Mongol Empires
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=5530
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 19:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Mongol Empires
Posted By: Khalha_Mongol
Subject: Mongol Empires
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2005 at 13:50
|
Do u know how many empires there were?(map: modern mongolia) Study,proof,guess would be welcome.... and how does it say in your text book? i`ll translate from my book later...
It says there were Hunnu( Hun ) , Sumbe(siyanbi), Ih nirun(great nirun) , Tureg`s empire, Uyghur empire, and Kidan (Hidan) |
Replies:
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2005 at 14:17
|
Do you want to know what (past) empires were located in the current lands of Mongolia? Or do you want to know what empires were of Mongol origin? ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2005 at 17:56
|
Most empires that originated in Mongolia were of Turkish origin in the pre Chinggis days. Or are you refereing the successor states of the Mngol Empire such as the Chagatai and Ilkhanate? ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 09:51
|
Based in Mongolia: All assorted Turco-Mongol states that controlled at least half of the Mongolian Plateau Hu Xiongnu (sometimes called Huns) RuRuan Tieju/Turk Uighir Kirghiz Naimen Mongols ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 15:30
|
Add Xianbei ------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 06:13
|
I have a question. If someone knows, please help me. Thank you. Is there any online version(english) of the following sources? 1) The History of the World-Conqueror / Ata Malik Juvaini 2) Jami al-tavarikh(Compendium of Chronicles) / Rashid ad-Din ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 07:41
no.......... ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 07:43
Didn't really control much of the Mongolian plateaux.... Also the Khitan/Quidan only had effective control of the plateaux dring the Liao empire, which wasn't exactly a nomad state. The early khitans didn't control it and the later Quara-Khitai only had vague control of the Western end of the plateaux. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: HistoryGuy
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 15:34
Tatars are from Gibo in north-eastern Mongolian. ------------- هیچ مردی تا به حال به شما درباره خدا گفته. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 20:53
| They all were Turkic (or proto-Turkic)-speaking Empires, even the Genghis Khan's one. Only after 1368's collapse of the Genghis Khanites' power in China, the proper Mongol speaking peoples like Oirats, Khalkha occupied territory of the modern Mongolia and around (north of the Great Wall of China). (read "Empire of the Steppes" of Rene Grousset). |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 21:40
The Runraun don't appear to have been turkish speakers... And all the 'empires' will have included groups who spoke, Mongol languages and groups tat spoke iranian languages along with Turkish speaking groups.. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Yungsiyebu_Uriankhai
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 00:25
|
People couldn't view Hsiung-nu empire, Turuk Khanate, Uighur Khanate, Kirgiz Khanate as the foreign dynatsy of Mongolia, all of those Khanates had so many Mongolica tribes while some Turkic tribe probably got the ruling place at that time. On the other hand, Sian-pei Khanate, Ruran Khanate, Khitan empire, and Mongol empire, also had many Turkic tribes among them. It's just about that Mongolica or Turkic tribes had been the royal family in their Khanates, however, from Hsiung-nu, Sain-pei, Ruran, Turuk, Uighur, Kirgiz, Khitan, to Mongol, there're no too much difference among those Khanates at all. so, you can view all of them as Mongolian(not Mongolica) empires/dynasty in the history of Mongolia.
|
Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 08:23
| I would say that the Oirats had the last truly Mongol empire of any significance. It was pretty much limited to the area of Kazakhstan during the 16th-17th centuries, I think. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 21:33
|
And I would say that it was the FIRST and last the proper Mongol empire
of any significance. (Ruruans and Sien-pi are under the big
question about their Mongolness). |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2005 at 09:41
Only in the eyes of those who have a very broad and inclusive approach to groups being 'Turkish'........  ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 22-Nov-2005 at 19:05
|
Turkic speaking groups (or tribes) like Kereits, Naimans, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Onguts (now Waqs or Uaks), Merkits, etc. should not be called "Mongols". They were Turks in 11-13th centuries, and they are Kazakh Turks today. See for example: http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_timeline.html - http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_timeline.html 1007-1008 Conversion of 200,000 Kerait Turks http://www.oxuscom.com/timeline.htm - http://www.oxuscom.com/timeline.htm 1007-1008 Conversion of 200,000 Kerait Turks to Nestorian Christianity http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1362 - http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&am p;am p;am p;C=1362
IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ, Turks in China under the Mongols: A Preliminary Investigation of Turco-Mongol Relations in the 13th and 14th Century, in: CHINA AMONG EQUALS - THE MIDDLE KINGDOM AND ITS NEIGHBORS, 10th - 14th CENTURIES, EDITED BY MORRIS ROSSABI, Chapter 10, University of California Press - Berkeley - Los Angeles London, pp.281-310. ...We must not forget also that, as a young man and for many years, Chinggis Khan had been a client and an ally of the Kereyid court, and that he must inevitably have been exposed to Turkish culture through this close association. It is perhaps not fortuitous that the very title he assumed, Chinggis Khan, is of Turkish origin [8]... |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2005 at 06:05
When Temuljin united the peoples of the steppe, they took the name "Mongols of Blue Heaven", so calling them Mongols seems appropriate. Though by this stage there was less cultural difference between "Turks" and "Mongols" than there was between say "Naiman" and "Kereyid". His title is a prime example, a Mongol word with Turkish roots that describes a Chinese way of saying the whole world... ps Karakhorum was not the Kerait capital, and Bar Hebraeus' story is apophrical (we don't have any other 9th c evidence for Kerait), though it almost certainly stems from the mass conversion of at least one clan or tribe. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 00:40
|
Genghis Khan's "Mongols" were Turkic speaking tribes, who are now
parts of modern Kazakh people. In modern understanding Mongols are
Khalkha-Mongols, who are not Turks, and this does not seem
appropriate. Linguistical differences between Turkic nomads and Mongolian peoples like Khalkha, Kalmucks, Buryats, are tremendous now, and were so 800 years ago. Joshi had huge linguistical and cultural diifficulties when he was conquering Hori-Tumats - ancestors of modern Buryats. On other side, Plano Carpini wrote that when he was in Karakorum, his interpretors were Comans - Kipchak Turks. http://www.uglychinese.org/mongolian.htm - http://www.uglychinese.org/mongolian.htm Keraits East of the Naimans, from the Orkhon in the west to the Onon and Kerulen rivers, was the new home of the Keraits. This is a group of people that had been disputed by Tao Zongyi to be Mongols, but Rashid ad-Din placed them in a subgroup with the Naimans, Uygurs, Kirghiz, Kipchaks and other Turkic peoples while acknowledging the resemblances between the Keraits and the Mongols (not Khalkha-Mongols! -A.). Still one more Chinese, Tu Ji, in his "History of the Mongols", assumed that the Keraits were Turkic and originated from Turkic Kangli and Ghuzz and their language was Turkic. It was also said that an important Kirghiz (Kazakh! - A.) tribe bears the name of Kirai, which is equivalent to Kerait. As to their Mongol characteristics, Paul Ratchnevscky assumed that some Khitans were left behind and got assimiliated into the Keraits. Paul Ratchnevsky emphasized the amicableness between the Keraits and West Khitans as exemplified by the fact that Kerait's khan, Toghrul, had once sought refuge in Western Liao. Paul Ratchnevsky mentioned that the Keraits accepted Nestorian faith and that the grandfather and father of Toghrul had Latin names like Marghus (Markus) and Qurjaquz (Kyriakus). The importance of Keraits would lie in the fact that Genghis Khan sought the protection under Toghrul and their alliance laid the foundation for the uprise of the Mongols. Toghrul enjoyed a title called Wang Khan conferred by the Jurchens and hence an alliance with Toghrul served the purpose of elelvating Genghis Khan's position among the nomads. After exterminating the Tartars in AD 1202, Genghis Khan broke with Toghrul's Keraits, and Genghis Kan killed Toghrul in AD 1203 and took over Kerait throne. End of quote. Genghis Khan did not kill Toghrul. Toghrul Khan was killed by a Naiman border guardman who did not believed that that exhausted and lonely man was once famous Khan of Kereits. Nestorian monks (Monks of Kublai Khan http://www.aina.org/books/mokk/mokk.htm ) were Ongut Turks, who are Kazakhs of Middle Horde today - Waq (or Uak), so they knew the subject very well. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 01:00
|
