The Secret History of the Mongols
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Steppe Nomads and Central Asia
Forum Discription: Nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, Turks & Mongols, and kingdoms of Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11605
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 13:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Secret History of the Mongols
Posted By: SaikhaNBayar
Subject: The Secret History of the Mongols
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 10:48
|
You can read the book chapter by chapter here....
English http://www.magicnet.mn/~altan/secret%20history1.htm - http://www.magicnet.mn/~altan/secret%20history1.htm Espanol? Spainish? (not sure) http://www.magicnet.mn/~altan/esperanto%20index.htm - http://www.magicnet.mn/~altan/esperanto%20index.htm Mongolian (cyrillic) http://www.magicnet.mn/~altan/monindex.htm - http://www.magicnet.mn/~altan/monindex.htm |
Replies:
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 02:34
|
Or you can read it in Hungarian: http://www.terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/titkos.html - http://www.terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/titkos.html |
Posted By: Stiopa
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 02:51
|
Thank you for this precious address… May I ask you if you can help me: I like to know how the Mongolian of the conquest measured the time (the hours, the days, the months, the years), and the space (short and long distances)? That does already a moment that I look for it without success. Till then, bye…
------------- Live its thought, think its life |
Posted By: Snafu
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 09:44
|
That's not very comprehensive though. It's a very abbreviated version. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 18:57
|
Russian translation: http://steppe.konvent.ru/books/ss-00.shtml - http://steppe.konvent.ru/books/ss-00.shtml BTW. Intersting and strange - all the "Mongols" of Genghis Khan were then and are now Turkic speakers. Kereits, Naimans, Jalairs, Qongyrats today are parts of modern Kazakhs (see http://www.elim.kz - www.elim.kz ). All the geographic names were Turkic then, and today they all are Khalkha-Mongolian.
|
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 00:10
|
Not again Akskl. Give your solid proofs to claim "all" Mongols at that period to be Turkic, rather than repeating same sentence time and again. BTW, I'm just questioning your "all".
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Snafu
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 10:07
|
Well it's not really that strange that so many Turkic names show up in the Secret History. Up until that point all of the major powers on the steppe had been Turkic. And Turkic culture was still very dominant. The Mongolian people saw the Turks as their elder cousins and borrowed many aspects of the Turkic language and culture, but they also had their own culture too. So it's not really accurate to say the steppe was entirely Turkic back then. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-May-2006 at 15:51
Ìàñòåðñêèå ðàçðàáîòêèÌîíãîëüñêàÿ êàëåíäàðíàÿ ñèñòåìàÀëåêñåé «Ñòàâð» Èâàíöîâ
**Unfortunately I had to edit most of this post since it contains a foreign language. In order to avoid a deletion in the future either write in english or present your post in the appropriate non-english forum.** - Seko
------------- |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 00:49
|
Rene Grousset "Empire of the Steppes" Rutgers University Press : p.191 "The Kerayit people are usually considered as Turks. " The legend of Mongol origins leaves no room for them, and it is hard to say whether the Kerayit were Mongols who had been strongly influenced by the Turks , or Turks, who were becoming Mongolized. In any event, many Kerayit titles were Turkic, and Togrul is a Turkic rather than a Mongol name" Introduction: p.xxiv (13th line from bottom): "...the Kerayit or Naimans, presumably Turkic, in the twelfth (century)..." p.xxv (4 line from the top): "...Nevertheless, history tells us that in Mongolia itself the Jenghis-Khanites mongolized many apparently Turkic tribes: the Naimans of the Altai, the Kerayits of the Gobi, and the Onguts of Chahar. Before the unification under Jenghis Khan which brought all these tribes under the Blue Mongols, part of present day Mongolia was Turkic; indeed even now a Turkic people, the Yakut, occupy northeastern Siberia, north of the Tungus, in Lene, Indigirka, and Kolyma basins. The presense of this Turkic group so near Bering Strait, north of the Mongols and even of the Tungus on the Arctic Ocean, neccesitates caution in attempts to determine the relative position of the "first" Turks, Mongols, and Tungus..." Kereits were Turks in 1000's when they were baptized. See for example: http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_timeline.html - http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_timeline.html 1007-1008 Conversion of 200,000 Kerait Turks http://www.oxuscom.com/timeline.htm - http://www.oxuscom.com/timeline.htm 1007-1008 Conversion of 200,000 Kerait Turks to Nestorian Christianity http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&am - http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&am p;am p;am p;am p;C=1362 There were Nestorian missionary activities further to the northeast, toward Lake Baikal. During the 10th and 11th centuries, several Tartar tribes were entirely or to a great extent Christian, notably the Keraits, Uighurs, Naimans and Merkits. Keraits were a Turko-Mongolian tribe. The Kerait capital at this time was Karakoram, where Marco Polo found a church. They were a cluster of hunting tribes east and south of Lake Baikal. The principal tribes evangelized there by the Nestorians were the Naiman, the Merkit and the Kerait. It seems that the Gospel was taken to those tribes by Christian merchants. An account of the conversion of the Keraits is given by the thirteenth century Jacobite historian Gregory Bar Hebraeus. According to Hebraeus, at the beginning of the eleventh century, a king of the Keraits lost his way while hunting in the high mountains. When he had abandoned all hope, a saint appeared in a vision and said, "If you will believe in Christ I will lead you lest you perish." He returned home safely. He remembered the vision when he met some Christian merchants. He inquired of them of their faith. At their suggestion he sent a message to the Metropolitan of Merv for priests and deacons to baptize him and his tribe. As a result of the mission that followed, the Kerait prince and two hundred thousand of his people accepted baptism. (R. Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1970, p. 191. See also Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia pp. 400-401.) 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. ...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]... http://www.kyrgyz.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=263 - http://www.kyrgyz.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=263 |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 11:08
|
Aksakal is quite right when talking about those tribes and their language. I've also asked Hazaras of Iran wich are told to be descendant of Mongols (their origin is from Afghani Hazaras; they just live in Iran). The surprising thing is that they belive the language their ancestors spoke, was Turkic and not Mongolian. But we need more proof. It's not that easy. One can ask like this: 'if they were Turkic and Turkic speakers, so how do you explian the Mongolian language and words in certain places in Afghanistan?'.
------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 11:25
|
There surely were many Turkic tribes in the steppe during Chengiz period, such as Naiman, Kireyit, Qongrat etc. But not all of them were Turkic. Chengiz surely belonged to Mongolic tribe. They might have become Turkic afterwards, but the fact is that they were mongolic back then.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 11:34
|
Well, when talking about the process Chengiz Qaan went through to control Mongolia, they are called his allies. Those tribes AkSakal mention are all Turkic; they were also Turkic in the time of Great Qaan. Anyhow, I think you're right. I'm not trying to relate ourselves to Mongols. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 11:40
|
let me tell you of my own research. According to my conclusion, Turks & Mongols were very very close to each other; can't even imagine that much certain difference. But the present day Mongols are a combination of Manchu-Tungusic people and a percentage of old so-called 'Mongols'. Anyhow, this is just my own point of view and needs more study and time. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 11:49
|
Here's another abbreviated version: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=rise_of_genghis_khan - http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=rise_of_genghi s_khan
Yes they were very closely related to each other. Most of the purpose in making a differentiation between them on this board are nationalistic or silly. |
Posted By: Seömis of Arierep
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 15:54
|
Hello! Someone could tell when the brothers of Temujin or Genghis Khan passed away? I have this names: Qasar; Belgutei; Qaciun and Temuge. Also i would like to know more about is elder son, Joti, because i have the impression that he passed away before is father. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 23:03
|
Turks and Mongols are having the same root, that is true. But these two are branches of Altaic nation. If we want to give a name to our nation, it is Altaic. Since, ethnical difference between turks and Mongols started in 1800s. |
Posted By: Snafu
Date Posted: 14-May-2006 at 00:57
Temujin's youngest brother Temuge lived to be an old man. He was executed sometime in the early 1240's when he tried to seize the throne after Ogedai Khan's death. Belgutai, Temujin's half-brother, also lived to a very old age. He was still alive when Mongke Khan was enthroned in 1251, and some sources say he died in 1255. Another half-brother, Bekter, was killed by Temujin in childhood. I don't know when the other brothers Jochi Khasar and Kachi'un died. And yes, Temujin's eldest son Jochi did die a few months before his father. The two were on very tense terms and it is suspected by some that Jochi was assasinated. But there's no proof of this. |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 14-May-2006 at 14:54
|
Khachiun died in the battle against Naiman. I don't know when Khasar died. ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 14-May-2006 at 22:49
|
The differenciations were made by historical facts. Actually someone who is claiming Mongols as Turkic are nationalistic or silly. BTW, they did closely related, Turkic people mixed with Tungustic people, and vice versa. Mongols are Tungustic people with strong Turkic influence.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Stiopa
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 05:48
|
Thank you Zorigo ta have respond on my request, but unfortunately, I can’t read your message, who appears with this kind of lettre: Ìàñòåðñêèå ðàçðàáîòêè Is it possible to send back your message. Thank you Stiopa ------------- Live its thought, think its life |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 22:33
|
Turkic peoples and Mongolian (Khalkha, Buryats, Kalmucks) peoples have
different and mutually incomprehesible languages. As we know from the
Secret History, Genghis Khan's troops had huge cultural and linguistic
problems when they were conquering Khori-Tumats - ancestors of modern
Buryats, who are practically the same people as Khalkha-Mongols. And at
the same time the Genghis Khan troops considered Kypchaks, Qanglys,
Ongut Turks and other Turkic tribes as brethrens, who had the same
language and culture. Naimans, Kereits, Qongurats, Jalairs etc. were
Turkic tribes - now parts of Kazakhs - as well as Kypchaks, Qanglys,
Onguts (Waqs or Uaks now). In recent translation of the Secret History made by Urgunge Onon you can see hundreds and hundreds explanations of the words and names which can be possible only by using what he called "Orkhon Turkish" - i.e. practically Kazakh language. Is Urgunge Onon also "nationalist"? Also, all geographical names in the Secret History are Turkic, and today on territory of modern Mongolia they all sound totally different. http://www.zanabazar.mn/Guide/Burkhan/burkhan.html - http://www.zanabazar.mn/Guide/Burkhan/burkhan.html ...Another locale in the Khentii Mountains frequented by Zanabazar was 7724-foot Khentii Khan Uul, also known as the Burkhan Khaldun of the Khamug Mongols. The top of this mountain is where, according to legend, Chingis Khan went to pray for guidance before going into battle. (It should not be confused with the Burkhan Khaldun of the Uriankhai, where Chingis, in an famous episode in his early life, hid from the Merkit tribesmen who had kidnapped his wife Bцrte and tried to kill him, now identified by most historians as 7534-foot Erdene Uul, about twenty miles southwest of here.)... End of quote TWO Burkhan-Khaldun mountains!! And both have Khalkha-Mongolian names now - Khentii Khan Uul and Erdene Uul! How is this possible - not to know which of the mountains is the SACRED one of Genghis Khan, and to rename it?! It is obvious that Khalkha-Mongols have no relation to Genghis Khan and his so-called "Mongols" (i.e. Mangqols). |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 02:28
|
to Akskl
- Please read Secret Histrory of Mongols first ------------- |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 12:30
|
I don't believe in the 'Turkic People'. I mean I don't think they were the same ethnical and racial people; let alone to be nationalist; thanks for your description 'inikim'. We're just trying to support what we think... that is old Mongols are not the same people as present day Mongols. I'm not saying they were Turkic. Note the thing. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 24-May-2006 at 09:21
|
The present day Mongols were more or less the same with the old Mongols, as they have continued their culture. Only the old Mongols had more Turkic influence, and some part were intergrated into Turkic stock. Even if there were Turkic people living with Mongol peoples during that period, they were always distinguished from each other. Don't include Turkic groups to old Mongol category to make yourself confused. ------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 24-May-2006 at 23:30
|
I have two English translations of the Secret History and a Russian
one. And I am going to buy another English translation - Professor
de Rachewiltz's one. Urgunge Onon's one has numerous references to the
"Orhon Turkish" dialect (i.e. Turkic language) for explanatiions and
translation of hundreds of names and words. |
Posted By: raygun
Date Posted: 25-May-2006 at 00:11
|
This is an interesting topic.
Can we say modern Mongols & Turkic people like Kazakhs, Turkmens does not necessarily look like the people of Genghis Khan's time?
I mean, over hundreds of years, how much integration have the steppe people established to become what they are today?
For example, the Americans were decendents of many European people like Poles, Italians, Irish, etc. So today, when we look at them can we really identify the characteristics that separates the old European linages? Does the Americans look really different from their forefathers?
Also, I would like to draw your attention to this thread: http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1118992922 - http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1118992922
It classifies and shows examples of physical features of Mongoliod people; which includes Mongols and Turkic people.
cheers
|
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 25-May-2006 at 01:30
|
I think more likely than not, the ethnic composition of Mongols has
changed to some extent. 800 years is more than enough time, even in sedentary cultures
and without any mass migrations. Of course, culturally, the identity is always very persistent throughout history.
Ultimately, no analysis can uncover the original text because the only known versions of the secret history are all traslated from a chinese version. |
Posted By: Seömis of Arierep
Date Posted: 25-May-2006 at 11:41
|
Hello! Could anyone tell me when the brothers of Temujin/Genghis Khan died?
I have read that they control the eastern wing of the empire close to China and Corea.
But i have read that is favorite brother is Temüge.
But i cannot find anyting about Jöchi Khasar, Belgutei or Qaciun.
More related to the main general's when they died?
One question:
Jöchi the first son is really son of Temujin or not? ------------- |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 25-May-2006 at 12:45
|
Well, raygun, among the people believed to be descendants of old Mongols, there are 'Hazara' people of Afghanistan. They're just like we Central Asians. But there comes Mongol- descents of China and present day Mongols of Mongolia. They are Mongoloid... but the forms of eyes are different. You know, we've got distinctions in our own place (Central Asia); but not to the degree found in present day Mongols. Hazaras and Mongols of China and Mongolia are all Mongols? But why do they differ? Should we take into account the Manchu- Tungusic influence in eastern ones? Hazara people are believed to marry inside their society rather than with Afghan Uzbeks, Turkmens or Kazaks. So, the chance to intermix with Turkic tribes fails there. But the intersting thing is that they still look like we Central Asians. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Seömis of Arierep
Date Posted: 28-May-2006 at 12:47
|
Tank's to all about the information it is important because in the last two weeks almost become mad because i dont found information about that. Also in my rechearch i found to intersting names: Aric- Boge i think he is a rival of Kublai Khan. And found a men called Altan Khan. Could you please tell me more about these men's? ------------- |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 18:58
|
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10636 - http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10636 The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Travels of Marco Polo Volume 1 by Marco Polo and Rustichello of Pisa [10] ["The Keraits," says Mr. Rockhill (_Rubruck_, 111, note), "lived on the Orkhon and the Tula, south-east of Lake Baikal; Abulfaraj relates their conversion to Christianity in 1007 by the Nestorian Bishop of Merv. Rashideddin, however, says their conversion took place in the time of Chingis Khan. (_D'Ohsson_, I. 48; _Chabot, Mar Jabalaha, III._ 14.) D'Avezac (536) identifies, with some plausibility, I think, the Keraits with the _Ki-le_ (or _T'ieh-le_) of the early Chinese annals. The name K'i-le was applied in the 3rd century A.D. to _all_ the Turkish tribes, such as the _Hui-hu_ (Uigurs), _Kieh-Ku_ (Kirghiz) Alans, etc., and they are said to be the same as the _Kao-ch'e_, from whom descended the _Cangle_ of Rubruck. (_T'ang shu_, Bk. 217, i.; _Ma Tuan-lin_, Bk. 344, 9, Bk. 347, 4.) As to the Merkits, or Merkites, they were a nomadic people of Turkish stock, with a possible infusion of Mongol blood. They are called by Mohammedan writers Uduyut, and were divided into four tribes. They lived on the Lower Selinga and its feeders. (_D'Ohsson_, i. 54; _Howorth, History_, I., pt. i. 22, 698.)"--H. C.] End of quote
Reading the Secret History it becomes absolutely obvious for any reader that Genghis Khan and his "Mongols" (correctly - Mongqols) spoke the same language as Kereits, Merkits, Naimans, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Onguts, and other TURKIC tribes. This automatically means that Genghis Kgan and his "Mongols" were TURKIC speakers as well.
