Turks in the Mongol Horde

Originally posted by Akskl 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. 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 Batu�s 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.kyrgyz.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=263

I have the book and have, previously,  met the author. 

The paper was conciously written to address the Yuan's use of Central Asians as tax gatherers etc..  to distance themselves from suffering and injustice that was caused by the system.

You missed one early point in the paper viz "The Kereyid and Naiman are included in this survey with serious reservations, as the degree of Turkishness of these tribes is still a debatable point [2]."  In essance he is admitting that they were not necessaraly Turks but the paper is deliberately addressing any record of Turks and possible Turks.

One thing missing from the paper is  the comparrison of numbers of non Turks (eg Turks made up less than 0.55 of known senior officials).  You should also note how the numbers of Turks only become significant after they are conquered by the Mongols (see the breakdown in the paper).  The main exeption to this are the Uighur, significant sections of the Uighur (especially) merchants  supported Temuljin from very early in his career (as did key Khitan figures).

ps  Are any of the Russian academics acttive on those fora? (my Russian isn't up to it).

Were they all Turkic mongoloid peoples from Central Asia in Chingis Khaan's army?

Edited by HistoryGuy

even armeniens and templars fought for mongols

Originally posted by Akskl No,  Tinguistic, Iranian and Tibetan (Quiang, Tangut etc) steppe peoples were also included, plus later, Chinese, Persians and Sogdians etc...   They even didn't know how to ride horses and shoot arrows. There were only Chinese and Persian engineers to help to destroy stone walls of castles and citadels. Armenians, Georgians (Christians) were allies who were very active in destruction of Baghdad.

Which group don't you think knew how to ride and shoot ?  and why ?

Mounted archers had been the most important troops in the armies of all these peoples (including perian and Chinese) for hundreds of years.

Originally posted by Akskl It is well-known fact that settled peoples could not be compared to the nomads in ancient and medieval times (before intruducing of firearms and artillery) as warriors. Any army must be a nomad, that is why the nomadic Turks were many times  better soldiers than settled peasants who were absolutely not prepared to the harsh conditions of life and war in open fields. And that is why alsmost all medieval rulers preffered to hire nomads to be their mercenaries. It was much cheaper than to create and support their own big army. Usually they could afford only a small personal guards not more that several hundred or thousand men.   Turkic nomads were excellent riders and archers since childhood. Otherwise they wouldn't survive in Steppe.

Has somebody actually taught you this nonsence ????

Pastoral nomadic peoples had an advantage over settled ones in that they could field almost every adult male as a soldier, setled agriculturalists were trestricted to perhaps one in ten.  however the latter could field larger armies as their population densities were 20-30 times higher.  The agriculturalists could also store up supplies for long time, they could supply permenant garrissons, they had grain fed horses that were larger, stronger and faster (though lower stamina) and could be kept at peak condition even in winter, they developed technologies etc....

Steppe cavalry (all of them, not just Turks) were, man for man, excellent troops and could beat most settled troops.  However they weren't supermen.  


Edited by tadamson

Paul Nazaroff "Hunted Through Central Asia" Oxford University Press 1993
First published 1932

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWo rld/Asian/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9MDE5MjgwMzY4OQ==#

pp.286-288
     Over an immense area in Asia where the wandering Kazakhs ("Kirghiz" in the text - old pre-revolutionary name used by Russians for Kazakhs - A.) have scattered, their manner of life and their peculiar culture, developed through millenia of existence in the free open steppe, is the same, identical in space and identical, too, in time. These nomads were free to move about the plains at their own sweet will, as though upon an open sea, and there was nothing to prevent the Kazakhs of the Tian Shan from wandering away to steppes of Siberia, of the Ural or the Volga, except, of course, nowadays the Bolshevik Government.

