Talk:First Turkic Khaganate

unsourcd flag

Where is the source for this flag? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Göktürk Empire example flag.png

The flag is mentioned and showed in many books about Gökturk Khaganate, examples : Sherqiy Turkestan Tarihi, Uyghur Tarihi. The flag is showed and officaly accapted by the History scholars as the flag of Gökturks. Dolatjan (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found these sources: and. The wolf head is confirmed, only the colors are not mentioned. Akocsg (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

This is the only Göktürk flag I could find Dardanus 75 (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

National flags are a modern concept. Many historical states did not have a national flag so searching for one is futile. The flag linked is the flag of a modern far-right organisation, not of the Gökturk Khaganate. You'll need to accept that the Gökturk Khaganate did not have a flag. Kardoen (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Map

Wrong maps:File:Asia 565ad.jpg, File:Asia 600ad.jpg, File:Asia 700ad.jpg, File:Gokturkut.png, File:Тюркский каганат.png

These maps may be correct:File:East-Hem 565ad.jpg, File:East-Hem 600ad.jpg, File:East-Hem 700ad.jpg, File:GökturksAD551-572.png, File:China map.jpg, File:800px-Tang map.JPG

Map of Lev Gumilev: conquest in 550-600 AD - Mongolia, northern Inner Mongolia, southern Zabaykalsky Krai

Map of Lev Gumilev - 1st half of the VIII century: - The Eastern Turkic Khaganate: Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, northern and northern Gansu. The Western Turkic Khaganate: Kazakhstan, northern Xinjiang, Kyrgyzstan, eastern Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and some territories north of Caspian Sea

Map of Lev Gumilev: late VI century: Mongolia, part of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, northern Caucasus, Tuva, Altai Republic, Khakassia, western Jilin, western Heilongjiang

Sui Dynasty (581–618) and Turkic Khaganate: , Category:Maps of the Tang Dynasty,

The khaganate wasn't 18,000,000 km2 in size. I changed to 6000000. Rein Taagepera "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.", Social Science History Vol. 3, 115-138 (1979); Jonathan M. Adams, Thomas D. Hall and Peter Turchin (2006). "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires". Journal of World-Systems Research (University of Connecticut). 12 (no. 2): 219–229. See List of largest empires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gecary (talk • contribs)

German works on Old Turkic inscriptions

Der türkische Text der bilinguelen Inschriften der Mongolei: Erstes Heft: Die Schrift ist eine ... (1900)

https://archive.org/details/dertrkischetext00albegoog

Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées (1896)

https://archive.org/details/inscriptionsdel00thomgoog

Über die köktürkische Inschrift auf der Südseite des Kül Takin-Denkmals (1896)

https://archive.org/details/berdiekktr00banguoft

Wörterverzeichniss zu den Inscriptions de l'Iénisseï (1892)

https://archive.org/details/wrterverzeichni00donngoog

Rajmaan (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish work

Orhun abideleri

https://archive.org/details/orhunabideleri00yaziuoft

History of Turks

https://archive.org/details/trktrh00yazi

History of Ottomans

https://archive.org/details/osmnltrh01yazi

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Yaziksiz%2C+Necib+%27Asim%2C+1861-1935%22

Language(s)

According to The Altaic World through Byzantine eyes: Some remarks on the Historical Circumstances of Zemarchus' Journey to the Turks (AD 569-570), Mihály Dobrovits, "Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae", Vol. 64, No. 4 (December 2011), page 382;

• "Sogdian played an important role in the life of the Turkic Empire. It was the language of the Bugut inscription (ca. 571-582), the first historical inscription of the Turks..."

Whereas, the source added by Acocsg contains no page number, yet when "Sogdien" is put in the search box, Roux, page 79;

• "La langue officielle de la dynastie, au moins a ses debuts, est le sogdien, comme le demontre l'inscription imperiale de Bugut, monument funeraire du fils de Bumin, Mugan Kaghan, le Mou-han Chinois(553-572)."
  

Translated:

• "The official language of the dynasty, at least at its beginnings, is Sogdian, as demonstrated by the imperial inscription of Bugut, funerary monument of the son of Bumin, Mugan Kaghan, the Chinese Mou-han(553-572)."

Oddly, this exact conversation occurred here. Where sources were presented that support Sogdian as the language used by the Ashina. Ashina being the founders of the Gok Turk/Turkic Khaganate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

More:

• Another one from Encyclopaedia Iranica;
  

"TURKO-SOGDIAN COINAGE, issues of the khaqans (ḵāqāns) of the Western Turkic khanate in Central Asia between the 6th and 8th centuries CE, so called because the Turkic rulers issued them with Sogdian inscriptions (Smirnova, 1952). --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Languages, again, et. al.

I noticed that "Old Turkic" has been added to the infobox with no source. Per Alexander Vovin;

• "This discovery has many important consequences for linguistic history and history of Central Asia, among which the most important are: first, the fact that the oldest language on the steppe of the “Ataic” type is Mongolic, and not Turkic, and second that this Mongolic language was the official language of the first Turkic khaganate, which in its turn explains why we have no inscriptions in Old Turkic before the second khaganate." -- Alexander Vovin, Groping in the Dark: The First Attempt to Interpret the Bugut Brāhmī Inscription, page 121.
  

and;

• "First, it demonstrates that the Mongolic language of the Khüis Tolgoi inscription(Vovin calls it Ruan-ruan, Vovin, page 133) is not an anomaly. Since the Brāhmī Bugut inscription turned out to be another one written in the Mongolic language, we should expect that we are dealing here with a regular phenomenon, and hopefully we will witness soon enough the discovery of other monuments in the same language, especially that the Mongolian archeology is still in its infancy."
• "Second, this discovery clearly shows that, as suggested previously by Étienne de la Vaissière, in addition to the Sogdian language that served as a "lingua franca" in the First Turkic khaganate, this was the imperial language." -- Vovin, page 133.

Clearly then "Old Turkic" should not be listed in the infobox, and Turkic_Khaganate#Second_Turkic_Khaganate should be removed from this article since it has an article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It says common languages. So you claim, Old Turkic came from nowhere after foundation of 2nd Turkic Khaganate? Beshogur (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• "So you claim, Old Turkic came from nowhere after foundation of 2nd Turkic Khaganate?"

Apparently you missed the source posted above, and have to make this personal(ie. "you claim"). So you have a source that the First Turkic Khaganate used Old Turkic? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You miss my point. I know that Otk is not used as lingua franca during 1st Gokturk empire, however the infobox says common language. You already did mention the official languages. Beshogur (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that the First Turk Khaganate used Old Turkic? Kansas Bear (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well you should write Ruanruan instead of pre middle Mongolic. I agree that they spoke Ruanruan. Also It does not mean they did not spoke old Turk because they did not wrote old Turkic inscriptions. Can you prove the opposite? Beshogur (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Well you should write Ruanruan instead of pre middle Mongolic."

Where have I written pre middle Mongolic?

• "I agree that they spoke Ruanruan."

I agree that Ruanruan was used, but to what extent I am not sure. Once Bumin overthrew the Rouran Khaganate, it is a given that the people that make up the khaganate still existed, therefore their language would still be used.

• "Can you prove the opposite?"

I do not have to prove a negative, you have to prove they spoke/used Old Turkic. The burden of proof is on you. If you want to include that information in the article then you have to provide a source that supports said information.

Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not using personal opinion, personal thought(s), or personal POV. You have been here since 2016, I am sure you already know this, since on multiple occasions you have asked for sources.

And this;

• "...is known for the first written record of any Turkic language in history."

is not correct. The Second Turkic Khaganate, which is a completely different entity, is known for the first written record of the Turkic language. Talk about an historical inaccuracy!--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, there is a misunderstanding then. I am going to change the language into Ruanruan language. You do not understand. We are talking about a pre medieval state which their only written inscriptions are Bugut inscription and Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi. Do not expect me to prove something that does not exist. It is already mentioned that Ruanruan and Sogdian was the lingua franca, however the infobox says common languages. So you claim that Turkic was never spoken in an entity that used the name "Turk" which subjugated Turkic tribes? That is my point. "...is known for the first written record of any Turkic language in history.", where did I say that? Of course Orkhon inscriptions are the first written record of any Turkic language. So Western Turkic Khaganate, who said "Onoq" to themselves, which means "Ten arrows" in Turkic never used Turkic? Also "Our sources clearly show that the Turks were within the boundaries of the empire when they revolted. It does seem that the formation of the new state meant simply a shift of the ruling class from one ethnic group to another, an event which may have had relatively little imparct on the rest of the population. We do not know what the language of the Juan-juan was, but we do know that Türks spoke Turkic. It is possible that there was no linguistic difference between the Juan-juan and their Türk successors. Beshogur (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Do not expect me to prove something that does not exist."

Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, if no source exists then that information should not be in Wikipedia.

• " "...is known for the first written record of any Turkic language in history.", where did I say that?"

Never said you said anything. Compared to your continued "you claim" nonsense.

Your quote is not from The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, p. 101, but Sinor's "Inner Asia: History-Civilization-Languages, page 101, published by Indiana University 1969. Please be more careful when citing a source, if a source does not check out some editors/IPs are more than willing to remove first and ask questions later.

I believe the source you provided should work. Next time, refrain from the "you claim" nonsense. I am only interested in what sources state, nothing else.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I believe it Inner Asia is the name of the first volume of the book I mentioned. Beshogur (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• East-Hem 600ad.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gokturk cav.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Relations with the Byzantine Empire

The current section on the relations with the Byzantine Empire is a copy from the Greece-Turkey relations which I wrote in January on @Beshogur's prompting . Since it was copied here's its been edited for relevance to just the First Turkic Khaganate which is appropriate but shows how we can lose knowledge. A third issue, is when I was researching, I had to scope it down myself because it was not relevant to what I was writing for but it's historical information that would do well to be expanded.

In light of consolidating knowledge, effort and sources to improve accuracy and to reduce Wikipedia'a duplication, I received approval to create Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire. My proposal is to remove it from this page (and any other) and simply have a link now to this new page where I will expand on it. Please let me know if you agree. Elias (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Poma mask

This article contains a reference to the Silk Road Foundation, which is used to source the addition of a gold mask from Poma cemetery. The Silk Road Journal is an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has nothing to do with this talk page section.

The Silk Road Journal in question is focuses on Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by mostly Russian and Chinese researchers. There is only one editor of the journal, an American man named Daniel Waugh, who has candidly stated that the journal has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

This is pretty much the definition of a predatory publisher.

And predictably, this source contains the kind of erroneous information that one would expect from these kinds of standards. I would just like to note that this source does not even say that this mask is from the First Türkic Khaganate. Quite the opposite, it quotes a researcher who says that it is found in association with items (namely, a cup) obtained by trade with the Türkic empire (whatever that is supposed to mean):

The crescent-shaped garnets which depict the beard of

the mask are similar to those of the studs (Inv. Nos. 2001.21.52–53); however the mount of the Boma mask is of much better quality and workmanship, with the cells of the single crescent stones surrounded by an accurate granulation. The “Western” characteristics of the cup with panther handle and of the other fi nds from Boma, have been discussed in detail by Lin Ying (2008). She interpreted them as objects produced in the Turkic Empire of Central Asia and adds that these populations “transmitted material and cultural achievements between East and West, but also combined in their own distinct culture the elements of different civilisations” such as the Byzantine, Iranian,

Indian and Chinese (Ying 2008, p. 25).

Yet, as we would expect from a low quality source, this is unlikely, because this source also got the dating of the mask awfully wrong. This mask is not from the 5th-6th centuries CE. Every source I have seen places the dates of the golden masks to within the 1-5th centuries CE. From The Himalayan gold masks from a Eurasian perspective, Tao Tong and Linhui Li (2016):

The dates of these gold masks are all around the 1st–2nd centuries CE

On the ruby-inlade Poma mask that this section concerns:

one made of gold from a tomb at Poma (1st–5th century CE

Thus this mask actually pre-dates the First Türkic Khaganate, possibly by hundreds of years, so whatever the Silk Road Journal meant by "Turkic empire", this mask has nothing to do with the First Türkic Khaganate, and since no source actually claims that, it should not be placed here. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Qaghan Khaganate

It is obvious that Khaganate is derived from Bumin Qaghan's name, yet when transliterated in Wikipedia, the name is consistently spelled with a "Q" while the dynasty is spelled with a "Kh." Looking through the sources it does not seem that Khaganate exists as a word in Turkic or Old Turkic. If this is the case then Qaghan would be a trasliteration while Khaganate is a retronym, which is fine. Historians have been applying retronums for a long time. The question is why would the spellings be so different? If "Q" is the the proper transliteration of the first letter of the name, why would it not also be the same for the dynasty? A similar inconsistency exists later in the name and dynasty when the consonant after the first vowel is transliterated "gh" in the name but only "g" in the dynasty. I do realize the in Semitic languages often have subtle internal pronunciation differences when a syllable is added to the word, which could explain "gh" vs. "g" but not "Q" vs. "Kh." The Turkic language these words come from may have the same types of differences leading the "gh" and "g," I don't know for certain though.

The point of this question is consistency. From reading the words individually, it is not obvious they come from the same place, yet the context makes their common origin obvious. Transliterations should be consistent. Why the different spellings? Mike32065 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Map question

@पाटलिपुत्र: Hello. What source(s) did you use for this map? I'm very surprised to see Gorgan and parts of Bactria under the control of the First Turkic Khaganate in 576, during the reign of Khosrow I (Battle of Gol-Zarriun, for example, comes to mind). HistoryofIran (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @HistoryofIran:. You're right, I tweaked accordingly (Bactria and the easter side of the Caspian). Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @HistoryofIran: Hmmm, on second thought... according to Grousset and Christoph Baumer, after the recovery of Bactria by the Sasanians in 565-568, the Turks took Bactria back from the Sasanian Empire in 568 under Istämi (specifically including Balk and Kunduz) Grousset p.82 Grousset p.83 Baumer p.174. Baumer continues that the Turks suferred a serious defeat in Herat in 588 or 589 Baumer p.174. Also see Harmatta&Litvinsky p.367. So at the date of this map (576), Bactria would indeed have been under the Turks?... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ll try to make a reply today. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please use citations from the sources, it will make it much more practical. Also, I still think we should be very careful with using History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, considering how much outdated info it has (I also stood by this back in 2020 ).

"We may be fairly certain that, in the reign of Khusro I, the empire of Iran reasserted control over most of the region of Bactria, for the striking of Sasanid coins resumed at the mints of Marv, Herat, Sakastan, Chach, Samarqand, and Balkh.267 Possession of those territories may be confirmed by the evidence of sealings, dated to the reign of Khusro I, found as far as Zabulistan and Kadagistan, a region to the east of Rob in Bactria.268 This evidence, which is more trustworthy than the Persian royal tradition, suggests that Khusro and the khaghan had agreed to divide Hephthalite lands between them, but the Turkish portion was by far the larger. The relics of the Hephthalite state were now confined north of the river Oxus and south of the Pamir mountains in Bactria, where mints continued to produce coins in the old style.269 That debased Hunnish remnant may have extended into the region of Badakhshan. But the old king Ghatfar was dead. Faghanish, his successor, wherever he pretended to rule, was nothing more than an Iranian client,270 and that moribund monarchy hobbled on until it vanished altogether in the eighth century." - Bonner, Michael (2020). The Last Empire of Iran. New York: Gorgias Press

"Grousset, perhaps a bit contradtionary later says in page 85; "This quarrel between the western T'u-chiieh and the Byzantines did not prevent the former from continuing their war against Persia. In 588/589, they invaded Bactria or Tokharistan and advanced as far as Herat."

This is what Shahbazi says in regard to what happened between the Turks and Sasanian at that time (dating it to 569/570 instead of 568) ; "In 569 or 570 Ištämi/Sizibul, who had conquered the Avars and the remnants of the Caucasian “Huns” and thereby had come to control the Silk Road, attacked Persia with the encouragement of the Romans and pillaged some border areas (cf. Menander, tr., p. 147). Ḵosrow contained the Turkish assault and concluded a treaty with them, but his marriage with the daughter of the Ḵāqān is chronologically impossible (see HORMOZD IV). He fortified the northeastern provinces against their further incursions. Sizibul died soon after, and his successor declined Byzantine’s offer of alliance against Persia and instead invaded the Bosporus area."

