Are the Tatars Turk or Mongol?

Originally posted by Leonidas Turkish = people assoc with turkey Turkic is is much more accurate as it is linguistic/cultural based description of the broader group including (but not limited to) turkey. Its a small but important detail one should be mindful of.

No, dividing these two terms, is nothing else than a imaginary variaton made on purpose. All T�rks are the same and they are called T�rks, either they live in T�rkiye, Central, Middle, East, West, North Asia, Balkans or East Europe.
Making such variatons based on English language is ridiculous. Look at how all those T�rks everywhere think about who they are, then youll understand.
For example, you can call someone in Kazakistan a Kazak, or someone in Azerbaycan a Azeri, but its not right to say they are T�rkic, T�rkish or another variaton used, they are all T�rks.

uzbeks-tatars-karakalpaks-azeries-kazaks-tuvas-sakas(yakutistan)-kırım turks(avars and tatars)-gagavuz(gokoguz)-oguz turks(turkies turks)-ahıska-nokaies-some of bulgars and onoguz(macars)[macar and bulgars had mixed with slavs and other people] but tatars turk-mongol are in fenotype but in turkish genotype...

Turkish = people assoc with turkey

Turkic is is much more accurate as it is linguistic/cultural based description of the broader group including (but not limited to) turkey.

Its a small but important detail one should be mindful of.

No they are not Turksih. Turkey or Turkish exists post 1926.

They are not Ottoman either they were a Tripartite alliance of Arab, Persian and Turkomen.

Tartars are one of many tribes that contributed to the formation of the Turkish speaking people along with Mongolians. They were re-turked post 1000AD during the Mongolian invasion which re-spread and scattered the Turks in places they normally didnt exist. The reason being they were traditionally hired as Mercenaries na dserved in some of the most disrespected armies of history Hun, Mongols and so forth.

I have a research from Prof.Dr.R.T�rkkan about Tatar Turks.I wil write it later to finish this topic.

Edited by Urungu Han - 12-Aug-2006 at 07:32

I have met Volga Tatars and Crimean Tatars, and I could totally understand them when they spoke. 

No, I think you're getting the usage confused. The original "Tatars" north of China cannot be used to apply to modern Tatars.

The original Tatars were unlikely to have been Turkic. They lived in a region populated with Mongolic and Tungusic peoples, and had many similarities to Chingiz Khan's tribe.

Kazan or Qazan is recognized by the Russian Federation as the administrative capital of the Republic of Tatarstan, the current president is Mintimer Shaeymiev and the current prime minister is Rustam Minnikhanov.

The Tatars of the Crimea (in the Ukraine) and of Tatarstan (in the Russian Federation) are definitely not Mongols. They are are Turkic people of Caucasian stock who adopted the name, customs, culture, and language of their conqerors.

Originally posted by xi_tujue there still is its a aunotmomus region in siberia but thats not the same as krim tatars