Mongols

And about Modern Mongolian and their similarity to Tunguses:

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

2- The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia

Originally posted by Savdogar . WE ARE NOT NACIONALIST. WE dONT CARE WHAT BLOOD WE HAVE. WE ARE MIXED.

Forgotten, tone it down and stop insulting others.

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.

AKSKL is weird. How would you guys describe Mr Akskl

Let them say what ever they think. 

Edited by Zorigo - 06-Sep-2006 at 11:46

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?

Edited by Zorigo - 06-Sep-2006 at 20:07

Originally posted by gok_toruk  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?

Edited by barbar - 07-Sep-2006 at 03:05

SeCondLy, We DONT THAnK to RusSians.