Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
blitz
Samurai
Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
|
Topic: Turks in the Mongol Horde Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 09:48 |
Originally posted by Luke
Now I know that the Mongol horde had some turkic tribes and people in its armies(and its conquered territories).
But what I want to know is, were there any famous turkic generals or tribes that helped Chingis Khan or his sons/grandsons conquer asia?
Thanks. |
I think there were no famous turkic generals or something like that who helped mongols so well. In my opinion mongols recruited many men from conquered countries, that is why there were among mongol troops some turks. Armenians, georgians were among mongols of Hulegu Khan etc.
I think, so this way after long years new etnicities like kazakh and uzbek came into being(16th century). In my opinion kazakhs and uzbeks played no role in the world history but kirgizs little bit.
Edited by blitz
|
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
|
|
Mustafa
Janissary
Joined: 21-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 15:51 |
Originally posted by blitz
I think there were no famous turkic generals or something like that who helped mongols so well. In my opinion mongols recruited many men from conquered countries, that is why there were among mongol troops some turks. Armenians, georgians were among mongols of Hulegu Khan etc. |
As always, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do you ever read *anything* published about the Mongols and especially about Jinghis Khan? When he first united his core group of tribes in Mongolia *at least* half of them were turkic already. But ,of course, to know this one has to be literate and be able to read and understand relevant publications instead of pulling things out of your ass like you do. "Your opinion" is unfortunately not scientific enough and ,considering your level of intellect you have displayed here, totally useless (especially since your opinion is not grounded in any facts).
I think, so this way after long years new etnicities like kazakh and uzbek came into being(16th century). In my opinion kazakhs and uzbeks played no role in the world history but kirgizs little bit. |
--Again, your "opinion" is worthless. Go read up on some Mongol and Turkic history and maybe you will find out some good, usable information finally instead of speculating.
|
|
blitz
Samurai
Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
|
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 06:32 |
Mr Science, what is wrong with "The kazakhs und uzbeks came into being in 16th century"? And what is wrong with "They played no role in world history" and "Mongols recruited troops from occupied countries like Armenia, Georgia"?
How can you assert that at least the half of mongols were turks? Where is such fact?
|
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
|
|
ihsan
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
|
Posted: 09-Jan-2005 at 13:15 |
I agree with blitz.
Mustafa, calm down!
|
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 14:47 |
This is a real Khalkha-Mongolian blatant chauvinism.
It seems that Blitz did not touch in his life a single non-Khalkha-Mongolian book about the subject.
Why the Macedonian Slavs do not claim that they are descendants of Alexander the Great?
|
|
Attila2
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Oct-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
|
Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 11:03 |
well,I am asking you this blitz...There were a hell load of turkic tribes around mongolia about 11-12 th centuries...how come they were not mongolian (regionally) and didnt help Genghis Khan??
and saying things like "Kazakhs and Uzbeks are blah blah but Kyrgyz are blah" is too silly for me,knowing they are all Turkic...
And dont forget that Osman Batur(a Kazakh) was a legendary revolutionist/rebel against the Soviet Russia and China
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 09:29 |
Well, we know that Mongols themselves were in Minority. It was Chengiz Khan's idea to gather Turks & Mongols under a united flag. We've all heard about his sayings to excite Turks to join Mongolian horde. Now, to name Turkic general among Mongols, the truth is that... Turks didn't reach top positions in Mongol Cavalry. Anyhow, Mongols were too less in number that they were not able to defeat their neighbors, by themselves alone.
|
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
|
Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 09:34 |
Well, the name 'Ozbek' or 'Qazaq' came to existance in almost 500 years ago; right. But Kiptchaks were one of the oldest and biggest tribes among Turks & Mongols. Today Kiptchaks live under the names of Uzbek or Qazaq. Or look at Jalayer tribe; Mongolians who were in Chengiz Khan's horde. That's it.
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 11:57 |
The Jalairs (or Jelairs) were Turkic speaking tribe and today are also
a part of modern Kazakhs (see www.elim.kz - in Uly Juz - or Great
horde).
Genghis Khan himself was Turkic speaking guy. He was vassal of the
Kereit Toghryl Khan. What language did they speak with each other? Of
course using language of sovereign - not of vassal - i.e. Turkic
one.
Most probably that Genghis Khan "Mongols" were the same "Mongols", like
say, Alban tribe of modern Kazakhs are Albanians, and
Cherkesh tribe are Circassians. Genghis Khans' mother and first wife were Qongyrats (see www.elim.kz).
Just because Turkic nomads united into new POLITICAL union - changed
their name to Kazakhs - does not mean previous unions, or tribes with
previous names stopped to exist. For example, Greeks
used to call themselves as Ellins, Spartans, Athenians,
etc. and later Byzantines, and now Greeks, but nobody says
that thay are separate and totally not related peoples. Of
course, many parallels between nomadic and settled peoples very
often don't work.
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Posted: 29-Nov-2005 at 11:43 |
Nice piece of writing... thanks buddy. Now the question is: Jalairs were Turkic speaking? Well, all documents after Kutluk Kakan propose that Jalairs spoke Mongolian; rather than Turkic. And we know that Chengiz Khan's mother spoke a Turkic dialect... not specified anywhere... just some guesses. But Chengiz Khan only knew how to speak Mongolian; not even Turkic.
Now, it might be my fault to misunderstand the situation. If that smiley means you're joking, so, I'm wrong . Would you please answer these questions?
|
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
|
Posted: 29-Nov-2005 at 11:46 |
Most Mongols who left their mother land, Mongolian Steppes, don't speak Mongolian these days... Mongols among Kyrkizes, Turkmens, Uzbeks and Kazaks speak Turkic for living. Mongols who chosed Iran to stay, speak Iranian. In most cases, they FORGOT their mother tongue. Now, there might be some exceptions like Mongols of China, Japan or Korea. But we're talking about majority.
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
Kurultai
Immortal Guard
Joined: 27-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 06:35 |
CK was Kiyat, who was elected by Kiyats, Merkits, Naimans and others on
Kurulai as CK which is rather a title. His real name is Temirshin which
is "blacksmith". All this tribes are turkic, populated the territory of
current mongolia and left for Central Asia after CK became a CK. Upon
their leave the free lands of current Mongolia were entered by current,
so-called "mongolian" tribes.
All turkic tribes consider Altai mountains their motherland and where their all started and moved to steppes of Central Asia.
IF CK was a mongol how come his name was Temirshin?
There's no such word in any mongol tribe, isn't it? If he was named
Temirshin then he was a turkic by birth and not by a later assimilation
or such with turkic tribes. Also, only turkic tribes could call its
leader a KHAN and not any
mongol, right? If there were mongols as leaders of all tribes of
mongolia then why would they call him Chingis KHAN and not a title
usually given by mongols to its leaders? Temirshin, known by its
title CK was from a turkic tribe who moved turkic tribes to Central
Asia.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 17:05 |
well, first of all, Temujin was named after a captured Tatar, and second Khan WAS the title used by Mongols...
|
|
Kurultai
Immortal Guard
Joined: 27-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 21:52 |
First of all, it's not "Temujin" but "Temirshin", as there's no "Temujin" in Tatar language.
CK's father, Esukei was from turkic Kiyats, his mother Oyan was from turkic konyrat, the tribes who still live in the current Central Asia.
What is kontaishy title? Is this the title used by mongol tribes who
organized Jungaria? They never gave title "Khan" to their leaders, only
turkic tribes did.
There is a couple of turkic tribes who still lives in Mongolia and who
are still turkic; they were not lost in assimilation with mongols
through the centuries. They are not mongols and are not buddhist like
other mongol tribes.
CK divided his land among four sons, Zhoshy, Kublai, Shagatai and Tole.
Zhozhy was khan of current Central Asia and westwards. He died and his
son Batyi khan continued on and ruled Central Asia, Russia (or Rus')
and parts of Europe. All of this names, their wifes names, their sons
and so on are turkic names and some even now are used widely.
CK was a turkic and led turkic tribes to Central Asia, and mongols are
cousins of turkic but were never part of his military campaigns of
those times. Current mongol tribes living in Mongolia are all buddhist
and I don't think any of these tribes took any part in CK wars. They
just happen to populate the lands which turkics left on their journey
to Central Asia.
Don't mean to offend anyone especially cousins from Mongolia. Just wanted to voice the real background on the turkic tribes.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 22:12 |
Originally posted by Kurultai
First of all, it's not "Temujin" but "Temirshin", as there's no "Temujin" in Tatar language.
CK's father, Esukei was from turkic Kiyats, his mother Oyan was from turkic konyrat, the tribes who still live in the current Central Asia.
What is kontaishy title? Is this the title used by mongol tribes who
organized Jungaria? They never gave title "Khan" to their leaders, only
turkic tribes did.
There is a couple of turkic tribes who still lives in Mongolia and who
are still turkic; they were not lost in assimilation with mongols
through the centuries. They are not mongols and are not buddhist like
other mongol tribes.
CK divided his land among four sons, Zhoshy, Kublai, Shagatai and Tole.
Zhozhy was khan of current Central Asia and westwards. He died and his
son Batyi khan continued on and ruled Central Asia, Russia (or Rus')
and parts of Europe. All of this names, their wifes names, their sons
and so on are turkic names and some even now are used widely.
CK was a turkic and led turkic tribes to Central Asia, and mongols are
cousins of turkic but were never part of his military campaigns of
those times. Current mongol tribes living in Mongolia are all buddhist
and I don't think any of these tribes took any part in CK wars. They
just happen to populate the lands which turkics left on their journey
to Central Asia.
Don't mean to offend anyone especially cousins from Mongolia. Just wanted to voice the real background on the turkic tribes.
|
You are deliberately skewing the known information. eg all the manes you have are turkised forms of the real names.
This has nothing to do with any modern differences between modern 'Turks' and 'Mongols'.
We have sources, written in Mongol that describe the life of Temuljin
who formed the Mongol Empire. We have Persian and Chinese sources
that corroberate this and the names.
You have to stop this urge to over emphasise the 'Turkish' in
everything stepp related (as per several threads on this forum) it's
simply wrong and gives the (presumably incorrect) impresion of over
zealous nationalisim.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Kurultai
Immortal Guard
Joined: 27-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Posted: 28-Dec-2005 at 00:04 |
Tom,
don't mean to be rude, but I don't "have to" do anything about over
emphasizing the turkic tribes (note there's a difference between
"Turkish" you use and "TURKIC" I refer to). If you are really unaware
of the difference between the two, I doubt your understanding on
anything turkic, turkish and mongol.
Anyway, "Temujin" was first used by chinese who don't have letter "R"
in their language and therefore in their interpretation the REAL TEMIRSHIN became Temujin, picked by all others and the mongols and used since.
All the sources you refer to are real and present but were recorded
years after CK moved the turkic tribes from the current Mongolia to
Central Asia. Some were recorded from the mongolian tribes who were
populating the land left by the turkics. I doubt those mongol tribes
were able to provide any good and reliable information about something
theyre were not part of at all, i.e KURULTAI of the turkic tribes and
announcement of Temirshin a Chyngys Khan. Moreover, none of these
sources were traveling to Central Asia and collecting information at
the right source, and therefore their collections are questionable as
they are based on legends, myths and stories.
Current population of Mongolian is what, about 2.8 mln? Current
population of Central Asian republics is more than 40 mln. Throughout
centuries the turkic tribes were protecting their land and now look at
Kazakhstan - 9th largest in the world by territory, were fighting with
the Jungars (mongols), and later on were struggling with the russian
empire and still were able to protect their land territory except for
minor lands taken by russia. Here is for you some introduction into
"everything steppe related" and the Turks (remember not "Turkish") and
their role in the steppe.
I'm no nationalist and respect everyone and every nation - I wanted to
provide a view on the real tribes from which CK and his people come
from.
best
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Posted: 30-Dec-2005 at 12:40 |
Originally posted by Kurultai
Tom,
don't mean to be rude, but I don't "have to" do anything about over
emphasizing the turkic tribes (note there's a difference between
"Turkish" you use and "TURKIC" I refer to). If you are really unaware
of the difference between the two, I doubt your understanding on
anything turkic, turkish and mongol.
Anyway, "Temujin" was first used by chinese who don't have letter "R"
in their language and therefore in their interpretation the REAL TEMIRSHIN became Temujin, picked by all others and the mongols and used since.
All the sources you refer to are real and present but were recorded
years after CK moved the turkic tribes from the current Mongolia to
Central Asia. Some were recorded from the mongolian tribes who were
populating the land left by the turkics. I doubt those mongol tribes
were able to provide any good and reliable information about something
theyre were not part of at all, i.e KURULTAI of the turkic tribes and
announcement of Temirshin a Chyngys Khan. Moreover, none of these
sources were traveling to Central Asia and collecting information at
the right source, and therefore their collections are questionable as
they are based on legends, myths and stories.
Current population of Mongolian is what, about 2.8 mln? Current
population of Central Asian republics is more than 40 mln. Throughout
centuries the turkic tribes were protecting their land and now look at
Kazakhstan - 9th largest in the world by territory, were fighting with
the Jungars (mongols), and later on were struggling with the russian
empire and still were able to protect their land territory except for
minor lands taken by russia. Here is for you some introduction into
"everything steppe related" and the Turks (remember not "Turkish") and
their role in the steppe.
I'm no nationalist and respect everyone and every nation - I wanted to
provide a view on the real tribes from which CK and his people come
from.
best
|
#1 Turkish - Turkic a very modern split used to
differentiate between different things previously referred to as
'Turkish'. I understand the difference, I just don't think that
the new word is needed.
#2 Chinese languages have no 'r' because they have no alphabet.
#3. KURULTAI - a common process amongst all the peoples who lived
a astoral nomadic lifestyle, be their ethno-linguistic origins Iranian
(eg Saka, Saurmations, Samartions) , Tibetan (eg Quing, Tangut), Altaic
(Tuju, Uighur, 'Turk', Mongol, Manchu etc..).
#4 Temuljin was the first Chingiss Khan (a title possibly chosen because there were already several GurKhans at the time).
#5 This has nothing to do with current populations of Mongolia or Central Asia
The nearest things we have to original sources refer to Temuljin and
his immediate followers as Mongols. They called themselves
Mongols. Why call them Turks ???
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Posted: 31-Dec-2005 at 14:49 |
The answer is simple. Because Genghis Khan and his so-called
"Mongols" (Kereits, Naimans, Onguts, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Merkits, Tatars, Kypchaks, etc.) spoke Turkic language.
Edited by Akskl
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 13:58 |
Originally posted by Akskl
The answer is simple. Because Genghis Khan and his so-called
"Mongols" (Kereits, Naimans, Onguts, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Merkits, Tatars, Kypchaks, etc.) spoke Turkic language.
|
Sadly this statement is not true, which rather undermines the argument.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 15:21 |
Do you have proofs to support your statement?
|
|