Talk:Anushtegin dynasty

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.

Turkmen is a Modern word and it cannot belong to 1000 years ago.Maybe you know these Persians were turk but they called their Kingdoms as Persian Empire to the world so we can not change it if they called themselves persian ?! > >1:Nader Shah King of Afshar.2:Seljuks of Persia 3:KhwarazmShah 4:Mozaffar 5:Safavied Empire 6:Ghaznavied 7:Qajars please remember that Persia is a word who belongs to over 20 today countries that they did not existed 1000 years ago.If you think Persian means who speaks Persian or who is Iranian you are wrong ,these are today uses because of politics .--94.74.151.227 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with both of you. First, Khwarezm empire has never been turkmen empire, viceversa the turkmen tribes always have been included in Khwarezm empire. Khwaresmian people belong to the "Begdilli" sub-family of 24 Oghuz family. The people of today's Turkmenistan belong to the "Chepni" sub-family of 24 Oghuz family. Although they belong to the same origin of Oghuz Khwarezmian turks and turkmens establish different groups of Oghuz family. I strongly advise you to read "Divan-i Lugat-it Turk" (Dictionary of Turkish Languages) written by Mahmud Kashgari instead of reading just S. Niyozov's "Ruhnama". Second, Khwarezmians never called themselves persians. Just look through the reliable sources. For instance, the historian Juvayniy who lived in XIII centry writes about the conversation between Sultan Alaeddin Mohammed Khwarezmshah and the Abbasid ambassador. The author was a directly witness of this conversation. Sultan Mokhammed Khwarezmshah: "Despite I am a Turk and don't know the Arabic language well, yet I understood the meaning of the hadith you mentioned, but I did not cause harm to any of the descendants of Abbas..." ("Kitab ibrat uli-l absir" in Carl Brockermann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (GAL) (German Edition). 1923. p. 341). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahnenerbe1935 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

• Reply to Boka: This undated question may be old. But anyway I'd like to contribute:What Boka learned from books about Turkan Hatun seems to be correct. She was of Kypchak origin and she used every opportunity to promote Kypchaks. (Although Kypchaks also spoke a Turkic language, their dialect was not the same as Turkmen dialect. Turkmens spoke south west dialect and Kypckacks spoke north west dialect.) She was trying to force Khwārazm-Shāh armies to Kara Khitay dynasty. As for Malik Shah, the name of her wife was Terken. But this coincidance is not confusing, for Turkan (or Türkan) is always a popular name in Turkic speaking countries. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

They were OGUZ TURKS like the people of Turkey - same blood line ,it is our history. 46.114.172.181 (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about the iranian origin of the name `anush` but in kyrgyz kypchak language

it means marmota, rodent animal, and the `n` sound pronounced by nasal `n` as in english `-ing` `dancing`, besides,considering kypchak turkic origin of anush tigin and of course tradition of naming children after animals like aslan `lion`, bugra `male camel` it perfectly makes sense to me, i am kyrgyz. Torebay (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Torebay (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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. Deniz^T_C 08:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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. Deniz^T_C 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)

"Turkic" is a western word that doesn't mean ANYTHING in turkish languages it literally doesn't exit ,it is a western invention."Turkic" was not intended as scientific but as a political term ,which was used especially by sowjets to isolate and divide turkish tribes from each other and russify Türks. It is called TÜRKISTAN AND GÖKTÜRK not "tukicstan and gokturks ,ask an old Kazakh or Nogai Tatar what a TÜRK is. 46.114.172.181 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

A little less Turkish patriotism on this talkpage please. The article lead states clearly that this is about a Persianate dynasty of Turkic mamluk origin. Ok? Turks who had become fully Persianized, the same way as Theoderic the Great may have been a Goth but was also fully Hellenized, having been educated in Constantinople. The same way Cem Özdemir is a German politician, born and raised in Germany. Nobody disputes they were Turkic, and we have "Turkic" linked right there in the lead. For details on the nature of the Persianized Turkic society of the time, the article Persianate society should be consulted. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"The same way Cem Özdemir is a German politician, born and raised in Germany"

