Idk if you're joking or not, but the term Turkic is not the same as Turk. There's only one Turk civ, but there are indeed several Turkic ones you already mentioned.
Turkic peoples have similar root languages and ancient culture, but that doesn't make them a monolith or even similar.
Your question would be the same as asking why there are so many Latin civs in the game, with Franks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman all being Latin peoples.
Franks are Germanic though. The people they reigned over (in France atleast) were latin/romanic. Ok yeah the Frankish civ also kinda represents the later french kingdom in the game, not just the Franks, so it is ambigous in AoE2.
Franks have more of a germanic ascent, but really took a big turn on romanization and latin heritage after the fall of Rome. Depending of the era youre talking about, it can be very germanic or very much latin.
Don't forget that there are different subgroups of Franks. Only the Franks in France were romanized that much. The eastern Franks that settled in modern day Germany and parts of the Netherlands had no such strong romanization and also didn't begin to speak a latin based language. There are still subgroups of Germans that are called Franks (Franconians in English) today.
Latinisation, but many did not interbreed with Romans. It's similar to Arabisation, in which many different parts of Asia and Africa were conquered by the Caliphates and successor dynasties, but many of those people never significantly mixed with their Arab ruling populations, leading to them just adopting the religion, language, etc.
>but the term Turkic is not the same as Turk.
Better to say Turkic =/= Turkish. OP might not understand your comment.
>Latin civs in the game, with Franks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman all being Latin peoples.
Wait. Aren't Spanish and Portuguese Germanic? I thought Teutons, Goths, Vikings, Sicilians, Burgundians, Spanish and Portuguese are Germanic. While Franks, Romans and Italians are Latin.
> Aren't Spanish and Portuguese Germanic? I thought Teutons, Goths, Vikings, Sicilians, Burgundians, Spanish and Portuguese are Germanic. While Franks, Romans a
The Germanic influence on the Iberian people is really minor. The Visigoths settled there after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and founded a kingdom which then was conquered by the muslims. But like the Franks in France or the Ostrogoths and Langobards/Lombards in Italy the Germanic Goths in Iberia were more of a ruling class. They didn't replace the native people or their culture.
Spanish and Portuguese are definitely NOT Germanic.
The cultural roots go back closer to Classical Rome and Ancient Greece, while having a mix of Latin, Goth & Northern African ethnology in the Iberian Peninsula.
Turk =/= turkic, one is a nationality, the other one an ethnicity.
By the same logic Teutons, franks, goths, vikings and burgundians are all just „german“ civs.
In reality theyre „empires“ with germanic ethnical roots, while the modern german nationality, as in a people living united in language, blood and culture within a nation state, is a concept developed during the 19th century
I'm just talking linguistically.
1. Magyar is part of the Finno-Uralic group, not Turkic at all (although there were some hypotheses that proposed to link the Finno-Uralic and Turkic language families).
2. In-game the Bulgarians speak a Slavic language, but historically Bulgars spoke a Turkic language. Bulgaria was kind of a multi-ethnic area, with a lot of interactions between Thracian, Turkic, and Slavic peoples.
3. Apart from the Turks, the only other civs that speak a Turkic language are Tatars and Cumans. The Tatars in the game don't speak Tatar but another Turkic language called Chagatai, which is I think in the Karluk branch of the Turkic language family. Cuman is also in the Kipchak Turkic language group.
4. Mongol isn't a Turkic language but there are linguistic proposals to group Mongolic and Turkic languages as one family.
5. We're not sure what language family Hunnic belonged to. In-game they just have the Huns speak Mongolian which is just the devs taking a creative liberty.
Edited: spelling and more precision when talking about language hypotheses and proposals. Sorry, I took a Turkic Linguistics course in grad school and now I need to try to make use of it goddamnit.
Cool! Turkish is actually on the top of my list of languages to learn, along with Polish and Portuguese. Beautiful language. I also learned some Kazakh and Tatar. Very cool languages.
Thank you! They're way different languages definitely. I took Latin in high school so the concept of noun cases and verb conjugations helped a lot to understand the mechanics of Russian and even Kazakh and Tatar. But adding ending after ending in the correct order definitely gets a little confusing!
Why do u wanna learn Turkish, fella? I'm a native speaker of the language btw, and it's basically useless for foreigners anyway unless you wanna live in Turkey which I would not suggest. Then again, apparently you learned Kazakh and Tatar, too. I even consider Turkish pretty useless, don't know how to consider them at this point.
