You are most welcome, Lucille. 🙏

@@AbhijitChavda sir pin this comment

Ma'am, I'm Indian and I personally have inferred that Armenians are long lost Cultural cousins of the Subcontinent. There's some significant connection in the past. Hope we all get to know our history of the world a lot better with advanced technology.

@@AbhijitChavda Wait aren't mughals .......Monghols?? mongols? All spoke turkish and have association with turkey because of the caliphate.

@@nyetmatchbox9852 they are romanis aka gypsies Armenians are different people of causcus

A lot of people think Cengiz Khan had only mongol army 😂 They think at the time mongol could capture such a large area without Turks. Some estimate say at least 50% army was Turkic. There were situations where 80% of mongol army was compiled of Turkic nomads from Central Asia

@@user-wp7kg6qw1g The more I look at the random uneducated comments here the more it becomes clear it is just a billboard for a Lucille, who says she is Armnian, to pass comments on Turkish people as Abjit pinned her comments to the top as if to say Lucille is the authority on the topic of the origin of Turks.

Cengiz is half turk from his mom side

All muslims dad was chengis khan, his only motto was to destroy islam know him before you making up your own history.

Babur came from Farghana valley in Uzbekistan. He's Karluk turk from fathers' side and Mongol from mothers'. Thus the name

In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp and he was born in Anatolia . Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,

Mughal is a persian word for Mongol. Mughal ruler Babur was a descendant of Tamerlane. Tamerlane came from Baralas tribe from Borjigin branch of Mongols. Yet Baralas are considered as Turkified Mongols

They did not use the term Mughal themselves. "Mughal" or Mongolian was a term used by their adversaries; Persians and the English.

@@zzhex6780 Malik Timur was from the Baralas Tribe from Borjigin branch who came to Central Asia during Mongol Invasion. Whether Turks or Mongols, both have same origin: Xiongnu/Buyuk Hun Khaganate.

@@zzhex6780 Baralas are Turkified Mongols or Turks are Persianised Mongols.

It eventually become reality... As people became uneducated...

The truth is the we misunderstood the varna system,they are based on work done by people like kshatriyas being politicians,brahmins being teachers,vaishyas being businessmen etc but we made it superiority complex

It happened because of Brahmins who accepted British translation

@@spaceexplorer5481 there you go... Glorifying the casteism in attempt of denying it.

Caste system is basically not caste system in that time it was a kind of division of labour, means no one is brahmin, kshatriya or vaishya by birth but by their work. But as time passes it becomes complicated when people started to recognise their groups or caste by their birth.

Yes..good question. #AskAbhijit

@@avid459 Bhakti movement was although was more of non scientific but it kept our culture alive during those harsh times. It kept the people of our bharat United for long and it still keeps us united.

@@krishnakumar-xh1cf _Bhakti_ is something that runs through the fabric of this country and binds it together. That's true. But, what is being referred to as the *Bhakti Movement,* did immeasurable damage than saving our heritage. For instance, the science of *temple making* and *deity creation* are almost lost. After all, to someone steeped in _bhakti,_ the details did not matter. Even though it maybe a great device to realise the ultimate, it has not been a benediction as a collective movement because it led to the neglect of the intricacies of the cultural behaviours/rituals and so on. _I feel it is akin to saying that Mahatma Gandhi's non-violence movement led to India's independence._

@@RKB192000 True... The movement created differences between Vaishnavas and Shaivas and destroyed Tantric form of worship which was the science behind the the Aagamas and the mechanism of worship.. People started to condemn tantra and yantra due to which our Dharma and it's knowledge went backwards rather than moving and taking us forward.

@@avid459 Why do you need "convert" anyone from Bauddh to "Hindu"? There are just different traditions with same goal of raising human consciousness , it is not a fight like Abrahamic religions. Adi Shankaracharya didn't "converted" anyone. Conversion is western idea.

Oz bo’lsada biz turklarga adovati bor kabi eshitiladi. Bir - ikki suxbatlarini tingladim va shu fikrga keldim. Balkim uzr istar ota bobolarimiz amallari uchun.

@@user-wp7kg6qw1g Why Apologize , back in the day everyone was a Barbarian

no. not very well explained. turks and mongols are not related. altaic theory is not accepted by modern philology.

In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp and he was born in Anatolia . Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,

@@freethinker9630 before turks establish Ottoman. There was a seljuq. Seljuqs was originally from Khoraezm. Khorezm is central asia. Alp Arslan was born in Khorezm too.

In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp and he was born in Anatolia . Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,

we will take vengeance once the hindu empire rises

@@Simply1ME 😂😇

@@sinanergin694 laugh while the pot of sins of your ancestors are filled, karma is comming back for you

@@Simply1ME look who's talking about karma, i didnt say anything wrong you talk about rising of the hindus and that they will take revenge, youre obviously filled with hate for no good reason and thats worth a hard laugh

The permanent settlement by Turks in Anatolia starts with the Seljuks. However Turks had lived in Anatolia for thousands of years before that as nomads.

@@aba6737 Turks were nowhere close to Anatolia before that. They were originally from Central Asia which is very far from Anatolia.

@@Adalar_Denizi Turks are mixed but all other races are pureblooded. Yeah, ıt must be a Greek fairy tale...

@@Adalar_Denizi Nobody has Hellenic DNA in Turkey

@@Adalar_Denizi Analtolyan

Nahi nahi hum to inki hi ibadat krenge

Shitty "Distorians"

@@abhinavghosh Ki bolchen dada?

@@sidharthadey5781 Sir,ask this question in the comment section of community post for the coming AskAbhijit session of history,society, geopolitics.

Silarai was a Koch Assamese not bengali lol learn history 🗿

they are turtik from paternal side, they did not claimed their Mongol heritage which was maternal

Mr Abijit Chavda is not neutral he seems baised and even his many historical references are not correct as you identified this one so we can't say he is historian

@@l...6954 even i feel the same way, he is not neutral in his views, it's more biased towards his people and people of his ethnicity. There are many references to point out but i can't say its same with his every video but yes most of his video are unbiased and not that correct.

Chagatai is the old Uzbek language & nation. They were Karluk Turks

@@manumudgal4988 babur claimed that he was descendents of changiz khan and taimarlane

@@sahilsagwekar u mean conversion

No, absolutely not they modern day mislims living in india are Indians. Even during mughal era majority muslims are indian not mughal or turks

@@charlavenkat1112 yes.

During vijayanagara empire the king hired some of Central Asian Turks to train his army and the term turakollu was coined during that period both kannadigas and telugus call muslims as turakollu and even after 500 years of assimilation the features of muslims in Deccan region and Karnataka and Andhra some what resembles central Asians

@Amimul Islam yes man I researched about them little bit and I got known that they conqured almost 50 nations in 13th century with the help of gun powder

Emre it's a good idea to avoid the use Mughal when describing Babür. It is a term erroneously used by Persians and later the English.

Contact I am trying to learn about nomad Turks and how Arabs easily defeated and converted whole Turkish tribe to islam yet Mongol didn't even 10% muslim , how Turk lost so easily when they are alike

@@SunitaDevi-jc1kv First you need clarify which tribe you mean. Turks have many clans over a very large geographic area. As far as I know Persian cultural influence led to Turks converting to Islam. The word in Turkish for sin is a Persian loan word - not Arabic.

@@SunitaDevi-jc1kv Turks accepted Islam. They were not fully conquered like Persia, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. After collapse of Gokturks, Turks were spread, they were weakened. Chinese kingdom was controlling Uyghurs and even tried to capture Tashkent, Bukhara Samarkand. But Abbaside came and fought with them. So during Battle day Turks chose sides with Arabs and defeated chinese. Read Battle of Talas 751. At that time Abbasid army had many Turkic warriors and generals. So abbasid were giving a lot of preference to Turkic horseman. It made them accept Islam slowly but steadily. After century Seljuqs came out. They also accepted Islam. After that many nomadic Turks came to central asia they islamized really fast.