Idiotic argument - NO ethnic Türk in foreign lands would ever assimilates ,thats not how our identity/traditions works. Özdemir is NOT an ethnic Türk he is of circassian/greek heritage. I was born in Europe aswell ,but i will forever stay TÜRK -that is the difference between us and other ethnicities. Therefore there is no such thing as an "persianized Turk" .Türks learned Islam and literature from Persians ,borrowed their script ,but they carried an all-out TURKISH identity in their empires ,no matter if Seljuks, Khwarezm ,Ottoman or Mamlück -these are our empires and our history. 46.114.172.181 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"but i will forever stay TÜRK" Which is frankly irrelevant for our understanding of Persian historical figures. Dimadick (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Treatment of the envoys from Ghengis Kahn

...confiscated their goods and executed them.

Executed implies a legal verdict. This is not in sources which I have read. The word commonly used for this incident is maasacred.

• History: Definitive Visual Guide. p. 165. ISBN 9780756631192.
• Afghanistan: A Military History. p. 89. ISBN 0306818264. patsw (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty → Khwarazmian dynasty – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH.

Even if Encyclopedia britannica used this, this is very clear that this name is not common name in English.

• "Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty" -Llc 0
• "Khwārazm-Shāh" -Llc 2

The title was changed with this edit that said only according to Britannica without researches.

Alternative names:

• "Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty" -Llc 0
• "Khwarizm dynasty" -Llc 6
• "Khwarazm dynasty" -Llc 9
• "Khwarazm-shah dynasty" -Llc 15
• "Khwarizm-shah dynasty" -Llc 7
• "Khwarezmian dynasty" -Llc 8
• "Khwarizmian dynasty" -Llc 20
• "Khwarazmian dynasty" -Llc 21 (including Cambridge History of Iran)
• "Khwarazmshah dynasty" -Llc 8
• "Khwarizmshah dynasty" -Llc 4

Takabeg (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Khwarazm or Khwarezm:

• "Khwarazm Shah" -Llc 3510 results
• "Khwarezm Shah" -Llc 561 results
• Khwarazm -Llc 15,200 results
• Khwarezm -Llc 4,940 results

Takabeg (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing Persianate

I removed the expression Persianate from the article because there are not any resources which mention Khwarezm-Shah dynasty as Persianate. Also read the following paragraph from the Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania by Barbara A. West at the page of 403 & 404:

"The beginning of the Turkic Khwarezmid dynasty in the 11th century as the end of Khwarezmian dynasty in the 11th century as the end of Khwarezmian history is relatively arbitrary given the continued use of the ethnonym Khwarezmian both in the dynasty and into the present day. However, it seems the most logical choice given the strong influence of Arab, Muslim, and Turkic cultures after that date. With the adoption of a new language, religion, and culture the original Iranian-speaking people of Khwarezm cannot be said to have survived much beyond the end of the first millennium." BozokluAdam (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All references of 4 , 5 and 6 are mentioning it . It is wrong to delete the sentence but keep the source . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot deleting the resources. Anyway let me explain why I delete "Persianate" from the article.

4th resource ("Central Asia: Pre-Historic to Pre-Modern Times") doesn't mention about a Persianate society, but the mutual interaction of Irano-Turkic population. The page you refer is not the case. Nevertheless, at the page of 359, it says: "However, in the same works Turkic words and expressions can be found which indicate to the presence in the Khwarezm of 12th century of a certain perhaps considerable number of Turkic-speaking population." With this sentence, it emphasizes the influence of Turkic-speaking tribes in Khwarazm. I couldn't find anything to claim Khwarazmian Empire as a Persianate society.

5th resource (M.A. Amir-Moezzi, "Shahrbanu", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition) just mention "... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to accept the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..." In that article, it doesn't mention about Khawarazmian Dynasty; it's just about the Ghaznavids and Saljuqs.

6th resource ("CHORASMIA ii. In Islamic times" in: Encyclopaedia Iranica) says: "The governors were often Turkish slave commanders of the Saljuqs; one of them was Anūštigin Ḡaṛčaʾī, whose son Qoṭb-al-Dīn Moḥammad began in 490/1097 what became in effect a hereditary and largely independent line of ḵǰᵛārazmšāhs." And that's not the case.

At the eighth century, Khwarezm was influenced by Muslims and Arabs. Later, with the beginning of the Turkic Khwarezmid dynasty in the 11th century, Khwarezm, which is of today's Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, was influenced much more by Turkic-speaking tribes and their cultures.

Read the following resource which emphasizes the Turkic influence in Khwarazm with the Turkic Khwarazmid dynasty at the 11th century (pages 403, 404, 405):

http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=pCiNqFj3MQsC&pg=PA403&hl=de&sa=X&ei=53W2T-W8LsLO-Qa0g9CiCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you have an eligible and reputable resource for "Persianate society", discuss here and add it. -- BozokluAdam (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What about this one :( Richard N. Frye )

Many times I have emphasized that the present peoples of central Asia, whether Iranian or Turkic speaking, have one culture, one religion, one set of social values and traditions with only language separating them R.N. Frye, The Golden Age of Persia, London: Butler & Tanner Ltd., 1989, p.236

It doesn't show central Asian Turks as a Persianate society. And that's the opinion of an author, not a historical study. And that author talk about the present societies of the central Asia. So you can't say Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakistan as the Persianate societies. They're of Turkic origin, their languages are of Turkic origin, and they are also of Sunni Muslims whereas Iran has a Persian language and of Shiite religiously. They are completely different societies. BozokluAdam (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're lost in time and space because Iran in Middle Ages was also Sunni society. Talking about Khwarazmians, only "Turkic" in their state was origin of founder (partly). Khwarazmian state was Turkic as much as USA is "African" thanks to mr. Obama. --109.165.182.203 (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

All these are your personal opinions. You don't have any reputable resource for that. If you have any, write here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BozokluAdam (talk • contribs) 09:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"And that's not the case." is personal opinion. YOUR personal opinion, which is unsupported. If you don't agree with some schoolar, it doesn't give you any right of removing sources and changing history in favor of personal Pan-Turkist views. Khwarazm has been under Iranian cultural sphere from 2000 BC until late Middle Ages. --109.165.190.219 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I displayed that those resources are completely invalid. Read my explanation above. Regards. BozokluAdam (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed your "source", Michel Hoàng, Genghis Khan, since Hoang is not a historian, simply a journalist. Therefore this "source" fails WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you've displayed only your POV. Read first sentences of article Persianate society, and stop forcing OR like "Khwarazmian Turkic" (nonsense) or "Turkish" instead of "Turkic". --31.223.153.137 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The resources don't mention Khwarazmian Turks, who lived and settled their country first between Amu-Derja and Sir-Derja. You need to find a resource which mentions the massive influence of Persian culture on Khwrezmian Turks.BozokluAdam (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Khwarazmian Turks conquered Iran in a later period after defeating the last Sultan of Great Seljuk Empire. Their capital city was Gurganj, which is a part of Turkistan, and now it's situated on the border of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. BozokluAdam (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree about that. The resources are wrong. Even they don't mention Khwarezmian dynasty. Without valid resources, we cannot call them as a persianate society. 81.213.116.40 (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing Pan-Turkist Agenda

I'm an Arab historian and I see that pan-Turkists have once again tried changing historical facts. Khawarezm was always a Persianized society. Keep your pan-Turkist agendas out of these articles. Wa'salam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.128.139.98 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

IP 94, your ethnic accusations are not going to fly that easily. You'll need to argue something about content and references, instead of trying to blackball your opponent as having a political agenda. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You can put "Persianate society" in the article if you have any resources, but there aren't any sources at the moment. In the meantime, you also delete the other contributions while bringing back the term Persiante. BozokluAdam (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not a Pan-Turkist, but a Turcologist. I put the term Turko-Persian in the article, but please provide a source for it (citation needed). The previous sources for Persianate are about Great Seljuq Empire and Ghaznavids. In the meantime, don't delete the other contributions provided by me or others. Thanks. BozokluAdam (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For further reading, please check the following article from an encyclopedia: http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=pCiNqFj3MQsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Encyclopedia+of+the+Peoples+of+Asia+and+Oceania&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=saXDT9DyFYWR-wbcqqmeCg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=With%20the%20adoption%20of%20a%20new%20language&f=false

It's about the strong influence of Arab, Turk and Muslim cultures on Khwarezm after the 10th century.

Quoted: "With the adoption of a new language, religion, and culture the original Iranian-speaking people of Khwarezm cannot be said to have survived much beyond the end of the first millennium." BozokluAdam (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

====

This proves to me you're a pan-Turkist liar. If the term "Persianate" was used to describe the Great Seljuq Empire then why did you remove that term from the Seljuq article?

Learn what a Persianate society means. Persianate society means a nation that is predominantly Persian-speaking and practices the Persian culture as its number one culture. For that reason, all these aforementioned nations, regardless of the ruling elite's ethnic backgrounds, were Persianate societies. If you want to add Persian-speaking instead of Persianate go ahead, but it means the same thing.

You have an agenda and it's as clear as daylight.94.128.139.98 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a Pan-Turkist, but you might be a pan-Iranist liar. You're accusing me of that unfairly. Anyway, I don't want to answer against such unfair accusations of yours because it's not the case. BozokluAdam (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're not a pan-Turkist then answer my question. You said that the Great Seljuq Empire was Persianate due to the sources. Then answer me... If you are admitting that the Seljuq Empire was Persianate then why did you remove that piece of information from the Seljuq article? It's obvious you're distorting history. Why the hell should I side with either positions. I'm an Arab so I don't care about your biases. I want to read the truth on wikipedia and not zift information. Unfortunately there's too many zift information around here thanks to nationalists.94.128.139.98 (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To BozokluAdam: You quoted, "With the adoption of a new language, religion, and culture the original Iranian-speaking people of Khwarezm cannot be said to have survived much beyond the end of the first millennium."

My question to you is, do you know how to read? This sentence which you quoted out of context, from some silly encyclopedia, was talking about the East Iranian "Sogdians", who were the original inhabitants of Khwarezm.

After the establishment of the Khwarezmid Empire, the Persian language began to dominate the geographic area of Khwarezm, therefore it replaced the old East Iranian Sogdian language.

Why you even quoted this passage is beyond me. Seems to me like you're looking for something that isn't there.Qatarihistorian (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Languages

According to Central Asia:Pre-Historic to Pre-Modern Times, Vol.2, p 358; It states, Turkic language with no mention of Oghuz Turkic, instead Komanian is mentioned. If Gafurov means Cumanian, then it is not Oghuz Turkic, but Kipchak Turkic. Gafurov also states, that Khwarezmian and Tajik were also being spoken as late as the 1240s.
Edits such as this[3], reek of cherry picking and are typical of priority driven editors. Instead, all the information, not just what a certain editor prefers, should be presented. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Persianate revisited

I remain unconvinced of the Khwarazmian dynasty as a Persianate. If anyone can bring some sources and information indicating the Khwarzamians patronized Persian culture, that would be beneficial. I, also, will be seeking out sources and information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

After one week, no responses, no sources and no information, I will be removing Persianate from the lede. IF anyone can provide reliable source(s) for Persianate, please post them here. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Tajik origin.

Look what i found, i found it on Military history of Iran, this says that the dynasty had Tajik origins too, i can't click on the site because there is something wrong with my computer, perhaps you guys can check and see if it's good enough? here it is: --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

why is it written that this dynasty was surely turkic mamluk origin but why has tajik origin been added into it .. can anybody explain ..because all the sources which i found clearly explain that they were turks who followed persian culture.. so where did this tajik thing come from. the link that has been provided cannot be opened so pretty sure it is fake link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.47.121 (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Khwarezmian people belong to the Begdilli sub-family of oghuz .

There is a blunder in article "Khwarazmian dynasty". Look at the bottom of the article. You can find the list of three dynasties of Kwarezmshahs: the Mamunid dynasty, Altun-Tashid Governors of Khwarezm and the dynasty of Anushtiginids. But the content is "Khwarazmian dynasty". There is no notion of "Khwarazmian dynasty" in history as the state was governed by different dynasties in different periods. Besides the article states that the official language was persian and kipchak turkic. This is wrong and the sources are not reliable. I have read some works of prof. Kathryn Babayan who claims that the persian was the official language in Khwarezm empire. She has taken the information only from persian/iranian sources. It is obvious that she has never been in Kwarezm region. Otherwise she could have seen the historical manuscripts preserved from the time of Khwarezm empire (XI-XIII centries). Because all of them are written in turkish, not in persian. And what about the kipchak turkic given as a second official language, the author who claims that was a party leader and 1st Secretary of the Communist Party of the Tajik SSR. It is very regretful that all information in the article are taken from the persian and tajik sources, not turkish despite the article is about one of the turkish empires. I live in Khwarezm and I know what the kipchak turkic is. This dialekt is used by the Eastern part of Central Asia and has never been used in Kwarezm. Kwarezmian language has always been belonged to the oghuz turkic of Altay laguages family. I think that the article is just an insult to the history of Khwarezm. PS. As a Khwarezmian, I would like to say that we are not turkmen or uzbek, we are Begdilli turks. What about persians, they are completely different nation, khwarezmians have never been persians or tajiks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahnenerbe1935 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

1.Where does it say that Persian was the official language?

The Babayan source states Persian was used, nothing about it being "official".

2.Where does it say that Kipchak Turk is the "second" language?

I have explained on the talk page what the Gafurov source states. If you have sources concerning languages used by the Khwarazmian dynasty, post them here.

I will ask you to refrain from stating, "written by persian or tajik author who hates turkish people." Such statements can get you blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As for B.G. Gafurov, "GAFUROV, BOBODZHAN GAFUROVICH,(1908-1977), Tajik statesman, academician, and historian." -- Encyclopaedia Iranica.[4] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A number of sources mention a Khwarazmian dynasty. Google books:[5] and Google scholar[6]. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to save. It's also easy to find sources for a "Khwarezm empire" and a "Khwarazmian empire" - the latter seems to have more sources than the others. It's not clear to me why Khwarazmian Empire is a redirect instead of a separate article, surely we can have both? Am I missing something? Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone do something about that pronunciation?

Hi all, I registered this account to correct the abysmal pronunciation guide at the top of this page, only to find the semi-protection still locks me out! So forgive me if this isn't the way to do this, but could someone correct that terrible IPA and replace it with this?:

/kwəˈræzmiən/

If you want to use opaque Merriam-Webster pronunciation guides fine, but don't call it IPA.

First time contributing to a Talk page, so let me know if I made any major faux pas. Thanks! TheIPAguy (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Another unreliable source

I have removed another questionable flag by another unreliable source. I see nothing stating that Mello Luchtenberg [7] is an authority on flags. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Urgench

The Urgench shown on the map is a modern city that did not exist in the time of the Khwarezmshahs. It should show the location of Konye-Urgench, which is not in Uzbekistan, but in Turkmenistan.--Peterk2 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow that is an excellent catch, I was about to ask you how on Earth did you now, since the city are near to each other (about 150+ km), then I see that the Old Gurganj is in a different country than the new one. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Christian population of Jerusalem 'expelled'?

I read in the article: "The city's citadel, the Tower of David, surrendered on August 23, the Crusader Christian population of the city was expelled. "
I can read a different history: "In 1244, some six thousand Christians (presumably mostly Latins) were reported to have attempted to flee in the wake of the Khwarazmian invasion, but they were set upon by local Muslims and then by the Khwarazmians so that only about three hundred actually survived to arrive in Frankish territory. As for those Christians who had remained behind in Jerusalem, most of them sought refuge in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The invaders apparently had a particular hatred for Christians and destroyed as much as they possibly could... Al-Maqrīzī records that: ‘The Khwārizmians fell upon Jerusalem, and made strenuous use of the sword upon the Christians within the city. They exterminated the men, led away captive the women and children, destroyed the structures in the Church of the Resurrection [Holy Sepulchre], and ransacked the graves of the Christians and burned their bones.’They also destroyed the kings’ tombs and sent the carved marble columns that had stood in front of the Holy Sepulchre to Mecca, the holiest site in Islam. Indigenous Christians did, of course, suffer at the hands of the Khwarazmians as well."(https://www.academia.edu/2643175/The_Indigenous_Christians_of_the_Arabic_Middle_East_in_an_Age_of_Crusaders_Mongols_and_Maml%C5%ABks_1244-1366_)
--93.150.139.198 (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 05:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

---

I think this article should instead be two articles, similar to Timurids and Timurid Empire. In my modest opinion, the "Khwarazmian dynasty" page should be solely about the dynasty, while the other one should be about the "Khwarazmian state" (state apparatus, culture, population and etc). I would like us to reach consensus on this. Waiting for your decision. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 08:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that might be useful if this was a large and unfocused article, but the current article is quite short and splitting would make it even shorter. CMD (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate that. Regarding your concern, I would like to assure you and all other interested editors that if we reach a positive consensus on this issue, I will personally take care of expanding both pages as I'm planning to direct all my attention and efforts within the Wikipedia solely to this matter. Thank you! --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 05:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the split, but imo the name of the dynasty should be something like "Anushteginids" (the actual name of the family and used in sources by historians such as Gyselen, Bosworth, Stewart etc), and not Khwarazmian dynasty, which is too vague. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support the split proposal and will try to help out to write two articles.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support Visioncurve's & HistoryofIran's proposals. Erminwin (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the split proposal. But as far as I know Khwarazmian was not the name of the dynasty, but it was the title of the post (governor of the Khwaraz region) Thus there may be a problem in naming the dynasty. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So should we proceed with splitting and renaming the original page into the "Anushtegin dynasty" simultaneously? --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Visioncurve: honestly I'll support a move to Khwarazmian Empire or Khwarezmian Empire, definitely more common name. As I told in my talk page, don't support the split much. Beshogur (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Completed splitting

HistoryofIran, Wikaviani, Erminwin, Beshogur, Chipmunkdavis, Nedim Ardoğa. I have just created a new "Khwarazmian Empire" page, that begs extensive copy-editing, addition of more content, reliable sources, and relevant pictures. Moreover, linking the new page to proper links in different articles impatiently awaits its time. Therefore, I invite all of you and any other interested editors, to come together and try to improve the new article and contribute to the parent article as much as possible, as soon as possible. Any feedback will be appreciated. Thank you very much! --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 15:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It probably wasn't best practice to close the above yourself, but given the start, I have added the attribution templates. This split should probably also be noted at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, they may want to swap the entries. CMD (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for the urgency of that action, but it seemed the discussion had been more or less over by that time, and I had a new page ready. I will proceed with Wikipedia talk:Vital articles stuff immediately though. Thank you! --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 04:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There were a lot of bad redirects that needed fixing. I think I got them all. All titles with empire/kingdom/sultanate in the title go to the empire article, all with dynasty/shah/king go here. Most ending in -ian/-ians go to the disambiguation page. There is still a problem, however, in that the title Khwarazmshah is not exclusive to the Anushtegin dynasty. We should probably have a disambiguation page listing all the dynasties that used it. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC) I see we have an article on Khwarazmshah. —Srnec (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)