"Apparently, Sabe Khan, Hormizd’s uncle and the son of the previous Khagan, attacked the Sasanian troops in Balkh, setting them to flight, and conquering Balkh, Talaqan (the one to the west of Balkh), Hari (Herat), and Badghıs. At the same time, attacks by the Romans, Arabs, and Khazars were also reported. So Hormizd, attempting to set affairs back in order, chose Wahram Cˇobın ‘of the family of Gurgin son of Mılad’ as the general of his armies against the Turks. Before these wars, the Sasanian troops were in possession of the area of western Tokharistan and were mainly stationed in Balkh, the centre of the former Hephthalite imperial power. The entrance of the Turks into this region was thus a breach of an agreement concluded between Khosrow I and the Khaghan (Sinjibu) that had set the Oxus as a boundary between the empires." page 177, - Rezakhani, Khodadad (2017). "East Iran in Late Antiquity". ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity. Edinburgh University Press

Daryaee seems to date it to 572-577; "In the east in 557–558 CE, Khusro I defeated the Hephthalites and between 572 to 577 CE, checked Turkic incursions into the Near East." - page 30, Daryaee, Touraj (2014). Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B.Tauris --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

According to Haug, the Hephthalites were still ruling Tokharistan (Bactria), but as vassals of the Turks: "By the 580s our literary sources show the Hephthalites again ruling Ṭukhāristān, but this time as the vassals of the Turks. Michael Jackson Bonner has argued that this transition appears messy because the Sasanians did not actually participate in the conquest of the Hephthalite Empire but used its destruction for propaganda purposes. (...) Numismatic evidence similarly shows spotty Sasanian rule in Balkh and elsewhere that does not line up neatly with the narrative presented by our literary sources. What may likely be the case is a situation like the one described in the previous chapter in which the major urban centre of Ṭukhāristān, Balkh, along with some isolated regions such as the province of Kadagistān, which is known only from the Bactrian documents and administrative seals, retained a connection to the Sasanian Empire while the Hephthalites held the lands around them." (Haug, Robert (27 June 2019). The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-78831-722-1.) पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, so Haug seems to be the only source here that fully acknowledges these rather awkward contradictions and goes a bit into depth about it. Well, his book is dedicated to stuff like that I guess. I don't mind using him for this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I will leave the map without Bactria anyway, since the situation at that time seems rather complicated (or even unresolved...), and simple suzerainty over the Hephthalites in Bactria might not really count as direct territorial occupation (depending on interpretation)... It doesn't change the thrust of the map, and anyway the region of Bactria was soon under the control of the Turks through the Tokhara Yabghus. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty to the Eastern Turkic Empire reparations?

You reversed the two sides that made the reparations. On August 28, 626, Emperor Taizong of Tang met with the Eastern Turkic khan on the Wei River. Emperor Taizong intimidated the khan by force (Emperor Taizong had invited him to a duel in Binzhou two years earlier), and the khan was terrified and agreed to withdraw his troops and pay reparations.On September 1, Khan offered 3,000 horses and 10,000 sheep as compensation, but Emperor Taizong of Tang did not accept them, believing that these were too little.After more than three years, Emperor Taizong decided to teach the khan a lesson. So more than 100,000 soldiers and horses (about one-fifth of the total strength of the Tang army) were dispatched to attack the Eastern Turk Empire, and more than three months later, the Eastern Turks perished.Source: Books "Old Book of Tang", "Zizhi Tongjian". 李双能 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Turkish Commonwealth 879BC - 580AC

First of all I would like to ask a few questions regarding the amount of inscriptions and sources that have been made during this time period (879 BC - 580 AC). There are a total of over 300 inscriptions about the period of the "Khaganates"(source: see "TURK BITIG.com all inscriptions have been archived here 300+!) yet little to none of them have been properly read or have not even been touched at all! For example; the (wrong name but what you call) the Göktürks had a total of 5 different historians who we know the names and lifes of (1 oldest and first historian in the world history Bilge Atuñ Uquq from 565 BC), (Öñre Bıña Başı from 530 BC), (Alp Ërin from 322 BC), (Çur Tïgin 551 BC), (Tört Tïgin 551 BC). And also the very oftenly mentioned "Yoluğ Tïgin" meaning the "Palace historians" who we have many different works of dating from the period 879 BC to 580 AC. Now, I doubt any of you have even ever heard of these people's because none of the inscriptions have been properly read. Let me start with the name of this "Göktürk", "Köktürk" or "Turkic Khaganate".(???) First of all the name Göktürk comes from the misreading of Köktürk which itself is also a misreading of "Ökük Türük". First of all this name is only mentioned ONCE! (In the kültïgin inscritpion) in ALL of the 300+ inscriptions and its written like this;[𐰜𐰇𐰚:𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜] from right to left we First see the [𐰜] letter which is the ÖK/ÜK/KÖ/KÜ. So its not possible to read this as just "K" or as "G". Afterwards we see [𐰇] Ö/Ü. And at last before the : seperator we see [𐰚] K/İK/Kİ. Now from right to left if we would try to read this in NO POSSIBLE WAY you could ever get "kök" or "gök". If you would want it to start with a K it would be read as köök/köük/küük/küök. Which all have no meaning and therefore are wrong translations. So let's look a little further; let's read this as ÖK/ÜK and see what words we get. Ökök (again no meaning/doesn't make sense [skysky, heavenlyheavenly???]), Ükük (again making no sense). What about ÖK - Ü - K? Ökük? Does this mean anything? YES! "ÖK" "ÜK". Now let's combine this with the TÜR>ÜK< [𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜]. We get ÖKÜK TÜRÜK. Meaning the HOLY RACE (DESCENT)/(FROM) THE HEAVENS (WITH)/(WHO KNOWS) ITS ÖK! (ITS CREATOR!). Shortened we read this as Holy Türk. The name TÜRÜK itself means TÜR & ÜK. TÜR means in Turkish "RACE", and ÜK means heavenly. ÖK means creator (we can still see traces of this in todays Turkish for example the name we Turks give to people who have no mother we calk them "ÖKSÜZ" "ÖK - SÜZ" meaning "without an ÖK" meaning WITHOUT A >CREATOR<!). So now the translation we have Ökük Türük is a correct reading of these 2 words [𐰜𐰇𐰚:𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜].

And even if any still deny this Ökük Türük reading. The commonly widely accepted "Kök" and "Gök" are both completely out of consideration since both are totally wrong.

Now that we have settled on the name scandal. Lets look at the historians we just mentioned and give a short reference to their works.

(Before I start I would like to mention that I have all of the inscriptions that these historians have left with the correct translations and also their names mentioned in the inscriptions itself ALL in PDF style I can send it to anyone whos having doubts. My telegram=Jesse Kruitman).

I want to start with ÖÑRE BIÑA BAŞI, Now this historian has left behind 2 large inscriptions for us. The (what you call) Tariat inscription, and the (what you call) Şine-Usu inscriptions. Now the officials don't give any worth to these 2 inscriptions and say these belong to the so called "Uyghur Khaganate"(which is never mentioned in any inscription just like the Göktürk/Köktürks) and say they belong somewhere in between the 700s - 900s AC. However this is fully and completely wrong and I will explain now why.

The problem we face when trying to date stone inscriptions is that we cannot do C-14 carbon tests in them, and therefore fully rely on what the inscription tells us and the form of writing used on the inscription to try and give a date. Now what the officials completely overlooked is that these 2 inscriptions give the date they have been erected in INSIDE of the inscription itself!! For example in thr Tariat inscription Öñre Bıña Başı says

"ÜR-ÖGIN BUNTA OY-URUTUDIM, UÇI-AT BUNTA AT-UQUTDIM. >>>*BİÑ YILLIQ*<<< ÖTÜMIN KÜNLIK BİTİGİMİN-BÏLGÜMİN BUNTA OY-IŞI >>>*TAŞQA OY-URUTIDIM*<<< AT-ULUQ UTUŞQA AT-UQITIDIM."

BİÑ YILLIQ - TAŞQA OY-URUTIDIM. I wrote on the stone in memory of the thousand year past. Anyone who knows Turkish and Kazakh will be able to understand these words Biñ Yıllıq meaning Bin yıllık in todays Turkish means "thousand year past". And Taşqa urutıdım, "Taşqa" still same in todays Kazak and Turks "Taşta" meaning on the stone. And "Urutıdım" comes from Kazak and still spoken in some Anatolian Turkish dialects the verb "URMAK", "TAŞ'A URMAK" means "hitting/punching it on the stone". (Litteral english translation means writing it on the stone/noting it on the stone). Here what Öñre Bıña Başı is saying is that he erects this stone in memory of the thousand year past. Now if we look at the previously mentioned state by Öñre Bıña Başı where he refers to the "AT OY BÏL"

(ÏL-BÏLGE QATUN QAĞAN AT-OĞ QATUN AT-OĞ ATANIP ÖTÜKÜN KIDIN UÇINTA İTİZ BAŞINTA ÜR-ÖGİN (ÏTİTİDİM].... ANTA, OY-URUTUTDIM BARŞ YILQA, YILAN YILQA, ÏKİ YIL YAYLADIM. ULU YILQA ÖTÜKÜN URITU UŞINTA UŞ ÖÑIN BUDUNI IDUQ-BAŞIQIN ÖÑINTE YAYALADIM.)

from after first the BARŞ yılqa(tiger year, 522 BC), afterwards YILAN yılqa (snake year, 519 BC) and "ïki yıl yayladım" meaning 2 years (Yılan yıl - ïki = Snake - 2 = 519-2= 517 BC)  and afterwards ULU yılqa.(Holy/great year, 1517 BC). Now the year 517 BC we have Öñre Bıña Başı says "in memory of the thousand year past" so 517 BC -1000=1517 BC confirming the date we gave in the old Turkish calendar. Now that after the 1000 years have past would mean it was erectes in QOÑ YILQA (Sheep year 517 BC).

