Were Kereyits Turkic 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=14618
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 16:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Were Kereyits Turkic or mongol?
Posted By: Urungu Han
Subject: Were Kereyits Turkic or mongol?
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 05:18
|
Were Kereyits Turkic?Or they were mongol?I didn't see any proof about they are mongol or Türk,can you show me?
I also want to know naymans(naimans) and merkits.Who were they?
|
Replies:
Posted By: galvatron
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 23:56
i see some chinese resources say naimans was the modern today kyrgystan people ,the rest are mostly become part of mongol people of today .
-------------
|
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 01:11
|
They all were Turkic speaking nomads - today parts of modern Kazakhs
(see www.elim.kz). Read Paul Ratchnevsky "Genghis Khan - His Life and
Legacy" for example, or Rene Grousset "Empire of the Steppes",
J.J.Saunders, and many others.
|
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 23:43
Keraits
East of the Naimans, from the Orkhon River 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 (T'ao Tsung-i 1316- ?) 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.
Still one more Chinese, Tu Ji, in his "History of the Mongols" (Mengwuer Shiji),
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 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).
Yisugei had helped Kerait chieftan, Toghrul, twice. Toghrul was
resented by his tribesmen for killing his brothers. When Toghrul was
defeated by his uncle and fled with few hundreds of horsemen, Yisugei
would come to his aid and drive Toghrul's uncle to Tanguts' Western Xia
territory. Later, Toghrul's brother rebelled as well, and Toghrul had
to flee southwestward to the three statelets of 'Hexi', 'Huihu' and
'Huihui' (Uygur, Qiangic and Tibetan territories) for asylum.
Thereafter, Toghrul sought asylum with the Kara Khitans. When Toghrul
escaped back to Mongolia, Timuchin would give him a good reception and
treat Toghrul as 'father'. Timuchin later defeated the Merkits and gave
the captured people to Toghrul. Toghrul hence gained strength. Toghrul
and Timuchin cooperated few times in fighting the Naimans thereafter.
The importance of Keraits would lie in the fact that Timuchin
sought the protection under Toghrul and their alliance laid the
foundation for the uprise of the Mengwu Mongols. Toghrul enjoyed a
title called Wang Khan conferred by the Jurchens and hence an alliance
with Toghrul served the purpose of elelvating Timuchin's position among
the nomads. After exterminating the Tatars in AD 1202, Timuchin broke
with Toghrul's Keraits, and Genghis Kan killed Toghrul in AD 1203 and
took over Kerait throne.
http://www.republicanchina.org/Mongols.html
|
|