>>715638285
No, not really, but they sure as fuck were not Arabs (OP right pic). Turks were indigenous to what is now Western China and Mongolia. They were expelled in waves by various Chinese states and the Mongols in the first millenium. They were contemporaries of the Kipchak and Cumans, other Turkic-speaking tribes who reliable and varied sources describe as fair skinned and dark to light hair. "Cuman" means, literally and directly, "the white people" as a description of their skin and hair. There's no need to appeal to mythology, cultures that had been accurately describing foreigners for thousands of years describe the early Turks as fair and thin people. Now, this doesn't mean they are "white" in the sense of Western Europeans or Brits or Germanics. Rather, that they are white in the sense of modern Siberians. They look distinctly "Asiatic" but with light features.
>So, the Ottomans were white?
No, not really. By the time the Ottoman Turks came into being, the original early Turks had been residing in Eastern Anatolia for hundreds of years, and this time had been the most intense phase of the Arab Expansion. They picked up quite a bit of Arab admixture during that time. The OP pic on the left is probably an idealized painting. Blue eyes were not in the cards, and Turks have never had a ruddy complexion in all of history. You can compare this portrait to other depictions of Suleimen I, which show him as a typical Asiatic. The facial structure of the left pic is true to form, however, with a long bridged but thin nose, a recessed chin and thin facial hait (which probably wasn't brown).
>So, the Turks are more like the right?
No, definately not. Right is a clear Arab, with thick facial hair and eyebrows, a massive and thick hooked nose, and brown (not black or gray-tinged) eyes.
