Some deluded grks now claiming Ottoman Empire was a Greek Muslim Empire lol

[Onur]

Have you been going to Shiptar night school by any chance?
Kumanovo is the Macedonian/Macedonic name.

I`m afraid it`s not, like the other cities and villages with a word Kuman in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria. So, like Kumanovo is not Macedonic, Komaneshti is not Romanian either. Just like the city of Iskenderun(Alexandretta) in Turkey is not Turkish or Iskenderiye(Alexandria) is not Egyptian Arabic. These cities bears the names of it`s founders and this is not something to be in panic.

No doubt there are some (visible) genetic remnants amongst some Macedonians, here and there, but the vast majority of Macedonians do not have any visible features of the Turko-Mongol type as there was little genetic input in the first place. Also, I have no issue with any Macedonian (ethhic or national) of whatever genetic, ethnic or cultural background as long as they are pro Macedonian.

We agree on that, just like i said there are some Phrygians, Hittites etc. living among us in Turkey. It would be stupid to refuse this since we live in a territory where dozens of different people crossed by and still crossing today. These territories are not like Iceland or Scandinavia. If anyone Balkans or Anatolia refuses this, then he should be as delusional as modern Greeks.

it makes sense to think that a small Turko-Mongol military elite established a state system over a foreign Anatolian element and, due to many factors, over time its language prevailed. This is similar to what the Arabs achieved over vast non-Arab populations (and areas) and what Magyars (Hun/garians) did in Hungary.

The ethnogenesis of Central Asia
Have a read of what PROUD Turko-Mongols of Central Asia think about this topic at the link above and it may help your understanding of Turkish ethogenesis.

Yeah, thats what say; "it makes sense..." but yet, i didn't see or read anyone who explain "HOW" and on what base or proof?? I mean, i didnt see anyone who can explain to me how a very small, like 2-3% "Turko-Mongol" assimilates huge Anatolian population at 11th century without a modern education system??? We also know that there wasn't some kind of genocide towards Anatolian christians by the Turks here, if it would be otherwise, we would know by now from Byzantine records like we know Crusader massacres today.

Your facebook link contains other fallacy, the theory of "Scythians=Aryans only". According to that, literally all people of Eurasia, Caucasus was white, Aryan Indo-Eu speaking Scythians in 1st BC, then the "Turko-Mongols" dropped from sky at 2th century AD and managed to assimilate all the people in vast central Asia, so in like 200 years of time, "beautiful" Indo-Eu language erased from the minds of Scythians and replaced by the language of "Turko-Mongols" without any education system whatsoever!!!

Tell me, why should i believe this western european theory invented after 19th century when they were trying to eradicate Turkish presence by any means from Europe? I read and believe the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Jewish archives of medieval era and our own Turkic inscriptions of that time where it does relate the events as exact opposite of these 19th century inventions.

I see you have caught the "Europeids" bug of the revisionist Bulgar "historians" such as Petar Dobrev! Hahaha....:-)

It`s what the Greek blogger`s graphic says, not me. "like revisionist Bulgar historians??? lol, Turkish history doesn't need any revision cuz it`s uninterrupted for the last 1500 years with empires after states and then today`s nation. Call me Turko-Mongol all day long, i don't get offended by that but do not confuse Turkish history with Bulgars and Greeks with identity crises. You know, we didn't "invent" our nation after 2000 years of "pause" like them. So, we never needed any revision cuz all is written already.

Well, there are some clear races with distinguishing features and all else are a mixture of those. You are not happy because, like the Magyars, Turks in the main are only Turkish in language (and elements of culture) but not much by blood whilst your Turko-Mongol Bulgar cousins did not preserve either language or culture (except for newly invented myths of the modern era). :-)

Why you keep mentioning about Hungarians too? You got some problem with non-IndoEu people in Europe? Maybe you got "All mongols go back to Asia" spirit of 19th century in you but i can say that i am PROUD(like you wrote with caps) of my central asian heritage like the Hungarians are today and i just laugh whenever i read or hear "Turko-Mongol" thing. Actually Mongol or not, it doesn't matter for me but why should i accept something wrong and something invented by western europeans?

Besides, danube Bulgars are not my cousins since they have zero connection with the real Bulgars except their name anymore. They have been totally assimilated and i only take account of the ideas, not the blood.

[indigen]

I`m afraid it`s not, like the other cities and villages with a word Kuman in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria. So, like Kumanovo is not Macedonic, Komaneshti is not Romanian either. Just like the city of Iskenderun(Alexandretta) in Turkey is not Turkish or Iskenderiye(Alexandria) is not Egyptian Arabic. These cities bears the names of it`s founders and this is not something to be in panic.

Dude, clearly you don't understand the point I was making, which was correct, but lets leave it at that because I don't want to waste time on this. Maybe others can enlighten you further.

Yeah, thats what say; "it makes sense..." but yet, i didn't see or read anyone who explain "HOW" and on what base or proof?? I mean, i didnt see anyone who can explain to me how a very small, like 2-3% "Turko-Mongol" assimilates huge Anatolian population at 11th century without a modern education system??? We also know that there wasn't some kind of genocide towards Anatolian christians by the Turks here, if it would be otherwise, we would know by now from Byzantine records like we know Crusader massacres today.

Nobody knows the exact percentages of what they were then. Did "they remain pure" since moving westward from Altai (Mongolia)? Nobody said they came straight from Mongolia and settled in Anatolia and thus there is plenty of scope for gathering IE ("Aryan") genes long before entering "Byzantine" Anatolia and the ensuing further dilution of the Turko-Mongol gene pool.

Your facebook link contains other fallacy, the theory of "Scythians=Aryans only". According to that, literally all people of Eurasia, Caucasus was white, Aryan Indo-Eu speaking Scythians in 1st BC, then the "Turko-Mongols" dropped from sky at 2th century AD and managed to assimilate all the people in vast central Asia, so in like 200 years of time, "beautiful" Indo-Eu language erased from the minds of Scythians and replaced by the language of "Turko-Mongols" without any education system whatsoever!!!

Though not like you put it, that is the main thrust of the current (and past) thinking, revisionist Bulgar, Hungarian, Turkish and Co excluded, on the movement and development of the Turko-Mongol speaking groups/tribal federations/nations.

Tell me, why should i believe this western European theory invented after 19th century when they were trying to eradicate Turkish presence by any means from Europe? I read and believe the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Jewish archives of medieval era and our own Turkic inscriptions of that time where it does relate the events as exact opposite of these 19th century inventions.

I believe this is still the current mainstream theory and is the first time I come across a Turk objecting to it (one learns something new every day!).

Secondly, you seem to dismiss everything and everyone that disagrees with your point of view, which is not a very good way to be objective or to have rational discourse.

Lastly, I would like for you to provide some reference material (possibly on another thread) from mainstream and official Turkish sources about Turkish ethnogenesis so that I and others don't conclude it is just some alternative views you are projecting, similar to the Bulgarian disciples of Petar Dobrev.

It`s what the Greek blogger`s graphic says, not me. "like revisionist Bulgar historians??? lol, Turkish history doesn't need any revision cuz it`s uninterrupted for the last 1500 years with empires after states and then today`s nation.

I am not sure the Ottoman state could/should be regarded as a state of the "Turkish nation" and thus I don't know where you get your 1500 years of continuous history.

Call me Turko-Mongol all day long, i don't get offended by that but do not confuse Turkish history with Bulgars and Greeks with identity crises. You know, we didn't "invent" our nation after 2000 years of "pause" like them. So, we never needed any revision cuz all is written already.

Are you saying the Turko-Mongol ("proto-Bulgars") Bulgars were not related to the Turks? On the last point, I am sure there are (should be) quite a few myths floating around in modern Turkey but we may need Kurds and those PROUD Turko_Mongols (those that follow your narrative deeply) to bring them out in the open. :-)

Why you keep mentioning about Hungarians too?

Because they are one of the rare exceptions of a non-European (i.e. non IE) language being installed amongst a predominantly European population base by a small state-building non-European (Turko-Mongol) military elite.

You got some problem with non-IndoEu people in Europe?

No, but clearly Huns, Bulgars and Turks are not indigenous elements. Are you saying that they are indigenous?

Maybe you got "All mongols go back to Asia" spirit of 19th century in you but i can say that i am PROUD(like you wrote with caps) of my central asian heritage like the Hungarians are today and i just laugh whenever i read or hear "Turko-Mongol" thing. Actually Mongol or not, it doesn't matter for me but why should i accept something wrong and something invented by western europeans?

