Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Nestorian
Pretorian
Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 161
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Chingis Turkish or not Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 09:53 |
Someone once said Chingis was a Turk kidnapped and raised as a Mongol?
Comments??
|
Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator
Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 10:51 |
Legend says that a blue eyed man came from the sky and then the mother of the Chengizhan was pregnant. Some people say this man might be Qirghiz. Among Chengizhans sons only Qubiley had black hair, then Chengizhan commented that "Qubiley looked like his uncles". That means Chengizhan didn't look like his brothers.
That doesn't matter actually. Chengizhan was Mongol, he was raised in Mongol society, and united the Mongol tribes and became the leader of the Mongols, and created a new history for the Mongols.
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg
Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 16:17 |
Originally posted by forum.uz
Genghis khan had some cauasian blood in him.
He can be considered as half cauasian half asian. |
yeah right 50-50 he might have some caucasian some
|
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
|
Toluy
Housecarl
Joined: 12-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2006 at 01:00 |
Tartar are turks or not?
Edited by Toluy - 22-Aug-2006 at 01:00
|
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg
Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 06:18 |
Originally posted by Toluy
Tartar are turks or not? |
yep kipchack turks
|
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:07 |
Originally posted by Toluy
Tartar are turks or not? |
? which Tartar ? the term has been widely used for various steppe peoples.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Snafu
Knight
Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 18:30 |
Turkic and Mongol people interacted so much in those days that's it's impossible to separate the two. No one on the steppe was "pure" Turkic or "pure" Mongol. Every tribe had Turkic and Mongol people in it and most nomads had mixed ancestry. So it's pretty silly to argue who was Turkic and who was Mongol. They were both. They were Turco-Mongols.
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator
Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 11:28 |
Although they were quite mixed with each other to some degree, they were distinct from each other all through the history.
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
The Charioteer
Colonel
Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 735
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 15:53 |
at least to me, he doesnt look Turkish at all
Edited by The Charioteer - 27-Aug-2006 at 15:54
|
|
Afsar Beghi
Consul
Joined: 18-Jun-2006
Location: Azerbaijan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 341
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 16:57 |
Originally posted by The Charioteer
at least to me, he doesnt look Turkish at all |
he looks turkic , and i think the topic owner should change his topic title , turkish and turkic are two different things!
|
Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur,
Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur,
Nice ko yiğitler yere serilir,
Olen lr kalan sağlar bizimdir!
|
|
Akskl
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 22:15 |
Genghis Khan on this portrait looks like a typical Kazakh Turk. I look
in the mirror and I see the same face - only younger one.
He was kind of Kazakh Turk - not a Khalkha Mongol.
All settled Turk peoples - like Turks of Turkey, various
Tatars (Kazan,
Astrakhan, Sibir, Crimean, etc.), Uzbeks, Uyghurs, Caucasus
Turks, etc., and even many non-Turkic peoples - Ukraininans, Iranians,
Southern
and Eastern Russians, Northern Chinese, Northern Indians, Balkan
Bulgars, Romanians, etc. - all are
results of mixing, metisation between Turkic nomads and local conquered
settled peoples during many centuries of total military domination of
the Turkic Steppe nomads on the periphery of the Great Steppe - great
Eurasian belt between Danube river and Yellow sea. All these new mixed
peoples adopted all the settled culture of the local settled
peoples. Sometimes Turkic language prevailed (in some distorted local
dialectic form), sometimes - not.
Direct descendants of the Turkic nomads today are Kazakhs, very close
to us (and almost totally exterminated by Russians) Noghays,
Steppe or Northern Crimean Tatars (who are in fact Noghays,
too, and also almost totally exterminated), very close to Kazakhs
Uzbek nomads (who are not urban Sarts!) and Kyrghyzs, Turkmens, and
maybe, Bashkirs, who are mixture of Turkic nomads and local Ugro-Finns.
Edited by Akskl - 27-Aug-2006 at 22:52
|
|
Erdene
Samurai
Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 101
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 07:01 |
GK does not look like a TURK or TURKIC....why do some TURKS try to implie that GK was a TURK or TURKIC. He is a Mongolian just like ME!
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator
Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 10:21 |
Because some present Turks (Qazaqs) look also like Mongolian. Most of the decendants of CK became Turkic. They can't accept the fact that they are mixed with Mongols (I don't know why), so what they can do is try to claim the Mongols in CK time also Turkic, and justify their silly claim that they are pure Turkic. While others are mixed. Remember Nursultan Nezerbayev said "I'm pure Turk, Turks in Turkey are hybrids".
In Uyghur region, Qazaq people are mainly from the two tribes: Naiman and Kereyit. Naiman considered to be Sekkiz oghuz , but the name itsef is Mongolian word for eight. Why they use a mongol word as the name of the tribe? Kereyit always had very close relations with the Mongols. Historians clearly mentioned Naimans and Kereyits are racially quite different, Kereyits had strong Mongoloid feature.
Who are Qazaqs then? Qazaq considered to be the group who seperated from the Uzbek ulus. Actually, all the Turkic Qipchaq people, who didn't have linage were called Qazaq. Why they didn't have ancestral linage? Remember the turkified Mongol people after the collapses of the Hords who became wonderers in the steppe of Deshti Qipchaq.
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 10:56 |
The Oghuz are said to be named after the Madun, aka Mete (Oguz Han). The name also meant 'Turkic Tribes'.
The Sekiz Oghuz means - Eight Turk Tribes. Designation of numbers represents a union of tribes. Usually each union had specific territories they govererned. Yes, the Sekiz Oghuz are identified later as the Naimans. A Mongolized name of a Turkic union of tribes.
Even if the numbers have current Mongolian usage it still dates back to a time where the Turks used it prior to the Mengwu Shiwei.
The Orhon inscriptions lists the Oghuz unions as part of the GokTurks.
If my memory serves me correctly, I think it was the Uyghurs who served the Mongol administration with its written language.
Edited by Seko - 28-Aug-2006 at 11:33
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 11:38 |
(I've told you before), if we have to look for Mongolfied people, why we should just refer to Turks? Mongols ruled everywhere through Asia to Europe. So, how come we should expect such a mixture just among Turks?
By the way, Aq Saqal could use the same sentence over you: 'because most of Uighur are Caucaid (they're not totally), so they think all Turks are Caucaid'.
And about Kereyits, maybe you should revise your sentence that they had good relationship with Mongols. A great part of Kereyits escaped Chengiz Khan and came to Turkmens. You can find the tribe (and family names) Kerey among Turkmens.
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator
Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 12:58 |
Originally posted by Seko
The Oghuz are said to be named after the Madun, aka Mete (Oguz Han). The name also meant 'Turkic Tribes'.
The Sekiz Oghuz means - Eight Turk Tribes. Designation of numbers represents a union of tribes. Usually each union had specific territories they govererned. Yes, the Sekiz Oghuz are identified later as the Naimans. A Mongolized name of a Turkic union of tribes.
Even if the numbers have current Mongolian usage it still dates back to a time where the Turks used it prior to the Mengwu Shiwei.
The Orhon inscriptions lists the Oghuz unions as part of the GokTurks.
If my memory serves me correctly, I think it was the Uyghurs who served the Mongol administration with its written language.
|
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say Oghuzs are not Turkic. Naiman to be considered as sekkiz oghuz are a theory. What I mean here is that they called themselves as Naiman, which is clear Mongol word. This surely shows their relation, to some level, to the Mongols. I took these two examples as they were originally also considered to be Turkic. What I mean is even they are quite influenced by Mongols, let alone the other true Mongol tribes to be part of Qipchaq Turks.
Uyghur were good allies of Mongols. Still we Uyghurs never think Mongols to have a common ancestors as us, maybe because we know Mongols better than other Turkic people. Maybe because we know our history better.
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator
Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 13:09 |
Originally posted by gok_toruk
(I've told you before), if we have to look for Mongolfied people, why we should just refer to Turks? Mongols ruled everywhere through Asia to Europe. So, how come we should expect such a mixture just among Turks?
By the way, Aq Saqal could use the same sentence over you: 'because most of Uighur are Caucaid (they're not totally), so they think all Turks are Caucaid'.
And about Kereyits, maybe you should revise your sentence that they had good relationship with Mongols. A great part of Kereyits escaped Chengiz Khan and came to Turkmens. You can find the tribe (and family names) Kerey among Turkmens. |
I hope you don't have memory problem, as I answered to your this question before.
It's very simple, the same life style (Nomadic) made mongols to mix with nomadic Turkic people than other settled groups.
I said Turkic tribes originally caucausoid based on the Historical and archeological fact. I didn't deny our mixing with indo-europeans and some mongolic people. Now check Aqskl rubbish.
You need to learn history more. Kereyit had very good relation with Mongols. Toghul was the something like godfather to Chengizkhan. It was later that Chengizhan defeated kereyit.
So you have Kereyit families among Turkmans, that also explain why some of the Turkmans look Mongolic.
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:57 |
First, read my posts again. This is the problem you always have got. You said Kereyit had a good relationship with Mongols and I said no, cause part of them escaped Chengiz Khan and came to Turkmens. I've quoted a few lines from J.J. Sanders and how he thinks about ethnicity of Kereyits. Why don't you check it in 'Mongols'? Shouldn't we expect some Mongoloid that was born during invasion? I mean people like bastards? So because you have Caucaid looks, explians Turks ar caucaid?
I may need to study history more; but I definately don't need your advice.
As for stating idea, AqSaqal's quite right.
Edited by gok_toruk - 04-Sep-2006 at 03:46
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
Forgotten
Knight
Joined: 11-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 63
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 21:21 |
Originally posted by Snafu
Turkic and Mongol people interacted so much in those days that's it's impossible to separate the two. No one on the steppe was "pure" Turkic or "pure" Mongol. Every tribe had Turkic and Mongol people in it and most nomads had mixed ancestry. So it's pretty silly to argue who was Turkic and who was Mongol. They were both. They were Turco-Mongols. |
let us not forget that we cant compare the numbers of the mongols with the numbers of the turks "all groups" the mongols were much much less so its not true to say that the mongols efficted the physical apearnce of the all turks , temujin "which is turkic name" was lucky when he united his few monol tribes and started to fight the turkic tribes one by one while they were fighting each other.
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 16:53 |
Nice to hear somebody agrees with me here, Forgotton. I've always said mongols were very less, compared to Turks, in number. So, even if all Mongols migrated from Mongolia, they couldn't change all Turks' physical characteristics.
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|