This freedom and the mobility of the nomads of the steppe has evolved their own peculiar culture, character and manner of life, and has played a very important part in the history of Asia, which has not yet been properly appre�ciated by historians nor sufficiently studied. It has reacted profoundly on the fate of Russia, and even Western Europe has by no means escaped its influence. The burning sands of Egypt, the valleys of Mesopotamia and of Palestine (the myriad horsemen of Gog and Magog), and of India and the valleys of Russia and of Central Europe and even Chalons, the Catalaunian plains of France, Hellas, too, and Rome, all have seen the forbears of our Kazakh of to-day, though under various names - as Scythians or Massagetae, Huns, Polovtsi, Kipchaks, Kumans, Pechenegs, Alans, Tartars and so on. On every side their invasions have left their mark, not only destructive, for sometimes they have altered the course of historical development and affected the blood, language, character, manners and customs of the people with whom they have come into contact. Just as the Nor�mans in their day made use of their mobility upon the seas to spread their influence and culture throughout the West, so these nomads of the steppes of Asia have done the same in the East. The broad belt of grassy plains across the old continent, which has given rise to the peculiar type of nomad Turki and his inseparable comrade, the horse of the steppe, has had enormous influence on the destinies of the settled nations and of civilisation itself.
All distant invasions and the ` migration of peoples' have been possible owing to one single factor, hitherto ignored by historians, and that is the horse of the steppes. This animal is endowed with most valuable qualities of supporting fatigue and of endless endurance and the power of keeping up prolonged hard work on green food only, on mere grazing, of which other races of horse are quite incapable, being dependent on corn. These outstanding qualities of the steppe horse were fully appreciated and widely used by the great military leaders of Asia, conquerors, Jenghiz Khan, Tamerlane and the others [1], which explains the secret of their success.
The limits of attainment and conquest of the countless hordes of Asia depended not upon the powers of resistance of the subject peoples nor upon their armies, but were defined by the moist meadow grazing, by the cold damp of the north and by the tropical heat of the valleys of India, which were fatal to the horse of the Kazakhs.

1 See Ivanoff, ' On the Art of War of the Mongol-Tartars' (in Russian), a little known but extremely interesting work. Also two papers by me, " The Scythians Past and Present" ('Edinburgh Review,' July 1929, pp. 108-122), and " The Sons of Gog " (' English Review,' March 1930).



Edited by Akskl

Traditional nomadic culture was the same, and the language (Turkic) was almost the same as well - due to the nomadic way of life - over thousands and thousands miles - from Danube river up to the Great Wall of China. 

Paul Nazaroff (Pavel Stepanovich Nazarov) knew the traditional nomadic Kazakh culture  perfectly,  he was fluent in Kazakh language, and he had excellent European education. So his opinion is very authoritative one.

Dear Tom, dont' forget to explain your students that "Kirghiz" in the book are actually Kazakhs. This have to be explained by editor in Preface of the book, but unfortunately it was not, thus confusing all the readers.

I dont' understand why are you mentioning the ancient Kyrghyz. Nazaroff was writing about the 20th century Kazakhs, calling them in the book as "Kirghiz". He then explaines the dialectical difference in language between them and so-called "Kara-Kirghiz" - i.e. modern Kirghiz (or Kyrghyz as they call themselves now, after collapse of the Soviet Union).  

What Tungusic and Tibetan nomads you are talking about? Maybe there were very few of them but they didn't do any noticable impact in the history of Asia. "Iranian" nomads like Scythes and Sarmatians are under big question that they were really Iranian speakers (anyway their DNA is closest to the modern Kazakhs' DNA).  So-called "Mongols" of Genghis Khan were all Turkic speakers. Even Khitans were "Turko-Mongols" who's language was very close to Turkic one. Khitan prince learnt to speak fluently with Uyghur Turks after only 20 days of communcation with them (see F.W.Mott "Imperial China").        

Edited by Akskl

F.W.Mott "Imperial China 900-1800" Harvard University Press, Third Printing 2003, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.

p.30

...To begin the story of this phase of Chinese history, I shall then start in the early tenth century, with the brilliant achivements of the Turco-Mongol or Proto-Mongol (like Genghis Khan's "Mongols" probably, who were all Turkic speakers? - A.)  Khitan nation in creating new forms for exploiting the power of their pastoral nomad state. That extraordinary story follows next...  

 

p.42   4th line from the bottom:

...In 925 Abaoji's (ruler of Khitans - A.) younger brother Diela appears to have played the essential role in devising a new script. The Liao History states: "An Uighur delegation arrived, and there was no one who could understand their language. The Empress said to Emperor Taizu: "Diela,  who is very  intelligent, could be assigned to serve."  He was sent to accompany the delegation. After spending twenty days in their company he had learned their speech and their writing, following which he devised the Khitan small script, which has fewer characters yet is comprehensive"...   

 

Edited by Akskl

Originally posted by Akskl F.W.Mott "Imperial China 900-1800" Harvard University Press, Third Printing 2003, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.

At first I asumed that you had been taught the wrong things, then I assumed that you were misunderstanding what you had read, now I realise that you were simply trolling.

For everyone else, Alskl has referenced the best Western book on the period.  For those interested in the relationships between Turks and Mongols at the time of Temuljin, they should get this book (any university library will have it and it's reasonably priced to buy), turn to page 407 and read chapter 17 section II "The Ethnic Geography of Inner Asia in the Late Twelth Century".  Professor Mote gives a clear and coherent description of what we know (including, needless to say, that the Mongols were not Turks).