Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg
Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Another "MONGOL THING" Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 03:11 |
ahaha No an empire is named after his leading family or ethnic group.
Turks and Mongols don't give a crap about blood Amongst them selfs(well it used to be like that) they followed the strongest leader and that happend to be genghis khan
|
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 23:44 |
Originally posted by Master_Blaster
.......fact that the Central Asian areas which the Mongols conquered are today composed largely of Turkic Muslim peoples, would imply that the theory is true and that it wasn't an actual "Mongol Empire" but rather a Turkic one. |
SO YOU ARE FREE TO CALL THAT GREATEST EMPIRE - turkish empire
Maybe Ottoman Empire should be called Arabian , Armenian or Albanian Empire
Edited by Zorigo - 20-Jul-2006 at 23:45
|
|
Master_Blaster
Pretorian
Joined: 14-May-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 176
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 22:47 |
I've heard that at their empire's peak, there were at most, only 200,000 Mongols (men, women, children, the elderly) and that the overwhelming majority of the Mongol armies were comprised of Turkic peoples. I saw it on the History Channel not too long ago. The fact that the Central Asian areas which the Mongols conquered are today composed largely of Turkic Muslim peoples, would imply that the theory is true and that it wasn't an actual "Mongol Empire" but rather a Turkic one.
|
|
Urungu Han
Samurai
Joined: 17-Jul-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 05:15 |
Originally posted by Seko
Generally in the past, central asian tribes would adhere to the name of their leading family and call the whole tribe by that name (i.e. Oguz, Seljuk, Osman). If the name wasn't from a family designation then it could very well sprout from a landmark, as in the T'u Chueh 'Turk' which came from a helmut shaped hill. The Turks were adept at iron works from the deposits of iron on the Altai mountain range. The ironworkers and the shape of their land led to this name. It also means strong in Turkish.
Once the various tribes intermixed with other ones through commerce, marriage or war, the ethnic variations would grow in kind. However, the leading tribe would keep their name over the whole amalgam of tribes within their sphere of influence. This was not an exact science since ethnic deviation occurred within any large tribe and seperate families would later gain prominance for themselves.
|
"Turk" is coming from "Trk".İt means strong man in Trkish.Gktrk empire's real name in Turkish was KkTrk empire
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 12:22 |
people need to read mongolian secret history.also we have been mongolians as long from some people lived in the tree.so of course we concists of several different tribes.but they speaks mongolian culture is same i just could't see difference.we were never 5 millions,but we still thinking that mongolian border from great wall.and we'll get it back
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 14:03 |
but the "forrest tribes" where not Ugrians, they were Uriankhais.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 07:31 |
Originally posted by Kalevipoeg
But were there Finno-Ugrians among Temjins and his followers armies as an amount that really mattered?
|
Missed this one...
Not until Subedai was sent to include the forest tribes in
1206-1208. Even after that they didn't contribute many soldiers.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 07:29 |
Originally posted by chonos
As the "Secret History of Mongols" has it that Chingis
Khaan after unification of mongol tribes he appointed 95 "noyon"
(chiefs) of "myangan" (a unit of thousand) which means he had
an army of 95000 strong. Taking this into account the
population of mongolia at that time could probably estimated at
a half million. It is not true however to say that mongol army
consisted of mostly turks but it would be correct to say many tatars
were incorporated into mongol army. Etnically
tatars were turko-mongol but not purely turk. |
For the creation of the mongols of Blue Heaven and 'election' of
Temuljin as Chinggiss Khan in 1206 95 named individuals were given 1000
households each, several others were given more. The total is
about 160,000. Mongol rule then encompassed almost all of the
Mongolian Plateaux. This is before the Western expansion
adsorbed large numbers of Quangli, Quipckaq, Uighur,
turkman etc...
At this stage perhaps 30-50% of the households were from predominately
Turkic tribes (primaraly Kerait and Naimen). The Tatars had been
virtualy eliminated following their defeat in 1202.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
chonos
Immortal Guard
Joined: 12-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 22:56 |
As the "Secret History of Mongols" has it that Chingis Khaan after unification of mongol tribes he appointed 95 "noyon" (chiefs) of "myangan" (a unit of thousand) which means he had an army of 95000 strong. Taking this into account the population of mongolia at that time could probably estimated at a half million. It is not true however to say that mongol army consisted of mostly turks but it would be correct to say many tatars were incorporated into mongol army. Etnically tatars were turko-mongol but not purely turk.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 10:41 |
Generally in the past, central asian tribes would adhere to the name of their leading family and call the whole tribe by that name (i.e. Oguz, Seljuk, Osman). If the name wasn't from a family designation then it could very well sprout from a landmark, as in the T'u Chueh 'Turk' which came from a helmut shaped hill. The Turks were adept at iron works from the deposits of iron on the Altai mountain range. The ironworkers and the shape of their land led to this name. It also means strong in Turkish.
