Tamerlane
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Steppe Nomads and Central Asia
Forum Discription: Nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, Turks & Mongols, and kingdoms of Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24088
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 19:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Tamerlane
Posted By: Guess
Subject: Tamerlane
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 03:14
|
I read that Tamerlane was a military genius. What did he do that was so brilliant?
Was he really a mongol or was he more turkish? Did he basically reconquer the original Mongol empire? Did his empire collapse after his death and all that was left was the mughal empire in India? |
Replies:
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 05:07
|
Here's a few things Tamerlane did:
1. Rose from a minor bandit/tribal leader, to the official head of an organised state
2. Defeated Ottomans at Anakara, capturing Bayerzid
3. Defeated the Mamelukes
4. Defeated Sultanate of Delhi, taking the capital
5. Defeated the Khan of the Golden Horde repeatedly in battle
6. Devastated the Golden Horde
7. Made Samarkand one of the world's greatest cities
8. Killled a heck of a lot of people
9. Defeated other minor powers
So yes, he was a military genius, and accomplished a fair bit! Though, he didn't quite manage to reconquer the entire Mongol Empire
 - Knights - ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 05:34
|
As for his ethnicity, Taimur the lame, was whatever he wanted to be. ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 06:28
Back in his time it didn't matter whether he was turk or mongol. More important was to have a ties with Chingisid family in order to become legitime ruler of steppe empire.
Partly. His sons still ruled wast territories after his death, but as big as their father. Imo Mughal empire is not direct descendant of Timurid empire. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 07:33
|
Timur was a so-called "Turko-Mongol," he originated from the originally Mongolian tribe Barlas, which however by his birth has already complitely converted to Islam and Turkicized. Timur himself spoke Turkic but not Mongolian language. Mongols at that time were already mixed to the great extent with the Cental Asian Turk, yet to be a Mongol meant to be a part of the ruling nobility, elite warrior class.
BTW, I believe this thread should belong to the Central Asian subforum. ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 08:58
|
The man was a blight who sent the middle east back to the stone age.
------------- |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 11:06
Hmm...waging war for over 30 years brought him some experience
He was a Turco-Mongol and he did not reconquer the Mongol empire, it was more similar to the Parthian empire (for extension and location) ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 13:54
|
Towers of skulls are purported to be his signature trademark. He was a brute but a genius as well. His weakness is due to his lack of administration skills and huge ego. Militarily, you would be hard pressed to find his equal. ------------- |
Posted By: Guess
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 16:26
| what were the brilliant tactics, strategies, etc... that tamerlane used? |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 18:10
Historical records show Babur was a Timurid, direct descendant of the Timur, the Mughal name is a misnomer, they were Timurids driven out of Turkistan south to India. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 19:16
One of my father's old friends had read Timurlane's memoirs (which are in Persian) and the man was apparently a sociopath. He had an admiration for Persian genius in engineering, philosophy and architecture yet at the same time he hated the civilisation. On his campaign which passed through Central Iran, he sacked Isfahan and beheaded all inhabitants (except artisans, poets etc) and stacked their heads in a pyramid. He marveled at the city before hand, commenting that the walls were so immense that two carriages could pass each other side on. A year later on his return he noted how the skulls shone so brightly in the sun, attributing it to the genius of the slain. This can be rationalised with another comment he made about the country in which he stated that even the simple people of the towns converse over matters of philosophy. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 21:42
which qualifies him as sociopath?
sounds like a genius to me. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 01:46
|
He was a sociopath, look up the meaning. He expressed admiration, yet at he same time was very happy to kill mercilessly and salt the earth, destroy irrigation in vindictive acts of terror and actually attempt to bury the civilisation. Sounds pretty unstable to me. Or maybe you have read his memoirs completely and know something I don't? In which case it would be polite to actually make a proper response and share some information. Your selective quoting and out of context comments are...
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 05:39
|
I don't think you can blame him for that. He was a person of his time; everybody did this. If he would lose a battle to some other warlord the same fate would find his people.
He simply wanted to damage his enemies as much as he can. At the same time he made Samarkand the most brilliant Muslim city of its time. For sure another ruler would do totally the same thing. The difference regarding Tamerlane is that he was able to conduct large wars with strong enemies, covering vast territories; for that reason, naturally, all these were followed by the large scale atrocities. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 05:59
he was just following what the Hordes before his time did, but I think the Mameluks of that time and the Christians did not do the same. |
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 08:56
He was a "Turko-Mongol" implying he was a Turk with Mongol roots and heritage, but back then there really wasn't too much of a difference between them anyway. And morally reprehensible or not he was brilliant. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 11:42
Anyone coming from central asia was called a mongol (Mughal) during that period of Indian history. ------------- |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 13:27
Standard horse archer fighting... in the battle of Kondurcha he got encircled by the enemy, but he managed to exit and win...no new tactics ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 15:37
Central Asia at that time very often was simply referred as "Mogolistan." The Eastern part of Turkestan was referred with this name for even longer time. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 17:18
|
Tamerlane referred to the region as "Turkestan", Babur also uses the term "Turkestan", during the Muhammad Sheybani era the term is used, 17th century ruler of Khiva Bahadur Khan and historian uses the term. The city of Turkestan in todays southern Kazakistan was famed and still is a place of pilgrimage, Tamerlane rebuilt and constructed some architectural works in the area as a sign of respect to his forefathers. (Also its said this was a pollitical move, to win support of the Turk masses of Central Asia).
Mogulistan was used for the area of todays Eastern Turkestan, todays Mongolia is known as Mogulistan among Turkic states. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 17:44
|
This is not incorrect, but like I said the whole region of Maverannarh was sometimes referred as Mogolistan by the outsiders, while it's true that this name originages from the name of the state in the Eastern Turkestan established by Togluk-Timur in the 14th century. For the same reason, the dynasty established by Babur was called "great Mughal." ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 18:08
Moghulistan was precisely used for the eastern part of the Chaghatai Kahnate after the split-up of the khanate. so Bulldog is correct.
he was no sociopath, sources describe him as intellectual with deep knowledge and understanding of things, including "biased western travelers". he razed cities that rebelled against him, commonplace. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 18:45
|
Mogolistan was sometimes used as a reference for the Central Asia as whole as well. I think I made it clear in my post that Bulldog is correct already. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 18:51
| i never heard that Moghulistan was used for all of Central Asia... |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 19:36
Sociopathic doesn't mean stupid. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 20:21
I did. Though, I agree that Mogolistan would be more proper to use with regard to Eastern Turkestan only. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: ProMongol
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 03:44
I also think
Let's make list of his Mongolness and Tyurkness.
As a pro-mongol point of view I can write down following
He is Mongol from Chagatain Ulus
- His root is Mongol. His clan Barulas was sub-division of Borjigin Mongols which was main group of Mongols from.
- His geneology is full of Mongol names which proves He was Mongol
- He is name is Tamer. Mongolian name. There were lots of Mongolian generals and khans with name Tamer/Temir/Temer
- Barulas were still in Mongol tradition in many ways, they had Mongol hair cut. Even Tamerlane had Mongolian style hair cut.
- His army is organised in Mongolian system 10, 1000. Even there were Mongolian words in miliraty use like boronjur/borongor ( Mongolian Barungar- right wing/hand) jonour/javongor (mongolian- zuungar- leftwing/ hand)
- Unlike their Turkic brothers who were more settled, Tamerlanes were still more nomadic like Mongols.
- Tamerlane followed Mongol tradition- only Chingisids were supposed to be Khans. He did not dare to call himself Khan, instead he stayed as Amir/Emir.
- His wars / war motives were totally controlled by his ambition. Not about for religion, not about for turkic brotherhood
- He was even more ambitious to conquer China Ming dynasty. Prior his expedition he was in contact with Mongols and military route/ supplies were spied by Tamerlane. But he was too old.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 13:47
|
I've gone over this countless times, there is no "speculation" on what Amir Temur was, there is no need to guess or invent theories, he clearly stated what he is and his origin. "Biz kim, Mulki Turon, Amiri Turkistonmiz:
(We are the possessors of Turan and Emir of Turkestan) Biz ki Trk oğlu Trk'z; (We are Turks that are the sons of Turks) Biz kim millatlarning eng qadimi va eng ulugi (We are the members of the oldest and the greatest nations) Turkning bosh boginimiz" (We are the leaders of Turks) In his memoirs Timur gave the following information about his ancestry:
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 17:09
|
Thanks for the info.
-------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 17:24
The Mongols managed that quite effectively before Timur came on the scene. Their invasion of the Caliphate devastaed a largerly agrarian society and destroyed irrigation so much that most of the efficiency declined within a relative short amount of time. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 18:14
 It's hard to conclude that Tamerlan's understanding of Turkicness was identital to what we have now. According to this passage Mongols originate from "the farther of the Turks" and Genghiz khan himself was a Turk. In other words he considers both Mongols and Turks (in our modern understanding) as "Turks."------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 19:27
please reference me to the source of the medieval psychatrist who rendered Temr as sociopath. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 19:32
also the quotes he gave are Anatolian Turkish from what i can see. plus, only one of the three quotes implies Turkic ancestry (we are turks and descend from Turks). the other three do not imply any Turkicness at all. from which original work are those quotes? |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 19:40
I deduced that he is a sociopath in the same way you deduced he is a genius. Sorry if that bothers you. ------------- |
Posted By: ProMongol
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 20:16
Karachar Nevian- Kharachar Noyon.
In that memoirs. he ( someone who wrote it) mentioned name of Chinggis Khan and was critical about his duty of a conqueror. I don't think Tamerlane would write such thing.
After his death , his geneology is written on his tomb. As usual Mongolian names were distorted in tyurkic fashion.
So I can list is with mongolian names
Family tree: ТИМУР, /Tamer/ Tmr son of Taragai (in mongolian Taragai-Тарагай)
Taragai, son of Bargul' ( in mongolian Barhul -Бархул/ Barahul - Барахул)
Bargul', son of Amir Ilyngyz (Ilangas/ Jiran/ Jilan - not sure about this name)
Ilyngyz, son of Bogadur ( in mongolian Bagadur/ Bagatur-Багатур)
Bogadur, son of Andjal' nevian (in mongolian Anjila noyon-Анжила ноён)
Andjal' nevian , son of Suyunchi ( in mongolian Soyonchi-Соёнч or Snch-Снч)
Suyunchi, son of Irdamchi Barlas ( in mongolian Erdemch-barulas -Эрдэмч-барулас)
Irdamchi Barlas, son of Kachuli Bogadur (in mongolian Khachula bagatur-Хачула багатур)
Kachuli Bogadur, son of Tumen khan (in mongolian lang. (Тумэн хан)
From our ancestors, Karachar nevian first to know true God , became muslim with his people. where is Karachar nevian in genelogical list? Did I miss someting?
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 01:13
This is why the term Turko-Mongol is used.
Amir Temur obviously regarded himself to be a Turk, being Turk in language and identity. Also religion could be a factor why he stressed this, he restored and built some architectural works for "Ahmad Yasavi" in Yassi-Hazrat-e Turkiston.
Also we must remember that Turks and Mongols in that period in that region were so close the distinction is blurry. Especially where there were Turko-Mongol mixed tribes, sharing the same religion and having similar lifestyles.
Temurs name is as Turkic as it is Mongolian, as both languages share an Altaic root there is likely to be similarities ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 13:59
| What is the difference between Turkic and Mongolic anyway? |
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 15:27
| linguistic difference for starters aside from that I dont know, customs? probably, turk means strong or something like that. |
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 16:54
Baraka top .....! You are right, Omar.....and it was not only in India but the rest of the world.....! Especially russians were very comfortable with this misunderstanding....! Also...... Temur's real influence and role in world history is dramatically underestimated...... Besides, his personality is treated as "ruthless killer" and "destroyer of civilizations"(without real facts), BUT nothing else.... !!! I wonder why he was buried near his Master (whom Temur highly respected) with respect that his Master's dead body lies ahead of his own (fact).... no matter he could treat the kings of Europe equally to his sons with kind respect (fact)... Doesn't it say anything about a person.... I mean.... how about real approach with real facts rather than to believe all those falsified or misunderstood information FROM PEOPLE WHO HATED Temur.....?!?!?!?!? |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 17:04
Russians didn't call Central Asia "Mogolistan." And from the very beginning they started to call Mongols "Tatars." The name "Mungals" was only briefly mentioned in Russian chronicles and quickly faded. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 17:09
Language, religion, customs (to the lesser extent). This it today.
600 years ago it was quite different. The distinction was more blurred. New Mongol nation included many Turkic tribes. And also most of the nomadic Turks and Mongols were Tengrianists. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 17:46
|
Sarmat ! I didn't say that russians called Central Asia as Mogoliston.... I was talking about ethnicities and nations of the region....! However, russians called Central Asia as Chigatay (in fact no Central Asians used this name for the region) and called the nations of Mavarounnahr as "chigatayskiyi mogoly" which is crap.....(nobody knows were they disappeared). There is only one reason for that - to mix the elements of information with mongolian legacy, so there would be such understanding that it was mongols and here we go, every thing is being related to mongols..... Tatars i think is slightly different topic.... Shortly, nations of Mavarounnahr are unique... and i strongly believe it was the same before......! |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 18:16
|
Russians called Central Asia, "Turkiston", a term which came into usage during the end of the Mongol and beginning of the Timurid reign. The region known as Turkiston also included, southern Turkiston or Afgan Turkiston which was an official province. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 23:44
I find it quite interesting that for example many people blame the Europeans such as the British, Spanish or ... etc empires for colonization, slavery, anthropology ...etc, when with the logic above ''everybody was doing it''. |
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 05:24
|
Saying Mongols and Turks were the same is like saying the Italians and Germans were the same. They're different nations of people but evolved in a similar region. Turks & Mongols are both Altai peoples if you want to look at it that way. -------------
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 08:57
|
^you my friend are an idiot I have read most of your post and make no sence you agree with people but after taht you still haven't learned anything and still say what you think is right. I don't realy care if you're offended or not for the simple fact that people are trying to debate here and you say something wich distract people from the orginal debate or make oneside look redicilous because you agree with that side. how ever I appologise to the rest for not being online lately  Back to Topic Tamerlane was what ever he wanted to be. I think it has been mentioned over and over again That in that time you had to have relations with the Cingsid dynasty inorder to have right to rule. This is the same reason why the Ottomans never could conquer the Crimean Tatars because they had a higher claim on the Title than a simple Turkic tribe. As for the Term Turk: It isn't a ethnic term........ well it wasn't back in those days. Accualy it isn't either today. The term Turk is a Lingual & cultural term ofcourse in some extend. For instance The turkic tribes of the Middle ages consited of the 'turks', various mongolic tribes & Iranian Tribes. I think the absorbation of the iranian tribes by some of the Asiatic nomads led to the difference or 'separation' between the Mongolians & Turks, culturaly & in appearance (to some extend). But the same could be said for the Mongolians they might have some Turkic tribes in them who knows in 200 years the Tuvans will be a mongolian Tribe even today they are seen as mongolians by some. I even heard that the Khalkha are orginaly a Tungus Tribe and have nothing to do with Cingis Khan. How ever I think the mongolians have soem tungus Tribes in them. My point is That the Nomads of Central Asia asiatic or Iranian had no sence of race or ethnicity as we do in modern times. They simply didn't care. who are we to try to define their 'ethnicity'. They were who ever they wanted to be  I realy should read my posts over be4 posting them  ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 12:39
|
Well, appears you got your second wind xi_tujue. Welcome back to the forum. One word of caution though, no matter how much you disagree with another member please refrain from expletives or insults.
Carry on... ------------- |
Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 18:12
Okay, you've attacked me before for no reason although I've never directed a single post towards you, and I have no idea who the hell you are. 1) Your grammar sucks. 2) Your spelling sucks. 3) MY conclusion is that you can't understand my posts and that's why you're frustrated. -------------
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 18:32
|
Everybody, please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Next time I'll just issue an official warning to anybody who violates this rule. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Yungsiyebu_Uriankhai
Date Posted: 18-May-2008 at 06:17
Tamerlane was the Turkicized Barlas, and the Barlas(Barulas) was originally a branch of Borjigin family of Nirun Mongols, their first ancestor was Barulatai who was tall and strong with big appetite, so his father gave him Barulatai as first name, and his descendants named their clan as Barulas.
General Khubilai(?—1211) who was a Barulas, was one of the most famous generals of Chinggis Khan. Khubilai, Urianghai's Zelme and Sebutai, and Besud's Zebe were famous as four mastiffs of Chinggis Khan.
There were at least 3 Barulas clans after Mongol Khanate was established.
1) a group of Barulas followed Chagetai Khan with Honggirat and another 2 nameless Mongol clans, the group was that Tamerlane probably originated from directly; their leader was Kharaljar who was probably a brother of general Khubilai;
2) a group of Barulas belonged to the right wing of the Mongols, their leader seemed Kharaljar too, their descendant should be one of ancestors of the morden Mongolians.
3) General Khubilai's Barulas followed a son of Chinggis Khaan and his Merkit Queen Hulan, who was dead during conquest of Russia with Batu Khan, their descendants probably spread widely cross the central asia.
Tuva known as Tanu Urianghai before, was a Turkic group sharing a similar traditional with Mongols, Tuva was also ethnic multi-original, Tumad, a Siberian forest tribe during time of Chinggis Khan, was probably the most important ancestor, and their Urianghai ancestors probably migrated from central Mongolia ever inhabited by Urianghai tribe, or Tuva's Urianghai was the original Urianghai tribe in Siberia forest. They were conquered by Oirat Mongols and people probably couldn't distinguish Urianghai Mongols and Tuva's Urianghai, or they were similar during that time, so Tuva was named as Tanu Urianghai and influenced by Oirat Mongols heavily since they was conquered.
Some scholars link Tumad to the ancient Tuba Xian-bei, while Urianghai was linked to Xiong-nu, but no valid evidence to prove those theories. Both Tumad and forest Urianghai probably were more Turkic than Mongolic during time of Chinggis Khan.
Halha was the largest Mongolian group today, multi-original too, the core ethnic clan was Jalair, a Mongolian-speaking tribe even before Chinggis Khan, most of Halha Mongols weren't Tungus origins although we don't neglect the Tungus elements with Halhas and other Mongols, the details:
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24261 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24261
|
Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 29-May-2008 at 06:15
|
I'm quite interested to read on Timur's conquest of the Golden Khanate which was ruled by Tokhtamysh. Both were Chingisid yes, and powerful leaders.
Tokhtamysh was no minor military leader either. According to Dmitri Donskoi the Muscovians used firearms for the first time in Russian history during the siege of Moscow, but he still succeeded in subjugating the Muscovian state. Betraying his ally Timur (Tamerlane), he brought about his own downfall and the downfall of the Golden Khanate.
However, does anyone have any recommended texts to read in regards to the Timur/Tokhmatysh War?
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 29-May-2008 at 18:36
|
According to Dmitri Donskoi?
Dmitri Donskoi was a prince of Moscow; he wasn't a chronist. I don't know of any chronicles by left from him.
Tokhtamysh was able to take Moscow only by tricking the defenders of Moscow out by promising them peace if they do so. When the Moscovites opened the gates and went out of the city, Tatars ambushed them and get into the city. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 18:59
That is some good information.
|
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2009 at 01:46
|
ONE WORD - AMIR TEMUR was U Z B E K - the true and only nation of Transoxiana......
I argue with anybody to prove my statement above, with real and reasonable facts.....
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2009 at 10:01
|
Birardar, Oz'bek is the name of a pollitical leadership, its the name of a state formed by Turkic peoples just as Seljuk or Ottoman or Timurlu is. Amir Timur was a Turkic muslim with possible Mongol-Turko relatives.
You know whose words these are
'Biz Kim Mulki Turon, Amiri Turkistonmiz, Biz Kim Millatlarning eng Qadimi i va eng ulug'i, Turkning bosh Bug'unimiz.'
Amir Temur ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2009 at 02:45
| What nation is that then Turkic muslim I mean it really is not fleshy enough... besides as you exampled yourself he wrote in pretty uzbek language..... if you take modern Central Asian nations.... none of those built a house except uzbeks and tajiks.... Maybe Otto von Bismark also didn't call himself a german, but prussian or something else..... it really doesn't matter but the language, traditions are what represents the nation..... |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2009 at 06:13
Alish, qandaysiz? Oz'beks hadn't yet formed when Amir Temur was alive, his language was Turki and by Turkic muslim he was a Turk and his state Turko-Mongol/Persian influenced. This doesn't mean he isn't todays part of todays Oz'bekistans heritage aswel, as both are muslim and Turkic and speak a Turki language like him. This is why micro-nationalism just causes problems, Amir Temur, Babur, Ali Sher Nav'oi, Ahmad Yasavi, Mahmud Kashgar'i, Ulug Bek etc etc are heritage of Turkistan and Turkic people in general not just one group. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: BOOBOOCH5
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2015 at 05:56
| I know this is a very old thread, but your post caught my eye. Where can I find the source for Tamerlane's observation about shining skulls and the genius of the inhabitants? |
Posted By: BOOBOOCH5
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2015 at 06:20
I cannot find anything in any of the sources about Tamerlane making such disturbing comments on his return to Isfahan. It would certainly add to his legacy if it were true. Can anyone post a link or cite a source on this?
|
Posted By: BOOBOOCH5
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2015 at 06:22
I cannot find this in any of the sources, nor can I find a weblink that specifically says this....though I really do want to read more about this incident specifically. Can anyone cite a source or post a link about this happening on Timur's return to Isfahan?
|