Now this whole dating I have done this according to the old Turkish Calendar. I have a whole PDF explaining how the calendar works and I also give many examples to inscriptions where this calendar is used. Now I have not gone deeply into explaining the calendar I just kept it short. Anyone whos curious or doubts this can message me anytime on telegram and I will provide all proofs needed. (Telegram= Jesse Kruitman).

Now that we have settled on the year, I do not only have this year from the calendar but also from Herodotus. (Anyone who wants to hear it message my telegram). because Öñre Bıña Başı in the (what you call) Şine-Usu inscription in the part D11 explains his campaign to Gallipoli (mentioned as "TUTUQ BAŞ" campaign) and here Öñre Bıña Başı not only gives us the year but also gives us the day with the month, the day of the month, and the year all together (BC 20/7/516).

"OQ-ÏÇİN(BÏÇİN) YILININ YÏTİNÇ AY, YİGİR(MİKE) ÏSKE ÖGÜS OQ-AT UB-UÇUĞQA BARTUĞ YILUNQA, TOQİSUNÇ AY, OQ-UŞUY QARA OZIĞ UYULTIM. KÜZTE AT-UB-UÇ(UĞQA) SÜLEDİM. ËDGÜ-ON ANÇA BÜ-AT ÖGİMİ SÜLEP YORIMAZUN ÖKÜ-OL ÏLİK US UŞ-OĞI."

Lets have a look at this part, (D11 Şine-Usu inscription). Anyone who speaks and understand Turkish can also come very far understanding certain words here. Now lets look at the date which is given. "OQ-ÏÇİN(BÏÇİN) YILININ YÏTİNÇ AY YÏGİR ÏSKE." (Todays Turkish: Bïçin yılının yedinci ayın yirmisinde), English: (the Monkey years seventh months 20th day), which gives us according to the Turkish calendar BC 20/7/516.

Öñre Bıña Başı gives the most dates in this part of the inscription of TUTUQ BAŞ campaign. In D12 he explains himself passing the "Ïster ırmağı" which is the Ister river by gallipoli, and using guerilla warfare against Darius I. And afterwards defeating him.

So we have a Turkish historian. From the years 500 BC, who erected a stone inscription in 517 BC, in memory of a state that existed 1000 years prior to that called At-Oy-Bïl. Who also used Old Turkish calendar on his inscriptiond and gave the dates all the way to the DAY and MONTH. In depth explaining certain events that took place. And explains how he defeated Darius I. In Gallipoli, the official historians and scholars completely deny the existance of this person, the calendar used on this stone. And have not even properly ever read any inscription and gave this state a fake name. Göktürk/Köktürk. Or the Khaganates, Uyghur Khaganate. + the year 552 has never been proven and neither has the year 732 of the Kültïgin inscritpion ever been proven. Kültïgin = Mukan Qağan and died in 575 not in 732. This is according to Chinese and Byzantine sources. Anyone who has questions message my telegram.

Now this is just 1 historian. Öñre Bıña Başı, just like him we also have Alp Ërin who has defeated Alexander the Great. He wrote this also himself in the Bolbol Uqus (what you call Ongin inscription). And also the "myth" that Tomyris beheaded Cyrus the Great is also noten in these inscriptions.

I suggest a whole complete renovation of this page!! History is a lie!!! This all what I am saying has been proven by Kazım Mirşan, Liu Mau Tsai, De Groot and Rallof!! I have all proofs in PDF style message my telegram anyone who has questions! TELEGRAM=Jesse Kruitman. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the source for 552?

May I ask anyone what the source is that this "khaganate" was established in 552? And by someone called "Bumin" Khagan? Please give a direct source. Not some random article by any historian/writer only just mentioning this. Proof. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Area?

How is Golden Horde is 6million while Gomturks also had the same land area?Gokturks were much bigger. 31.223.72.127 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Change of name "Turkic" to "Turk"

Name of Turk Khaganate is Turk/Türk in every historical sources. "Turkic" word doesn't exist in sources. Calling this state "Turkic" has no basis as well as has no logic. Turk Khaganate is origin of Turk word. Their name of tribe was Turk. That's where Turk word come from.

What is the logic behind that naming? As I understand, it is assumed that it encompasses all Turkic people or ancestors of all Turkic people. Both assumptions are incorrect. Turkic people predates Turk Khaganate and there were a lot of Turkic states and principalities contemporary to Turk Khanagate. Name of article should be changed to "Turk Khaganate". Tartridrad (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Didn't know Chinese sources used English. Beshogur (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done

Name of Turk Khaganate is Turk/Türk in every historical sources.

And our encyclopedia is a modern tertiary source, citing mostly modern secondary scholarship. Historians adopt imperfect nomenclature that best aids their understanding of the past (while not conflating it with the present). Remsense 🌈 论 11:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

"Historians adopt imperfect nomenclature that best aids their understanding of the past."

Which historians accepted that kind of flawed naming I don't know? Because it is just wrong. Name of this state is simply "Turk Khaganate". Calling it "Turkic Khaganate" is wrong as well as doesn't serve to understand anything about mentioned state, it is like calling Genghis's Khan's Mongol Empire as Mongolic Empire. I assume you are historian. If one historian came for explaining, it would be better. Tartridrad (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to peruse any of the cited sources in this or any related article, such as those in Turkic peoples. If you have further questions, I ask that they accept that we follow scholarship, not our personal preferences. Remsense 🌈 论 14:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Majority of the sources use the name Turkic. The reason it has "first", is because to distinguish with the second. Beshogur (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

World War I was called the "Great War", the Byzantine Empire was never called that when it existed, etc. We use the common English language terminology as used by historians. Yes, the First Turk Khaganate could work, "Turkic" is the version pretty much always used, so that's what it's called by Wikipedia.-_3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Genetics table

I see that the genetics table that was added to Göktürks have been more or less copied over to here. I think most of the table isn't relevant to this page as most of the table is about burials that took place after the final end of the First Turkic Khaganate in 603. DervotNum4 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly if you look at Talk:Göktürks you can see there is argue there. As you notice most of the table is about burials that were after or even before. for example TUK001 is xiongnu period, KHN001 is mongol, OLN008 is female from Uyghur period (females don't have y dna).OLN001 is male from Uyghur period. TUK001 is female, TUK002 is xiongnu and haplogroup O-F26105,UAA001 is Mönkhkhairkhan and is haplo N. Other thing is using wrong subclades for samples for example both ZAA002 and ZAA004 are C-f1756 →f3830→SK1082 2A01:5EC0:1801:AA4F:1:0:7D8C:BAC2 (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Gone and removed the talbe, reasons given are here DervotNum4 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Map Discussion

@Pataliputra!

Hi, I'd like to discuss the western borders of the map for the First Turkic Khanate, and potentially that of the Western Turkic Khanate as well. You seem to be one of the most active editors on this and similar topics so I thought you a good person to ask.

On What basis are the western borders drawn? The only thing I see mentioned is the Battle of Bukhara, a victory over the Hephalties where the Turks were allied to the Sassanids, but the territory of Hephthalites did not reach the black sea or even beyond to the Caspain.

My natural question then is how could that battle be given as the reason to draw the western borders so far beyond the Hephthalite's territory?

While there is Record of Turxanthos attacking the Bosprous, IE Kerch, there doesn't seem much proof his or the Turkic Khanate's dominion reached into the lands between the Dnipers and Donets. Turxanthos exact relation to the Turkic empire or even where he exactly held court is somewhat nebulous in itself.

This map also arguably is incompatible with Maps in other articles such as that of the Avar Khanate both in its 576 and 602 AD renditions.

It also seems a little incongruent with the history presented in Old Great Bulgaria and Kubrat that takes place shortly after. The Kubrat article which states the revolt to create Old Great Bulgaria was against the Avars and not against Western turkic Khanate, IE, "in 635, according to Nikephoros I, "ruler of the Onoğundur–Bulğars, successfully revolted against the Avars and concluded a treaty with Heraclius"

The history of the Magyars also overlaps with this in both location and time but there is no record of the Magyars being part of the First Turkic Khanate or the Western Khanate.

The non-turkic greek orthodox presence in Crimea also remains rather consistent at least until 1475 with the Principality of Theodoro, both the Old Great Bulgaria and Avar Khanate maps seem to leave out parts of Crimea with respect to that but neither the First or Western Turkic Khanate maps do.

On the whole I think maybe some earlier version of the Map which were more conservative may be a better fit in the overall historical picture and to account for how nebulous some of these relations are being pieced together from Byzantine, Persian, and Chinese sources with some disagreement as to when and if they are speaking about the same individuals.

Please let me know what you think, thanks Guile's Theme (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Guile's Theme:! Originally I simply replaced the original long-standing black-and-white map with an interactive color version which is a bit conservative territorially, my last adjustment was even this , stopping at the Caspian Sea, based on my understanding of the sources. Since then, various users have been redrawing the map and edit-warring. I have given up. If you're into this, I would not mind if you reverted the map to one of the earlier versions, but I doubt it will stay for long... Best regards Pataliputra! (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Map is well sourced.

Kurbanov, Aydogdy (2010) (in English) The Hephthalites: Archaeological and Historical Analysis, Berlin Freie Universität, p. 184 "" The Turks finally defeated and destroyed the state of the Rourans, and became one of the strongest political entities in Central Asia. In the future the borders of the Turkic kaghanate would stretch from Korea to the Black Sea.

Osmonov, Oskon (2013) (in Russian) History of Kyrgyzstan (from ancient times to the present day), Mezghil, p. 49

History of Humanity: From the Seventh Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D., UNESCO Publishing ISBN: 9789231028120. ""In 569–570, the Turks launched a great military campaign against the Sasanian Iran, and conquered the Hephthalite principalities south of the Oxus belonging to the Sasanian Empire.

Histoire des Turcs., Fayard ISBN: 2213606722. ""The Turkic Khaganate was a vast khaganate; from Manchuria and the Great Wall of China to the Black Sea."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bang bang to (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia, Bloomsbury Publishing ISBN: 978-1-78831-722-1. ""The people of the Caucasus who had come under under Turkish authority, namely the Abkhāz and Balanjar

History of civilizations of Central Asia: The Crossroads of Civilization: A.D. 250 to 750., UNESCO Publishing ISBN: 978-92-3-103211-0. ""The taking of the city of Bosporus by the Türk army in the Crimea in these years was also designed to ensure control of the steppe Silk Route up tothe Black Sea.

History of civilizations of Central Asia: The Crossroads of Civilization: A.D. 250 to 750., UNESCO Publishing ISBN: 978-92-3-103211-0. ""In 569–570, the Turks launched a great military offensive against the Sasanian Empire, and conquered the Hephthalite principalities south of the Oxus belonging to the Sasanian Empire (The Sasanians were powerless to resist because they were also engaged in war against Byzantium). It seems the Turks reached the Kabul–Gandhara area in 570

Central Asia in World History., Oxford University Press, p. 49 ISBN: 0199793174. ""The Türks created the First Central Asian transcontinental empire from Manchuria to the Black Sea Bang bang to (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

all if them pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources Bang bang to (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Authos pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Kurbanov, Aydogdy, Osmonov, Oskon, Peter Benjamin Golden, Jean-Paul Roux and others. You can clearly see map in Osmonov's work Bang bang to (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources Bang bang to (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

please read Wikipedia:No original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published. By this, the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article Bang bang to (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this your primary wikipedia account?

Kurbanov, Aydogdy (2010) (in English) The Hephthalites: Archaeological and Historical Analysis

This is a thesis paper which isn't approiate on a topic where there are plenty of reviewed books, journal articles, and university press monographs by specialists. Also, the 'black sea' does not necessarily inlcude the area betweent the Dnieper and Donets.

Osmonov, Oskon (2013) (in Russian) History of Kyrgyzstan (from ancient times to the present day), Mezghil, p. 49

This is a text book created by the Kyrgz government and also not a good source for the claimed area between the Dnieper and the Donets.

History of Humanity: From the Seventh Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D., UNESCO Publishing ISBN: 9789231028120. ""In 569–570, the Turks launched a great military campaign against the Sasanian Iran, and conquered the Hephthalite principalities south of the Oxus belonging to the Sasanian Empire.

The borders of the Hephalites was nowhere near the claimed area, quite far actually, and cannot be used for this claim even though it seems the most commonly cited rational for such a map.

The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia, Bloomsbury Publishing ISBN: 978-1-78831-722-1. "The people of the Caucasus who had come under under Turkish authority, namely the Abkhāz and Balanjar not a source for the area between the Donets and Dnieper.

"The taking of the city of Bosporus by the Türk army in the Crimea in these years was also designed to ensure control of the steppe Silk Route up tothe Black Sea.

For one, taking one city on the edge of crimea for a very short period does not allow you to color the entire penninsula under Gokturk control. For another, it is nebulous in sources the relation between this attacking group, which was mostly Utigurs, and the Gokturk Khaganate. And again, this does not describe anything about the area between the Donets and Dnieper.

None of the other 2 sources you listed mentioned the area between the Donets and Dnieper either. While Peter B. Golden, arguably the single leading modern expert on Early Turkic History says, "Having defeated or brought under their control the Sabirs, Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Antes and gathering now in "Scythia Minor" (Dobrudja), Constantinople's new allies were proving to be too menacing to the Empire. Consequently, when, in 562, the Avars again pressed Constantinople for gift"; IE the Utigurs were reported last under Avar dominion. And when Kubrat rebels in 630 it is against the Avars. Also, the Byzantines got the Kutigurs and Utigurs to fight one another in the 550s, something unlikely to happen if they were under a central rule at the time.

You do not have any sources for the more expansive map vs the more conservative one nor consensus for it against Patali and myself. All those sources you gave however do support the more conservative map. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Histoire des Turcs., Fayard ISBN: 2213606722. ""The Turkic Khaganate was a vast khaganate; from Manchuria and the Great Wall of China to the Black Sea."" jean-paul roux Bang bang to (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The Türks created the First Central Asian transcontinental empire from Manchuria to the Black Sea.

Peter B. Golden Bang bang to (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

'To the black sea' does not necessarily include between the Donets and Dnieper of which there is no record of Gokturk control but of Avar.

Also, page number for that claim in regards to Golden, I did a term searches in https://scispace.com/pdf/an-introduction-to-the-history-of-the-turkic-peoples-braxpxq1kt.pdf and it did not come up. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"This is a text book created by the Kyrgz government and also not a good source for the claimed area between the Dnieper and the Donets"

Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses

hw pass wp scholarship Bang bang to (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

For Aydogdy Kurbanov just read his wikipage. Bang bang to (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing to see, wikipedia can't be a reference for wikipedia. Also, please consolidate your replies. You've made 6 different replies for what could have been 2. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You can see reference in his wiki page. I do it because you don't understand Bang bang to (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As you do not understand wikipedia cannot be a reference for wikipedia. And you did not provide a page # for Golden. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

if you just have problem with Dnieper and Donets. Why you chose map that don't include other parts that have source for it Bang bang to (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses Bang bang to (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Because you don't understand pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That's why I sent it Bang bang to (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Because Patali, an experinced editor, suggested and supported it. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i don't care about your opinions.

On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published. By this, the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article Bang bang to (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That isn't an opinion, that is an answer to your question. And remember to remain WP:CIVIL please.

All the sources you gave support the map now in the infobox. That map is supported implicity but such sources. What is not so clearly supported is the expansive map you are pushing. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

We can speak to each other respectfully. Why like this? Bang bang to (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I am speaking respectfully, saying you don't care what others think isn't a good way to try to build consensus though and isn't very inviting to discussion. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You do it first. Want to mock me with this "You've made 6 different replies for what could have been 2" Bang bang to (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, because wiki policy is to not flood pages with replies. And it makes it more difficult to answer, causes branching discussion which is harder for others to follow, and makes everything less coherent. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

we can we each other in our talk page if you want? Bang bang to (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

No thanks, a discussion about the infobox map should be in the article's talk page. Still waiting for the page # for your claim regarding Golden. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

ok . You can just use a map that don't cover majority of empire just because of Crimea. Also Turks definitely were in Crimea for while Bang bang to (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't have sources for the area between the Donets and Dnieper, and there is no proof the Turks conquered all of Crimea nor that short term temporary occupation of one city on the edge would justify coloring it so. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

the map show Turks in 576

Per empire of steppe by René Grousset:

Tardu therefore received Valentinos very coldly. Moreover, as a reprisal for what he considered Byzantium’s breach of the alliance, he sent a detachment of T’u-chiieh cavalry under the command of a certain Bokhan against the Byzantine settlements in the Crimea. With the aid of Anagai, the last chief of the Uturgur Huns, Bokhan laid siege to the Byzantine city of Bosporus or Panticapaeum, near Kerch (576). Likewise, in 581 the T’u-chiieh were under the walls of Chersonesus, and it was not until 590 that they were to evacuate the country permanently.”