@@user-wp7kg6qw1g thanks for information I will look into this

kuch bhi kayi godugdo alp grandfather of suleman and he is born in Sougut (turkey )

@@descendedofrigvedicclans2216 I meant for our people.

@@orionemperor5319 কাইল্লা বাংলাদেশী turks 🤣শালা কাইল্লা ন্যাংটাদেশির তুর্কি সাজার খুব ইচ্ছা 🤣🤣

@@descendedofrigvedicclans2216 nope there are some in Kerala and Sri Lanka

Duplicate indian

Basically made you Bengalis their slaves. And Islam is their tool

Read the destruction of The Baghdad Caliphate by the Mongols. That was the beginning of pushing the Turks out.

Damn there's atleast a lie or half information in every line how you composed it

That doesn't make sense so they just skip persia ? Whoc literally between them and central Asia.

@goldenstate2002 oh.

No thats a misconception. Turks conquered anatolia century prior to mongol invasion thats true but the mass migration to the anatolia happened during the mongol invasion, most of it is well documented, which tribe settled which area and when etc. Kipchak tribes were mostly joined the mongol army, karluks were busy invading india themselves and we (oghuz) were roaming around and raiding iranian lands when mongols showed up and did run away from them after mongols beat khwarazmids.

They glorified their own ancestors, no offence

This is not any different to any major power in the world glorifying their past in the movies they export to every corner of the world.

Watch Battle of Haifa. .

Yea Chief of the Mongols Empire And also Cockroaches 🪳🪳🪳

@@Amir-rv9ov cry browny

Turks and mongol are Related.. They both practiced the tengrism

@@gamingwithroy1435 indonesians practiced hinduism until arrival of islam. but they are not indians not even related.

Turks and Mongols created alliances against common enemies. They borrowed vocabulary from each other and there was limited inter cultural marriage. But they speak different languages.

@@aba6737 common enemies? turks and mongols were almost enemies. khwarezmids, seljuks, delhi sultanate. volgs bolgars even non-muslim cuman-kipchaks all of them were enemies of mongols. but some time later mongols turkified began speaking turkic. like mughals in india or golden horde or timur.

@@BenDover-ud7vs In the history of no nation the enemy is a constant.

We never know

@@Sharmaji-lu2bp We should know!!! Sir explained previously about the King Rimush who allegedly fought with the Marhashi people(who were helped by the people of Meluha or Indus Valley Civilisation). So, if the army of Meluha helped them in war then they must have had a commander which in turn signifies that they might have had an emperor or a chief. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians also had kings, so why would be Indus Valley Civilisation an exception!!!!

"Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"

Probably a Democracy, or the King was elected by a Council of some sorts

They try to show it as a very peaceful race of people. But if u look at sports of Harappans. They had hunting sword fighting etc was very popular according to archaelogists. The first to Tame a elephant in the world and sacrificial bulls in rituals with massive swords on Tablets are also found.

British empire and during nehruian era nehru invited many Christian missionaries to india

@@50subscriberswithoutavedie57 sin😅??didn't got your answer.

It is called cultural imperialism.

In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp and he was born in Anatolia . Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,

The ruling class referred themselves as Turks and hated Mongols as well

Basically you guys are greeks the great greeks that gave world stoicism

@Anuraag Gosaain i doubt that. Coz greek/hellen music had no connection to sangeeta. They are completly different.

@@sh1tzzyloda914 what are the factors we can recognise that is of persian origin? is it raga, tala or what? if you know, pls share.

@@ripper5941 im from karnataka. i learnt carnatic music is indigenous. but im asking about the sufi influence on hindustani music.

@@sh1tzzyloda914 thanks for the info. do you know any original persian songs that can refer to these ragas?

@@sh1tzzyloda914 thanks alot. i have now gained some more knowledge because of you

Now that is a real worthy comment and one will be ignored.

A group of barbaric tribes that roamed Central Asia. Even the Arabs preceded you in civilization

​@@Y0ussef.Turks brought civilization to the Middle East

its impossible to have 35% medieval turkic dna specially anatolains

No they are not, they are different peoples ,they speak different languages.

