Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Topic: The Secret History of the Mongols Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 23:49 |
Yes - and?... It is commonly known that Rashid ad-Din referred to
Mongols as Turkic. But that holds no signifcance just as how the
Chinese referred to the Mongols as ta-ta-er. In this specific case,
Rashid referred the Mongols as Turkic because there was a large number
of Turkic people under the Mongols and that most nomadic tribes in
Mongolia were to some degree similar. Rashid failed to make that
distinction.
Edited by Imperator Invictus - 03-Jun-2006 at 23:50
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 13:20 |
Marco Polo, his father and uncle spoke with Emperor Kublai Khan in Turki language:
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/marcopolo.shtml
"...The Great Khan, Mangu's brother, Kublai, was indeed hospitable. He
had set up his court at Beijing, which was not a Mongol encampment but
an impressive city built by Kublai as his new capital after the Mongols
took over China in 1264 and established Yuan dynasty (1264-1368). Kublai
asked them all about their part of the world, the Pope and the Roman
church. Niccolo and Matteo, who spoke Turkic dialects perfectly,
answered truthfully and clearly. The Polo brothers were well received in the Great Khan's capital. One year later, the Great Khan sent them on their way with a letter in Turki addressed
to Pope Clement IV asking the Pope to send him 100 learned men to teach
his people about Christianity and Western science. He also asked Pope
to procure oil from the lamp at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem..."
|
|
Snafu
Knight
Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
|
Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 14:03 |
Well of course Khubilai used Turkic when dealing with foreigners. Who spoke Mongolian back then? Hardly anyone. But many people knew Turkic. So it makes sense that Khubilai would use a more common language to deal with foreigners. That's not proof that Khubilai was a Turk. It just means he was intelligent enough to realize that his own language was diplomatically useless.
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 22:03 |
IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ, Turks in China under the Mongols: A Preliminary
Investigation of Turco-Mongol Relations in the 13th and 14th Century,
in: CHINA AMONG EQUALS - THE MIDDLE KINGDOM AND ITS NEIGHBORS, 10th -
14th CENTURIES, EDITED BY MORRIS ROSSABI, Chapter 10, University of
California Press - Berkeley - Los Angeles London, pp.281-310.
http://www.kyrgyz.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=263
The Turkish peoples that I have surveyed for the present
investigation are the following: Uighur, Kharlukh, Khangli, Kipchak,
Ongut, Kereyid, Naiman
We must not forget also that, as a young man and for many years,
Chinggis Khan had been a client and an ally of the Kereyid court, and
that he must inevitably have been exposed to Turkish culture through this close association. It is perhaps not fortuitous that the very title he assumed, Chinggis Khan, is of Turkish origin [8].
To-lo-chu (died before 1260), also from Khocho, who taught the Uighur script to Mongol nobles and also to Khubilai [23].
Of the 5 Naimans, 1 was Batus teacher Pai Pu hua (Beg Bukha) [35],
As was mentioned earlier, Khubilai was instructed in Uighur script by
To-lo-chu. While still a prince he had as senior secretary Shiban, and
among the people who, in one capacity or another, served him in these
formative years were Uighurs like Lien Hsi-hsien, Esen Nai, Arigh
Khaya, and Meng-su-ssu (Mungsuz).
http://www.uscolo.edu/history/seminar/sauma.htm
YAHBH-ALLAHA ELECTED PATRIARCH
"...The reason for his election was this: The kings who held the
steering poles of the government of the whole world were MUGLAYE
(Mongols), and there was no man except MAR YAHBH-ALLAHA who was
acquainted with their manners and customs, and their policy of
government, and their language..."
MAR YAHBH-ALLAHA was Ongut Turk (who now are Kazakhs).
Edited by Akskl - 05-Jun-2006 at 22:12
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator
Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 23:19 |
I really don't understand Akskl, what you are trying to prove is only showing the influence of Turkic people on Monolians, and their relationship between each other, with which very few people disagree. On the other hand, this is again showing they were different people. When on earth will you stop?