Rene Grousset "Empire of the Steppes" Rutgers University Press :
p.191 "The Kerayit people are usually considered as Turks. " The legend of Mongol origins leaves no room for them, and it is hard to say whether the Kerayit were Mongols who had been strongly influenced by the Turks , or Turks, who were becoming Mongolized. In any event, many Kerayit titles were Turkic, and Togrul is a Turkic rather than a Mongol name" Introduction: p.xxiv (13th line from bottom): "...the Kerayit or Naimans, presumably Turkic, in the twelfth (century)..." p.xxv (4 line from the top): "...Nevertheless, history tells us that in Mongolia itself the Jenghis-Khanites mongolized many apparently Turkic tribes: the Naimans of the Altai, the Kerayits of the Gobi, and the Onguts of Chahar. Before the unification under Jenghis Khan which brought all these tribes under the Blue Mongols, part of present day Mongolia was Turkic; indeed even now a Turkic people, the Yakut, occupy northeastern Siberia, north of the Tungus, in Lene, Indigirka, and Kolyma basins. The presense of this Turkic group so near Bering Strait, north of the Mongols and even of the Tungus on the Arctic Ocean, neccesitates caution in attempts to determine the relative position of the "first" Turks, Mongols, and Tungus..." |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 08:00
|
Akskl, You have missed the point. These tribes and clans were dissolved by Temiuljin. The people were then included amomgst the Mongolsa of the Blue Heaven. At this point we call them Mongols. To a large extent it is impossible to absolutely define each group as 'Mongol' or 'Turkish', though many scholars have spent long years trying to extract enough of each language to decide. The Naiman are a case in point... Scholars working from Rashid al-Din marked them down as "Turkish" (though the Persian text does not imply this in the way that an English translation does). Then they got hold of samples of the language and, because it included lots of Mongol derived words, classed them as "Mongols". Then, further analysis showed that most of the 'Mongol' words were due to them being subject to the Quara-Khitai, so they became "Turkish". The only non language clues we have are hairstyles (The Naiman preferred a variant on the shave and plait 'mongol/tunguistic' style, rather than the one long bundle right down the back 'turkish' style) and horse fittings (classic 'turkish'). --- decide for yourself. It doesn't help that the tribes etc dissolve and reform with different names every time the leadership changes. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 13:11
|
They were not "dissolved". They still exist now within modern Kazakhs. See www.elim.kz They were Turkic speakers in 10th-13th centuries and they are Turkic speakers today. They live in Eastern and Central Kazakhstan, in Northern half of Sinkiang province of China (Eastern Turkestan), and in western Mongolia today. Turkic language has not been changed very much since the times of Orkhon inscriptions and Codex Cumanicus. The "Turko-Mongols" of Genghis Khan are not related to the modern Mongols (Khalkha, Kalmucks, Buryats). I can provide tons of similar citations as above from many Western books. |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 16:23
The bulk of the people moved between different tribes and clans. A geniology of leading clans is interesting and will provide lots of useful historical data. But you have to understand populations change, languages vary, groups gain different names... The steppe people were never, uniformly, "Turkish". This doesn't draw away from the widespread and continuous stepe culture, or the large part in that cultue that various Turkish speaking people played. You should be proud of that heratige, but to many observers blanket statements such as "they were all Turks" make tham fear that you are too blinkered to learn and they won't enter into fruitful dialog. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 01:31
|
What "fruitful dialog" you are talking about when the 100% Turkic
speaking groups and tribes are being called "Mongols"? All Western and
other historians do know, and write in their books and papers, that all
the "Secret History" tribes were Turkic speaking, and
nevertheless they senselessly continue to call them "Mongols". Russian censorship and chauvinistic propaganda did not allow Kazakhs and other non-Russian peoples of the ex-USSR to get information about their own history and heritage, only negative facts were allowed to know about nomads and their history. Khalkha-Mongols did not have such censorship. Turkic language was widespread in all territory of the Great Steppe between Danube river and the Great Wall of China. Turkic nomads were in ceaseless motion and communication with each other, so their language was uniform over thousands and thousands miles with practically no even dialect differences. Settled peoples lived in their lands having almost no communication with each other - that's why they developed various dialects and different languages on their much smaller territories. Speculations about changing names of groups or tribes is total nonsense. Imagine that somebody would try to allege that, say, Vyatichs or Krivichs were, say, Germanic tribes in 8th century, but then they "disappeared", but later, some Slav tribes "took their names", but these Slav Vyatichs and Krivichs "have absolutley nothing in common" with that "Germanic" Vyatichs and Krivichs.  |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 05:48
I've tried to be patien, but this is arrant nonsence and fundamentally untrue. Because you keep repeating this it is very difficult for people to take any of your other points seriously.
