I seriously don't get it, why doesn't Anatolia and India speak persian? Specially india, all the islamic empires there used persian as an official language no? Maybe with the expectation of ottoman turkish
Persian really only had an administrative role in the Mughal and Safavid Empires. The Ottomans generally used Ottoman Turkish and Arabic alongside Persian to make administrative decrees.
Persian was only spoken by an incredibly tiny minority of aristocrats. It's like how the English never spoke French despite being ruled by French-speaking noblemen for four hundred years, and instead high-class Anglos simply began to incorporate French vocabulary into their own (which is how Urdu got started too, with poets and writers adding elegant Persian words to their writing)
Safavids were iranian kurds who claimed to be arabs via being descendants of hussein, they married into turks but your mother side doesn't decide who you are, they also used them then dumped them >Mughals
Are mongols, if you care much about mother side then timur bragged to ibn khaldoun that his mother was a descendant of some legendary persian commander
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Holy cope, Azeri's and Qashqai Turks ruled the c**t
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
They spoke turkic languages and identified as turkomans, the rest is irrelevant horseshit
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Who do you mean by they spoke turkish? >identified as turkomans
The safavids didn't, and you just need to look at the name of the mughals to know what they identified themselve as, the ottomans didn't like to be called turk
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
First of all, you're obviously biased
>Who do you mean by they spoke turkish?
Here's a poem by shah ismail, in turkish, where he identifies with turkomans during turkoman conquests from the dahname, marvel at his persian prose:
>As we exhaust the abode of the Arab >Our Turkmen will rise within Baghdad >Shirvanis shall move into Tebriz >And Persians will ask >Is Doomsday upon us?
Clearly a persian/arab/kurd
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The word "turk" is different from a place to place, in the arab world turk meant a slave soldier, by the ottoman conquest some arab historians still called the mamluk soldiers turks even though they were Circassians because they were slave soldiers, on the other hand they called the ottoman soldiers roman soldiers, the ottomans also didn't like the word turk and didn't like the language that much especially for poetry, even selim the guy who fought ismail wrote poetry in persian, btw, the biggest claim for the safavid dynasty to rule is having an arab ancestry from hussein.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
your pic contradicts you since the turks described there were the shia turkmen. Even your book is extremist shiites: The Ghulat sects
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That sounds like cope, if that hatred was against shia turks then they would've said shia turks not generalize all turks
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
except the pastoral turkmen were literally all shia
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That sounds extremely stupid, it's the equivalent of the umayyads saying "Arabs are shit" because all the rebellions aginst them were done by arabs
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
your post doesn't make any sense.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The ottomans are turks
The umayyads are arabs
The ottomans see the word "Turk" in a bad light because they shia(your claim)
The umayyads didn't see the word "arab" in a bad light even though all the revolutions against were done by arabs(shias, zubayrids, Kharijites,etc)
This gives to explanations
1.The word turks is different from a place to place like I said earlier
2.the ottomans didn't see themselves as turks
Because there's just no way someone will shit on his own people like that.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The ottomans see the word "Turk" in a bad light because they shia(your claim)
again you're an idiot. the shia turkmen of eastern anatolia rebelled against the state and led to the creation of the safavids. They were enemies and the main difference between them and other turks were that they still practiced the turkic way of life while the ottomans were urbanized. That's why turk was an insult. It's what your picture was referring to in the first place. The fricking book it's from is about shia.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Then they should be disgusted bt the term shia not turk
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
the qizilbash were ghulat shia and different from the rest. The main noticeable difference was that they continued to live a pastoral lifestyle
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
cool poem except Tabriz was already majority turk due to the mongols and qara qoyonlu
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Here's the actual poem. Tabriz was under the control of Ismail and the Shirvanis were his enemies since they killed his father. The Aq Qoyonlu his other major enemy was the abode of the arabs
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>States he's the leader of the Ajam (Persian) Kingdom >promises destruction to the turks
lmao
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No that's a shitty persian interpolation, so many added words from the turkish original.
There's 0 (ZERO) ambiguity about his turkishness, here's a poem where he literally explicitly identifies with turks:
>Ey Hatâî! Şol Huten Türki saçınun şemmesi, Nafe-yi sehraya saldı belki misk ü enberi!
>Söyle kim ol Türk-i mesti nece tir-endaz imiş, Kim menüm bağrumda andan sed hezaran pare var.