Same here, why should I accept that they are NOT Turko-Mongols? Just because the Bulgars want the glory of the Bulgar state but are now ashamed of the Asian (Turko-Mongol) origin of their state founders, which is also not easily marketable in Macedonia, does not mean we will accept their revisionist "Europeid" inventions.

Besides, Danube Bulgars are not my cousins since they have zero connection with the real Bulgars except their name any more. They have been totally assimilated and i only take account of the ideas, not the blood.

I meant the original ones that invaded the Balkans and founded the Bulgar state there. I think they were your cousins, don't you agree? :-)

[Onur]

Nobody knows the exact percentages of what they were then. Did "they remain pure" since moving westward from Altai (Mongolia)? Nobody said they came straight from Mongolia and settled in Anatolia and thus there is plenty of scope for gathering IE ("Aryan") genes long before entering "Byzantine" Anatolia and the ensuing further dilution of the Turko-Mongol gene pool.

Already, thats the problem with this theory. It doesn't have a base or proof. If that theory would be true, then there would be 100x more slant eyed Mongolic people in Europe right now if you consider that there are Hunnic remains up to the France and Attila`s empire was including nearly whole europe and central asia except China and mediterranean coast of Italy and Spain. Then Cumans, Pechenegs, Tatars, Oghuz, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Khazars etc. came and beaten Roman&Byzantine armies, ruled here for centuries too. Where are these slant eyed Mongols now? if they were Mongol at all.

Though not like you put it, that is the main thrust of the current (and past) thinking, revisionist Bulgar, Hungarian, Turkish and Co excluded, on the movement and development of the Turko-Mongol speaking groups/tribal federations/nations.

I told you, this wasn't the thinking in the past. Dont make me show you 100s of Roman, Byzantine, Jewish, Arab, Armenian chronicles of that era which says exact reverse of current western european Turkic theory. Tough, i wouldn't be bothered to "teach" you something either. So, you can continue to believe that 200+ million Turkic and 15 million Hungarian speakers in the world are assimilated Indo-EU people who speaks Mongolic language of few 1000 Mongols.

Ohh btw, you forgot Finns and Estonians in Europe. They don't speak your beloved Aryan Indo-Eu language too. Assimilated nordic blonds who became Mongols!! Monstrosity, isn't it? So, you shouldn't forgot them either. Maybe Turko-Mongol hordes assimilated nordic people too and thats how they speak Mongolic-Barbaric tongue now, ha? I start to think that Turko-Mongol hordes obtained a brain control machine from Aliens to assimilate pretty Europeans, convert them as Mongols. But somehow we lost that machine after 14th century, so you are still christian now after 550+ years, otherwise you would be in Mecca now, praying to Allah with your Arab brothers. I think you should think about that Alien technology theory too

Secondly, you seem to dismiss everything and everyone that disagrees with your point of view, which is not a very good way to be objective or to have rational discourse.

Ofc i would dismiss the theories of western Europeans invented after 19th century while they were trying to eradicate Turkish presence in Europe. I rather look in to the archives and chronicles of medieval era instead of believing their recently invented theories. Dont you dismiss the 100s of present theories of Macedonians being Greeks, Turko-Mongol Bulgars or Serbs?? If yes, then why you criticize me for doing the same?

Btw, i always find interesting that these Turks=Mongol theories invented at the exact same time when they were spreading Hellenic theories to implant the minds of some people, includes your cousins in Aegean Macedonia.

I meant the original ones that invaded the Balkans and founded the Bulgar state there. I think they were your cousins, don't you agree? :-)

Are you saying the Turko-Mongol ("proto-Bulgars") Bulgars were not related to the Turks?

Yes they were but clearly not anymore. The real Bulgars, the ones in Volga river today are closer to us today but fake ones in danube closer to you today if we take account of language. Since they speak a language closer to yours for 1000 years but since it`s obvious that you take account of "pure blood" ideas, i understand that they are still Turko-Mongols to you, even after 1000 years later of their assimilation.

But i must say that i find rather amusing to see the giant statue of Khan Asparuh in current Bulgaria while the people who speaks similar tongue in there with the Asparuh`s, are only the Bulgarian citizen Turks, not the slavic tongue of VMRO-BG or ATAKA members, LOL

No, but clearly Huns, Bulgars and Turks are not indigenous elements. Are you saying that they are indigenous?

Depends on what you comprehend of being indigenous. To me, Carpathian Basin belongs to the Asiatic Hungarians, descendants of the Huns for 1000+ years like Anatolia belongs to the Turks. I mean, what we should do now? After 1000 years, we should go and tell Russians and Ukrainians to gtfo from our historical lands like the city of Kiev, founded by Khazar Turks, so we can re-settle there?

It`s also rather ironic that you question the people who came here 1000+ years ago in terms of being indigenous or not while we read the integration of the immigrants in the newspapers who settled in some countries 40-50 years ago. If 1000+ years is not enough for you, i don't know what is. Btw be careful, maybe you yourself might not be that indigenous here as the current Eurasian Hungarians or Turks, who knows?

I am not sure the Ottoman state could/should be regarded as a state of the "Turkish nation" and thus I don't know where you get your 1500 years of continuous history.

Now you are being as pathetic as the Greek youtube user in the first msg.

Besides, I didn't say "nation" for Ottomans, i said Empire. How come a state which includes 3 continents can be a nation? Do not derail my words.

[Venom]

Nothing to be said for this dellusional shit except: LOL!

Fucking morons.

[indigen]

http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/turkey.htmlHISTORY OF TURKEY ncient Anatolia:

Btw, i always find interesting that these Turks=Mongol theories invented at the exact same time when they were spreading Hellenic theories to implant the minds of some people, includes your cousins in Aegean Macedonia.

Dude, can you please briefly present your theory of Turkish (Turkic) ethnogenesis so that I can see what you are trying to support here!?

Secondly, you avoided to answer the following important request I asked you for: "I would like for you to provide some reference material (possibly on another thread) from mainstream and official Turkish sources about Turkish ethnogenesis so that I and others don't conclude it is just some alternative views you are projecting, similar to the Bulgarian disciples of Petar Dobrev."

I was able to locate the following websites and they don't seem to back up your claims, as far as I can deduce:

http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/turkey.html

"....the Ottoman structure was repudiated by Turkish nationalists whom Mustafa Kemal brought together under his tight leadership. The nationalists expelled invading Greek forces from Anatolia after a bitter war. After the proclamation of the Republic of Turkey the temporal and religious ruling institutions of the old empire (the sultanate and caliphate) were abolished.

The leaders of the new republic concentrated on consolidating their power and modernizing and Westernizing what had been the empire's core--Anatolia and a small part of Thrace. Social, political, linguistic, and economic reforms and attitudes decreed by Ataturk from 1924-1934 continue to be referred to as the ideological base of modern Turkey. In the post-Ataturk era, and especially after the military coup of 1960, this ideology came to be known as "Kemalism" and his reforms began to be referred to as "revolutions." Kemalism comprises a Turkish form of secularism, strong nationalism, statism, and to a degree a western orientation. The continued validity and applicability of Kemalism are the subject of lively debate in Turkey's political life. The current ruling AK Party comes from a tradition that challenges many of the Kemalist precepts and is driven in its reform efforts by a desire to achieve EU accession.

http://countrystudies.us/turkey/2.htm
TURKEY IS A NEW COUNTRY in an old land. The modern Turkish state--beginning with the creation of the Republic of Turkey in the years immediately after World War I--drew on a national consciousness that had developed only in the late nineteenth century. But the history of nomadic Turkish tribes can be traced with certainty to the sixth century A.D., when they wandered the steppes of central Asia. Asia Minor, which the Turks invaded in the eleventh century, has a recorded history that dates back to the Hittites, who flourished there in the second millennium B.C. Archaeological evidence of far older cultures has been found in the region, however.TURKEY IS A NEW COUNTRY in an old land. The modern Turkish state--beginning with the creation of the Republic of Turkey in the years immediately after World War I--drew on a national consciousness that had developed only in the late nineteenth century. But the history of nomadic Turkish tribes can be traced with certainty to the sixth century A.D., when they wandered the steppes of central Asia. Asia Minor, which the Turks invaded in the eleventh century, has a recorded history that dates back to the Hittites, who flourished there in the second millennium B.C. Archaeological evidence of far older cultures has been found in the region, however.

