Are tatars or samis more mongoloid?

[MercifulServant]

Are Ukranian and Russian tatars more or less mongoloid then sami people.

[Pizdastratos]

Depends on what was meant by "ukranian tatars". Most of them are crimean tatars which are the sub-ethnic group of turks from Turkey. They are mostly SE meds\mtebids with some turanid influence.
Russian tatars are volga tatars, or volgars, and phenotypically are close to russians and volga finns
I think all of them have only 15-25% of mongoloid ancestry, or even less

[Myanthropologies]

Tatars are diverse. Some show almost no mongoloid, whereas others have like 20%. It's a tough call.

[Leto]

Tatars are diverse. Some show almost no mongoloid, whereas others have like 20%. It's a tough call.
No. All are 15-25% mongoloid. 20% is the average.

[Leto]

Are Ukranian and Russian tatars more or less mongoloid then sami people.
There are no Ukrainian Tatars. There are Crimean Tatars and they are Russian citizens now for the most part and there are Volga aka Kazan Tatars. There are some Volga Tatars in Ukraine who migrated there after WWII.

[Marmara]

Depends on what was meant by "ukranian tatars". Most of them are crimean tatars which are the sub-ethnic group of turks from Turkey. They are mostly SE meds\mtebids with some turanid influence.
Russian tatars are volga tatars, or volgars, and phenotypically are close to russians and volga finns
I think all of them have only 15-25% of mongoloid ancestry, or even less

Crimean Tatars have different history, they aren't subgroup of Anatolian Turks, they got nothing to do with Anatolia unlike Balkan Turks, Meskhitians or Gagauzes.

[Leto]

This man is 3/4 Volga Tatar and apparently 1/4 Russian.
http://ozon-st.cdn.ngenix.net/multimedia/w190/1016533964.JPG

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 33.52
2 Natufian 29.8
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 21.8
4 East_Asian 13.59
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.29

On some other calculators he is 15-16% mongoloid.

Dodecad K12b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_European 46.9
2 Atlantic_Med 16.78
3 Caucasus 10.95
4 Siberian 9.68
5 Gedrosia 7.73
6 East_Asian 6.15
7 South_Asian 1.52
8 Southwest_Asian 0.18
9 Sub_Saharan 0.11

[Pizdastratos]

Crimean Tatars have different history, they aren't subgroup of Anatolian Turks, they got nothing to do with Anatolia unlike Balkan Turks, Meskhitians or Gagauzes.

The population of medieval Taurica was almost the same as in Anatolia: сimmerians, armenians, greeks, caucasians etc. And all of them were assimilated by tatars and ottomans. Old Taurica was a part of the Byzantine Empire and later the Ottoman Empire. Migrations between two peninsulas always had place. Therefore crimeans and anatolians are almost the same, imo

[Böri]

Crimean Tatars of Yalıboylu type (south coast) are Turcoman Oğuz in their origins from medieval era.
They are Oğuz speakers like Turkmens, Azerbaijanis, Anatolian and Balkan Turks, or also the Gagauz.

Seljuks of Rum transferred some Turcomans who arrived to Anatolia in 1230's to south Crimea immediately, after Seljuk fleet took Sudak castle in Crimea.

Most Crimean Tatars are fellow Kypchaks like Kazan Tatars or Turkic North Caucasians (Balkars, Nogays etc) and good part of them are Oğuz Turkmen in their roots.

[Marmara]

The population of medieval Taurica was almost the same as in Anatolia: сimmerians, armenians, greeks, caucasians etc. And all of them were assimilated by tatars and ottomans. Old Taurica was a part of the Byzantine Empire and later the Ottoman Empire. Migrations between two peninsulas always had place. Therefore crimeans and anatolians are almost the same, imo

Anatolian Turks are Oghuz Turks while Crimean Tatars are Kipchaks, they arrived with the mongol conquest and Crimean Khanate was found after the dissolution of Golden Horde, so Crimean Tatars aren't from Turkey. Crimean Tatars and Anatolians aren't the same we have Crimean Tatars in Turkey they look distinct, much more Mongoloid than an usual Turk. We had one in my school he had slanted eyes. Not all of them have slanted eyes but they still have much more Mongoloid on average.

[Böri]

Anatolian Turks are Oghuz Turks while Crimean Tatars are Kipchaks, they arrived with the mongol conquest and Crimean Khanate was found after the dissolution of Golden Horde, so Crimean Tatars aren't from Turkey. Crimean Tatars and Anatolians aren't the same we have Crimean Tatars in Turkey they look distinct, much more Mongoloid than an usual Turk. We had one in my school he had slanted eyes. Not all of them have slanted eyes but they still have much more Mongoloid on average.

Hell.
You talk nonsense.
Yalıboylu Crimean Tatars are Oğuz Turks.
The half south of the Crimean Peninsula are Oğuz.

