"New" DEEP Search All of Realhistory using Keyword or Phrase 
Achaemenid Persian Empire
Alexanders Empire
Seleucid Empire
Parthian Empire
Sassanian Persian Empire
Ottoman Empire

Ancient Man and His First Civilizations



Anatolia = Eastern Roman Empire = Byzantium = Asia Minor = Modern Turkey




Following the Central Asian Albino invasion of Greece (and before that in Eastern Europe, which they passed through and settled), many of the original Black populations of these areas fled to Anatolia for safety. Among them were the Pelasgians, the Achaeans, and the Mycenaean’s, (the Achaeans may have been a sub-group of the Pelasgians, whereas the Mycenaean’s were originally associated with Crete). These Albino Greeks were late in developing a system of recording events as they happened, thus the records of events, and the peoples of those times, are left to later created Albino Greek myth.



















As is typical with history as told by Albino people; once it is known that Albinos inhabited an area, then ALL the people of that area "magically" become White, as well as all those that were native to the land. Then the Albinos set about making bogus statues and artifacts (including coins) to prove that the original people were White.





Consequently, it is impossible to determine the real demographics of Western Anatolia during the first millennium B.C. All that can be safely said, is that Blacks from mainland Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and some Aegean Islands (not limited to the Sea Peoples Exodus), fled to Anatolia to escape the advancing Albinos in Europe. And later, Albinos followed them there, (Ionians settled in Miletus at about 1,000 B.C.). All the while, keeping in mind that these were not vacant lands, Black people were living there before the refugees arrived. So exactly what the racial makeup of the Aeolian, Ionian, and Doric areas of Western Anatolia were, cannot be ascertained. But these coins tell us that by the middle of the first millennia B.C, Blacks still held the Rulership in many areas of Western Anatolia.



Coins from the Island of Lesbos, circa 500 - 550 B.C.








The name Armenian may be the result of Persian or Greek confusion of them with the Aramaeans of the Aram kingdom. Though most think the Ancient Armenians (not the current Turkish people), to have been from the Indus Valley, there is the possibility that they may in fact have been ethnically Amorite's (Aramaeans). Another very real possibility is that they were Colchian refuges, who because of the many invasions that land suffered, may have decided to move to safer lands in the south, where there was as yet no Whites.


Colchis is an ancient region at the eastern end of the Black Sea, south of the Caucasus mountains in the western part of modern Georgia. It consisted of the valley of the Phasis (modern Riuni) River. In Greek mythology Colchis was the home of Medea and the destination of the Argonauts, a land of fabulous wealth and the domain of sorcery. Colchis was later colonized by Milesian Greeks to whom the native Colchians supplied gold, slaves, hides, linen cloth, agricultural produce, and such shipbuilding materials as timber, flax, pitch, and wax.

The ethnic composition of the Colchians, as described by Herodotus, was Egyptian. Remnants of the army of Senusret I, (Greek Sesostris), who was the second king of the 12th Dynasty and had ascended to the throne after the murder of his father Amenemhet I. After the 6th century B.C, they lived under the nominal suzerainty of Persia and passed into the kingdom of Mithradates VI, (1st century B.C.), and then under the rule of Rome. They united with Lazica in the 4th century A.D, and constituted an important buffer state between the Sassanian Persian and Byzantine empires. In the late 8th century A.D, Colchis was attached to Abasgia, which in turn was incorporated into Russian Georgia.


Herodotus on Colchis

Passing over these monarchs, therefore, I shall speak of the king who reigned next, whose name was Sesostris. He, the priests said, first of all proceeded in a fleet of ships of war from the Arabian gulf along the shores of the Erythraean sea, subduing the nations as he went, until he finally reached a sea which could not be navigated by reason of the shoals. Hence he returned to Egypt, where, they told me, he collected a vast armament, and made a progress by land across the continent, conquering every people which fell in his way.

In the countries where the natives withstood his attack, and fought gallantly for their liberties, he erected pillars, on which he inscribed his own name and country, and how that he had here reduced the inhabitants to subjection by the might of his arms: where, on the contrary, they submitted readily and without a struggle, he inscribed on the pillars, in addition to these particulars, an emblem to mark that they were a nation of women, that is, unwarlike and effeminate.

[2.103] In this way he traversed the whole continent of Asia, whence he passed on into Europe, and made himself master of Scythia and of Thrace, beyond which countries I do not think that his army extended its march. For thus far the pillars which he erected are still visible, but in the remoter regions they are no longer found. Returning to Egypt from Thrace, he came, on his way, to the banks of the river Phasis. Here I cannot say with any certainty what took place. Either he of his own accord detached a body of troops from his main army and left them to colonise the country, or else a certain number of his soldiers, wearied with their long wanderings, deserted, and established themselves on the banks of this stream.



[2.104] There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race. Before I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it myself. After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject both in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians had a more distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians had of them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair, which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations are so too; but further and more especially, on the circumstance that the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians (Nubians), are the only nations who have practised circumcision from the earliest times.

The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians; and the Syrians who dwell about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macronians, say that they have recently adopted it from the Colchians. Now these are the only nations who use circumcision, and it is plain that they all imitate herein the Egyptians. With respect to the Ethiopians, indeed, I cannot decide whether they learnt the practice of the Egyptians, or the Egyptians of them - it is undoubtedly of very ancient date in Ethiopia - but that the others derived their knowledge of it from Egypt is clear to me from the fact that the Phoenicians, when they come to have commerce with the Greeks, cease to follow the Egyptians in this custom, and allow their children to remain uncircumcised.

[2.105] I will add a further proof to the identity of the Egyptians and the Colchians. These two nations weave their linen in exactly the same way, and this is a way entirely unknown to the rest of the world; they also in their whole mode of life and in their language resemble one another. The Colchian linen is called by the Greeks Sardinian, while that which comes from Egypt is known as Egyptian.

[2.106] The pillars which Sesostris erected in the conquered countries have for the most part disappeared; but in the part of Syria called Palestine, I myself saw them still standing, with the writing above-mentioned, and the emblem distinctly visible. In Ionia also, there are two representations of this prince engraved upon rocks, one on the road from Ephesus to Phocaea, the other between Sardis and Smyrna. In each case the figure is that of a man, four cubits and a span high, with a spear in his right hand and a bow in his left, the rest of his costume being likewise half Egyptian, half Ethiopian. There is an inscription across the breast from shoulder to shoulder, in the sacred character of Egypt, which says, "With my own shoulders I conquered this land." The conqueror does not tell who he is, or whence he comes, though elsewhere Sesostris records these facts. Hence it has been imagined by some of those who have seen these forms, that they are figures of Memnon; but such as think so err very widely from the truth.



An abject lesson in when "Real" history, collides with Fake, made-up, Albino history.

Where the nonsense of "Caucasians" comes from:

Note: ancient Colchis roughly corresponds to modern Georgia

From the Wiki "Georgians":

The Georgian skull the German anthropologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach discovered in 1795, he used to hypothesize origination of Europeans from the Caucasus. He wrote:

Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.





For the sake of conformity however, let us accept ancient Armenians as being from the Indus Valley. At its height, Armenia extended from the south-central Black Sea coast to the Caspian Sea and from the Mediterranean Sea to Lake Urmia in present-day Iran. The original Armenians were probably a Dravidian people fleeing the Arian invaders in Pakistan, they first appear in history shortly after the end of the 7th century B.C. After driving out some of the ancient Black populations to the east of Mount Ararat, (Namely Urartian’s), the invaders imposed their leadership over regions which, although suffering from Albino Scythian and Cimmerian attacks, still had retained elements of a high degree of civilization, (e.g., walled cities, irrigation works, and arable fields).

The Hayk, as the Armenians name themselves, were not able to achieve the power and independence of their predecessors (the Hatti, Urartian’s), and were first rapidly incorporated by King Cyaxares into the Median empire, and then annexed with Media by King Cyrus II, to form part of the Achaemenian Persia Empire (550 B.C.). The country is mentioned as Armina and Armaniya in the Bisitun inscription of Darius I (522 B.C.), and according to Herodotus, formed part of the 13th satrapy (province) of Persia; the Alarodioi forming part of the 18th. Xenophon's Anabasis, recounting the adventures of Greek mercenaries in Persia; describes the local government of Armenia, at about 400 B.C, as being in the hands of village headmen, part of whose tribute to the Persian king, consisted of horses. Armenia continued to be governed by Persian or native satraps until its absorption into the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great (331 B.C.) and its successor, the Seleucid empire (301 B.C.).