All geographical names of the Secret History of the places located on territory of modern Mongolia are changed - they were Turkic in the manuscript, and now they all sound totally different. E.g. lake Qyzyl Bash - now Ulyung nor, Qara'un-jidun mountains of the Secret History -see page 196 of Urgunge Onon's translation- now are Shike (Yeke) Qahan mountains in Eastern Mongolia (Xing'an in Chinese), etc. At the same time geographical names mentioned in the Secret History and located on the territory of Kazakhstan - stay the same - e.g. see page 187 - Ertis river in Kazakh (Erdish in the Secret History, Irtysh in Russian), Buqtyrma river in Kazakh (Buqdurma in the Secret History, Bukhtarma in Russian), Altay Mountains, etc. |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 20:23
Explain how its "absolutely obvious." Also, a person can speak multiple languages. Almost everyone on this forum is an english speaker, so does that mean he or she is American/British/etc...?  |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 21:19
|
Don't worrey Akskl has a bee in his bonnet.......... He thinks that Mongolian didn't exsist and they all spoke Turkish, thus they all were Turkish. It's mince, my only fear is that people might be teaching/propagating such rubbish. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 23:58
|
Dear Tom, why don't you open links I provided, and books I cited? Also, how can you explain the changes in geographical names on the territory of modern Mongolia? The only reasonable explanation is that modern Khalkha-Mongols have nothing in common with Cenghis Khan and his Mongqols, described in the Secret History. The same situation is on the Western part of the Great Steppe. All Turkuc geographical names are almost forgotten there, and are replaced by totally different ones. E.g. Danube - Tuna, Dnestr - Turla, Dnepr - Aqsu, Don - Tan, Volga - Edil, Ural - Jaiyq, Simferopol - Aq-Mechet, Odessa - Hajibey , etc. New occupants - new geographical names. Genghis Khan and his "Mongols" were not polyglots. They could speak only their own Turkic language - universal language between Danube river (and even Adriatic sea) and the Great Wall of China (and Laptev sea on the North). Nomads were very mobile, that is why there are practically no dialect differences within Kazakhs, and that's why most of Turkic peoples can easily understand each other without help of interpreters - thus they speak the same language (according to rules of linguistics) - only having different dialects of the same language. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 03:05
|
Oh dear Aksakal
Seems like you are very eager to prove that Mongols spoke Turkic. I found some original text from Secret History of Mongols.
Please have a look, you might recognise some turkic words, maybe you can understand it... translate into turkish and english.
Remember:- the surviving manuscripts all derive from a Chinese transliteration and translation of the 14th century, significantly after the death of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan - Genghis Khan on his conquests and perceptions viewed by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols - Mongols .
1)
      2)
     3)
       4)
        5)
     6)
       7)
    8)
      ------------- |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 09:13
I think it proves nothing. Names changes all the time and just by reading what you wrote, I can tell that you're exaggerating the observations. I guess by using your logic, one can conclude that the Soviets and Modern Russians aren't the same people, since city names like Leningrad and Stalingrad have changed. 
While ethnic composition have changed, it has not totally changed. The Mongol Empire lasted until 1600, after which there were successor states that Mongol in character. I think you're just trying to push propoganda that everything was Turkic. I can't wait to see how you prove that Manchus were also Turkic. |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 10:31
I've looked at the links and books, and on other fora I've pointed out how your souces don't support your theories. j' accuse you are trolling........... ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 15:33
|
Page 241, ref. 577: "The Ula and the Na'u are the Songari and Na'un (Onon) River..." Even Onon (i.e. Na'u or Na'un, as we know now) river also was renamed by Khalkha-Mongols?!! References to the so-called "Orkhon Turkish dialect" in the Urgunge Onon's "Secret History": 72. Tenggis - ocean 79. Soqor - blind 81. Tunggelik or Tonggelik river - means "to flow" or a "wheel" in Kazakh (dongheleg), and not related to "deresu" - "mat-thorn grass" as Urgunge Onon proposes. 82. Alan Qo'a - "Outstanding beauty" in Orkhon Turkish 83. Kol - lake 86.-lar, -nar plural ending inTurkic 125. Shinqor -kind of falcon (Sunqar in Kazakh), bilge -wise, beki - "another Orkhon Turkish title" 128. "Otchigin is a compound of the Orkhon Turkish word ot -"fire" ("ot" in Kazakh -A.)..." " Buri" means "wolf" in the Orkhon Turkish dialect..." 129. "Kishlig ...means "huge", "broad-minded", "boastful" in Orkhon Turkish... "Darqan" translated here as "freedman" is an Orkhon Turkish term ... 131. ...Kolen means large lake in Orkhon Turkish... 141. The text says "older brother" (aqa) (agha in Kazakh - A.) 148. ...the prefix dei-, derived from an Orkhon Turkish word meant "mother's younger brother"... 149. Quda ... page 57: Dei-sechen said: "Yisugei-quda..." (quda means relatives trough marriage in Kazakh, and not derived from "qudaldaqu - to sell", as Urgunge Onon proposes - A.) 156. Monglik meant "mole" (naevus) in Orkhon Turkish... 166. Bekter... derives form the Orkhon Turkish word for armour and military equpment more generally. 170. The word "otermeleju" transllated here as "shot at" derives from the Orkhon Turkish "oter" to beat or to kill (oltir in Kazakh). 207. ...moqariya derives from the Orkhon Turkish mokai, a large male brown bear... 208. Maliyasuqay"sacrifice" was an Orkhon Turkish word... 209. ...yeke maqalay (big hat)... - (malakhay - Turkic word even in Russian - A.) Enough for today... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 16:38
------------- |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 23:04
|
Rashid-al-Din wrote: Volume 1, Book 1, Ch.1 of the 4th part A296 "According to what was wrote up in the Preface to that blessed book, the Mongqol tribes were one of the groups of the general mass of Turkic tribes, their guise and language were similar to each other's. All this people stems from Japhet - the seer Noah's son - peace with him! - who is called Buldja (Abuldja)-Khan and who was the common ancestor of all Turkic tribes..." A306 "...Burjigin in Turkic means a blue-eyed man." A8 "...The word Mongqol became name of their clan, and this name (now) is being transferred to other peoples which are similar to the Mongqols, because the generalization of of this name (with other peoples) began since epoch of the Mongqols - and the latter ones are one of the Turkic peoples..." |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 23:49
| Yes - and?... It is commonly known that Rashid ad-Din referred to Mongols as Turkic. But that holds no signifcance just as how the Chinese referred to the Mongols as ta-ta-er. In this specific case, Rashid referred the Mongols as Turkic because there was a large number of Turkic people under the Mongols and that most nomadic tribes in Mongolia were to some degree similar. Rashid failed to make that distinction. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 13:20
|
Marco Polo, his father and uncle spoke with Emperor Kublai Khan in Turki language: http://www.silk-road.com/artl/marcopolo.shtml "...The Great Khan, Mangu's brother, Kublai, was indeed hospitable. He had set up his court at Beijing, which was not a Mongol encampment but an impressive city built by Kublai as his new capital after the Mongols took over China in 1264 and established Yuan dynasty (1264-1368). Kublai asked them all about their part of the world, the Pope and the Roman church. Niccolo and Matteo, who spoke Turkic dialects perfectly, answered truthfully and clearly. The Polo brothers were well received in the Great Khan's capital. One year later, the Great Khan sent them on their way with a letter in Turki addressed to Pope Clement IV asking the Pope to send him 100 learned men to teach his people about Christianity and Western science. He also asked Pope to procure oil from the lamp at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem..." |
Posted By: Snafu
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 14:03
|
Well of course Khubilai used Turkic when dealing with foreigners. Who spoke Mongolian back then? Hardly anyone. But many people knew Turkic. So it makes sense that Khubilai would use a more common language to deal with foreigners. That's not proof that Khubilai was a Turk. It just means he was intelligent enough to realize that his own language was diplomatically useless. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 22:03
|
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. http://www.kyrgyz.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=263 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.uscolo.edu/history/seminar/sauma.htm YAHBH-ALLAHA ELECTED PATRIARCH "...The reason for his election was this: The kings who held the steering poles of the government of the whole world were MUGLAYE (Mongols), and there was no man except MAR YAHBH-ALLAHA who was acquainted with their manners and customs, and their policy of government, and their language..." MAR YAHBH-ALLAHA was Ongut Turk (who now are Kazakhs). |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 23:19
|
I really don't understand Akskl, what you are trying to prove is only showing the influence of Turkic people on Monolians, and their relationship between each other, with which very few people disagree. On the other hand, this is again showing they were different people. When on earth will you stop?
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 00:16
|
Askll, if you make another post about of the same nature, you will
receive a warning for trolling. This condition extends beyond this
thread. Estell has been banned for the previous post. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 00:00
| I just post citations from various sources and links. |
Posted By: borudjin
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 06:48
|
mongol nowadays is a misnomer. before mongol meant part of a turkic peoples and was a tribe that took hegemony over others, and now it means tungusic people who have no proven descent from genghis khan( eg the khalka). the khalka cannot prove descent from the genghizids who were turks. also barbar is subjective in this topic
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 07:37
wrong barbar is uigur (turk)
|
Posted By: borudjin
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 07:42
|
maybe he´s a khalka nationalist pretending to be an uyghur? maybe im a khalka pretending to be a turk so i can manipulate the argument into my interests?
i just messed with evryones mind. muahahaha
well barbar is wrong and akskl is right! i believe :D
|
Posted By: yan.
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 08:26
| So the Yuan dynasty was turkic? What about the Il-Khanids? |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 08:27
|
Borodjin you are already walking on thin ice. Either cut the dimwitted comments or you'll find a one way ticket out of here.
Barbar is an esteemed member who has shown his dedication to scholarly debates. You, on the other hand, need to establish yourself first by becoming familiar with the Codes of Conduct.. ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 14:53
i think you are akskl if not at least you are his clone(not realy the same person)
you guys are all the same ultra nationalistics and everybody who doesn't agree with you is an imposter or a hippie etc...
|
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 23:31
|
Xi tujue, please don't use your "intuition" instead of information. Similar discussion was here: Genghis Khan wasn't a Khalkha Mongol http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t11740.html Borudjin, be more courteous and serious, please. |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 23:53
|
Don't worry, he has already been banned. Some people are simply unrehabilitable. ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 25-Nov-2006 at 14:13
I never said he was Khakha mongol but why does he have to be turkic GId i'm tired of this...
ys i Know the theory you believe in that modernday mongols are machus and that the old mongol tribes were Turkic....
it could be that modernday mongolians aren't all the same mongolians of the genishid period but that doesn't probe that the old mongolians were of teh turkic stock that only proves that they were assimilated into the turkic population i think during the khanats periode.
I could be wrong see I admit that I could be wrong.
there are only theories nothing is proven so loosen up and quit posting the same stuff you need to go to some ultranotionalistic turkic site.
don't get me wrong I'm also a nationalist well not realy I love my country and my people but Im not going to make wild claims and say that every great warrior leader that has lived has the same origin or blood as i do
this is my theory how many posts do you have 164 yes? .
I bet that al least 100 of them are about "prooving" that gebghis khan wasn't khalkha ... hey... I could be wrong
well take care ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |