Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTurks in the Mongol Horde

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
Author
Akskl View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Turks in the Mongol Horde
    Posted: 24-Jan-2006 at 22:47

Genghis Khan and his so-called "Mongols" are many times closer to modern Kazakhs than to modern Khalkha-Mongols. And THIS IS NOT RACISM. This is a historical, ethnographical and linguistical  fact.

F.W.Mott positions (see pp.403-409) the Genghis Khan's "Mongols" somewhere in the middle between Turks and Mongols.  

He writes that Onguts, Uighurs, Kyrghyzes were Turks, Keraits, Naimans, Ongirats. Merkits, "...appear to have been more Turkic... and other were more like the Mongols." (p.405) 

Naimans, Ongirats (Qongyrats) are now Kazakhs of the Middle Juz.  

On p.406 he writes that Onguts were Turkic tribe - descendants of Shatuo Turks who ruled in Northern China in 923-950. Uak (Waq) Kazakhs of the Middle Juz are descendants of the Ongut Turks. 

He mentions the modern times Turkic republic of Tatarstan, and Turkic people of Crimean Tatars. 

What about Siberian Tatars, Astrakhan Tatars, Volga Tatars, Crimea Tatars, Noghays - they all are Turkic speaking peoples. Why not Mongolian? Why Genghis Khan's "Mongols' had terrible linguistic and cultural problems during the war against Khori-Tumats - ancestors of modern Buryats, people who have the same language as modern Khalkha-Mongols? 

Russian historian Rassadin says that language of the "Secret History" is closer to Turkic language than to the Mongol one.



Edited by Akskl
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 22:55

 

It seems you have been confused with the idea of the present nation and ancient nation. If one tribe belonged to Mongolian in the histrory now belongs to Qazaq doesn't necessarily mean that they are Qazaq or Turkic in the history.  There are cases like you can find decendents of one tribe in both Qazaq and Mongol (even Uzbek, Tatar etc).

If you define one tribe to be Turkic or Mongolian, then you should refer to the historical facts.  Well now you are saying, "secret history was closer to Turkic rather than Mongolian". Even if we think this is the fact (I have no knowledge on this), then why did the author bother to write the book in some Mongolian rather than pure Turkic? 

Could you explain why there were adaptation of the Uyghur script to Mongolian language during the empire period, if the leaders were Turkic, why did they bother to create a script for Mongolians?

No one denies the role of Turkic people (in historical term) in the Mongol empire.  No matter the possibility that the father of Chengiskhan being Turkic or Turkic soldiers being main composition,  the empire was Mongolic in many aspects. This is the known fact.

It's also the known fact most of the leading Mongol tribe decendents became Turkified and for this very reason, present day Turkic people have the right to claim that they have ancesters who created that great Mongol empire. But it is silly to claim the empire was Turkic in the history.   

 

Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 05:52
@Barbar:    
Back to Top
Akskl View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 00:03
What is really silly - to call "Mongols" the 100% Turkic speaking tribes (both in 12-13th and in 20-21st centuries) like  Naimans. Kereits, Onguts, Qongirats, Jalairs, etc.   Even the "Turko-Mongols" sounds more correct, but very racist, of course. 

It is amazing that, say, Chinese, Jews, Greeks, Persians, etc., did exist 2000 years ago (very often under very different names), but  Kazakhs did not exist only 800 years ago.


Edited by Akskl
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 02:17
Ok I think it's time that this topic shuts down.

Russian historian Rassadin says that language of the "Secret History" is closer to Turkic language than to the Mongol one.


Despite the fact that the Secret History has survived only by Chinese translations of the original. Or maybe Chinese script is Turkic too...

Akskl, I think you're just trolling. You've written some really unsound arguments that don't make sense. While I think many of the topics here are debatable, I think you've spoiled that mood for debate.


Edited by Imperator Invictus
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.