Talk:Khwarezmian Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khwarezmian Empire article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[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)


[edit] TURKIC PEOPLE GOVERNING PERSIA

It is wrong to say that Kharazmiy Empire was Persian. They were Turkiy nation and Iran was part of the Empire. Capital of the Empire was Khiva,Kharzm. Turkiy nation began governing Iran from Ghaznavid Empire till Safavid Empire. Safavids were true Iranians. But Empires like Ghaznavid, Ghori, Seljukid, Khwarezmid, Muzaffarids, Timurid Empire turkic nations who ruled Iran. Also they all were Sunni Muslim. Turkic people are only sunny muslims close to Iran. If you open and read you books very carefully, you will fine out where they were originated. Many european historians make this mistake because for them iranian and turkic almost the same nation, but according to eastern or asian source everything been written what i said about very carefully and fully.

While I agree with you that the Khwarazmshahs of the 11th-13th centuries were Turks, it is wrong to assume that Turks were the only Sunnis in Persia in the Middle Ages. Furthermore the Muzaffarids were not Turks; they were Iranicized Arabs. And the last three Khwarazmshahs were hardly great Sunnis; they all quarreled with the caliph al-Nasir and during these quarrels they often claimed allegiance to the family of Ali, though this was purely for political purposes only. Ro4444 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is well-known that most Iranians-speakers in modern-day Iran were Sunni until the 16th century and the Safavid dynasty. It is also well-known that nearly all Persian and Tajik-speakers in Central Asia and the greater Persian-speaking world were never Shia, but Sunni. It is still that way -- most Tajik and Dari-speakers in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan are still Sunni. Religion has nothing to do with the ethnic origin of the Khwarazmshahs. Ro4444 is right. That said, it is true from everything I understand that the Khwarezmid dynasty is of Turkic origin; they ruled over a population of a mixed ethnic and linguistic makeup, both Turkic and nomadic (Qarluq, Oghuz, Kypchak), and sedentary Iranian. Both groups were primarily Sunni at this time. Iranicized Arabs also figured into this mix. Xaphoo 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The ethnicity of the ruling dynasty doesn't mean that a state is of the same ethnicity or that it is ruled in name of it. By example, Catherine II of Russia was of german origin but it doesn't mean at all that the Russian Empire was a german state. In the same way, the Kingdom of Great Britain was ruled by William III of Orange who was stadtholder of Netherlands. It doesn't mean that Great Britain was a Dutch dominion. You have to look what is the ethnicity of the peoples of the empire. Personnally I think it was a multi-national empire, but with a iranian cultural(in it's large sense) dominance. Kovlovsky19:48 25 mars 2007
First Catherine II was married to Peter III, killed him and got the throne, it is an irregular (I won't say unusual) situation. Here we are talking about an Eastern Empire ruled by one dynasty. The dynasty certainly defines this empire. Besides, where do you see the Iranian dominance, in language? Anyway, what is important is what the academics say, not what we say. DenizTC 08:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I do not know why Deniz persists on a wrong introduction. Most of all, he wants to mention that some scholars claim that they were Persians. To support his rediculous claim, he adds a reference to Buniyatov (Buniyatov Z.M. Gosudarstvo khorezmshahov-Anushteginidov, p. 223), a book that does not even exist in the English language, and I am sure that he has not even read it. Because if he had read that book, he would know that the scholars do not claim an Iranian origin for Anushtegin, but only for his name. This is nothing new, because the Persian origin of the name Anush, as found in the Persian kings-name Anushirvan, is also widely accepted. But the origin of his name is not the same as his own origin. With reference to Browne (Browne E.G., "A Literary History of Persia", pр. 107, 135, 181, 168.) Buniyatov writes: "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. [...] The same name had the ancestor of Khwarizmshahs dynasty Anush-tegin Garcha’i". Some Persian nationalists persist that Turks did not have Zoroastrian names back then. But this is a weak argument, because at that time, mostly due to the missionary jihad of the Samanids against pagan and barbarian Turks, many of the Turkic peoples were not only converted to Islam, but also to a Persian cultural identity. Turks were constantly adopting ancient Persian names, and these included Kay Qubadh, Kay Khusrow, Kay Kawus, Faramurz, and so forth. All of these mentioned personalities were Turks and rulers of the Seljuq dynasty. Their Persian names prove the heavy Persianization process that influenced the Seljuqs and many other Turkic people of back then, but in no means does it make them ethnic Persians. And the reference to the Persianate character of the dynasty is not only a claim, it is a fact. Just check the Mongol and Byzantine sources that are listed in the book that I have mentioned. The Khwarezm Shahs were regarded as Persians by outsiders, not as Turks. See also Bosworth in Camb. Hist. of Iran, Vol. V, pp. 66 & 93. The Persian character of the dynasty is clearly mentioned. I am going to add this source to the text. Though I am still assuming good faith in his case, I am not sure if someone like him who blindly adds references to the text although he has not read them, is the right person to write this article. 82.83.149.154 11:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not the first one to add that Russian source. I certainly don't know Russian. It was a revert. I just trusted the previous editors on that and assumed that it was reliable (language of the source is not that important), and I wanted to present all well-sourced views. If it is wrong we can just delete that sentence that claims an Iranian heritage, and that is it, no reason to bash me. I see that you finally came to accept that they were Turks not just Turkic. We may need to rephrase the 'realm of Persianate society'; we might have a WP:SYN there. DenizTC 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Turks are the Turkish people or the citizens of Turkey. That means that someone who is not an ethnic Turk, but a citizen of the nation Turkey, may also be refered to as "Turk". One of the best examples is the TURKISH musician Emrah who is a Kurd by ethnicity, but who has a Turkish citizenship and sings in the Turkish language.
The general English word for members of Turkic-speaking world is Turkic. An Uzbek is not "Turkish" but "Turkic", and a Kazakh is not "Turkish" but "Turkic". That same way, a Norwegian is not a German but Germanic, and an Ossetian is not Iranian but Iranic. Older sources do not differenciate between these words, but newer books do differenciate between "Turkic" and "Turkish", and so do newer dictionaries and lexica. The Webster's Dictionary differenciates between "Turkic" and "Turkish":
Main Entry: Turk·ic
Pronunciation: 't&r-kik
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or constituting a family of Altaic languages including Turkish b : of or relating to the peoples speaking Turkic [2]
The Khwarezm Shahs were of Qipchaq or Khalaj origin, that means that linguistically, they were not even related to the modern Turkish people. The modern Turkish language is part of the larger Oghuz family, while Qipchaq is not Oghuz. The difference to Khalaj is even more impressive, because Khalaj was isolated from other Turkic languages more than 1400 years ago - that means that the difference between Turkish and Khalaj is comparable to the difference between English and Italian! The difference is as big as between Dutch, German, and Scandinavian. One cannot claim that van Gogh was a "German" only because he spoke a Germanic language.
The Persianate character of the dynasty is important. Because in identity, the Khwarezm Shahs (as the name suggests) were more Persian than Turkic. -82.83.149.154 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)