|Question by IJzeren Jan|
This page mentions Sherqi Turkestan as State of Turkestan (I took this from Ferko's FOIB page). However, the page about Uyguristan translates Sherqiy Türkistan as East Turkestan. In other words, one of the two must be wrong. Could someone please tell me which one is correct, and, if possible, offer an alternative for the incorrect one? Thanks in advance, IJzeren Jan 05:24, 16 Feb 2005 (PST).
From the title of this page:
Sherqiy Türkistan = Eastern Turkistan. However. it also seem that both this place and Uyguristan are one and the same so maybe both should be collapsed. --Marc Pasquin 06:52, 16 Feb 2005 (PST)
- Thank you! No, it's two are different states. I haven't really worked out their relationship into details (and why should I? It's an interesting region for a future new member to explore), but here's what I think is the basics: the two constitute one historical region (Turkestan) and their languages are closely related (I think Uzbek and Uygur are mutually understandable). The western half ended up under as part of the Russian empire, the eastern half as part of China. The Russian part became independent in 1918, the Chinese after GW2. Both ended up under SNOR rule, but I suppose the SNOR did whatever it could to keep the two apart. Their present relationship is troubled, and although some desire a reunification, the two countries have been separated for so long that this option is far from obvious for the majority. IJzeren Jan 12:04, 16 Feb 2005 (PST)
Correct name for State of Turkestan should be something like Devlet Türkistan. Paweł Ciupak 08:00, 8 July 2006 (PDT)
AFAIK the correct name for "State of Turkestan" should be something like "Turkestan Mamlikati". User:Geoff 22:35 7 July 2008
Tajiks in Turkestan???
aren't Tajiks Indoeuropeans? would they become part of Turkic state? their name even means "not being Turk" ;) Jan II. 00:32, 4 October 2007 (PDT)
- Yeah, they're Indo-Europeans. And I'm sure they wouldn't have had that name if they hadn't been part of Turkestan! ;))) —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 13:08, 5 October 2007 (PDT)
- erm, but this name was given to them by Mongols, long time before any Turkestan ;) Jan II. 02:27, 7 October 2007 (PDT)
Turkestan / Russia Article Conflict
Geoff Horswood posed the following question on Conculture:
The Turkestan article says:
"Turkestan gained its independence from Russia in 1918, along with countries like Ukraine and Georgia. There must have been some heavy fighting over it, because Qazaqstan was split in two parts: the Northern half remained part of Russia, while the Southern part became part of the new state.
During the years 1948-1990, Turkestan was a Russian satellite with a SNORist government."
Whereas the Russia article says:
"In 1946, Russia would conclude a separate peace with the Allies. When the tide turned, Russia overwhelmed much of the German-occupied territory, and managed to "liberate" several countries: Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slevania, Oltenia, Muntenia, Moldova and the Crimea. In the same way, Russia got hold of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkestan and Uyguristan in Asia."
Yet apparently this didn't take, as the states in question are not listed as defunct. But the Russia article says, or at least implies, that it did. Which is the correct althistorical version?
Also, if Turkestan gained its independence in 1918, its internal map should look vastly different. The map of Central Asia *here owes its outlines mostly to Stalin's divide-and-rule strategies in Central Asia: the Tajik city of Samarkand is in Uzbekistan, and the Uzbek population of the Ferghana valley around Khojand is in Tajikistan, for example. In fact the "nationalities" and ethnic groups we think of today didn't really exist in Central Asia in 1918; you had the "Sarts" ("city-dwellers") in what were the Khanates of Bukhara, Samarkand, Kokand and so on, and the nomadic Kazakh, Kirghiz, Turkmen and Uzbek tribes. The fact that "Uzbek" is now the name of one of the settled, traditionally crop-raising cultures is one of the ironies of the situation.
Anyway, it Doesn't Make Sense in the IB timeline, either between the articles on the Wiki or with what I know about Central Asian history. And that's why I'm sticking my oar in.
Elemtilas 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it too late to vote? If it's not, I vote for the wolf, myths such as the wolf myth and how it led the Turkic peoples to where they live sounds very important to me. After all, animism came first. Misterxeight 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure they would be agreeable if COPEN are, but COPEN strike me as just a little bit Arab-exclusive. I could be misinterpreting, though. Is this an accurate perception? Geoff
- I don't think COPEN is a little arab exclusive. In fact, among the 12 member states already identified 6 are non-Arabs and surely as the article (or others related) being developed more non-Arab countries will be found in the membership list.
I believe in IB natural resources are not much different from *here*. COPEN is something like OPEC *here* but I believe is not so powerful as in IB oil is not as much important as *here*. Even OPEC might seem a bit Arab exclusive but among its members there are many which aren't Arab.
As King Faisal I al-Saud of Saudi Arabia tried to use COPEN to deffend arab intersts possibly SNOR powers might have done the same to deffend their own. So I believe Turkestan could be a member state.--Pedromoderno 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ilxan, modern government
The first Ilxan of (modern) Turkestan was a Snorist dictator who clawed his way into the position and granted himself the title. Did the title then become an institution, with a continuous line of Ilxans to this day? Is today's Ilxan more like a monarch, a figurehead president, a democratic president, or a dictator? To what extent is the modern government system descended from the EBÜK regime? To what extent is the Snorist system still in place? Many questions! Benkarnell 12:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the Snorist period, the Ilxans were dictators who maneuvered themselves into the position of power on the death or forcible ousting of the previous holder. I'm kind of planning three or four Ilxans in this period.
- For the post-Snorist period, what I have in mind is this: Following the surprise death of the incumbent Ilxan a few weeks/months after the general collapse of the SNOR and its associated regimes, the second-echelon leaders are kind of caught flat-footed. None of them is strong enough to claim the power themselves (they'd probably just gone through some kind of putsch), and somehow they are persuaded, in the climate of pro-democratic feeling sweeping much of the former Snorist bloc in the wake of the demise of that ideology, to make the position a sort of elected monarchy, with much of its former powers divided up among the members of the parliament. And it continues as such to this day. I'm still working some of this out, mind. Geoff 16:48, 03 Nov 08 (USCT)
- So really, Turkestan got its first monarch only in the 90s. Very fitting with IB, I think. Would that make Turkestan the "world's youngest monarchy"? Benkarnell 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's possible. Certainly its monarchy in the modern sense only goes back so far. But in the period before the Russian Civil War *here (and in IB, continuing to this day) you have all of the smaller Khans and Emirs of the various city-states and nomadic hordes. They're a kind of royalty, too, but on a much smaller scale. Geoff 13:40, 08 Nov 08 (USCT)