Now I know that the Mongol horde had some turkic tribes and people in its armies(and its conquered territories).

But what I want to know is, were there any famous turkic generals or tribes that helped Chingis Khan or his sons/grandsons conquer asia?

Thanks.

What do you mean by "Mongol Horde"?

The chief of the Onguts helped a lot, and got one of CK's daughters.

Hi Luke, welcome to AE  (you might also think of registering at our The Steppes History Forum)

The Mongol armies had troops from many Turkic peoples such as the Q�rgh�z, Qa�l�, Q�pchaq, T�rkmen, Qarluq, etc. Apart from them, as Chono said, the ��g�t people helped Chinggis Kha'an to enter Jin territories.

 R.P.Lister "Genghis Khan" Cooper Square Press, 2000 (first published in New York in 1969)
p.21, 10-th line from beneath:
"...There were other steppe peoples too, the Huns of long ago, and the Turkish peoples, such as the Naimans and the Uighurs..."

Marco Polo, his father and uncle spoke with Emperor Kublai Khan in Turki language:  

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/marcopolo.shtml - 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..."

 
http://www.uscolo.edu/history/seminar/sauma.htm - 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

http://www.uglychinese.org/mongolian.htm - http://www.uglychinese.org/mongolian.htm

"... The truth, however, is that the word 'Mongols' was adopted and sanctified by Khubilai, much later than the Mongols knew about this name. Before this name change, the Mongols called themselves 'Tartars', in fact..."

"...Chinese sources tried to trace the origin of the word 'Mongol', and it had located a tribe called 'Mengwu', said to be a Shiwei tribe of the Tang Period prior to AD 907. This name would later become Moghul in Turkic and Mughal in Persian..."

 "...Though the Naimans are said to be of Turkic origin...""

  Keraits
East of the Naimans, from the Orkhon River in the west to the Onon and Kerulen rivers, was the new home of the Keraits. This is a group of people that had been disputed by Tao Zongyi (T'ao Tsung-i 1316- ?) to be Mongols, but Rashid ad-Din placed them in a subgroup with the Naimans, Uygurs, Kirghiz, Kipchaks and other Turkic peoples while acknowledging the resemblances between the Keraits and the Mongols. Still one more Chinese, Tu Ji, in his "History of the Mongols" (Mengwuer Shiji), assumed that the Keraits were Turkic and originated from Turkic Kangli and Ghuzz and their language was Turkic. It was also said that an important Kirghiz tribe bears the name of Kirai, which is equivalent to Kerait.  ...
...Yisugei had helped Kerait chieftan, Toghrul, twice. Toghrul was resented by his tribesmen for killing his brothers. When Toghrul was defeated by his uncle and fled with few hundreds of horsemen, Yisugei would come to his aid and drive Toghrul's uncle to Tanguts' Western Xia territory. Later, Toghrul's brother rebelled as well, and Toghrul had to flee southwestward to the three statelets of 'Hexi', 'Huihu' and 'Huihui' (Uygur, Qiangic and Tibetan territories) for asylum. Thereafter, Toghrul sought asylum with the Kara Khitans. When Toghrul escaped back to Mongolia, Timuchin would give him a good reception and treat Toghrul as 'father'. Timuchin later defeated the Merkits and gave the captured people to Toghrul. Toghrul hence gained strength. Toghrul and Timuchin cooperated few times in fighting the Naimans thereafter.
 
The importance of Keraits would lie in the fact that Timuchin sought the protection under Toghrul ...

DEBATING GENGHIS KHAN

Controversy over the ethnic origin of the great commander

Erbol ZHUMAGULOV

http://www.inauka.ru/english/article36435.html - http://www.inauka.ru/english/article36435.html

http://www.inauka.ru/english/article36435.html/forum/ - http://www.inauka.ru/english/article36435.html/forum/

  Diggers Find Genghis Khan's Mausoleum

Genghis Khan, who was a Mongol or Kazakh, conquered most of Asia and Eastern Europe in the early 13th century.

http://www.wixt.com/entertainment/wierd_news/story.aspx?content_id=AE3DE2EF-FDE6-4C65-AE99-BB3A57975C26 - http://www.wixt.com/entertainment/wierd_news/story.aspx?cont ent_id=AE3DE2EF-FDE6-4C65-AE99-BB3A57975C26

Kazakhs (Turkic nation,moslems, qazaq) consist of from Chenggishanits (Jushids, Chagataids), kiats (kiat-kuralas, kiat-chanchiut), from turkic tribes, which name is nirun*: duhlat, suhan, wusun [wisut], qataghan [katakin] and etc., beside which exist and before is remembered legends and folk legends that own of the origin rise from clean womb of Alan-Goa; and turkic-mongolian tribes, named darlekin: kungirat, argin [darlekin tribes konfederation from Ergune-kun], as well as kerait, naiman, kipshak, jalair, kangly, alshyn [tatar - alshyn].