[Böri]

Eurovision contest winner Jamala, who sang for Ukraine a song in half-English half-Turkic language.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCG2rw4ZXTY

The Turkic part of her song is Yalıboylu type Tatar language (Strongly Oğuz with Kypchak).

It's why that is mutually intelligible (96%) with Turkish language from Turkey.

[Leto]

The Crimean samples I've seen so far were all over 20% mongoloid and the percentage of Baltic and that kind of stuff was higher than that of Anatolian Turks.

[Marmara]

Hell.
You talk nonsense.
Yalıboylu Crimean Tatars are Oğuz Turks.
The half south of the Crimean Peninsula are Oğuz.

Okay so some of them are Oghuz

[Seya]

tatars here look central asian...but volga tatars don't look asian at all to my eyes.

[Pizdastratos]

Anatolian Turks are Oghuz Turks while Crimean Tatars are Kipchaks, they arrived with the mongol conquest and Crimean Khanate was found after the dissolution of Golden Horde, so Crimean Tatars aren't from Turkey. Crimean Tatars and Anatolians aren't the same we have Crimean Tatars in Turkey they look distinct, much more Mongoloid than an usual Turk. We had one in my school he had slanted eyes. Not all of them have slanted eyes but they still have much more Mongoloid on average.
I'm not saying they are from Turkey. But I put forward here the crimeans and the anatolians have identical ancient and medieval origin before turkic invasions. And language doesn't matter at all, but southern crimeans speak an Oghuz dialect if it's so important to you.
The fact that crimeans look a bit different is just illustrative of how densely populated Anatolia was and population of it was able to absorb mongoloid element far more successfully

[Böri]

Seljuk conquest of southern Crimea and later, Mongol favouring of Turks:


So let us summarize the story:
when Slavs of Kievan Rus defeated Khazars in alliance with Byzantines and some Turkic tribes east of Khazars, the Slavic and Italian colonist people became more prominent in southern Ukraine and Crimea. Things changed when Batu Khan founded the Golden Horde and started to invade Eastern Europe. He favored Turkic groups against Slavs. Berke who became great Khan after him converted and then Seljuk Sultan of Rum married his daughter to him. In return, Berke favored and even called Anatolian Turks (Oghuz or Turkmen tribal peoples) settle in Crimea and south Ukraine.

The Crimean Tatar, Alan W. Fisher, Part One: The Crimean Tatar Khanate, Chapter I: The origins of the Crimean Tatar Khanate
http://i.hizliresim.com/kbM71W.jpg (http://hizliresim.com/kbM71W)
http://i.hizliresim.com/nRb950.jpg (http://hizliresim.com/nRb950)







Okay so some of them are Oghuz

Nowadays you started to bullshit more and more about the history of Turks.
First implying that Yenisei Kyrgyz (people with light features) were not Turkic, then go tell Turks have in common with Levantine people, now come and tell that Crimean Tatars are all separate from Turks.

You are not evolving in the good direction my Kebab friend.

[Marmara]

I'm not saying they are from Turkey. But I put forward here the crimeans and the anatolians have identical ancient and medieval origin before turkic invasions. And language doesn't matter at all, but southern crimeans speak an Oghuz dialect if it's so important to you.
The fact that crimeans look a bit different is just illustrative of how densely populated Anatolia was and population of it was able to absorb mongoloid element far more successfully

Or maybe becasue they arrived with the Mongols, and that is why they're more Mongoloid on average. Oghuz Turks were not that mongoloid even at the beginning, besides, even Yörüks (largely unmixed Oghuz Turks who kept their nomadic tradition for centuries) score less mongoloid. I wasn't aware there were some Oghuz Turks in South Crimea migrated from Anatolia so now i'm in doubt, those Crimeans must be much more Turkish-looking on average.

Anatolia absorbed enough Turkic to make a distinction, Kipchaks and Oghuzes are two seperate people don't get confused.

[Marmara]

Seljuk conquest of southern Crimea and later, Mongol favouring of Turks:









Nowadays you started to bullshit more and more about the history of Turks.
First implying that Yenisei Kyrgyz (people with light features) were not Turkic, then go tell Turks have in common with Levantine people, now come and tell that Crimean Tatars are all separate from Turks.

You are not evolving in the good direction my Kebab friend.

I didn't say Yenisei Kyrgyzs weren't Turkic, i said they had heavy IE component. Are red head and blue eyes Turkic features? It's a fact Turks were middle-easternized even before arriving to Anatolia, and lately i was making something clear, some might have guessed that the Crimean Tatars are just Ottoman settlers.

[Böri]

I didn't say Yenisei Kyrgyzs weren't Turkic, i said they had heavy IE component. Are red head and blue eyes Turkic features? It's a fact Turks were middle-easternized even before arriving to Anatolia, and lately i was making something clear, some might have guessed that the Crimean Tatars are just Ottoman settlers.

