Talk:Kangly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kangly 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] Kangly is Pecheneg?

article contains a lot of fringy speculation. So, Kangly is the autonym of the Pechenegs? Then why don't we merge this into the Pechenegs article. dab (𒁳) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point Dab. I remember reading in a few places that the "Kangly" (or Kangju) were either the (Iranian) Sogdians or a Xiongnu people living north of Sogdiana. I'll try to look up that information and see if it can be incorporated into this article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectively disagree with "lot of fringy speculation" speculation. This type of language should not be used, is is demeaning for its user. The references are listed in the article, as well as the main sources, specifically which one is speculative, and on what grounds? In the respect of raising objections, it would be more effective to raise questions about copyright and the like of purely technical nature, like those the editor had done in the past.

As to the identity of Bajanaks with Kangly, their relation is like Australians to England or Greeks to Trabazond, and would make as much sense to merge as merging Australians with English. No gentlemen, Kangar was a great state in its own right, it occupied a central stage in the Middle Asia, it brought forward not only Bajanaks, but also Alans/Yantsai, and others, it had millenium-long history of interactions with neighbors, a rich literary trail, and can't be jammed into Alans, Kimeks, Bajanaks or any other historical subdivision. Barefact (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Dab, but in my experience he doesn't mean it personally, he's just blunt and honest (which can easily be taken the wrong way). Nevertheless Barefact, you've been good about improving other articles; please help us improve this one.

I've been trying to incorporate Kangly/Kangar/Kangju into the East-Hem map series. Unfortunately there is not much information about them, and what little info IS available is rather confusing. For example, I'm still not sure if Kangju was just another name for Sogdiana, or if it was a totally seperate state. Could Kangju have been Kwarazm? I don't know if the Kangly were Huns, Turks, or Iranians. I also have no idea of when Kangju fell, or if it fell to the Huns, Chionites, or Hephthalites. Any information would be appreciated! Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, if I knew the answers I would put the references directly in the article. In the Chinese sources of the 2nd AD +/- 1 century Kang and Sogd are used interchangeably, but that does not necessarily mean that they are the same, just that that they were in the same state called Kangar. They were patently Türkic, I do not think that most ardent European sci-patriot ever painted them "Iranian" as a proxy for pan-europeanism. They had close mutual relation with Huns, and it was control of Kangar that gave Huns in Gansu and Mongolia dominance over the whole Middle Asia.Chionites, or Hephthalites did not control it. In Syanbi time, because Syanbi inherited practically all of the Hun possessions, Kangar was in Syanbi state, and then in Jujan state, remaining largely in a second role as a nominal vassal. In the Türkic Kaganate time, Kangar became Türkic vassal. With the fall of the Second Türkic Kaganate, Kangar regained a stand-alone status, equal with Uigur Kaganate, meaning that the events of 840 AD created 3 superstates: Uigur, Kangar, and Kirgiz. In 900es arose the Kimek Kaganate, covering the eastern territory of ancient Kangar. Kimek Kaganate fell under advance of Mongolian tribes, and all of them altogether fell under Chingiz conquest. Many of these references I left out, with "This is a stub. You can help by contributing to this article" to allow other informed and constructive editors to add needed historical details. I have no clue why that notation was hurtful and needed to be urgently removed without dicussion. In map-building, Kangar is a major event in the Middle Asia geography, we know where it started in the east, but its western extent is not known, except that their vassals Alans bordered on Caspian Sea and may have extended into N.Caucasus. But as you know, the references to Alans/Yantsai and Horesm/Kwaresm are isolated and separated by centuries. Still, it was a shame that WP had a tiny little village listed under Kangar, but totally failed to have a major ancient superstate mentioned under Kangar. Regards, Barefact (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)