The fact that this happened should teach you not to over react and end up as chauvinistic in the opposite direction. This is very easy to do. I know, I still see frequent anti English sentiments here in Scotland, though there hasn't been any censorship for a very long time.
This vastly over states the truth. There were significant differenced in Turkish languages and dialects. There were also significant numbers of steppe peoples who spoke non Turkish languages. You also have to remember that only a few of these languages left any written records. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 15:24
|
Genghis Khan' "Mongols" were all Turkic speaking tribes - now parts of modern Kazakhs. Please read the following paper written by author of one of the latest translations of the Secret History (I fell guilty that I did not ask his permission for posting his paper on Internet): http://www.kyrgyz.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=263 |
Posted By: kuralas
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 12:47
|
I am from Chingis kaghan's clan - Khiyat-kuralas (in Duhlat). We lived with subclan of Chingis kaghan up to Bartan bahadur. After Bartan bahadur our subclans are separated. About it speak our clan legends. Which are described in Secret histories of Mongols. I have relatives, familiar and friends - Chingishanits, niruns, darlekins, jalairs, kerei, naimans, alshin (tatar-alchi), merkits. All of them Kazakhs (turkish). 85 % of Kazakhs were former Mongols of XIII c. Not as Mongols are considered kangly, kipshaks and Semites (koja&sunak). Therefore think as 15 % not mongols turkifired 85 % of Mongols.
Niruns is a nucleus of the true Mongols. Darlekins are true Mongols. If niruns and darlekins also Turkish, means Mongols of Chingis kaghan's were Turkish. Word "Mongol" on Kazakh means "Mangi El" - "ETERNAL COUNTRY". Today's Mongols consists of such tribes: Halha, Durved, Bayad, Hoton, Myangat, Zahchin, Torguud, Hotogoid, Darhad, Eeld, Barga, Dariganga, Tsahar, Harchin, Buriad, Sunit. No niruns, no darlekins. They are pseudomongols. They (Halha) are steal our history. |
Posted By: yan.
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2005 at 14:40
|
What language did the Mongol empire(s) write their correspondence in? Who founded the Yuan dynasty? Where did figures like Batmunh Dayan Khan or Altan Khan get their legitimation from? |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2005 at 19:18
|
Plano de Carpini brought a letter from Karakorum to the Pope of the Rome which begins with salutations in Turkic. The rest of the letter is in Persian ("Saracene") - this language could be understood in Rome. The Yuan dynasty has been founded by Kublai Khan - grandson of Genghis Khan. Marco Polo wrote that his father and uncle spoke to him in "Tartar" language. Venecians had trade ports in Crimea and in the Don river mouth for centuries, and they did know perfectly what the "Tartar" language's meaning is - the Turkic one, and only the Turkic one. There were no Khalkha Mongols on the Black sea coast. Interpretors between Russian envoys and one of the Altan Khans in 1600's were Kyrgyzes - Turkic speaking guys. I have read the Russian documents about that. Genghis Khanites ruled Khalkha Mongols as same as many other peoples, but this does not mean that they were the Khalkha Mongols themselves.
|
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2005 at 09:26
Go and read this again, in it Rachewiltz specifically differenciates Turks from Mongols, particuary by their different languages. It does not say that " Genghis Khan' "Mongols" were all Turkic speaking trubes"(sic). ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2005 at 09:38
The letter was writen by a Uighur scribe in "the languages of the Western regions" -
Correct. "the Tartar language" was the common tongue of the Golden Horde, by this time they had already switched to the Quipckaq tounge.
This is 300+ years later ?
? why would ruling people make you become them ? ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: yan.
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2005 at 13:41
According to Carpini, they wrote the letter once in latin and once in 'tartar' (which, if you take the title of his report into account, is just the same as Mongol for Carpini). Additionally, they provided a 'Saracen' (probably Persian) translation. Did the letters survive until present? And second, Am I wrong in assuming that this was not the only letter the Great Khans ever had written for them?
While we're at it: Do you know who kept the Yuan seals after the fall of the Yuan dynasty?
|
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2005 at 19:23
|
Plano de Carpini brought the letter to Pope of the Rome from Guyuk Khan, which was found by Polish monk Cyril Karalewski in 1920 in Vatican archives, photographed and sent to Masse (he was an Iranist), (sorry, I am not sure about the names spelling after their Russian spelling). Later it was translated one more time by Pelliot and published along with its Persian original (The "Saracen" language is Persian one). First lines of the letter are written in Turkic language: By the Power of the Eternal Blue Sky We are Dalai Khan of the All Great People: Our Command. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Karpini/frame9.htm - http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Karpini/frame9.htm Comment 217 217 - (1 12 ), (20 ) , . (. . 151). . , - -. 1920 . , , : , , . , , . (translation of the letter): " () - ; ( -). (these lines are written in Turkic language) , , . ... Karal, , . , , , , . , , , , , . . , . , c , . . , () .