Red hair and blue eyes are patented Indo-European features? Turkic and especially Finno-Ugric people, along with Caucasians can have such features.
What middle Easternization?
We crushed Arabs in early 8th century in Sogdiana and pushed them back. Turkic victories over Arab armies brought the end of Umeyyad rule, preparing ground for Abbasid revolts.

The only Middle eastern thing about us back then and now it's the religion. And got it from Khorasani Iranics not MENA's. Sort of people like Tajiks.
Now extinct.

It's not for you to teach us online who we are or so.

Actually we have nothing to do with Syrians or Lebanese, while we have almost all in common with Crimean Tatars.
Better not commenting on stuff you don't know, like we have seen in the previous page.

Wise person is he who doesnt talk about what he knows not.

[Marmara]

Red hair and blue eyes are patented Indo-European features? Turkic and especially Finno-Ugric people, along with Caucasians can have such features.
What middle Easternization?
We crushed Arabs in early 8th century in Sogdiana and pushed them back. Turkic victories over Arab armies brought the end of Umeyyad rule, preparing ground for Abbasid revolts.

The only Middle eastern thing about us back then and now it's the religion. And got it from Khorasani Iranics not MENA's. Sort of people like Tajiks.
Now extinct.

It's not for you to teach us online who we are or so.

Actually we have nothing to do with Syrians or Lebanese, while we have almost all in common with Crimean Tatars.
Better not commenting on stuff you don't know, like we have seen in the previous page.

Wise person is he who doesnt talk about what he knows not.

Red Hair/Blue eyes is definetly not an East Asian trait, Finno-Ugrics might have them because they lived near Proto-IEs and traded some vocabulary while Turkics lived near Mongolics and traded words with them. Almost all Turkics today are partially Caucasoid, you can't claim Turkics have always been partially Caucasoids that doesn't make sense. Embrace the partial Scythian ancestry (like Yenisei Kyrgys), (you would probably claim Scythians were Turkic instead) Persian culture, subsequently Tajik culture is also Middle-Eastern. İran is actually the centre of Middle-Eastern culture, not Arabia. I've claimed that there is some cultural similarity with Levantines, we have of course much more similarity with Crimeans and also ethnicially related, unlike Levantines who are ethnicially unrelated. You better don't read with your ass.

[Pizdastratos]

Or maybe becasue they arrived with the Mongols, and that is why they're more Mongoloid on average. Oghuz Turks were not that mongoloid even at the beginning, besides, even Yörüks (largely unmixed Oghuz Turks who kept their nomadic tradition for centuries) score less mongoloid. I wasn't aware there were some Oghuz Turks in South Crimea migrated from Anatolia so now i'm in doubt, those Crimeans must be much more Turkish-looking on average.
Anatolia absorbed enough Turkic to make a distinction, Kipchaks and Oghuzes are two seperate people don't get confused.

You didn't know anything about Oghuz Crimeans, but still keep saying that crimeans more mongoloid. Where is the logic?
All ancient and medieval turks were between europid and mongoloid phenotypically, and Mongols of 12th c. had nothing to do with this.
The Byzantines erased every mongoloid trace of the turkic invaders in Anatolia and in Crimea. And if you think that anatolians turks less mongoloid, therefore they are less turkic

[Böri]

Red Hair/Blue eyes is definetly not an East Asian trait, Finno-Ugrics might have them because they lived near Proto-IEs and traded some vocabulary while Turkics lived near Mongolics and traded words with them. Almost all Turkics today are partially Caucasoid, you can't claim Turkics have always been partially Caucasoids that doesn't make sense. Embrace the partial Scythian ancestry (like Yenisei Kyrgys), (you would probably claim Scythians were Turkic instead) Persian culture, subsequently Tajik culture is also Middle-Eastern. İran is actually the centre of Middle-Eastern culture, not Arabia. I've claimed that there is some cultural similarity with Levantines, we have of course much more similarity with Crimeans and also ethnicially related, unlike Levantines who are ethnicially unrelated. You better don't read with your ass.

Come on Arab.
Firstly there is no We, obviously. Turks aren't Arab or Middle Eastern. Neither East Asian.
Yes I can claim Turks were always partly Europoid. All Turkic populations are part Europoid today, including Samoyed-influenced Yakuts.
Turkic uhreimat was between Mongols and Tungus in the east part, and the Uralic peoples in the west.
And there was always a certain part of the population who had light features, since Day 1 among Turks.

Scythians weren't an ethnicity. It was generic name Herodotes gave to all nomads of the steppes. People from the nomadic lifestyle were referred to as Scythians. Later, during middle Ages even Mongols were referred to as Scythians by Europeans or by Byzantines.

Persian culture has its root in PIE Iranic people. They brought the language and the old fire cult.
MENA is Arabian and Semitic dominated. The Iranic trait was brought by IE expansion. Not indigenous.

