are turks mongol ?

>>886019
They aren't

>>886019
They want in on that sweet Mongol prestige but in all honesty all they did was join the Mongols when they took shit over, no different from the Buryats or the Merkits

Nah. Mind you, there is a lot of continuity between people on the Central Asian steppe, but Turks a we know them today have no real relation. Their language is in a completely different family (Altaic languages probably aren't a thing), their culture both then and now isn't all that similar outside of basic lifestyle similarities back when they were near the Caspian Sea, and genetically they don't appear to be that closely related. About the only thing that tied the two groups was geographic proximity (except they weren't actually all that near one another) and indiginous religion (Tengrism can barely be called a distinct religion, it's more of a shamanistic tradition that the steppe people hold roughly in common).

File: 1458483382351.jpg (1MB, 2150x2376px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2150x2376px

I have yet to see a mongoloid turk.

>>886064

Turkic people originate in China and Mongolia. Why would they not be genetically related to Mongols?

they were and they are living same territory but they are very different nations. In some period of history some times they mixed each other like Timurid dynasty like Mughal Empire...our culture are very different from Mongols. I'm saying these as a Kirghiz.

>>886019
Linguistically, there is some shared lexicon between Mongolic and Turkic languages, the latter of which includes Turkish. That was largely due to early Turkic influence on the proto-Mongolic peoples, and historically you would have seen a much more fluid continuum of language and culture due to increased interaction in the Mongol Empire. Nowadays, that link is much more distant, as some of the anons have been pointing out.

>>886081

Most Anatolian Turks are far more genetically related to native Anatolians, Armenians, and Greeks than they are to central Asian nomads. Go to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc. and you'll see a different story.

>>886214
Can't say anything about the origin of the Turkic peoples, but I'd say that the Turkic peoples of Central Asia i.e. Kazakhs, Uyghurs are much closer to modern day Mongols than the Turkish, who are more or less an Anatolian admixture with some Turkic blood from way back when, but still very distant from Mongols today.

>>886019

Yeah but they have more east asian influence. Turks are mongols with more Iranian influence.

File: Turko-Armeno-Central Asia.png (382KB, 1600x757px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1600x757px

>>886214
>>886780
This should settle things.

>>886019
No

Turks are largely native anatolian people who adopted the tongue of their new overlords from central asia

The turkic languages in turn borrowed heavily from the mongolic languages, leading people to believe they were one family together

Now we know they're distinct

>>886796
Bruh where u get this?

>>886064
The Mongols adopted Tengrism and their Nomadic lifestyle from Turkic peoples that lived on the Mongolian plateau (Mongols as a distinct group presumably originated in the mountains/forests north of the plateau) The Mongols and Eurasian Turkics were so intermixed even before Genghis reorganized the tribes under his rule that they are pretty genetically similar. However by that point the Oghuz Turks that would become (part of) the people of Turkey were out of that geographic area for almost a millennia. As you said in a later comment people like the Uyghurs, Tuvans, etc are genetically closer to Mongols than they are to "Turks" which are mostly native Anatolian (indo-European)

File: go back to asia .jpg (123KB, 742x480px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 742x480px

>>886019

>>886081
i don't get this image

>>886019
They're part Mongol now because Genghis raped half of them

Not even kidding

i just ask something no time for racism