Today,s mongols from Mongolia don't have any Chenggishanits, niruns and kiats. That is to say "mongols without mongol" and " Toys mongols with pygmean horses"

*Rashid ad-Din. Jami' at-tawarikh (1307), t.1, books 1and 2, M-L. 1952. (in russian)

The Jalairs were a Mongol clan, that is so clear. Why debate it and claim they were Turkic? That is so pointless.

I hate nationalism

85 % of Kazakhs was formed from clean mongol tribes. Not Mongols was kangly (turkic), kypshaks (turkic) and koja (arabs - seids). Rashid-ad-din wrote that each Mongol knows own tribes. Each Kazakh also knows own tribes.

Now we shall actually analyze mongol tribes with names are nirun:

Today's Kazakh tribes - kiat [kiat-chanchiut, kiat- kuralas], duhlat, suhan, wusun [wisut], qataghan [katakin]

Today's Uzbek tribes - barlas, qataghan, mangyt, kiat

Today's Noghay tribes - mangyt, barin

Turkic osmanli, Turkic Toba, Turkis - Mongols - all of turkic clans.

All are turkic!

Bandy-legged Chono on a donkey � horse,  halhases are not mongols. You are sian-bi.

Hello Bektemir,

Back then it would not have mattered genetically who was turk or who was mongol. If the turkic and mongol tribes originally came from Mongolia, they were all the same genetically with just a different language (which is not all that much different if one thinks about it). Later on BOTH the original mongols and the original turks mixed with other people and then ALL of those mixed mogols outside mongolia became turkicized (the mixed turks were already turkic).  So, in my opinion the mongols and the turks were genetically the same people.  Timur was a turkicized mongol, but he might as well have been a mongolized turk...genetically it would not have made any difference.

People nowadays focus too much on the mixed population of Turkey in trying to imagine what the "typical turk" historically looked like. The people of turkey are probably the farthest away from the ancient turkic look as any turkic people can be.

Mustafa

Thanks "Justmongol",

That article just gives more support to what I have said all along.

Mustafa

Merhaba, Mustafa!

Could you please back up your words with sources? Is there any proof that  turks and mongols were genetically the same?

The science does not support your opinion.

 Genes are formed by X (female) and Y (male) chromosomes. So, X chromosome inherited from mothers and Y chromosome from fathers.

1. X-chromosome:  The above mentioned research was done on mtDNA sequence (female X chromosome) and concluded that  between 33.2% and 35.4%  of the individuals in their Central Asian samples bore a sequence belonging to a European lineage (kyrgyz, kazakh and uigurs). Mongols are stated to be the next closest to the group.

2. Y-chromosome: It's inherited only from a father to a son. The differences among kyrgyzs, kazakhs, uigurs and mongols are extremely big.

Below is the graphical layout:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v 71n3/0 23927/023927.web.pdf

Mongoloid gene sequence:
Hg10 (orange color) -  mongols
Hg36 (brown color) -  turkics

Europoid gene sequence:
Hg1 (blue color)
Hg3 (dark blue color)

For example, kyrgyz have mostly europoid sequences (Hg1, Hg3...). To be exact, 76% of overall Y-chromosome. So, our forefathers were not mongoloids.
As you can see from the graphical map, tajiks (persians) are the closest people to kyrgyz (turkic) genewise.

Conclusion: Turks and Mongols were not genetically the same. It is possible that turkic men got intermarried with mongol females since turkic people are very close to mongols on maternal (X-chromosome) side.