>Çün yetdi seba o yar katına Ol Türk-i vefa-güzar katına
Note how you can't read it because he only wrote in turkish
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>shitty persian interpolation
Cope. It's from minority a premier scholar
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
address these poems you little homosexual
>Ey Hatai! Söyle kim ol Türk-i mesti nece tir-endaz imiş, >Kim menüm bağrumda andan sed hezaran pare var
>O Hatai! You're an ecstatic Turk, you're a good archer >because I have a hundred-thousand pieces of you at my bosom.
>Ey Hatai! Sen ey Türk-i peri peyker, ecaib sün-i Yezdan’san >Görenden berü ruh-sarun, sözüm, Allahu ekber’dir
>O Hatai! You, fair-bodied Turk! You are extraordinary, created by Allah. >Since I saw your face, I say Allahu akbar.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't need to. As you're the same guy who posted this crap
First of all, you're obviously biased
>Who do you mean by they spoke turkish?
Here's a poem by shah ismail, in turkish, where he identifies with turkomans during turkoman conquests from the dahname, marvel at his persian prose:
>As we exhaust the abode of the Arab >Our Turkmen will rise within Baghdad >Shirvanis shall move into Tebriz >And Persians will ask >Is Doomsday upon us?
Clearly a persian/arab/kurd
. It's pretty obvious what your motives are
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I don't need to.
just say you can't
>crap
I can read the original word for word
>Yetdükçe tükenir Arab’ın kuy u meskeni >Bağdat içre her nice Türkman kopar >Şirvan halayiki kamu Tebriz’e daşına >Mülk-i Acem sorar ki, kıyamet haçan kopar?
you don't even speak turkish or azeri
that scholars translation is horseshit
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>that scholars translation is horseshit
It's only horseshit to you since it BTFOs you. Your translation is the one that's dogshit because Ismail was not a shirvani. You blatantly got things wrong or warped them to suit your needs. Just take the L.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
also, just to be sure, I'll demonstrate why that guys translation is dogshit
the original:
>Yetdükçe tükenir Arab’ın kuy u meskeni
6 words, 13 syllables >Bağdat içre her nice Türkman kopar
6 words, 11 syllables >Şirvan halayiki kamu Tebriz’e daşına
5 words, 14 syllables >Mülk-i Acem sorar ki, kıyamet haçan kopar?
7 words, 14 syllables
4 lines in total
my translation:
>As we exhaust the abode of the Arab
8 words, 11 syllables >Our Turkmen will rise within Baghdad
6 words, 9 syllables >Shirvanis shall move into Tebriz
5 words, 9 syllables >And Persians will ask
4 words, 5 syllables >Is Doomsday, upon us?
4 words, 6 syllables
5 lines in total
dogshit translation:
>Let all the people of Shirvan rush to Tabriz, the Persian kingdom will but ask: when is the Last Day to come?
22 words, 32 syllables >As he arrives, the streets and homes of the Arabs will cease to exist, however many Turcomans will turn out from Baghdad
23 words, 31 syllables
2 lines in total, and he changed the order of both lines and the word order of almost every word
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>my translation:
Lmao. You're not the expert here minorsky is. His translation does have breaks with commas and colons. Minorsky actually explained what Ismail's poems were about in the context Ismail's own life.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
minorsky is a russian homosexual from 100s of years ago who didnt even speak a turkic language as his mother tongue, and whose works are outdated as frick
>that scholars translation is horseshit
It's only horseshit to you since it BTFOs you. Your translation is the one that's dogshit because Ismail was not a shirvani. You blatantly got things wrong or warped them to suit your needs. Just take the L.
i demonstrated how youre a moron who is wrong, youre just saying it, reminder:
>O Hatai! You're an ecstatic Turk
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Been following your guys' back and forth for a couple minutes now.
This is just an appeal to authority, I could follow why the other anon disagreed with you, but you have yet to demonstrate why we should care about your book
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Been following your guys' back and forth for a couple minutes now >This is just an appeal to authority
You didnt read shit. Minorsky has the actual context. When Ismail wrote the poem he was in control of Tabriz and just declared himself Shah. His enemies were the Aq Qoyonlu in Iraq and The Shirvanshahs who killed his father. According to that dude's "translation" Ismail was shirvani which makes no sense. The poem is him stating he will crush his two main enemies. >the beauty (ismail) will decide last judgement >if the shirvanis attack the persian kingdom (Ismail's kingdom around tabriz) the persians will cry out for the last judgement (the coming of Ismail) >the home of the arabs (iraq) will be exhausted no matter how many turkmen (aq qoyonlu) turn out. >the flood ia about to burst (Ismail going on the attack)
Minorsky's translation is obviously superior.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>that guys translation is dogshit
I tend to think that all translations of poems are dogshit. poems are intrinsically linked to the language they were originally written in. I am fluent in three languages and translations of poems between them are for me an inexhaustible source of cringe.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
my translation is actually good because i speak both languages
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Ey Hatai! Söyle kim ol Türk-i mesti nece tir-endaz imiş, >Kim menüm bağrumda andan sed hezaran pare var
>O Hatai! You're an ecstatic Turk, you're a good archer >because I have a hundred-thousand pieces of you at my bosom.
