Talk:Babur/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Babur's "Iranian aid"

Taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica:

"... Babor, Zaher ud-Din Muhammad, ... Timurid prince ... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ... During his stay in Herat, Babor occupied Nava'is former residence, prayed at Nava'i's tomb, and recorded his admiration for the poet's vast corpus of Torki verses, though he found most of the Persian verses to be "poor and flat". Nava'is pioneering literary work in Torki, much of it based, of course, on Persian models, must have reinforced Babor's own efforts to write in that medium ... with the long connection between the Mughals and Safavids begun by Babor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. It was his grandson Akbar who had the Babor-name translated into Persian in order that his nobles and officers could have access to this dramatic account of the dynasty's founder ..." [1]

The article further attests that when Babur attacked India, most of his army consisted of Non-Turks, probably Afghans and Persians (not including the Kizilbash aid he had received from the Safavids). So, not only the army of the Moghuls was largly Non-Turkic, but the dynasty itself - starting with Babur - was Persianized to a large degree.

Now, the following text is taken directly from Babur's autobiography, the famous "Baburnama":

"... Babur begins by describing the geography of Fergana and some background history. He then recounts his part in the internecine conflicts between the Timurids (descendants of Temür/Tamerlane) over Khurasan, Transoxiana, and Fergana and their loss to the Uzbeks under Shaybani. Initially a puppet of others, used for Timurid legitimacy, Babur gradually became a real leader. His fluctuating fortunes saw him take and lose Samarkand twice; eventually he was forced into a kind of "guerilla" existence in the mountains. In 1504 he left Transoxiana with a few hundred companions, acquired the discontented followers of a regional leader in Badakhshan, and took Kabul. From there he began carving out a domain for himself, in a process combining pillage and state-building. ..." [2]

So, according to Babur himself, he left Central Asia with a "few companions" and the aquired support from a regional leader in Persian-dominated Badakhshan. Even assuming that all of his compainions in Central Asia were ethnic Turks (which is deffinitly not true), still the majority of his soldiers would have been Non-Turks, because Badakhshan was a Non-Turkic region back then - as it is still today. So, with Persian-Badakhshani support, Babur conquered Kabul and then recruited other Persian (Tajik) and Afghan soldiers into his army. The number of Turkic warriors was relatively small - that why the Mughals were a totally Persianized dynasty from the very beginning.

Tajik 10:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Babur wrote the baburnama in Turkic. He spoke growingly of the heritiage of the Turks. The Turks had been moving West for Centuries, and were well established in what is now Afghanistan. Babur was a Barlas Turk, a subdivision of the Changatai Turks, who in turn were a descendent group of the Mongols. Every source I have read states tat the najority of his troops were Turks or Mongols or mixed. And, you seem to be ignoring a large uzbeg turk opulation, Do you have any source which supports your original research. Have you read that baburnama you are quoting from?--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying the strong Turkish presence and influence. However, I think you are deffinitly overestimating this influence. First of all, there were NO Uzbeks in what is now "Afghanistan" back then. In fact, the Usbeks were the ones who defeated the Timurids and forced Babur to leave his homeland in Central Asia - that was the first time the "Uzbeks" (under Shaybani Khan) appeared in Khorasan's history. And those Turkic peoples that were established in Afghanistan were a small minority (as they are still today). Badakhshan has never been "Turkish" - the local rulers (and that's what we are talking about) have always been Iranian. Besides that, your claim that the Berlas were "Turks" is wrong. The Berslas were one of the major Mogol tribes - that's why Babur and his family became known as "Mughals" ("Moghol") which is the Persian word for MONGOL and not for "Turks". If you take a look at the article of the Encyclopaedia Iranica, you'll see that you are deffinitly overestimating the role of Turkish. And please keep in mind that only 2 generations after Babur, the Turkish presence in India was vertually zero. That's why Babur's grandson Akbar (who was a native Persian-speaker) had to TRANSLATE his grandfathers memoires into Persian. All of this does not support your claim that "Turks were a majority". If that were the case, then the Mughals would have been great patrons of Turkish language and identity - but that is absolutely not the case. And, btw, the Encyclopaedia Iranica is (along with the Encyclopaedia of Islam) an absoloutely authoritive source. Tajik 11:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, not everyone in Badakhshan was Persian, and also again, people from Badakhshan were not the only ones who joined Baburs ranks. Everywhere he went, as he "wandered from mountain to mountain, homeless and houseless" saw him orate and gather new troops, including, perhaps, some Persians, though there is no specific mention of it, but it wouldn't be surprising if the new ranks included them. Kabul was taken with a force predominantly numbered by Turks, altough there is strong suggestion this included a large amount of Mongols. Kabul was taken with less than one thousand troops primarily because Babur was a Timurid Turk, unlike the "usurper" from Kandahar who had taken it after it wsa left to the infant son of Baburs uncle.