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 00:16 |
Askll, if you make another post about of the same nature, you will
receive a warning for trolling. This condition extends beyond this
thread. Estell has been banned for the previous post.
Edited by Imperator Invictus - 06-Jun-2006 at 00:20
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 00:00 |
I just post citations from various sources and links.
|
|
borudjin
Knight
suspended
Joined: 16-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 55
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 06:48 |
mongol nowadays is a misnomer. before mongol meant part of a turkic peoples and was a tribe that took hegemony over others, and now it means tungusic people who have no proven descent from genghis khan( eg the khalka). the khalka cannot prove descent from the genghizids who were turks.
also barbar is subjective in this topic
|
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg
Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 07:37 |
Originally posted by borudjin
mongol nowadays is a misnomer. before mongol meant part of a turkic peoples and was a tribe that took hegemony over others, and now it means tungusic people who have no proven descent from genghis khan( eg the khalka). the khalka cannot prove descent from the genghizids who were turks.
also barbar is subjective in this topic because it appears that he is a khalka mongol-ian. |
wrong barbar is uigur (turk)
|
|
borudjin
Knight
suspended
Joined: 16-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 55
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 07:42 |
maybe hes a khalka nationalist pretending to be an uyghur? maybe im a khalka pretending to be a turk so i can manipulate the argument into my interests?
i just messed with evryones mind. muahahaha
well barbar is wrong and akskl is right! i believe :D
|
|
yan.
Consul
Joined: 15-Apr-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 08:26 |
So the Yuan dynasty was turkic? What about the Il-Khanids?
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 08:27 |
Borodjin you are already walking on thin ice. Either cut the dimwitted comments or you'll find a one way ticket out of here.
Barbar is an esteemed member who has shown his dedication to scholarly debates. You, on the other hand, need to establish yourself first by becoming familiar with the Codes of Conduct..
Edited by Seko - 08-Nov-2006 at 08:28
|
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg
Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 14:53 |
Originally posted by borudjin
maybe hes a khalka nationalist pretending to be an uyghur? maybe im a khalka pretending to be a turk so i can manipulate the argument into my interests?
i just messed with evryones mind. muahahaha
well barbar is wrong and akskl is right! i believe :D |
i think you are akskl if not at least you are his clone(not realy the same person)
you guys are all the same ultra nationalistics and everybody who doesn't agree with you is an imposter or a hippie etc...
Edited by xi_tujue - 08-Nov-2006 at 14:54
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 23:31 |
Xi tujue, please don't use your "intuition" instead of information.
Similar discussion was here: Genghis Khan wasn't a Khalkha Mongol
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t11740.html
Borudjin, be more courteous and serious, please.
Edited by Akskl - 08-Nov-2006 at 23:34
|
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 23:53 |
Don't worry, he has already been banned. Some people are simply unrehabilitable.
|
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg
Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
|
Posted: 25-Nov-2006 at 14:13 |
Originally posted by Akskl
Xi tujue, please don't use your "intuition" instead of information.
Similar discussion was here: Genghis Khan wasn't a Khalkha Mongol
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t11740.html
Borudjin, be more courteous and serious, please.
|
I never said he was Khakha mongol but why does he have to be turkic GId i'm tired of this...
ys i Know the theory you believe in that modernday mongols are machus and that the old mongol tribes were Turkic....
it could be that modernday mongolians aren't all the same mongolians of the genishid period but that doesn't probe that the old mongolians were of teh turkic stock that only proves that they were assimilated into the turkic population i think during the khanats periode.
I could be wrong see I admit that I could be wrong.
there are only theories nothing is proven so loosen up and quit posting the same stuff you need to go to some ultranotionalistic turkic site.
don't get me wrong I'm also a nationalist well not realy I love my country and my people but Im not going to make wild claims and say that every great warrior leader that has lived has the same origin or blood as i do
this is my theory how many posts do you have 164 yes? .
I bet that al least 100 of them are about "prooving" that gebghis khan wasn't khalkha ... hey... I could be wrong
well take care
|
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
|