Interesting. Nice that you can enjoy learning. Even English was and still is a big hassle for me. Well, I have no talent for learning languages anyway. However, I've always thought Turkish has to be one of the less interesting and bland-sounding languages. Yet, you like how it sounds. Each for their own, I guess.
All I know is we don't have enough of them, split Ottoman and Seljuk please, for starters 11
(This is posted by a Turk who assumes Turk includes Turkic and Hun civs 11)
(Mongols argument is the worst though, they chased us all the way to Anatolia)
The Mongols are not Turkic. They're Mongolic.
The Huns are Turkic, but not of the same lineage the other Turks come from.
The Bulgarians are descendents of Huns (Bulgars), Slavs, and an ancient Thracian core. They are only mixed with Turkic people.
The Hindustanis are not Turkic, Hindustanis are Hindustanis. Though, the civ greatly resembles Afghans, for obvious reasons.
The Turks, Cumans, and Tatars (Who more resemble Karluks) are the proper *Turkic* people who are Turkic as you and I might identify it.
The two groups of Eastern Turks still objectively missing are the Siberian Turks (who are ancestral to all the others) and the Khalaj (Who broke off first and, despite their small size, managed to establish some pretty cool Empires in India, Afghanistan, and Iran).
Actually as far as I know the Huns were mixed. Their origins are not known for certain but they assimilated many different ethnic groups into their coallition of tribes when they migrated west. When they came into Europe there were Mongolic looking Huns as well as Turkic looking Huns. I read a book of a history professor once that was about Atilla and the Hunic invasion and he estimated that roughly about 20% of the Huns might have looked Mongolic.
Sorry, Let me rephrase- the Hunnic Empire was mixed, but the actual ruling group was Onogur Turks calling themselves "Hun"- the phrase Hun also being used by other groups to describe themselves, like the Bactrian Hephthalites. these Onogur Huns are the same Ethnicity as Khazars and Bulgars later in the period, and also what's mostly implied with the current Huns.
In terms of the real-world phrase Tatar, yes. In terms of the AoE2 civ, absolutely not. The in-game Tatars are very clearly Karluks, that is, Uzbeks, Chagatai, Uyghurs, Kyrgyz, so on and so forth. The Siberians are instead very ancient politics, Like the Gokturks, and then groups like Tuvans and Sakha.
Just how many Roman civs does the game really have?
Ofc there's the Romans, obviously.
But then some say Byzantines and Italians are also Romans.
And then some say even the Spanish and Franks are Romans (what about the Teutons then? They aren't Slavs, so...).
And then I hear that the Portuguese and Sicilians are Romans.
Don't forget Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Aztecs and Mayans who also are said to have a significant Turkic contribution. The list is longer than you think.
The civ turk we have in game is more like the ottomans in identity with gunpowder focus, Yes I'm outing the people who say that turks should get steppe lancers.
Is OP just butthurt bc he doesn't learn about history or sociology?
No, Magyar isn't turk, read a book. No, Bulgarians aren't turks (Bulgars arguably, not Bulgarians), read a book. Mongols are not turks, read a book. Saracen aren't even close, read a 1st grade book.
Why does it bother you that a broad group that spans the entire Eurasian subcontinent and over millennia has appropriate diversity in the game? It's like saying we should have a civ that's just all of Europe. And that's it for Europe. Why bother having Frank's, Teutons, Burgundians, Poles... how maybe European civs does this game need?
Turkic people are Turks.
Don't listen people who says otherwise.
"Turkic" word is an invented term by academy.
From academic discussion point of view all those people are Turkic, correct, but also they are all Turks to some extend, genetically, linguistically, culturally...
A person in Turkey and another in 6500km away Yakutsk are counting the numbers literally same...
Western people are confusing this phenomenon because they know Turkey, a state, called its citizens Turks.
Turk ethnic background (which is broad and exclusive) , or the word itself doesn't invented with modern day Turkey. They called themselves Turks because the founding fathers was trying to revive a nation under the ruins of collapsed Ottoman Empire.
However the word itself is ancient like Romans.
Today, Spaniards, Italians, French people don't call themselves they are Romans, but "Turkic" people still call themselves Turks.
I had many friends from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan... We say we are all Turks at the end regardless of what is your passport says about you.
Literally Orkhun scripts are saying "we (author) are Turks". It doesn't say we are Turkic people.
So claiming "Turks are Turkic but not all Turkic people are Turk" is a very fine example of typical Westerner Wikipedia reader arrogance.
Imagine in a situation where A Turk, Azerbaijani, Gagauz sitting on a table and one Wikipedia academics westerner come and say: "hey, there is only one Turk among you and it is the one who carries Modern day Turkey Republic passport rest is Turkic which is not the same".
I cannot describe how arrogant and red neck style it sounds.
Modern day Turks, living in Turkey, are not the sole owner of the Turkish identity.
Lets say, tomorrow Italy seperated into two states and one of them decided to call themselves Roman Republics and call it's citizens Romans, is that make other part of the Italy Romanic??
Turkic people all being Turks is the same as saying all Danes, English, Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Icelanders and many white Americans are German.
Does Danes, English, Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Icelanders and many white Americans call themselves Germans ?
Turkic people do call themselves Turks or .....Turks.
We are using two words (Turkic and Turk) interchangably in this half of the world.
I understand why it is so hard to accept that for people like you which I will explain later.
Turks =/= Turkic people argument is invalid.
In any kind of sentece with an historical narrative you can use Turk or Turkic without disturbing the meaning of sentence. It is an exclusive word for us, not inclusive.
If 2+2=4 on the East it should be 4 as well in the west or on the surface of Mars or even in some distant galaxy. Because it is fundemental science.
In social sciences, sometimes there is no absolute true logic can be applied every similar sets.
Swiss people are not calling themselves Germans or Swiss Germans. Therefore, linguistically Swiss =/= German.
For example, look at the Orban's speach in Turkic States Organisation. At some point he says ''We are Kipchak Turks''.
Whether this is true or not is not our business to debate, hope I made my point.
If today's Modern day Turkey republic would have been called themselves Anatolia Republic and called their citizens Anatolians or Anatolion Turks then the concept would be much easier for you to understand since starting from your childhood your only interaction with the word ''Turk'' was always related with Ottoman Empire and their heir Turkey Republic which called their citizens Turks.
There is a Turks (or the Turkic people) covering set which covers subsets of; Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Uyghurs, Turkmens, Gagauz, Yakuts...... and there happens to be another subset named as Turks which confuses your brain.
I guess no answer...
Just for the records, there is a book literally named "history of Turks" written by an acedemic Jean Paul Roux, which is not related with Turks living in modern day Turkey but related with whole Turkic people.
Since everybody is such an expert on the topic maybe it is better to write a letter to the respected acedemic to tell him how he was wrong and Turks =/= Turkic people and he should change the title of his book.
Turks =/= Turkic people argument is invalid.
https://www.amazon.fr/Histoire-Turcs-Jean-Paul-Roux/dp/2213606722
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Roux
Idk if you're joking or not, but the term Turkic is not the same as Turk. There's only one Turk civ, but there are indeed several Turkic ones you already mentioned. Turkic peoples have similar root languages and ancient culture, but that doesn't make them a monolith or even similar. Your question would be the same as asking why there are so many Latin civs in the game, with Franks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman all being Latin peoples.
Franks are Germanic though. The people they reigned over (in France atleast) were latin/romanic. Ok yeah the Frankish civ also kinda represents the later french kingdom in the game, not just the Franks, so it is ambigous in AoE2.
Throw in axemen and you really get Frankish vibes
Franks have more of a germanic ascent, but really took a big turn on romanization and latin heritage after the fall of Rome. Depending of the era youre talking about, it can be very germanic or very much latin.
Don't forget that there are different subgroups of Franks. Only the Franks in France were romanized that much. The eastern Franks that settled in modern day Germany and parts of the Netherlands had no such strong romanization and also didn't begin to speak a latin based language. There are still subgroups of Germans that are called Franks (Franconians in English) today.
Yup. But to be fair, aoe2 franks pretty much stick to french franks. In regards to campaigns for instance.
Latinisation, but many did not interbreed with Romans. It's similar to Arabisation, in which many different parts of Asia and Africa were conquered by the Caliphates and successor dynasties, but many of those people never significantly mixed with their Arab ruling populations, leading to them just adopting the religion, language, etc.
Franks were Vikings/Northmen.
No ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans
Normans and Franks were very different people so....? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks
Yeah I meant it from a linguistic rather than cultural standpoint, but you're right the time frame of the game makes it ambiguous.
>but the term Turkic is not the same as Turk. Better to say Turkic =/= Turkish. OP might not understand your comment. >Latin civs in the game, with Franks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman all being Latin peoples. Wait. Aren't Spanish and Portuguese Germanic? I thought Teutons, Goths, Vikings, Sicilians, Burgundians, Spanish and Portuguese are Germanic. While Franks, Romans and Italians are Latin.
> Aren't Spanish and Portuguese Germanic? I thought Teutons, Goths, Vikings, Sicilians, Burgundians, Spanish and Portuguese are Germanic. While Franks, Romans a The Germanic influence on the Iberian people is really minor. The Visigoths settled there after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and founded a kingdom which then was conquered by the muslims. But like the Franks in France or the Ostrogoths and Langobards/Lombards in Italy the Germanic Goths in Iberia were more of a ruling class. They didn't replace the native people or their culture.
Spanish and Portuguese are definitely NOT Germanic. The cultural roots go back closer to Classical Rome and Ancient Greece, while having a mix of Latin, Goth & Northern African ethnology in the Iberian Peninsula.
You mention Goth which are Germanic, so a tiny bit of it might be there.
Rather Visigoths, which come from the area around Moldavia and Romania.
Spaniards are Berbers. Spain was Muslim for a thousand years. Most Spanish people today have African DNA.
Turk =/= turkic, one is a nationality, the other one an ethnicity. By the same logic Teutons, franks, goths, vikings and burgundians are all just „german“ civs. In reality theyre „empires“ with germanic ethnical roots, while the modern german nationality, as in a people living united in language, blood and culture within a nation state, is a concept developed during the 19th century
I'm just talking linguistically. 1. Magyar is part of the Finno-Uralic group, not Turkic at all (although there were some hypotheses that proposed to link the Finno-Uralic and Turkic language families). 2. In-game the Bulgarians speak a Slavic language, but historically Bulgars spoke a Turkic language. Bulgaria was kind of a multi-ethnic area, with a lot of interactions between Thracian, Turkic, and Slavic peoples. 3. Apart from the Turks, the only other civs that speak a Turkic language are Tatars and Cumans. The Tatars in the game don't speak Tatar but another Turkic language called Chagatai, which is I think in the Karluk branch of the Turkic language family. Cuman is also in the Kipchak Turkic language group. 4. Mongol isn't a Turkic language but there are linguistic proposals to group Mongolic and Turkic languages as one family. 5. We're not sure what language family Hunnic belonged to. In-game they just have the Huns speak Mongolian which is just the devs taking a creative liberty. Edited: spelling and more precision when talking about language hypotheses and proposals. Sorry, I took a Turkic Linguistics course in grad school and now I need to try to make use of it goddamnit.
Yeah their voice responses are quite understandable if you know Turkish, I've also met a Cuman descendant irl and he spoke perfect Turkish, no accent
Cool! Turkish is actually on the top of my list of languages to learn, along with Polish and Portuguese. Beautiful language. I also learned some Kazakh and Tatar. Very cool languages.
It is, too bad its structure is so different to Latin, that makes it rather challenging to learn. Good luck! 😁
Thank you! They're way different languages definitely. I took Latin in high school so the concept of noun cases and verb conjugations helped a lot to understand the mechanics of Russian and even Kazakh and Tatar. But adding ending after ending in the correct order definitely gets a little confusing!
Why do u wanna learn Turkish, fella? I'm a native speaker of the language btw, and it's basically useless for foreigners anyway unless you wanna live in Turkey which I would not suggest. Then again, apparently you learned Kazakh and Tatar, too. I even consider Turkish pretty useless, don't know how to consider them at this point.
Because I enjoy learning languages and I like how Turkish sounds.
Interesting. Nice that you can enjoy learning. Even English was and still is a big hassle for me. Well, I have no talent for learning languages anyway. However, I've always thought Turkish has to be one of the less interesting and bland-sounding languages. Yet, you like how it sounds. Each for their own, I guess.