Also, Yes, i am well aware that Mughal means Mongol, and I have written as Much, but at this stage in Time the differences between Mongol and Turk in that area were irrelevent, having become a mixed peoples - However, Babur constantly referred to himself as a Turk, and that is repeated numerous times in the baburnama, a title he treats with honour and extends to Timur. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• This article never seems to stay free of POV-pushers for long, eh? Part of the problem is that modern-day ethnic labels are anachronistic and make little sense when applied to the 15th & 16th centuries. I have written above about how the use of 'Mughal' to describe Babur and his empire is a European misnomer. Equally to refer to the peoples of Badakhshan, Samarkand & Bukhara as 'Iranians' makes little sense (the Pashtuns are not 'Iranian' either). These areas are largely Tajik-speaking to this day, but that is not the same as being 'Iranian' which has modern political connotations. Tajik is probably a better word (and the Persian used in India resembles Central Asian Tajik more closely than it does Iranian Persian) although even that isn't ideal given the mixture of ethnic & linguistic identities existing at this time. Nobody would deny that Persian was the dominant language of literature, culture and politics throughout the entire Ajam (ie the non-Arab Muslim world) in this period. In the introductory paragraph it is acknowledged that Babur spoke Persian as easily as he did Turkic. The quotation from the Ta'rikh-e Rashidi above also shows how 'Tajik' qualities were associated with civility and good breeding. Yet, given all this, Babur chose to write his memoirs in Chagatai, one of the only major literary monuments surviving in that language. His descent from Timur and Genghis Khan was enormously important to him as it was the basis of his right to rule. This is not true, for instance, of the Safavids in Iran, who despite being of Turkish origin themselves set themselves against the Turkic world, promoted Iranian religious exclusivity and spoke & wrote exclusively in Persian (another sign that ethnicity is an unreliable concept in this period, as is the fact that the Qyzylbash troops sent from Iran to aid Babur were also Turks). It is true that the Uzbeks arrived in Central Asia only in the 16th century under Shaybani Khan - that is clearly illustrated in the article, and indeed they drove the Timurids out of Turkestan. However, they only represent the last wave of Turkic migration into the region, the majority of whose settled population, especially in the Fergana Valley which was Babur's homeland, would have been Turks (or Sarts) by the 15th century. Finally, you must bear in mind when examining the nature of the later Mughal Court that Humayun spent many years in exile in Safavid Iran, during the reign of Sher Shah Sur, and when he returned brought many Persian noblemen with him which had a profound effect on Mughal culture, rendering Central Asian, Turkic influence much weaker. You cannot extrapolate from Akbar's court to Babur's.

