Talk:Sultanate of Rum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shouldn't the title be "Seljuks of Rum"?

Sultanate of Rum, ok, but who's sultanate? Rum is the word used for Asia Minor by Turks, the title should be Seljuks of Rum. Can we change it?--Kagan the Barbarian 09:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In Enc. Islam, I read it as: "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum".Ayasi 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Seljuk Sultanate of Rum

As previously proposed above here, before adding further info, I intend to change the title to Seljuk Sultanate of Rum which will have advantage of precising whose sultanate it was, keeping all at the same time the persisting formulation of Sultanate of Rum. Cretanforever 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you change your mind, or did you forget? Deniz^T_C 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please document this flag

What documentation do we have for the Seljuqs of Rum using such a flag? The image is labeled in Turkish "Great Seljuk State". Please provide a source at Image talk:Buyuk selcuklu devleti.gif. Aramgar 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Crusades

This article should mention the People's Crusade, Siege of Nicaea, Battle of Dorylaeum, and the Crusade of 1101... Lysandros 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maps

We need some better maps. Ideally, we should have a larger scale map showing the Sultanate before the First Crusade, and also maps showing the Sultanate in the 12th century, under Mas'ud I or Kilij Arslan II, and one showing it at its height under Kayqubad I in the early 13th century, before the Mongol invasion. john k (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got maps of the Eastern Hemisphere in 1100 and 1200, which include the Seljuks of Rum. I'd be happy to crop them down further to show Europe or Asia, and highlight the area of Rum specifically for this article, if it could be used on this article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The map we have is fairly close to the 1100. 1200 would be useful, although I think what we really need is c.1240 - right before the Mongol invasion, when the sultanate was at its height. john k (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Secular?

In moderm day Turkey, you can be anything you like as long as it is Turkish Muslim (See Armenian, Greek and Kurdish gencide). I think the characterisation "Secular" is very optimistic. In comparison the Ottoman empire that would devolve most of the administration to the Millet, was far mor secular.

So you came to this page just to show us your biased ideas or do you "really" have something to say? Deliogul (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I see that there's a dispute in the article history about some wording. However, since the text changes are complex, and the edit summaries unhelpful, I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what's going on. Could someone please explain, with small words, what exactly the dispute is about? Thanks, Elonka 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's about messing up formatting and moving ahistorical terms to the article header although they are included further down in the first paragraph. At least that's my take on it. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to offer an uninvolved third opinion, though I'm still having trouble understanding the exact dispute. --Elonka 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Seljuks of Rum have appeared in print under a variety of names. In September of last year, Cretanforever added a paragraph to the lead explaining these names (diff). Various editors have improved the paragraph and created redirects for all the variants listed within it. The objection of one editor seems to be that Turkish readers may be unsure whether they are reading about the Anatolian Seljuks or the Great Seljuqs. To address this concern multiple Turkish language redirects have been created (Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti, Anadolu Selçukluları, Türkiye Selçukluları, Selçuklular, and even Buyuk selcuklu devleti), while the nomenclature preferred in contemporary Turkish still remains in the second paragraph of the lead. My preferred version retains the paragraph discussing the names [1] while an alternate version distributes most the sentences of the second paragraph through the first and thereby, I believe, muddles the text [2]. Aramgar (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies if it seems like I'm asking stupid questions.  :) I do agree that the problem of "alternate name spellings" is a tough one, though I personally feel that it's worth including alternate spellings to assist with Google searches and whatnot. Perhaps a solution such as the one here would be helpful: Ladislaus Hengelmuller#Alternate name spellings. That way the alternate spellings could still be in the article, but wouldn't necessarily be cluttering up the lead? --Elonka 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The only disagreement is whether all alternative names should be listed immediately in the first sentence of the article before we have even seen a verb (like "was"). The editor who insists on this has not discovered yet that this article has an associated talk page.  --Lambiam 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lambiam that Orkh may just be having some trouble navigating Wikipedia. I know that if I were trying to participate in the Turkish-language Wikipedia, I would probably find it a very confusing place! I recommend that in communicating with him, that Simple English be used. --Elonka 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not like he or she does not know talk pages exist: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].  --Lambiam 07:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. Some of those edits do appear to be bad faith, I agree. --Elonka 07:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

extremely dubious flag

this is the only source provided

• a Flags of the World page that refers to the flag as "alleged" and says "To the best of our knowledge, the historical existence of most of these flags is not proven and we are not aware of their origin and designer."
  

The issue is whether the sources are sufficient to include the flag.

it says "alleged for every single turkish flag.162.84.135.252 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have argued in the past that this flag lacks a reliable source (example), but it keeps reappearing. The present version of the flag is described as that of the Great Seljuq Empire not the Sultanate of Rûm. Moreover the flag-based succession box is impossible for this "former country" both because the successor states are so many (see Anatolian Turkish Beyliks) and none possess reliably sourced flags. It is time we leave both of these features out of the article. Aramgar (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

non-turks talk about seljuk empire ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkhan ankara (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. No one country has a scholarly monopoly on the Seljuk empire; historians all around the world have published on the subject. Regards, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the dubious flag and the anachronistic flag-based succession box be left off this article in the future. Aramgar (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Anatolian Turkish Beys also used that flag. it was used at the end of the main kurultai that shape the Ottoman Empire. Ottomans also used the flag in the first siege of Constantinople.--Huckelbarry (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A flag-based succession box is inappropriate for this former state: the blue flag that is constantly affixed to articles on the Seljuqs is unsourced. The notion that the beyliks used the Ottoman flag is doubtful and therefore needs a citation. The Ottoman Empire is not the immediate successor of the Seljuq state, as a glance at the text of the article will indicate. I am removing the flags (again). Aramgar (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ertuğrul Gazi was the father of ottoman empire's first Sultan Osman Bey, he was one of the last commanders of Anatolian Seljuks. so he may carried that flag, and sources say so.--Huckelbarry (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

False. Read the article. Ertuğrul was not a commander of the Seljuks of Rum. Ottoman historians of a later period sought to magnify the prestige of their patrons through fabricated connections to the illustrious Seljuk line, particularly Kayqubad the Great. Many princes of the Anatolian Turkish Beyliks did the same (see Cahen, Claude, The Formation of Turkey. The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century). That Etuğrul or Osman I may have carried that flag is at any rate irrelevant, as these rulers do not figure among the immediate successors of the Sultanate. The alleged blue flag of the Seljuks, reposted so many times at the top of this article, appears to be no older than the 20th century, created as a pretty piece ornament for the office of Turkish President [13]. Until someone finds a reliable source for this flag, it should not be included in the infobox. Aramgar (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The flag is not only unsourced but also a copyright violation. As long as we don't know it is actually a pure, faithful copy from an existing medieval design, we must assume it is the creation of the person who reconstructed it in the 20th century (e.g. the person who is named as the author of the image on the Flags of the World webpage); as such it is copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate or Sultanate of Rum

Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate (together with Seljuk Sultanate of Anatolia) gives 60.000 Google English language search results combined with 60 in Google Books. Sultanate of Rum gives 60.000 Google English language search results 39.500 with 680 among books, mostly older sources. The term preferred in Turkey, somewhat directly concerned, is the former; "tr:Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti" or "Anadolu Selçuklu Sultanlığı" or simply "Anadolu Selçukluları". "Rum" in this context has all the looks of a term nearing obsolescence. I suggest, while Turkey's Ministry of National Education (Turkey), unconcerned, is still counting jumping sheep, a move request for Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate. Cretanforever (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Article should remain at Sultanate of Rûm. The interest in prefixing "Anatolian" and rejecting the use of the term Rûm is, for whatever reason, a Turkish nationalistic obsession. It does not reflect academic usage outside of Turkey. Aramgar (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Boudu! You here again:) Je croyais que tu etais parti apres tout les degâts que tu as causé. I'll make a move request and then we'll see. Cretanforever (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Sultanate of Rûm → Sultanate of Rum – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH

• "Sultanate of Rum" -Llc 2,580 results
• "Sultanate of Rûm" -Llc 5 results
• "Sultanate of Rūm" -Llc 5 results

Other alternatives:

• "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum" -Llc 708 results
• "Seljuq Sultanate of Rum" -Llc 169 results
• "Seldjukian Sultanate of Rum" -Llc 2 results
• "Anatolian Seljuk Empire" 31 results
• "Anatolian Seljuq Empire" 2 results
• "Anatolian Seljuk sultanate" -Llc 594 results
• "Anatolian Seljuq sultanate" -Llc 2 results
• "Seljuk Sultanate of Anatolia" -Llc 31 results
• "Seljuq Sultanate of Anatolia" -Llc 8 results

1. Sultanate of Rûm, Sultanate of Rūm are not common name of this sultanate. Common usage in English is "Sultanate of Rum".
2. Even the character ق is generally transliterated as q, "Seljuk Empire" is more common than "Seljuq Empire" in English sources.
3. If users want to make importance of its "explanatory", Seljuk Sultanate of Rum is also possible.

Takabeg (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Use the common name and use English. Quigley (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Modern Turkish alternative name

Modern Turkish alternative name is needless. These names were created (invented) a posteriori in the republican era. So these alternative names had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Flag ?

Why does not the state flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.250.207 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because there wasn't one. Please read the section above. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Self Published source

This source;"H. Feridun Demokan, Contemporary Turkey: Geography, History, Economy, Art, Tourism, Demokan, 1978, p. 4.", appears to be self-published and a subsequent search via metacrawler results in no mention of Demokan's academic standing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Arabic language; dragomans

The infobox should also mention Arabic, with an appropriate side note, cf.:

• [14] "While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as the law, theology and science, the culture of the Slejuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in [...] and use of Persian as a literary language (Turkish must have been essentially a vehicle for everyday speech at this time)." This quote is actually given in the related article on the Great Seljuk Empire, but it is actually from a section on "The Zenith of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum" in the book.
• Sources generally do not present the Rum sultanate as culturally/lingusitically differently from the other contemporary Seljuk states, e.g. [15] speaks of Slejuks generally and notes, "Persian became the official and literary language while Arabic was preferred as the language of the law, thus overshadowing the Turkish language."

Another suggestion:

• The institution of dragoman appeared in this pre-Ottoman Turkish period. [16] gives example from Kayqubad I's rule.

I hope this helps built a more balanced article. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yunus Emre and Language in Anatolia

The great Turkish poet and sufi Yunus Emre: Does his presence in this "mortal" world coincide, in time and space, with the "Sultanate of Rum"? If he were alive now, he would give us a lecture with his humanistic philosophy that life (as we know it) is not eternal, we should think about the "other world" and avoid lying for petty interests... --E4024 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Qatarihistorian

I am not amused by your random accusations of vandalism. This is what the source says about the Sultanate of Rum:

...the Seljuk dynasty of sultans of Rum, a Turkish state that had taken over the Anatolian Peninsula in 1071.

Source: Ali Aldosari, Middle East, western Asia, and northern Africa, Marshall Cavendish, p.752

The term, Persianate, pertains to culture and can be mentioned in the relevant section. --Mttll (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you weren't amused. Now straight to the point. Persianate does not just refer to arts and architecture, therefore what you did WAS vandalism, especially because the sources which support the Persianate nature of the Sultanate are not just referring to the architecture but also to the actual state court and governmental bodies (e.g. official languages). Therefore moving around Persianate and putting it at the end of the article for the sake of disguising facts IS the actual amusing part.Qatarihistorian (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me just quote Wikipedia: Vandalism:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.

So your accusation is clearly nonsense. Now let's see what the sources next to the word, Persianate, in the article say:

With the growth of Seljuk power in Rum, a more highly developed Muslim cultural life, based on the Persianate culture of the Great Seljuk court, was able to take root in Anatolia.

At the center of any discussion of Rum Seljuq palace architecture lie the Persianate aspirations of the dynasty.

You were saying? --Mttll (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you blindly not continue reading the same source which says it was based on the court of the Great Seljuk? There's another source in this article which even strengthens that first source, which is about the official language of the state. Clearly the fact you decided to move around terms that don't please you is undeniable.Qatarihistorian (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources say: (1) Sultanate of Rum was a Turkish state. (2) It was culturally Persianate (which is a term about culture in the first place). Why would I deny moving terms to where they belong? --Mttll (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously did you just quote a title from a general history book? Dubious to say the least. Wouldn't you rather have the article more detailed in describing the state? Persianate state, Seljuk Turkic-ruled. You have one line which describes the Sultanate of Rum in more precision than you quoting off a title from a general history book that's not even specialized with the detailed history of Seljuks in the first place. But that's not the major dispute so let's not even pretend this is what the argument's about. Secondly, back to the Persianate source, your point is still invalid. The culture of the Great Seljuq court was adopted by the Sultanate, therefore the Sultanate had the same court system. I cannot believe you're actually contesting this, since there are plenty of sources which describe the Persianate identity of the Seljuks as a WHOLE, be they Great Seljuks or Rumi Sultanates. And to further prove this point is the fact you have them adopting Persian officially and courtly. Sorry but your edits were weird to say the least, because you moved a source unrelated to arts and architecture to that respective section, probably for the reason of disguising facts. Listen man, what happened a thousand years ago cannot be changed. Moving things around on wikipedia isn't going to change what happened I'm afraid.Qatarihistorian (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I seriously quoted a history book. Seriously. And I don't care about your personal conclusions, only what the sources say. --Mttll (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't care then why the heck did you even start this discussion? Your arguments are still invalid I'm afraid. The problem is you actually checkmated yourself by quoting the source rofl.Qatarihistorian (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant I did not care about your personal take on the content itself. After all, this is not a forum. --Mttll (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish language

Qatarihistorian, please explain why you removed Turkish from the languages section in the infobox. --Mttll (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Not Turkish

Following the source the language would be Old Anatolian Turkish, not Turkish. Lumialover2 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Old Anatolian Turkish is Turkish, it's the Old Anatolian phase of it. Similarly, the Persian language the Seljuq Turks used seems to be Early New Persian. --Mttll (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Need experts?

Prof Dr. Halil INALCIK might be one of them. See this book for example. --E4024 (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone used this source already? Those of us who are interested in Turkish history but not have heard of Prof. Fuad Köprülü may also get a clue from the same text... --E4024 (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we fix this?