Once the various tribes intermixed with other ones through commerce, marriage or war, the ethnic variations would grow in kind. However, the leading tribe would keep their name over the whole amalgam of tribes within their sphere of influence. This was not an exact science since ethnic deviation occurred within any large tribe and seperate families would later gain prominance for themselves.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 06:35 |
The Mongols
Strictly speaking this was a totaly new "tribe" founded in 1206 by
Temuljin as part of his huge social revolution. As per the Secret
history there were about 160,000 households. So yes they were few
in numbers, but remember over the next hundred years or so anyboy who
could got themselves counted as Mongols.
You have to drop the relentless assumption that persists on these fora
that all the Saka, Hun, Xiongnu, Xianbei, Turk etc empire were "ethnic
entities".
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Kalevipoeg
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 18:08 |
Just read it in a post of some of my fellow countryman. I thought it sounded freaky.
|
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 13:53 |
Finno-Ugrians were far far away from Temujin's empire. Why would they be in his army.
|
|
Kalevipoeg
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 13:48 |
But were there Finno-Ugrians among Temjins and his followers armies as an amount that really mattered?
|
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
|
|
baracuda
Colonel
Joined: 13-May-2005
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 722
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 10:54 |
This also coincides with what I've read about the afonasevi and andronovi they pre-date the so called mongolians in a similar fashion to be around 2700BC, but the funny fact is that they always have leaders that are of other origins, and not from within themselves. (i'm translating the books)
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 10:30 |
Mongol armies were mainly consisted of Turkic troops. That's why Turkic states and communities have appeared after the Mongol conquest. Timurid state was Turkic because Timur's army was consisted of Turks. Uzbegs came with Mongols but they are also Turkic. After the Ilkhanids, Akkoyunlu and Karakoyunlu states were found, and both were Turkic. Turkmens were an important part of the Mongolian army.
Mongols were always low in numbers. Rulers were Mongols, armies were mainly Turkic.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 09:49 |
Mongol armies were organized on the decimal system (1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000). Each man had a specific job at his postion and rank. Apart from the three type of forces (Junghar-Left Wing, Baraunghar-Right Wing, and Khol-Center), The army center also consisted of the Imperial guard-Keshik. Here the finest troops were selected. All army units were drawn from a mixture of families and tribes. This ensured a units loyalty to the Khan and not to smaller fractions. Discipline was very rigid. Each leader was responsible for his immediate ten (troops or leaders). Leaders would answer to the officer directly above them. When the Turko-Mongol armies were in battle each soldier was partially responsible for the whole unit and, at the same time, part of the responsibility of the same unit. For example, if one or two troops of a group of ten were to run away then all within that unit would be put to death. If a whole group of ten flees, the rest of their group of one hundred were put to death and so on. If only one or two (soldiers or units) go forward to fight and the others didn't, then the rest within that unit were put to death. Source- John of Plano Carpino from The Art of War In World History.
Edited by Seko
|
|
baracuda
Colonel
Joined: 13-May-2005
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 722
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 08:56 |
Actually the mongol population isnt and wasnt ever that large. Another way to see it is the area that the mongol or mongolian variant speaking people cover, and plot that to the turkic group.. You can come to this conclusion in even some of the least nationalistic sites and so how to call them 'Mongols' and not Tartar's/Tatars beats me.. even the latin "Liber Tatarium" translated to be Mongol... so I suppose this is just another example for pure hatred of historians towards certain people's.
|
|
blitz
Samurai
Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 06:25 |
|
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2005 at 23:30 |
It is widely held that the Mongol army was comprised of many different
nomadic groups, especially Turkic nomads, who outnumbered the Mongol
warriors. 10000-30,000 is probably a
good estimate range for the number of people in the Mongol tribe. The
total population of Chinggis' empire at the eve of invading Jin is
traditionally put at 1 million.
In the Secret History of the Yuan Dynasty,
it lists the number of households of various tribes under the control
of Chinggiz. (I don't have the source with me so I can't comment any
further).
|
|