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/PNAS_2001_v98_p10244.pdf - http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/PNAS_2001_v98_p10244.p df
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v71n3/023927/023927.web.pdf - http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v71n3/0 23927/023927.web.pdf
http://hgm2002.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPosters/WorkshopPoster04/hgm0179.htm - http://hgm2002.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPoste rs/WorkshopPoster04/hgm0179.htm
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AHG_1996_v60_p35-49.pdf - http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AHG_1996_v60_p35-49.pd f
http://egweb.bcgsc.ca/journal_club/2003_2004/pdfs/short_report_031006_mongol_Y_chrom.pdf - http://egweb.bcgsc.ca/journal_club/2003_2004/pdfs/short_repo rt_031006_mongol_Y_chrom.pdf
http://web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Giorgio/PDFfiles/ajpa2001.pdf - http://web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Giorgio/PDFfiles/ajpa2 001.pdf
http://www.historicalgenetics.com/articles.html - http://www.historicalgenetics.com/articles.html

This makes no sense whatsoever. Your idea that everybody from the same places have the exact same genetics, is even less coherent.

Hello Elteber!

You have left out one logical step in your analysis. You have only analyzed the *mixed* population of today to conclude that Turkic people are different from Mongols genetically. The current population has been mixing along the silk road for many generations so it is natural that you will see a lot of mixed genes including a high percentange of caucasian genes. That is not surprising at all.

However, the real question is: "Where did the original Turks come from and what was their genetic composition?"  We already know pretty certainly the first part of this question. Turks came to central asia from northeastern asia (Mongolia, Southern Siberia). It makes no sense that the Turks were already mixed when they arrived in central asia. The population of Mongolia and southern siberia has been "asian" looking for millenia and even today they are of the "asian" phenotype and genotype. Of course there are genetic differences among asians, but I dare somone to find genetic correlations between the inhabitants of the original motherland of the turks and europeans. So, why should the Turks have been any different from everyone else living in that area at that time, considering there was no silk road to bring foreign influence to those regions? Keep in mind that this was before the altaic people (Turks, Mongols) spread westward and started mixing with western people.

So, why do I think Mongols are the closest to the *original Turks* and were probably the same people? Again, there is an historical answer. Mongols, just like Turks developed in Mongolia and southern siberia and were living there concurrently with the Turks. If you follow back the timeline long enough, you will probably find that the turks and mongols did branch of from a common group of people. I would be very surprised if that common "ancestor group" was already mixed up and had european genes.

So, do you understand where I am coming from? If we do not consider history at all and JUST look at genetic composition of mixed populations then we would come to the conclusion that the British are the ancestors of the Turks in Turkey. Genetically, that might make sense but culturally that is total nonsense, since it does not answer the question about the "original Turks" which brought the Turkic culture with them.

Even the study adressed above infers that the Turks brought the asian part of the gene pool of central asia with them from eastern asia (Mongolia, Siberia etc).  And then they started mixing there. There weren't any chinese and mongols coming and mixing with any imaginary caucasian Turks. The Turks were already asian and brought their genes with them.

Take care,

Mustafa

--Why does it not surprise me that things don't make sense to *YOU*? Haha..

--Nobody has the *exact* same genetics, even among the same people. Europeans are not all the same and neither are Germans or French among each other. But, they share more commonalities with each other to be considered members of the same group. The same applies to Mongols, Chinese and the few Turks left that have not mixed with anyone (and of course the original turkic population that came from Mongolia and Siberia).  You need to read more carefully my friend.

Mustafa

Weird, if turkics are a mixture of caucasoid men and mongoloid women, then what happened to the original mongoloid men and caucasoid women? Maybe ugrs and finns are their "result"?

Mongol, Naiman, Keleit, Tatar, Ongud, Khitad were the largest tribes in the Mongolian steppe before Chinggis Khaan unified them as a nation. Usually, Naiman, Keleit and Ongud were considered as Turkic-speaking groups, while Tatar, Khitad and Mongol itself were considered as Mongolian-speaking groups. all of these tribes, regardless their origins, are the direct ancestors of today's Mongolians. Why was the nation's name of the Mongolians called "Mongolia" but not Naiman, Keleit etc? it's just because that it's the leader of Mongol tribe unified all tribes as a nation but not other tribes' leaders.