Turks have had nothing to do with Middle Eastern Arab/Syrian (Umayyad) invaders of Central Asia.
Turgesh crushed them and pushed them to west of Oxus and Jaxartes.
Later we dominated Arabs for centuries :thumb001:

Arabs only dominated Iranic part of Central Asia, their armies failed once they approached Turks.

[greasycaveman]

tatars here look central asian...but volga tatars don't look asian at all to my eyes.

I have a question. are you stupid? https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?230995-Tatar-music&highlight=tatar+music
atleast do a tiny bit of research before you spout nonsense.

[greasycaveman]

I made a classify thread for these two, and people said kumid, aralid, asiatic alpine etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=X6rxg7irn3I

[Visitor_22]

Tatars being 'Mongoloid' is MYTH!


Blond Tatar girl Asya with a Russian girl


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKYJI09X-Zs


Asya with Ukranian girl


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SebX4X8E39Y

[greasycaveman]

Tatars being 'Mongoloid' is MYTH!


Blond Tatar girl Asya with a Russian girl



lmao, stop spouting nosense.
take a look at my tatar song thread.
then say that as a whole, tatars have no mongoloid influence.
are you being OWD making tatars look like they are european or something?

[Leto]

Volga Tatars are very diverse. Some look Russian or almost Russian, some kind of more Finnic/Uralic, some look Central Asian, but not as dark as Uzbeks and some even look West Asian or Turkish. Of course you can find various combinations of all those phenotypes. It's a fact that Volga Tatars absorbed many Mordvins and Chuvash in the past. However, we don't know what the early Volga Bulgars looked like. Probably they were similar to Nogais. The Mongol impact in Volga Tatars is rather small, although definitely more significant than in Russians.

[Visitor_22]

lmao, stop spouting nosense.
take a look at my tatar song thread.
then say that as a whole, tatars have no mongoloid influence.
are you being OWD making tatars look like they are european or something?

Kazan Tatars have 2-3% Mongoloid genes on average.

How is that Mongoloid?

[Leto]

lmao, stop spouting nosense.
take a look at my tatar song thread.
then say that as a whole, tatars have no mongoloid influence.
are you being OWD making tatars look like they are european or something?
They are at least 75% caucasoid, son. Many are over 80%. And their caucasoid part is definitely more WHG/EHG than CHG Look at this actress - her look is quite common:
https://img.joinfo.ua/i/2017/10/59d0f5d86267c.jpg

[Leto]

Kazan Tatars have 2-3% Mongoloid genes on average.

How is that Mongoloid?
Lol, no. 20% is the average. 2-3% is not even the Russian average, which is more like 5%.

[Böri]

Kazan Tatars have 2-3% Mongoloid genes on average.

How is that Mongoloid?

Kazan Tatars 18-20% Siberian + NE Asian genes.
Chuvash 22%. Bashkirs 35%.

That's how it is for North Turkic groups.

[greasycaveman]

Kazan Tatars have 2-3% Mongoloid genes on average.

How is that Mongoloid?

lmao. volga tatars, i have seen dna tests that have 15 to 25 % central asian dna. how can you be such bullshit.
fck, the gedmatch calculators, sometimes see if a percent has 15%+ central asian dna, as a marker for tatar.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/
stop being so owd. i am russian with lots of volga ancestry, and i have seen them. and i think i would know more than central asian people about my own people.

[greasycaveman]

fuck even i dont consider my self european, because i have a few percent mongol, you can obviously see how it affects my phenotype.

[Leto]

Kazan Tatars 18-20% Siberian + NE Asian genes.
Chuvash 22%. Bashkirs 35%.

That's how it is for North Turkic groups.
Bashkirs are more like 40% mong on average. But they do range from 35 to 45% or so.

[Leto]

fuck even i dont consider my self european, because i have a few percent mongol, you can obviously see how it affects my phenotype.
Lol, the phenotype is not everything, you are more caucasoid than myself. You are only 2% Asian.

[Pizdastratos]

However, we don't know what the early Volga Bulgars looked like. Probably they were similar to Nogais.

Volga bulgarians had the same phenotypes as modern volgars - pontids, north pontids, east baltids, uraloids and transitoinal between them

[Marmara]

Come on Arab.
Firstly there is no We, obviously. Turks aren't Arab or Middle Eastern. Neither East Asian.
Yes I can claim Turks were always partly Europoid. All Turkic populations are part Europoid today, including Samoyed-influenced Yakuts.
Turkic uhreimat was between Mongols and Tungus in the east part, and the Uralic peoples in the west.
And there was always a certain part of the population who had light features, since Day 1 among Turks.

Scythians weren't an ethnicity. It was generic name Herodotes gave to all nomads of the steppes. People from the nomadic lifestyle were referred to as Scythians. Later, during middle Ages even Mongols were referred to as Scythians by Europeans or by Byzantines.

Persian culture has its root in PIE Iranic people. They brought the language and the old fire cult.
MENA is Arabian and Semitic dominated. The Iranic trait was brought by IE expansion. Not indigenous.