The Seleucids


Antiochus III - the Great, (ruled 222–187 B.C.), became the 6th ruler of the Seleucid Empire at about eighteen years of age in 223 B.C. Antiochus defeated forces lead by King Scopas of Aetolia (a mountainous region of western Greece) at the Battle of Panium in 198 B.C. Antiochus then moved to Asia Minor to secure the coastal towns which had belonged to the Greek overseas dominions and it's independent Greek cities. This enterprise brought him into antagonism with Rome, when the Greek cities of Smyrna and Lampsacus appealed to Rome for help. The tension became greater after Antiochus had in 196 B.C, established a foothold in Thrace. The evacuation of Greece by the Romans gave Antiochus an opportunity to continue his expansion, and he now had the fugitive Phoenician General Hannibal, at his court urging him on.

Antiochus invaded Greece in 192 B.C, with a 10,000 man army, and was elected the commander in chief of the Aetolians. In 191 B.C. however, the Romans under Manius Acilius Glabrio routed him at Thermopylae, and obliged him to withdraw back to Asia. The Romans followed up their success by attacking Antiochus in Anatolia, and the decisive victory of Scipio Asiaticus at Magnesia (190 B.C.), together with the defeat of Hannibal at sea, off Side (on the Pamphylian coast), delivered Asia Minor into their hands.












The following pictures are of subjects of the Persian Empire, as shown by relief's at Apanada, the Palace of Darius the great at the capital of Persepolis.

























See: Additional Material Menu - for more on Persepolis, Apadana, and pictures of the people of the Persian Empire.



The Artaxiads

After the defeat of the Seleucid king Antiochus III, his two Armenian satraps, Artaxias (Artashes I) and Zariadres (Zareh), established themselves with Roman consent, as kings of Greater Armenia and Sophene respectively, thus becoming the creators of an independent Armenia. Artashes I (a Persian name) built his capital called Artashat, on the Aras River near modern Yerevan. The Greek geographer Strabo names the capital of Sophene as Carcathiocerta.

Not much is known of Artashes I reign, but his love life is part of Armenian legend.


Artashes and Satenik

Satenik was the name of an Alan - White Scythian tribe - princess who married Artashes I, the king of Armenia. Their love story, known as Artashes and Satenik, is presented by the fifth century Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi in his History of Armenia. Movses noted that the story, which he directly quotes from, was a well-known epic during his time among the common people of Armenia, as told by traveling storytellers and minstrels. Satenik is a popular feminine name among Armenians today.

The invasion of the Kingdom of Armenia by the Albino Alans during the reign of King Artashes I (189-160 B.C.) serves as the backdrop of the romantic tale between Artashes and Satenik. Following their conquering of the lands of Georgia, the Alans moved further southwards, crossing the Kur River and into Armenia. Artashes gathered a large force to meet the Alanian threat and a fierce war took place between the two sides. Resulting in the capture of the young son of the Alan king. The Alans were forced to retreat back to the the Kur river, and there they set up a base camp on the northern side of the river. Meanwhile, Artashes' army pursued them and established their camp on the southern side of the Kur. The Alan king asked for an eternal peace treaty to be concluded between his people and the Armenians and promised to give Artashes anything he wanted, so long as he would release his son, but the Armenian king refused to do so. At this time, Satenik came near the shore and through an interpreter, called on Artashes to release her brother:

I speak to you, oh brave Artashes,
For you have defeated the brave Alan people;
Come, listen, to the bright-eyed Alan princess
And return the youth.
For it is unbecoming of heroes
To destroy the liveliness of other great warriors
Or to take and keep them in enslavement,
So that two valiant peoples
Are consigned to perpetual enmity.

Hearing these words, Artashes traveled down to the river and upon seeing Satenik, was immediately captivated by her beauty. Artashes called on one of his close military commanders, Smbat Bagratuni, and confessing his desire for Satenik, expressed his willingness to conclude the treaty with the Alans and ordered Smbat to bring her to him. Smbat dispatched messengers to the Alanian king, who gave the following reply:

And from where shall the brave Artashes give
Thousands upon thousands and tens of thousands upon tens of thousands
To the Alan people
in return for their maiden?

Artashes remained undaunted and instead sought to abduct Satenik since bride abductions were considered more honorable during this period than formal acquiescence:

King Artashes mounted his handsome black horse,
And taking out a red leather rope studded with golden rings,
And crossing the river like a sharp-winged eagle,
And throwing his red leather rope studded with golden rings,
Cast it upon the waist of the Alanian maiden,
And this hurt the delicate maiden's waist,
Quickly taking her back to his camp.

Following Satenik's abduction, Artashes agreed to pay to the Alans vast amounts of gold and red leather, the latter of which, was highly valued material among the Alans. With this, the two kings concluded a peace treaty and a lavish and magnificent wedding took place. Movses stated that during the wedding a "golden shower rained down" on Artashes and a "pearl shower" rained down on Satenik. It was a popular tradition among the Armenian kings, according to Movses, to stand in front of the entrance of a temple and drop money from above his head and to shower the queen's bedroom with pearls. They had six sons: Artavasdes (Artavazd), Vruyr, Mazhan, Zariadres (Zareh), Tiran and Tigranes (Tigran).



Tigranes II (The Great)



An attempt to end the division of Armenia was made at about 165 B.C, when an Artaxiad ruler sought to suppress his rival, the attempt failed however, and it was left to his descendant Tigranes II (95 B.C.) to establish, by his conquest of Sophene, a unity that was to last almost 500 years.

Under Tigranes, Armenia ascended to a pinnacle of power unique in its history and became, albeit briefly, the strongest state in the Roman east. Extensive territories were taken from the kingdom of Parthia in Iran, which was compelled to sign a treaty of alliance. Iberia (Georgia), Albania, and Atropatene had already accepted Tigranes' suzerainty when the Aramaeans, tired of anarchy, offered him their crown (83 B.C.). And with that, Tigranes penetrated as far south as Canaan.

Armenian culture at the time of Tigranes was Persian, as it had been, and as it was fundamentally to remain for many centuries. The Armenian empire lasted until Tigranes became involved in a struggle between his father-in-law, Mithradates VI of Pontus and Rome.

The Roman general Lucius captured Tigranocerta, Tigranes' new capital in 69 B.C, but He failed to reach Artashat. But in 66 B.C, the legions of Pompey, aided by one of Tigranes' sons, succeeded in reaching Artashat. Tigrane was compelled to give up Syria and other conquests in the south, and to become an ally of Rome. Armenia thus became a buffer state, and often a battlefield between Rome and Parthia. Maneuvering between these two larger neighbors, the Armenians gained a reputation for deviousness. The Roman historian Tacitus called them an ambigua gens (“ambiguous people”).




Arab–Byzantine wars


The prolonged and escalating Byzantine–Sassanid wars of the 6th and 7th centuries and the recurring outbreaks of bubonic plague (Plague of Justinian) left both empires exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and expansion of the Arabs. The last of the wars between the Roman and Persian empires ended with victory for the Byzantines: Emperor Heraclius regained all lost territories, and restored the True Cross to Jerusalem in 629.

Nevertheless, neither empire was given any chance to recover, as within a few years they found themselves in conflict with the Arabs (newly united by Islam), which, according to Howard-Johnston, "can only be likened to a human tsunami". According to George Liska, the "unnecessarily prolonged Byzantine–Persian conflict opened the way for Islam".

In late 620s, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad had already managed to unify much of Arabia under Muslim rule via conquest as well as making alliances with neighboring tribes, and it was under his leadership that the first Muslim-Byzantine skirmishes took place. Just a few months after Emperor Heraclius and the Persian general Shahrbaraz agreed on terms for the withdrawal of Persian troops from occupied Byzantine eastern provinces in 629, Arab and Byzantine troops confronted each other at the Mu'tah in response to the murder of Muhammad's ambassador at the hands of the Ghassanids, a Byzantine vassal kingdom. Muhammad died in 632 and was succeeded by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph with undisputed control of the entire Arabian Peninsula after the successful Ridda Wars, which resulted in the consolidation of a powerful Muslim state throughout the peninsula.

