Another "MONGOL THING"
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=5212
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 23:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Another "MONGOL THING"
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Subject: Another "MONGOL THING"
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2005 at 18:06
|
Is it true that the Mongols as a tribe were oinly about 4000-5000 men
among the so called Mongol Steppe army and the rest were Kazakhs,
Tungus, Finno-Ugrians, and then of course the Naiman, Merkit and the
rest of the tribes in the closer areas. I know that the Mongol army
consisted of dozens of tribes and ethnicities, but when did the number
go so low and how much did the Mongols in reality affect battle outcomes? And also i read that Russian principalities were overrun by Russians them selves because Genghis made Suzdal attack Vladimir and so on and that the Mongol warfare had little to do with their demise when considering the political meddling of Genghis? Is this true or has anyone good information to overthrow these statements. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Replies:
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2005 at 19:37
|
A mystery. I will need to dig deep into my resources to come up with Mongol numbers during their 'early' years. Hopefully, that and the Russian principalities will be covered in some detail in another edition of Mongol enemies. ------------- |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2005 at 23:30
|
It is widely held that the Mongol army was comprised of many different
nomadic groups, especially Turkic nomads, who outnumbered the Mongol
warriors. 10000-30,000 is probably a
good estimate range for the number of people in the Mongol tribe. The
total population of Chinggis' empire at the eve of invading Jin is
traditionally put at 1 million. In the Secret History of the Yuan Dynasty, it lists the number of households of various tribes under the control of Chinggiz. (I don't have the source with me so I can't comment any further). ------------- |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 06:25
|
What a ___ did you read? ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Assume, the mongols were so few. Were the rest turks then so foolish to obey a couple of mongols? 
Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 08:56
|
Actually the mongol population isnt and wasnt ever that large. Another way to see it is the area that the mongol or mongolian variant speaking people cover, and plot that to the turkic group.. You can come to this conclusion in even some of the least nationalistic sites and so how to call them 'Mongols' and not Tartar's/Tatars beats me.. even the latin "Liber Tatarium" translated to be Mongol... so I suppose this is just another example for pure hatred of historians towards certain people's.
------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 09:49
|
Mongol armies were organized on the decimal system (1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000). Each man had a specific job at his postion and rank. Apart from the three type of forces (Junghar-Left Wing, Baraunghar-Right Wing, and Khol-Center), The army center also consisted of the Imperial guard-Keshik. Here the finest troops were selected. All army units were drawn from a mixture of families and tribes. This ensured a units loyalty to the Khan and not to smaller fractions. Discipline was very rigid. Each leader was responsible for his immediate ten (troops or leaders). Leaders would answer to the officer directly above them. When the Turko-Mongol armies were in battle each soldier was partially responsible for the whole unit and, at the same time, part of the responsibility of the same unit. For example, if one or two troops of a group of ten were to run away then all within that unit would be put to death. If a whole group of ten flees, the rest of their group of one hundred were put to death and so on. If only one or two (soldiers or units) go forward to fight and the others didn't, then the rest within that unit were put to death. Source- John of Plano Carpino from The Art of War In World History. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 10:30
|
Mongol armies were mainly consisted of Turkic troops. That's why Turkic states and communities have appeared after the Mongol conquest. Timurid state was Turkic because Timur's army was consisted of Turks. Uzbegs came with Mongols but they are also Turkic. After the Ilkhanids, Akkoyunlu and Karakoyunlu states were found, and both were Turkic. Turkmens were an important part of the Mongolian army. Mongols were always low in numbers. Rulers were Mongols, armies were mainly Turkic. ------------- |
Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 10:54
|
This also coincides with what I've read about the afonasevi and andronovi they pre-date the so called mongolians in a similar fashion to be around 2700BC, but the funny fact is that they always have leaders that are of other origins, and not from within themselves. (i'm translating the books) ------------- |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 13:48
|
But were there Finno-Ugrians among Temüjins and his followers armies as an amount that really mattered?