Turks have had nothing to do with Middle Eastern Arab/Syrian (Umayyad) invaders of Central Asia.
Turgesh crushed them and pushed them to west of Oxus and Jaxartes.
Later we dominated Arabs for centuries :thumb001:

Arabs only dominated Iranic part of Central Asia, their armies failed once they approached Turks.

Okay so what exactly are you arguing about? Middle-East or West Asia is a region, it doesn't indicate a race or language. I said all Middle-Easterners have the Iranic influence which defines the Middle-Eastern culture group. The Turkic Islamic empires all copied the Persians, employed them as statesmen. I don't know why it hurts your feelings. By Scythians I meant East Iranid steppe nomads of Central Asia.

[Leto]

Volga bulgarians had the same phenotypes as modern volgars - pontids, north pontids, east baltids, uraloids and transitoinal between them
I doubt. Volga Tatars have a lot of Finnic blood.

[Böri]

Okay so what exactly are you arguing about? Middle-East or West Asia is a region, it doesn't indicate a race or language. I said all Middle-Easterners have the Iranic influence which defines the Middle-Eastern culture group. The Turkic Islamic empires all copied the Persians, employed them as statesmen. I don't know why it hurts your feelings. By Scythians I meant East Iranid steppe nomads of Central Asia.

East Iranid was farming civilization around Samarkand, Bukhara, Kwharizm. They were agriculturalists.
Not really nomads.
Nomads were Turkic people.

When Arabs arrived in Central Asia they invaded these Iranic farmers who practiced Zoroastrianism. Not Turks.

Once Arabs became neighbors to Turks, many wars were fought and Turks actually crushed Arabs. Arabian expansion was stopped around the easternmost Iranian (Sogdian) settled civilization.

https://i.hizliresim.com/G9p1vV.jpg

Arab armies sent to Sogdian farming Semerkand ambushed by Turks

https://i.hizliresim.com/z02ErB.jpg

When you see Russians or so here talking about Iranians, it's old Iranic people. They imagine them like modern Russians.
Not Middle Easterners.

Just for information..

[Pahli]

Come on Arab.
Firstly there is no We, obviously. Turks aren't Arab or Middle Eastern. Neither East Asian.
Yes I can claim Turks were always partly Europoid. All Turkic populations are part Europoid today, including Samoyed-influenced Yakuts.
Turkic uhreimat was between Mongols and Tungus in the east part, and the Uralic peoples in the west.
And there was always a certain part of the population who had light features, since Day 1 among Turks.

Scythians weren't an ethnicity. It was generic name Herodotes gave to all nomads of the steppes. People from the nomadic lifestyle were referred to as Scythians. Later, during middle Ages even Mongols were referred to as Scythians by Europeans or by Byzantines.

Persian culture has its root in PIE Iranic people. They brought the language and the old fire cult.
MENA is Arabian and Semitic dominated. The Iranic trait was brought by IE expansion. Not indigenous.

Turks have had nothing to do with Middle Eastern Arab/Syrian (Umayyad) invaders of Central Asia.
Turgesh crushed them and pushed them to west of Oxus and Jaxartes.
Later we dominated Arabs for centuries :thumb001:

Arabs only dominated Iranic part of Central Asia, their armies failed once they approached Turks.

1. Turks were almost 100% Mongoloid, barely any Caucasoid components (that came from Scythians that mixed with you, so they weren't "light" neither Europoid, its all nomadic Iranic influence)
2. Ironically Arabs defeated the Turkic tribes of Central Asia lol and you converted to Islam, you are just talking shit out of your ass xD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Transoxiana
3. My steppe input is low (12 - 15%) and yet I can physically fit in Europe lol, I don't need to be LIGHT EUROPOID TURKISH topkek xD xD xD

[Böri]

Anthro forums are full with ignorant autistic retards.

Arabs invaded which Turks you dimwits? Which tribes?
Answer is none.

Back then Turks were all nomadic, it was impossible to invade Turks.

During 8th century, Arabs invaded settled agriculturalists of Central Asia. That means IRANIC ones.
Where were the legendary Iranic nomads? Wait... They didn't exist LOL
It's said Arabs killed their Zoroastrian priests and forced them into the religion :)

Khazars in Caucasus and Turgesh in modern East Iranic border region (Uzbek-Tajik axis) stopped the Arabs.

Arabs owned Iranians.:thumb001:
And Arabs failed to defeat Turks.

[Pahli]

Anthro forums are full with ignorant autistic retards.

Arabs invaded which Turks you dimwits? Which tribes?
Answer is none.

Back then Turks were all nomadic, it was impossible to invade Turks.

Arabs invaded settled agriculturalists of Central Asia. That means IRANIC ones.
It's said Arabs killed their Zoroastrian priests and forced them into the religion :)

Khazars in Caucasus and Turgesh in modern East Iranic border region (Uzbek-Tajik axis) stopped the Arabs.