The emergence of Muslim Arabs from Arabia in the 630s resulted in the rapid loss of Byzantium's southern provinces (Syria and Egypt) to the Arab Caliphate. Over the next fifty years, under the Umayyad caliphs, the Arabs would launch repeated raids into still-Byzantine Asia Minor, twice besiege the Byzantine capital of Constantinople, and conquer the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. The situation did not stabilize until after the failure of the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople in 718, when the Taurus Mountains on the eastern rim of Asia Minor became established as the mutual, heavily fortified and largely depopulated frontier. Under the Abbasid Empire, relations became more normal, with embassies exchanged and even periods of truce, but conflict remained the norm, with almost annual raids and counter-raids, sponsored either by the Abbasid government or by local rulers, well into the 10th century.

Over a period of fifty years from ca. 920 to 976, the Byzantines finally broke through the Muslim defences and restored their control over northern Syria and Greater Armenia. The last century of the Arab–Byzantine wars was dominated by frontier conflicts with the Fatimids in Syria, but the border remained stable until the appearance of a new people, the Seljuk Turks, after 1060.










The Turks


The Turks were the last of Asia's Albinos to be chased out of Asia by the Mongols, but the impact of their Empires and politics have been great and enduring. Because their impacts have been so varied, the best we can do in our limited space, is to present their most important events in sections, with the hope that the reader will do further research to fill-in whatever gaps.




In the beginning..

The Turks and their neighbors, the Mongols

The first known Turkic Empire - T'u-chüeh Empire - consisting of two parts, the northern and western Turks. The Orhon inscriptions, the oldest known Turkic records (8th century), refer to this empire and particularly to the confederation of Turkic tribes known as the Oguz; and the Uighur, who lived along the Selenga River (in present-day Mongolia); and to the Kyrgyz, who lived along the Yenisey River (in north-central Russia). When able to escape the domination of the T'ang dynasty, these northern Turkic groups fought each other for control of Mongolia from the 8th to the 11th century, when the Oguz migrated westward into Persia and Afghanistan.

In Persia the family of Turkic Oguz tribes known as Seljuqs created an empire that by the late 11th century stretched from the Amu Darya south to the Persian Gulf and from the Indus River west to the Mediterranean Sea. In 1071 the Seljuq sultan Alp-Arslan defeated the Byzantine Empire at the Battle of Manzikert and thereby opened the way for several million Oguz tribesmen to settle in Anatolia. These Turks came to form the bulk of the population there, and one Oguz tribal chief, Osman, founded the Ottoman dynasty (early 14th century) that would subsequently extend Turkish power throughout the eastern Mediterranean. The Oguz are the primary ancestors of the Turks of present-day Turkey. The Uighur were driven out of Mongolia and settled in the 9th century in what is now the Xinjiang region of northwestern China. Some Uighur moved westward into what is now Uzbekistan, where they forsook nomadic pastoralism for a sedentary lifestyle. These people became known as Uzbek, named for a ruler of a local Mongol dynasty of that name.


Mamluk (Arabic: mamlūk (singular), mamālīk (plural), meaning "property": also transliterated as mamlouk, mamluq, mamluke, mameluk, mameluke, mamaluke or marmeluke; is an Arabic designation for slaves. The term is most commonly used to refer to Muslim slave soldiers and Muslim rulers of slave origin. (Historically it has come to mean "Exclusively" TURKIC SLAVE SOLDIER).

In the West; Mamluks are first heard of from the Tajikistanian (Central Asian) poet Rudaki (858-941), in a poem about the Samanid emir's court, he describes how “row upon row” of Turkish slave guards were part of its adornment.


Mamluks in Egypt

The Tulunid dynasty: It was during the rule of Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid (ruled 786-809), that the caliphs began assigning Egypt to Turks rather than to Arabs.

The first Turkish dynasty was that of Ibn Tulun who entered Egypt in 868.

The Mamluk dynasty: In 1250 A.D. The Mamluks rebelled against the Arabs and established their own dynasty in Egypt.


Genghis Khan

In 1218, Genghis Khan sent a trade mission to the Khwarezm-Shah, (dynasty of Turkic Mamluk origin who converted to Sunni Muslim): but at the town of Otrara (a Central Asian town that was located along the Silk Road near the current town of Karatau in Kazakhstan) the governor there, suspecting the Khan's ambassadors to be spies, confiscated their goods and executed them. Genghis Khan demanded reparations, which the Shah refused to pay. Genghis Khan then sent a second, purely diplomatic mission, they too were murdered. Genghis retaliated with a force of 200,000 men, launching a multi-pronged invasion, his guides were Muslim merchants from Transoxania. During the years 1220–21, Bukhara, Samarkand, Herat (all Central Asian cities), Tus (Susa), and Neyshabur (Persian cities) were razed, and the whole populations were slaughtered. (This represented the second wholesale slaughter of Black Persians, after the Arab conquest).

A second Mongol invasion began when Genghis Khan's grandson Hülegü Khan crossed the Oxus river in 1256 and destroyed the Assassin fortress at Alamut (northeastern Iran). With the disintegration of the Turk Seljuq empire, the Arab Caliphate had reasserted control in the area around Baghdad and in southwestern Persia.

Il-Khanid dynasty

The Il-Khanid dynasty was a Mongol dynasty that ruled in Iran from 1256 to 1335. Il-khan is Persian for “subordinate khan.”


Hülegü, a grandson of Genghis Khan, was given the task of capturing Persia/Iran by the paramount Mongol chieftain Möngke. Hülegü set out in about 1253 with a Mongol army of 130,000. He founded the Il-Khanid dynasty in 1256, and by 1258 he had captured Baghdad (Iraq) and all of Iran. The Il-Khans consolidated their position in Persia/Iran and reunited the region as a political and territorial entity after several centuries of fragmented rule by petty dynasties. During the reign of the Il-Khanid Mamūd Ghāzān (reigned 1295–1304), the Il-Khans lost all contact with the remaining Mongol chieftains of China. Mamūd Ghāzān himself embraced Sunni Islam, and his reign was a period of Persian/Iranian cultural renaissance in which such scholars as Rashīd al-Dīn flourished under his patronage.

Ghāzān’s brother Öljeitü (reigned 1304–16) converted to Shīʿite Islam in 1310. Öljeitü’s conversion gave rise to great unrest, and civil war was imminent when he died in 1316. His son and successor, Abū Saʿīd (reigned 1317–35), reconverted to Sunni Islam and thus averted war. However, during Abū Saʿīd’s reign, factional disputes and internal disturbances continued and became rampant. Abū Saʿīd died without leaving an heir, and with his death the unity of the dynasty was fractured. Thereafter various Il-Khanid princes ruled portions of the dynasty’s former territory until 1353.

Siege of Baghdad (1258)

The Siege of Baghdad, which lasted from January 29 until February 10, 1258, entailed the investment, capture, and sack of Baghdad, the capital of the Abbasid (Arab) Caliphate, by Ilkhanate Mongol forces and allied troops. The Mongols were under the command of Hulagu Khan (or Hulegu Khan), brother of the khagan Möngke Khan, who had intended to further extend his rule into Mesopotamia but not to directly overthrow the Caliphate. Möngke, however, had instructed Hulagu to attack Baghdad if the Caliph Al-Musta'sim refused Mongol demands for his continued submission to the khagan and the payment of tribute in the form of military support for Mongol forces in Iran.

Hulagu began his campaign in Iran with several offensives against (Turkic) Nizari groups, including the Assassins, who lost their stronghold of Alamut.



Nizari Ismailism, is a denomination of Isma'ilism within Shia Islam consisting of an estimated 25 million adherents (about 20% of the world's Shia Muslim population). The Nizaris are the largest branch of the Ismaili Shi'i Muslims, the second-largest branch of Shia Islam (the largest being the Twelver). Nizari Isma'ili history is often traced through the unbroken hereditary chain of Guardianship or (waliya). The first Aga Khan was given his title in 1818 by the shah of Persia. The current Imam is His Highness Shah Karim Al-Husayni, the Aga Khan IV.



The current Aga Khan is a business magnate with British citizenship, racehorse owner and breeder. He has held this position of Imam, under the title of Aga Khan IV, since 11 July 1957, when, at the age of 20, he succeeded his grandfather, Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III.