However, I'm not sure we really need to argue too much here: the additional phrase is 'and Iranians', which while somewhat inaccurate is certainly not outrageous. I wuld suggest adding 'Tajik' and 'Pashtun', and making it a little clearer how and where the army was recruited. Sikandarji 12:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, Tajik - What do you think? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that modern ethnic lables are wrong and confusing. However, the rest of your comments are not correct. First of all, you are confusing the modern Islamic Republic of Iran with the historical term Iranian peoples, which is the name of various peoples in Asia that have a common origin and speak Iranian languages. The same way modern English people are of Germanic origin (not to be confused with German people), modern Pashtuns, Tajiks, Kurds, and others are Iranian peoples. Besides that, differentiating between Tajiks and Persians is really baseless, because the word "Tajik" - derived from Turkish "Taçikler" - has the same meaning as "Persian". In fact, Persian people and Tajiks are the same ethnic group. The modern differentiation is political and not historical. As for Safavids - maybe you have missed the discusstion of the Safavids talk page - but many reliable sources have been presented, clearly proving that Safavids were not of Turkic, but of Kurdish - meaing Iranian - origin. Their founding-father, Sheikh Safi Al-Din Is'haq Arabili, was a famous mystic with mixed Persian and Kurdish origin. He is well known for his provocating poetry, all of it written in Old-Azerbaijani (not to be confused with the modern language of Azerbaijan!) and Persian. I still think that you are totally overestimating the Turkish identity or influence in India. We had the very same discussion in the German Wikipedia (see de:Mogulreich) and strong and reliable sources were presented which convincingly proved that the Turkish influence at the Mughal's court was almost non existant. Not even the Turkoman Kizilbash from Persia were enough to "Turkify" the Mughal court. None of the Mughal kings knew Turkish, none of them identified himself as "Turkic". I - on my part - rather go with the information presented in the authoritive collection of the Encyclopaedia Iranica: Babur was Mongol in heritage and Persian in culture - leaving only a very small space for Turkish influence. Biographies and poems do not define ethniicty. If that's the case, then Ghaznavids and Seljuks should be considered "Persians" and not "Turks", because both dynasties were Persian in language and culture. Tajik 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about the difference between 'Iranian' (or Indo-Iranian) peoples and the modern Iranian nationality. The Pashtuns are indeed an 'Indo-European' or 'Indo-Aryan' or 'Indo-Iranian' people, but that is no reason to use this broad 19th century philological label in preference to that of the specific tribe in question, any more than we would write about 'Indo-European' peoples when we actually meant Slavs. I think there is a distinction to be made between 'Persian' and 'Tajik', if only because of the different uses of these terms. 'Persian' is a term developed in the West from Classical times to describe the people living on the territory of Iran. Tajik has come to mean a Central Asian inhabitant who speaks an Indo-European tongue which is a dialect of Persian. Historically it was used by nomadic peoples to describe all settled peoples in Central Asia, regardless of language: lifestyle was what mattered. My point about the Safavids was simply designed to show how difficult (and ultimately fruitless) it is to try to establish clear ethnic identities for this period. I would not dispute that Turkish influence in India was vestigial at best, reflected in the fact that there are virtually no words of Turkish origin to be found in Urdu (apart, ironically, from the name of the language itself). However, as I indicated above, you cannot judge Babur and his court by looking at those of his successors, as the nature of the Mughal Empire changed significantly after Humayun's return from Iran. Babur was much more closely identified with Turkestan (the place-name sums up the hybrid culture of this region in a way: it signifies 'place of the Turks', but the 'stan' construction is of course Persian). See above on the question of his 'Mongol' heritage - to my mind Thackston has settled that question pretty conclusively. You write that "None of the Mughal kings knew Turkish, none of them identified himself as "Turkic". That might be true of Akbar, but it is not true of Humayun, and it is most definitely not true of Babur, who, in case you have forgotten, is the subject of this article! You cannot get around the fact that he wrote the Babur-nama in Chagatai, which was an extremely unusual thing to do at the time. His identities as a Timurid, and through Timur as a Chinggisid, were enormously important to him, and to some degree to his successors, and this is very much a Turkic phenomenon, not one that is associated with Persian regimes (except, of course, for the Ilkhans). In short, I am more than willing to concede the cultural supremacy of Persian in the Empire that Babur founded, as the language of Government, Literature and the Arts it had no rival. Similarly although many Naqshbandi Shaikhs and Turkic (and Tajik) noblemen continued to emigrate to India from Central Asia in later periods, the influence of Iran became much stronger after Humayun's return from exile. However, the Mughal empire in Babur's time is a different matter, and Babur himself a different kettle of fish from his successors. You only have to read his memoirs to see how strongly he identified as a Turk, and as a native of Transoxiana. Sikandarji 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Babur's decision to write his autobiography in Chaghatai Turkic was nothing unusual. That was his way to show his sympathy for the Uyghur poet and politician, Mir Ali Shir Nava'i. During his "exile" in Herat, Babur came in contact with Nava'i'S poetry - both Persian and Turkish. According to Babur's own words, he had a lot of sympathy for Nava'i and admired his poetry, although he considered the Persian verses of Nava'i "flat and poor". You may know that Nava'i's most important work, a comparison between Turkish and Persian, urged people from Central-Asia not to write poetry only in Persian and Arabic, but also in Turkic. And that's exactly what Babur did: following Nava'i's steps and writing a full work in that language. However, this is no proof for the claim that "Babur was a Turk" - Chaghatai was an important language in Central-Asia, and it was - of course along with Persian - one of the "official languages" of the Timurid court (Sultan Hussein Bayqara, himself a native Persian-speaker and born to a Persian mother, also wrote poetry in Chaghatai - just to honour his good friend Nava'i!). You are giving too much credit to the language of Babur's biography while ignoring the world in which he lived in. As a Timurdi prince, Babur was more Persian than Arab, Turk or Mongol together - yet, he could never change his Mongol heritage. With a few hundred soldiers from Ferghana, Babur marched to Badakhshan, received the military support of a local (probably Tajik) ruler, and with his new Iranian warriors, he attacked and seized Kabul. There, he enlarged his army with more Persian and Afghan warriors and then attacked India. At that time, Turks were already a minority in his army - that's why Turkish had never any important role in Mughal-India. And please don't forget: those who named Babur's dynasty "Mughal" knew that he was Mongol ... the name "Mughal" did not come from nowhere ... it is an exact discription of the dynasty and its founder: Persianized, Islamic Turco-Mongols (= formerly Turkic-speaking Mongols) from Central-Asia. As for "Iranian peoples", please do not forget that you yourselv have summed up all different Turkic peoples trying to prove that "Central-Asia was Turkic" ... yet, the difference between Uzbek language and certain other Turkic languages is bigger than between Kurdish and Persian. Then why summing up all different Turkic tribes while ignoring that Pashtuns, Kurds, and Baluchs are "Iranian"? Tajik 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to read what is written above you will see that 'Mughal' is anything but "an exact description of the dynasty and its founder" - it was not even the description used by the dynasts themselves, and is quite clearly a European misnomer which offers no real clues to this chimeric business of 'ethnic identity'. What matters here is a mixture of family and political lineage, and that alone can be described as Mongol - that too remotely. The fact that none of the Central Asian Chingissids spoke Mongol shows clearly enough how distant that heritage was. However, we were talking about something else originally - namely the importance of 'Persians'/'Iranians'/'Tajiks' call them what you will in the original establishment of Babur's Empire, and I have little quarrel with that: in fact your remarkably restrained 'and Iranians' ought to be expanded somewhere in the article to explain precisely where we think his troops came from. Nor am I arguing that Babur did not grow up in a milieu where Persian was the language of culture; I just think that in an article devoted to the man himself we must accord priority to his own memoirs, one of the most remarkable documents of their age, partly because they are so personal, and partly because they were written in Chagatai. Because the use of Chagatai was unusual, and it was unusual when Ali-Sher Naw'ai wrote his verses in the same language as well, precisely because of the dominance of Persian you have so ably outlined above. This does tell us something important about how Babur thought of himself. Finally, I take your point about the woolliness of 'Turkic' as a term - I was merely trying to point out that the majority of the population of Central Asia spoke various Turkic dialects (Oghuz, Qarluq or Kipchak) well before the arrival of the Uzbeks, and it is wrong to date the 'Turkicisation' of Central Asia from the invasion of Shaybani Khan. Babur's Chagatai is an elevated literary language, but belongs (I think) to the Qarluq family of Turkic languages (unlike historic 'Uzbek', which is Kipchak, although modern Uzbek is another matter altogether, being a linguistic descendant of 19th century 'Sart'....it's a complicated business and there is no scholarly consensus as yet). I should emphasise that I'm not trying to push some personal POV here - I am neither Turkish, nor Iranian, nor Mongolian. Well, this debate ought to be interesting to readers of this page; amazing that a couple of words in the article itself could generate so much verbiage! To conclude - I agree that the composition of Babur's army must be more clearly set out, and if the majority of his troops were Tajiks from Badakhshan and Pashtuns from other parts of Afghanistan that should be made clear. However, if you refer to him conquering India with an army of 'Iranians' that will give readers completely the wrong idea. I do not agree that the Turkic element in Babur's own identity and in the character of the early Mughal empire has been exaggerated in the article. I say it now for the third time: you cannot base your judgment of Babur himself on the character of the later Mughals. Sikandarji 23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mughal" is not a "European misnomer", but the name given to the Mughals by the Persian-speakers. They were called "Moghuls" way before Europeans landed in India. The word is used in Khwand Mir's works, and it is used in Khushal Khan Khattak's poetry. So, there must be some truth in the name. I agree with you that there were no "Mongol identity" in the Timruid family, except their claim to be descendants of Gengiz Khan (and in fact, they were!) - however, this does not automatically turn them into Turks. Of course, Babur was not "mono-lingual"; he knew Chaghatai, Persian, and Arabic, like many other rulers and nobles in that time. But your claim that "writing in Chaghatai was unusual" is deffinitly wrong! Chaghatai was - along with Persian - a "lingua franca" of the Timurid dynasty, from the beginning on! There were many Chaghatai poets and writers, even before Nava'i, like the famouis Chaghatai poet "Lotfi of Samarqand". Nava'i was not the inventor of Chaghatai poetry - he was the one who standardized it. Babur's decision to write in Chaghatai was only his way to honour Nava'i (during Babur's life-time, the Chaghatai language was called "Nava'i's language"). If you read the article written in the Encyclopaedia Iranica (which is an authoritive work), you will see that the Turkish character of Babur's reign or of Babur himself was by far not as important as you claim. I know that "Turkification of Islamic history" is being pushed foreward by certain "Turcophils" - most of all by nationlistic Turkish authors. But most of it is wrong. We have authoritive and reliable sources (most of all Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam) which clearly state that Babur was raised and trained in a Persian environment. He was the one who brought Persian culture and language to India (not Turkish culture and language!) - a policy that was continuied by his descendants. I am not trying to turn Babur into a "Persian", because that would be as wrong as declaring him "Turkish". However, you are totally overestimating the role of Turkish in Babur's court. Babur was not a Turk - he was an ethnic Mongol who grew up in a Persianized environment, surrounded by Turkish soldiers and Persian scholars and administors. In that Persianized environment, Babur became an Emperor, and supported by different Iranian tribes, he conquered India, establishing a dynasty that became known as the "dynasty of Mongols". Of course there was Turkish presence at Babur's court - but it was nothing compared to the Persian influence of the dynasty. The Mughal dynasty was Persianized even before Humayun's exile and return, which was absolutely natural. Humayun was half-Persian, his mother being a Persian noble from Kabul. Just take a look at Babur's other wives ... as I have said before: you are overestimating the role of Turkish. BTW: did you know that Baur's daughter was also a poet. She was the author of "Humayun-Nama", Humayun's biography, of course written in Persian. She wrote many other poems in Persian and - to a lesser degree - in Chaghatai. She has recorded many stories about her father and her brother. Here, read this article: [3] Tajik 00:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the Humayun-Nama. When Khwandamir writes about Moghuls inHabibu's Siyar he is referring to the ruling dynasty of 'Moghulistan' (Please, see my note above! I'm not convinced you've read it - Thackston would be the first person to know as he has also produced the latest translation of Khwandamir (Harvard/Istanbul 1994). Applied to Turkestan it is a misnomer. I share your suspicion of Turkophils (I work on Central Asia and I know barely any Turkish - I'm fully aware of the primacy of Persian in that region). But you mustn't let this suspicion blind you in the few cases when there are good arguments to be made, or you yourself lay yourself open to charges of trying to 'big up' Iranian history (I have had some experience of this - when I was in Iran I tried to explain to people that I actually worked on the History of Central Asia and Northern India, and that the Persian language was the most useful tool I could have, as it had been the zaban-e farhang wa zaban-e daulat in both these regions prior to rhe late 19th century, and almost all sources were written in it. To which the inevitable response was 'Ah yes, well all that used to be part of the Empire of Iran' which, needless to say, was not what I meant. Hence my own suspicions, and I apologise if they are groundless

The Encyclopaedia Iranica has in my view got it wrong here by saying that 'Babur was largely responsible for the fostering of this (Persian) culture by his descendants' - that distinction belongs to the later Mughals. The origin of his wives proves little except that he belonged to the Persianate elite of the Ajam, which I would not dispute - that of the mother of his sons, and of subsequent mothers, is, I agree, much more important. You say that 'Chagatai was a lingua franca amongst the Timurid dynasty. I agree - that in itself is both suggestive and important. Why on earth would they be speaking Chagatai if they had no element of Turkic identity? And there are very few Chagatai writers and poets to be found outside Khwarezm before the 19th century, by comparison with Persian. You say he wrote in this language to please Naw'ai - again, I don't dispute this but I draw different inferences. Why did Naw'ai mount this crusade to make Chagatai a worthy literary alternative to Persian in Central Asia? Why was Babur interested? The fact that Naw'ai was a Uyghur is also significant as the Qarluq dialects of Fergana and Kashgaria are almost identical (and remain so to this day). Once again, I think we're straying away from Babur himself in this dispute, as I have no problem with your suggestions regarding what we write about his army or his court. If you really thing Babur has been over-Turkified here (The phrase used is that he was a 'Turco-Mongol dynast who spoke Turkish and Persian with equal fluency') then find the offending portions and post them on this page. Despite the volumes of text we've produced I don't think we really disagree all that much.Sikandarji 08:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally understand your point and even your scepsis regarding some "Iranoan hot-air" ... However, this is no excuse for pushing for "Turkish hot-air". In my opinion, the best and most neutral solution would be not mentioning any ethnic lables, because being "Turkic, Iranian, or Arab" was of no importance 500 years ago, in a world where everyone identified himself as "Muslim", "Christian" or "Hindu". But even if, the lable "Turk" would be wrong. Of course, Babur and all other rulers of Central-Asia knew Chaghatai, because it was the language of a very large part of the population. It was the traditional language of the Berlas-Mongols. Maybe you should also read the following article of the Iranica: CHAGHATAY LANGUAGE and LITERATURE , Turkic languages spoken in C Asia until Russian conquest , Doerfer, G. I am not disputing the Turkish influence on the Timruids, Babur, and all other dynasties of Central-Asia (the Turkish influence is still very much alive in South Asia, for example in the title "Khan"). Yet, comparing Babur and his descendants to the Ottomans, it is very clear that Persian and Arabic influence on the Ottomans was much bigger than Turkish influenc e on Babur and the Mughals. Now, does that mean that Ottomans were Persians?! Because most of their literary works were written in Persian, and because they gave their children Persian names and composed poetry in Persian?! Tajik 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with your last remark: the Fergana Valley was a Turkic-speaking region well before the 15th century, and that's where he grew up. Why do you think the region is called 'Turkestan' by Persian authors? It's not a question of Turkish influence: Babur was partly Turkish, and here you need to look at the marriage patterns amongst the Chingissid dynasties of Central Asia: you will find that already by Timur's time Mongolian had been forgotten with the exception of certain formal phrases, and frequent intermarriage with the Turks of Central Asia (and with Persians) had led to the emergence of a hybrid court culture. I would accord Turco-Mongol and Persian culture equal weight in making up the court culture of the Central Asian Timurids, and I don't really understand what the problem is here. Finally can I make it clear once again that I am talking about Babur, and that he is the subject of this article? The activities of his descendants and the character of the Mughal Court after Sher Shah Sur's interregnum are not relevant. Please show me the passages in the article which you object to.Sikandarji 09:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking back over this debate, I think what has to be clarified is the somewhat different status of Turkic and Persian at this time. The use of Persian as a language of Government, in poetry, in aristocratic culture, is rarely taken to be a sign of ethnicity or regional origin in the medieval and early modern periods, precisely because of its high status as a lingua franca for the Ajam. It is is similar to the use of French by European elites between the 16th and the 19th centuries: it had prestige, it was a marker of culture and status. Therefore, when you see a member of the settled elite deliberately choosing to use Turkic, a language widely seen as barbaric and fit only for nomads at the time, you have to ask yourself why. Ali Sher Nawa'i deliberately set out to make Turkic more fit for use in literature by using large numbers of Persian and Arabic loan-words, urging other members of the elite to follow suit (in itself very interesting: Persian needed no such advocacy), which Babur did. What was in it for them, if not some form of Turkic linguistic identity? As rulers of Persianised, settled polities, surrounded by Tajik scholars, administrators and bureaucrats, it was a way in which the Turco-Mongol political and military elite of Central Asia could hark back to their Turkic, nomadic origins. In the end the flowering of Chagatai proved relatively brief, as it was only consistently used into the 19th century in Khwarezm, and Persian retained its position of dominance. This is why comparisons with the Ottomans and Ghaznavids' use of Persian are missing the point: it's exactly what you'd expect them to do. Writing in Turkic went against the dominant cultural trend, and that is why, with respect, I would attach rather more importance to Babur's own memoirs and tha language they were written in, than to a work of reference (The Iranica) which, whilst worthy, has a brief to concentrate on the Iranian World, and is, when all's said and done, a secondary source reflecting the opinions of modern scholars, not the work of the man himself. Sikandarji 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the question is not about language but about ethnicity (which back then was totally unimportant and usually passed down from father to son), then Babur was clearly a Mongol by ethnicity. The only reason why he did not call himself "Mongol" was because the term had become some kind of insult. Babur knew that his father's family was Berlas-Mongol and his mother's family was the direct offspring of Gingiz Khan. The question of "Turkic origin" is a confusing theme with absolutely no systematic logic. All kings of peoples are considered "Turkic" although many of them were different in heritage, language, and culture. What has a present-day Turk from Turkey in common with the original Gök-Turks of Central-Asia? They have no genetical links, nor any cultural links. Even the languages were quite different. But if the language is the only thing that defines a "Turk", then why are the Mughals and later Timurids considered "Turks"? They were neither Turkic in language not in culture ... and even the gentical links to ethnic Turks were small.

What I am trying to say is that all this ethnic confusion is totally irrelevant ... especially when talking about 500 years ago. As you may know, the modern deffinition of "Persian" is "someone who speaks Persian and belongs to the Persian cultural space" ... so, using this deffinition, Babur was also an "ethnic Persian". The Persians themselvs are a heterogenious group with many different backgrounds.

Only pointing toward Babur's so-called "Turkic heritage" (although he was not a Turk but a Mongol, and only considered himself a Turk because the word "Mongol" was an insult) and leaving aside his true Mongol heritage (he was a Mongol on his father's and his mother's side) and his Persian heritage (Babur had also Persian ancestors and he was raised in a Persianized environment) is not the correct solution.

As for the Iranica: it is an authoritive source written by many experts. The main source for the article in the Iranica is - as you can see - Babur's personal memoires. The Iranica's claims are not "invented POV".

Tajik 13:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that because ethnicity is so imprecise and fluid a concept (especially when referring to "Turks" and "Turkic Identity") we are left mainly with language as a marker of identity: and if we look at the Orkhon inscriptions, and compare their language to the various Oghuz, Qarluq and Kipchak offshoots today, we can see that they belong to the same family. Genetic links may be none or very few (the Turkish-speaking population of Anatolia are probably descended variously from Urartans, Phrygians, Lydians, Kurds and other peoples who inhabited the region in antiquity) but the linguistic connection is undoubtedly there, and I find it quite fascinating. I have never wanted to argue beyond the fact that Babur himself and possibly Humayun considered themselves to be Turks: beyond that generation the Mughals did not consider themselves to be Turkish, or speak or read Chagatai, that is quite clear. I don't, however, think that it is any clearer that Babur was a Mongol than that he was a Turk, as on both sides of his family he was a product of intermarriage between Turkish and Mongolian tribes, as well as Tajik elites. He spoke and wrote in Turkish, he didn't speak Mongolian at all, so the former would seem to have a stronger case. Anyhow, the article offers equal weight to all three elements in his make-up, and I don't think it can be said that it "only points towards Babur's so-called 'Turkic Heritage' ". As for the Iranica, I don't think I've ever accused its claims of being "made up", but any Secondary work is necessarily a point of view, more or less well-referenced, and here the Babur-nama is used simply as a source of narrative. In my view Lehmann's article fails to draw the necessary (and to me obvious) conclusions from the fact that Babur wrote his memoirs in Chagatai, but his grandson had to have them translated into Persian because he didn't understand the language: namely that in the interim something had changed in the identity of the Mughals, and they had grown more distant from their Central Asian, Turkic-speaking roots after Humayun's exile. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a decent work of reference, but it is not infallible (it uses a peculiarly inaccurate and cumbersome system of transliteration, apart from anything else). You will also be disappointed if you try to rely on it absolutely, as although seven volumes have appeared over the last fifteen years they have still only got up to the letter "D"! Its scope is absurdly over-ambitious, and I very much doubt if it will ever be finished. Sikandarji 15:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mughals were Mutlicultural and Babur was a Turk

            Mughals were Turks, this is just basic knowledge, Babur the founder of the "Babur Khan Empire" which is its proper name in the region wrote in the Babur-Name

Babur, the leader of the [Indian]Mogul Empire, says, "My people are Turkish. They speak Turkish." The Chaghatai, the great poets of medieval Central Asia, called their language Turkish.

http://cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/5163

The BaburName is a Turkish masterpiece, if anyone has read this epic they will realise that the Moghuls were so evidently Turks.

You can read a few pages here online

http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/babur/babur1.html

File:Http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/babur/images/baburn2.jpg

Andijanis are all Turks; everyone in town or bazar knows Turki. The speech of the people resembles the literary language; hence the writings of Mir 'Ali-sher Nawa'i, though he was bred and grew up in Hin (Herat), are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The famous musician, Khwaja Yusuf, was an Andijani. The climate is malarious; in autumn people generally get fever.