Actually you are talking about north Indian and north east India are not Turks they are Tibeto Burman

Dowry system was started during Mughals rule in India. They used to marry and forcibly ask for Dowry. As we know they were Malechh. And their mindset was also cheap they used to think females as property. And regular basis of wandering in Rajputana with evil eyes forced the specially Rajasthani women to wear full Ghunghat.

Since I read Vedic scriptures I think I would like to answer it too even though the question is for abhijit sir. Yes sati, dowry, goonghat and child marriage happened in ancient india but....... NOT THE WAY IT IS PRACTISED IN KALIYUGA 1. IN MAHABHARAT, madri commits sati but rajmata kunti doesnt commit sati. Why? Because sati was the will of the wife and it depended solely on how the relationship was between the husband and wife. Sati wasnt just a matter of honour of chastity for women but even a matter of pride for men as they would feel rejected by their wife even after they loved them so much.why? Its a rule made by god that man cant enter the heavens without his wife. How will you enter until your wife dies with u? Then why did kunti not commit? Because sati didnt force women in terms of pregnancy, woman being an initiated disciple on a spiritual path wasnt needed to commit sati, women who had young kids like kunti had pandavas to take care of. Some women didnt commit sati because they hated their husbands and just went to a hermitage to get moksha etc and didnt even go back to their own parents. So sati wasnt about forcing women to jump on funeral pyres of men. IT SOLELY DEPENDED ON THE WOMAN'S SITUATION. During invasions, our vedic inheritance law was changed. The property after the husband dies belongs to the wife and not the "male heir" but mughals and british changed the laws and forced women to commit sati so in many cases even if women were pregnant or had a male heir. They committed sati along with their children. So sati was never "evil" but WAS MADE EVIL BY INVADERS. GOONGHAT PRATHA, In mahabharat, veiling system for women was followed in imperial capital cities and by women of uper classes. You will find draupadi being veiled but radharani was never veiled. Reason? The odhan that we wear in the north was always tucked with the chuda mani so that it doesnt cover the head but covers the back of the head only. Why? It is important to keep your head without any "cloth" for better meditation, austerities and penances. You can ask any sadhu living in himalaya on this. Ever seen a sadhu or sadhvi covering their full head while meditating? Obviously no because its was never allowed. Full covering of head especially like the rajasthanis happened because of mughal invasions. Those days nothing existed like love jihad, they simply abducted hindu girls and whom will u report to? The king? The king was a muslim. Like he will care. So in short, veiling of the face was done in entire india both north and south as mentioned in mahabharat but not like arabians even arabians never had purdah system. Ever seen princess jasmine with a hijab? No if u look closely she only had a veil. In india, women made their own colourful embroideries on the transparent veils of silk and cotton and other raw materials and this was open to fashion. Every woman had her own embroidery style which signified her way of noblety and class. These were the mannerisms of the upper classes especially the military class of india. The fact is women were allowed to choose in india. It wasnt compulsory. A princess can roam about without any veil on her face within the palace and other women but when distinguished guests arrived women took pleasure in teasing the opposite genders, especially the unmarried girls. It wasnt compulsory after marriage really until unless polyandry was involved. Different kingdoms had different practises. Everything is mentioned in mahabharat. Read it. Basically it was a thing women enjoyed as it was seen as fashion in india. In arabia, mostly women wore plain veils not the embroidered and colourful ones that indian women wore. Kamasutra also says that women can use this tactic to attract men. This is precisely what happened back then😑 because women werent uneducated for example krishna's eldest son with rukmini(i think) was kidnapped by the daughter of tripurasura with the help of her best friend. She liked him since the first she saw him, both women were well equiped with 64 arts and had yogic powers. So even women kidnapped men in ancient india and they both were wearing veils that time. This story is mentioned in 10th canto of srimad bhagavtam. Later on, after krishna defeated tripurasura in the battle he got the enemy's daughter marry his eldest son and they lived happily ever after. Veiling was used as a tool to attract the opposite gender not to suppress women. Ghoonghat is horribly suppressing and its so bland. Please read veda. Everything is explained properly there. DURING INVASIONS, whichever hindu girl didnt wear veil or cover her face was abducted therefore the Hindu women were forced to cover themsleves fully to protect themsleves from being abducted. They were very dark times. DOWRY SYSTEM IN MAHBHARAT, its mentioned drupad giving money horses etc to pandavas after they got married to draupadi but they were draupadi's personal property. Husbands were allowed to take care of their Wife's inheritance property (now its called dahej) so as not cause unnecessary pressure or stress on the wife. If you love your wife it is natural for you to take care of everything she takes care of. BUT....... Before a marriage happened, shagun used to arrive from the boy's house and then after all rasams they were married and the woman would take her fair share of inheritance from her house to her new home. This is the actual vedic law. You are also allowed to give a leaf as inheritance to your daughter if yoy ar every poor. Inheritance of the girl is basically offered to vishnu as marriage is called vivah yajna. Its a yajna, not a mere ceremony. Those 7 vows are the vows given to vishnu where 49 firegods bear your testimony infront of the holy fire and the girl's inheritance is seen as a security offered to vishnu as a symbol of sincerity and detachment. It remains with the daughter which also has streedhan. INVASIONS = inheritance laws changed from wife to male heir. In kamasutra, the sage says that even if the man has lost interest in his wife , the wife must make sure that the inheritance goes to her so as not to invite unnecessary kukarma. so british and mughals only leeched off money from us while the highly respected status of a mother was degraded lower than her son. After wards, marriages were done on how much money can the daughter -in-law come with. The property strictly belongs to the daughter , not to her husband's families as mentioned in the veda. So dowry is an invasion concept. It was actually offered by the daughter's father to vishnu As a symbol of detachment. Its never offered to the husband. Hindus need to read the veda. They are following all nonsense. BAL VIVAH veda states that a girl should be married off before she hits puberty or before she gets menarche. In ancient days, women got periods at the age of 16-19. Unlike today when girls are having periods at the age of 10-16. Why? More stress increases and more the adharama increases, earlier the women of that society will get periods. When did this all happen? During Invasions. Why? Because u dont give proper nutrition to the girl child. Its a very toxic and sinful karma. Krishna says in BG who ever is sinful, i give him birth in sinful womb again and again. So these people who support nonsense in the name of child marriage also have to suffer in their next lifetime. All punishments of sins are explained by garuda in garuda purana, you can read that too. so marriage according should be fixed before menarche but the girl and boy are to be married only after the boy conpletes his bhramcharya with the permission of his spiritual master. The boy completed it at the age of 25. Till then the girl would be whta? 20? So only matriages were fixed but DURING INVASIONS due to deep fear and insecurity about the daughter being abducted people even married their daughters at the age of 5. Why?? VEDA SAY IF A WIFE HAS A GOOD HUSBAND, SHE IS THE MOST FORTUNATE BUT IF SHE HAS A BAD HUSBAND SHE IS THE MOST UNFORTUNATE (until obviously she becomes a sadhvi like meerabai etc?) this is also why sati happened only after the death of the husband not after the death of the husband's parents. Why?? In its truest sense, sages say that only the husband will truly be ever sincere to his wife. In laws will never be sincere. Well this is actually correct. Funny part is, bhramins and sages had nuclear families until one of them had a widow mother and lived in forests or in poverty. Mostly joint families were seen in military, business and labour class. Its very funny dont you think? so bal vivah was done because of invasions. So yeah it did affect men but women were those victims who couldnt even voice out their opinions. fun fact = north india also celebrated first period of a girl but we banned it ourselves because the moment anyone declared that their is fertile now, the mughals would barge in, abduct and leave. THE END😑 dowry was a mixture of streedhan (inheritance from one's mother) and inheritance from father to their daughter NOT TO THE DAUGHTER'S HUSBAND. THEREFORE , we also find vedic kings mentioned in veda who wanted daughters to pass their inheritance too. Kings also gave villages as inheritance to their daughters. now? ITS HORRIBLE. Their were marriages where the entire list was announced infront of yagna by the pandits along with both of the ancestry (vanshavalli) of bride and groom. Seriosuly just read the veda. You will get all the answers. so these things existed back then but not to suppress women but only to enhance their life because our culture was spiritual and not materialistic like today you have people asking for a car as dowry in marriage. Absolutely horrible. sorry for grammatical and spelling mistakes. I am too tired to edit it fully. for more, refer to veda.

@@sheetalverma8940 great🙌🕉️

@@sheetalverma8940 where did you read all this? I would love to read too

In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp and he was born in Anatolia . Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,

His grave is still in afghanistan!

@@sh1tzzyloda914 yeah when 2nd battle was done and they were on defensive he was killed when their was opportunity

@@kingqueen104 his burend accoding to rajput rituals their is no grave

In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp and he was born in Anatolia . Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,

Nam mit gya Rana sanga ka

Yeah culturally or linguistically they are turk.genetically they are Greek. Actually turk word comes from Turkmenistan and not turkey.old name of Turkey is Anatolia.

Truckic Orr turks me difference hai bhai!

Because people of turkey in medieval era were enslaved and colonized by turkic people and assimilated people of anatolia with themselves. That's why today's colonial mindset generation of turkey think themselves as turkic and named their country Turkey.

And of anatolian ethnicity too. Anatolians just didn't die out.

Turks of Turkey are converted Greeks, and pakistanis of Pakistan are converted Indians 😄

Ghandi had the same view.

He is talking about their facial features , people from Central Asia & Mongolia look quiet similar

Not only that. Gengiz Khans army had more Turks than Mongols.

Micheál they were called Mogul by their adversaries only; Persians and the English elite. They probably believed it was a racist slur at the time.

The eastern step people were mongols.Turks were central step people.Kazakh,Uzbek,Turkmen,Hazra,Kyrgiz,Tatar,Uyghur,Turk all are Turkic.Turks have lost mongoloid features because of excessive genetic mixing with greeks,slavs,persians and arabs.

no Mongols are not Turkic. it is as calling jews as Arabs. Jewish and Arabic languages are even closer than Mongolian and Turkic languages. example urt üstei okhin (Mongolian) = Long haired girl (English ofcourse) Uzun saçlı kız (Turkish) = Uzun çaçlı kız (Uyghur) = uzyn saçly gyz (Türkmenistan) =uzun saçlı qız (Azerbayjan) = uzın şaş qız (Kazakh) =uzun çaçtuu kız (Kyrgyz)=uzun sochli qiz (Uzbek)

we will take vengeance once the hindu empire rises

He is right bro. u are wrong

Turks and mongols origin is same. They come under Altaic language famliy . Both mongols and turks practiced the same relgion tengrism(proto turkic relgion) in ancient times before islam. They orginated from today parts of siberia and mongolia

Medieval Arab writers noted that Tibetans and Turks resembled each other, and that they often were not able to tell the difference between Turks and Tibetans.

On Western Turkic coins "the faces of the governor and governess are clearly mongoloid (a roundish face, narrow eyes), and the portrait have definite old Türk features (long hair, absence of headdress of the governor, a tricorn headdress of the governess)".

And turkey turks are converted Greeks(european) just like pakistani who are converted indians hindu or buddhist.

Because they get mixed with local Greeks, Armenians, Slavic people in the Balkans and Russians/Ukrainians. Most of the Turkish people have paternal Turkish genes and maternal foreign genes. My father have slant eyes but I don’t for example.

Iranic.

Neither. Indo aryan originally now mixed

How is that possible..are you descendants of mughals?

how do you know?

Lol you aren't turk if you like Chinese than you are turk

@@bibeksinha9914😂 no Turkish looks like Chinese. We do have weak slant eye features and that’s all. Oghuz Turks have Caucasian/Middle eastern/European mixed looks, Kipchaks have stronger Asian features and Karluks are a mixture of Oghuz and Kipchaks.

@@FilesdocumentsAndreposit-kr3vb yes, you still have wrong thought about this again. Uzbeks, living in Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan are actually the same nation with Timur. And in other parts of Uzbekistan, uzbeks and timurid population already mixed with each other. That's why Uzbeks have right to claim Timur as our hero. And Timur spoke old uzbek(Chaghatai turkic). Russians changed the name of Chaghatai language to Uzbek in 1920s. People, outside Central Asia, cannot undarstand such kind of matters so easily.

@@FilesdocumentsAndreposit-kr3vb I don't know rule of Baburids(Mughals) in Pakistan and India much. I know some about rule of Aurangzeb and Shah Jahan.

@@muhammadjonzokirov8369 then FK all of you , let me tell you we hate you from the core

@@muhammadjonzokirov8369 we don't hate you coz of of ethnicity but religion if uzbeks conquered india and would have followed Vedic culture we will be proud on them but they followed Islam 🤮🤮🤮🤮

we will take vengeance once the hindu empire rises

Correction. Most of the soldiers of Mongol army = Mongol-Turkic, Turkic speaking Mongols and Mongol-Turkic union clans. Look history and you will know these Turkic-Mongols or Mongol-Turkic. They were basically ethnic Mongol/Mongolians with some Turkic admixture of clans, language, origin. Kind of like how many western Turkic tribes are just Turkified Iranians, Europeans.

Azeri turks were the rulers of Persia not India

Azerbazani is a shia turkish.

Ottoman empire/sultanat-e-Osmania named after the founder Osman ghazi.To whom Romans called ottomans .(the descendants of Osman or ottoman)

😂

Dear Abhijit you should have know that the Turks are much longer in Anatolia then you mention, the oficially as early as 1071 since the battle of manzikert the seljchuk empire against the east roman empire, but historically the turks have even before 1071 in anatolia In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like Misr and Egypt and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp and he was born in Anatolia . Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,

​@@SuleimantheMagnificent9825hhhhhhhahhaha

KEKW

@@YT__KING what happened 😡

@@luciddoggo5094 🤨

We are turkic Do you know that there are Turkic languages Turkish Uzbek Hungary Kazakh Kirgiz Azeri Uyghur( Autonom repiblic of china) Turkmen Gagauz (Autonom repiblic of Moldova) Qashqai Salar Crimean Tatar (Ukraina Russia) Yugur Khakas Tuvan Shor Altay Karakalpak Kyumik Chuvash Karaim Tatar Bashkir Apshar Nogai Chulym Kumandin Dolgan Karachay Balkar Sakha

@@xanshen9011 Exactly, they are not ethnic Turks.

When Turks invade Anatolia,Native Anatolia's population is quite low and Turkic tribes are crowd.

@@myesil1526 Anatolia and Constantinople was the center of orthodox Christianity and you are saying it was sparsely populated?

@@madhugreenleaf How Did Turks came Nicea from Manzikert just in 10 years?Byzantine crowded cities stay on west anatolia and coast.So Byzantine ruled west anatolia until 14.century.Also in 1204,Why Did emperor's son in law establish a state western anatolia(nicea)instead of Greece?because roman population is crowded in this region.Please Not be prejudice about Turks.I say truth.

In arbic antulia and turki are synonyms

How about people of Himalayas?

It is very funny bcz after the getting Istanbul, Turks turkfied the greeks . Also, evden today, nobody is pure helenistic DNA in greek because of Turks😂

Genghis Khan wasn't Turkic, he was a Mongol. Mughals were not from Persia, they were originally from central Asia (Uzbekistan).

Genghis Khan was a Mongol. Mongols are different from Turkic people. Babar came from present day Uzbekistan and was ethnically Turkic. However, Mughals were a 'Persianate' kingdom, which means they adopted Persian language and customs but were not ethnically Persian.

No, mughals were persianized, not Persian they are entirely different. Just like how many south east Asian empires were indianized not indian

Genghis Khan pure Mongol tha halaku Khan bhi

Turkic look has nothing to do with Mongolic look