The Nizaris posed a strategic threat to Sunni Seljuq (Turkic) authority by capturing and inhabiting several mountain fortresses throughout Persia and later Syria, under the leadership of Hassan-i Sabbah. Asymmetric warfare, psychological warfare, and surgical strikes were often an employed tactic of the assassins, drawing their opponents into submission rather than risk killing them.

{Assassins is the common name used to refer to an Islamic sect formally known as the Nizari Ismailis. Often described as a secret order led by a mysterious "Old Man of the Mountain", the Nizari Ismailis formed in the late 11th century after a split within Ismailism – a branch of Shia Islam}.

While "Assassins" typically refers to the entire sect, only a group of acolytes known as the fida'i actually engaged in conflict. Lacking their own army, the Nizari relied on these warriors to carry out espionage and assassinations of key enemy figures, and over the course of 300 years successfully killed two caliphs, and many viziers, sultans, and Crusader leaders.

Under leadership of Imam Rukn-ud-Din Khurshah, the Nizari state declined internally, and was eventually destroyed as the Imam surrendered the castles to the invading Mongols. Sources on the history and thought of the Ismailis in this period are therefore lacking and the majority extant are written by their detractors. Long after their near-eradication, mentions of Assassins were preserved within European sources – such as the writings of Marco Polo – where they are depicted as trained killers, responsible for the systematic elimination of opposing figures.




He then marched on Baghdad, demanding that Al-Musta'sim accede to the terms imposed by Möngke on the Abbasids. Although the Abbasids had failed to prepare for the invasion, the Caliph believed that Baghdad could not fall to invading forces and refused to surrender. Hulagu subsequently besieged the city, which surrendered after 12 days. During the next week, the Mongols sacked Baghdad, committing numerous atrocities and destroyed the Abbasids' vast libraries, including the House of Wisdom. The Mongols executed Al-Musta'sim and massacred many residents of the city, which was left greatly depopulated. The siege is considered to mark the end of the Islamic Golden Age, during which the caliphs had extended their rule from the Iberian Peninsula to Sindh, and which was also marked by many cultural achievements.


Baghdad had for centuries been the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, the third caliphate whose rulers were descendants of Abbas, an uncle of Muhammad. In 751, the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads and moved the Caliph's seat from Damascus to Baghdad. At the city's peak, it was populated by approximately one million people and was defended by an army of 60,000 soldiers. By the middle of the 13th century, however, the power of the Abbasids had declined and Turkic and Mamluk warlords often held power over the Caliphs. Baghdad still retained much symbolic significance, however, and it remained a rich and cultured city. The Caliphs of the 12th and 13th centuries had begun to develop links with the expanding Mongol Empire in the east. Caliph an-Nasir li-dini'llah, who reigned from 1180–1225, may have attempted an alliance with Genghis Khan when Muhammad II of Khwarezm threatened to attack the Abbasids. It has been rumored that some Crusader captives were sent as tribute to the Mongol khagan.

According to The Secret History of the Mongols, Genghis and his successor, Ögedei Khan, ordered their general Chormaqan to attack Baghdad. In 1236, Chormaqan led a division of the Mongol army to Irbil, which remained under Abbasid rule. Further raids on Irbil and other regions of the caliphate became nearly annual occurrences. Some raids were alleged to have reached Baghdad itself, but these Mongol incursions were not always successful, with Abbasid forces defeating the invaders in 1238 and 1245.

Despite their successes, the Abbasids hoped to come to terms with the Mongols and by 1241 had adopted the practice of sending an annual tribute to the court of the khagan. Envoys from the Caliph were present at the coronation of Güyük Khan as khagan in 1246 and that of Möngke Khan in 1251. During his brief reign, Güyük insisted that the Caliph Al-Musta'sim fully submit to Mongol rule and come personally to Karakorum. Blame for the Caliph's refusal and for other resistance offered by the Abbasids to increased attempts by the Mongols to extend their power was placed by the khagans on Chormaqan's lieutenant and successor, Baiju.

Hulagu's expedition

In 1257, Möngke resolved to establish firm authority over Mesopotamia, Syria, and Iran. The khagan gave his brother, Hulagu, authority over a subordinate khanate and army, the Ilkhanate, and instructions to compel the submission of various Muslim states, including the caliphate. Though not seeking the overthrow of Al-Musta'sim, Möngke ordered Hulagu to destroy Baghdad if the Caliph refused his demands of personal submission to Hulagu and the payment of tribute in the form of a military detachment, which would reinforce Hulagu's army during its campaigns against Iranian Ismaili states.

In preparation for his invasion, Hulagu raised a large expeditionary force, conscripting one out of every ten military-age males in the entirety of the Mongol Empire, assembling what may have been the most numerous Mongol army to have existed and, by one estimate, 150,000 strong. Generals of the army included the Oirat administrator Arghun Agha, Baiju, Buqa Temür, Guo Kan, and Kitbuqa, as well as Hulagu's brother Sunitai and various other warlords. The force was also supplemented by Christian forces, including the King of Armenia and his army, a Frankish contingent from the Principality of Antioch, and a Georgian force, seeking revenge on the Muslim Abbasids for the sacking of their capital, Tiflis, decades earlier by the Khwarazm-Shahs. About 1,000 Chinese artillery experts accompanied the army, as did Persian and Turkic auxiliaries, according to Ata-Malik Juvayni, a contemporary Persian observer.

Early campaigns

Hulagu led his army first to Iran, where he successfully campaigned against the Lurs, the Bukhara, and the remnants of the Khwarezm-Shah dynasty. After subduing them, Hulagu directed his attention toward the Ismaili Assassins and their Grand Master, Imam 'Ala al-Din Muhammad, who had attempted the murder of both Möngke and Hulagu's friend and subordinate, Kitbuqa. Though Assassins failed in both attempts, Hulagu marched his army to their stronghold of Alamut, which he captured. The Mongols later executed the Assassins' Grand Master, Imam Rukn al-Dun Khurshah, who had briefly succeeded 'Ala al-Din Muhammad from 1255-1256.

Hulagu's march to Baghdad

After defeating the Assassins, Hulagu sent word to Al-Musta'sim, demanding his acquiescence to the terms imposed by Möngke. Al-Musta'sim refused, in large part due to the influence of his advisor and grand vizier, Ibn al-Alkami. Historians have ascribed various motives to al-Alkami's opposition to submission, including treachery and incompetence, and it appears that he lied to the Caliph about the severity of the invasion, assuring Al-Musta'sim that, if the capital of the caliphate was endangered by a Mongol army, the Islamic world would rush to its aid.

Although he replied to Hulagu's demands in a manner that the Mongol commander found menacing and offensive enough to break off further negotiation, Al-Musta'sim neglected to summon armies to reinforce the troops at his disposal in Baghdad. Nor did he strengthen the city's walls. By January 11 the Mongols were close to the city, establishing themselves on both banks of the Tigris River so as to form a pincer around the city. Al-Musta'sim finally decided to do battle with them and sent out a force of 20,000 cavalry to attack the Mongols. The cavalry were decisively defeated by the Mongols, whose sappers breached dikes along the Tigris River and flooded the ground behind the Abbasid forces, trapping them.

Siege of the city

The Abbasid caliphate could supposedly call upon 50,000 soldiers for the defense of their capital, including the 20,000 cavalry under al-Musta'sim. However, hastily assembled these troops were poorly equipped and poorly disciplined. Although the caliph technically had the authority to summon soldiers from other Muslim empires to defend his realm, he either neglected to do so or lacked the ability to. His taunting opposition had lost him the loyalty of the Mamluks, and the Syrian emirs, who he supported, were busy preparing their own defenses.

On January 29, the Mongol army began its siege of Baghdad, constructing a palisade and a ditch around the city. Employing siege engines and catapults, the Mongols attempted to breach the city's walls, and, by February 5, had seized a significant portion of the defenses. Realizing that his forces had little chance of retaking the walls, Al-Musta'sim attempted to open negotiations with Hulagu, who rebuffed the Caliph. Around 3,000 of Baghdad's notables also tried to negotiate with Hulagu but were murdered. Five days later, on February 10, the city surrendered, but the Mongols did not enter the city until the 13th, beginning a week of massacre and destruction.


Many historical accounts detailed the cruelties of the Mongol conquerors.
The Grand Library of Baghdad, containing countless precious historical documents and books on subjects ranging from medicine to astronomy, was destroyed. Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river and red from the blood of the scientists and philosophers killed.

