Print Page | Close Window

Tolui and Ogedei drunks

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=4357
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 13:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Tolui and Ogedei drunks
Posted By: doorman
Subject: Tolui and Ogedei drunks
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 19:40
How in the world  did these two end up being drunkards?  Was this prevalent fault among the mongol khans?



Replies:
Posted By: minchickie
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 19:56


-------------


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 20:06
Ogedei was drunk because his grandson, future heir to the throne (besides Guyuk), died. 

-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 22:24
 I know, and it's a damn shame too.


Posted By: doorman
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 13:34
Isn't it pathetic that genghis khan had to choose between  two drunks  for a successor.?


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 16:13
he did not had to choose, Tölui died before Ögödai.

-------------


Posted By: Aygucu Tonyukuk
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 16:21
Two Turkic drunkards ruled the world. They managed this because they were Turkic.

-------------
Turkish History Forum
www.turktarihi.net


Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 07:19

Originally posted by Aygucu Tonyukuk

Two Turkic drunkards ruled the world. They managed this because they were Turkic.

Were Ogedei and Tolui turks?

Did your grandfather Ulun-Dulun say it?     

 



-------------
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 16:59

They were Mongols.

By the way, blitz, how did you conclude like this? Please explain us your logical conclusions step by step, how you reach such ideas about others...



-------------


Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 17:30

In those days, calling a Mongol Turkic, would be an insult I think . By Turks, Secret History of Mongolia refers to Orkhon Turks (Tu-c'hueh).

We should precisely call them with their tribe names. THEY WERE MONGOLIAN.  They were from the Borjigin clan of the Mongolian tribe.

In the beginning says Onon:

The Mongols were a small nomadic tribe in the area of Ergon and Kolen Na' ur. This Mongol tribe moved to the Keluren, Onon, and Tula districts around the years following 970, and was one of the many tribal peoples shifting about nomadically during this period. The people of the felt walled tents were the Tatars, the Onggirads, the Kereyids, the Naimans, the Tayichi'uds,and the Merkids. All these groups spoke a language akin to that of the Mongols, but were only included in the cathegory of Mongols after they had been conquered by, or pledged alliance to, the Mongol tribe.



Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 17:49

Kereyids and Naymans were included in the Turkic Ulus while Mongolian tribe, Merkit tribe and ithers are in the Mongolian Ulus by current historians.

But if we want to be precise and consult secret history of Mongolia, they all spoke akin languages.

They were sure the same people, but I do not think we should include them to Turkic Ulus. There must be a general definition.



Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2005 at 03:51
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

They were Mongols.

By the way, blitz, how did you conclude like this? Please explain us your logical conclusions step by step, how you reach such ideas about others...

Ask your turkic brother Aygucu Tonyukuk, how he can conclude that Ogedei and Tolui were turks. Of course, they were mongols, sons of great Ghengis.

You turks claim that mongolian history is part of turkic history because both mongols and turks ware nomads and lived in neighborhood. But you forget that mongols are very different from turks.

Have the mongols ever claimed that Seldjuk's, Qwaresm's, Kharakhanid's and Osman's history are part of mongolian history?

You turks ought to be ashamed of yourself!



-------------
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2005 at 04:02

We dont claim they are Turks or related with us. And we dont try to steal their history. We respect Mongols bud, just take it easy...



-------------


Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2005 at 14:50

Blitz you do not read what I have written.

Aygucu is wrong, yes Mongolians were Mongolian, but  Turks and Mongolians were not different. Read my quote from Urgunge Onon. You should analyze Mongolian steps well. Some are called Turkic because ruled by Orhun Turks. Some became Mongolised, as Urgunge Onon says, because they were subjugated to Mongolian tribe. There are many tribes and one becomes stronger, renames them with her name, that' s it...



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2005 at 14:56
But linguistics definately differ us. Turkic and Mongolian are too, very distinct languages. Of course we are very related with Mongolians, we lived as their western neighbors for thousands of years, our cultures etc. were all very similar, but about origins, noone can be sure.

-------------


Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2005 at 15:01

Origins of many tribes are not strongly related to each other in Chinese sources, not only Mongols and Orkhun Turks. I do not know but I have never read a source of Xiong nu being a proto Turkic, proved by strict facts.

Grousset writes, Mongols are the inhabitants and Turks immigrated from the west. And I know some claims, we are the real inhabitors, Mongols immigrated from east.

But Onon is very very precise, does not waste time with theories.

Kereyits and Naimans who are considered to be Turk spoke akin languages with the small Mongolian tribe.

In that era, this was a tribal name, not a people name like Orkhun Turks.

It is true Mongolians are Mongolian, i will not call them Turk. That is a wrong thing, calling them Turkic. But were they the same, Onon says so.



Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2005 at 15:04

National borders are drawn by seas, mountains, great rivers, etc... Even if they are from different origins (and we will never learn this), they lived together, mixed up for thousand years.

These hundreds of tribes sure lived isolated from each other. But when some got stronger ruled the others, isolation from the ruling tribe finished.

Tribes were Hsiung Nufied, Xienpified, Tu' chuehfied (Turkified in other words ) and Mongolified. Onon says it and with a very clear language. And says, these neigboring tribes spoke "akin" language.

Dilaect differences are very normal, if they are not ruled by other, they lived isolated. BUT THEY WERE RULED by others, all were ruled by others...

No tribe except Mongols were Mongols before Mongols subjugated them.

Take good care Emre,

Mehmet



Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2005 at 15:10

If you look at Secret HIstory of Mongols, there are many footnotes saying zzz means yyy in Orkhun Turkish dialect.




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com