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2005 at 07:04
|
Guyuk Khan's seal on the letter sent to Pope was clearly on mongolian. Even the beginning phrase "By the Power of the Eternal Blue Sky We are Dalai Khan of the All Great People: Our Command" was on mongolian. Akskl: I don't believe you! About Altan Khan: There were two Altan Khans. Altan Khan who besieged Beijing in 1550 was a grandson of Batmunkh Khan. His given name was Ananda. The second one was a Khalkha prince and his given name was Sholoi- Ubashi. He was also a descendant of Batmunkh Khan. He got this title "Altan" from russians.
|
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2005 at 19:47
|
Open the link I provided and take a look yourself with your own eyes if
you "don't believe" me. Comment 217 says that first lines of the
letter are written in Turkic language. Askk somebody who can read
Russian if you can't read Russian. Read my previous posts with citations from various Western books also. If you "don't believe " them too - then go to library and check them yourself. I could present many more similar citations, but I don't have time at the moment for this. Maybe later - I have all such places in many books I 've read already marked with adhesive bookmarks. |
Posted By: kuralas
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 05:59
|
Detective: We don't believe you!
Mongols used uygur scripts. Uygurs were Turkic. Chingis Han don't know other languages, except own language. Niruns and darlekins were Turkic. Chingis Han was nirun. If he was nirun, then he (Chingis Han) was Turkic. Its really easy!! |
Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 06:30
|
Yan- What is your reasoning for stating that the Yuan dynasty did not extend to the Black Sea? All khanates initially recognized the Great Khan as their overlord, and the Great Khan was Emperor of the Yuan dynasty. It would follow that the Yuan dynasty could claim overlordship of all khanates. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 13:34
|
that was only a theoretical overlordship, in fact the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate were pretty much anti-Yuan dynasty, while only the ll-Khanate acknowledged the overlordship of the Yuan emperors. ------------- |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 21:45
Actually Mongol was written in an adapted form of the uighur script, expressly developed at Temuljins orders. Surviving texts are mongol not Turkic. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 21:58
Akskl is correct here, the letter is in Persian and Turkic (Quipchaq). There was also a Latin version attached. It was deliberately prepared that way as Mongolian wasn't well known in the East. There are several other letters to various western rulers, most are in Latin and Persian but with proper Mongolian seals to show that they were written at the command of the Khans. Surviving documents from the Mongol states are in Mongol and associated local languages (Khitan and Chinese in China; Persian and Arabic in Persia and Iraq; Quipchaq Turkic in Ukraine; Khitan, Chinese and Uighur Turkic in Central Asia). nb. The first Steppe Empire to leave significant writen rcords was the Quara Khitai. The records are in Khitan , a Mongol language. The Uighur didn't leave many records fromtheir time of power but did develope a script for their own Turkic language before the Quara Khitai. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: yan.
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2005 at 06:59
|
As I understand it, there'd be some room for speculation if the Mongols, like the Huns, had left no written traces. But they apparently have, not only their few letters (what about the one by Arghun to the King of France btw?) and the Secret History, but much more rather profane stuff like receipts, bills, coins etc. I suppose one would have to take a deeper look into them (which I'm unable to do at the moment) to get some hints on what languages were prevalent back then, and in which areas. Just pointing to some traditional names doesn't sound very convincing, though. By that logic, all the 'Kings' and 'Bishops' in the US would have real kings and bishops in their ancestry! Actually, I wonder whether one day some Iranians will claim that Chinggis was Persian, based on the fact that so many primary sources were in Persian language.
(Just asking) Shouldn't that be '..in the West.'?
Yes, I read that the 'tartar' version apparently remained in Harhorin. But even if I risk looking stupid: Isn't 'Dalai' a very mongolian word? |
Posted By: kuralas
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2005 at 13:33
|
If to compare tribal structure of Mongols of Chingis Khan's period, they were Turkish.
Niruns and darlekins were Turkish (I'm also). Chingis Han was nirun. If he was nirun, then he (Chingis Han) was Turkish
|
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2005 at 23:42
| Kereits (Kereis) were Turkic speaking tribe (see, please, Paul Ratchnevsky "Genghis Khan", Rene Grousset "Empire of the Steppes", J.J.Saunders, Leo de Hartog, R.P.Lister, and many many others). Kereis now are part of modern Kazaks (see www.elim.kz) - i.e. now they are Turks as well. Khan of Kereits, Toghrul (which means gerfalcon in Turkic), was suzerain and kind of father for young Temirshin (or Temujin) - future Genghis Khan. What language did they speak? I can't imagine that a medieval times vassal could speak to his suzerain using other but the suzerain's language. |
Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2005 at 07:22
In that case one can only conclude that Mongol Empire has been greatly overrated. What kind of empire was it that existed only in theory, with its various subdivisions in conflict? It was really just a series of conquests which held together as a true empire for only a very short time. Highly overrated, in my opinion. |
Posted By: yan.
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2005 at 15:01
|
Come on guys, Rene Grousset says that the Mongols of the 12th century were mongolian-speaking. If you treat his work as a bible, you should at least take it at full value, not just pick what you like and ignore what you don't like. Same goes for tribal names. Once you put the connections between 12th century Mongols and today's Mongols into doubt (which has some point, just look at other peoples like Makedonians or Egyptians), you shouldn't take the connection between 12th century Keraits and today's Kerait or whatever for granted. That's just illogical. And Dalai is a mongolian word. And I checked it's there in the russian version, otherwise I wouldn't have cared to ask at all. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2005 at 18:48
|
Rene Grousset and other historians write about some weird "Turko-Mongols" (Kereits, Naimans, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Onguts, Merkits, Tatars, Uighurs etc.) who were ALL Turkic speaking guys, and also Rene Grousset and other historians assume (!!) that Turkic and Mongolian languages are very close. The Khalkha-Mongolian language is not close to Turkic languges at all. It seems obvious (when reading Secret History) that Genghis khan and his "Mongols" have absolutely no language and communication problems when they meet tet-a-tet somebody from any other "Turko-Mongols" (who were and are 100% Turkic speakers). All this means that Genghis Khan's "Mongols" are not related to the modern Khalkha-Mongols. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 02:52
|
Nice point, AkSakal; thanks. Have you noticed this too? I've been lately trying to find out why the Mongolian spoken today in Mongolia seems to vary significantly with what you see in Secret History. Now, WE've got differences between Old Turkic and today's Turkic languages. But it's not that big to say old Turkic is not understandable for Turkic speaking speakers nowadays. The point is that most of Mongols I've met are not able to understand much of Secret History. We'll see about it soon. Take care buddy. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 02:59
|
By the way, remember that the people governed by Chengiz Khan just 'picked up' their name in that 'qurultay' we all know about. So, this does not necessarily mean that we should expect an isolated (or what... distinct) group of people among Steppe men. It's just a name. We all know that they were a mixture of Turks & Mongols. I mean I agree with Aksakal; saying that Genghis Khan's "Mongols" are not related to the modern Khalkha-Mongols. That's about it for the time being. Take care... ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 10:00
|
I must admit I am beginning to see all this endlessly repeated "Mongols spoke Turkic" claims as an utter waste of time. Temuljin was Mongol, he spoke Mongol, he got Uighir scribes to adapt their script to write down Mongol texts. We have written texts in Mongol that describe this. Any claim that Temuljin was Turkic is wild fantasy. As for the "medieval vassal" theory ??? The Quara Khitai were Khitan Mongols, their Empire used Khitan as it's ruling tounge, many Mongol words are found in the Turkic languages of it's main subjects the Naimen, QuaraKhanids and Uighur. Does that make them 'mongol' - of course not. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: yan.