Turks definitely were in Crimea in that times Bang bang to (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

not until 590 that they were to evacuate the country permanently. Bang bang to (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

René Grousset's work is 100 years old and should not be cited directly as much of it is outdated and if it represented mainstream scholarship it should have been cited and reproduced in a more recent modern work. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i have two sources for Crimea

History of civilizations of Central Asia: The Crossroads of Civilization: A.D. 250 to 750., UNESCO Publishing ISBN: 978-92-3-103211-0. ""The taking of the city of Bosporus by the Türk army in the Crimea in these years was also designed to ensure control of the steppe Silk Route up tothe Black Sea.""

The Empire of the Steppes by René Grousset Bang bang to (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Another work aporve it.

History of civilizations of Central Asia: The Crossroads of Civilization: A.D. 250 to 750. Bang bang to (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Page 49 Bang bang to (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

No mention of such a thing in page 49 of this Golden source; https://scispace.com/pdf/an-introduction-to-the-history-of-the-turkic-peoples-braxpxq1kt.pdf Guile's Theme (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=PtT5p-6V5FcC&pg=PA49&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false Bang bang to (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Does not give a date, and again, 'to the black sea' does not qualify inclusion of the area between the Donets and Dnieper or Crimea. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

René Grousset say it also History of civilizations of Central Asia: The Crossroads of Civilization: A.D. 250 to 750., UNESCO Bang bang to (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The previous source by Golden you linked does say, "It would be 500 years before another empire would similarly unite the steppes", assuming he is talking about the Mongol empire circa 1240 AD, that would place the time he is talking about for that quote around 740 AD. I already mentioned the issue with Grousset above. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Dude what are you saying? Which book are you reading?

Central Asia in World History

By Peter B. Golden:

The Türks created the First Central Asian transcontinental empire from Manchuria to the Black Sea.

Leave this.leave Peter B. Golden. ok

I just show you two sources that say Turks were in Crimea Bang bang to (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You used one source, Grousset, that is 100 years old and should not be cited directly while there is much more modern scholarship available. The full quote from Golden is, "The Türks created the First Central Asian transcontinental empire from Manchuria to the Black Sea, promoting an expansive tradework that faciliated the movement of good and ideas. It would be 500 years before another empire would similarly unite the steppes."

1240-500=740 AD. Infobox Map is dated 576.

And again, 'Black Sea' ≠ Crimea or the area between Donets/Dnieper. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It's was what I told at first nothing new , why because you don't even believe and use a map that even include those regions . No more modern books also say Turks reach Crimea like this : History of civilizations of Central Asia: The Crossroads of Civilization: A.D. 250 to 750., UNESCO Publishing Bang bang to (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

What page are you citing from this book? Giving a work without a page number and claim is not helpful. You should probably also include the publish year so I can try to find the same version Guile's Theme (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=883OZBe2sMYC&pg=PA368&vq=Bosporus&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false Bang bang to (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing new, still nothing about the Donets/Dnieper area and same mentioning of one short term capture of a city on the edge of Crimea. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

you just don't want to accept it. Map clearly says 576. In that time Turk definitely were in Crimea. You also chose map that clearly ignore huge part of khaganate Because of Small part. When sources clearly say they reach Crimea and black sea. Bang bang to (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"Map clearly says 576."

What map are you referring to in a reliable source that shows the map you want to be in the infobox?

I chose that map because it is what Patali suggested and what is most congruent with the Avar Khanate and Old Great Bulgaria articles.

When sources clearly say they reach Crimea

'Reaching' a place does not justify coloring it on a map... We don't show the area of France that Germany occipied during WWI for 4 years as part of the German Empire infobox map. Guile's Theme (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Golden, Peter B. (1992) (in English) An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, Rutgers University Research Council, p. 130−131 ""with the threat of a Türk attack on Crimean Bosporos, a Byzantine holding. This seems to have already been taking place. Our source reports that Bwxavoç (Boqan?) was sent to reinforce the Türk forces under Anagai ( 'Avayatoç, chieftain of the Utigurs) conducting the siege. Bosporos fell to them ca. 579.

Sinor, Denis (1990) (in English) The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volum 1, Cambridge University Press, p. 209 ""In 576 Türk troops stood in the town Bosporus in the Crimea, about 579 they were roaming near Cherson and towards the end of 584 (or in the frst half of 585) the Avar kaghan, encamped near Anchialus, was compelled to give up his successful campaign and to withdraw hurriedly towards Sirmium, having received a report, that his own country had been threatened by the attack of the Türks.""

Pohl, Walter (2018) (in English) The Avars: A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822, Cornell University Press,, p. 80 ""Soon, Turxanthus dispatched an army to the coast of the Black Sea, where together with Anagai’s Utigurs they conquered the Byzantine city of Bosporus/Kerch. The shad’s diatribe against the Byzantines had clearly served as pretext for this attack. Some years later the Turks appeared before Cherson, on the southern coast of the Crimea""

Sinor, Denis (1990) (in English) The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volum 1, Cambridge University Press, p. 304 ""Turxath was not content with making idle threats. At his instigation - if not on his outright order - Anagai, prince of the Utigurs, and a certain Bokhan, led Turk and allied troops in an invasion which in 576 captured the Byzantine city of Bosporus in the Crimea.""

Pohl, Walter (2018) (in English) The Avars: A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822, Cornell University Press,, p. 85 ""He advised that they delay this undertaking, since the Turks were already encamped at Cherson in the Crimea.""

You can see word captured, fell to them, conquered,encamped and others. Are we ok now? Bang bang to (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing new, they occupied one city on the edge of Crimea for a short period and were defeated at Cherson. Still nothing about the area between the Donets/Dnieper.

Clearly, they didn't get very far since byzantine rule and the Crimean Goths would both still be around for almost a Millenia longer until the 1400s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Theodoro

Also, none of that makes it any more congruent with the Avar and Old Great Bulgaria articles.Guile's Theme (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If the city of Bosporos (Kerch?) fell to the Turk after a siege ca. 576-579 (Sinor, Denis (1990) (in English) The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volum 1, Cambridge University Press, p. 209), that would indeed be sufficient ground to expand the map to that area as far as Kerch. Sources do not seem to be explicit about a complete occupation of the whole of Crimea though, and there were only "raids" to Kherson. On the face of it, it seems we could reasonably expand the map of First Turkic Empire territory just as far as Kerch... I am not sure if the Caucassus should be included either. Should it just be a rather thin projection from the north of the Caspian sea to Kerch? Pataliputra! (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

What is also not very explict is if and to what degree the force, of what appears to be most Utigurs that attacked Crimea, was under direct Gokturk control. By 562 they are stated be under Avar control by Golden, Byzantines state in the 551-552 they got the Kutigurs and Utigurs to attack one another, something unlikely if they were under a central rule. Also the Byzantines used the tactic again in 559 when the Kutigurs invaded the Balkans, Justinian again encouraged Sandilch and the Utigurs to attack the retreating Kutrigurs.

The relationship/control between the Utigurs and Gokturks is nebulous at best and the next real reliable information we have about the Uitgurs is that they are under Avar suzerainty until the revolt of Kubrat. Guile's Theme (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pataliputra!

we can see "Turks were already encamped at Cherson in the Crimea"

And "they were roaming near Cherson and towards the end of 584 (or in the frst half of 585) the Avar kaghan, encamped near Anchialus, was compelled to give up his successful campaign and to withdraw hurriedly towards Sirmium, having received a report, that his own country had been threatened by the attack of the Türks"

Turks definitely were present in Khesrson(Even for short period of time). There are more sources about Crimea, campaigns of Tamgan (also known as Turkshad, Turxanthos) against byzantine and Avars. Eastern Roman empire just control coastal part. But leave it ,I dont have time. Your map is brilliant. We can use your map. Thanks for your time Bang bang to (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The sources above (and the sources given in the map file) clearly seem to justify Turkic possession of Bosporos (Kerch) at least for some time, after a siege. The rest further west seems to be mainly just raids. Territorial occupation as far as Bosporos is actually what this map shows here... Pataliputra! (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I tried to use that map at first actually but it wasn't fitting into the infobox and was covering some of the infobox text. Guile's Theme (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Adjusted western territories

OK, I uploaded an adjusted version (more conservative western territories, as far as Bosporos). You might have to refresh your cache to see it. Pataliputra! (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Only issue is that wikimedia commons page makes to easy for someone to revert to the expansive unsupported version and not even create an an edit history on the article page while doing so. Bang-Bang-To reverted the image last time I changed it for example and I didn't notice right away for that reason. Guile's Theme (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

We can ask an Admin on Commons to block the page, but we would need to have a reasonable consensus here first. Pataliputra! (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, well you have my consensus on that image you posted as it is much better than the most expansive version. But I do think the more conservative image is a better representation to account for more direct control as most of the Caucasuses seems to have been only in their sphere of influence for a brief period. I also am not sure the convention for wikipedia should be to show only temporarily occupied territories, or those under indirect/spehere of influence, as the same color without distinction; again we don't show occupied France during WWI as part of the German Empire infobox map either in a light or solid color nor should we. So many problems arise if we do, the Roman Empire map for example, are we going to color Susa in solid or light colore per, "The Parthian city of Susa was apparently also occupied by the Romans.[60]" Guile's Theme (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Consensus noted. Thank you (to both Guile's Theme and Bang bang to above). In my understanding there are no hard rules for maps, but we do generally show maximum extent, at a given point in time. The "city of Susa was apparently also occupied by the Romans" seems like a weak claim, supported by a single (?) source, which may be the reason why it is not shown, I don't known. The German Empire infobox does show maximum occupation, but at the specific September 1918 point of time (second map of the infobox), including occupied France. Pataliputra! (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The core issue, both here and in the Tang example, appears to be how does one define 'maximum extent'? There are a few different degrees of control whether it be:

• Stable longterm direct military occupation
• Stable but short term military occupation
• Indirect Control/Client/Puppet
• Weak/unstable short term occupation
• Control which is nominal/alleged/purported/contested in sources or is a minority representation

Ideally, there would be some kind of defined practice as to what defines each of these and what the treatment of them in wiki infobox maps should be if they are to be colored solid, light, lighter, or not at all. I worry that the treatment of such things actually varies quite abit across some infobox maps that come to mind.

Ex: The Sassanid Empire infobox map shows a huge area of the Byzantine Empire they directly occupied for between 10 to 15 years, depending on the exact location, as a lighter color. And I think that is correct and prevents a casual quick viewer from getting any false impressions. But here, Kerch the Turks occupied for around 5 years is colored solid, as are the tribes/peoples in the Caucauses they probably only had influence over rather than direct rule as the core Western Turk territory was in Semirechye.

In regards to the German Empire map, I'd never noticed. I still think it notable the conservative map is the default/primary map you see without clicking on the option labeled with the caveat of being a WWI occupation map in lighter shades. Guile's Theme (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Guile's Theme: I agree that shading areas according to strength/ duration can be a nice improvement. But we cannot do WP:OR: the best solution is to find academic sources which do propose such shading (as we have for the Tang dynasty map). If there are no such sources, it becomes next to impossible: how to shade (dark to very light?), according to what criteria (strength and/or duration of control?, "is 5 years occupation short or long?"...), which areas (what territory is precisely to be shaded?) etc... We can't really do that, and shouldn't, but we can develop such a shaded map based on published maps if they exist. Now, I'm sure you could find counter-examples, but this is the general principle... One solution might be to superpose two sourced maps: one before expansion, and one after expansion. Pataliputra! (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion an updated version along the lines of this map or this map would be best. They more closely match the 2 maps provided by Denis Sinor in The establishment and dissolution of the Türk empire.

(the best solution is to find academic sources which do propose such shading (as we have for the Tang dynasty map)

Respectfully, I disagree we have such a map for the Tang. The 1979 map shows the 4 protectorates beyond Anxi and Anxi on equal footing, each with just a different pattern to different them from one another, when we know that Anxi was the only one properly garrisoned and had admin centres and officials. But the distinction between them in the Tang infobox map with light vs lighter shades is something we created via OR. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

disagree. Not very correct and actually says eastern Turk empire and Western Turk empire Bang bang to (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thing is there were always Eastern and Western denominations of the first Gokturk Khagante, IE;

"There is evidence to suggest that from its very inception the Turk empire was to some extent bifocal. The eastern parts, centered on Mongolia, the traditional cradle of many nomad empires, had the primacy, if not the supremacy, of the two halves."

- Denis Sinor (2008), The establishment and dissolution of the Türk empire, p. 297-298

It seems to have functioned like a very loose confederation in practice which is why it was so fleeting, broke down into civil wars so quickly and, thereafter, so often.

Guile's Theme (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your respond. That's ulus/uluş or ordo system. Common among Turks and mongol, in their culture empire divided (like golden horde, also know as ulus jochi or Chagatai Khanate, also known as the Chagatai Ulus) but all of them were take order from khagan (emperor), others were lower than khagan (emperor). We don't know what exactly he mean But he use word empire, he most likely mean Eastern and Western empires. I'm currently adding new sources for the western regions and tribes, otherwise, I would have explained it to you in more detail. Bang bang to (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pataliputra!

I think current map created by you is very good. Your map is completely consistent with all sources. I'm going to add several sources about Utigurs and Alans to map. I have a map from Lev Gumilev. would you like me to send it to you? Bang bang to (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The total duration of the Turkic Khaganate's rule is 51 years 552–603. Turk conquered city in 576, not small amount of time.

And for Caucasus

Haug, Robert (27 June 2019) (in English) The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia, Bloomsbury. ""The people of the Caucasus who had come under under Turkish authority, namely the Abkhāz and Balanjar.""

Turks definitely were active In north of Caucasus.

During the third war with the Sassanids, the Göktürks launched an attack from there. Bang bang to (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

And about Sassanid and Byzantine Empire . because sassanid control land that four most of the time belong to Byzantine, before and after. Very different from Northern Caucasus. Most of this regions become part of western Turkic khaganate and later khazars and other Turkic people Bang bang to (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

same for German empire. Gain those in ww1 and lost it in ww1.They controlled those areas only during the war, and after the war ended, they were forced to return them. But For Turkic khaganate those land pass to Western Turkic khaganate (The region from which they launched an attack on the Sassanid realm.) Bang bang to (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You replied to yourself twice and made was could have been 1 reply 3, please consolidate your replies. If no one has responded to you yet you can just add it to your previous reply.

Although just about everything else you say either misses the point or is not supported by sources; Byzantines no longer mention any Turks in Crimea after their 580 defeat and then Taspar Qaghan dies in 581 beginning a 4 way civil war. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

i don't talk about Crimea this time but northern Caucasus.

"Byzantines no longer mention any Turks in Crimea" because they no longer mention any Turks in Crimea that doesn't mean there was no Turks in Caucasus and Crimea. Bang bang to (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

map

hi I add more sources to the map (I'm going to add more in future, kinda busy right now). If you look at some of them, they support what I'm saying (about western territories), for example: 1: Golden, Peter B (2011) (in English) Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, p. 72 ""The Türks had established an empire that stretched across Eurasia, from the Crimea to Manchuria.", 2: Golden, Peter B (2011) (in English) Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, p. 51 ""İstemi, established Türk power as far as the Pontic steppes and by 568, if not earlier, was in contact with Constantinople., 3: Golden, Peter B (2011) (in English) Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, p. 73 ""Subject peoples such as the Alans and Onoğurs, who had resisted the “invincible might of the Türks,” another Byzantine envoy was informed in 576, were now also “numbered amongst our slaves", 4: Golden, Peter B (2011) (in English) Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, p. 140−141 ""Still others, such as the Utigurs, remained in the Pontic steppes quickly falling under the sway of the Türks who gained control over the Caspo-Pontic steppes by the late 560s", 5: Golden, Peter B (2011) (in English) Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, p. 141 ""It was under the Türk aegis that the Khazar and Bulğar polities took form.", 6: Golden, Peter B (2011) (in English) Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, p. 140−141 ""They and the Οgurs were conquered by the Avars and then the Türks. The Οgurs were probably placed under direct Türk control", 7: Golden, Peter B (2011) (in English) Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, p. 144""Türk conquest of the Western Eurasian steppes, marked an important stage in the political development of the Bulgar union. The T’ieh-lê revolt in 603 against Türk overlordship undoubtedly had ramifications in the West. Türk power may have been weakened here in the course of the revolt, perhaps allowing splinter dynasties of the ruling Türk house to carve out states for themselves. In any event, Türk power soon went into decline and the Avars apparently reasserted themselves in the Pontic steppes where the Bulgar union was concentrated. It was here that “Magna Bulgaria” took shape under Qubrat and in response to new conditions.", 8:Bowersock, Glen; Brown, Peter; Grabar, Oleg (1999) (in English) Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World., Harvard University Press, p. 354 ""Bulgars had initiated a series of raids on Byzantine Balkan possessions. Their habitat, at this stage, appears to have been in the eastern Pontic steppes stretching into the Azov region and North Caucasus. It is here that Jordanes and Pseudo-Zacharius Rhetor place them in the mid-6th century. Shortly afterward, they were overrun and subjugated by the Avars and then the Turks. When Turk rule weakened, sometime after 600, the Avars appear to have reestablished some control over the region.". source clearly talk about Crimea and Pontic steppe, Caspo-Pontic steppes (not just koban steppe or Azov region), Alans, Onoğurs, Οgurs, Utigurs, Khazar and Bulğar. I also asked Gotitbro about Osmonov's work ( map in page 49) reliability in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. He said "Looks good to me". Bang bang to (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