I don't understand what luke's question exactly means, if you mean how many Naiman, Keleit or Ongud generals severed in Mongol army? I think it's perhaps half of Mongolia's gerenals came from those tribes. but if you ask if there're some turkic generals from turkistan(central asia, not Mongolia, I mean) severed in Mongolia, I can give some message about them:

The most famous general from Turkistan or other territories outside Mongolia were Tutuha and his descendants such as Yan Timur whose ancestors were ever the royalty of Kipchak tribe in South russian steppe. Tutuha and his Kipchak troop play a very important role in Mongolia during Khubilai Khan defeated his brother Aribuga and other Mongol nobles, which gave Tutuha a chance to cellect his people to form a powerful tribe "Yungsiyebu" later in Mongolia. Allied with the Oghuz-originated Kharchin and the Alan-originated Asud, the Kipchaks comprised the great Yungsiyebu tumen of eastern Mongolia after Dayan khan(the successor of Khubilai Khan) reunified Mongolia. it's necessary to mention that Asud's tribe leader Alutai Taysi was ever the actual leader of eastern Mongolians, but he was eventually defeated by the Oirad or the western Mongolian's leader Esen Taysi and his people lost their power and fled to the west where they eventually was absorded by Yungsiyebu tribe, and, the Kharchin's leader Bolu taysi who was the succesor of Esen Taysi, continued to maintain the oirad's power in Mongolia.

Yungsiyebu tumen was defeated by Ligdan Khan(the last Mongol great Khan) of Chahar tumen during Manchu's conquest on Mongolia, some of its people was absorded by Chahar and Tumed tumen and some fled to the east where they absorded Duyan Uriankhai to form a new tribe named Kharchin.

Noboby know exactly which language those ancient tribes of Mongolia steppe speak except Chinggis Khaan's Mongol tribe itself because there were less vilad evidence leave today. But before Chinggis Khaan and his Mongol tribe rise to power, the ruling groups of Mongolia steppe were Tujue, then Uighur and Kyrgyz whose language were Turkic(the Proto_Mongolian speaking Khitans defeated Kyrgyz, but they didn't imgrated to all Mongolia steppe, most of them stay in today's southeastern Inner Mongolia and South Manchuria or imgrated to China after they established a conquered dynasty in Northern China) so it's reasonable to consider that there were at least half of the tribes in Mongolia were Turkic-speaking groups at that time. of course, it's not important at all that which languages those ancient tribes speak, we only know these tribes weren't dispeared but adapted the common national name of Mongolia and became the ancestors of today's Mongolia.

Many peolpe focus their attention on which tribes were Turkic or Mongolian speaking groups when they view Mongolia history, but it never be an important aspect to influence the history in reality. Chinggis Khaan didn't treat Uighurs or Ongud as enemies because they speak Turkic, and he didn't treat Tatars friendly after he conquered them because they also speak Mongolian(most probably). 

Today's Mongolians tend to neglect their turkic-originated ancestors and seem to view those ancient empires such as Tujue Khanate, Uighur Khanate, Kyrgyz Khanate as foreign dynasty in Mongolia, it's totally wrong. There were actually many tribes leave their homeland Mongolia to the west or the south, but it's impossible that all of them leave together when they lost their power in Mongolia, for example, after north Xiong-nu were defeated by Sian-bei, most of its people was absorded by Sian-bei but not all of them imgrated to the west. it's similar to the following history of Mongolia that the descendants of former empires became the peolpe of new empires. it never be a thing of displacing or being displaced but a thing of conquering or being conquered. History of Xiong-nu empire, Sian-bei empire, Ruran empire, Tujue Khanate, Uighur Khanate, etc, all were part of Mongolia history.  

What is this map??? Did you draw it or a european who thinks central asians are european without looking them even in a single picture???

Ok bud, can you explain what do the pink and dark blue colors represent??? I am really curious. Do you really believe that more than the half of Kyrgz arent Turkish or mongolic? Or do you really believe that Georgians and Azeris are  ssimilar... or the Svans are pure blooded caucasians but all of their neighbours are a mixture of world citizens

Please inform me about that...

I think there were no famous turkic generals or something like that who helped mongols so well. In my opinion mongols recruited many men from conquered countries, that is why  there were among mongol troops some turks. Armenians, georgians were among mongols of Hulegu Khan etc.

I think, so this way after long years new etnicities like kazakh and uzbek came into being(16th century). In my opinion kazakhs and uzbeks played no role in the world history but kirgizs little bit.   

As always, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do you ever read *anything* published about the Mongols and especially about Jinghis Khan? When he first united his core group of tribes in Mongolia *at least* half of them were turkic already. But ,of course, to know this one has to be literate and be able to read and understand relevant publications instead of pulling things out of your ass like you do. "Your opinion" is unfortunately not scientific enough and ,considering your level of intellect you have displayed here, totally useless (especially since your opinion is not grounded in any facts).

--Again, your "opinion" is worthless. Go read up on some Mongol and Turkic history and maybe you will find out some good, usable information finally instead of speculating.    

Mr Science, what is wrong with "The kazakhs und uzbeks came into being in 16th century"? And what is wrong with "They played no role in world history" and "Mongols recruited troops from occupied countries like Armenia, Georgia"?

How can you assert that at least the half of mongols were turks? Where is such fact?

I agree with blitz.

Mustafa, calm down!

well,I am asking you this blitz...There were a hell load of turkic tribes around mongolia about 11-12 th centuries...how come they were not mongolian (regionally) and didnt help Genghis Khan??

and saying things like "Kazakhs and Uzbeks are blah blah but Kyrgyz are blah" is too silly for me,knowing they are all Turkic...

And dont forget that Osman Batur(a Kazakh) was a legendary revolutionist/rebel against the Soviet Russia and China 

Well, the name 'Ozbek' or 'Qazaq' came to existance in almost 500 years ago; right. But Kiptchaks were one of the oldest and biggest tribes among Turks & Mongols. Today Kiptchaks live under the names of Uzbek or Qazaq. Or look at Jalayer tribe; Mongolians who were in Chengiz Khan's horde. That's it.

Nice piece of writing... thanks buddy. Now the question is: Jalairs were Turkic speaking? Well, all documents after Kutluk Kakan propose that Jalairs spoke Mongolian; rather than Turkic. And we know that Chengiz Khan's mother spoke a Turkic dialect... not specified anywhere... just some guesses. But Chengiz Khan only knew how to speak Mongolian; not even Turkic.

Now, it might be my fault to misunderstand the situation. If that smiley means you're joking, so, I'm wrong . Would you please answer these questions?

19th century Russian historian Ivan Berezin, British scientist Colonel Yule, famous Soviet historian L.L.Viktorova, French Academician Rene Grousset, Australian professor de Rachewiltz, German professor Paul Ratchnevsky, Chinese professor Tu Ji (or Tu Chi), Dutch historian Leo de Hartog, US historians R.P.Lister, J.J.Saunders,  and many others think that Naimans, Kereits, Merkits, Onguts, Qongyrats, etc. were TURKIC speaking steppe peoples.   

Today they are parts of modern Kazakhs, and they still speak the same Turkic language .

Sorry, you are wrong. I did read many of publications of the above-mentioned authors. They wrote about so-called "Turko-Mongols" (sounds like "Arabo-Negroes" when speaking about Sudanese or Mauritanian Arabs) - i.e. Turkic speaking peoples or tribes. Even when the authors write "Mongols" that does not mean that the "Mongols" are somehow related to the modern Khalkha-Mongols. They are more related to Great Moghuls and to Moghulistan - Turkic speaking nomads.  

Why the continuation "doesn't exist"? They still  live practically at the same territories, keep speaking the same language, having the same traditional culture  and food - horse meat, kurt - dried cheese, drinks - kumyss, traditional religion - Tengri, Umai, and even having the same tribal names! 

Modern Kazakhs never had ancestors, they probably arrived from Moon!

Why nobody says something like that about, say, Greeks, Italians,  Chinese, Celts, Slavs, etc.? 

Yes,We(Turks) have been in Mongol Hordes.And Mongols have been in our hordes.As Temujin's said,Timur was a Turkified Mongol.Gengis Khan was a Mongolified Turk.

Today,there is no Mongol.All of them have been Turk...

You're right.Feeling are the most important.I can be a Mongol but if I feel myself as a Turk,Im a Turk

Err,I didn't understand your last sentence.My english isnt good.As I understood you're saying racist about my sentence(They have been Turk at all).If reals are racist,It doesn't interest me

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

even armeniens and templars fought for mongols

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").        

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"...   

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1:93176585/GENGHIS+KHAN+A+KAZAKH%3f.html&refid=ency_botnm - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1:93176585/GENGHIS+KHAN+A+KAZA KH%3f.html&refid=ency_botnm

United Press International
04-06-2004
Genghis Khan a Kazakh?

ALMATY, Kazakhstan, Apr 06, 2004 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- The legendary conqueror Genghis Khan, who died in 1227, was a Kazakh, a historian from Kazakhstan said Wednesday.

Kalibek Daniyarov, author of "Who was Genghis Khan by birth?" told the Centrasia Web site it is myth Khan was a Mongol.

No head of the Mongolian state was ever titled "khan," Daniyarov said, and no tribes forming the modern Mongolian nation participated in Genghis's campaigns.

Genghis Khan was born near the present-day Mongolia-Russia border ...

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).