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 13:18
|
The Secret History doesn't mention any communication problems, whether it be with Jurchid, Tanggut, or whomever. Now, people from mixed-ethnic parts of the world often are able to master the basics of more than one language, so no big problem here. Or they just ignored the role of interpreters. I'm a bit with tadamson here. If conclusions like "The Borjigin were Mongolians (a friend of me is also). Chingis Han was Borjigin. If he was Borjigin, then he (Chingis Han) was Mongolian" or "Mongols were Mongolian speaking tribe (see, please, Rene Grousset "Empire of the Steppes" and many many others). Mongols is also the name of a group of modern people - i.e. Mongolian as well. Yesugei was father for young Temujin - future Genghis Khan. What language did they speak? I can't imagine that a medieval times a son could speak to his father using other but the father's language." were considered to be a proof of anything, there'd be no reason to even start a discussion in the first place. I'm somewhat uncertain that Rene Grousset really makes it so clear that the Kerait speak Turkish btw - shall I look up the actual quote over the weekend? Anyway, what's the reason for those handed-down mongolian-language artifacts, like the seals tadamson mentioned, or the Secret history itself, again? |
Posted By: Dragon
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 13:50
|
Decent book on this subject, at least about the empires aspect is Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford. It basically is an autobiography of Genghis Khan, but continues on after his death detailing the empires of his descendants. Does a good job of outlining the Mongol impact on other civilzations such as Kievian Rus and China. Good for a bit of light reading . . . ------------- History is the study of the past that we may understand the present. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 14:10
|
well no, the Mongol Empire only fragmented after the death of Mngke Khan, when Kubilai usurped power and established the Yuan dynasty. ------------- |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 10:28
|
Dear Tadamson and Yan, Hi there. Best wishes and respect. Well, you're right buddy. We, too, agree with you. But, Aksakal and I are trying to discuss another issue, that is: There WAS/IS a group of people among Steppe people, differed from Turks, called 'Mongols'. But the people, we now call Mongols are not exactly the ones mentioned throught the history. And who said Mongols spoke Turkic? It's just a misconception I guess. We're just trying to say that the structure of Mongols almost a thousand years ago was quite different. They seemed more close to Turks; or should I say Turks seemed more close to them. And, not all Turks/ Mongols were able to speak Mongolian/Turkic. We've all heard about 'tillmach'=translators among Steppe men. All I want to say is that Chengiz Khan's men were not exclusively Mongolian. And whatever the percentage was, they had more common with Turks; compared to today (now this might be because of closer social interactions). Today, Mongolian really completely differs from Turkic. Studying Secret History or some other Mongolian scripts that dates back to 500 years ago, some parts are really understandable for me as a Turkic buddy. What's more interesting, sometimes, I don't understand the meaning at all; but just sounds familiar in my own tongue. That's about it for the time being. You are right mate. It was just a misconception. Take care and take it easy.
Kind regards, Iltirish ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 06:51
|
SaikhaNBayar wrote: I believe it should be read in the context of Mulims rather than Arabs. Though Hulegu did march into Syria, I am not sure whether he had any plans for the Muslim's holy cities of Mecca. It is generally believed that Mecca and Medina were probably saved when Mongols were defeated at Ayn Jalut and then Damascus and Allepo returned to Muslim rule. By then the Mongols were more focussed on other issues in the other parts of it's empire.
SaikhaNBayar wrote: I believe the Ilkhanate was largely in Persia and not Arabia. Do let me know if my perceptions are incorrect. |
Posted By: chonos
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 01:58
|
what an utter nonsense discussion, of course there had been cultural interactions between the two peoples due to the fact that turks found their first empire in orkhon valley some 500 years before chingis khaan was born, all the steppe people take cultural aspects of one another, there are many turk words in mongolian language, it's just a steppe tradition that is passed on no matter who adopted them, it doesn't necessarily mean that mongols in 13th century were turks and spoke turkish. Remember the turks left mongolia long time ago, then came uighurs, after which kidans "liao dynasty", then mongols. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 11:48
|
You see lots of Turkic (and not Turkish) tribes when you go over those people united under the name 'Mongol' anyhow. It's not only due to tradition buddy... it's a fact that majority of old Mongolian horde were Turkic. Oh, and Uyghurs are also Turk. Take care mate... ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 22:34
| I am going to scan and present here the Introduction of the Paul Ratchnevsky's book soon. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 03:07
|
Among Mongols of Iran, I've got a lot of friends. In fact, I've been among them for almost two years. What I've noticed is that ALL of them believe their ancestors spoke TURKIC and not Mongolian. Even the ones who have left Afghan Mongols to the destination of Central Khorasan (Fariman, Torbat and ...) to join their Iranian brothers agree with them. I asked them this might be because of the formal language of Iran Ilkhanids which was Turkic. But they just said: 'all our grandparents have been Turkic'. And, some old Turkic words still are alive in their language (also its Farsi; but they use a few words). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any Mongolian word in their Farsi.
------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |