![Anatolia-picture[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/QMsEE9g.gif "Anatolia-picture[1].gif")
What people lived in Anatolia before the Turks?
>>376341
Greeks, Hittites, Armenians
>>376341
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia#History
If desire to learn more go through all the volumes of CAH and have a blast.
>>376341
'Turk' is a very broad term. There are mostly native anatolians and Greeks (though both converted to Islam over hundreds of years), and there's a lot of Kurds and Arabs and turkics as well. Turkey is an overall interracial breeding ground
>>376341
Linguistically the only relevant languages in Anatolia were Greek and Armenia at the time. Everything else was extinct by 1400. Think Phrygian and Galatian lasted into the 5th century, others like Lycian and Carian were probably gone before Christ.
Ethnically they were Greek & 'native' Anatolian, ie: pre-Greek. peoples on your map (The regions of Ionia and Aetolia were 100% Greek).
'Hittites' is a bullshit answer since there are 2600 years between the Hittite Empire and the Turkish invasion, the Hittite empire disintegrated and their language vanished. The people existed but theres no way to call them 'Hittites' since 'Hittites' made up a small portion of the population overall and they disappear from record early.
>>376413
Cool
Was Turkey (Asia Minor?) in general a pleasant place to live pre-1453? Even growing up I never learned anything positive about the region. Basically I learned that once the Byzantines fell, the place became another desert shithole and Europeans refused to acknowledge it as part of the geographic culture of Europe.
Hittites, Greeks, Celts, Kurds, Armenians, Romans, etc
It was an ethnic grab bag
>>376341
Anatolian peoples, the only famous one of them being the Hittites. But as the other anon says, the hittite empire was gone long time before we even have any record of the turks doing stuff in mongolia let alone in Anatolia.
Historically, apart from some local kingdoms, the region was owned by iranians, greeks armenians or a mix of them. Which doesn't mean it ever got fully accultured by either of those ethnicites.
>>376710
Asia Minor was never part of Europe. I mean, even the fucking name tells you it's Asia.
>>376745
Turks would say otherwise. They want to be in the EU (or at least wanted to before shit hit the fan in 2014). The Byzantines considered themselves the Roman Empire, so they would have seen themselves as European.
>>376341
No one. Turks are European. Antaolia is rightful Turkish land.
>>376341
One a interesting note is that there was a Celtic group of people who migrated to Galatia.
>>376755
Fuck turks
Zaza represent
>>376713
>Celts
Okay, seriously how the hell do they spread everywhere?!
I bet we will find traces of celts on Mars!
>>376900
>>376741
Lydians were very famous. First coinage, first foreign power to conquer Greek cities, paid for the second temple of Artemis ephesia.
And Greek completely displaced all other languages. Carian, lycian, phrygian, galatian, thracian. None survived into the middle ages.
>>376899
>Zaza
>pre-Turk
pls
maybe you did some raids before the Seljuk invasion but you weren't living in Asia Minor
>>376413
Aren't Kurds descended from the persians?
>>376963
No. It's like saying that Poles descend from Russians, or vice versa. Both Kurds and Persians are Iranian peoples. Kurds speak a North-Western Iranian language, while Persians speak a South-Western Iranian language.
>>376917
They migrated east, completely destroyed one of the diadochi kingdoms (Macedon) and would have set up shop there, but antigonis gonatis rallied a small force, saved Macedonia, and was crowned the new King.
The celts dispersed and some settled in the part of anatolia they conquered, in the middle, calling it galatia.
They were largely independent but I think the Romans eventually conquered them. They retained language and culture for a long while as special snowflakes.
>>376710
kek, american education I presume.
In reality Anatolia losts its prominance during the Persian raids pre islam. though ottomans did not cared about anatolia as much as seljuk turks or byzantines did.
>>376963
Are Austrians descended from Vikings?