Following my suggestion for Seljuq dynasty, I feel the lede sentence in this article needs serious work.

• "The Sultanate of Rum or Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, known as Turkey by its contemporaries, was a Turkish state in Anatolia, and existed from 1077 to 1307, with capitals first at İznik and then at Konya." This tells the reader that the Sultanate of Rum, known as Turkey was a Turkish state. I am sure this can be improved.
  

Instead,

• "The Sultanate of Rum or Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, was a ?medieval? Turko-Persian(culture) Sunni Muslim(religion) state in Anatolia, originating from the Seljuk Turks(ethnicity)." --Defensor Ursa 06:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. I prefer your version, as it is more informative and less tautological. Athenean (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

agree Some of the comments on these page is not relevant and the claim that the Seljuq of Rum was called Turkey is really nonsense. People are connecting Yunus Emre or Turcoman nomads to the ruling Seljuq of Rums class (who were Persianate). If a Greek or armenian or Turkish scholar writes a book during the rule of Seljuq of Rums, it does not mean the culture of the ruling elite and their scribes, court and administrators., were Armenian,Greek, Turkish, etc. Also Britannica is not a reliable source because the state of the Seljuq of Rum was not called "Turkey".. Britannica is sometimes at the level of Wikipedia, sometimes above and sometimes below. Here is a interesting quote: "... Although the Seljuqs were Turks, the culture and the entitulature of their court was largely Persian", David Abulafia, Rosamond McKitterick - , Cambridge University Press, 1999 (the book is referring to the Seljuqs of Rum) What is generally forgotten is that this is not a discussion about just the Seljuqs. It is their court, poet, Vizier, administrators, etc..usually all of them Iranians or Persian speaking. --140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking

The cherry picking from some sources is rather evident, e.g. from [17] only the official language (Persian) was cited, but it also says soon thereafter "But this somewhat artificial veneer should not deceive us, nor conceal from us the fundamental Turkic transformation brought about by the Ghuzz bands in Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Galatia. [It goes on to say that Iran proper was not influenced.]" Someone left something out. Have fun, Tijfo098 (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not cherry picking. This article is about the Sultanate of Rum and its rulers, not about the Turkoman tribal migration in general. The Seljuq family as a whole - and in particular the Seljuqs of Anatolia - were highly Persianized, even claimed descent from the Persian kings of the past. The sole official language was Persian. That does not mean that everyone in the sultanate spoke Persian. In fact, the language of the vast majority was Greek, in certain areas also Armenian. Persian was the language of a tiny, but extremely influential minority: Persian scholars and Persianized Turks. This group does not include the powerful Turkish warlords that later became the founders of the various beyliqs. But it does include the ruling family of the sultanate, as evident in the various contemporary sources (including inscriptions in Konya) and in the Persian names of the sultans who pruposely chose names of Persian Sassanid kings for their sons. --Lysozym (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

a comment that makes sense finally! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

language box and one source

The language box should include Greek (who were majority at this time), Armenian, Kurdish, and possibly Arabic as well.

The introduction definitely needs to be clear up as the Seljuqs of Rum were not called "Turkey" and, Britannica is wrong. The Persianate culture of the court should be there in the intro as well, specially the rulers themselves were accultured.

Please add: Blair, Sheila S. (1992). The Monumental Inscriptions from Early Islamic Iran and Transoxiana. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 11. ISBN 9004093672. "According to Ibn Bibi, in 618/1221 the Saljuq of Rum Ala' al-Din Kay-kubad decorated the walls of Konya and Sivas with verses from the Shah-nama" --140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted map of area around 1240

This map

was replaced with this without an explanation,

and since it seems more important to users here of which ethnicity the dynasty was I think this edit was ignored. I am going to add the map back again. Maybe there should be more attention to random edits like this, instead of always the same endless arguing about ethnicity.--DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what argument there is about their ethnicity. They were Seljuk Turks. Good catch on the map though! --Defensor Ursa 20:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Either Seljuck Turks or Seljuck Persians, ethnicity is irrelevant with the map issue.Alexikoua (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Rûm vs Rüm

Where is "Rûm" used, and why should we use it instead of "Rüm"? Adam Bishop 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply: It is defintely either "Rum" or "Rûm" but not "Rüm". The word "Rum" is the turkish version of the word "Roman" and is pronounced with vowel similar to the one in "book". The vowel in "Rüm" would be the same as the german "ü", whereas the vowel in "Rûm" is a slighlty longer and rounder version of the vowel in "Rum". Anyway the letter "û" is used very scarecely in modern Turkish, and I believe it might even have been officially declared obsolete.

Do any of you know Persian? Rum does not seem to mean Roman or anything related. Saljūqiyān-e Rūm, has two entities in it. One of them is Rum, the other one is Seljuk. So, where do you get the idea of Sultanate of Rum? The word sultanate is not there. Saljūqiyān-e means "of Selcuk". This may mean Seljuks in the Byzantium (Minor Asia).

When you compare Sultanate of Rum with Sultanate of Seljuk, Rum is perceived as Seljuk. So, are the Rum(Romans) as you mentioned are Seljuks? This doesn't make any sense.

The title seems to be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.135.92 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to carefully read the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to change the name, it reads Sultanate of Rum now! It is not correct, Selcuks were not Rums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.135.92 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Turko-Persian

The Sultanate of Rum was a medieval anatolian Turkish state. There are no sources who call Sultanate of Rum as a Turko-Persian state. 95.114.14.251 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To explain, Turco-Persian is not ethnic it is cultural. Since you clearly can not understand that. Read the first sentence again.

The lead, which typical nationalists have such a difficult time understanding, states, "The Sultanate of Rum or Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, was a medieval(time period) Turko-Persian('culture), Sunni Muslim(religion) state in Anatolia, originating from the Seljuk Turks(ethnicity)." So to clear it up so you can understand, Turko-Persian is cultural, which is proven in the article under the section CULTURE.

"Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Turco-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia." -- Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Bernard Lewis, page 29.

"The Turko-Persian Islamicate culture that emerged under the Samanids and the Qarakhanids was carried by succeeding dynasties into Western and Southern Asia - in particular, by the Seljuqs and their successor states who presided over Iran, Syria, and Anatolia until the thirteenth century...". -- Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, Robert L. Canfield, page 13. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I know our own history better. I can't understand why you tell bullshit about us. Our culture was fully Anatolian. Calling us Turko-Anatolian or Greco-Turkish would correct. Today when you arrive Greece then you will notice that it have lot of common ground with Turkey. And in addition to it because of Islam we were influenced by Arabic NOT persian. You can find Turko-persian traditions in Central Asia. And the reason why people class us with Persians is point that in Turkey 15% Kurds live and in Iran 20% Turkic people. But Iranians and Turks are totally different people. Iranians belongs to Asia and Indian sub-continent. While Turkic people belongs to Europe and the Eurasian Steppe. Archaeogenetics show us that the worlds populations is lactose intolerance execpt European and Turkic populations. So yea the word Yoghurt is turkic. To gain more informations about this search for the haplogroup R1b it is spread in Europe and in Eurasian Nomads. Any asks? 77.2.31.109 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you presented no reliable sources to support your "bullshit". If you have a problem with the source and the information contain therein, I would suggest whining to Bernard Lewis.

"Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Turco-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia." -- Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Bernard Lewis, page 29. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have also so called sources.

"Even when the roman Turks became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Sunni Islamic world which had its centers in Greco-Turkish culture." -- Constantinople and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Lewis Bernard, page 92.

To explain, Greco-Turkish is not ethnic it is cultural. Since you clearly can not understand that. Read the first sentence again. The state is occasionally called the Sultanate of Iconium (or Sultanate of Konya) in older western sources and was known as Turkey by its contemporaries. The lead, which typical nationalists have such a difficult time understanding that there is nothing about Turco-Persian. 77.2.31.109 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of fake source(s) can result in you being blocked. "Nationalist". LMAO. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to nationalist dogma, studies of population genetics have indicated that the modern Anatolian Turks are genetically influenced by indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations. Source: Genetic history of the Turkish people So the historical fact is that Sultanate of Rum was a medieval Greco-Turkish Sunni Muslim state in Anatolia, originating from the Anatolian Turks where the modern Turkish people comes from. 77.2.31.109 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion here means nothing. You have not presented any published source(s) to support your opinion. You continue to remove a reliably sourced information simply because you don't like it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

How about to show understanding? Persia is ruled by Shia Islam. As far we can only refer the Sufi, Alevi and Kurdish community as Turco-Persian tradtitions. But in west and central anatolia Greco-turkish culture ruled with Sunni Islam like in Cappadocia with Cappadocian Greeks. 77.2.31.109 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No sources, just your opinion. Tagging article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are &%$!? demagogue. Another reason why Europe must reappraise his deeply rooted anti-Turkism. I just do explanatory work to your turcophobic statements go review your history. Instead to defame and misinform the people with such pseudo-arguments. Many people have morbid perception about us Turks and it is the reason why we still live in an apartheid between europeans and muslims europeans. We Turks belong to the european familiy of peoples and that is NOTHING what I claim nor a personal view who is "tagging article" but a proven truth. Not only is it unhuman to treat us like second class europeans, in fact it is a racial libel. Understood? 77.2.31.109 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So instead of bringing published source(s), you can only issue personal attacks. Typical of "someone" with no published sources, resorting to childish personal attacks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't believe your propaganda. But back to the article I discovered now all other languages in the Wikipedia, but the english one is the only one who claims that Sultanate of Rum is being of Turco-persian culture? 77.2.31.109 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

More commenting on the editor and not the content. I still see NO source(s) to support your opinion. Turco-Persian culture has sources;

• "Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Turco-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia." -- Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Bernard Lewis, page 29.
• "The Turko-Persian Islamicate culture that emerged under the Samanids and the Qarakhanids was carried by succeeding dynasties into Western and Southern Asia - in particular, by the Seljuqs and their successor states who presided over Iran, Syria, and Anatolia until the thirteenth century...". -- Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, Robert L. Canfield, page 13, your self-inflated opinion does not. It is you that is pushing propaganda here, not I. Canfield and Lewis are both historians. For the 5th and final time, Where are your sources?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the names of the Seljuk Sultans

A table showing the language origin of the names of the Seljuk sultans. The Seljuks were as much as "Arabianate" as they were "Persianate". In fact Persian society in Iran of that time itself was highly "Arabianate" so there is no reason for nationalism here. The Sultan names of Persian origin are all from the Shahnameh a popular Persian literary poem of that time, there is no evidence that they saw themselves as "Persian Kings" of the past, more likely this naming seems to ocurred due to the literary fashion. Which even influenced the Christians of the Middle East. The Arabic names are mostly religous Islamic names as was common to give to Islamic rulers.

So there is no need to make WP:OR and invent theories that their names are related to nationalism. Most of the names are actually the same, they seem to be official dynastic names, maybe they are not even their real names, for example the Turkic "Kilij Arslan" (Sword Lion) and the Arabic Ghiyath al-Din (Spreader of the faith) or Kaykaus renamed after the mythological Iranian king Kay Kāvus.

So anachronistic nationalism is not necessary here. The Seljuk dynasty was concious of its ethnic origin, the medieval Islamic scholars called them Turks or Turkmen originating from the Oghuz. Many Sultans have Turkic names, because their power relied on Turkic nomads, they probably spoke themselves also Turkic. The Seljuks used Arabic and Persian in the administration like the dynasties before them, these two languages were the lingua franca of the medieval Middle East and continued to be used by allmost all dynasties (including Ottomans) no matter their origin.

• 5 names are in Turkic, 4 times Kilij Arslan and 1 time Kutalmish.
• 10 names in Persian, 1 time Shah, 4 times Kaykhusraw, 2 times Kaykaus and 3 times Kayqubad.
• 16 names in Arabic, 2 time Suleiman, 3 times Izz al din, 3 times Ala al din, 5 times Ghiyath al din, 1 time Malik, 1 time Masud and 2 times Rukn al din.

• So of the total 31 names there are only 12 unique names, 2 in Turkic, 4 in Persian and 7 in Arabic.DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Name of Sultan	Language origin of the name
1. Kutalmish	Turkic
2. Suleiman ibn Qutulmish	Arabic
3. Kilij Arslan I	Turkic
4. Malik Shah	Arabic and Persian
6. 'Izz al-Din Kilij Arslan II	Arabic and Turkic
7. Giyath al-Din Kaykhusraw I	Arabic and Persian
8. Rukn al-Din Suleiman II	Arabic
9. Kilij Arslan III	Turkic
Giyath al-Din Kaykhusraw I	Arabic and Persian
10. 'Izz al-Din Kayka'us I	Arabic and Persian
11. 'Ala al-Din Kayqubad I	Arabic and Persian
12. Giyath al-Din Kaykhusraw II	Arabic and Persian
13. 'Izz al-Din Kayka'us II	Arabic and Persian
14. Rukn al-Din Kilij Arslan IV	Arabic and Turkic
15. 'Ala al-Din Kayqubad II	Arabic and Persian
16. Giyath al-Din Kaykhusraw III	Arabic and Persian
17. Giyath al-Din Masud II	Arabic
18. 'Ala al-Din Kayqubad III	Arabic and Persian

fake flag

Thanks, Zoupan, for removing the fictitious flag. Nice work. This is a widespread problem with our articles about historic empires (and sultanates and hordes and tribes and satrapies ...). bobrayner (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Kayseri is definetely not a coastal city.

Kay Khusrau II

The article states that he ("the sultan") died in 1246, but in the list of sultans is mentioned that he reigned a second time from 1257-59. Now what?

Map

The map says 1200's. Wrong, Seljuks were reduced to interior Anatalia, the Byzantines still had land in Asis Minor, the Crusader states still existed. To conclude, it looks alot like a map in 1081, before the first Crusade, some 100 years before what the date says. Tourskin.

Hah, the map itself says 1097. Well I changed the date to that. Its great to talk to myself.Tourskin. Lol

IP removing references and referenced information

I would like an explanation as to why the IPs are removing references, referenced information, referenced quotes. This appears to be anti-Persian POV editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkish state

Reading this article you would never believe that the Sultanate of the Rum had anything to do with the Turks. All I got from this Wiki entry was that everything was Persian... lets just ignore the state was comprised of Oguz Turks or that they rotated capital cities based on the seasons as most Turkic nomadic states or that it was a militarist state comprised of an almost exclusive Turkish leadership. Persian nationalism is getting rather tiresome.

Johnjohnstevens5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.248.225 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't read?

• Bernard Lewis, Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, 29; "Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Turco-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia","The literature of Seljuk Anatolia was almost entirely in Persian...".
  

A comment by a "new user" is not consensus to remove referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

More sources:

• Andrew Peacock, The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, (I.B. Tauris, 2013), 130;"Firstly, at the time the Persian language, along with its official and cultural status in the Seljuk society, was used as the primary language of communication between the sultan and his servants. Secondly, the sultan communicated with his Greek hosts in Greek, using Persian to ensure that they did not understand what he said to his servants."

Persian used as the primary communication, like in Turko-Persian culture.

• Muqarnas, Volume 24: History and Ideology, edited by Gülru Necipoglu, page 79, "...that the Rum Seljuk and early Sultanate monuments attempt to replicate the brick forms of Persianate architecture..."

Assuming you or the sockpuppet(s) even know what a Persianate is. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Vernon Egger, A History of the Muslim World Since 1260, page "Persian models of government, art, and literature also influenced the culture of the Rum sultanate."
• Christian Lange, Songul Mecit, The Seljuqs:Politics, Society and Culture, page 69-70;"The number of Iranian bureaucrats, scholars, Sufis and craftsmen from Persian territories and especially Khurasan who fled the Mongols and sought refuge in Anatolia grew substantially during the reign of Kilic Arslan, and under their influence the Rum Seljuq sultanate was Persianised."
• Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VIII, page 952;"Yet it was the Persian spiritual and literary tradition which speedily became dominant, reflecting Persian influence in other spheres such as administration and court life (see below, section V. 2). The Saldjuk sultans themselves earlier adopted Persian epic names like Kay Kawus, Kay Khusraw and Kay Kubadh...[...]. Hence the administration, like the culture of the Rum Saldjuks, became strongly Persian in ethos...[..].".
• A.C.S. Peacock, Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life, page 191;"The gradual Islamisation and Turkicisation of Anatolia (Rūm) under the Saljuq dynasty (473/1081-707/1307) was accompanied by urban revival and development. Although all these processes are still poorly understood, from the late sixth/twelfth century an increasingly sophisticated, urban, Persianate culture began to flourish."

And since no one has bothered they might read the section on Culture and Society. Plenty of sources for sockpuppets/blocked users to ignore there. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

annexation of necaea and nicomedia by the seljuks

it says on the article that it happened in 1075. yet on the article called"nicaea" it says it fell in 1080. plus the article called nicomedia says that it never fell it even says it was the base of alexius komnenus and the crusaders(plus maps of that era that ive seen seem to confirm it)

does anyone know for sure what is correct?2A02:587:DC05:B800:F90A:F233:9C3F:403B (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Greek court language

Greek never was a part of the languages of the sultanate. The sultans spoke many different languages wit different hosts for example greek. Just like it was in the Ottoman Empire. It doesn't make sense to add only greek when there were many more languages. Gala19000 (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way. Greek never was the court language of the Seljuk sultanate. It was persian wich was always used. Only some sultans learned greek and spoke greak with greek hosts. Gala19000 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Peacock and Sara Nur Yildiz, The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, (I.B. Tauris, 2013), 130;"Firstly, at the time the Persian language, along with its official and cultural status in the Seljuk society, was used as the primary language of communication between the sultan and his servants. Secondly, the sultan communicated with his Greek hosts in Greek.."

• "Greek never was a part of the languages of the sultanate."

Clearly the usage of Greek in court proves differently.

"however, we have some evidence indicating that Greek was far from alien from them[Seljuks]. Indeed, starting at the end of the eleventh century, the usual destination of a refugee Seljuk sovereign or nobleman was Byzantium. Thus we may pose the question as to which language these noble refugees used to communicate with the Byzantine Greeks. Neither Byzantine nor Seljuk sources, in the extensive account of the life of the refugee sultans in Constantinople, mention the use of interpreters between the emperor and the sultan. This is probably because the refugee sultans spoke Greek." Peacock, Yildiz, page 130.

"Versifying in Greek was thus not a bizarre caprice of two men of genius but, when place in its context, rather indicates the interest of Muslim elite in the Greek language and the lattter's prevalence in Seljuk Anatolia.", Peacock, Yildiz, page 133.

"Ibn Bibi iforms us that the draft copy of the peace treaty between 'Izz al-Din I and the Grand Komenenos Alexios I was compiled by the sultan's nutaran, that is the Greek secretaries of the chancery. The official use of the Greek language by the Seljuk chancery is well known.", Peacock, Yildiz, page 132.

• "It doesn't make sense to add only greek when there were many more languages."

And I see you have brought no sources to support your opinion(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding a source to prove that it was not a part of the court is a bit hard to do when it has no point as Persian was the official language of not just the court, but also of the Sultanate and many other anatolian states close to the Seljuks. Addaing the 'Greek' language doesn't make sence as that wasn't thh official language that was used in the Sultanate. There were also Armenians in the eas (later under control for a part by the Georgian kingdom) wich doesn't mean that armenian was a part of it. Maybe a other languages article for the Seljuk sultanate should be made just like for the Ottomans. Otherwise it realy doesn't make sense to add just one of tr many languages that was used in the state. Gala19000 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you a have a reliable source supporting your claim? Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what read the article of the Seljuk dynasty better and you will see. Or even better, read some history books about the Seljuks self. Gala19000 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather hypocritical statement, especially when it was clearly proven that Greek was used by the Seljuks in their court and chancery. You are beginning to sound like you just don't like the word Greek. Also, your strawman argument that Greek wasn't the official language is redundant seeing how Greek was not presented as an official language nor was it listed as such, being listed as "court". With the added information "chancery" can now be added. As for the "Seljuks using other languages", if you can provide a reliable published source that shows "these other languages" were used extensively by the Seljuks then do so. Empty comments mean nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't like the word Greek. Oh please believe me, if I realy would I would have changed many things on the Ottoman article. Just saying that the Seljuks just like the Ottomans used manu different languages like dozens of other Empires in the past. Gala19000 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Being able to speak with Greeks doesn't mean it has any official status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.179.22 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As usual another "anonymous user" with no sources. Here are two sources, which I am sure you will ignore completely.

• Byzantium in the Near East: its relations with the Seljuk sultanate of Rum in Asia Minor, the Armenians of Cilicia and the Mongols, A.D. c.1192-1237, Alexēs G. K. Savvidēs, page 139, " ...proved that the Greek language was an official tool of diplomacy not only in Seljuk but also in Ottoman times.."
• The Seljuks of Anatolia, A.C.S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yildiz, page 132, "The official use of the Greek language by the Seljuk chancery is well known".

I would suggest you go read some books by academics. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sultanate of Rum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704025025/http://archnet.org/library/pubdownloader/pdf/8967/doc/DPC1304.pdf to http://archnet.org/library/pubdownloader/pdf/8967/doc/DPC1304.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405010452/http://archnet.org/library/places/places.tcl?country_code=tr to http://archnet.org/library/places/places.tcl?country_code=tr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead issues

Apparently the IP can not read;

• "".... established in the parts of Anatolia which had been conquered from the Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Empire which was established by Seljuk Turks." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent move

I have no special stake in this page, but I anticipated the move to Sultanate of Rûm would be uncontroversial. I apologize for neglecting to discuss it first. Is there a policy on diacritical markings, or a reason why the page should not be moved?--MattMauler (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Qiniq branch

I see some people revert these edits as "unsourced", however their dynasty was part of the greater Seljuks. Personally I find that adding unnecessary, just wanted to add my comment. Beshogur (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead was;

• "The Sultanate of Rum was a medieval Turko-Persian, Sunni Muslim state in Anatolia founded by the Seljuk Turk, Suleiman ibn Qutulmish in 1077."

but it was changed 17 March 2016. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Add lion and sun to the infobox alongside the eagle?

apparently a lot of source are mentioning this. Could someone make the svg version of the sun and lion (similar to the eagle) as we see on that Seljuk coin, or should we put the coin itself. What are your opinions? @HistoryofIran:. Beshogur (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tbf the sources that appear doesn't seem to abide by WP:RS, at least those that appear at first. But it does indeed seem that Seljuks used a lion and sun flag. The only source I recall atm talking about is The later Ghaznavids (page 56) by C. E. Bosworth:

"Another practice of Ibrahim's which may have been influenced by that of the Seljuqs, and by Ibrahim's connections with Malik Shah, is the Ghaznavid sultan's having a lion device on his banner (rayat), if a line of Abu'l-Faraj Runi is to be believed: Like the lion device on a banner, the bold braggart has no heart; like a gazelle's horn, the branch of his tree is without fruit. The Persian poets of the Seljuqs certainly make frequent reference to the lion device on their masters' flags, for example in the odes of Anwari addressed to Sanjar and his military commander epigoni in Khurasan."

I think FLAGS i. Of Persia has some info regarding this as well.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: could we cut and make a png of the coin? Beshogur (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If sources support it then yes, I wouldn't object. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding Turkish usages to lead

"and in the 10th-11th centuries, Middle Persian texts were still intelligible to speakers of Early New Persian" so we must remove modern persian part because it is anachronistic. Old Anatolian Turkish same to Turkish as Middle Persian same to modern Persian. Wickelodeon (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Middle Persian was more or less extinct under the Seljuks, being replaced by New Persian. And where is this quote from and in what context? You do realize that the article is full of sourced statements that Persian was spoken under this dynasty? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

From Middle Persian article and it still isn't same as new Arabo-Persian dialect called modern Persian. And Seljuks spoke Old Anatolian Turkish according to full of sources. Do you realize? Wickelodeon (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Manzikert

Well, infobox template actually says this A crucial event that took place before "event_start" which may apply for Battle of Manzikert in this case, which the article mentions twice. Beshogur (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I see. Self-reverted. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Turko-Persian (?)

It's entirely inappropriate to call the Sultanate 'Turko-Persian'. The term is a theoretical term that some historians use in 'specific' contexts. Overly enthusiastic Iranian nationalist contributors then pile on those usages and arrive with them to have the Sultanate declared as Turko-Persian, whatever that means.

The vast majority of sources calls them Seljuk Turkish and makes no mention of them being 'Turko-Persian'. I added four of those sources.

Iranian nationalist Wikipedia contributors would never allow for something like the Samanids or Khwarezmians to be called 'Persio-Arab' or 'Turko-Arab', even though their cultures were deeply affected by Arabic culture (more so than the Sultanate was affected by Iran's cultures), yet they are the first to insert a Persian claim right in the first sentence. It makes historically no sense, it goes against the vast majority of sources (of which I included four myself) and it seems to be ideologically motivated.

One more thing: the Persian influence on the Sultanate is real, and I'm not trying to downplay that. The Seljuks had arrived in Byzantium through Iran, and brought with them many Iranian elements. But that first sentence is not the place to state that. The Sultanate was deeply affected by Arabic culture, with Arabic serving an administrative role as well. Greek culture stood at the base of Seljuk architecture and cultural expressions. And Turkish, of course. In the end, the Sultanate served to Turkify the lands of Byzantium, not to Persianize or Arabize them.

And finally, the term Rum has nothing to do with any ancient Persian term for the Romans. Rum comes from the Arabic 'ar-Rum', used for the Roman Empire in the Quran. It had become a common term in Arabic speech and literature already by the 8th century. I added a relevant source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:3D6D:40A8:755F:9E4C (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HistoryofIran 2A02:A458:447B:1:44E8:CBC3:FD3B:C75C (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In response to the continued battleground comments,

• "As an expression of Turko-Persian culture, Rum Seljuks patronized Persian art, architecture, and literature. Unlike the Seljuk Empire, the Seljuk sultans of Rum had Persian names such as Kay-Khusraw, Kay-Qubadh and Kay-Ka'us. The bureaucrats and religious elite of their realm was of Persian stock. In the 13th-century, the majority of the Muslim inhabitants in major Anatolian urban hubs reportedly spoke Persian as their main language. It was in this century that the proneness of imitating Iran in terms of administration, religion and culture reached its zenith, resulting in the creation of a "second Iran" in Anatolia."

• "Despite their Turkic origins, the Seljuks used Persian for administrative purposes, even their histories, which replaced Arabic, were in Persian. Their usage of Turkish was hardly promoted at all. Even Sultan Kilij Arslan II, as a child, spoke to courtiers in Persian. Khanbaghi states the Anatolian Seljuks were even more Persianized than the Seljuks that ruled the Iranian plateau. The Rahat al-sudur, the history of the Great Seljuk Empire and its breakup, written in Persian by Muhammad bin Ali Rawandi, was dedicated to Sultan Kaykhusraw I. Even the Tārikh-i Āl-i Saldjūq, an anonymous history of the Sultanate of Rum, was written in Persian."

• "One of its most famous Persian writers, Rumi, took his name from the name of the state. Moreover, Byzantine influence in the Sultanate was also significant, since Byzantine Greek aristocracy remained part of the Seljuk nobility, and the native Byzantine (Rûm) peasants remained numerous in the region. Cultural Turkification in Anatolia first started during the 14th-century, particularly during the gradual rise of the Ottomans."

To say it makes no differrence? Clearly you did not study your history. The Seljuks brought Turko-Persian culture to fruition. If not for them, the Ottomans would not have used Persian up until the 16th century. So continue your battleground rants, your deletion of referenced information, I honestly do not care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Seljuks used many languages, including Persian. The Seljuks left monumental bilingual inscriptions in Arabic and Greek. I will edit the page for the Samanids to call them Arabo-Persians, and I will add sources to support me calling them that. Let's see how the community will react that. 2A02:A458:447B:1:B0C0:DD73:8871:1CA1 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do, will make my ANI report much easier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

About the map

i gived a source about the map which i add. Still you dont accept. There is no ichil on the current map. Cities like Mut, Silifke, Anamur where taked by Kayqubad I in 1225. Please add a better map. Overvecht3301 (talk) Overvecht3301 (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't the Sultanate of Rum a Turkic state?

It's certainly accurate to say that the Sultanate of Rum was culturally Turco-Persian, and followed Sunni Islam, I don't deny that, but isn't it also accurate to clarify that it was a Turkic state? Why deny this most basic fact? [18] Some references:

• Houshisadat, Seyed Mohammad (5 October 2020). Iran's Regional Relations: A History from Antiquity to the Islamic Republic. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-000-17882-1. In due course a new Turkish state, the Seljuk Sultante of Rum, was formed in Anatolia
• Nicolle, David (23 February 2011). Cross & Crescent in the Balkans: The Ottoman Conquest of Southeastern Europe (14th–15th centuries). Casemate Publishers. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-84468-760-2. ...what would become the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. The new Turkish states which had been established in conquered Byzantine territory during the late-eleventh century...
• Holt, Andrew (30 June 2023). Religion and World Civilizations [3 volumes]: How Faith Shaped Societies from Antiquity to the Present [3 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 296. ISBN 978-1-4408-7424-6. ...the Sultanate of Rum and other smaller Turkish states.
• Ali, Zaheer (1 December 2023). Khilafat in History and Indian Politics. Taylor & Francis. p. 117. ISBN 978-1-003-83082-5. Subsequently, the Sultanate of Rum (Islamic variant of Rome) came into existence with its capital in Konya, which later emerged as a powerful Turkish state.
• Wink, André (1990). Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries. BRILL. p. 10. ISBN 978-90-04-10236-1. In due course, a new Turkish state, the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum ('Rome') was created in Anatolia , a distant precursor of the Ottoman Sultanate. [Added on 22-02]
• World and Its Peoples. Marshall Cavendish. September 2006. p. 772. ISBN 978-0-7614-7571-2. The Seljuk dynasty of sultans of Rum, a Turkish state that had taken over the Anatolian Peninsula in 1071. [Added on 22-02]
• Lewis, Bernard (1963). Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-8061-1060-8. A powerful Turkish state, with its capital in the ancient city of Iconium, which the Turks called Konya. This dynasty, which with varying success ruled Turkish Anatolia until the beginning of the fourteeth century, was known as the Sultans of Rum. [Added on 22-02]
• LePree, James Francis; Djukic, Ljudmila (9 September 2019). The Byzantine Empire [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 174. ISBN 978-1-4408-5147-6. ...This allowed Kilij Arslan to establish an independent Turkish state, called the Sultanate of Rum. [Added on 22-02]
• Roberts, John Morris (1997). A Short History of the World. Oxford University Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-19-511504-8. Under the Seljuks, a true Turkish state at last came into being in Iran and Anatolia (where the Turks called their new province the Sultanate of Rum) [Added on 22-02]
• A ́goston, Ga ́bor; Masters, Bruce Alan (21 May 2010). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7. The Rum Seljuks established the strongest and most important Turkish state in Asia Minor in the 1070s. [Added on 22-02]

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

“Turco-Persian” already cover their Turkic background… please also read the culture section. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र I am not denying that the ruling family was ethnically Turkic, that much is undoubtedly true. However, your edit replaced Turco-Persian and Sunni Muslim with Turkic, which I do not find acceptable; to the ruling class of the Sultanate of Rûm, their connection to Islam and Persianate culture was far more important than any sense of ethnic belonging. I do think that a wording that includes both (like the one on the Seljuk Empire page) is acceptable, but not this. Uness232 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Uness232:, I did not "replace Turco-Persian and Sunni Muslim with Turkic", please read again [19]: I just added that they were a Turkic state, which is a pretty standard and fundamental way to describe them (sources above). Indeed, my proposal is to say that they were a Turkic state, which was culturally Turco-Persian, and which followed Sunni Islam. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र My mistake. I acted hastily, thought you deleted “Turco-Persian”. I am okay with your proposal. Uness232 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र Again, please read what Turco-Persian means - you've been editing these type of articles for years, you should at the very least know what it means.. Moreover, mentioning that they were Turkic before Turco-Persian not only sounds off (per the meaning of "Turco-Persian"), but it's not neutral, as Uness32 perfectly put it; "their connection to Islam and Persianate culture was far more important than any sense of ethnic belonging." This is well demonstrated in the Culture and society section. When you're not turning articles into galleries (eg [20] [21]), you're doing this.. please do better. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I don't necessarily see the problem with mentioning both; while their ethnic belonging was secondary to their Persianate affinities, modern historiography has (for better or for worse) become more perceptive of the former, and a clarification of origin and cultural affiliation might work just as well as what we have right now. Perhaps better wording can be used, similar to the one used on the Seljuk Empire page:

The Seljuk Empire, or the Great Seljuk Empire, was a high medieval empire, established and ruled by the Qïnïq branch of Oghuz Turks. It was culturally Turco-Persian, and followed the Sunni Muslim faith.

This does not use the term "Turkic state/empire" which implies a sense of ethnic belonging similar to a modern nation-state, while communicating both origin and cultural affiliation. Uness232 (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the new lede by Pataliputra without any WP:CONSENSUS, and is essentially a swap of the words of the previous and long standing lede of the Seljuk Empire and would be the same here too. Their ethnic origins are already mentioned in this lede, but the way that Pataliputra did it here was off and frankly nearing the realm of disruption when looking at their previous activities. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I see. I defer to your judgment here, and I think I went about this very hastily and without forming my complete set of thoughts, as I misread the edit at first. Uness232 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Sources tend to define them as a Turkic/ Turkish state first and foremost (above), so we should follow that. And, honestly, it seems to be the most obvious and fundamental way to define them. "Culturally Turco-Persian" only qualifies their culture and is not sufficient as a definition of who they were: they could very well be Georgians "with a Turco-Persian culture", or Persians "with a Turco-Persian culture" for that matter. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources tend to define them as a Turkic/ Turkish state first and foremost (above), so we should follow that. And, honestly, it seems to be the most obvious and fundamental way to define them.

Sources cherrypicked by you, we still put the most important part first, it goes without saying - read the Culture section. You already made a similar attempt at Timurid Empire and it failed.

"Culturally Turco-Persian" only qualifies their culture and is not sufficient as a definition of who they were: they could very well be Georgians "with a Turco-Persian culture", or Persians "with a Turco-Persian culture" for that matter.

