Khazars...redhead Turkics who adopted Judaism?

[Euclides]

''The Khazars were a Turkic1 people who originated in Central Asia. The early Turkic tribes were quite diverse, although it is believed that reddish hair was predominant among them prior to the Mongol conquests. In the beginning, the Khazars believed in Tengri shamanism, spoke a Turkic language, and were nomadic. Later, the Khazars adopted Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, learned Hebrew and Slavic, and became settled in cities and towns thruout the north Caucasus and Ukraine. The Khazars had a great history of ethnic independence extending approximately 800 years from the 5th to the 13th century. ''

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html

[torrent]

the rise of khazars are closely related with the rise of kokturks. the western kokturks with utrigurs siege a byzance castle in crimea Kerch. according to karoly czeglédy the kokturks unite the sabar, ogur and onogur tribes and form a uninon under the name of khazars. according to chinese sources there are k'o-sa tribes who are dependent to the kokturks.according to the byzance sources becuse of the chaos in the kokturks in the 7th century the ogurs, onogurs and bulgars seperate from khazars and form a state around the kuban, chinses chronicals agree with this. according to a letter by a khazar khan they say that they descend from togarma the son of Yafes. the ten tribes counted by the khan are ogur and sabar tribes.
according to istahri: khazars are not like turks. they are black haired.there are two types of khazars white and blackkhazars (in turkish white (ak) means the ruling tribe,
he writes "kara khazars" these men are very dark almost like indians and there are white khazars and these men are very handsome.
unfortunately he does not give no more definitions. kahazars are closely related with kokturks and are made of the same composition of bulgars and avars and kipchaks.

[Odin Of Ossetia]

the rise of khazars are closely related with the rise of kokturks. the western kokturks with utrigurs siege a byzance castle in crimea Kerch. according to karoly czeglédy the kokturks unite the sabar, ogur and onogur tribes and form a uninon under the name of khazars. according to chinese sources there are k'o-sa tribes who are dependent to the kokturks.according to the byzance sources becuse of the chaos in the kokturks in the 7th century the ogurs, onogurs and bulgars seperate from khazars and form a state around the kuban, chinses chronicals agree with this. according to a letter by a khazar khan they say that they descend from togarma the son of Yafes. the ten tribes counted by the khan are ogur and sabar tribes.
according to istahri: khazars are not like turks. they are black haired.there are two types of khazars white and blackkhazars (in turkish white (ak) means the ruling tribe,
he writes "kara khazars" these men are very dark almost like indians and there are white khazars and these men are very handsome.
unfortunately he does not give no more definitions. kahazars are closely related with kokturks and are made of the same composition of bulgars and avars and kipchaks.

Sorry, this article is mis-leading people; Khazars, like any other true Mongoloids, were never red-heads.

[Razmig]

Sorry, this article is mis-leading people; Khazars, like any other true Mongoloids, were never red-heads.

I second that, I've never read any valid source claiming them to be caucasoids. Bulgars, Khazars, Turkics, etc were all said to look like mongoloids, its evident in early Persian, Armenian, Byzantinian, and Turkish art, displaying almost chinese looking people (chinese in dress etc). Of coarse not to say that they could have mixed with the original people of the caucus. also, theyre called göktürks not cockturks lol.

[torrent]

Sorry, this article is mis-leading people; Khazars, like any other true Mongoloids, were never red-heads.

wait wait, definitely not all turks are this way but there has always been turks like this and they are pure turks.

[torrent]

I second that, I've never read any valid source claiming them to be caucasoids. Bulgars, Khazars, Turkics, etc were all said to look like mongoloids, its evident in early Persian, Armenian, Byzantinian, and Turkish art, displaying almost chinese looking people (chinese in dress etc). Of coarse not to say that they could have mixed with the original people of the caucus. also, theyre called göktürks not cockturks lol.

it is true many turks looked mongoloid for example the buddist statues that existed in afganistan are clear turkish faces but turks have always been caucasoid to some degree from the beginning turks are a blend of neolithic mediterraneans and mongols with clear UP mixture so it is not unusual to find pure turks of each apperance .
persian sources? persian sources cleraly state that the scythians who dated 700BC are apperantly turkish (the afrasiayab saga) everybody knows this but just do not admit.
if you want the truth i do not think that you read any sources except far right armenian sources and i even think you do not read them either. for example armenian revolution which is said to take place in 1842 is definitely helped by russians. "russians and armenians have always been enemies" you said which is ridiculous there are countless armenian generals in the russian army especially when they invaded caucasia. you are strange.
for example there is nothing as "western armenians" away from eastern anatolia. trkahayeren are definitely the best armenians it is true but armenians are one stock: the eastern armenians (appearently western armenians never lived in isolated villages but lived in cosmopolit villages and when turks broke the back of the byzantines the armenians were able to move to klikia and other parts of anatolia and especially to istanbul) yes there were small armenian colonies here or there but those days even mosques existed in istanbul and malatea and edessa were already islamized before turks enetered anatolia.

