Mongolian history... another Khan?

I was wondering, did Mongolians ever started another powerful military expansion after the death of Genghis Khan? Or was the decline of Mongol the end of the height of Mongolian power?

After Genghis (Or also called Jenghis,Chingghiz), Ogodei Khan of the Mongol Golden Horde Empire expanded the Golden Horde Empire with the help of Subotai (or Subadai Bahadur) to Europe. While after that the "Il-Khan" Hulagu and Mongke (Remember Mongolian Empire is divided to three, Golden Horde - Mongol, Steppes, East Europe, Il-Khan - Persia, Central Asia, Iraq, Syria, and Yuan Dynasty - China) attacked the Muslims to help the Crusaders (Hulagu and Mongke's mother was a Christian).

Is Tamerlane considered a true Mongol?  And what about India's Mughals? 

Ok, so do Tamerlane and the Moghuls separately fit the bill here?!?
This thread is asking if there was another Ghenghis caliber empire. 

Tamerlane's empire was enormous.  Tamerlane was ethnically Mongol, but not culturally.  I know he went out of his way to link himself to the great Khan, even to go as far as to marrying one of Ghenghis' female descendants.  Correct me if I'm wrong...

And the Moghuls also claimed direct lineage back to the great Khan, along with every other Tom, Dick & Harry in Asia.  The Moghuls of course conquered India, a feat which neither Alexander nor Ghenghis managed to accomplished.

Did Tamerlane conquer India?

So what I'm asking is:

1.  Is Tamerlane a Mongol?
2.  Are Moghuls Mongols?

Yes or No? 


Edited by TranHungDao - 04-Jun-2007 at 04:09

Amir Timur was not a Mongol, he was a Turk, his mother-tongue was Turkic, in his biography he had it written that he was a Turk.

 

 

 

 

So what I'm asking is:

1.  Is Tamerlane a Mongol?
2.  Are Moghuls Mongols?

 

Answer to Question 1 is No however, Mongols were very powerfull in the region, Timurids are sometimes called "Turco-Mongol Empire".

Answer to Question 2 is No

 

 

Edited by Bulldog - 04-Jun-2007 at 08:45

Sarmat

Edited by Bulldog - 04-Jun-2007 at 12:33

Originally posted by Bulldog Sarmat Yes, Tamerlane spoke Turkic, but he had Mongolian ancestors. He originates from the Mongolian tribe Barlas.   The Mongolian Empire was not solely made up of ethnic Mongols. He was from a lesser sub-tribe of the Barlas clan and his father was Turkic, in order to gain a higher status he married into a proper Chingizid family.   Why didn't the Mongol leadership keep their language? they could have made Mongolian a literary language of the region. For example, Turkic became a literary language and one of the most important languages of the muslim world along with Arabic and Persian during the Timurid era. There were developments before but during the Timurid era Turkic rose in status tremendously and this also had an influence on the Ottomans.   The Mongols could have done the same, they had the power to, did they have any ambitions to do so? or were they not interested. For example, the Mongol Empire had a great legal system and it was one of the safest places to live in.

Originally posted by Bulldog Its an interesting topic, were the Mongols the same as the Mongols of Mongolia today? Also, why did Timur give more importance to his Turkic side? for example in his biography he calls himself "basbug leader of Turks", Ibn Khaldun wrote of his as the great Turk King and in the Ottoman wars, the Turkish beys and clans all joined Timur because they saw him as the protector of Turks and their ways against the current Ottoman system which after the defeat changed her policies towards the Turkmen clans.   Maybe because Mongolian and Turkic are both Altaic and they have more ties together the difference could be blurred at time especially in the early periods?

Originally posted by Bulldog Also, why did Timur give more importance to his Turkic side? for example in his biography he calls himself "basbug leader of Turks", Ibn Khaldun wrote of his as the great Turk King and in the Ottoman wars, the Turkish beys and clans all joined Timur because they saw him as the protector of Turks and their ways against the current Ottoman system which after the defeat changed her policies towards the Turkmen clans.

Originally posted by Sarmat12  Check this passage from Wiki which clearly says that Tamerlane originates from a Mongolian tribe   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlane   Early life Timur was born in Transoxiana, near Kesh (an area now better known as Shahr-e Sabz, 'the green city,'), situated some 50 miles south of Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan. Timur placed much of his early legitimacy on his genealogical roots to the great Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. What is known is that he was descended from the Mongol invaders who initially pushed westwards after the establishment of the Mongol Empire. His father Taraghay was head of the tribe of Barlas, a nomadic Turkic-speaking tribe of Mongol origin that traced its origin to the Mongol commander Qarachar Barlas. Taraghay was the great-grandson of Qarachar Noyon and, distinguished among his fellow-clansmen as the first convert to Islam. Nobody doubts that Mongols were minority in their Empire. And majority of conquered nations had more ancient and developed culture. It was simply more natural for Mongols to adobt the culture of their subjects, than to impose there own language and customs which would be much harder to perform. It happened actually in almost all the parts of Mongolian empire.   Khubla Khan adopted Chinese name and claimed his state a new Yuan dinasty according to the Chinese historical tradition, Mongols of the Golden Horde very quickly were absorbed in the masses of local Turcik polulation, Mongol in Persia were Persianized.   There are plenty examples in history where the conqueror is absorbed into the culture and language of the conquered.

Here, I'm addressing both posts...

Several things to consider:

1.  Rulers have to be practical (pragmatic, calculating, machiavellian, etc.) and so it would be naturally advantageous to claim to be a "Mongol" or of Mongol lineage directly back to the great Khan, since to be so back then in the region meant you were a member of the ruling class.

2.  Similarly, rulers also can't be seen as outsiders, hence it's also advantageous to say "I'm one of you...", i.e. claim local roots too, hence "I'm am a Turk."

3.  Another aspect of being practical of course as was said above by Sarmat12 is that it is infinitely easier to learn the local lingo and adopt the local customs as opposed to imposing their Mongol culture on a much larger non-Mongol population.

--------------------------------------------------
The thing about #1 and #2 above is that personal claims, about his Mongol ancestry as well as his local Turkic roots, made by Timurlane need to be verified because they may indeed be true or they may simply be just pragmatic and cynical tall-tales to legitimize himself.  The truth, I suspect is neither black nor white but some shade in between.

I guess what were debating here is:  What role ethnicity, heredity/genetics, culture, and even geography plays in someone's identity?

Originally posted by TranHungDao Apparently, Timurlane claimed to be both Mongol (by lineage) and Turk (by culture).  If both claims are true, then the term "Turko-Mongol" means that he's not a Mongol, otherwise "Turko-Mongol" would be a redundant term and there would be no need for it.