"Türk power may have been weakened here in the course of the revolt, perhaps allowing splinter dynasties of the ruling Türk house to carve out states for themselves." This is notable and speaks to how presenting this whole collection of 'turk' groups as one empire on a map is very anchronistic and not something done by any reputable source making any such composite map synth and OR. In terms of maps from good sources the best presentation still appears to be that of Denir Sinor. What other sources have published more expansive maps? Guile's Theme (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Guile's Theme

read carefully "revolt in 603"

turk power weakened after 603. First Turkic Khaganate (552–603) counqerd Caspo-Pontic steppes by the late 560s "the Pontic steppes quickly falling under the sway of the Türks who gained control over the Caspo-Pontic steppes by the late 560s" and after revolt, khaganate ended in 603 and split in two different empires. I explained this system (Ülüş system) to you once, this was the case for almost all nomadic empires, For example, the Mongol Empire had four uluses (the First Turkic Khaganate had eight): the Ulus of Jochi, the Ulus of Chagatai, the Ulus of Hulagu, and the Ulus of the Great Khan. These uluses were themselves divided into smaller parts, such as the Ulus of Jochi, which was divided into the White Horde and the Blue Horde (and again into smaller parts) but all of them submitted to great khagan. We can't say they were not empires because they used this system. The legacy of the Turks in the western steppe was profound. Following their conquests, medieval Arab and Byzantine sources commonly referred to most of the tribes inhabiting the region as Turks, although Türk originally denoted the specific tribe under leadership of Ashina that established the First Turkic Khaganate. for example khazars (who emerged from the Western Turkic Khaganate and most likely were ruled by the Türk-Ashina) know as eastern Tourkia and Magyar as western Tourkia (The Hungarians arrived in the steppe long after the Bulgars. Before migrating into the Carpathian Basin, they were under the authority of the Khazar Empire). I think the sources I added + Osmonov map is enough, I don't think there is any other map on Wikipedia that is as well-sourced as this one. Bang bang to (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Where is a map from a reliable source that shows anything like the map you wish? If you cannot find such a source then you are trying to Synth/OR your own map from scratch which based on my experince from the Tang Dynasty article is never going to fly when there are actual published maps from reliable sources available. The current best one such is the one I linked by Denis Sinor. The work you linked by Osmonov is a textbook created by the Krygz government. The website you gave to this source i also couldn't open, it was a .kg (Krygz domain) website that wouldn't load. This is english wikipedia, not Krygz wikipedia. If someone at resources supported you using that work in this context please @ them here so they can read the conversation and offer an informed opinion otherwise their words mean little out of context.

"I explained this system (Ülüş system) to you once", yes, and I pointed out it seems an anchronism as the actual strucutre and relationship among the different Turkic groups at this time is extremely vague and poorly documented and often seems to boil down to nothing other than they are identified as 'Turks' by writers very far from them with little regard for how cohesive or centralized this group actually was.

Guile's Theme (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems like you only think you're right and don't care about anyone else's opinion (like Golden). about Denis Sinor map , it's just show several empires in one map like hun, avar, Eastern Turkic empire, Sassanid, Western Turkic empire and even khazars and han dynasty together look, unrelated to first Turkic khaganate. denis himself wrote this in his book "Turk and allied troops in an invasion which in 576 captured the Byzantine city of Bosporus in the Crimea." and " 576 Türk troops stood in the town Bosporus in the Crimea". Osmonov is a Professor and pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and his work is in Russian language not Kyrgyz, also asked about it in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, they approved. "yes, and I pointed out it seems an anchronism" when Golden, Peter say "The Türks had established an empire that stretched across Eurasia, from the Crimea to Manchuria." or "Türks who gained control over the Caspo-Pontic steppes by the late 560s" he is clearly referring to the First Turkic Khaganate. Another point is that I speak to you respectfully, but you respond to me with hostility and mockery Bang bang to (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I just don't agree with your interpretation of the sources or your desire to synth or OR a new map as opposed to using a reputable one like Sinor's; you take any mention of 'Turk' as evidence of a continious organized and centralized state and wish to portray any mention of 'Turks' anywhere of such even though these various Turkic groups spread and splintered long before the rise of the Gokturks or the first Khaganate. I think the lack of any map by a reputable or reliable source that depicts what you wish to show as opposed to Sinor's map is very telling.

"The Türks had established an empire that stretched across Eurasia, from the Crimea to Manchuria", he didn't say the Gokturks or the first Turkic Khagante, this seems to be loosely describing the Turkic linguistic and cultural range and not that of a centralized empire. The Turks, as a people, but probably more in a broad cultural or linguistic sense, did reach from the Black Sea to Manchuria. But the Turks as a people don't begin with the first Turkic Khaganate as proto-Turkic language is estimated to have existed between 3000 BC and 500 BC and trying to present any mention of 'Turk' anywhere as part of one contionous political entity is extremely problematic to say the least.

about Denis Sinor map , it's just show several empires in one map like hun, avar, Eastern Turkic empire, Sassanid, Western Turkic empire and even khazars It shows these entities as seperate because these always were seperate in some sense and never part of one clean polity the way Turkic nationalist/pan-Turkists attempt to achronistically project. Most of the area you wish to show as part of the Khaganate even if they were to be added should be a lighter seperate color with their names labeled to show their more client state/weak authority and still somewhat autonomous status and this is also part of why the Khagnate was so short lived and rapidly disintegrated into civil wars. It began more divided/less centralized than Genghis's Mongol empire and fragmanted even more quickly. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You're attacking me again (and im tired of that) . no your wrong golden clearly talk about Gokturks "the Türks, under İštemi, Bumın’s brother, were on the scene (their first embassy to Constantinople was in 568, although earlier contact in 562 may also have taken place). The Türks had established an empire that stretched across Eurasia, from the Crimea to Manchuria." you definitely don't know about name of türk "The first known mention of the term Turk (Old Turkic: 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türük or 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰:𐰜𐰇𐰛 Kök Türük, Chinese: 突厥; pinyin: Tūjué < Middle Chinese *tɦut-kyat < *dwət-kuɑt, Old Tibetan: drugu) applied to only one Turkic group, namely, the Göktürks". and yes before civil war they were just single empire with several Ülüş they were ruled by their great khagan (election of great khagan was the reason of civil war). there is different articles for eastern and western empires, people can look at it . Bang bang to (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

If you take anyone disagreeing with you as an attack that is a you problem.

and yes before civil war they were just single empire with several Ülüş they were ruled by their great khagan That is a selective interpretation not supported by most scholars and thus why it is not depicted in maps like that of Denis Sinor and also completely incompatable with real history where the origin of the Turkic peoples and their spread far predates the Gokturk Khaganate which is often a canvas for achronistic projections by the aforementoined groups. Trying to claim that 'Turks' as lingusitica and cultural fact originated with the Gokturks is at odds with the most basic linguistic evidence and suggests you aren't arguing from an empirical basis. Guile's Theme (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

your desire to synth or OR a new map. this is attacking.unlike what you said i really don't want to change the map i actually tell this before to Pataliputra. and no, your not correct academic sources tell about empire stretched across Eurasia, from the Crimea to Manchuria.(it's not my word) . have good dayBang bang to (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No, that is not attacking, that is a common rejection on Wikipedia to people trying to create their own new maps from scratch when maps from reliable sourcres already exist. I had the same issues on the Tang Dynasty article as I already mentioned.

Again, if you take people pointing out issues with basic wiki policy as an attack that is a you problem. You are strecthing words from sources to say something more expansive and definitive than they actually do while ignoring basic historical fact that Turkic languages existed and began spreading long before the Gokturks in your effort to achronistcally project a coheisve ancient empire that is a common objective of non-scholarly interested groups. Guile's Theme (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)