[....]

Anatolia is a bridge connecting the Middle East and Europe, and it shares in the history of both those parts of the world. Despite the diversity of its peoples and their cultures, and the constantly shifting borders of its ethnic map, Anatolia has a history characterized by remarkable continuity. Wave after wave of conquerors and settlers have imposed their language and other unique features of their culture on it, but they also have invariably assimilated the customs of the peoples who preceded them.

The history of Turkey encompasses, first, the history of Anatolia before the coming of the Turks and of the civilizations--Hittite, Thracian, [Macedonian], and Byzantine--of which the Turkish nation is the heir by assimilation or example. Second, it includes the history of the Turkish peoples, including the Seljuks, who brought Islam and the Turkish language to Anatolia. Third, it is the history of the Ottoman Empire, a vast, cosmopolitan, pan-Islamic state that developed from a small Turkish amirate in Anatolia and that for centuries was a world power.

HISTORY OF TURKEY

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac94

Ancient Anatolia: to the 11th century AD

Anatolia, linking Asia and Europe, has a long and distinguished record as a centre of civilization - from one of the world's first towns (Catal Huyuk), through the successive periods of Hittites and Trojans, Ionians and Lydians, Romans and Byzantines.

But the region acquires its present identity and name, as Turkey, more recently - with the arrival of Turkish tribes to confront the Byzantine empire in the 11th century AD.

Byzantines and Turks: AD 1064-1071

In 1064 the Seljuk Turks, under their sultan Alp Arslan, invade Armenia - for many centuries a disputed frontier region between the Byzantine empire and neighbours to the east. Alp Arslan follows his success here with an attack on Georgia, in 1068. These acts of aggression prompt a response from the Byzantine emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes.

The armies meet in 1071 at Manzikert, near Lake Van. The battle, a resounding victory for the Seljuks, is a turning point in the story of the Byzantine empire. Within a few years there are Turkish tribes in many parts of Anatolia. Some of them are bitter enemies of the Seljuks, but the Seljuks are now the main power in this borderland between Islam and Christianity.

The Seljuks and the sultanate of Rum: 11th - 13th c. AD

Rum, meaning Rome, is the word used by the Turks for Byzantium (whose officials still describe themselves as Romans, in keeping with the origins of the Byzantine empire). Pressing deep into Anatolia, after the victory at Manzikert in 1071, the Seljuks reach Konya in the following year and Nicaea, much closer to Constantinople, in about 1080. They make Nicaea their capital until it is recovered by the Byzantines during the first crusade, in 1097. In 1099 Konya, strategically placed in the centre of Anatolia, becomes the Seljuk capital.

The Seljuks describe their new territory, at the heart of the old Byzantine empire, as the sultanate of Rum.

Throughout the 12th and 13th century Anatolia is in turmoil. Turkish tribes fight among themselves. The Byzantines try to recover their land. Crusaders, passing through and from 1204 occupying Constantinople, complicate the picture.

But the new and overriding feature is that Anatolia is now largely occupied by Turks. This fact enters the languages of the period. In addition to its many other names, the region begins to be referred to as Turkey - the land of the Turks. The new identity survives the arrival of the Mongols in the 13th century and the end of the Seljuk dynasty in the early 14th century. By then another Turkish tribe, the Ottomans, are making their mark.

The Ottoman Turks: 13th - 14th century AD

http://www.allaboutturkey.com/dil.htm
"...Turkish belongs to the Altay branch of the Ural-Altaic linguistic family..."

"...It is the westernmost of the Turkic languages spoken across Central Asia and is generally classified as a member of the South-West group, also known as the Oguz group. Other Turkic languages, all of which are closely related, include Azerbaijani (Azeri), Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Turkmen, Uighur, Uzbek, and many others spoken from the Balkans across Central Asia into northwestern China and southern Siberia. Turkic languages are often grouped with Mongolian and Tungusic languages in the Altaic language family. Strictly speaking, the "Turkish" languages spoken between Mongolia and Turkey should be called Turkic languages, and the term "Turkish" should refer to the language spoken in Turkey alone. It is common practice, however, to refer to all these languages as Turkish, and differentiate them with reference to the geographical area, for example, the Turkish language of Azerbaijan.

