Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Mongol Empires Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 03:07 |
Among Mongols of Iran, I've got a lot of friends. In fact, I've been among them for almost two years. What I've noticed is that ALL of them believe their ancestors spoke TURKIC and not Mongolian. Even the ones who have left Afghan Mongols to the destination of Central Khorasan (Fariman, Torbat and ...) to join their Iranian brothers agree with them.
I asked them this might be because of the formal language of Iran Ilkhanids which was Turkic. But they just said: 'all our grandparents have been Turkic'.
And, some old Turkic words still are alive in their language (also its Farsi; but they use a few words). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any Mongolian word in their Farsi.
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 22:34 |
I am going to scan and present here the Introduction of the Paul Ratchnevsky's book soon.
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 11:48 |
You see lots of Turkic (and not Turkish) tribes when you go over those people united under the name 'Mongol' anyhow. It's not only due to tradition buddy... it's a fact that majority of old Mongolian horde were Turkic. Oh, and Uyghurs are also Turk. Take care mate...
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
chonos
Immortal Guard
Joined: 12-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 01:58 |
what an utter nonsense discussion, of course there had been cultural interactions between the two peoples due to the fact that turks found their first empire in orkhon valley some 500 years before chingis khaan was born, all the steppe people take cultural aspects of one another, there are many turk words in mongolian language, it's just a steppe tradition that is passed on no matter who adopted them, it doesn't necessarily mean that mongols in 13th century were turks and spoke turkish. Remember the turks left mongolia long time ago, then came uighurs, after which kidans "liao dynasty", then mongols.
Edited by chonos
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 06:51 |
SaikhaNBayar wrote: What is the reason, every Arabs proudly discuss and talk about how they defeated the Tatars (mongols) in a place called Ayn Jalut?
I believe it should be read in the context of Mulims rather than Arabs. Though Hulegu did march into Syria, I am not sure whether he had any plans for the Muslim's holy cities of Mecca. It is generally believed that Mecca and Medina were probably saved when Mongols were defeated at Ayn Jalut and then Damascus and Allepo returned to Muslim rule. By then the Mongols were more focussed on other issues in the other parts of it's empire.
SaikhaNBayar wrote: Even though Mongols couldn`t completely destroy Mamluks, they controlled all the Arabian world. Il-Khanate dynasty khans took Islamic religion themselves in 1295, and was the main ruler of Arabian world. And its sucessor Dogolon Tumur (Tughlug Timur) and Mongol tribe Jalairs , ruled Arabian world for 200 years until 1460.
I believe the Ilkhanate was largely in Persia and not Arabia.
Do let me know if my perceptions are incorrect.
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 10:28 |
Dear Tadamson and Yan,
Hi there. Best wishes and respect. Well, you're right buddy. We, too, agree with you. But, Aksakal and I are trying to discuss another issue, that is:
There WAS/IS a group of people among Steppe people, differed from Turks, called 'Mongols'. But the people, we now call Mongols are not exactly the ones mentioned throught the history.
And who said Mongols spoke Turkic? It's just a misconception I guess. We're just trying to say that the structure of Mongols almost a thousand years ago was quite different. They seemed more close to Turks; or should I say Turks seemed more close to them. And, not all Turks/ Mongols were able to speak Mongolian/Turkic. We've all heard about 'tillmach'=translators among Steppe men.
All I want to say is that Chengiz Khan's men were not exclusively Mongolian. And whatever the percentage was, they had more common with Turks; compared to today (now this might be because of closer social interactions). Today, Mongolian really completely differs from Turkic. Studying Secret History or some other Mongolian scripts that dates back to 500 years ago, some parts are really understandable for me as a Turkic buddy. What's more interesting, sometimes, I don't understand the meaning at all; but just sounds familiar in my own tongue.
That's about it for the time being. You are right mate. It was just a misconception. Take care and take it easy.
Kind regards,
Iltirish
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 14:10 |
Originally posted by Scytho-Sarmatian
In that case one can only conclude that Mongol Empire has been greatly overrated. What kind of empire was it that existed only in theory, with its various subdivisions in conflict? It was really just a series of conquests which held together as a true empire for only a very short time. Highly overrated, in my opinion.
|
well no, the Mongol Empire only fragmented after the death of Mngke Khan, when Kubilai usurped power and established the Yuan dynasty.
|
|
Dragon
Janissary
Joined: 18-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 13:50 |
Decent book on this subject, at least about the empires aspect is Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford. It basically is an autobiography of Genghis Khan, but continues on after his death detailing the empires of his descendants. Does a good job of outlining the Mongol impact on other civilzations such as Kievian Rus and China. Good for a bit of light reading . . .
|
History is the study of the past that we may understand the present.
|
|
yan.
