>>The original Turkish tribes arose in the same geographical area as the Hsiung-nu. They formed a great confederation which threatened the Chinese Tang empire in the 7th or 8th century AD, but were eventually divided and driven west by the Tang emperors (who were half-Turkish themselves). In the course of their migration to Central Asia, then Persia, then Mesopotamia, then Anatolia, they picked up Mid-Eastern characteristics (mingling with locals).
To say they were of the same racial stock (originally) as the Huns would probably be correct but eventually developments would differentiate the two peoples. >>
Personally I'm not sure where the original Turks came from but from a brief research most indications say the Seljuks were of nomad stock near the Caspian Sea. That is considerably farther west than the Xiung-Nu or Xian-Bei or Yian or other nomads in the northern far east. The Tang dynasty family, founded by Li Yuen and his son Li Shi-ming, were originally warlords in the Taiyuen area in Shanxi, near where the orignal Qin kingdom was in the 4th century BC. They were "rumored" to have at least a little central asian stock in them, most likely Tu-jue. This may have been because of the liberal policy of the Tang concerning non-Han people, and many ethnic minorities attained high offices, the most famous being An Lu-shan, whose rebellion nearly toppled the Tang. The Tang did defeat a western Tölös-Turks in 657 at a location west of the present province of Xinjian, probably in Turkestan. This prehaps is an indication of Turkish powers in the far western border of China, and the name Turkestan seems to point to that, but they have very little in relation with the traditional enemy of ancient China, the Xiung-Nu.
>>The original Great Wall was definitely bigger than that. The original Warring States (Yan, Zhao, Wei) along the northern borders (and also some inland states) were already building long walls along their northern borders. The Qin built too and later connected up with the other state walls to form a long network of fortifications. The theory goes that the Wall is actually to keep the Chinese in (from joining the nomads and bringing with them technical skills), rather than keeping the nomads out. Its effectiveness against horse-riding nomads is questionable, particularly stretching across such a long distance. >>
Yes I understated the size of the original Great Wall to make a point. It was a massive structure by the standards back then, but would actually be quite small in comparison to the modern Great Wall. It would most likely be something bigger than Hadrian's wall in England, but not too much bigger. The Hadrian wall appears to be less than 8 ft high, but I wouldn't know since I've never been there. As regards to which warring state started the wall, it could not have been Zhao since they were more south, in the southern Hebei/northwestern Jiansu area, and the Wei, who were a smaller power in the central area. It was most likely Qin who started it since they were at the northwestern region of the warring states, and perhaps the Yan in northern Hubei. Whether to keep the Chinese out or in, the defeat of the Xiung-Nu by the Han brought the forced migration of tens of thousands of Xiung-Nu in below the Yellow River, the "river loop" area. They were assimilated into the Chinese culture and the rest who escaped west were later known as the Huns. The effectiveness of the Great Wall served mainly as a warning system of the impending barbarians, not as a wall to keep them out.
>>The Turks were an older power than the Vietnamese, Spanish, Thai definitely. There were already Turks contolling the Islamic Caliphate in Baghdad (behind the scenes as slave soldiers) before the Mongols came and also the Khorezm Sultanate in Central Asia later (when the Mongols invaded).
The Thai only formed present Thailand after they were driven out of Nanzhao in Yunnan by the Mongols in the 12-13th century AD. The Vietnamese only formed as a nation during one of their dynasties in the 10-11th century AD (forgot name). The Spanish were slightly later, when they began driving the Moors out of Iberia. The Turks already formed their first empire on the steppes of Mongolia in the 6-7th century AD, around the time of the Tang in China.>>
The Vietnamese date back to pre-warring states era, in the 7th century BC, atleast in context with Chinese history. I'm sure they have been there since a long time ago, without written history. Back then, all of southern China was known as the Yue, or Viet, and the people were known as the Bai-Yue or hundred Yue. They were conquered and brought into the Han dynasty by Ma Yuen, and had a history of resisting Chinese rule ever since. They are atleast as old as the ancient Turks, whom as I re-emphasize have very little in common with the modern Turks. The Viet people, or as they use to call themselves the Lac, were of roughly the same race and culture since the 7th century BC.
The Spanish have been indigenous to their area since the Roman times at least, and after the reconquista grew into a world power. They also have kept roughly the same ethnicity and culture since the ancient times. Today much of the world speaks Spanish, so I think its much more important that the Turks who don't even speak arabic? (not sure).
The Thai may be a case to be argued, but they have settled in Thailand since the 8th century, divided into the Lan Na and the Sukhothai. The Sukhothai was conquered by the Khmers, and Lan Na had much Hmong influence, so they were weak in terms of military power. The redeeming factor for them I feel is that they were able to retain their own culture and Buddhism as a religion even with all these strong pressures on their borders from Islam, Chinese, and other SE Asian ethnicities who were more adept in warfare. Thai culture is one of the most unqiue in SE Asia, with elaborate temples and costumes. The Turks on the other hand, is less well known culturally, but was a much larger military power.
The bottom line is that the modern Turks, who arose as a slave army who siezed power from the Baghdad Caliphate, and their brother the Ottomans who caught the Byzantines at its decline and seized the fortress of Byzantium, are of minor cultural importance to the world. Their military conquests were certainly important, but does not measure up to many other civs who were known for their martial powers, such as the Mongols and Vikings. Their cultural importance seem to be closely connected to the ancient Persians.
Knight-Dragon, your historical knowlege is commendable, and I would like to discuss more merits of each civ with you through email if you'd like. I really love history, of almost every civ in the history of the world =).
.Genocidies occured but the sadest thing is that turks dont admit that!
(sign of i-am-still-blood-thirsty ?)