Through the span of history, Turks have spread over a wide geographical area, taking their language with them. Turkish speaking people have lived in a wide area stretching from today's Mongolia to the north coast of the Black Sea, the Balkans, East Europe, Anatolia, Iraq and a wide area of northern Africa. Due to the distances involved, various dialects and accents have emerged. Turkish is also the language spoken at home by people who live in the areas that were governed by the Ottoman Empire..."

[Onur]

Indigen, i think you didn't read this part of my previous message;

Tough, i wouldn't be bothered to "teach" you something either. So, you can continue to believe that 200+ million Turkic and 15 million Hungarian speakers in the world are assimilated Indo-EU people who speaks Mongolic language of few 1000 Mongols.

So, i have no intention to discuss this issue or any issue with you. Already, everything you quote above is the long expression of what i wrote earlier;

like i said there are some Phrygians, Hittites etc. living among us in Turkey. It would be stupid to refuse this since we live in a territory where dozens of different people crossed by and still crossing today. These territories are not like Iceland or Scandinavia. If anyone Balkans or Anatolia refuses this, then he should be as delusional as modern Greeks.

Anatolia is the cradle of civilizations and there are 11.000 year old monuments here. What we would had supposed to do? Massacre every living creature here to achieve Turkish blood pureness??? Like western world did b4 in America, Europe and Australia??

Stupid thing is, Balkans are no different than Anatolia on this issue but you act like Anatolia belongs to dozens of different society except Turks while Balkans are supposedly not like Anatolia.

What you want me to say? Turkish people are assimilated Hellenes but all Bulgarians are pure Bulgars, all Macedonians are descendants of Alexander, all Greeks are the children of Homer, all Albanians are Illyrians. Are you satisfied now?




P. S: I found this website few weeks ago. It might be "informative" and interesting for you since it says that the 7th century Turkic Khazars at Volga was not Turks but Greeks. Real representative of Hellenic culture and tradition with horse riding, horseback archery with central Asian composite bow!!!(Hellenic homos turned out to be skillful horseback archers in central asia, WOW indeed!!!). They reach this conclusion by looking at the level of their political relationship with Byzantines. It says that mongol and barbaric Turks couldn't possibly involve in politics with Byzantines, therefore they should be Greeks, ancient Hellenes. Check it out;

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-66679/khazaria/khazdoc.html

It has not been proven common among dispersed and "anarchistic" Turkish-Mongol tribes, or even more consensed and condensed conglomerates, to exercise this kind of governmental skills, nor cultural tolerance. What we usually see is more of a talent and a remarkable and certain predilection for terror and bestiality. Why would Khazars relatively sudden become able to exercise such excellent talents in politics, trade and warfare?

This could, at that time, only be the heritage of Hellenism! How could possibly then a nomadic and pagan Turkish tribe, so easily and completely, adopt "hellenistic" and "jewish" manners? They didn’t!

The ruling class of nobels, however, the very nucleus of the rising and formed Khazar state, were the bearers and mediators of the Hellenistic culture. They were litterate, had strong relations to the Hellenistic world and were well organized.

A Hellenistic open governmental approach to ethnical, lingual and religious variety. A Khazar official could be of ethnical Greek, Turkish, Jewish and probably Slav and Rûs origin, as well as a confessional Christian, Jew, Muslim or maybe just pagan and probably multi-lingual as well. The Khazar community comprised all this variety, thus seemingly being a part of the Hellenistic sphere.

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-66679/khazaria/khazdoc.html

[George S.]

Why argue about history so much was anyone around to see who was what & what went on.For example there is so much written by the greeks 100's of years after the event it's no wonder there's so much myths created.How the fuck can we know the truth thousands of years later.Some people carry on as if their life depended on it.There's so much mixing of races going on nobody knows what the fuck went on.There is no such thing as a pure race.

[indigen]

Indigen, i think you didn't read this part of my previous message;

So, i have no intention to discuss this issue or any issue with you. Already, everything you quote above is the long expression of what i wrote earlier;

Onur, you don't have much to stand on in respect of official Turkish and MAINSTREAM view regards the original homeland (Altai region of Mongolia) of the Turko-Mongol language bearers, i.e they were an Asiatic race akin to Mongols.

Secondly, if I were to accept your view (of which we are not clear on what it is) that it was not minority Turko-Mongol state forming elites that introduced Turkic languages into Anatolia (and elsewhere in Europe and Central Asia) but that it was the result of some HYPOTHETICAL CAUCASIAN Turko-speaking MASS INVASIONS (e.g. from "Pamir", as Petar Dobrev and Co would have us believe), I would have to give credence to the MASS "SLAV" invasion THEORY (HYPOTHESIS) of the Macedonian Peninsula (Balkans) unless we could "prove" that the Macedonic ("Slavonic") languages were native to Macedonia and the surrounding area/s. This I am NOT prepared to accept as language is NOT always a determinant for national identity or for indigenity.

[Onur]

I am not sure the Ottoman state could/should be regarded as a state of the "Turkish nation" and thus I don't know where you get your 1500 years of continuous history.

I just saw these on the web. Ofc I already knew that but i didn't bother to search for it to prove something to you at that time but nevertheless, i am posting it now;

Gok-Turk empire;
- Established 552 AD
- Disestablished 747 AD

GokTurk Empire coins found in today`s Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan archeological digging sites. Coins are dated between 576-600 AD. These coins are currently in a museum in Kyrgyzstan;


Notice the name of the state and the crescent+star on the coins.


At 580 AD, people who lived in western part of GokTurk empire migrated to the further west and founded Turkic Avar kingdom around today`s Hungary/Romania. It disestablished in 9th century and they founded Hungary afterward by mingling with some Slavic, Germanic speaking people and then they became today`s Hungarians.

This is the flag of Hungarian speaking Szekely people in Romania. They are believed to be the descendants of Huns and Turkic Avars(thats what Szekelys themselves say too) and this flag probably was Avar kingdom`s flag too;


The crescent+star again!



Khazar Empire;
- Established 618 AD
- Disestablished 969 AD

After Avar state has been founded, Turkic speaking people at the eastern side of GokTurk empire founded Khazar state.




Seljuq Empire;
- Established 1037 AD
- Disestablished 1307 AD

After Khazar Empire disestablished, most of the people migrated into Anatolia and founded Seljuk Empire.


You know the next one, Ottoman Empire founded at 1299 AD.

Actually there are Huns too but Huns was a confederation of several tribes, tough it`s commonly agreed by every scholar that all the rulers was speaking Turkic and predominant population was the Turks again. If i count Huns too, then our uninterrupted history goes more than 1500 years.

but that it was the result of some HYPOTHETICAL CAUCASIAN Turko-speaking MASS INVASIONS (e.g. from "Pamir", as Petar Dobrev and Co would have us believe)

I repeat; What is HYPOTHETICAL is your theory of 5% "Turko-Mongol" imposing their language to the rest of 95% people in early medieval age without widespread education in today`s sense. Besides, there is not even a single proof of widespread assimilation here while i have dozens for my theory, as i have posted above here. Already, Byzantines wrote nearly everything in their archives. Even the christianized Karamanlides people are noted in Byzantine archives. So, if there would be widespread assimilation in Anatolia, we would surely know this by now from Roman, Arab and Byzantine archives. They even noted down the people they have been assimilated by them. Why they wouldn't write, if Turks would have assimilated all the christians here???

[George S.]

good find onur.Onur you got to admit it indigen kept you on your toes by asking those points.Very good points & valid as well.You can't keep a good man down especially if he's versed in history!

[Lion of Macedon]

This loser on youtube has to be under 18, its a little kid who has not got a clue.

[Ottoman]

A Greek muslim Empire?

When Mehmed II conquered Constantinople he stated many times he had respect for the Byzantine culture and that he would never completely destroy it.

The Ottomans ruled their empire just like the Byzantines ruled theirs, the Greeks who survived the siege adapted into Ottoman life, they were not killed.

After the devşirme system more Greeks became Ottomans this way.

All empires were that way, the Roman Empire was also an empire with many different ethnicities,, they were called Romans not cocktail mix.

[momce]

ahahaha this is funny, yes some claim the English are greeks too hahahaha funny people it leads me more to believe greeks were just a class of crook-magicians petty peddlers changeing things however they wanted