Talk:Turco-Mongol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Turco-Mongols" were simply Turkic-speaking Mongols. Of course, these Mongols had mixed with Iranians and Turks over time, but that's not improtant. The "Turco-Mongol" ruling caste of Medieval Central-Asian society was of Mongol descent - their alledged descent from Mongol warriors and nobles was their legitimacy to rule.
Over the centuries, these original Mongol warriors had lost their language and adopted Chaghatay-Turkic and/or Persian.
Tājik 16:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Pal, instead of whining around, why don't you simply google "Turco-Mongol" and see how many hits you get. At the very beginning of the Mongolian Empire the armies of Chingis Khan were ethnically not solely comprised of Mongolic but also of Turkic tribes like for instance that of the Kerait. The original ruling tribe was Mongolian speaking, originally. But mixing of the tribes happened. And don't forget the role that the Uyghurs played within that empire. The self-designation "Mongolian" as that of Mongolian Empire entered history during the reign of Kublai Khan. And please, I am begging you, don't associate the term Turco, derived from Turkic, with the Ottomans and Anatolia, that would be fucking ridiculous, the term Turk came about in 'Greater Mongolia' in the 5/6th century C.E.. Turco/Turkic is an ethnic/linguistic term. Mind the historial context. 134.100.32.213 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... what if we renamed that article as "Mongol-Turkic"? It would certainly do more justice to the 'Chingisid nature' of those empires and the ethnic origin and composition of their rulers. 134.100.32.213 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but in English academic usage, the term Turko-Mongol or Turco-Mongol is generally used. Padishah5000 10:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the googling... -> Wanggu.134.100.1.177 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the link to the Mughal Empire, because the Mughals were not Turco-Mongols (anymore). They were mixed with the local populations of India and Persia, they were not nomadic, the refused to call themselvs "Mongols" (the English word "Mughal" is derived from the pejorative Persian name "Moghul", used by the enemies and subjects of the dynasty), they were thoroughly Persianized in language, and later became Urdu-speaking (Bahadur Shah II, the last Moghul Emperor of India, wrote poems in Urdu). The Timuirds lost their (nomadic) Turco-Mongol traditions when they conquered mainland Persia and moved their capitals to Samarqand and Herat. Timur himself may be regarded as the last real Turco-Mongol. Babur was the last Turkicized Timurid. Already his son, Humayun, began to abolish the Turco-Mongol elements of the dynasty. This was complete at the time of Akbar, who had the Baburnama translated into Persian, because he was not able to understand Chagatai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.200 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are so wrong or you are stupid, Tajik. To be nomadic does not mean automatically to be Turk, to live settled does not automatically mean not to be Turk. The Uyghur Turks and the Uzbek Turks have always been sedentary.
- Even if Akbar did not talk Turkic thsi does not mean, that Babur - the founder of the empire - is not Turco-Mongol. It also does not mean Akbar himself would not be Turkish. 85.178.168.3 15:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Uyghurs" have always been nomadic, so were the "Uzbeks". The Uyghurs were nomads up to the 13th century, in fact Mahmud of Kashgar was himself an Uyghur and praised the nomadic way of life of Uyghurs. The "Uzbeks" were also nomads. It was nomadic Uzbeks under the Shaybanids who forced the Timurids out of Central Asia. In the Islamic world, "Turk" is synonymous with "nomadic" or "barbaric". That's the reason why the Ottoman sultans, though being Turkic themselves, considered the word "Turk" insulting. Modern Uzbeks are not identical to the historical Uzbeks. Modern Uzbeks were labled "Uzbeks" by the Soviet regime. Before that, the people in Central Asia identified themselves through with their way of life. Sedentary agriculturists were known as Sarts, nomads were known as Turks. That's why Babur, though being a Mongol in origin, called himself a "Turk" - because he was a nomad. The nomadic way of life of Babur and his family is also mentioned in the poetry of his daughter, Gulbadan Begum. This changed immediately when Humayun was forced to leave India. From then on, no Mughal ruler every again called himself "Turk" or "Mongol". The Mughals became identical with "Sarts" and became fully sedentary. That'S why it is a big mistake to call the Mughals "Turko-Mongols". And Akbar was not Turkish. Akbar's father, Humayun, was born to a Persian mother (Dildār Begum) in Kabul. Unlike Kāmrān Mirzā, his mother was not a Chingizzid. Humayun was also married to a Persian noble, namely Hamida Banu Begum, Akbar's mother. Akbar married a Rajput princess, Mariam-uz-Zamani. And their son, Jahangir, married another Persian noble, Nur Jahan, whose family traced its origin to the old Zoroastrians of Yazd. So, if blood-line is what you base your claim on, then you have no valid points. After Babur, there was not a single "Turko-Mongol" ruler within the Mughal dominion. They had become thoroughly Persianized and Indianized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.143.128 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No. Uyghurs have not always been nomadic. check your facts. why do you put that name in inverted commas?