------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 13:53
|
Finno-Ugrians were far far away from Temujin's empire. Why would they be in his army.
------------- |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 18:08
|
Just read it in a post of some of my fellow countryman. I thought it sounded freaky.
------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 06:35
|
The Mongols Strictly speaking this was a totaly new "tribe" founded in 1206 by Temuljin as part of his huge social revolution. As per the Secret history there were about 160,000 households. So yes they were few in numbers, but remember over the next hundred years or so anyboy who could got themselves counted as Mongols. You have to drop the relentless assumption that persists on these fora that all the Saka, Hun, Xiongnu, Xianbei, Turk etc empire were "ethnic entities". ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 10:41
|
Generally in the past, central asian tribes would adhere to the name of their leading family and call the whole tribe by that name (i.e. Oguz, Seljuk, Osman). If the name wasn't from a family designation then it could very well sprout from a landmark, as in the T'u Chueh 'Turk' which came from a helmut shaped hill. The Turks were adept at iron works from the deposits of iron on the Altai mountain range. The ironworkers and the shape of their land led to this name. It also means strong in Turkish. Once the various tribes intermixed with other ones through commerce, marriage or war, the ethnic variations would grow in kind. However, the leading tribe would keep their name over the whole amalgam of tribes within their sphere of influence. This was not an exact science since ethnic deviation occurred within any large tribe and seperate families would later gain prominance for themselves. ------------- |
Posted By: chonos
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 22:56
| As the "Secret History of Mongols" has it that Chingis Khaan after unification of mongol tribes he appointed 95 "noyon" (chiefs) of "myangan" (a unit of thousand) which means he had an army of 95000 strong. Taking this into account the population of mongolia at that time could probably estimated at a half million. It is not true however to say that mongol army consisted of mostly turks but it would be correct to say many tatars were incorporated into mongol army. Etnically tatars were turko-mongol but not purely turk. |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 07:29
For the creation of the mongols of Blue Heaven and 'election' of Temuljin as Chinggiss Khan in 1206 95 named individuals were given 1000 households each, several others were given more. The total is about 160,000. Mongol rule then encompassed almost all of the Mongolian Plateaux. This is before the Western expansion adsorbed large numbers of Quangli, Quipckaq, Uighur, turkman etc... At this stage perhaps 30-50% of the households were from predominately Turkic tribes (primaraly Kerait and Naimen). The Tatars had been virtualy eliminated following their defeat in 1202. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 07:31
Missed this one... Not until Subedai was sent to include the forest tribes in 1206-1208. Even after that they didn't contribute many soldiers. ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 14:03
|
but the "forrest tribes" where not Ugrians, they were Uriankhais. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 12:22
|
people need to read mongolian secret history.also we have been mongolians as long from some people lived in the tree.so of course we concists of several different tribes.but they speaks mongolian culture is same i just could't see difference.we were never 5 millions,but we still thinking that mongolian border from great wall.and we'll get it back ------------- |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 05:15
"Turk" is coming from "Türük".İt means strong man in Türkish.Göktürk empire's real name in Turkish was KökTürük empire
|
Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 22:47
|
I've heard that at their empire's peak, there were at most, only 200,000 Mongols (men, women, children, the elderly) and that the overwhelming majority of the Mongol armies were comprised of Turkic peoples. I saw it on the History Channel not too long ago. The fact that the Central Asian areas which the Mongols conquered are today composed largely of Turkic Muslim peoples, would imply that the theory is true and that it wasn't an actual "Mongol Empire" but rather a Turkic one. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 23:44
SO YOU ARE FREE TO CALL THAT GREATEST EMPIRE - turkish
 empireMaybe Ottoman Empire should be called Arabian , Armenian or Albanian Empire ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 03:11
|
ahaha No an empire is named after his leading family or ethnic group.
Turks and Mongols don't give a crap about blood Amongst them selfs(well it used to be like that) they followed the strongest leader and that happend to be genghis khan ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |