Are the Tatars Turk or Mongol?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13852
Printed Date: 04-Jun-2024 at 01:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Are the Tatars Turk or Mongol?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Are the Tatars Turk or Mongol?
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 10:03
| please answer the this question i learn turk but somebody says they are not turk they are mongol |
Replies:
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 10:34
|
they are turk definitly mabey mixed with mongol. Because tatars were fierce fighters they were in the mongol so they became "popular" and later all the nomads including mongols were called tatar like the lands from the black sea untill machuria was called tatary it think ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 11:16
|
"Tater" has different meanings. The original Tatas were either Mongolic or Tungusic. When this group was conquered by Chingiz Khan, the name became used for by Europeans for all the nomads under the Empire, including Chingiz's Mongols and the Turkic groups within the empire. So basically, the old name "Tatars" became a popular general term for nomads. Long after the collapse of the Mongol Empire, the name became primarily used for Turkic tribes in the western regions of the former Mongol Empire. |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 11:24
|
the Tatars were originally Mongol tribe which became virtually extinct in civil war back in 13th century in Mongolia. Then Mongols came to Europe, everyone called them Tatars. Today Tatars in Russia are Turkic by language and mixture of Volga Bulgarians, Kipchaks and other tribes. ------------- |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 11:26
|
Wasn't there a Tatarstan, way back, like a 1000 years ago? The word Tatar did eventualy become a generic thing for people who were nomads, and not specificly ethnicity. I guess the question needs to narrow it down between the original Tatars (who were Mongilian), and the later day Tatars (a mixed bunch, but mainly Turkic). -------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 12:42
there still is its a aunotmomus region in siberia but thats not the same as krim tatars  ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 12:50
|
the name Tatar nowadays can be compared to the term Latino or Latinamerican, it means people of various tribes (Crimean Tatars, Nogai, Volga Tatars etc) that all have shared Turko-Mongol background. ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 12:53
|
volga tatars are th ones livin,g in tatarstan right? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 13:14
|
yeah. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 16:32
|
turkey claim to muslim tatars crimean tatars run away to country than came turkey.because they think same nation crimean tatars language same turkeys language.they was settle down eskişehir and near.this action continued 1 century.
http://www.qurultay.org/eng/default.asp - http://www.qurultay.org/eng/default.asp
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 17:24
Tatarstan is not in Siberia. Not all Russia is Siberia  ------------- . |
Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 20:15
|
I cannot recall where did I read this before. However, I remember the term Tatar is the inhabitant of Western steppes who were Bulgar Turks and were mixed with invading Mongols to form the Tartar notion. Is this true? Not 100% sure. ------------- D.J. Kaufman Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 20:31
| 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. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 21:52
|
Tataristans captial was/is Kazan. I'm not sure if this is in anyway recognised by the Russians.
------------- |
Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 21:59
|
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.
|
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 08:14
Tatars weren't a mongol tribe.
There are two nations called tata.
Tatar Turks were gone to china in Proto-Turkic time in Turkish History.
"Tata" means Turkish in oldest chinese,and "-ar,er"additions means disbanded(dağılmış) in old Turkish.İt became Tatar.Tatars were a old Turkis Tribe,not young.
Some historians have theorys about Tatar Turks(but all of them are mongol =).They say Tatars were originally mongol.But a Tatar tribe in Turkey(now,they are battling with PKK kurds in mountains) called an Turkish antrologist,he researched and say that thay are Turkis(and sorry for my poor english =).
Tatars are originally Turkic friends.They mixed like other tribes but they are still Turkic.
|
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 11:03
|
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. |
Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 20:33
| The original "Ta-ta" were from Mongolia and may have been either Mongol or Turkic, they were either incorporated into Genghis Khan's Mongol Horde or fled his onslaught and became refugees, eventually conquering Central Asia and settling there. The Tatars of Tatarstan adopted their name and customs. |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 22:45
|
I have met Volga Tatars and Crimean Tatars, and I could totally understand them when they spoke.
------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 03:53
I said two different nations friend.Your opinion is only a theory,my opinion is too.
|
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 06:02
|
I have a research from Prof.Dr.R.Türkkan about Tatar Turks.I wil write it later to finish this topic.
And remember,Tatar heads are brakisefal =)
|
Posted By: GrandTurk
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 01:24
|
I have been to Tataristan many times.
They are Turkish! ------------- |
Posted By: ephestion
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 02:29
|
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. |
Posted By: GrandTurk
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 03:50
|
This is not true. Also please remember that first country who used Turk word is Gök Türk in 630. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 05:12
|
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: EGETÜRK
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 05:21
|
i dont use ''turkish'' word...İt separeate Türk world from Türks of Türkiye ------------- The lands of the of the West may be armored with walls of steel, But I have borders guarded by the mighty chest of a believer... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 07:26
| 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... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 07:27
| 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 are in turk-mongol fenotype but in turkish genotype... |
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 17:04
No, dividing these two terms, is nothing else than a imaginary variaton made on purpose. All Türks are the same and they are called Türks, either they live in Türkiye, Central, Middle, East, West, North Asia, Balkans or East Europe. Making such variatons based on English language is ridiculous. Look at how all those Türks 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 Türkic, Türkish or another variaton used, they are all Türks. ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: Huncuk
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 21:31
|
Turks are 5000years old race =).
Well,the tatars of Xianbei was Mongol,but they all slaughtered by Ghengis.
Tatars of Ghengis army and today are all Turkic named Tatar.They are ethnicly Kipchak and Karabulghar Turks.
|