>>376972
Fun fact: antigonis gonatis father or grandfather was part of the diadochi but died carving out his own Kingdom during the various wars they had. Ironic then his descendants got Macedonia
>>376832
Fuck tripfags desu senpai.
>>376971
No, I mean descended from the ancient persians. I'm pretty sure that's the case.
Russia hasn't existed long enough for there to be branches off it like the Poles, so they just have a common slavic ancestor.
But Persians have existed for over 2000 years, and the kurds appeared during that time, in an area the persians occupied for a very long period.
>>376989
Nice non-sequitur.
>>377033
They don't. First off, ancient Persians in the times of the Arsacids and Sassanids both encountered the Kurds. They are not descendant from the Persians or despite what Kurdboos would claim, the Medes either.
Their language is related to Persian but it is not Persian and they are first recorded directly by the Persians as being nomadic raiders striking from Khorasan before the Sassanids started settling and forcefully relocating them.
They are not related directly to modern or ancient Persians in the way you are suggesting.
>>377033
>No, I mean descended from ancient Persians.
Nope. They were encountered over 2000 years ago by said ancient Iranians including the Persians and even then they spoke their own language which isn't a dialect of Persian but its own separate one back in the day.
Kurds were always Kurds.
>>377047
>Kurds are from Khorasan
proofs?
Also didn't "Kurd" just mean "nomadic Iranian" back then?
>>377065
You're the one making the claim Kurds are "ancient" Persians themselves, you put up the proof first.
>Also didn't "Kurd" just mean "nomadic Iranian" back then?
No.
>>377080
>You're the one making the claim Kurds are "ancient" Persians themselves
I'm not that retard.
>No.
Any sources on this one? Because I've seen Kurds cite Sassanian era chronicles as the first historical documents mentioning them, but I also read somewhere that in the Sassanian times it meant "Iranian nomad".
>>377080
Also here, found the citations in wiki for "Kurd = social term for Iranian nomads"
>J. Limbert. (1968). The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, 1.2: pp. 41-51.
>G. Asatrian. (2009). Prolegemona to the Study of Kurds. Iran and the Caucasus, 13.1: pp. 1-58.
>>377095
>I'm not that retard.
How am I supposed to be able to tell this from two posts that come off similarly?
>>377095
>Because I've seen Kurds cite Sassanian era chronicles
With no factual evidence. The Sassanian founder and Shapur are the the earliest confirmed sources that talk about Kurds and there were Kurdish archers employed by the Romans to garrison their border fortresses in Southern Anatolia.
Kurdish claims of being "ancient" Persians have been dismissed by the entire community of Iranologists for decades now. Either way, regardless what modern Kurds say, they were settled down enough in what makes up modern day Kurdistan back in classical times to be employed by both the Persians and the Romans.
>>377110
If Kurd = a generic term in Iranain nomads, that does more to discredit modern day Kurdish claims for cultural or ethnic identity then helps it.
>>377052
I'm gonna need some sources on that.
>>377047
>they are first recorded directly by the Persians as being nomadic raiders striking from Khorasan before the Sassanids started settling and forcefully relocating them.
i.e. a region the Persians had already settled previously during the Achaemenid dynasty.
>>377036
I was explaining your flawed logic
Persians and Kurds are sister ethnic groups.
Not parent-child.
>>376930
I clearly meant famous now, of course.
>>376755
>Byzantines=turks
This is were everything falls apart
>>376963
They're more like cousins.
>>377128
>How am I supposed to be able to tell this from two posts that come off similarly
By not being autistic.
>With no factual evidence
Sorry, by "chronicles" I erroneously meant exactly Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan about Ardashir I.
>Kurdish claims of being "ancient" Persians have been dismissed by the entire community of Iranologists for decades now.
I haven't seen Kurds claim that they are "ancient Persians" tbqh. And I'm not even talking about that.
I'm talking about the usage of "Kurd" in the Antiquity and the Early Medieval period.
I'm also arguing for "Kurd" as an ethnonym being a more recent phenomenon.
>>377138
>If Kurd = a generic term in Iranain nomads, that does more to discredit modern day Kurdish claims for cultural or ethnic identity then helps it
That's exactly what I've been arguing.
Are you Turkish or something? You seem kinda too defensive and sensitive on this topic.
>>377033
persians were only a small minority ruling the Achaemenid empire. They had plenty of other iranian peoples under their rule.
Why would you pick the persians and not the others to be ancestors of the kurds? Because you don't know the others? Even kurds themselves choose the Medians, not persians, when they want to go full we wuz kangs.
>>376900
MY SON
>>377110
How reliable are Limbert and Asatrian? Are they good sources?
>>377210
That doesn't make any sense. Turks want to get into the EU, but Greeks keep vetoing them out because their butthurt about cyprus.
>>376755
>They want to be in the EU (or at least wanted to before shit hit the fan in 2014).
The political rulers and middle class urban people from cities like Estambul want or wanted to. That doesn't mean that a turk old men from a village in Anatolia is willing to accept he has anything to do with Europe.
>The Byzantines considered themselves the Roman Empire, so they would have seen themselves as European.
Complete bullshit. You could very well consider yourself roman (and/or greek) and asian. Specially if you're from the actual region that gives Asia it's name. St. Isidorus considered himself african (not in the distorted way) and roman, and there was literally nothing wrong with that.
>>377209
The achaemenid empire was multiethnic, like the usa. It assimilated a lot of non-persian ethnicities.
>>377231
That's not true anymore.
>>377240
That's what happened when they applied.
>>377239
They clearly didn't assimilate whatever the kurds were before being called kurds, though. The two languages are even pretty far from each other inside the iranian family.
>>377244
Even if it wasn't an oversimplification that leaves aside other factions like nobody wanting Turkey in the EU because it would break the power balance, that was in the past.
>>377267
*other factors
>>377253
Sure, I'm just waiting for that guy to back up how reliable his sources are and I'll concede the point.
>>377267
>nobody wanting Turkey in the EU because it would break the power balance
What power balance exactly was this? IIRC It was mainly the Greeks pushing to keep turkey out due to greeks and turks hating each other for all time
>>377228
Idk about Limbert (haven't read any of his works) but Asatrian seems to know his shit pretty well though he is bound to have some Armenian bias regarding Kurds.
>>377193
>Are you Turkish or something?
No, but are you Kurdish by the same token of being so defensive yourself?
>I haven't seen Kurds claim that they are "ancient Persians" tbqh.
I have, that and ancient Medians. Both which have been decisively never proven.
>>377209
>persians were only a small minoritly ruling the Achaemenid Empire
If you mean in relation to the total population and size of the Achaemenid Empire, sure. If you mean the tribes that formed the core of the Iranian military might, there were dozens of Persian tribes that made up the majority of its military and administrative stratas.
>>377281
Just read the fucking wikipedia article, it's way more than butthurt greeks.
But, for starters they haven't even accomplished the conditions for a voting to be made yet. And, even if they did, countries like France would never allow them in.
Thracians
>>377168
What sources? No form of any branch of modern or even ancient Kurdish correlates to any form of Persian dialects; Old, Middle, or Modern conversely in relation.
>>377312
I clearly meant the first. What does the number of persians in the army have anything to do with the matter being discussed?
>>377322
What was the point of bringing up "multi-ethnic" to the Persian Empire as a point matter when any global empire would be multi-ethnic to begin wtih? Seems tedious to discuss at all.
>>377329
Read the dude we're awnsering to before entering the conversation. He says:
>But Persians have existed for over 2000 years, and the kurds appeared during that time, in an area the persians occupied for a very long period.
As in, the fact that kurds appearing in a place controlled by persians makes the kurds persian. This was the point of bringing up the multi-etnic nature of the persian empire, being on the empire didn't make you persian.
>>377303
>but are you Kurdish by the same token of being so defensive yourself
I've been literally arguing that the first mentionings of "Kurd" didn't have anything to do with modern Kurds.
Confirmed for Turk ;).
>Medians
Well tbqh Medians did speak North-Western Iranian language so Kurds are at least quite related to them linguistically. Their descendants seem to be the Talysh people though IIRC.
>>377253
whats happening to the zaza language?
>>377371
>Confirmed for Turk :)
Nice shitposting.
>>377415
It branches out into two variations/dialects
>>377425
How is that shitposting?
>>377464
their geographic coverage is so small though?
albeit it seems you can divide them perfectly north/south by their sect
>>377479
Why are you calling a Turk? Its obvious you are trying to poison the well here with the race-baiting, dude.
We /int/ now
>>377482
Aren't they tribal people with no institution to homogenize language?
Anyways, the tree is clearly very careful to be politically correct and avoids the use of the word "dialect" when it can talk about language. Pretty much everything that branches out of "Modern persian" could easily be called just a dialect, for example.
>>377503
Idk, you seemed too defensive here >>377128 , started talking about Kurds claiming they are "ancient Persians" again out of the blue and how everything they claim is debunked ages ago even though I was essentially agreeing with you on that. Then I asked you if you were Turkish and all you did was a "no u" question asking if I was Kurdish which was totally uncalled for. You could have just said "no".
>>377371
I heard "modern Medians" would be the Azeris, now turk speaking but with a distinct iranian language in the past and culturally iranian. Azerbaijan is just the deformation of the iranian name of Media Atropatene, and Azerbaijan and Media roughly coincide geographically.
>>377547
>"Idk"
>"seemed"
>"You could have just said "no"."
You could've also not been retarded.
Wait, wait, wait
Kurds are Iranic people though? Persian is its own ethnicity and Iran is composed of many Iranic people such as Persians, Mandarazani, Kurds or Lur?
>>377591
Yes. And most anthroplogists and Iranologists have never accepted the modern day Kurdish claims of being direct descendants of the Medes or Persians. Though I've never heard of the latter being claimed until this particular thread.
>>377578
>So you totally missed these posts >>376963 >>377033 for example
That's why I added "again" before "out of the blue" because I wasn't even arguing about that (and those posts had been posted half an hour/an hour prior to mine) meanwhile you were eager to prove to me that all Kurdish claims are lies in an aggressive manner.
Also here >>377138
>I post something that disproves that Kurds were mentioned by the Sassanians
>you reply as if I'm trying to shill for Kurds
You're clearly a Turk.
>>377609
None of that qualifies as "out of the blue" at all; now let's address the other bullshit:
>lies
I said they were incorrect and wrong, never claimed anyone was lying here.
>in a aggressive manner
There was no aggression until the race-baiting and trying to poison the well by calling me a Turk to dismiss anything I said with your shitposting.
>shill
This again proves you are a liar. In fact the post you quoted there does nothing except add on to the information about Kurds not being Persians, nothing more and nothing less.
>You're clearly a Turk.
No, I am not. You are clearly a shitposter however.
>>377549
>I heard "modern Medians" would be the Azeris
No, since there is a minor ethnic group in Azerbaijan that have actually retained its North-West Iranian language (the Talysh people). The "Azeris are modern Medians" shit was made up by the Soviet Azeri historiography which was trying to "autochtonize" Azeris in order to legitimize their presence in the region and statehood (partly in reaction to Armenian separatism in Karabakh and claims of Azeris being Turkics alien to the region).
>>377609
>anyone that disagrees with ME about Kurds must be a Turk
>>377609
None of what that anon said came out of the blue at all here. Nor did his posts come off particularly aggressive; all he did following the chain of replies is say Kurds are not Persians or call them "K**ds" like typical shitposting Turks do on /int/.
