Talk:Sultanate of Rum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This looks like WP:OR

According to Pataliputra, "From the 12th century, and especially from the early 13th century, the Sultanate gradually developed a Turco-Persian cultural synthesis" using Hillenbrand who states, "While the impact of Iranian institutions and culture in Turkish Anatolia had roots going back to the twelfth century, it became particularly pronounced in the early thirteenth century, beginning with the reigns of Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw I and 'Izz al-Din Kaykā'ūs I." That appears to be original research.


  • While Rene Grousset(page 574) states, "The Seljuks even exported Iranian culture to Asia Minor."
  • Mehmed Fuad Köprülü, "Early Mystics in Turkish Literature", p. 149: "If we wish to sketch, in broad outline, the civilization created by the Seljuks of Anatolia, we must recognize that the local—i.e., non-Muslim, element was fairly insignificant compared to the Turkish and Arab-Persian elements, and that the Persian element was paramount."
  • The Medieval Turks: Collected Essays, Robert Hillenbrand, page 203,"As with other twelfth- and thirteenth- century Middle Eastern states ruled by a Turkish military elite, then, the Seljuqs of Anatolia modelled themselves closely on Persian–Islamic government traditions. These in turn drew on ancient pre-Islamic Iranian models, whose touchstone of excellence was the Sasanian machinery of rule and the religious norms and forms of Islam. Together these created an enduring symbol of good government."
  • Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition, Norman Itzkowitz,page 48, "It has been the basic administrative technique of Persian statecraft that had been given its Islamic character under the Great Seljuks in Persian in the mid-eleventh century. The system was passed on to the Ottomans through the Seljuks of Rum..."
  • Turko-Persian culture, Robert Canfield, page 11, "The Turko-Persian Islamicate culture that emerged under the Samanids and the Qarakhanids was carried by succeeding dynasties into Western and Southern Asia - in particular, by the Seljuqs (1040-1118) and their successor states who presided over Iran, Syria, and Anatolia...."

Seriously. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran seems to insist on having the expression "Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim state" in the first sentence of the introduction (this revert). But this is apparently not what the cited sources say:

"While the impact of Iranian institutions and culture in Turkish Anatolia had roots going back to the twelfth century, it became particularly pronounced in the early thirteenth century, beginning with the reigns of Ghiyath al-Din Kaykhusraw I and 'Izz al-Din Kaykā'ūs I. The implantation of Iranian traditions was reinforced, moreover, by a significant influx of Iranian immigrants into Rūm in which many of their members found a second homeland. The result was that in time a sort of Turco-Persian synthesis was achieved which on the level of high culture, at least, came to define the intellectual and aesthetic life of thirteenth-century Anatolia."

— Hillenbrand 1994, p. 264

1) Hillenbrand clearly explains that what occurred was "a sort of Turco-Persian synthesis ... on the level of high culture", that is, a "Turco-Persian cultural synthesis", which is different from the inflated claim of a "Turco-Persian state" (for example post-war Germany may have a "Germano-American cultural synthesis", but it is certainly not a "Germano-American state").
2) Hillenbrand also clearly explains that this was a later phenomenon, with "roots in the 12th century", but mainly developing in the 13th century, that is, in the later temporality of the Sultanate of Rum. It especially followed the mid-13th century Mongol invasions, which led to migrations from Iran to the Anatolian peninsula.
Therefore claiming that the Rum Sultanate was a "Turco-Persian state" seems to be largely over-inflated WP:OR, does not reflect the description of the sources which essentially describe a cultural synthesis, and is partly anachronistic, being mainly a later phenomenon. Instead, I suggest we use the following introductory sentences to better reflect the sources:

"The Sultanate of Rum, or Seljuk Empire of Rum, was a Turkic Sunni Muslim state established over conquered Byzantine territories and peoples (Rum) of Anatolia by the Seljuk Turks following their entry into Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. From the 12th century, and especially from the early 13th century, the Sultanate gradually developed a Turco-Persian cultural synthesis."

I am pinging previous participants to this discussion: User:HistoryofIran, User:Krsnaquli, User:R Prazeres and User:Kansas Bear for comments. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Pataliputra, there's a whole library of you making WP:OR edits on this site, so please don't randomly cast WP:ASPERSIONS.
Say Turco-Persian culture suddenly appeared first in the 11th century as you wrote (while disregarding other WP:RS who routinely call them Turco-Persian/Persianate), that's still the vast majority of the Sultanate of Rum period, who was created 33 years before the 11th century and lasted until 1308. Yet somehow you think it is more appropriate to list it as "Turkic" first. Also, am I right to assume you still haven't read up the meaning of Turco-Persian?
So not only are you disregarding WP:RS as usual, you are also disregarding basic maths. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)


  • "Therefore claiming that the Rum Sultanate was a "Turco-Persian state" seems to be largely over-inflated WP:OR, does not reflect the description of the sources which essentially describe a cultural synthesis, and is partly anachronistic, being mainly a later phenomenon."
Really? So the Great Seljuq Empire didn't export this same culture to Anatolia?("The Seljuks even exported Iranian culture to Asia Minor. ","The Turko-Persian Islamicate culture that emerged under the Samanids and the Qarakhanids was carried by succeeding dynasties into Western and Southern Asia - in particular, by the Seljuqs (1040-1118) and their successor states who presided over Iran, Syria, and Anatolia...."., "It has been the basic administrative technique of Persian statecraft that had been given its Islamic character under the Great Seljuks in Persian in the mid-eleventh century. The system was passed on to the Ottomans through the Seljuks of Rum... ".)
Clearly the WP:OR is your interpretion of Hillenbrand. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: I am absolutely fine with all the influences, but where exactly are the sources claiming that the Sultanate of Rum was a "Turco-Persian state" as currently claimed in the first introductory sentence ? Where is this expression coming from? Who uses this term for the Sultanate of Rum? As far as I can see, it is pure invention in the context of the Sultanate of Rum. If you cannot find WP:RS using and justifying the term, then this is indeed just WP:OR. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the content of the lead sentence: as Kansas Bear and HistoryofIran explain, it's apt and easily verified.
That said, for style/readability reasons only, I do think that this bit would be better moved to a second sentence, along with other minor improvements that would benefit the first paragraph. There is a tendency to overload the first sentence with adjectives and various precisions, which runs against the principles of MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Something as technical as "culturally Turco-Persian" could be stated more clearly in a new sentence, without diluting it (or indeed, less diluted). For the unfamiliar reader, this is not the first piece of information they need to read to get the topic of the article. (The same issue is perhaps more acute for Seljuk Empire, whose lead sentence is even more verbose.) R Prazeres (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@R Prazeres: I fully agree with your placement recommendation (second sentence for cultural stuff), and I fully agree with "Culturally Turco-Persian", although mainly in the 13th century, per Hillenbrand ("While the impact of Iranian institutions and culture in Turkish Anatolia had roots going back to the twelfth century, it became particularly pronounced in the early thirteenth century" ). Otherwise, my only major issue is with the WP:OR expression "Turco-Persian state", for which no sources have been provided. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I think we can reasonably agree, given everything cited and quoted above (and other sources that use the term "Turco-Persian" in this context; e.g. ("[...] the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Anatolia, and their Turco-Persian Muslim rulers."), ("[...] into the Anatolian Turco-Persian world."), ("the Seljuks of Rûm, [...], mediated by a Turco-Persian understanding of Islam [...]), ("Under the Anatolian Turco-Persian Seljuks, [...]")), that it works fine as a summary either way. R Prazeres (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
This is why I propose the following structure for the first two sentences of the introduction, essentially quoted after Hillenbrand , but we could tweak and add more sources:
"The Sultanate of Rum, or Seljuk Empire of Rum, was a Turkic Sunni Muslim state established over conquered Byzantine territories and peoples (Rum) of Anatolia by the Seljuk Turks following their entry into Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. From the 12th century, and especially from the early 13th century, the Sultanate gradually developed an extensive Turco-Persian cultural synthesis." ....
पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
You are still disregarding WP:RS. Here's the previous discussion , in which Pataliputra was doing similiar things. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Last year, I provided 10 WP:RS sources showing the simple fact that the Sultanate of Rum was normally described as a "Turkic state" , and you strangely denied this by providing a number of lengthy quotes explaining that Persian influence in the Sultanate of Rum was extensive , and the discussion died out. Actually, these two facts are both true, and they are not mutually exclusive. And our introduction should properly explain these two paramount facts: that the Sultanate of Rum was "a Turkic Sunni Muslim state", and that the Sultanate developed an extensive Turco-Persian cultural synthesis. This is exactly what all WP:RS sources are saying, this is common sense, and this is the spirit of my proposed introduction just above. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
No you did not. The link is there for everyone to see. You engaged in the usual WP:SYNTH and picked whatever source you could find from ebooks, without even verifying that it was WP:RS. You had not even read about the meaning of “Turco-Persian”, yet were arguing about it, which still seems to be the case now. When the fallacies of your arguments and your violations of policies were presented and you were faced with numerous WP:RS, you disappeared. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
No at all, the truth is that this was an RfC, and we were the only two to ever participate.... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
No one’s falling for this, the link is open access. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Proof: पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Sigh.. the first link is a link of the previous discussion which I've already linked. And the second link is a link of the RFC ending a month after my comment, the former which can already be inferred from the first link. That doesn't change the fact that you were disruptive in that discussion. And the RFC's status was not holding your hands, you could have replied whenever you wanted, but didn't, as you were caught red handed in violating several policies for the dozenth time. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, here is a proposed amended introduction, based on extensisve WP:RS. It revolves around defining the Sultanate of Rum as a "Turkic Sunni Muslim state" (plenty of sources for that), and mentioning an extensive Turco-Persian cultural synthesis in a second line, following Hillenbrand and al. and per User:R Prazeres.

