Barbarians Week on History Channel

Originally posted by Kara-seymen
Rain hold on

what i see todays Russians is...Especially some Russians look mongoloid or they have some asiatic genes...

That came always different to me...
Some Bulgarians have that as well...Maybe they have turkic genes.what i wanted to point was is it really true that some Russians(not less)have mongoloid faces and it always makes me remember asian steppes...

Regards

I have never seen a mongoloid Russian. And, being Russian myself, I'm not a mongoloid. There're about 200 ethnicities in Russia, some of them are mongoloid (infdigenous people of Siberia and Far East) and others are NOT (Russians (and other Slavs), Tatars, Finno-ugoric people and people from Caucasus). All mongoloids aren't Russians, though have Russian citizenship and full rights.

[nomad]

Originally posted by Kubik

http://www.khazaria.com/
Medieval Kingdom of Khazaria, 650-1016
Over a thousand years ago, the far east of Europe was ruled by Jewish kings who presided over numerous tribes, including their own tribe: the Turkic Khazars. After their conversion, the Khazar people used Jewish personal names...

Not exactly. Many of them had kept their own (Turkic) tribal original names such as Chicek, Alp, Baghatur, Tarkhan, etc. Their roots of most of Jews in Europe (whose ancestors weren't from Jerusalem region) go back to that Khazar Empire. Jews of Europe (Poland, Ukraine, etc etc) all are folks of Khazar State in the history. This means most of Jews in Europe have been Turks.

[scandinavian]

[uzbek]

Originally posted by Tugay-bey
Actually,TIMUR-bek was a "barlas"-a Turcisised Mongol.

you are wrong
barlas tribe was not turkisized monlgols bnut were one of the pure turcik tribes who left altay with cengiz khan army because of its extreme weather.
chengiz khans army mostly was consisted with turkic tribes so that is why they were succesful.
btw..tamerlan is calld as 'amir-temur' in central asia.
it means 'iron - commander'. if he was mongol HE would use used 'khan' with his name but he could not because mongols tthemselves didnt recognize him mongol.besides he hated monmgols...

[_Prawda_]

most off the armys in cengiz tropes where turks not mongols..after time the mongols adapted turk language cause turks outnumberd the mongols...the mongols got assimilated to the turks....wich mongols today speak mongol language? in mongolia? to me ssems like most mongols speck turk language in far east and siberia...

nomad not all jews in east europe are khazar origin most came from western countrys.....
proly only 5-10% off jews have khazar ancestorship...
then theres the karaims who are turkic jews from crimea who kept turk language....

look link...
http://www.friends-partners.org/part...ions/18-4.html

[Tonyukuk]

Were all tribes identified with the name of Barbar really Barbars? ..I dont believe that the warlike tribes and nations such as Huns,Vikings,Mongols were really barbaric ones..As I see it ,This identification belongs to the Academicians who hate those mentioned above..

For example,Vikings were not barbar at all,but They are exhibited by the scholars of Anglo-Saxon to be barbaric because of fact that The forefathers of those academicians couldnt get over those of Vikings at the battlefields. This dimvit scholar scum think that They take revenge from the present-day people of Viking origin.We can say the same thing for Huns..The reason that many european scholars dont want to admit the fact that Huns were a Turkic tribe is this antagonism to Huns and Turks..

I found an article by Eric Miller regarding if Huns were barbar or not ..u can have a look at it


A little more corrective history. (PC or not PC?)
Attila and his Huns were not even remotely German. They were a Turkic tribe, who scourged the Germans between them and Rome even more than they did the Romans. Indeed, most of the German "invaders" of the Roman Empire were running away from Attila's Huns.

But it's worse. Attila and his Huns were not "barbaric" at all (other than that they kept winning battles against the people who wrote about them, of course). They were an organized, disciplined, and highly effective cavalry army. (Of course, if you want to call any army barbaric, I donÕt have a problem with that.)

And worst of all. All contemporary reports about Attila himself emphasize the fact that he never, ever drank alcohol. Attila was a teetotaler! Now THAT is the real reason not to return to the name
ÒHuns.Ó

Sincerely,
Eric Miller
Assistant Professor of German

Secondly ,It is wrong to distinguish people into groups Like You are Russian,U are german or You are Turks. The most important thing is How People want to see themselves..We should see that There is no pure language and pure nation in the world.

Thirdly ,supposing that Timur-lenk was a Mongol What about Timur-Lenk would It change?..He was Ultra-Turkic nationalist and was very proud of being a Turk..Namely People have always tended to see themselves How They wanted..The History Channel is a channel which advocates Indo-europea and Anglo-Saxon racism ..so Dont rely on everything which is broadcasted on It .They distort the historical facts mostly

[nomad]

Originally posted by _Prawda_
nomad not all jews in east europe are khazar origin most came from western countrys.....
proly only 5-10% off jews have khazar ancestorship...

To my knowledge (and logic), almost all of jews whose ancestors are not from Jerusalem region are originated from khazar state in the history which lived between years 800-1000. There were no jews or very few in Europe (western countries) before this period. Most of Jews we see later in Poland, Germany, etc etc are grandchildren of those Jews (mainly Turk) who immigrated to the West after their country Khazar State was down.