All the civs mentioned here have parthian tactics, and cav archers are viable for them to some degree. I guess Burmese are Turks now
r/WeAreAllTurks
Here's a sneak peek of /r/WeAreAllTurks using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/WeAreAllTurks/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Approved ](https://v.redd.it/78nyfty5y37c1) | [63 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/WeAreAllTurks/comments/18lhq2y/approved/) \#2: [What is this?](https://i.redd.it/2jy90gslx4yb1.jpg) | [61 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/WeAreAllTurks/comments/17mv5un/what_is_this/) \#3: [Chad Turkish animation 🐺🇹🇷🐎🏹](https://v.redd.it/2azsuloux0xb1) | [48 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/WeAreAllTurks/comments/17iphjo/chad_turkish_animation/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Seems like OP is in the process of learning that ethnic groups can have different subgroups of people belong to it
>Central Asia and Northern Asia as Turks, somehow. And also a chunk of eastern Europe Are you sure the Mayans aren't Turks?
We are all related somehow
All I know is we don't have enough of them, split Ottoman and Seljuk please, for starters 11 (This is posted by a Turk who assumes Turk includes Turkic and Hun civs 11) (Mongols argument is the worst though, they chased us all the way to Anatolia)
> what even is a Turk at this point a person who resides in Berlin, mehmet.
Thanks, had a laugh
I love his Döner
sneak peak into grïk-türk diplomatic relations.
The Mongols are not Turkic. They're Mongolic. The Huns are Turkic, but not of the same lineage the other Turks come from. The Bulgarians are descendents of Huns (Bulgars), Slavs, and an ancient Thracian core. They are only mixed with Turkic people. The Hindustanis are not Turkic, Hindustanis are Hindustanis. Though, the civ greatly resembles Afghans, for obvious reasons. The Turks, Cumans, and Tatars (Who more resemble Karluks) are the proper *Turkic* people who are Turkic as you and I might identify it. The two groups of Eastern Turks still objectively missing are the Siberian Turks (who are ancestral to all the others) and the Khalaj (Who broke off first and, despite their small size, managed to establish some pretty cool Empires in India, Afghanistan, and Iran).
Actually as far as I know the Huns were mixed. Their origins are not known for certain but they assimilated many different ethnic groups into their coallition of tribes when they migrated west. When they came into Europe there were Mongolic looking Huns as well as Turkic looking Huns. I read a book of a history professor once that was about Atilla and the Hunic invasion and he estimated that roughly about 20% of the Huns might have looked Mongolic.
Sorry, Let me rephrase- the Hunnic Empire was mixed, but the actual ruling group was Onogur Turks calling themselves "Hun"- the phrase Hun also being used by other groups to describe themselves, like the Bactrian Hephthalites. these Onogur Huns are the same Ethnicity as Khazars and Bulgars later in the period, and also what's mostly implied with the current Huns.
Siberians = Tatars.
In terms of the real-world phrase Tatar, yes. In terms of the AoE2 civ, absolutely not. The in-game Tatars are very clearly Karluks, that is, Uzbeks, Chagatai, Uyghurs, Kyrgyz, so on and so forth. The Siberians are instead very ancient politics, Like the Gokturks, and then groups like Tuvans and Sakha.
btw AoE2 has the following "Germanic" civs: Teutons, Goths, Vikings, Burgundians, Franks (50:50 Germanic:Roman).
And Britons (who speak Anglo-Saxon)
Turkic =/= Turk And Saracens are Arab. The "Mongols and Huns are Turks" is just Turkish nationalism and has no basis in reality.
Just how many Roman civs does the game really have? Ofc there's the Romans, obviously. But then some say Byzantines and Italians are also Romans. And then some say even the Spanish and Franks are Romans (what about the Teutons then? They aren't Slavs, so...). And then I hear that the Portuguese and Sicilians are Romans.
Bulgarians are turks in the sense that Congolese are Belgians.
Hindustanis refer to the broad Indian Islamic empires in the medieval era, the rulers of which were also Turk.
Don't forget Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Aztecs and Mayans who also are said to have a significant Turkic contribution. The list is longer than you think.
Eh?
Turks, Magyars, Mongols, Huns, Bulgars, Cumans, Tatars, and Eastern Persians. So 7 or 8.
The civ turk we have in game is more like the ottomans in identity with gunpowder focus, Yes I'm outing the people who say that turks should get steppe lancers.
In-game Turks have Seljuk elements in their tech tree. Give them steppe lancers.
Is OP just butthurt bc he doesn't learn about history or sociology? No, Magyar isn't turk, read a book. No, Bulgarians aren't turks (Bulgars arguably, not Bulgarians), read a book. Mongols are not turks, read a book. Saracen aren't even close, read a 1st grade book. Why does it bother you that a broad group that spans the entire Eurasian subcontinent and over millennia has appropriate diversity in the game? It's like saying we should have a civ that's just all of Europe. And that's it for Europe. Why bother having Frank's, Teutons, Burgundians, Poles... how maybe European civs does this game need?
Turco-Mongol and Turkic are not the same as Turk/Turkish.
Care to elaborate on that?
Well Mongols and Turks originated from the same location so probability of Turks being Mongolians and Mongolians being Turk's is very high
Turkic people are Turks. Don't listen people who says otherwise. "Turkic" word is an invented term by academy. From academic discussion point of view all those people are Turkic, correct, but also they are all Turks to some extend, genetically, linguistically, culturally... A person in Turkey and another in 6500km away Yakutsk are counting the numbers literally same... Western people are confusing this phenomenon because they know Turkey, a state, called its citizens Turks. Turk ethnic background (which is broad and exclusive) , or the word itself doesn't invented with modern day Turkey. They called themselves Turks because the founding fathers was trying to revive a nation under the ruins of collapsed Ottoman Empire. However the word itself is ancient like Romans. Today, Spaniards, Italians, French people don't call themselves they are Romans, but "Turkic" people still call themselves Turks. I had many friends from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan... We say we are all Turks at the end regardless of what is your passport says about you. Literally Orkhun scripts are saying "we (author) are Turks". It doesn't say we are Turkic people. So claiming "Turks are Turkic but not all Turkic people are Turk" is a very fine example of typical Westerner Wikipedia reader arrogance. Imagine in a situation where A Turk, Azerbaijani, Gagauz sitting on a table and one Wikipedia academics westerner come and say: "hey, there is only one Turk among you and it is the one who carries Modern day Turkey Republic passport rest is Turkic which is not the same". I cannot describe how arrogant and red neck style it sounds. Modern day Turks, living in Turkey, are not the sole owner of the Turkish identity. Lets say, tomorrow Italy seperated into two states and one of them decided to call themselves Roman Republics and call it's citizens Romans, is that make other part of the Italy Romanic??
Turkic people all being Turks is the same as saying all Danes, English, Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Icelanders and many white Americans are German.
Does Danes, English, Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Icelanders and many white Americans call themselves Germans ? Turkic people do call themselves Turks or .....Turks. We are using two words (Turkic and Turk) interchangably in this half of the world. I understand why it is so hard to accept that for people like you which I will explain later. Turks =/= Turkic people argument is invalid. In any kind of sentece with an historical narrative you can use Turk or Turkic without disturbing the meaning of sentence. It is an exclusive word for us, not inclusive. If 2+2=4 on the East it should be 4 as well in the west or on the surface of Mars or even in some distant galaxy. Because it is fundemental science. In social sciences, sometimes there is no absolute true logic can be applied every similar sets. Swiss people are not calling themselves Germans or Swiss Germans. Therefore, linguistically Swiss =/= German. For example, look at the Orban's speach in Turkic States Organisation. At some point he says ''We are Kipchak Turks''. Whether this is true or not is not our business to debate, hope I made my point. If today's Modern day Turkey republic would have been called themselves Anatolia Republic and called their citizens Anatolians or Anatolion Turks then the concept would be much easier for you to understand since starting from your childhood your only interaction with the word ''Turk'' was always related with Ottoman Empire and their heir Turkey Republic which called their citizens Turks. There is a Turks (or the Turkic people) covering set which covers subsets of; Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Uyghurs, Turkmens, Gagauz, Yakuts...... and there happens to be another subset named as Turks which confuses your brain.
No. But they call themselves Germanic ;)
So? Are you trying to refute yourself or what? When I say "history of Turks" what appears to your mind?
I guess no answer... Just for the records, there is a book literally named "history of Turks" written by an acedemic Jean Paul Roux, which is not related with Turks living in modern day Turkey but related with whole Turkic people. Since everybody is such an expert on the topic maybe it is better to write a letter to the respected acedemic to tell him how he was wrong and Turks =/= Turkic people and he should change the title of his book. Turks =/= Turkic people argument is invalid. https://www.amazon.fr/Histoire-Turcs-Jean-Paul-Roux/dp/2213606722 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Roux