Citizens attempted to flee, but were intercepted by Mongol soldiers who killed in abundance, sparing neither women nor children. Martin Sicker writes that close to 90,000 people may have died. Other estimates go much higher. Wassaf claims the loss of life was several hundred thousand. Ian Frazier of The New Yorker says estimates of the death toll have ranged from 200,000 to a million.

The Mongols looted and then destroyed mosques, palaces, libraries, and hospitals. Priceless books from Baghdad's thirty-six public libraries were torn apart, the looters using their leather covers as sandals. Grand buildings that had been the work of generations were burned to the ground.

The caliph Al-Musta'sim was captured and forced to watch as his citizens were murdered and his treasury plundered. According to most accounts, the caliph was killed by trampling. The Mongols rolled the caliph up in a rug, and rode their horses over him, as they believed that the earth would be offended if it were touched by royal blood. But the Venetian traveller Marco Polo claimed that Al-Musta'sim was locked in a tower with nothing to eat but gold and “died like a dog”. All but one of Al-Musta'sim's sons were killed, and the sole surviving son was sent to Mongolia, where Mongolian historians report he married and fathered children, but played no role in Islam thereafter (see The end of the Abbasid dynasty). Hulagu had to move his camp upwind of the city, due to the stench of decay from the ruined city.

Baghdad was a depopulated, ruined city for several centuries,

and only gradually recovered some of its former glory.


Comments on the destruction
"Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by canal networks thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them."

"They swept through the city like hungry falcons attacking a flight of doves, or like raging wolves attacking sheep, with loose reins and shameless faces, murdering and spreading terror...beds and cushions made of gold and encrusted with jewels were cut to pieces with knives and torn to shreds. Those hiding behind the veils of the great Harem were dragged...through the streets and alleys, each of them becoming a plaything...as the population died at the hands of the invaders." (Abdullah Wassaf as cited by David Morgan)

Causes for agricultural decline
Some historians believe that the Mongol invasion destroyed much of the irrigation infrastructure that had sustained Mesopotamia for many millennia. Canals were cut as a military tactic and never repaired. So many people died or fled that neither the labor nor the organization were sufficient to maintain the canal system. It broke down or silted up. This theory was advanced by historian Svatopluk Souček in his 2000 book, A History of Inner Asia. Other historians point to soil salination as the culprit in the decline in agriculture.

Hulagu left 3,000 Mongol soldiers behind to rebuild Baghdad. Ata-Malik Juvayni was later appointed governor of Baghdad, Lower Mesopotamia, and Khuzistan after Guo Kan went back to Yuan Dynasty to assist Kublai conquest over the Song Dynasty. The Mongol Hulagu's Nestorian Christian wife, Dokuz Khatun successfully interceded to spare the lives of Baghdad's Christian inhabitants. Hulagu offered the royal palace to the Nestorian Catholicos Mar Makikha, and ordered a cathedral to be built for him.

Initially, the fall of Baghdad came as a shock to the whole Muslim world, but the city became an economic center where international trade, the minting of coins and religious affairs flourished under the Ilkhans. The chief Mongol darughachi (officials in the Mongol Empire in charge of taxes and administration) was thereafter stationed in the city.


The Arabs, the Mamluks, and Egypt

The Tulunid dynasty: It was during the rule of Arab Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid (ruled 786-809), that the caliphs began assigning Egypt to Turks rather than to Arabs. The first Turkish dynasty was that of Ibn Tulun who entered Egypt in 868.

The Mamluk dynasty in Egypt: In 1250 A.D. The Mamluks rebelled against the Arabs and established their own dynasty in Egypt.

It is at this time that the genius of Egyptians shows itself again. As it is at this time that the Egyptians invent the first actual “Gun” which is first used by their Turkish Masters, the Mamluks, against the invading Mongols: at the battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 A.D.


The Battle of ʿAyn Jālūt

Written By: Charles Phillips
Battle of ʿAyn Jālūt, ʿAyn Jālūt also spelled Ain Jalut, (September 3, 1260), decisive victory of the Mamlūks of Egypt over the invading Mongols, which saved Egypt and Islam and halted the westward expansion of the Mongol empire. Baghdad, the capital city of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate, had fallen to the Mongols under the Il-Khan Hülegü in 1258, and the last ʿAbbāsid caliph had been put to death. In 1259 the Mongol army, led by the Christian Turk Kitbuga, moved into Syria, took Damascus and Aleppo, and reached the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The Mongols then sent an envoy to Cairo in 1260 to demand the submission of al-Muaffar Sayf al-Dīn Quuz, the Mamlūk sultan, whose reply was the execution of the envoy. The two powers then prepared for battle.

With its army led by Qutuz, the Mamluks marched north to defeat a small Mongolian force at Gaza, then came up against a Mongol army of around 20,000 at Ain Jalut (Goliath’s Spring - so called because it was held to be the place where King David of Israel killed the Philistine warrior Goliath, as described in the book of Samuel). The Mongol army contained a sizable group of Syrian warriors, as well as Christian Georgian and Armenian troops. The two armies were roughly matched in numbers, but the Mamluks had one great advantage: one of their generals, Baybars, was familiar with the terrain because he had been a fugitive in the area earlier in his life. Baybars reputedly drew up the battle strategy, which used one of the Mongols’ most successful tactics: that of the feigned retreat.

At ʿAyn Jālūt the Mamluks concealed the bulk of their army among trees in the hills and sent forward a small force under Baybars; his group rode back and forward repeatedly in order to provoke and occupy the Mongols for several hours, before beginning a feigned retreat. Ked-Buqa fell for the trick and ordered an advance; his army poured forward in pursuit only to be ambushed by the main Mamluk army in the hills. Then the Mamluks attacked from all sides, unleashing their cavalry and a heavy storm of arrows, but the Mongols fought with typical ferocity and succeeded in turning and breaking the left wing of the Mamluk army.

First use of a "Gun"

In this close fighting, the Mamluks used a hand cannon—known as "midfa" in Arabic—primarily to frighten the Mongolian warriors’ horses and cause confusion. Contemporary accounts report that Mamluk sultan Qutuz threw down his helmet and urged his men forward to fight in the name of Islam, and that after this inspiring speech the Mamluks began to gain the upper hand. Then Mongol general Ked-Buqa was killed in battle: or, according to one account, was taken prisoner by the Mamluks and, after he declared defiantly that the khan would inflict savage revenge for this defeat, was beheaded on the battlefield. Finally, the Mongols turned and began to retreat, heading for Beisan, eight miles away. The Mamluks pursued them all the way. At Beisan, the Mongols turned to fight once more, but were heavily defeated. The Mongol empire was thus contained in Iran and Mesopotamia, leaving Egypt secure in Muslim (Turk) Mamlūk hands.

The Mamluks made the most of the propaganda value of their remarkable victory over the seemingly invincible Mongols, dispatching a messenger to Cairo bearing Ked-Buqa’s head on a staff. Subsequently, General Baybars formed a conspiracy against Qutuz, who was murdered as he made his way back to Cairo. Baybars seized power for himself.


Albino implications and falsifications

As just seen, Albino historians, when not trying to imply that the originators of all civilizations were White, not Black: they routinely try to downplay the importance of what Blacks accomplished. Note this innocuous seeming statement: "In this close fighting, the Mamluks used a hand cannon, primarily to frighten the Mongolian warriors’ horses and cause confusion."

The fact is that there is absolutely NO evidence that the Egyptian created "Worlds First Gun" was not effective and successful. But however, there is ample evidence of Albino falsifications. In this particular case, the Mongols and their Horses would hardly be surprised or frightened by "Gunpowder" going off: as "BOMBS" were made and used in China since the Song Dynasty of the 11th century.

We are actually surprised that Albino historians are not suggesting that it was the White Turk Mamluks themselves who invented the first Gun. Then again, perhaps they feared that it was too well known that the Mamluks were merely illiterate former "Slave Soldiers".



Click here to visit this page at Calgary University



The Albino Invasion - Arrival of the Turks

Armenia did not begin to take on its modern White Turkish identity, until the 1,100s A.D. By the time of the invasions of the Turkish Seljuq peoples in the 11th century A.D, the Black Armenian kingdoms had already been destroyed from the west. The province of Taron had been annexed to the Byzantine Empire in 968 A.D, and the expansionist policy of the Byzantine emperor Basil II, finally extinguished Armenian independence. The possessions of David of Tayq were annexed in 1000 A.D, and the kingdom of Vaspurakan in 1022 A.D. In the latter year, the Bagratid king of Ani, Yovhannes-Smbat, was compelled to make the Roman emperor heir to his estates, and in 1045 A.D, despite the resistance of Gagik II, Ani was seized by the Roman Constantine IX. The Byzantine conquest was however short-lived: in 1048 A.D, The Turks arrived.

Just as modern European White people (Germanics and Slavs) found themselves in Europe as a result of being chased westward by the Huns of Asia. The last of these Asian White people, the Turks, were likewise chased into the west by the Mongolians of Asia.

Toghrïl Beg led the first Seljuq Turk raid into Armenia in 1064 A.D. Ani and Kars then fell to Toghrïl's nephew and heir Alp-Arslan, and after the Battle of Manzikert (1071 A.D.), most of the country was in Turkish hands. In 1072 A.D, the Turkic Shaddadids received Ani as a fiefdom. A few native Black Armenian rulers survived for a time in the Kiurikian kingdom of Lori, the Siuniqian kingdom of Baghq or Kapan, and the principates of Khachen (Artzakh) and Sasun.

In about 1225, Ertuğrul led the Kayi tribe of the Oghuz Turks, westward into Anatolia, fleeing the Mongol onslaught. He pledged allegiance to Sultan Kayqubad I of the Seljuk principality of Rum, who gave him permission to establish an emirate and expand it if he could, into the neighboring Byzantine provinces. This location was auspicious, as the wealthy Byzantine Empire was weakening to his West, while in the east; Muslim forces under the Seljuk Turks were splintered and distracted in the face of relentless Mongol aggression and internal bickering. In the 12th century A.D, many former Armenian regions became parts of Georgia, and between 1236 and 1242 A.D, the whole of Armenia and Georgia fell into the hands of the Mongols. Baghdad had been sacked by Hulagu Khan in 1258. In 1231, Ertuğrul conquered the Nicean (Byzantine) town of Thebasion, which was renamed to Söğüt and became the initial capital of his territory.

Ertuğrul's son Osman, became chief, or Bey, upon his father’s death in 1281. By this time, mercenaries were streaming into his realm from all over the Islamic world to fight against and hopefully plunder the weakening Byzantine Empire. In addition, the Turkic population of Osman's emirate were constantly reinforced by a flood of refugees, fleeing from the Mongols. Of these, many were Ghazi warriors, or fighters for Islam, border fighters who believed they were fighting for the expansion or defense of Islam. Under the strong and able leadership of Osman, these warriors quickly proved a formidable force, and the foundations of the Empire were quickly laid.

Osman announced the independence of his own small kingdom from the Seljuk Turks in 1299. The westward drive of the Mongol invasions had pushed scores of Turks toward Osman's Anatolian principality, a power base that Osman was quick to consolidate. As the Byzantine Empire declined, the Ottoman Empire rose to take its place.




The fall of the Byzantine Empire


Though Byzantines were at least culturally, originally Black Greeks, but by this time Slavs had made significant inroads through arranged peace-keeping dynastic marriages.




The end of the Byzantine Empire came when on April 2, 1453: Turkic Sultan Mehmed II's army of some 80,000 men, and large numbers of irregulars, laid siege to the city of Constantinople. Despite a desperate last-ditch defense of the city by the massively outnumbered Christian forces, Constantinople finally fell to the Ottomans after a two-month siege on 29 May 1453.





The last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos - A Mulatto - was last seen casting off his imperial regalia and throwing himself into hand-to-hand combat after the walls of the city were breached. Soon the Turkish Ottoman Empire would raise; below is a short history of the Turks.

[For more on the Byzantine Empire, see the History of the Black Holy Roman Empire]


Interesting how two different White people will depict the same thing.





The Turks


Today many ethnic Turks call themselves, and are known as: Arabs and other non-Turkish ethnic identities. That false dynamic is discussed in the following histories.

1) Elam-5: The History of Elam/Persia/Iran) || 2) Egypt-10: The Arab/Eurasian Invasion ||  3) The History of North Africa


Turks are Eurasians who may be any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. They are historically and linguistically connected with the T'u-chüeh, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century A.D. founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea. With some exceptions, notably in the European part of Turkey and in the Volga region, the Turkic peoples are confined to Asia. Their most important cultural link, aside from history and language, is that with Islam, for with the exception of the Sakha (Yakut) of eastern Siberia and the Chuvash of the Volga region of Russia, they are all Muslim.

The Turkic peoples may be divided into two main groups: the western and the eastern. The western group includes the Turkic peoples of southeastern Europe and those of southwestern Asia inhabiting Anatolia (Turkey) and northwestern Iran. The eastern group comprises the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, and the Uighur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang in China. Turkic peoples display a great variety of ethnic types.

Little is known about the origins of the Turkic peoples, and much of their history even up to the time of the Mongol conquests in the 10th–13th A.D. is shrouded in obscurity. Chinese documents of the 6th century A.D. refer to the empire of the T'u-chüeh as consisting of two parts, the northern and western Turks. This empire submitted to the nominal suzerainty of the Chinese T'ang dynasty in the 7th century, but the northern Turks regained their independence in 682 and retained it until 744 A.D. The Orhon inscriptions, the oldest known Turkic records (8th century A.D.), refer to this empire and particularly to the confederation of Turkic tribes known as the Oguz/Oghuz; to the Uighur, who lived along the Selenga River (in present-day Mongolia); and to the Kyrgyz, who lived along the Yenisey River (in north-central Russia).

When able to escape the domination of the T'ang dynasty, these northern Turkic groups fought each other for control of Mongolia from the 8th to the 11th century, when the Oguz migrated westward into Persia and Afghanistan. In Persia the family of Oguz tribes known as Seljuqs created an empire that by the late 11th century stretched from the Amu Darya south to the Persian Gulf and from the Indus River west to the Mediterranean Sea.



Oghuz Turks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the 10th century, Islamic sources were calling the Muslim, as opposed to shamanist or Christian, Oghuz the Turkmens. By the 12th century this term had passed into Byzantine usage and the Oghuzes were overwhelmingly Muslim.

The Oghuz confederation migrated westward from the Jeti-su area (Central Asia) after a conflict with the Karluk branch of Uigurs. The founders of the Ottoman Empire were descendants of the Oghuzes. Today the residents of Turkey, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Khorezm, Turkmens of Afghanistan, Balkans, Iraq and Syria are descendants of Oghuz Turks and their language belongs to the Oghuz (also known as southwestern Turkic) group of the Turkic languages family. Comment - why this Albino source fails to include the residents of Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel (Jews are Khazar Turks), Palestine, etc. as being Turk is unknown and incorrect.

In the 9th century, the Oghuzes from the Aral steppes drove Bechens from the Emba and Ural River region toward the west. In the 10th century, they inhabited the steppe of the rivers Sari-su, Turgai, and Emba to the north of Lake Balkhash of modern-day Kazakhstan. A clan of this nation, the Seljuks, embraced Islam and in the 11th century entered Persia, where they founded the Great Seljuk Empire. Similarly in the 11th century, a Tengriist Oghuz clan—referred to as Uzes or Torks in the Russian chronicles—overthrew Pecheneg supremacy in the Russian steppe. Harried by another Turkic people, the Kipchaks, these Oghuz penetrated as far as the lower Danube, crossed it and invaded the Balkans, where they were either crushed or struck down by an outbreak of plague, causing the survivors either to flee or to join the Byzantine imperial forces as mercenaries (1065).

"The Ottoman dynasty, who gradually took over Anatolia after the fall of the Seljuks, toward the end of the 13th century, led an army that was also predominantly Oghuz."

Mass migrations of the Oghuz into Western Eurasia occurred from the early part of the 9th Century CE onwards. For example, during the period of the Abbasid caliph Al-Ma'mun (813–833), the name Oghuz starts to appear in the works of Islamic writers. The Book of Dede Korkut, a historical epic of the Oghuz, contains historical echoes of the 9th and 10th centuries but was likely written several centuries later.



The Khazars (Modern Jews)

The Khazars were another ancient Turkic people who first appeared in Transcaucasia, {the transitional region between Europe and Asia, extending from the Greater Caucasus to the Turkish and Iranian borders, between the Black and Caspian seas.} in the 2nd century A.D, and subsequently settled in the lower Volga region. They emerged as a force in the 7th century and rose to great power. By the 8th century the Khazar empire extended from the northern shores of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to the Urals and as far westward as Kiev. Also in the 8th Century, the Khazars converted to the Hebrew religion and made Judaism the State religion. “Itil” the Khazar capital in the Volga delta, was a great commercial center. The Khazar Empire fell, when Sviatoslav, duke of Kiev (945–72), son of Igor and of St. Olga, defeated its army in 965 A.D. The Khazars are the progenitors of European Jewry, the entomology of the term Jew or Jewish probably relates to these people. {Hebrews were not known as Jews}.

Farther east, in Central Asia, the Uighur were driven out of Mongolia and settled in the 9th century in what is now the Xinjiang region of northwestern China. Some Uighur moved westward into what is now Uzbekistan, where they forsook nomadic pastoralism for a sedentary lifestyle. These people became known as Uzbek, named for a ruler of a local Mongol dynasty of that name.

The Mongol conquests, which began in the early 13th century, caused a general series of movements of the Turkic peoples that continued for several centuries. The Mongols eventually brought under their domination almost all the areas held or inhabited by Turkic peoples. The Kipchak, a Turkic people who had moved from the Irtysh River southwest across Kazakhstan to establish themselves in what is now southwestern Russia, were destroyed by the expanding Mongols in 1239, and the last remnants of the declining Seljuq empire in Persia were likewise subjugated. But when the Mongol empire was divided following Genghis Khan's death (1227), a process of Islamization and Turkification ensued that resulted in the virtual absorption by the Turks of those Mongols outside Mongolian territory. The influence of the Mongol rulers diminished, and real power in Central Asia passed to their Turkic provincial governors, one of whom, Timur, was able to extend his own authority over most of southwestern Asia and parts of South Asia, in the late 14th century. In the 15th century, Russian expansion south toward the Caspian Sea drove the Turkic inhabitants there eastward into what is now Kazakhstan, where they are known as Kazakh.

Because of these processes of migration, conquest, intermarriage, and assimilation, many of the Turkic peoples that now inhabit Central and Southwest Asia are of mixed origins, often stemming from fragments of many different tribes, though they speak closely related languages. Apart from the Turks of Turkey, none of the Turkic peoples can be said to have had any continuous national or political existence until the formation, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, of the various Soviet republics and, after 1955, of the Xinjiang region in China. The achievement of independence by Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan in 1991 was the most important political development among the Turkic peoples since the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The most numerous of the Turkic peoples, after the Turks of Turkey, is the Uzbek of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Their name seems to have originated from Beg, the greatest khan of the Golden Horde, who embraced Islam; the name came to be applied to the Muslim ruling class of the Golden Horde.

Another numerous group is the Kazakh, who are thought to have been formed from the Kipchak tribes that constituted part of the Golden Horde. Most of them live in Kazakhstan; there are also a large number of Chinese Kazakh in Xinjiang and neighboring Gansu and Qinghai provinces of China.

The Kyrgyz, whose origin is obscure, chiefly inhabit Kyrgyzstan. There is a small minority of Kyrgyz in Afghanistan and western China.

The Turkmen were until 1924 a nomadic tribal people with no political unity. Most of them live in Turkmenistan; there are also large groups in Iran and Afghanistan and others in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.

The Azerbaijani, who inhabit Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran, are one people; they were divided between the Russian and Persian empires in 1828 by the Treaty of Turkmanchay.

The Karakalpak, who are closely allied to the Kazakh, inhabit Karakalpakstan, which is a portion of Uzbekistan. The Tatars consist of two groups, those living in Tatarstan, a republic in Russia, and those inhabiting the Crimean Peninsula; the latter were deported from their homes en masse in 1944, and forcibly resettled in Uzbekistan, but since 1989 they have been returning to Crimea. The Tatars in Tatarstan are thought to be descended from indigenous Turkic tribes of the Kipchak group. It is probable, however, that they also contain Bulgarian elements.

The Bashkir are widely dispersed in the eastern part of European Russia, where they have their own republic, and beyond the Ural Mountains. Although the Bashkir language is purely Turkic, their culture is mixed; some ethnographers believe that they were originally Hungarian.

The Karachay and Balkar of the Russian Caucasus Mountains are of uncertain origin. In the course of many centuries, they have become mixed with the Ossetes (Ossetians), from whom they are anthropologically indistinguishable. They were deported during World War II to areas in Central Asia but have since been allowed to return.

The Sakha of Siberia are classified as a Turkic people because of their language, but little is known of their origin. They are believed to have emigrated northward from the region of Lake Baikal; their culture is in some respects identifiable with that of adjoining Siberian peoples.

The Chuvash are one of the largest non-Slav communities inhabiting the Volga region of southwestern Russia. They are Russian Orthodox Christians, and only their language suggests that they are of Turkic origin.

The Uighur form the predominant population of the Xinjiang region of western China; a small number live in the Central Asian republics as well.

Turks are also known as: Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Chuvash, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Turkmen, Uighur, Uzbek, and Sakha.



Modern Times


During the 16th and 17th centuries, at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, parts of Central Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.


Formerly Ottoman-ruled countries:

Albania, Algeria, Arabia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Greece, Hungary
Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Syria, Tunisia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Israel (Jews are Khazar Turks), Palestine, Jordan.




End of the Ottoman Empire

1299 A.D. to November 1, 1922










World War - I

The Ottoman Army met with disastrous defeat in the Italo-Turkish War (1911–12) and the Balkan Wars (1912–13), resulting in the Ottomans being driven out of North Africa and nearly out of Europe. Continuous unrest was caused by the Ottoman counter-coup of 1909, which preceded the 31 March Incident (Restoration, 1909) and 1912 Ottoman coup d'état (Saviours) and the 1913 Ottoman coup d'état in the Empire up to World War I. The Ottoman entry into World War I in the Middle Eastern theatre ended with the partition of the Ottoman Empire's remaining territories under the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres. This treaty, as designed in the conference of London, gave nominal land and permitted the title Ottoman Caliphate (compared with the Vatican; a sacerdotal-monarchical state ruled by the Catholic Pope), not to be a further threat but just powerful enough to protect Britain from the Khilafat Movement.

Treaty of Sèvres, (Aug. 10, 1920), was the post-World War I pact between the victorious Allied powers and representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey. The Allies included Britain, France, Russia, Italy and the United States. These countries fought against the Central Powers which included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Serb on June 28, 1914, started the War. The treaty abolished the Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa.


Here again we see example of "Concerted" Albino lie and misinformation, even from Albinos who just finished slaughtering each other. There was of course "NO" Arab Asia (except the Arabian Peninsula itself), or Arab North Africa. As is easily discerned by their skin color: except for the native Black Africans and Black Middle-Easterners; these lands were now populated by Turks and Turk mulattoes. Because these lands had been lost to the "Real" Black Arabs since the Arab caliph al-Qa'im was removed by the Turkic Seljug chieftain Toghril Beg in 1055. That act formerly ended Arab rule, and ushered in the rule of Turks over Islamic lands. The Arab caliph peacefully enthroned Toghril Beg, and as would be expected from "Real" Arabs of the time: he married a Seljuq princess and faded away into history.




The occupation of Constantinople (Istanbul) along with the occupation of Smyrna (Izmir) mobilized the Turkish national movement which ultimately won the Turkish War of Independence. The formal abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate was performed by Grand National Assembly of Turkey on 1 November 1922. The sultanate was abolished on 1 November 1922 and the Republic of Turkey was established on 29 October 1923. The Sultan was declared persona non-grata from the lands that the Ottoman Dynasty ruled since 1299.



Birth of the Nation of Turkey




World War I (Genocide and re-naming)


The Ottoman Empire decided to join the Central Powers during World War I which were ultimately defeated by the Allied Powers. During the war, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens.

The Committee of Union and Progress took the reins of the Ottoman government through a coup d'état in 1913. At the height of World War I and during the final years of the Ottoman Empire, when the ethnic cleansing policies of non-Muslim Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian minorities were underway, Minister of War Enver Pasha issued an edict (ferman) on October 6, 1916, declaring: That it has been decided that provinces, districts, towns, villages, mountains, and rivers, which are named in languages belonging to non-Muslim nations such as Armenian, Greek or Bulgarian, will be renamed into Turkish. In order to benefit from this suitable moment, this aim should be achieved in due course.

Enver Pasha did not change the geographical names belonging to Muslim minorities (i.e. Arabs and Kurds) due to the Ottoman government's role as a Caliphate. His decree inspired many Turkish intellectuals to write in support of such measures. One such intellectual, Hüseyin Avni Alparslan (1877–1921), a Turkish soldier and author of books about Turkish language and culture, was inspired by the efforts of Enver Pasha, writing in his book Trabzon İli Lâz mı? Türk mü? (Is the Trabzon province Laz or Turkish?) he said: If we want to be the owner of our country, then we should turn even the name of the smallest village into Turkish and not leave its Armenian, Greek or Arabic variants. Only in this way can we paint our country with its colors.



The country of Turkeys Creation Myth


An interesting note: In the Turkish Nations creation myth (a modern country with a creation myth?). From tomes: a large or scholarly book, produced by the Ministry of Education in 1932; Turks are taught that at the dawn of history, their ancestors, led by a mythical gray she-wolf, started migrating outwards from the heart of Central Asia. As the numbers of their people swelled and droughts dried the traditional grazing lands on the steppe, some of them, they are told, even crossed the Bering Strait into the Americas. Presumably becoming the American Indians. In his later years, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (the founder of the modern Turkey nation), himself adopted a creed known as the "Sun Theory", which depicts the Turks as the mother race of all mankind, and proposed that all human languages are descendants of one proto-Turkic primal language.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, taught that the Turks discovered the America's fifty years before Christopher Columbus. The proof of this assertion, he told journalist, was that the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean, had obviously been named by Turks, especially since their capital was called Grand Turk. (The islands are in fact named after a fez-shaped cactus.).

However, Mediterranean Sea clashes in the sixteenth-century, between the Ottoman fleets and the Portuguese, led to many Turkish and Moorish seamen, ending up as Portuguese galley slaves bound for the Canary Islands and the New World. The presence of Turks in the Americas dates to the 17th century. Ottoman mariners and prisoners of war forced into slave labor on numerous Spanish galleons, also allegedly escaped when some of these ships were wrecked near American shores and settled among Indians. Some Melungeon researchers claim Melungeons descend from these Ottomans. However, there is little authoritative evidence for this claim. The myth of Sir Francis Drake leaving a large number of Turks on Roanoke Island in 1586 has not been proven.



It is also known that during the American Civil War, Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid, in support of the North, had sent a symbolic camel caravan of material and goods, and that many of the Turks who came with this shipment, settled in Michigan, esp. the Detroit area. By the turn of the 20th century, both ethnic Turks and national groups under the Ottoman Empire: i.e. Albanians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Ukrainians, Armenians, Georgians, Serbs, Bosnians and Arab Christians were already immigrating to and settled the industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest U.S.

From the 1820s until 1920 over 1.2 million people from the Ottoman Empire immigrated to North America. Approximately 15% of these immigrants (roughly 200,000) were Muslims, including about 50,000 ethnic Turks. Many ethnic Turks from Harput, Elâzığ, Akçadağ, Antep and Macedonia embarked for the Americas from Beirut, Mersin, Izmir, Trabzon and Salonica but declared themselves as Syrians or even Armenians in order to avoid discrimination and gain easy access at the port of entry.



The largest number of ethnic Turks appear to have entered the United States prior to World War I, roughly between 1900 and 1914 when American immigration policies were quite liberal. The Ottoman entry into World War I, put an end to Ottoman emigration to the United States. However, a fairly large number of ethnic Turks from the Balkan provinces of Albania, Kosovo, Western Thrace, and Bulgaria emigrated and settled in the United States. They were listed as Albanians, Bulgarians and Serbians according to their country of origin, even though many of them were ethnically Turkish and identified themselves as such. Moreover, many immigrant families who were ethnically Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Macedonian or Serbian included children of Turkish origin, whose parents had been cleansed after Macedonia was partitioned between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece following the Balkan War of 1912-13. These Turkish children had been sheltered, baptised and adopted, and then used as field laborers. When the adopting families had to emigrate to America, they listed these children as family members.



Modern Turks








Today, there are few "Pure" (Black) Anatolians left in modern Turkey




Blacks in Turkey are being taught that they were brought there as SLAVES!

As is normal and natural with Whites and their Mulattoes: No lie is too cruel or too big, in the furtherance of the White lie of presence and accomplishment in the ancient world. Thus today, the hapless and now ignorant of their own history, indigenous Blacks of Anatolia, are being taught by their Turk conquers, that it is THEY, the Turks: who are the original people of Anatolia. And THEY, the indigenous Black people, were brought there as SLAVES by the Turks! Sadly, this cruel ruse is perpetrated on all Blacks in Muslim countries ruled by ethnic Turks. And those poor people, having been made ignorant by their conquers, and having no clue as to their true history, are left no choice but to believe what they are told.

Link to the Turkish Newspaper Story





Turks Rule Black Lands!


In these pages, we have made every effort to clearly say, and prove, that the White, and White-like, rulers and ruling elite in the former lands of Black civilizations, are not who they claim to be. Specifically; those of Egypt are NOT Egyptians, those of North Africa are NOT Berbers, those of Arabia are NOT Arabs, those of Palestine are NOT Hebrews, those of Lebanon are NOT Phoenicians, those of Iraq are NOT Mesopotamian's, those of Iran are NOT Persians or Elamites, those of Turkey are NOT Anatolians - THEY ARE ALL CENTRAL ASIAN TURKS!


That said with the understanding that in earlier times, Greeks and Romans settled in these areas: and in North Africa, they were followed by Alan's, Vandals, and Goths. And also in the 19th. century, French and Italians invaded, and settled in North Africa. And with the understanding that when the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, relinquished hegemony over those lands after WW I, they and the European powers, merely handed control over to local Turk elites.

But understanding that our say-so, and proofs, may be insufficient for some: We quote the eminent François Auguste Ferdinand Mariette (1821 – 1881) French scholar, Archaeologist, Egyptologist, and the founder of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. We quote from his book:


With, an Introductory Note by William C. Winslow, D.D., D.C.L.
LL.D., Vice-President of the Egypt Exploration Fund for the United States


Page 28

Click here for link to Online Book

Here he is discussing the origins of the Hyksos:


"How often do we see in Eastern monarchies and even in European states a difference of origin between the ruling class, to which the royal family belongs, and the mass of the people! We need not leave Western Asia and Egypt; we find there Turks ruling over nations to the race of which they do not belong, although they have adopted their religion. In the same way as the Turks of Baghdad, who are Finns, now reign over Semites, Turanian kings may have led into Egypt and governed a population of mixed origin where the Semitic element was prevalent. If we consider the mixing up of races which took place in Mesopotamia in remote ages, the invasions which the country had to suffer, the repeated conflicts of which it was the theatre, there is nothing extraordinary that populations coming out of this land should have presented a variety of races and origins."


How grotesque then, that the Turk, Zahi Hawass, the Vice Minister of Culture in Egypt: makes pronouncements about the non-Black nature of ancient Egyptians. When he does so, only to hide the true nature of his own people, and the illegitimacy of their presence in, and rule over Egypt.




























Please visit the "Additional Material Area" for many more photographs of each civilization, and related material <Click>






Closing thoughts:


Let us end with a rather sad observation: As we have seen, the Albino peoples history is a totally made-up contrivance, devoid of much truth at all. Likewise is their definition of themselves: they steadfastly refuse to believe/acknowledge that they are Albinos, yet every honest study that they have ever done for themselves, clearly shows that they are indeed either Albinos, or the much more numerous and darker ones, those who are "derived" from Albinos, (through admixture with Black Europeans).

By way of example, let us look at a 1997 study done by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, who is an Italian population geneticist born in Genoa, who has been a professor at Stanford University since 1970 (now emeritus).




Clearly the data told Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza that White Europeans like himself were hybrids, but he steadfastly refused to acknowledge what that meant. Instead he tried to obfuscate by saying that modern Europeans were two-thirds Asian and one-third African. But what does that mean????

Lets do a test:



All of these people are Asians, the first three are Chinese, the last is a Dravidian Indian.


Do you think that Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza meant "These" people when he said that modern Europeans were two-thirds Asian???



Or, do you think that he meant "These" Central Asian Albinos?





Or these: Uyghur People, currently of Xinjiang China: which is in extreme western China/Central Asia.







Click here for link to the full Study









< Back Home Next >