakers. While Turkic speakers are predominantly Q1a, C* and R*(the Iranic impact). Only exception are Yakuts.

R* didn't survive the ice ages , shouldn't this be R1a?
same for C* , C3 ?

joeyc
25-07-14, 22:07
R* retreated to the Middleast during the Ice Age.

Alan
26-07-14, 01:08
R* didn't survive the ice ages , shouldn't this be R1a?
same for C* , C3 ?

When I wrote R* I simply tried to include R1a, R2 and R1b instead of mentioning them singly.

As for the Yakuts coming from Urals. Well this explains why they are an exception among Turkic speakers and are predominantly N1.

sherlockholmes
15-10-14, 14:00
Islam destroyed Anatolia.Every secular Turks accept this idea.

Garrick
15-10-14, 15:32
Islam destroyed Anatolia.Every secular Turks accept this idea.

Balkans too. In middle ages Christian Balkan countries were developed as Scandinavian countries, England, etc. But Western Europe had the humanism and renaissance and Balkan countries had jihad, Islamic rule and Sharia law.

Today in Balkan Muslim countries is growing ISIS and Neo-Ottomanism, which is very similar (or same).

For example Turkish Prime Minister (now he is President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan proclaimed: "mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, Muslims our soldiers. This holy arm guards my religion."

Ottoman Empire Dreams: Turkish PM Erdogan claims Territories of Balkan countries belong to Turkey

http://pamelageller.com/2013/12/ottoman-empire-dreams-turkish-pm-erdogan-claims-territories-of-balkan-countries-belong-to-turkey.html/

Garrick
15-10-14, 15:33
Erdogan wants eastern Thrace with Thessaloniki http://www.protothema.gr/news-in-english/article/335607/erdogan-wants-eastern-thrace-with-thessaloniki/

Erdogan: 'Kosovo Is Turkey'http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/10/erdogan-kosovo-turkey.html


Etc.

EBlack
15-12-14, 09:17
Has Europeans destroyed America?

Turks didn't come to west because they want to fight or destroy. There was "bad air? drought?" on middle asia.East was big China, north was cold. Had to come these lands. And about your question, i would like to ask what do you mean? When Turks had to come west lands, every other nation had to migrate. So in your opinion a lot of culture got lost,right?

Yetos
17-12-14, 06:16
Erdogan wants eastern Thrace with Thessaloniki

http://www.protothema.gr/news-in-english/article/335607/erdogan-wants-eastern-thrace-with-thessaloniki/

Erdogan: 'Kosovo Is Turkey'

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/10/erdogan-kosovo-turkey.html


Etc.



He said that Islamists discover America, :rolleyes2:
he will build a temple in Cuba


:laughing::laughing:

individual1st
22-03-15, 01:42
Indisputable YES.

Boreas
03-05-15, 16:05
I am wondering how do Europeans fasicsts think that they are better than Islamic Jihadists?

I am passing how much clear the negative purpose of the poll question.

Our friend(the opener of the topic) has used a map to proof his idea which is "Islam destroied Anatolia"

*The reason of extinction of Anatolian Languages was not Turks, it was Hellens

*Hurrians(pre-Hittie clan) were not speaker of IE or East Turkey / Historical Armenia was home of Urartuian who spoke Caucasian Language.

*Lydians, Phrygians were also migrants who settled in West Anatolia

*Even all humankind is invader in Eurasia & Americas

Taranis
03-05-15, 16:30
I'm going to lock up this thread. The original poster clearly meant this as a very thinly-veiled islamophobic provocation, not as an actual inquiry about the history of Anatolia. If anybody wants to discuss the history of Anatolia (maybe over in the History and Civilizations section), they're welcomed to do so there.