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