Consul
Joined: 15-Apr-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 13:18 |
The Secret History doesn't mention any communication problems, whether it be with Jurchid, Tanggut, or whomever. Now, people from mixed-ethnic parts of the world often are able to master the basics of more than one language, so no big problem here. Or they just ignored the role of interpreters.
I'm a bit with tadamson here. If conclusions like
"The Borjigin were Mongolians (a friend of me is also). Chingis Han was Borjigin. If he was Borjigin, then he (Chingis Han) was Mongolian"
or
"Mongols were Mongolian speaking tribe (see, please, Rene Grousset "Empire of the Steppes" and many many others). Mongols is also the name of a group of modern people - i.e. Mongolian as well. Yesugei was father for young Temujin - future Genghis Khan. What language did they speak? I can't imagine that a medieval times a son could speak to his father using other but the father's language."
were considered to be a proof of anything, there'd be no reason to even start a discussion in the first place. I'm somewhat uncertain that Rene Grousset really makes it so clear that the Kerait speak Turkish btw - shall I look up the actual quote over the weekend?
Anyway, what's the reason for those handed-down mongolian-language artifacts, like the seals tadamson mentioned, or the Secret history itself, again?
Edited by yan.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 10:00 |
I must admit I am beginning to see all this endlessly repeated "Mongols spoke Turkic" claims as an utter waste of time.
Temuljin was Mongol, he spoke Mongol, he got Uighir scribes to adapt
their script to write down Mongol texts. We have written texts in
Mongol that describe this. Any claim that Temuljin was Turkic is
wild fantasy.
As for the "medieval vassal" theory ???
The Quara Khitai were Khitan Mongols, their Empire used Khitan as it's
ruling tounge, many Mongol words are found in the Turkic
languages of it's main subjects the Naimen, QuaraKhanids and
Uighur. Does that make them 'mongol' - of course not.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 02:59 |
By the way, remember that the people governed by Chengiz Khan just 'picked up' their name in that 'qurultay' we all know about. So, this does not necessarily mean that we should expect an isolated (or what... distinct) group of people among Steppe men. It's just a name. We all know that they were a mixture of Turks & Mongols. I mean I agree with Aksakal; saying that Genghis Khan's "Mongols" are not related to the modern Khalkha-Mongols. That's about it for the time being. Take care...
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 02:52 |
Nice point, AkSakal; thanks. Have you noticed this too? I've been lately trying to find out why the Mongolian spoken today in Mongolia seems to vary significantly with what you see in Secret History. Now, WE've got differences between Old Turkic and today's Turkic languages. But it's not that big to say old Turkic is not understandable for Turkic speaking speakers nowadays. The point is that most of Mongols I've met are not able to understand much of Secret History. We'll see about it soon. Take care buddy.
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Dec-2005 at 18:48 |
Rene Grousset and other historians write about some weird "Turko-Mongols" (Kereits, Naimans, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Onguts, Merkits, Tatars, Uighurs etc.) who were ALL Turkic speaking guys, and also Rene Grousset and other historians assume (!!) that Turkic and Mongolian languages are very close. The Khalkha-Mongolian language is not close to Turkic languges at all. It seems obvious (when reading Secret History) that Genghis khan and his "Mongols" have absolutely no language and communication problems when they meet tet-a-tet somebody from any other "Turko-Mongols" (who were and are 100% Turkic speakers). All this means that Genghis Khan's "Mongols" are not related to the modern Khalkha-Mongols.
|
|
yan.
Consul
Joined: 15-Apr-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Dec-2005 at 15:01 |
Come on guys, Rene Grousset says that the Mongols of the 12th century were mongolian-speaking. If you treat his work as a bible, you should at least take it at full value, not just pick what you like and ignore what you don't like.
Same goes for tribal names. Once you put the connections between 12th century Mongols and today's Mongols into doubt (which has some point, just look at other peoples like Makedonians or Egyptians), you shouldn't take the connection between 12th century Keraits and today's Kerait or whatever for granted. That's just illogical.
And Dalai is a mongolian word. And I checked it's there in the russian version, otherwise I wouldn't have cared to ask at all.
|
|
Scytho-Sarmatian
Earl
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 290
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Dec-2005 at 07:22 |
Originally posted by Temujin
that was only a theoretical overlordship, in fact the
Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate were pretty much anti-Yuan
dynasty, while only the ll-Khanate acknowledged the overlordship of the
Yuan emperors. |
In that case one can only conclude that Mongol Empire has been greatly
overrated. What kind of empire was it that existed only in
theory, with its various subdivisions in conflict? It was really
just a series of conquests which held together as a true empire for
only a very short time. Highly overrated, in my opinion.
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Dec-2005 at 23:42 |
Kereits (Kereis) were Turkic speaking tribe (see, please, Paul Ratchnevsky
"Genghis Khan", Rene Grousset "Empire of the Steppes",
J.J.Saunders, Leo de Hartog, R.P.Lister, and many many
others). Kereis now are part of modern Kazaks (see www.elim.kz) - i.e.
now they are Turks as well. Khan of Kereits, Toghrul (which means gerfalcon in
Turkic), was suzerain and kind of father for young Temirshin (or
Temujin) - future Genghis Khan. What language did they speak? I
can't imagine that a medieval times vassal could speak to his suzerain
using other but the suzerain's language.
Edited by Akskl
|
|
kuralas
Immortal Guard
Joined: 29-Oct-2005
Location: Kazakhstan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Dec-2005 at 13:33 |
If to compare tribal structure of Mongols of Chingis Khan's period, they were Turkish.
Niruns and darlekins were Turkish (I'm also). Chingis Han was nirun. If he was nirun, then he (Chingis Han) was Turkish
Edited by kuralas
|
|
yan.
Consul
Joined: 15-Apr-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Dec-2005 at 06:59 |
As I understand it, there'd be some room for speculation if the Mongols, like the Huns, had left no written traces. But they apparently have, not only their few letters (what about the one by Arghun to the King of France btw?) and the Secret History, but much more rather profane stuff like receipts, bills, coins etc. I suppose one would have to take a deeper look into them (which I'm unable to do at the moment) to get some hints on what languages were prevalent back then, and in which areas.
Just pointing to some traditional names doesn't sound very convincing, though. By that logic, all the 'Kings' and 'Bishops' in the US would have real kings and bishops in their ancestry!
Actually, I wonder whether one day some Iranians will claim that Chinggis was Persian, based on the fact that so many primary sources were in Persian language.
Akskl is correct here, the letter is in Persian and Turkic (Quipchaq). There was also a Latin version attached. It was deliberately prepared that way as Mongolian wasn't well known in the East. |
(Just asking) Shouldn't that be '..in the West.'?
Plano de Carpini brought the letter to Pope of the Rome from Guyuk Khan, which was found by Polish monk Cyril Karalewski in 1920 in Vatican archives, photographed and sent to Masse (he was an Iranist), (sorry, I am not sure about the names spelling after their Russian spelling). Later it was translated one more time by Pelliot and published along with its Persian original (The "Saracen" language is Persian one). First lines of the letter are written in Turkic language:
By the Power of the Eternal Blue Sky We are Dalai Khan of the All Great People: Our Command. |
Yes, I read that the 'tartar' version apparently remained in Harhorin. But even if I risk looking stupid: Isn't 'Dalai' a very mongolian word?
Edited by yan.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 21:58 |
Originally posted by Akskl
Open the link I provided and take a look yourself with your own eyes if
you "don't believe" me. Comment 217 says that first lines of the
letter are written in Turkic language. Askk somebody who can read
Russian if you can't read Russian.
Read my previous posts with citations from various Western books
also. If you "don't believe " them too - then go to library and check them yourself.
I could present many more similar citations, but I don't have
time at the moment for this. Maybe later - I have all such places
in many books I 've read already marked with adhesive bookmarks.
|
Akskl is correct here, the letter is in Persian and Turkic
(Quipchaq). There was also a Latin version attached.
It was deliberately prepared that way as Mongolian wasn't well known in
the East. There are several other letters to various
western rulers, most are in Latin and Persian but with proper Mongolian
seals to show that they were written at the command of the Khans.
Surviving documents from the Mongol states are in Mongol and associated
local languages (Khitan and Chinese in China; Persian and Arabic in
Persia and Iraq; Quipchaq Turkic in Ukraine; Khitan, Chinese and Uighur
Turkic in Central Asia).
nb. The first Steppe Empire to leave significant writen rcords was the
Quara Khitai. The records are in Khitan , a Mongol
language. The Uighur didn't leave many records fromtheir time of
power but did develope a script for their own Turkic language before
the Quara Khitai.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 21:45 |
Originally posted by kuralas
Detective: We don't believe you!
Mongols used uygur scripts. Uygurs were Turkic. Chingis Han don't know other languages, except own language.
Niruns and darlekins were Turkic. Chingis Han was nirun. If he was nirun, then he (Chingis Han) was Turkic.
Its really easy!! |
Actually Mongol was written in an adapted form of the uighur script,
expressly developed at Temuljins orders. Surviving texts are
mongol not Turkic.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|