[Nordhammer]

This is similar to tales of old Germanic tribes all being redhaired. Could be a myth, bad translation, or they mongrelized themselves completely.

[Awar]

My theory is that the rise of horsemen warriors began first in the steppes of Ukraine. These were the 'Aryans' of the steppe, who were probably the first to domesticate the horse and use it for war.

Their migrations all over Eurasia brought some of them into contact with east-Asian peoples of the Mongoloid and the Ainuid and Cro-Magnid variances. Later, there were also Tocharians who were recorded to be red-headed who resided in central asia.

There is no direct evidence that the first Turks were fully mongoloid in appearance.

There is no absolute evidence that ALL Turkic tribes were mongoloid.

[Razmig]

it is true many turks looked mongoloid for example the buddist statues that existed in afganistan are clear turkish faces but turks have always been caucasoid to some degree from the beginning turks are a blend of neolithic mediterraneans and mongols with clear UP mixture so it is not unusual to find pure turks of each apperance .
persian sources? persian sources cleraly state that the scythians who dated 700BC are apperantly turkish (the afrasiayab saga) everybody knows this but just do not admit.
if you want the truth i do not think that you read any sources except far right armenian sources and i even think you do not read them either. for example armenian revolution which is said to take place in 1842 is definitely helped by russians. "russians and armenians have always been enemies" you said which is ridiculous there are countless armenian generals in the russian army especially when they invaded caucasia. you are strange.
for example there is nothing as "western armenians" away from eastern anatolia. trkahayeren are definitely the best armenians it is true but armenians are one stock: the eastern armenians (appearently western armenians never lived in isolated villages but lived in cosmopolit villages and when turks broke the back of the byzantines the armenians were able to move to klikia and other parts of anatolia and especially to istanbul) yes there were small armenian colonies here or there but those days even mosques existed in istanbul and malatea and edessa were already islamized before turks enetered anatolia.

The TURKS, were MONGOLS...just because coffee is mixed with milk does it not make it coffee anymore? The Scythians were also said to have looked like mongols (tatars). I have a friend whos father was in the Russian army and he said to me, that the Armenians in that army were given less food, less beds per person, and treated like sh*t. The only reasons Armenians even partook in Russian activities was to benefit themselves and their country, however Russia screwed Armenia over, by a)giving away Artsakh b)ruining our much larger borders, and im not talking about Wilsons Sevres treaty, and c)ruining our modern states cultural and religious wellbeing. Without Armenia nsRussia would no doubt have not been what it was in recent years. Eastern Anatolia is not Eastern Armenian, Eastern Armenians live in the Caucus, Iran, and Russia. They are of different stock and closer to other Caucasians than Armenians. Since the first Armenain empire the Arevelians have always been a different people. Just as the Georgians, who were once Armenians (Id say are closer to Armenians in Armenia than to us).

If you knew history well, which you dont, Giligia was around way before Ottoman times, and it was even part of the Hittite empire. Giligia was originally created and enstated from the Assyrians who ruled the region whos inhabbitants were Armenians (post Armen invasions). From there Giligia was conquered by Egyptians, Arabs, Greeks, Persians etc, but has ALWAYS and forever will be Armenian territory. The Giligians are both physically and linguistically different from other Armenians, as are the Galacians. I don't know where you get your information from, maybe Turkey.com? But half of Giligia was made of 2 cities and hundreds of surrounding villages. Have you never heard of Musa Dagh? What do you think central and southern Byzantine was called? Theme Armenum...Cappedocia and Pontus, whos leaders previous to Byzantinian were Armenians, not even taking into consideration that several of the Byzantinian rulers were Armenians, as well as all of the liturgical. There has never existed a mosque in Giligia, yes in Odessa (Syrian Armenia), but the Armenian people were never enforced a different religion by the Arabs as they were free to be their own people. Only the Turks built mosques over Armenian sites, especially in the west to centralize their powers. Giligia was encouraged to populate because the number of Armenians in comparison to foreigners was 1 to 10. So the all the Armenians together, including Byzantinian, Giligian, and Caucasian were perhaps less than 4 million. They obviously did not spread like muslims did. Does the fact they didnt spread like rabbits make the land not theirs?

The only sources I read are valid ones, Armenian sources include Agathangelos, Pavtsos Buzandci, Herglver, and Urartian manuscripts that sited Mongols to the north and east.

[Razmig]

My theory is that the rise of horsemen warriors began first in the steppes of Ukraine. These were the 'Aryans' of the steppe, who were probably the first to domesticate the horse and use it for war.

Their migrations all over Eurasia brought some of them into contact with east-Asian peoples of the Mongoloid and the Ainuid and Cro-Magnid variances. Later, there were also Tocharians who were recorded to be red-headed who resided in central asia.

There is no direct evidence that the first Turks were fully mongoloid in appearance.

There is no absolute evidence that ALL Turkic tribes were mongoloid.

Both the horse and charriot originated in Asia Minor. TURKS are mongols, that does not mean that some caucasoids assimilated into them. Thats like saying not all people on Hong Kong are mongols because the British settled there? Cmon.