>Ey Hatai! Sen ey Türk-i peri peyker, ecaib sün-i Yezdan’san >Görenden berü ruh-sarun, sözüm, Allahu ekber’dir
>O Hatai! You, fair-bodied Turk! You are extraordinary, created by Allah. >Since I saw your face, I say Allahu akbar.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/D0XldFI.jpg
Here's the actual poem. Tabriz was under the control of Ismail and the Shirvanis were his enemies since they killed his father. The Aq Qoyonlu his other major enemy was the abode of the arabs
The poem is him declaring he's the last judgement of the shirvanshahs and aq qoyonlu
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the rest is irrelevant horseshit
tell that to ismail
No, their civilization was Iran, but they were still 100% a turkic dynasty, these 2 things arent mutually exclusive
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That’s like saying the British Empire was actually Indian because most of their population resided in India
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
British imposed British way on India.
but Turks had to follow Persian way in Persia.
This is what has happened when nomadic power conquered the major settled societies in the history.
>Seething jeet
so you think there was a mughal emperor called "barbur"? fricking illiterates ...
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You being a seething jeet has nothing to do with how a name is translated for western audiences
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's not translated, it's misspelled by an orang-utan. All western audiences ever saw it written as 'Babur'. And it never was written 'Barbur', except by illiterates.
Are we done here?
What? The Ottomans and Mughals were in their respective regions for 500 years. Why would they need Persian interpreters after like a generation of running a state?
because the language of the scholarly/scientific field remained Persian. Turkic language was preferred in the army to control the horse riders efficiently. They both were used in the different fields.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
China uses Mongols to administer their c**t in parts of inner Mongolia, does that now mean China is actually Mongolia? moronic
All three empires were part of Persian cultural hegemony. The dialogue has changed in the 21st century, now that the Islamic government of Iran is an enemy of the West, the Pakistanis and Turkics separate their entire history from Iranian culture simply because they want massive white wieners in their mouths.
Turkishness was a matter of culture in this period, not ethnicity. A lot of turkish leaders have Georgian origin. This is not the case for prominent Iranian figures.
>All three empires were part of Persian cultural hegemony
cringe. The only people who actually guzzled persian wiener were the safavids who were persian and the deccan sultanates who were shia and treated persians like they were from the heavens
The Ottoman royalty literally spoke Farsi at home.
Also, what I wrote isn't just my own opinion, it's the current consensus in academia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persianate_society
>Is it true that they all used Persian as their official language
Yes, but it was only for government. None of the people spoke it as a first language it was a prestigious language.
What's up with jeets ITT slobbering Persian wiener to somehow own the Turks in... the theory that instead of being slaves to roaches, they were slaves to Arabo-Persian mutts? lmao Sounds like a pathetic larp to eventually push the meme that all Iranians are secretly jeets in their equally make believe out of India theory lmao
The Ottomans are fascinating because you needed to understand Turkish, Persian and Arabic to understand the official language of the court and administration (Ottoman Turkish). They basically created this highly complex hybrid language that you could only understand if you were trilingual. It's a big part of why Ataturk had to do such dramatic language reforms - the people in Anatolia and the cosmopolitan elites basically spoke different languages to each other.
This applies to much of the world, not just the Ottomans. France, China, Germany, Norway, and Spain are examples off the top of my head that had to standardize their languages and impose it on the bulk of their populations because their dialects had become different languages over the millennia. French for example is based heavily on Parisian French, and China's is based on how the Manchu spoke Chinese in Beijing
Where I think Turkish differs is that the standardisation wasn't towards a high status dialect in existing use (like say Parisian French) because of the peculiar dynamics of Ottoman Turkish.
It was difficult to foist Ottoman Turkish with its vast trilingual vocabulary and grammatical rules onto the general public because you needed a working knowledge of three languages to navigate it. It was equally difficult to rely on the Turkish spoken by the lower classes in Anatolia, because there were major regional variations and no Turkish words for a vast array of different ideas.