Sigh... you still haven't read what Turco-Persian means. I am gonna ask you for the third time to read it. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: The expression "Culturally Turco-Persian" certainly does not replace the definition of what the Seljuk Sultanate was from a political standpoint, even if the Turco-Persian culture historically usually reflected a situation where Turks ruled ("masters of the sword") while Persians were the "masters of the pen". To be precise and encyclopedic: the Sultanate of Rum was a Turkic state, ruled by a Turkic dynasty, which had a developped Turco-Persian culture, and followed Sunny Islam. This is not all and the same: political, cultural and religious characteristics all deserve to be defined and explicited. I added a few more academic sources to my initial statement above, which matter-of-factly define the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum as a Turkic state. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you even know what you're saying or are you making up new things as you go? What does "politically" precisely mean here? This is the medieval times. Even the cherrypicked sources don't mention that word. Please stop trying to make up your own rules/meanings and constantly going against our rules and historians, it's tiring. Obviously, when those cherrypicked sources of yours say "Turkic state", they are referring to their origins. You already attempted this at Timurid Empire and it failed; WP:DROPTHESTICK or I will take this to WP:ANI for your years and years of disruption. A moment ago you didn't even know what "Turco-Persian" meant, basing your whole argument on your wrong interpretation of that, now it's something new and random. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, from a quick glance, at least 5 of those sources aren't even by experts on this topic nor books focused on the topic, more proof that you're cherry picking whatever you can find at Google ebooks. I'm not interested in resorting to the same tactics, it's disingenuous and the Culture section already has more than enough citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Political" refers to the form and nature of government (see "Politics"), which in our case is characterized as "Turkic" by academic sources, as in the expression "Turkish state" above. It is distinct from "culture", which refers to the arts, literature etc..., here properly referred to as "culturally Turco-Persian", which I don't dispute. As shown by my references, the expression "Turkic/ish state" is almost exclusively used in academia to describe the Sultanate of Rum as a political entity. Like it or not, you have been unable to provide a single refutal based on WP:Reliable sources. You should drop the constant threats, misrepresentations and personal attacks: please WP:AGF, we are all here to build the best possible encyclopedia. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I was asking for the opinion of a expert scholar, not yours. You did not address the part about the cherrypicked non-expert sources as well as that they don't even mention the word "politically" either, instead resorting to WP:SYNTH. I've given you WP:GF for years, the long WP:ROPE has finally run out. How about you start trying to do better? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Which "non-expert" authors would you like to see removed from my list of references in the initial statement? I will gladly remove them. And I don't see why the word "politically" would necessarily have to be mentioned in these references: it is sufficient enough that these academics use this "Turkic/ish state" expression as their primary descriptor for the Sultanate of Rum, and everybody knows that a state is a political entity... At the very least, per Wikipedia editorial rules, we should be able to mention in the introduction that the Sultanate is also described as a "Turkic state", with the above references. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Which "non-expert" authors would you like to see removed from my list of references in the initial statement? I will gladly remove them.

Please first explain why you're picking whatever you can find at Google ebooks and not paying attention to what it even is.

And I don't see why the word "politically" would necessarily have to be mentioned in these references: it is sufficient enough that these academics use this "Turkic/ish state" expression as their primary descriptor for the Sultanate of Rum, and everybody knows that a state is a political entity.

Textbook WP:SYNTH; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research". I highly advise you to read this a few times seeing as you been called for WP:OR many times, including Talk:Maurya Empire [22].

There is already sourced information in the Culture section that talks about how the Sultanate of Rum was politically, and to no surprise, your WP:SYNTH claims are not supported by it;

"The Seljuk dynasty of Rum, as successors to the Great Seljuks, based its political, religious and cultural heritage on the Perso-Islamic tradition and Greco-Roman tradition,"

"The Seljuks of Rum had inherited the administrative method of Persian statecraft from the Seljuk Empire, which they would later pass on to the Ottomans."

"Anatolia in the early 13th century was deeply influenced by Iranian cultural, political, and literary traditions."

WP:DROPTHESTICK. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You are not making sense. How can it possibly be WP:SYNTH to simply re-use the expression ("Turkic state") which is primarily used by dozens of the most relevant historians of the period to describe the Sultanate of Rum? (and again, I am not denying all the various influences you keep harping about, which is not the point). As you should well know, it is our job to follow the sources in the terminology they use to describe various historical entities. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You are not making sense. How can it possibly be WP:SYNTH to simply re-use the expression ("Turkic state")

Let's go a few comments back to what you claimed; "The expression "Culturally Turco-Persian" certainly does not replace the definition of what the Seljuk Sultanate was from a political standpoint... This is not all and the same: political, cultural and religious characteristics all deserve to be defined and explicited"

This is sheer WP:SYNTH. As seen in the article, its political aspects were Persianate/Greco-Roman, not "Turkic", whatever it means here. "Turkic state" obviously refers to their origin being Turkic. If you are so sure that their "political characteristics" are Turkic, then why does the Culture section contradict that, and why can't you cite a single source that talks about that?

which is primarily used by dozens of the most relevant historians of the period to describe the Sultanate of Rum?

This is essentially WP:REHASH. Please explain how these are the most "relevant historians" (four crying out load, you are citing books named "Religion and World Civilizations [3 volumes]: How Faith Shaped Societies from Antiquity to the Present [3 volumes]", do I even need to elaborate?) and why you're picking whatever you can find at Google ebooks and not paying attention to what it even is - in other words, cherrypicking. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Another source which actually talks about the political aspects of the Sultanate of Rum;

"It is generally assumed that the Rum Seljuq sultans adopted the government system and institutions established by their Great Seljuq cousins and consequently the Perso-Islamic concept of legitimate kingship.6 This concept was the result of the synthesis of the ancient Iranian concept of kingship and Islamic notions and norms which resulted in the ideology usually called ‘Perso-Islamic autocracy’.7 While it is true that Islamic notions and norms were especially static and resistant to change, it cannot be said that they remained the same. Different ideological options, though not entirely novel, were developed as the result of historical, political and economical changes. The Rum Seljuqs adopted the Perso-Islamic concept of the ideology of kingship as it was formulated under their Great Seljuq cousins, but they had to adapt it taking into account the political realities of their time. A compact formulation of the Perso-Islamic ideology as promoted by the Great Seljuqs is given in an inscription of the third Great Seljuq sultan Malikshāh on the Friday Mosque in Isfahan" pp. 64–65, The Seljuqs: Politics, Society and Culture, Edinburgh University Press HistoryofIran (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that most historians acknowledge the fact that the ruling dynasty was Turkic (which you can find on any book on the subject), and that this is probably the reason why they call it a "Turkic state", without having even to justify themselves further. It is fairly obvious actually, and they are historians, so they are the final authority on the subject, it is not our role to challenge their terminology.

I am not "cherry-picking", just looking at how the Sultanate as a state is defined in the literature ("Seljuk state" also appears regularly). On the contrary, if you look for "Turco-Persian state" in relation to the Sultanate of Rum (an expression which was present many years in this article), you will find that it is virtually inexistant in the literature.

We do not have to argue more than that, the fact that multiple and major sources use "Turkic state" as the primary way to define the Sultanate, is sufficient to incorporate it in the article, with references. On Wikipedia, we do nothing more than reflect what reliable sources say.

In order to remedy this lenghty and unfortunately rather fruitless ping-pong between the two of us, it might be a good idea to open a WP:RfC, so that we can have more opinions on the subject. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is denying that the dynasty is Turkic... and you're yet to address my points, but I'm used to it. We indeed follow reliable sources, but we also make sure an article is WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRAL, saying that they are a "Turkic state" when the vast majority of their aspects are Persianate/Greco-Roman is none of those. You always do this - engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/Make your own rules : -> it gets rejected -> abuse the WP:RFC system, like you recently did at Talk:Maurya Empire. No more, enough is enough, I know what my next step is. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)