[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Reminder that the early crusades were fought against Seljuks Turks and they literally looked like this. Why doesn't popular accurately depict them?
>>
>>18580999
when have they ever been depicted?
>>
>>18581003
In art, movies, games, etc. Always depicted as looking like Arabs when they were straight up slanty eyed yellow asians.
>>
File: tartar.jpg (1.48 MB, 2736x3648)
1.48 MB JPG
>>18580999
>>18581003
>>18581011
They were mestizos but that's still mongoloid looking. Pic related is a 30% East Eurasian Tartar.
>>
>>18581011
Other than strategy video games, basically any media depicting the crusades (not very common, actually) does not acknowledge the Turkish presence and instead depicts of the Muslims as uniformly "Saracen"/Arab. This is on one part, this is because the early history of the Turks is not popularly known and easily confused for the mongols, on the other, it is because the Crusades in media are usually influenced by modern geopolitics regarding the Middle East.
>>
>>18580999
If you depicted them like that Turks would feel nationally-insecure and mass review-bomb your movie.
>>
>>18580999
Many academics framed crusades as a proto colonial campaign, influenced by the context of the post war era. This point of view requires hand waving away the fact that the local indigenous people largely did not have political power themselves beforehand, with the Turks having become a ruling class since the collapse of Abbasid Power. Consequently depictions of anti crusader forces don’t really focus on the fact Nur Al Din, Saladin, or Baibars were not ethnic Levantine Arabs themselves. One caveat is that they did use local Arab soldiers compared to the crusaders, albeit as less decisive infantry levies.
>>
>>18581026
Would they? Most Turks larp as Central Asians.
>>
>>18581157
But when they look in the mirror what do they see? Certainly not OPs pic.
>>
File: 20260415_090147_.jpg (225 KB, 754x1107)
225 KB JPG
>>18580999
>>18581026
>>18581157
>>18581162
OP's pic shows Mongols. Seljuks Turks had 50% Scythian/Iranic ancestry so their appearance would have been more Eurasian like this Uzbek man.
>>
>>18581179
>their appearance would have been more Eurasian like this Uzbek man
No.
>>
>>18580999
>Turks were chinese
Wtf have you been smoking?
>>
>>18580999
>they literally looked like this
Except they didn't. Seljuks were already hapas by the 11th century
>>
File: pankun5.jpg (68 KB, 490x276)
68 KB JPG
>>18580999
How did these guys who can barely see buckbreak Indian-Euros and Semites and dominate them as Kangz and still do?
>>
>>18581018
Saladin is a much more romantic and exotic enemy than weird central asian mutts
>>
>>18581391
This doesn't mean anything. All Islamic civilisations depicted themselves with slanted eyes in artwork. It was a tradition carried down from the Persians.
>>
>>18581412
Hapacel rage
>>
File: giphy.gif (427 KB, 270x192)
427 KB GIF
>>18581430
That doesn't explain how they were the best horse riders in Eurasia and hunted down the Germanix.
>>
>>18581018
i dont know what you are implying but that nigga is straight 100% Kipchak tartar uzbek slop
>>
>>18581018
Tartaria was an Aryan civilization
>>
>>18581415
We can cope by pretending Baibars was Circassian/Alan/Crimean Greek
>>
>>18581695
He was Kipchak and had blue eyes



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.