Arabs owned Iranians.:thumb001:
And Arabs failed to defeat Turks.

They didn't because the Iranians overpowered them and established their own empires you fucking moron, you are the autistic retard. Your Turkic tribes were defeated and converted to Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Transoxiana

Read it you retard.

The Iranians actually are the winners, you learned our language and culture, and you're talking as if you are not muslim, almost all Turkic people today are muslim too lol xD

Result
Muslim victory

Islamization of Transoxiana
Spread of Islam amongst the Turkic peoples

[Böri]

Butthurt :)
Which Turkic people? None.

Turkic people were all nomads. Once invader approaches... Army sent to hit-and-run... scorched earth policy... water points poisoned so they feel thirst...
No way to invade nomads back then.


https://i.hizliresim.com/G9p1vV.jpg

Arabs invaded central Asia's Iranians xD
They only occupied Zoroastrian, agriculturalist, farming Iranic people.

Anyone claiming anything else can bring proof.

[Marmara]

East Iranid was farming civilization around Samarkand, Bukhara, Kwharizm. They were agriculturalists.
Not really nomads.
Nomads were Turkic people.

When Arabs arrived in Central Asia they invaded these Iranic farmers who practiced Zoroastrianism. Not Turks.

Once Arabs became neighbors to Turks, many wars were fought and Turks actually crushed Arabs. Arabian expansion was stopped around the easternmost Iranian (Sogdian) settled civilization.

https://i.hizliresim.com/G9p1vV.jpg

Arab armies sent to Sogdian farming Semerkand ambushed by Turks

https://i.hizliresim.com/z02ErB.jpg

When you see Russians or so here talking about Iranians, it's old Iranic people. They imagine them like modern Russians.
Not Middle Easterners.

Just for information..

So? That's what I exactly meant. I mean the East Iranids speaking East Iranian languages who were steppe nomads like Sarmatians or Alans, not Bactrians or Middle-Easterners. You seem to misinterpret my words intentionally. I also have never claimed Turks lost war against Arabs or anything so no idea why you post Turkish-Arab wars.

[Pahli]

Butthurt :)
Which Turkic people? None.

Turkic people were all nomads. Once invader approaches... Army sent to hit-and-run... scorched earth policy... water points poisoned so they feel thirst...
No way to invade nomads back then.


https://i.hizliresim.com/G9p1vV.jpg

Arabs invaded central Asia's Iranians xD
They only occupied Zoroastrian, agriculturalist, farming Iranic people.

Anyone claiming anything else can bring proof.

But but they lost battles and became muslim? Where's muh tengri pride? :(
They even massacred Turkic refugees in Central Asia, you have no idea about history lol.

[Böri]

In Turkey, some of the marginal Islamists and Wahabbi lovers brainwash people. They have pro-Arab agenda.

So they tell people Arabs brought Islam to Turks in Central Asia. Through love and Peace :)
They actually brought it to Iranians well not through missionary activities but with swords xD Slaying their Zoroastrian priests etc (Qutaiba Bin Muslim).

When Arabs tried to invade Turks with their armies, the Turks crushed them.
Later centuries Arabs were removed but they succeeded in converting local Iranics and those produced a few missionaries who spread Islam among Turkic tribes.

Still...
Seljuk Bey whose sons created Turkey and Turkish nation had converted to Islam very late... 985 AD.
230 years after Turks stopped Arabs in eastern most Iranic farming regions of Central Asia :)

When Franks stopped invading Arabs at Tours, Turks had already stopped Arabs in Caucasus (Marj Ardabil - Khazar victory) and in Central Asia (Day of Thirst and Battle of Pass - Turgesh victories).

It's like an interesting turn of the fate later Turks, by their own will and not during an invasion, turned Muslim.


So? That's what I exactly meant. I mean the East Iranids speaking East Iranian languages who were steppe nomads like Sarmatians or Alans, not Bactrians or Middle-Easterners. You seem to misinterpret my words intentionally. I also have never claimed Turks lost war against Arabs or anything so no idea why you post Turkish-Arab wars.

Well... what you meant doesn't matter. I mean don't mind, man. After all you are someone who learnt today south Crimeans were Oğuz

[Pizdastratos]

I doubt. Volga Tatars have a lot of Finnic blood.

So what? Kyrgyz ppl have a lot of slavic aryan blood.

[Pahli]

So what? Kyrgyz ppl have a lot of slavic aryan blood.

They don't, they are mostly Mongoloid

[spik]

fuck even i dont consider my self european, because i have a few percent mongol, you can obviously see how it affects my phenotype.

Also, your black haired father affects your looks.

[Kamal900]

In Turkey, some of the marginal Islamists and Wahabbi lovers brainwash people. They have pro-Arab agenda.

So they tell people Arabs brought Islam to Turks in Central Asia. Through love and Peace :)
They actually brought it to Iranians well not through missionary activities but with swords xD Slaying their Zoroastrian priests etc (Qutaiba Bin Muslim).

When Arabs tried to invade Turks with their armies, the Turks crushed them.
Later centuries Arabs were removed but they succeeded in converting local Iranics and those produced a few missionaries who spread Islam among Turkic tribes.

Still...
Seljuk Bey whose sons created Turkey and Turkish nation had converted to Islam very late... 985 AD.
230 years after Turks stopped Arabs in eastern most Iranic farming regions of Central Asia :)

When Franks stopped invading Arabs at Tours, Turks had already stopped Arabs in Caucasus (Marj Ardabil - Khazar victory) and in Central Asia (Day of Thirst and Battle of Pass - Turgesh victories).

It's like an interesting turn of the fate later Turks, by their own will and not during an invasion, turned Muslim.



Well... what you meant doesn't matter. I mean don't mind, man. After all you are someone who learnt today south Crimeans were Oğuz

Well, it was the Iranians who converted your lot to Islam, not us, and your people adopted many Persian cultural aspects and etc since the Seljuk empire was a Turko-Persianate empire and all that. There's a difference between Turk and Turkic in our modern times, and Anatolian Turks are mostly descendants of the local west Asiatic Anatolian groups that were later mixed with the Seljuk migrants of Anatolia back in the 11th century AD, so your not fully Turkic genetically as in the case for most Turkic peoples of Asia and Europe.

[Leto]

So what? Kyrgyz ppl have a lot of slavic aryan blood.
Slavic? 0%. Aryan is not Slavic. Aryan = Indo-Iranian.

[Böri]

Well, it was the Iranians who converted your lot to Islam, not us, and your people adopted many Persian cultural aspects and etc since the Seljuk empire was a Turko-Persianate empire and all that. There's a difference between Turk and Turkic in our modern times, and Anatolian Turks are mostly descendants of the local west Asiatic Anatolian groups that were later mixed with the Seljuk migrants of Anatolia back in the 11th century AD, so your not fully Turkic genetically as in the case for most Turkic peoples of Asia and Europe.

Persian, Sogdian, Khwarezmian MISSIONARIES converted Turks to Islam back then. It's not like they conquered Turks and pushed a religion on Turks.
Missionaries were modest people, deeply believer, not seeking lands or captives like Arabs were.
They converted the elites of Turks and that's how it happened.

You Palestinians weren't Arab. Arabs arabized you after Yarmouk battle of 630s. When they took Levant from Byzantines through military conquest.
Yo know commander Khalid Ibn Walid. That anti-Muslim Arab who defeated the Prophet's army with his cavalry offensive at Uhud battle, injuring him. But who later became Muslim commander and hero of Arabs.

Actually even real Arabs from Arab peninsula were Islamized after being conquered militarily by the Muslim minority which arose from among them. :)
Turks are big exception.

[Pahli]

Persian, Sogdian, Khwarezmian MISSIONARIES converted Turks to Islam back then. It's not like they conquered Turks and pushed a religion on Turks.
Missionaries were modest people, deeply believer, not seeking lands or captives like Arabs were.
They converted the elites of Turks and that's how it happened.

You Palestinians weren't Arab. Arabs arabized you after Yarmouk battle of 630s. When they took Levant from Byzantines through military conquest.
Yo know commander Khalid Ibn Walid. That anti-Muslim Arab who defeated the Prophet's army with his cavalry offensive at Uhud battle, injuring him. But who later became Muslim commander and hero of Arabs.

Actually even real Arabs from Arab peninsula were Islamized after being conquered militarily by the Muslim minority which arose from among them. :)
Turks are big exception.

Turks are not invincible, you are not some kind of gods lol. Taken into the fact that pre-Islamic Persia destroyed Turks on numerous occasions :)

[Böri]

Turks are not invincible, you are not some kind of gods lol. Taken into the fact that pre-Islamic Persia destroyed Turks on numerous occasions :)

Mongols defeated us and ruled over Turkic tribes. 1243.
But we also ruled over them in b4. Xiongnu and Turkic khaganate ruled over Mongols.

Russians were very close to conquer worldwide all Turks but didn't work (like they were ruled by Golden Horde).

So never pretended to be gods. Turks are human too.

But the question... How a people converted to a religion... That's not a detail or simple conquest... Because spirituality is involved.

[Kamal900]

Persian, Sogdian, Khwarezmian MISSIONARIES converted Turks to Islam back then. It's not like they conquered Turks and pushed a religion on Turks.
Missionaries were modest people, deeply believer, not seeking lands or captives like Arabs were.
They converted the elites of Turks and that's how it happened.

You Palestinians weren't Arab. Arabs arabized you after Yarmouk battle of 630s. When they took Levant from Byzantines through military conquest.
Yo know commander Khalid Ibn Walid. That anti-Muslim Arab who defeated the Prophet's army with his cavalry offensive at Uhud battle, injuring him. But who later became Muslim commander and hero of Arabs.

Actually even real Arabs from Arab peninsula were Islamized after being conquered militarily by the Muslim minority which arose from among them. :)
Turks are big exception.

I am aware of this fact, yes. I mean, Palestinians and other Muslim Levantines genetically are mixed between local Levantines, Arabians, North Africans and even west Asian migrants that came to the Levant in the middle ages like Kurds and Persians. I'm not in denial of it like you people do. And yes, being an Arab is an ethno-linguistic affiliation as in the case for all linguistic groups including Iranian and Turkic groups. Well, it depends. I mean, during the Abbasid period of the early middle ages, Persian culture was ironically blossomed during that time period, and Persians were not looked down upon back then where even Arabic Caliphs like Harun Ar-Rashid even said that we Arabs couldn't live a single day without the Persians just how influential the Persians were during that time. Turkic peoples back in Central Asia adopted Islam and Persian culture during the spread of Abbasid influence in central and south Asia, and yes, many of the Sufi missionaries were Arabs with some being Persians. The Kipchaks converted to Islam during the Mamluki period where many of the Mamluki slaves were Kipchak Turks rather than Oghuz ones. The Oghuric Turks of the Volga region had converted to Islam much earlier than most Turkic peoples, and Ahmed ibn Al-Fadlan was sent to the Volga region in the 10th century AD to bring to the Bulgaric Muslim king the money and resources to build his castle which he was stripped out by the Turkic bandits of Turkmenistan since the Khazars didn't allow the Muslims to pass through the Caucasus to the Volga region directly. At that time, the Oghuz Turks didn't reach places like Azerbaijan or Anatolia, and the people of Azerbaijan used to speak an Iranian language called the Azari language before the Turkification of Azerbaijan and beyond in the 11th century AD. Yes, which is unfortunate considering that we Arabs and other Arabians like the Sabaeans and Himyarites had our own culture and heritage.

[Böri]

Guys to summarize... All of you were Islamized after military conquest and Bedouins owning you militarily :)
All Iranics (only exception being Ossetians who were under Khazar influence zone).
Some of you were also Arabized, Iranians weren't though.

Even among real Arabs that's how it worked.
I think only Medina Arabs became Muslim without military involved. Mecca Arabs were Islamized after military conquest too. Mecca was Arab heathen stronghold. They were crushed through military conquest.

With the Turks it happened differently.
Missionary activities.
Bulgars were first to be officially Muslim with Ibn Fadlan partaking in ceremony in 922. Shortly later, the Turkic warlords who took Khwarizm and Sogdiana (where Arabs have been during 8th to 9th centuries).
Oğuz it's later, very end of 10th century and early 11th century.

[Kamal900]

Guys to summarize... All of you were Islamized after military conquest and Bedouins owning you militarily :)
All Iranics (only exception being Ossetians who were under Khazar influence zone).
Some of you were also Arabized, Iranians weren't though.

Even among real Arabs that's how it worked.
I think only Medina Arabs willingly became Muslim. Mecca Arabs were Islamized after military conquest too. Mecca was Arab heathen stronghold. They were crushed through military conquest.

With the Turks it happened differently.
Missionary activities.
Bulgars were first. Shortly later, the Turkic warlords who took Khwarizm and Sogdiana (where Arabs have been during 8th to 9th centuries).
Oğuz it's later, during 10th century.

It's not unique really considering that Bengalis, an eastern Indo-Aryan people that number over 300 million making them the 3rd largest ethnic group in the world after Arabs and Han Chinese, became Muslims after the collpase and destruction of eastern India by Turkic raiders in the 12th century AD. They were converted by Muslim Arab Sufi missionaries which later on managed to converted South-East Asian groups like the Malays and Indonesia into Islam later on. The same is true for eastern Iranic groups like Pashtuns and etc where they got converted by Muslim missionaries during the Abbasid period. The Bactrians and Sogdians became Persianized and becoming modern day Tajiks, and they're the only Persian group that are predominately Sunnis rather than Shi3as.

[greasycaveman]

Also, your black haired father affects your looks.

dude i look tatar or some sort of ural guy, its the hard truth, that im not european.

[greasycaveman]

Lol, the phenotype is not everything, you are more caucasoid than myself. You are only 2% Asian.

lmao, you probably look like a nordic god compared to me. norka has almost 10% asian or something and he looks like a scandinavian

[Leto]

I'm not sure whether most Saami are over 20% East Asian.

[MercifulServant]

lmao, you probably look like a nordic god compared to me. norka has almost 10% asian or something and he looks like a scandinavian

Norka looks finnic.

[MercifulServant]

I'm not sure whether most Saami are over 20% East Asian.

I highly doubt that they are 20 and also I guess it depends which sami they seem to be varied