The fact you've now twice or three times called him a Turk is more damning evidence you are either some ultra-nationalistic Kurd looking for self-validation or as he said, a shitposter. Or alternatively, you are just really bad at reading other people's posts.
>>377639
>None of that qualifies as "out of the blue" at all;
lol it does, since you were conversing with someone who hadn't ever claimed that Kurds were Persians
>This again proves you are a liar. In fact the post you quoted there does nothing except add on to the information about Kurds not being Persians, nothing more and nothing less
kek sure thing you were just thinking that I was trying to prove that Kurds were "acnient something", idk though where you got that from. Maybe the fact of you being a paranoid Turk has something to do with that.
Also how is this race-baiting? Turk/Kurd aren't races
>>377647
The thing is I was agreeing with him, while he fucking replies like a retard as if I'm trying to prove him wrong.
>>377658
This
>Kurdish claims of being "ancient" Persians have been dismissed by the entire community of Iranologists for decades now. Either way, regardless what modern Kurds say, they were settled down enough in what makes up modern day Kurdistan back in classical times to be employed by both the Persians and the Romans.
Is pretty out of the blue considering I clarified that I wasn't the guy who claimed that Kurds were ancient Persians and was arguing for "Kurd" being a social term in the Sassanian times which which would postpone the date of Kurdish ethnogenesis and that's not something a Kurd would do/
>>377704
No one is buying it, mate.
>>377709
Buying what?
>>377704
>Turk/Kurd aren't races
Wrong.
>I was agreeing with him
>while he fucking replies like a retard
Heuhueheh, this the most ironic part of your post.
>>377718
Your shitposting
>>377719
They are races?
How is that ironic? Our "disagreement" was about me asking him about proofs for Kurds being from Khorasan and if "Kurd" was a social term in the Sassanian era and providing sources for that claim. That's it. Everything else I agreed with.
>>377704
>lol it does, since you were conversing with someone who hadn't ever claimed that Kurds were Persians
Yeah and its convenient how you don't mention the part where I said both you and the other guy's post who was were indistinguishable to me when I replied. But you left out that part purposely with your backpedaling bullshit.
>kek sure thing you were just thinking that I was trying to prove that Kurds were "acnient something"
English?
>Also how is this race-baiting? Turk/Kurd aren't races
So why have you called me a Turk several times now if not to poison the well be calling me one in a topic involving Kurds? And yes I'm pretty certain both modern day Turks and Kurds are their own ethnicity, cultures, and languages so they constitute their own "races".
>The thing is I was agreeing with him, while he fucking replies like a retard as if I'm trying to prove him wrong.
The only person posting like a "fucking retard" is you with the sperging and attempts to allege anyone disagreeing with you is someone magically a Turk.
>Is pretty out of the blue
Its not out of the blue in any form regardless of who I was replying to because it was the fucking context of the current topic.
>>377736
You a) Never asked from the Sassanian era, you just said "Iranian" term for nomad in general. Secondly, the term predates the Sassanian period as the usage of the term Kurd was used as a racial insult by the Arsacids themselves.
Thirdly: any culture with its own unique language, customs, and background would constitute as a race. The Persians at Behistun even have Darius talking about lording over all "Iranian races". Not one. Plural.
>>377736
Seems to me the "disagreement" is you acting like a gigantic fucking mongoloid and branching off when you called me a Turk multiple times you dumb asshole.
zaza ethnic here
you're all weird
we're like totally the descendants of sassanids XDDDD
>>377763
>Zaza ethnic
>not Persian/Mazandernai
>>376710
Anatolia was the heartland of the Byzantine empire. This is where they bred their horses and drafted their soldiers. But because of the numerous wars they had to wage and because it was basically a buffer for Constantinople it was always a bit less populated than needed.
>>377775
>Implying I'm not superior with muh special snowflake syndrome and my own sect of islam
its not WE WUZ
its
WE ARE KINGS XDDDD
>>377791
Not following you
>>377737
> indistinguishable
You think a retard who though t Kurds were ancient Persians would know about "Kurd" being a social term in the Sassanian times?
>English?
What's so hard to grasp? You thought I was trying to prove "ancientness" of Kurds hence your aggressive replies.
>own ethnicity, cultures, and languages
pretty sure that all can be described by "ethnicity" alone, and that's the Greek word we in the first world actually use (we use race mainly for negroid, europoid etc), though I concede that point.
>anyone disagreeing with you is someone magically a Turk
>anyone
not really, only you
>Its not out of the blue in any form regardless of who I was replying to because it was the fucking context of the current topic
it is out of the blue if you consider that you were replying to someone who hadn't ever claimed that and that that retarded claim had been dismissed at that point by everyone in this thread.
>>377743
> Never asked from the Sassanian era, you just said "Iranian" term for nomad in general.
reread my post and the post I was replying, it's obvious from the context that I was talking about the Sassanian era
>Secondly, the term predates the Sassanian period as the usage of the term Kurd was used as a racial insult by the Arsacids themselves
proofs? according to my sources it was first attested in Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan which is later than Arsacids
>any culture with its own unique language, customs, and background
Ethnicity is enough for that imo t.bh.
>The Persians at Behistun even have Darius talking about lording over all "Iranian races"
Ok, so the word "race" was used by Ancient Persians? Are you saying it's an Old Persian word? Or is it Aramaic?
>>377798
Meh, thread went to shit with all this "muh kurd" and "muh ethnogenesis" shitfest
>>377810
WE WUZ SHAZ N SHIEET
>>376341
They're still there they're just known as the greeks who got raped. No turk will ever admit it and because they're the most butthurt nationalists in the world.
>>377814
Pretty much.
>try to be helpful and informative
>reply politely to posters
>kindly request proofs when encountered with confusing info
>get shat on by some angry Turk who can't differentiate between posters even after I point out in a clear manner that I'm another poster
when did /his/ get so shit?
>>377591
Yes. Persian = English in the UK, Castillian in Spain, etc.
>>376341
IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:
— HATTIANS.
— HITTITES.
— PHRYGIANS.
— ACHAEANS.
— IONIANS.
— AEOLIANS.
— SCYTHIANS.
— CIMMERIANS.
— PERSIANS.
— ROMANS.
— ARABS.
>>378043
DEFINE "ANATOLIA"
>>378043
I FORGOT THE GALATIANS, AFTER THE PERSIANS.
>>376341
>random greeks
>random armenians
>random jews
>assorted slavs brought there by Byzantium to stop them causing troubles in the balkans
>remains of celtic tribes
>hellenized hittites and other ancient populations
>ancient kurds?
>>376341
Greeks/Hellenized population and Armenians.
This is the most straightforward and correct answer.
Yes, there were various people living in Anatolia at various points of history (even some Slavs), but they were Hellenized, and thus they were Greeks in contemporary sense of that word.
So yeah, modern Turks are mostly Greeks and Armenians who adopted Islam and Turkish language.
This is reality, Turkish nationalist fantasies are something else.
>>377300
Sorry for being so anal retentive but you couldn't source the reliability of Limbert and Asatrian could you?
>>378043
What about Georgians? Armenians?
>Ctrl+F "Gauls"
>0 results
Oh /his/, you never fail to disappoint.
>>378081
Gauls were long gone by the time Turks arrived in Asia Minor.
Only name of province remained. Population of Asia Minor was Hellenized to various degrees.
>>378076
Pretty sure that Georgia is outside the peninsula. He forgot Armenia and the kingdom of Pontus indeed.
The list itself doesn't make a lot of sense.
>>378081
>ctrl-F Galatia and not "gauls"
>5 results
Indeed, you never fail to disappoint.
>>378100
Georgians (or their subgroups) still live in Pontus though, I'm talking about the Laz people. Also much of the Black Sea cost was probably Kartvelian in the past before Hellenization and Turkification.
>>378070
>So yeah, modern Turks are mostly Greeks and Armenians who adopted Islam and Turkish language.
That doesn't make any sense.
>>377643
Completely out of left field here but the whole azeri-armenian conflict was pretty much created by the russians forcing them to settle in awkward overlapping patterns under the russian empire and the soviet union, which would inevitably lead to instability and fighting if the russians ever lost control, making it easier for them to divide and conquer.
Armenian and Azeris need to settle their differences and unite with george into a new Caucasian Republic. And that's a fact I can back up with peer reviewed sources.
>>378076
GEORGIANS NEVER EVEN ENTERED ANATOLIA, AND ARMENIANS DO NOT COUNT, BECAUSE THEY MERELY INVADED, AND ATTACKED; THEY NEVER LIVED IN ANATOLIA.
>>378116
But it makes total sense? What makes sense for you?
>>378075
Idk if this counts as "sourcing one's reliability" for you but Encyclopedia Iranica had Asatryan write some articles for them, for example the article about the Zaza people who are related to Kurds was written by him.
>>378116
It makes perfect sense.
Ancestors of majority of modern Turks were Greeks and Armenians from Anatolia. Plus some Slavs and others who migrated there during time of Ottomans.
>>378112
I did a quick research and it's actually true. Didn't know that, I imagined them to be limited to the old kingdom of Lazica.
The ones in turkey are mostly muslim now right? Do you know what's the relationship with the "proper" georgians?
>>378128
>GEORGIANS NEVER EVEN ENTERED ANATOLIA
what do you mean by Anatolia? the historical region and its modern usage differ. That's why asked you this question >>378055
>GEORGIANS NEVER EVEN ENTERED ANATOLIA
But they still live in Pontus? If you consider it to be Anatolia of course.
>AND ARMENIANS DO NOT COUNT, BECAUSE THEY MERELY INVADED, AND ATTACKED; THEY NEVER LIVED IN ANATOLIA
Didn't Byzantine emperors use to settle Armenians (and other peoples too) all over the empire? I'm sure there were even emperors of Armenian descent.
>>378171
>I'm sure there were even emperors of Armenian descent.
The Macedonian dynasty, from armenian descend but living in Macedonia (located in Thracia in byzantine times).
>>378165
Yeah, they are Muslim. They seem to be (obviously) more related to Georgians living in the Western part of the country (Mingrelians, both are the descendants of Colchians) and they form a group of Kartvelian languages together (the Zan group) which isn't intelligible to Eastern Georgians and Svans. Can't say much more than this t.bh. They also aren't the only Muslim Georgian subgroup.
>>378123
Not really created but it was certainly used by them in 1905 and later in the Soviet times.
>Armenian and Azeris need to settle their differences and unite with george into a new Caucasian Republic
Can't say I disagree with you but the hate runs too deep right now. And the fact that both states have been using hateful propaganda against each other since gaining independence (especially Azerbaijan) doesn't help the cause either, a whole generation has grown up in the state of state-promoted hate.
>>378198
Good to know thanks. I always get super confused with all those caucasian peoples and sub-peoples although it's interesting to hear about them.
>>378181
Wasn't Heraclius Armenian too?
>>377313
>Read the "Turkish Membership Issues" section
>Look at all the citations
>The first paragraph just has christfag von rumpoy, and german christian democratic party saying that Turkey isn't included in their "vision" for the EU, and also a 404 link to the economist
>The rest is just all the huge benefits the EU would get from Turkey including the country with the second largest military in NATO, important regional power, fastest growing large economy with territory in europe etc, also how Turkey would benefit from the EU
>Also one guy slipperyslopes that if Turkey gets in Morocco might also, but then in the same paragraph it says morocco's claim has already been outright rejected
>Also has Sarkozy agreeing with rumpoy and CDU party
>Apparent polls showing 71% of europeans from certain countries didn't want turkey in the EU, but like the economist link it's a 404 link from the citation
>Also a section talking about Turkey's relationship with Greece and Cyprus
>A religion section
>A section talking about the admission of the armenian genocide, but noting it's not a criteria for membership
>A section talking about turkish censorship with article 301
>A section talking about women's rights, just saying that it's completely fine
>Look at the "Negotiation Process" section
>It's been advancing in literally every category except no. 33
>>378253
Georgia is easy mode m8. In Dagestan every fucking village speaks its own dialect/language which often isn't intelligible to people inhabiting neighboring villages.
>>377319
The other guy already provided sources.
>>378260
Apparently yes, even if he and his father were ruling Africa, he was Armenian. According to iranica online, some ancient sources can be interpreted to hint he had Arsacid ancestors, meaning he also had parthian/iranic heritage.
>>377598
I'm the guy who claimed they were persian. Not a Kurd. Also I'm close to conceding the point if that one guy can back up his sources properly.
>>378314
Yeah and it doesn't help that I don't know what the fuck was going on there before Russians appeared. Transcaucasia is indeed always easier than the clusterfuck up north of them.
>>378133
Do they usually have quality unbiased writing?
>>378337
>Also I'm close to conceding the point
kek
>>378239
>Can't say I disagree with you but the hate runs too deep right now. And the fact that both states have been using hateful propaganda against each other since gaining independence (especially Azerbaijan) doesn't help the cause either, a whole generation has grown up in the state of state-promoted hate.
Oh well, at least Azeris will do alright due to their massive amounts of oil. If the armenians left that one place they invaded or azeris just gave it to them, and they both stopped propaganda etc they could make amends, but yeah that's probably unlikely any time soon.
>>378368
It's the standard enciclopedia for Iranian studies. It was founded by one of the heavyweights of Iranian History.
No historian is unbiased though.
>>378368
You decide
http://www.iranicaonline.org/pages/about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Iranica
>>378337
They don't speak a language that descends from persian. Not even old, achaemenid persian.
>>377300
How the fuck do you "cite" or source reliability exactly?
>>378397
Ok, that's as far as I'm willing to dig right now. For the purposes of this thread, Asatryan checks out, though his bias as an Armenian commenting on the Kurds should be noted.
Got anything on Limbert?
>>378563
>Got anything on Limbert?
No, I haven't read any of his works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Limbert
>>376705
Kek
>>378563
>>378595
He looks reliable
>>378595
Sorry but he's clearly got a large stake in the Iranian government and their version of history, being literally their secretary of state. He studied political science, not history. He then wrote some books after his career.
Sorry but between this and Asatryan's clear bias due to his Armenian lense on the Kurds I'm hesitant to concede the point.
>>378655
What point exactly are you talking about at this point? Also Limbert wrote the article in 1968.
>>378655
also
>He received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. all from Harvard University. His Ph.D. was in History and Middle Eastern Studies
Is History and Middle Eastern Studies considered political science?
This is what Harvard's website has to say
>Students in the joint PhD Program in History and Middle Eastern Studies fulfill all the requirements for the PhD in History in addition to the language and area studies requirements established by the Committee on Middle Eastern Studies
>>378669
>Also Limbert wrote the article in 1968.
My bad, I assumed it was from one of his books. Although he did pursue a career in Iranian politics shortly after, which would mean he was probably a bit biased pro-iran in general. He states on page 41 that linguists consider persian to be on a different branch of the indo-iranian tree than persian. No further info on these linguists though. Leaves it open that it could have just been general knowledge already, but of course it's not 100.0% concrete.
Still, it's pretty fucking good for 4chan and I'm gonna sleep so I'll concede the point, you turned it around.
>>378695
Alright, I badly skimmed his wikipedia page, you're right.
>>376917
I have ginger friends in İstanbul
>>376963
You can say that they are Iranic