PROPOSED INTRODUCTION:
"The Sultanate of Rum, or Seljuk Empire of Rum, was a Turkic Sunni Muslim state established over conquered Byzantine territories and peoples (Rum) of Anatolia by the Seljuk Turks following their entry into Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. From the 12th century, and especially from the early 13th century, the Sultanate gradually developed an extensive Turco-Persian cultural synthesis." ....

Comments on content are welcome. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Continuation of a disruptive pattern. You were also called out for WP:OR and disregarding WP:RS just above, but that wouldn't be convenient to mention.
What does "Turkic state" imply here other than that the dynasty was of Turkic ancestry (which goes without saying and already appears in the lede in the form of "Turco-Persian")? Pataliputra claimed in the thread that it has to do with their "political" aspect, which is not mentioned and thus sheer WP:SYNTH and contradicts the fact that the vast majority of WP:RS agrees that about every aspect, politically, culturally, etc (excluding their origins) of the Sultanate of Rum was Persian(ate)/Perso-Islamic/Greco-Roman, thus meaning that Pataliputra's suggestion goes against WP:NPOV. Moreover, 5 of those cited sources are completely unrelated to this topic (Source 3, 4, 5, 6, 9. 6 is not even WP:RS), clearly demonstrating that Pataliputra is cherrypicking whatever passing mentions they can find from Google ebooks, not even taking a moment to actually read about this entity. Pataliputra has a long history of this sort of behaviour, not learning anything from their one year ban. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: No need for all the WP:Wikilawyering. As for content, we usually start an article with basic definitions and the most fundamental information, which in this case should be that it was a "Turkic state" (or "Turkic Sunni Muslim state"), a state founded and established by Turkic and Turkoman tribes, as also expressed by the sources (). Claiming that it "goes without saying" does not make any sense and is not encyclopedic: our role is to explain what things are, from the general to the particular. For example, saying that the Gupta Empire was an "Indian empire" is the most essential information, which duly comes first in its article , and certainly does not "go without saying". And no, the fact that the Sultanate was a Turkic state is not covered by "Turco-Persian", because "Turco-Persian" applies to culture (the article and sources say "culturally Turco-Persian", and none of the sources provided describe the Sultanate as a "Turco-Persian state"). Cultural considerations and influences usually come second, as also explained by User:R Prazeres. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Feel free to explain how it is WP:Wikilawyering, since this so called "WP:Wikilawyering." is the exact thing you were banned in one year for . Here is what Turco-Persian means; "According to the modern historian Robert L. Canfield, the Turco-Persian tradition was Persianate in that it was centered on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic in so far as it was for many generations patronized by Turkic rulers; and it was "Islamicate" in that Islamic notions of virtue, permanence, and excellence infused discourse about public issues as well as the religious affairs of the Muslims, who were the presiding elite." In other words, the name "Turco-Persian" does two things; mention the Turkic origin, as well as mention the Persian culture. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
See "Turco-Persian culture" does not necessarily imply "Turkic state" below पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "And no, the fact that the Sultanate was a Turkic state is not covered by "Turco-Persian", because "Turco-Persian" applies to culture (the article and sources say "culturally Turco-Persian", and none of the sources provided describe the Sultanate as a "Turco-Persian state")."
Actually, before the sultanate was even formed it was part of the Great Seljuq Empire.
"Turko-Persian Seljuq Empire was established in 4529/1037 throughout Persia and Iraq, as far as the frontiers of Syria and the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia." --Iran's Regional Relations, A History from Antiquity to the Islamic Republic, Seyed Mohammad Houshisadat. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
"Persianate Sultanate of Rum" --Michael Palaiologos and the Publics of the Byzantine Empire in Exile, C.1223–1259. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The Sultanate of Rum is most readily described as a "Turkic state"

The Sultanate of Rum was indeed culturally Turco-Persian, and followed Sunni Islam (although some Turkomen tribes retained Shamanism and Animism). Still, as a political entity, it was founded, established and governed by a Turkic dynasty, and is therefore commonly described as a "Turkic state" or a "Turkish state" in the literature. This is arguably the primary defining characteristic of the state of the Sultanate of Rum (cultural considerations naturally come second). Here are some references for "Turkic/sh state" being used as the primary descriptive for the Sultanate of Rum:

  • "In due course a new Turkish state, the Seljuk Sultante of Rum, was formed in Anatolia" in Houshisadat, Seyed Mohammad (5 October 2020). Iran's Regional Relations: A History from Antiquity to the Islamic Republic. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-000-17882-1.
  • "...what would become the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. The new Turkish states which had been established in conquered Byzantine territory during the late-eleventh century..." in Nicolle, David (23 February 2011). Cross & Crescent in the Balkans: The Ottoman Conquest of Southeastern Europe (14th–15th centuries). Casemate Publishers. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-84468-760-2.
  • "...the Sultanate of Rum and other smaller Turkish states...." in Holt, Andrew (30 June 2023). Religion and World Civilizations [3 volumes]: How Faith Shaped Societies from Antiquity to the Present [3 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 296. ISBN 978-1-4408-7424-6.
  • "Subsequently, the Sultanate of Rum (Islamic variant of Rome) came into existence with its capital in Konya, which later emerged as a powerful Turkish state." in Ali, Zaheer (1 December 2023). Khilafat in History and Indian Politics. Taylor & Francis. p. 117. ISBN 978-1-003-83082-5.
  • "In due course, a new Turkish state, the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum ('Rome') was created in Anatolia , a distant precursor of the Ottoman Sultanate." in Wink, André (1990). Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries. BRILL. p. 10. ISBN 978-90-04-10236-1.
  • "The Seljuk dynasty of sultans of Rum, a Turkish state that had taken over the Anatolian Peninsula in 1071." World and Its Peoples. Marshall Cavendish Publishing. September 2006. p. 772. ISBN 978-0-7614-7571-2.
  • "A powerful Turkish state, with its capital in the ancient city of Iconium, which the Turks called Konya. This dynasty, which with varying success ruled Turkish Anatolia until the beginning of the fourteeth century, was known as the Sultans of Rum." in Lewis, Bernard (1963). Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-8061-1060-8. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
  • "...This allowed Kilij Arslan to establish an independent Turkish state, called the Sultanate of Rum." in LePree, James Francis; Djukic, Ljudmila (9 September 2019). The Byzantine Empire [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 174. ISBN 978-1-4408-5147-6.
  • "Under the Seljuks, a true Turkish state at last came into being in Iran and Anatolia (where the Turks called their new province the Sultanate of Rum" in Roberts, John Morris (1997). A Short History of the World (in en)). Oxford University Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-19-511504-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  • "The Rum Seljuks established the strongest and most important Turkish state in Asia Minor in the 1070s." in A ́goston, Ga ́bor; Masters, Bruce Alan (21 May 2010). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7.

Of course, to the extent that words have meaning, being a "Turkic state" is not the same thing as having a "Turco-Persian culture". The notions also do not coincide historically: many "Turkic states" did not have a "Turco-Persian culture" (especially many of the Central Asian Turkic states), and some non-Turkic states also had a "Turco-Persian culture" (such as the Safavid Empire, see below "Turco-Persian culture" does not necessarily imply "Turkic state"). "Turkic state" and "Turco-Persian culture" are just not equivalent terms, and one does not replace the other.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This is arguably the primary defining characteristic of the state of the Sultanate of Rum (cultural considerations naturally come second)
Further doubling down of the WP:RS denial from this talk page, the article and the previous section . Further doubling down on citing passing, cherrypicked mentions quickly found at Google ebooks, still not even bothering to at the very least exclude the non-WP:RS bit. Further doubling down on sticking to your own WP:SYNTH interpretation of "Turco-Persian". HistoryofIran (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

"Turco-Persian culture" does not necessarily imply "Turkic state"

"Turco-Persian culture" does not necessarily imply Turkic rule or the pre-existence of a Turkic state. It more aptly describes the cultural combination of the Turkic "lords of the sword" (arbāb-i saif) and the Iranian “lords of the pen" (arbāb-i qalam). The expression "Turco-Persian culture" is not meant to describe statehood (often Turks would rule, but not necessarily), and is not a statement about political structure, but obviously enough only a statement about... culture. Even the Safavid Empire (not a Turkic state) or whole regions without necessarily Turkic rule, are routinely described as having a "Turco-Persian culture":

It is therefore not antinomic, not synonymous (quite obviously), and actually complementary and necessary, to describe the Rum Sultanate as a Turkic state (founded, established and ruled by Turkic and Turkoman tribes) , with an extensive Turco-Persian culture (especially towards the 13th century century, as explained by Hillenbrand "While the impact of Iranian institutions and culture in Turkish Anatolia had roots going back to the twelfth century, it became particularly pronounced in the early thirteenth century" ), per the revised introductory sentences proposed above ("PROPOSED INTRODUCTION"). The two are perfectly clear and complementary, and exactly follow the sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

More WP:SYNTH and the usual disregard of the WP:RS up above and in the article. You've been told countless times that your synthesis is not on par with WP:RS. There is a literal explanation of the term by a scholar, that bears more much weight than your personal interpretation. Also, first citation doesn't even refer to the Turco-Persian culture, it refers to the government being divided amongst the Turkmens and Tajiks, which is also why it says "condominium"... This is just one of many reasons why your personal interpretations/WP:SYNTH should not be followed. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: @Kansas Bear: Around half a year ago I wrote this lede , which I had based on other ledes of entities in Europe (and Anatolia and Asia ) such as . From what I've seen, this pattern (neither ethnicity nor culture appears first) is very consistent in European-related articles.

What are you thoughts on a lede like this here? And then perhaps this style can be more consistent across Wiki articles related to Western/Central Asia. I felt like when MOS:ETHNICITY became consistently applied in the same type of articles, this also made them much less problematic, while still sticking to policies. Mayhaps the same here? Perhaps something a la; "The Sultanate of Rum was a medieval state established in 1077 by Suleiman ibn Qutulmish following the Seljuk advance after the Battle of Manzikert. It controlled much of central and eastern Anatolia, with its capitals successively at Nicaea (İznik), Iconium (Konya), and finally Sivas (Sebastia)." --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That works for me, HistoryofIran. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Sorry I have not had time to keep following all of the comments above. But yes, that proposed lead sentence or anything similar looks good to me. Minor feedback: if we leave the second paragraph more or less as is, I don't think you need to mention Suleiman ibn Qutulmish in the first sentence (e.g. just write "[...] was a medieval state established in 1077 following the Seljuk advance [...]").
While we're at it, if helpful, a few other general suggestions for the first paragraph (not connected to the "Turkic/Tuco-Persian" detail discussed above) would be:
  • Very briefly mention when the Sultanate ended in the lead sentence, or shortly thereafter in the first paragraph, just so readers can immediately grasp the temporal scope of the article. (The fuller summary of its decline in the third paragraph should still be retained.)
  • Move some of the explanation about the name "Rum" to a footnote or to a "Name" section below; in particular, the sentence starting with "The name is derived from [...]" is an etymological explanation that isn't summarizing the article below and isn't crucial info at the start.
Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
As far as I know MOS:ETHNICITY applies only to biographies, certainly not to states. Saying that the Gupta Empire was an Indian empire, or that the Safavid Empire was an Iranian empire, or that the Sultanate of Rum was a Turkic state (per sources, basically no WP:RS alternatives have been shown), is just basic essential information that an encyclopedia must have. Usually, we first define the state as clearly as possible, then we present various secondary demographic, cultural etc... considerations. I feel like I am stating the obvious here.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
For someone "stating the obvious", you were the only one here who thought I was applying MOS:ETHNICITY to states. The rest of your comment is just more of the same policy violations. I've run out of WP:ROPE. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Google Books hit rates for "Turco-Persian state", "Culturally Turco-Persian", "Turco-Persian culture", "Turkic state"

Out of curiosity, I checked on Google Books and Google Scholar the currency of some of the various terms we have been talking about. This is not supposed to be exhaustive, but gives an indication of what sort of expressions are used in academia in relation to our question, and to what extent.
1) The term "Turco-Persian state" is used only 1 time in the whole Google Books and Google Scholar corpus in relation to the Sultanate of Rum, by Giv Nassiri: "During the rule of the Anatolian Saljûqs, Persian-speaking migrants and travelers played a prominent role in the formation and consolidation of this Turco-Persian state" in Nassiri, Giv (2002). Turco-Persian Civilization and the Role of Scholar's Travel and Migration in Its Elaboration and Continuity. University of California, Berkeley.. This is far from being mainstream, and actually WP:Fringe (but remained for many years on this Wikipedia page until 2022). In the literature, it is used only 3 more times, but in relation to the Khwarazmian Empire only.
2) The term "Culturally Turco-Persian" in used only 3 times in the whole Google Books and Google Scholar corpus, by the same author (the Czech author Edgar Knobloch), in the same text published in three different works, as a description of Timur's Timurid Empire: "His Empire was culturally Turco-Persian, Turco-Chingizkhanid in constitution, with a Mongol-Arab discipline in politics and religion." in Knobloch, Edgar (1 May 2012). Treasures of the Great Silk Road. The History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-9792-1.. This usage is inexistent in relation to the Sultanate of Rum (but has remained for several years in this Wikipedia page since 2022, and in many other pages about Central Asian polities). This term "Culturally Turco-Persian" is almost unheard of in academia....
3) The term "Turco-Persian culture" appears 9 times in relation to Anatolia, "Turco-Persian culture" + "Sultanate of Rum" 0 times, "Turco-Persian culture" + "Rum" 1 time
4) The terms "Turkic state" or "Turkish state" to define the Sultanate of Rum are used hundreds of times (Google Scholar: "Turkic state" + "Anatolia"= 336, "Turkish state" + "Anatolia" = 18.800 (includes many false positives), "Turkic state" + "Rum" =90, "Turkish state" + "Rum"=2.700, "Turkic state" + "Sultanate"=121, "Turkish state" + "Sultanate"= 3.570). See a qualitative summary of some of the top instances above The Sultanate of Rum is most readily described as a "Turkic state"
CONCLUSION: It is quite obvious that the term "Turco-persian state" is almost unheard of (just 1 time) in relation to Anatolia. It is totally WP:Fringe. Same thing for "Culturally Turco-Persian" (just 1 author, and in relation to the Timurids, not the Sultanate of Rum): WP:Fringe. "Turco-Persian culture" in relation to Anatolia is fairly present (9 instances), that's few, but can arguably express properly Persian influence on the Turkic realm. But claiming that the concept of "Turco-Persian culture" necessarily implies the existence of a "Turkic state" and therefore would make mentioning this "Turkic state" irrelevant ("goes without saying" ), is a fallacy and conceptual nonsense (WP:Hoax, culture and political system are two different notions, sometimes correlated, sometimes not), which is disproved by academia (see "Turco-Persian culture" does not necessarily imply "Turkic state"). And of course "Turkic state" and "Turkish state" are by far the most common way of describing the Sultanate of Rum. We should of course follow academia, and use the most mainstream terms to define the Sultanate of Rum, not extreme minority expressions. The best candidate seems to be on the line of: "The Sultanate of Rum was a Turkic state... with an extensive Turco-Persian culture....", with the necessary tweaks.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI