Talk:Khwarezmian Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khwarezmian Empire article.
Khwarezmian Empire is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

[edit] Turkmen

Khwarezm is a Turkmen Empire. Northern Turkmens had war with Southern Turkmens (Seljuks) and Northern Turkmens built this state. It is not Persian or Iranian.

[edit] Others

The origin of the dynasty is unknown. Anush-Tegin is not a Turkic name, but of Persian origin. It means prince Anush - Anush is a Persian name while Tegin is a Turkish title.

 According to a legend, the name Anush was for one of the first people in the Earth, who was a son of Shith and grandson 
 of Adam (look: Abu Hanifa ad-Dinawari, p. 3). Khusraw I Anushirwan had been named anushak-ruban, what means in Pahlawi 
 “of Immortal Spirit”. His son with his Chriatian wife had been named Anusha-zadh, i.e. the descendent of Anusha. 
 Look: Browne E.G. A Literary History of Persia, pр. 107, 135, 181, 168. The same name had the ancestor of Khwarizmshahs 
 dynasty Anush-tegin Garcha’i (ruled in 1077 - 1097). Look: Buniyatov Z.M. Gosudarstvo khorezmshahov-Anushteginidov, p. 223.


Is this opposition to the Turkic origin of the Khwarezmian rulers based upon nothing more than the fact that the dynasty's founder had a Persian name? /The Phoenix 09:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed important. We are talking about 1000 years ago in Central-Asia. The name "Anoush" is a Zoroastrian name. It is implausible that islamized Turkish nomads had zoroastrian names. The ending "tegin" is a title, like "Khan" or "Beg". Besides that, the dynasty was Persian-speaking. The Khwarizm-Shahs are known for their interest in Persian language and culture. Some the greatest poets of Persian literature lived during Khwarizmid rule, like Rumi (who was a descendant of the Khwarizm-Shahs), Hafiz or Sa'adi. Anything else except a Persian heritage would not make sense. The Seljuqs were not Persian-speaking, but this dynasty was. I think we should at least state that their heritage is not known. Other Encyclopaedias do not mention their heritage (like the Encylopaedia Britannica).

When i was a little girl i read a book which took place in Khorezm Empire. It's like a fairy tale and cought me with it's magic. Since then i wanted to go to Urganj to see the Tilali Garden (i found out that it's still lies under the ground in Turkmenistan and old palace of Jelal Ed Din is not excavated yet).

I was looking for something about the woman called Turkan Hatun. I wanted to now more about the characters in the book and i learned a lot about Jelal Ed Din, Muhamed II... But data i found about her were very confusing.

According to that book, she was very cruel, ruled the great Khorezm Empire and she was a mother of shah Muhamed II, grand mother of a brave prince Jelal Ed Din but not very fond of him. She promoted the people of Kipchak but majority in Khorezm were Turkmenian. There was also mentioned very brave turkmen hero Kara Konchar and his maid... And that lasted untill Mongols conquered Khorezm 1221.

But now i found the information that she lived centuries ago and she was a wife of Sultan Melikshah who died in 1092.

As my country was under the Osman Empire for 500 years and their language had a great influence, i am aware that Turkan Hatun was not her real name, it's more like Turkish Lady and probably was used to describe more than one woman who had ipmact to the history of muslim people.

I would really apreciate if you know something about the Turkan Hatun who lived in Khorezm or where to find something about her.

Thanks a lot. Boka

[edit] Turkish name

I do not understand why certain users want to add the Turkish spelling to the article?! The Khwarizm Shahs had nothing to do with Turkey. First of all, Turkey did not exist at that time. And besides that, the Khwarizm Shahs never ruled over Anatolia. They were a dynasty in Central Asia of unknown origin.

Adding the Turkish name of the Khwarizm Shahs to the article is just like adding the Polish, Italian, and Swahili name of the kingdom to the article. The Anatolian Turkish name was neither used by the Khwarizm Shahs themselvs, nor does it have any support in scholarly sources.

Tājik 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I liked the Italian name :)) Polish was ok too I suppose.. Look, even one of the Iranica refs cited is refed to the work of a Turkish scholar.. You cannot deny that it is not of interest to Turkish/Turkic/Turk/Disneyland to the point that it cannot have the Turkish name up there. Baristarim 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Iranica mentions Turkish scholars, but not a Turkish name. Neither does your favourite source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Many historians work on the history of Khwarizm Shahs, most of all because they played an important role during the Mongol conquests. Most of those scholars are Europeans and Americans. But this does not mean that every single European or American language has to be mentioned in the article. The Khwarizm Shahs had nothing to do with Anatolia or Anatolia's history, and they certainly have nothing to do with the history of Turkey or with the Turkish language.
Tājik 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have preferred the name and transliteration of Central Asian Turkic, however since that seems to be lacking, I think that this name could stay until such a name could be found... That's all.. Baristarim 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A Central Asian Turkic name does not exist, because at the time of the Khwarizm Shahs, their Persian title "Khwarizm Shah" was universial. I really do not understand why you want to push for a name that neither existed 800 years ago not had any importance for the Shahs themselvs or for their subjects. Besides that, you can't just push for another member of a language family only because translations of certain others are not available. This is like proposing an Indian, Persian, or Welsh translation for a medieval German name ... it's nonsense!
"Harizmsahlar" is a MODERN translation that did NOT exist in the past. It's ONLY used in modern Turkish literature and should ONLY be used in the Turkish Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia (may I remind you that you persist on the name "Ak Koyunlu" because you say that this "is the English Wikipedia", although it's original Turkic version "Aq Qoyunlu" existed in the past and is the better spelling) and ONLY the English name as well as the ORIGINAL Persian name should be mentioned. Everything else is simply translations to other languages and has no importance.
Tājik 11:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about the Ak Koyunlu comparison, however we are not talking about the title of the article. The current title should of course stay, I am not saying the Turkish name should be used for it. We are talking about a minor edition in the intro.. Baristarim 11:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter. The Turkish translation does not have any importance, especially not in the English Wikipedia. The current title is correct, and only the Persian original should be given. Tājik 12:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove the part about their origins.. It is more than important to be mentioned in the intro to the uninformed reader.. Nobody is going to that other article to look for it.. Most other similar articles mention such origin info, why are you removing them here? Just because they were Turkic? I am sorry, but that's bad faith.. Baristarim 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you are proving that you lack the ability to understand. If you had payed attention, you would have had realised that I actually removed that paragraph, because their Turkic origin is NOT disputed in mainstream sources.
I think that 90% of the people are not interested in their ethnic background, and especially not in their Turkic ethnic background, because they did not rule in the name of Turks, not had they any influence or some other kind of nationalst involvement in the history of the Turkic peoples. Not even Encyclopaedia Britannica (your favourite source) mentions their ethnic background: [1].
What's important is that the dynasty was started by a former slave, and that it rose out of the chaos that followed Seljuqid decline in Central Asia. It's absolutely unimportant whether Anushtigin was a Turk, a Mongol, a Chinese, or a Brazilian, because his descendants ruled as the "Shahs of Khorezm" and not as the "Turkic rulers of Turkistan". If someone is interested in Anushtigin's background, he can click on the link. The dynasty was certainly not "Turkic", as you claim (and this is indeed bad faith), but only the dynasty's founder was (most likely) of Qipchaq origin.
In the article Mughals we agreed not to mention any ethnic lables, because the Mongolian origin of the dynasy's founder has no importance - the Mughals came from a Mongol background, but they were not Mongol rulers (in contrast to their Gengghizid ancestors).
I do not dispute authoritative sources, such as Iranica, who describe Anushtigin as a Turk. That'S why I have modified the Anush Tigin Gharchai article. But I do dispute POV claims that try to "Turkify" a dynasty that was neither Turkic in language, nor in culture or identity. Tājik 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/h/w/Talk%7EKhwarezmian_Empire_a5e9.html"