Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Mongols

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Mongols
    Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:37
And about Modern Mongolian and their similarity to Tunguses:

1- Asia, East by South, 2nd ed.

2- The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:43
I said, as I myself believe. I didn't force my idea. I just told you about the way I believe. That's why I didn't quote about Khalkha Mongols and their relationship with Tungusic people.
 
By the way, I was just kidding about being polite or not. Repeating the same sentence was just kind of a joke. Hope I didn't offend you.
 
Well, friends, let's keep this conversation in a more peaceful environment. Take good care and take it easy.
 
Kind regards,
Iltirish Yemreli


Edited by gok_toruk - 04-Sep-2006 at 03:42
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
Forgotten View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 63
  Quote Forgotten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 22:57
Originally posted by Savdogar

. WE ARE NOT NACIONALIST. WE dONT CARE WHAT BLOOD WE HAVE. WE ARE MIXED.

 
 talk about your self , you dont represeant the real uzbeks , remember that your grandfather is arab , thanks to the russians who made you an uzbek.
 
Back to Top
Forgotten View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 63
  Quote Forgotten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 23:02
 
 russians , chinese and iranians were in fight with the turkic and mongol tribes from the ancient times so for sure that most of the historical books that we have now and written by these nations contains alot of falses and not true things about turks and mongols , why everyone is angry if the kazakh scholars today realised this fact and started to search and write thier own history !
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 23:30
Forgotten, tone it down and stop insulting others.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 09:02
Originally posted by Forgotten




russians , chinese and iranians were in fight with the turkic and mongol tribes from the ancient times so for sure that most of the historical books that we have now and written by these nations contains alot of falses and not true things about turks and mongols , why everyone is angry if the kazakh scholars today realised this fact and started to search and write thier own history !


Surely, they should write their own history, but they can't change or distort historical facts. Claiming "Chengiskhan was Qazaq, Qazaqs are pure Turks" etc are ridiculous. After these, who will believe in their other claims even if they are true?

    
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Akskl View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
  Quote Akskl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 15:46
Modern Khalkha-Mongols have no relation to Genghis-Khan's "Mongols"  -  Kereits, Naimans, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Onguts, etc., who all spoke Turkic language (including Genghis Khan himself), and now are parts of modern Kazakhs. Khalha-Mongols  renamed ALL geographical names mentioned in the Secret Histrory includng Genghis Khan's sacred  Burkhan Khaldun mountain! Today it is Tzagaan-Uul.  They used stones of Genghis-Khanites capital Qara Qorum to build their Buddhist monastery. Only a single thing survived in Qara Qorum - stone turtle. Just these two facts are enough to any reasonable person as a proof that modern Khalkha-Mongols are not descendants of Genghis Khan's "Mongols".

Genghis Khan himself was a Turkic speaking guy. He was vassal of the Toghryl - Khan of Kereits. What language did they speak with each other? Of course using language of sovereign - not of vassal - i.e. Turkic one.   
Most probably that Genghis Khan "Mongols" were the same "Mongols", like say, Alban tribe of modern Kazakhs are  Albanians, and  Cherkesh tribe are  Circassians.        Genghis Khans' mother and first wife were Qongyrats (see www.elim.kz).

Just because Turkic nomads united into new POLITICAL union - changed their name to Kazakhs - does not mean previous unions, or tribes with previous names stopped to exist.   For example,  Greeks used to call themselves as Ellins,  Spartans,  Athenians, etc.  and later Byzantines, and now Greeks, but  nobody says that  thay are separate and totally not related peoples.  Of course, many parallels between nomadic and settled peoples  very often don't work.

19th century Russian historian Ivan Berezin, British scientist Colonel Yule, famous Soviet historian L.L.Viktorova, French Academician Rene Grousset, Australian professor de Rachewiltz, German professor Paul Ratchnevsky, Chinese professor Tu Ji (or Tu Chi), Dutch historian Leo de Hartog, US historians R.P.Lister, J.J.Saunders,  and many others think that Naimans, Kereits, Merkits, Onguts, Qongyrats, etc. were TURKIC speaking steppe peoples.  

Today they are parts of modern Kazakhs, and they still speak the same Turkic language .

I did read many of publications of the above-mentioned authors. They wrote about so-called "Turko-Mongols" (sounds like "Arabo-Negroes" when speaking about Sudanese or Mauritanian Arabs) - i.e. Turkic speaking peoples or tribes. Even when the authors write "Mongols" that does not mean that the "Mongols" are somehow related to the modern Khalkha-Mongols. They are more related to Great Moghuls and to Moghulistan - Turkic speaking nomads. 

Why the continuation "doesn't exist"? They still  live practically at the same territories, keep speaking the same language, having the same traditional culture  and food - horse meat, kurt - dried cheese, drinks - kumyss, traditional religion - Tengri, Umai, and even having the same tribal names!

It is well-known fact that settled peoples could not be compared to the nomads in ancient and medieval times (before intruducing of firearms and artillery) as warriors. Any army must be a nomad, that is why the nomadic Turks were many times  better soldiers than settled peasants who were absolutely not prepared to the harsh conditions of life and war in open fields. And that is why alsmost all medieval rulers preffered to hire nomads to be their mercenaries. It was much cheaper than to create and support their own big army. Usually they could afford only a small personal guards not more that several hundred or thousand men. 
Turkic nomads were excellent riders and archers since childhood. Otherwise they wouldn't survive in Steppe.  

Naimans, Kereits (Kereis), Jalairs, Qongirrats, etc - all these well-known from the "Secret History" names of the nomad tribes are parts of the modern Kazakh Turkic speaking people. They were Turkic speaking tribes long BEFORE the 12th-13th centuries and they are Turkic speaking NOW. Marco Polo spoke to Kublai Khan in "Tartar" i.e. Turkic language. Plano de Carpini's interpreters were Turkic speaking Kumans (Kipchaks, Polovtsy) - part of the modern Kazakh people as well. Wang Khan Toghryl - Khan of Keraits (Turkic speaking people baprized in 1006 by Nestorians) was Genghis Khan's named father. What language they used? Of course Turkic!Genghis Khan did not know any other language but his own - Turkic language. Nomad peoples of the Steppe had practically the SAME language almost everywhere because they were NOMADS.
There are thousands and thousands of direct Genghis Khan's descendants in Kazakhstan. Genghis Khanites always were rulers in Kazakh Steppe till the abolition of Khan power at the beginnig of 19th century by the Russian colonial power.

For anybody who read the "Secret History" it is absolutely obvious that all the characters speak the same language. Genghis Khan, his relatives,a and so called "Mongols" - from one side, and Kereits (Keraits, Kereis), Qongirats (Ongirrats, Ungirrats, etc.), Naimans, Tatars, Uighurs, Onguts - Turkic peoples - from the other side. There are plenty of dialogs, tet-a-tet conversations, messages, etc. How all this can be explained?

Genghis Khan and his so-called "Mongols" are many times closer to modern Kazakhs than to modern Khalkha-Mongols (who monopolized all his heritage). This is a historical, ethnographical and linguistical  fact.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 15:54
Great stuff AkSakal. I agree with you on what you've provided us with.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 19:25
AKSKL is weird. How would you guys describe Mr Akskl
Back to Top
Forgotten View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 63
  Quote Forgotten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 20:08
Originally posted by Zorigo

AKSKL is weird. How would you guys describe Mr Akskl
 
 Its Weird When We Hear From Chinese & Russians Historians And Newdays Nationalists That Temujin Is Chinese And Attila Is Russian , This Is Weird.


Edited by Forgotten - 05-Sep-2006 at 20:10
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 20:36
Let them say what ever they think. 
 
Mr Akskl is clearly old Soviet educated, wanna be Kazakh Nationalist. Actually my fellow kazakh friends don't care about that.
 During the Soviet time, Soviet Historians seriously distorted history of Mongols. They completely downplayed Altan Ord's role in forming of Russia Muskovite State. By doing so they distorted Chinggis Khaans history. For that reason they had to neglect Mongol identity. To destroy Mongol identity they reinforced all those turko- tataar sources. Even they have created Buryatia or Kalmykia as separate nation, not Mongol almost. These people were almost disconnected from their Mongol root except few intellectuals.
 
Here is interesting research from japanese scholar on how Mongolian Language -Buryat and Kalmyk- is separated from each other during soviet times.
 
After few decades, a Buryat or Kalmyk ( until 1930-ies these people used to identify themselves as Buryad Mongol, Kalmuk Mongol, after late 1930-ies word Mongol was completely forbidden to use) might say they were completely different nation. -Chinggis khaan is not Khalkha, just like Mr Akskl.
Ironically Chinese does opposite. Chinese are doing their best teaching their school children that Chinggis was Chinese Hero and Mongols are long lost brothers waiting to join big China family.
 
Now these so-called Turkics like Akskl or Goktoruk are trying to undermine the Mongol nations' identity online by telling modern Khalkha Mongols are not real Mongols actually and so on.... Ignorant blokes could buy your ideas.
 
What Mr Akskl is trying to prove is actually not helping Kazakh Identity and History.
Why don't you leave Mongol history alone. Mongols never try to overwrite history at all. We don't have time for it 


Edited by Zorigo - 06-Sep-2006 at 11:46
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 07:29

Well, AkSakal has not offended any of the forumers. So, please be more tolerant. Let's, instead, find answers to the questions AkSakal has raised.



Edited by gok_toruk - 06-Sep-2006 at 07:31
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 15:01
I am surprised to discover that Central Asian turkic-speaking people (e.g., Kyrgyz, Kazakhs and others) seem to be very interested in Mongols history, Chinggis haan, Origin of Mongols and Mongolians. Of course, this is my own personal observation, and I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask forum participants the question
-: Why this is the case all over suddenly since their new independance? You guys never mentioned your interest in History of Mongols before, when Mongolia was trying celebrate 800 years birth of Chinggis Khaan in 1960-ies. Many peope were persecuted for celebrating.

In Mongolia itself, there is not much interest in or discussion about Central Asian turkic-speaking people. I think the only turkic speaking people who gets coverage in the Mongolian media are Mongolian Kazakhs who live in Bayan-Ulgii and those Kazakhs who moved to Kazakhstan. I think that few Mongolians would name the new capital cities such as Astana and Bishkek.
Present time, Mongolians are obssessed with the Chinese and Koreans (South), and much of the discussions with Chinese are very negative.
There are alots of coverage now days about Mongol-speaking people in China (Inner Mongolians, and other Mongol minorities), Russia (Buryats, Kalmyks, and Tuvinians), and other countries (e.g., USA).

So why Central Asians seem to be interested in History of Mongols and its people of Mongolia, while Mongolians seem to be indifferent to Central Asians?
It seems like -while poor Mongolians trying to salvage its history from Chinese Chauvinsts, supposedly brother-nomad like Akskl trying to stub Mongolia from behind.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 15:12
We're not INTERESTED in Mongol's history. We're talking about Chengiz Khan himself. And because the majority of Mongol horde was Turkic, that's why you see Central Asian Turks here.
 
Anyhow you didn't answer AkSakal questions. By the way, I've got a question too. You know Hazaras are said to be descendants of old Mongols. But virtually all of them claim that their ancestors spoke Turkic. How can you justify this?
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 15:43
Originally posted by gok_toruk

We're not INTERESTED in Mongol's history. We're talking about Chengiz Khan himself. And because the majority of Mongol horde was Turkic, that's why you see Central Asian Turks here.
 
Anyhow you didn't answer AkSakal questions. By the way, I've got a question too. You know Hazaras are said to be descendants of old Mongols. But virtually all of them claim that their ancestors spoke Turkic. How can you justify this?
aKSAKAL DID NOT ask any questions. He stated what he believe which many people would not agree.
 
About hazaras, better to post in hazara people -post. Mongolian don't really know much about hazaras . Just brief news during Afgan wars something like hazaras are mongol descendants of Chinggis Khaan.
Respond would be  :- Really, then why they don't speak Mongolian. If not ,they lost they Mongolness. Now They are different people like Kazakh Uzbek, Kyrgyz and Tatars.
Mongolians pay more attention to Kalmuk, Buryat, Inner Mongolians and other Mongol speaking people. We pay more interest in their cultural revival.
 
Inner Mongolians are repressed and on the way to be completely sinocized. Buryat and Kalmyks consider themselves almost different group non-mongol. Their politicians and Russian masters are encouraging the idea of Khalkha is not exactly Mongol of Chinggis, widening the gap between brothers.... Then where is Mongol?
 
...Chinggis is Turko.... Khalkha Mongol is Tungusic-Chinese something like that ...Hazaras are Persians... Kalmuks and Buryats are something new , fallen from Moon.... and so on......blah blah.... At the end of the time You'll be chinese all....
 
 


Edited by Zorigo - 06-Sep-2006 at 20:07
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 01:10
Smile Oh, Zorigo, I didn't want to offend you. If I did sorry. But Aksakal really had lots of quetion, especially on Secret History's names. And Hazaras as they claim themselve and as the history says, are direct descendants of old Mongols. But, they're not like modern day Khalkha Mongols. They're exactly like Central Asians. And they believe their ancestors spoke Turkic; and not Mongolian. And see, if Mongols were the conquerors, why should they loose their language and pick up a new one which they conquered?
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 03:04
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Smile Oh, Zorigo, I didn't want to offend you. If I did sorry. But Aksakal really had lots of quetion, especially on Secret History's names. And Hazaras as they claim themselve and as the history says, are direct descendants of old Mongols. But, they're not like modern day Khalkha Mongols. They're exactly like Central Asians. And they believe their ancestors spoke Turkic; and not Mongolian. And see, if Mongols were the conquerors, why should they loose their language and pick up a new one which they conquered?
 
Why don't you respond blitz's posts? He/she refuted you guys' stupid claims with solid proofs.  Old Mongolian might be quite different from Halkha Mongolian, but you should make clear which period is this Old Mongolian is refering to? You really need some books on logic.
 
BTW, Akskl's comment aren't worthy of replying. He comes here once in a while, repeat his nonsense then leave. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by barbar - 07-Sep-2006 at 03:05
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Savdogar View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jul-2006
Location: Uzbekistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 58
  Quote Savdogar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 03:32
aksakal, your government is treating you that you are great Turks, but why you look MONGOLIAN. Look at uzbeks (you like to call us as SART) we are also turkic nation we also have mongol blood, but turkic is dominant and that is why we dont look like Mongols.
 
yes, i accept, 80% of uzbeks are not real uzbeks actually. But WE HAVE STOLEN this name, OK? we did not have nationality and took Uzbek as our nationality. And please DONT MAKE US CLOSER TO KAZAKHS.
if you are real Kazakh, you must know uzbek-kazakh relations, attitudes.
...i dont need this...
Back to Top
Savdogar View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jul-2006
Location: Uzbekistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 58
  Quote Savdogar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 03:37
SeCondLy, We DONT THAnK to RusSians.
they have divided our lands into many pieces by creating artificials republics like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kigizia and Tajikistan.
No doubt, Uzbekistan is predecessor of Khiva, Bukhara, Kokand khanates and all empires ever existed in Central Asia.
 
WE WILL RETURN OUR LANDS.AND NEW EMPIRE, MAVERAUNNAHR will arise.
...i dont need this...
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 03:43
Even the Mughals claimed to be mongols, although they were turk & used persian language in the court.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.