The Modern Turkish that emerged was such a dramatic departure from what preceded it that Ataturk's speeches from the 1920s were incomprehensible to Turks in the 1960s and required official translations.
Yes, and besides Persia herself they eventually replaced it with the Persian creoles that are Ottoman Turkish and Urdu.
I seriously don't get it, why doesn't Anatolia and India speak persian? Specially india, all the islamic empires there used persian as an official language no? Maybe with the expectation of ottoman turkish
I suspect for the same reason French is not widely spoken in anywhere but France
Persian really only had an administrative role in the Mughal and Safavid Empires. The Ottomans generally used Ottoman Turkish and Arabic alongside Persian to make administrative decrees.
Persian was only spoken by an incredibly tiny minority of aristocrats. It's like how the English never spoke French despite being ruled by French-speaking noblemen for four hundred years, and instead high-class Anglos simply began to incorporate French vocabulary into their own (which is how Urdu got started too, with poets and writers adding elegant Persian words to their writing)
All their ruling classes were turkic
Are you happy now that your dogshit threads got replies in here while it died on IQfy, you Mexican shitposter?
>WE WUZ KANGZ
SSSAAAARRRR
>"Barbur"
Yes, Barbur, the great turko-mongrel conqueror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur
this guy? because I've never heard about anyone called 'barbur' playing any role in Indian history.
Safavids were iranian kurds who claimed to be arabs via being descendants of hussein, they married into turks but your mother side doesn't decide who you are, they also used them then dumped them
>Mughals
Are mongols, if you care much about mother side then timur bragged to ibn khaldoun that his mother was a descendant of some legendary persian commander
Holy cope, Azeri's and Qashqai Turks ruled the c**t
They spoke turkic languages and identified as turkomans, the rest is irrelevant horseshit
Who do you mean by they spoke turkish?
>identified as turkomans
The safavids didn't, and you just need to look at the name of the mughals to know what they identified themselve as, the ottomans didn't like to be called turk
First of all, you're obviously biased
>Who do you mean by they spoke turkish?
Here's a poem by shah ismail, in turkish, where he identifies with turkomans during turkoman conquests from the dahname, marvel at his persian prose:
>As we exhaust the abode of the Arab
>Our Turkmen will rise within Baghdad
>Shirvanis shall move into Tebriz
>And Persians will ask
>Is Doomsday upon us?
Clearly a persian/arab/kurd
The word "turk" is different from a place to place, in the arab world turk meant a slave soldier, by the ottoman conquest some arab historians still called the mamluk soldiers turks even though they were Circassians because they were slave soldiers, on the other hand they called the ottoman soldiers roman soldiers, the ottomans also didn't like the word turk and didn't like the language that much especially for poetry, even selim the guy who fought ismail wrote poetry in persian, btw, the biggest claim for the safavid dynasty to rule is having an arab ancestry from hussein.
your pic contradicts you since the turks described there were the shia turkmen. Even your book is extremist shiites: The Ghulat sects
That sounds like cope, if that hatred was against shia turks then they would've said shia turks not generalize all turks
except the pastoral turkmen were literally all shia
That sounds extremely stupid, it's the equivalent of the umayyads saying "Arabs are shit" because all the rebellions aginst them were done by arabs
your post doesn't make any sense.
The ottomans are turks
The umayyads are arabs
The ottomans see the word "Turk" in a bad light because they shia(your claim)
The umayyads didn't see the word "arab" in a bad light even though all the revolutions against were done by arabs(shias, zubayrids, Kharijites,etc)
This gives to explanations
1.The word turks is different from a place to place like I said earlier
2.the ottomans didn't see themselves as turks
Because there's just no way someone will shit on his own people like that.
>The ottomans see the word "Turk" in a bad light because they shia(your claim)
again you're an idiot. the shia turkmen of eastern anatolia rebelled against the state and led to the creation of the safavids. They were enemies and the main difference between them and other turks were that they still practiced the turkic way of life while the ottomans were urbanized. That's why turk was an insult. It's what your picture was referring to in the first place. The fricking book it's from is about shia.
Then they should be disgusted bt the term shia not turk
the qizilbash were ghulat shia and different from the rest. The main noticeable difference was that they continued to live a pastoral lifestyle
cool poem except Tabriz was already majority turk due to the mongols and qara qoyonlu
Here's the actual poem. Tabriz was under the control of Ismail and the Shirvanis were his enemies since they killed his father. The Aq Qoyonlu his other major enemy was the abode of the arabs
>States he's the leader of the Ajam (Persian) Kingdom
>promises destruction to the turks
lmao
No that's a shitty persian interpolation, so many added words from the turkish original.
There's 0 (ZERO) ambiguity about his turkishness, here's a poem where he literally explicitly identifies with turks:
>Ey Hatâî! Şol Huten Türki saçınun şemmesi, Nafe-yi sehraya saldı belki misk ü enberi!
>Söyle kim ol Türk-i mesti nece tir-endaz imiş, Kim menüm bağrumda andan sed hezaran pare var.
>Çün yetdi seba o yar katına Ol Türk-i vefa-güzar katına
Note how you can't read it because he only wrote in turkish
>shitty persian interpolation
Cope. It's from minority a premier scholar
address these poems you little homosexual
I don't need to. As you're the same guy who posted this crap
. It's pretty obvious what your motives are
>I don't need to.
just say you can't
>crap
I can read the original word for word
>Yetdükçe tükenir Arab’ın kuy u meskeni
>Bağdat içre her nice Türkman kopar
>Şirvan halayiki kamu Tebriz’e daşına
>Mülk-i Acem sorar ki, kıyamet haçan kopar?
you don't even speak turkish or azeri
that scholars translation is horseshit
>that scholars translation is horseshit
It's only horseshit to you since it BTFOs you. Your translation is the one that's dogshit because Ismail was not a shirvani. You blatantly got things wrong or warped them to suit your needs. Just take the L.
also, just to be sure, I'll demonstrate why that guys translation is dogshit
the original:
>Yetdükçe tükenir Arab’ın kuy u meskeni
6 words, 13 syllables
>Bağdat içre her nice Türkman kopar
6 words, 11 syllables
>Şirvan halayiki kamu Tebriz’e daşına
5 words, 14 syllables
>Mülk-i Acem sorar ki, kıyamet haçan kopar?
7 words, 14 syllables
4 lines in total
my translation:
>As we exhaust the abode of the Arab
8 words, 11 syllables
>Our Turkmen will rise within Baghdad
6 words, 9 syllables
>Shirvanis shall move into Tebriz
5 words, 9 syllables
>And Persians will ask
4 words, 5 syllables
>Is Doomsday, upon us?
4 words, 6 syllables
5 lines in total
dogshit translation:
>Let all the people of Shirvan rush to Tabriz, the Persian kingdom will but ask: when is the Last Day to come?
22 words, 32 syllables
>As he arrives, the streets and homes of the Arabs will cease to exist, however many Turcomans will turn out from Baghdad
23 words, 31 syllables
2 lines in total, and he changed the order of both lines and the word order of almost every word
>my translation:
Lmao. You're not the expert here minorsky is. His translation does have breaks with commas and colons. Minorsky actually explained what Ismail's poems were about in the context Ismail's own life.
minorsky is a russian homosexual from 100s of years ago who didnt even speak a turkic language as his mother tongue, and whose works are outdated as frick
i demonstrated how youre a moron who is wrong, youre just saying it, reminder:
>O Hatai! You're an ecstatic Turk
Been following your guys' back and forth for a couple minutes now.
This is just an appeal to authority, I could follow why the other anon disagreed with you, but you have yet to demonstrate why we should care about your book
>Been following your guys' back and forth for a couple minutes now
>This is just an appeal to authority
You didnt read shit. Minorsky has the actual context. When Ismail wrote the poem he was in control of Tabriz and just declared himself Shah. His enemies were the Aq Qoyonlu in Iraq and The Shirvanshahs who killed his father. According to that dude's "translation" Ismail was shirvani which makes no sense. The poem is him stating he will crush his two main enemies.
>the beauty (ismail) will decide last judgement
>if the shirvanis attack the persian kingdom (Ismail's kingdom around tabriz) the persians will cry out for the last judgement (the coming of Ismail)
>the home of the arabs (iraq) will be exhausted no matter how many turkmen (aq qoyonlu) turn out.
>the flood ia about to burst (Ismail going on the attack)
Minorsky's translation is obviously superior.
>that guys translation is dogshit
I tend to think that all translations of poems are dogshit. poems are intrinsically linked to the language they were originally written in. I am fluent in three languages and translations of poems between them are for me an inexhaustible source of cringe.
my translation is actually good because i speak both languages
>Ey Hatai! Söyle kim ol Türk-i mesti nece tir-endaz imiş,
>Kim menüm bağrumda andan sed hezaran pare var
>O Hatai! You're an ecstatic Turk, you're a good archer
>because I have a hundred-thousand pieces of you at my bosom.
>Ey Hatai! Sen ey Türk-i peri peyker, ecaib sün-i Yezdan’san
>Görenden berü ruh-sarun, sözüm, Allahu ekber’dir
>O Hatai! You, fair-bodied Turk! You are extraordinary, created by Allah.
>Since I saw your face, I say Allahu akbar.
The poem is him declaring he's the last judgement of the shirvanshahs and aq qoyonlu
>the rest is irrelevant horseshit
tell that to ismail
>turks larping as mongols for lineage reasons
>turks larping as persians for prestige reasons
lmao
Seething jeet
This, Persia was a Azeri empire till the late 1800's
No, their civilization was Iran, but they were still 100% a turkic dynasty, these 2 things arent mutually exclusive
That’s like saying the British Empire was actually Indian because most of their population resided in India
British imposed British way on India.
but Turks had to follow Persian way in Persia.
This is what has happened when nomadic power conquered the major settled societies in the history.
>Seething jeet
so you think there was a mughal emperor called "barbur"? fricking illiterates ...
You being a seething jeet has nothing to do with how a name is translated for western audiences
It's not translated, it's misspelled by an orang-utan. All western audiences ever saw it written as 'Babur'. And it never was written 'Barbur', except by illiterates.
Are we done here?
turkic elites needed to rely on Persian bureaucrats for the governance in the agricultural civilization they were not accustomed to.
What? The Ottomans and Mughals were in their respective regions for 500 years. Why would they need Persian interpreters after like a generation of running a state?
because the language of the scholarly/scientific field remained Persian. Turkic language was preferred in the army to control the horse riders efficiently. They both were used in the different fields.
China uses Mongols to administer their c**t in parts of inner Mongolia, does that now mean China is actually Mongolia? moronic
All three empires were part of Persian cultural hegemony. The dialogue has changed in the 21st century, now that the Islamic government of Iran is an enemy of the West, the Pakistanis and Turkics separate their entire history from Iranian culture simply because they want massive white wieners in their mouths.
Turkishness was a matter of culture in this period, not ethnicity. A lot of turkish leaders have Georgian origin. This is not the case for prominent Iranian figures.
>All three empires were part of Persian cultural hegemony
cringe. The only people who actually guzzled persian wiener were the safavids who were persian and the deccan sultanates who were shia and treated persians like they were from the heavens
The Ottoman royalty literally spoke Farsi at home.
Also, what I wrote isn't just my own opinion, it's the current consensus in academia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persianate_society
>Persian
>remembers CK2 playthroughs and all the divine marriage
heh
>Is it true that they all used Persian as their official language
Yes, but it was only for government. None of the people spoke it as a first language it was a prestigious language.
What's up with jeets ITT slobbering Persian wiener to somehow own the Turks in... the theory that instead of being slaves to roaches, they were slaves to Arabo-Persian mutts? lmao Sounds like a pathetic larp to eventually push the meme that all Iranians are secretly jeets in their equally make believe out of India theory lmao
The Ottomans are fascinating because you needed to understand Turkish, Persian and Arabic to understand the official language of the court and administration (Ottoman Turkish). They basically created this highly complex hybrid language that you could only understand if you were trilingual. It's a big part of why Ataturk had to do such dramatic language reforms - the people in Anatolia and the cosmopolitan elites basically spoke different languages to each other.
This applies to much of the world, not just the Ottomans. France, China, Germany, Norway, and Spain are examples off the top of my head that had to standardize their languages and impose it on the bulk of their populations because their dialects had become different languages over the millennia. French for example is based heavily on Parisian French, and China's is based on how the Manchu spoke Chinese in Beijing
Where I think Turkish differs is that the standardisation wasn't towards a high status dialect in existing use (like say Parisian French) because of the peculiar dynamics of Ottoman Turkish.
It was difficult to foist Ottoman Turkish with its vast trilingual vocabulary and grammatical rules onto the general public because you needed a working knowledge of three languages to navigate it. It was equally difficult to rely on the Turkish spoken by the lower classes in Anatolia, because there were major regional variations and no Turkish words for a vast array of different ideas.
The Modern Turkish that emerged was such a dramatic departure from what preceded it that Ataturk's speeches from the 1920s were incomprehensible to Turks in the 1960s and required official translations.
None of you people get pussy.