This article is just hilarious, in Pakistan and India its common knowledge that they were of a Turk family as we read the BaburNama unlike some here. Not only was he a Turk, he was a proud one. Also we don't have a racist paranoid hang-up with Turks, theyre presence and history added to our culture and history and we mixed with them and are actually proud of this. Epics like "Princess Razia", the Gaznivids and later great leaders.

Its disturbing that these Persians are so jelous and intent to make everything theirs. The leaders of these Empires all had an Islamic concept ie Nationalism wasnt an issue, infact the Turk rulers promoted our languages and culture, without them it may have died out and not developed to the extent it has.

The Great Turk Genius Amir Khusraw and his accomplishments in Music

http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=13&TaxonomySubTypeID=-1&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=526

That great music we love has a lot of credit due to this Turk, this is why I really love these people, they came not to oppress or assimilate us, no but to adapt and improve what they found.

Could this article please be edited, these bitter Pan-Persian maniacs are trying to cause ethnic tensions and problems among the people. Nobody in the regions of Pakistan accepts Babur Khan Empire to be PERSIAN, if you said that theyre you'd get laughed at its that ridiculous. In-fact the Persians should thank the Turks, imagine if the Turks had been like these Persians today, there wouldn't be a Persian today.

The "Babur Khan Empire" was a multi-ethnic Empire it was neither Persian, nor Turk, nor Pashtun, nor Sikh, nor Hindi it was ALL OF THESE. While the Babur Khan family was initially Turk.

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/babur.html www.indhistory.com/babur.html www.bengalweb.com/hist/wbenhis1.html

This is such basic common knowledge, Babur referred to himself as a Turk, he had Turk blood in him and spoke and wrote in Turk language.

Later Babur's extensive family mixed with many other Nationalities and so they are a Turk Root family but became a part of this land and the people of this land and so are ours and the Turks, it is a bridge between our people and proves how well we can get along and how our relations today are very good.

The conclusion is, this Empire was not Nationalistic, therefore they didn't have these pychotic paranoid fears that I read in this section. Babur was a Turk, his family later mixed with local rulers in this region. Therefore its a Pakistan-Indian-Afgan-Turk Empire, definately not Persian, the only thing Persian was language which was used, nobody ever referred to themselves as Persian or Persian rulers this is a mumbo-jumbo joke if anybody claims this.

This part of the article is ESPECIALLY DEEPLY FLAWED

To the subject of the Mughals origins, the Mughal people were created through a series of interracial marriages. When the Mongolians of north west asia took the subcontinent and middle east in its vast empire, there was much marriage between the Mongols and central asians in particular the Persians. The Mughals are derived from this unique mesh of different peoples, although they adopted the culture of their ancestral Persians, which is evident in their religious practices, customs, architecture and language; and they still retained many physical attributes from their other ancestral half, which also helped to cement new customs and traditions.

Now common please, this is so unbelievably ridiculous.

1. The Mongols did not enter Central Asia to find a "monoethnic" Persian mass living there. The historic name of that region is "Turkestan", take a wild guess why, if you ever read the BaburNama you would realise Babur Khan refers to the region as such aswell.

2. This paragraph pretends that Persians are somehow this huge majority population in Central Asia/Turkestan. Its plain nonsense, these are not ethnic Persian areas, why are these lies being perpetrated. It is just the same as saying, Shiraz and Isfahan regions are Arab lands and all the people who reside there Arabs. There are Tajiks, Turks, Pashtuns who all lived in this region prior to the Mongol invasion.

3. Prior to Mongol invasion as I previously stated, many non-Persian nations resided in historic Turkestan/Central Asia, this article pretends the Seljuk Turks, KaraKhanids, Gaznivids, Timurids etc didnt exist. As if there was no Turk presence in the region its worrying to think some people live in such a fantasy world.

4. There is also an Arab presence which is totally forgotten, there was flourishing Arab trade and culture which also influenced the region.

5. It was overwhelmingly "Islamic", meaning YET AGAIN, Nationalism was not an issue, people werent roving around trying to eliminate traces of "others" and make everything theirs.

In conclusion, this section MUST be changed, it pretends Turks and their influence doesnt exist which is a total lie. The millitary system, musical influence, cultural influences and ruling influences were all bought in by the Turks. The Islamic influence must be made more important and aware of. AND THE PASHTUN, PUNJAB, HINDI PEOPLE'S INFLUENCE, MIXTURE AND CULTURE MUST BE HIGHLIGHTED, the article pretends we dont exist. As I stated earlier, while many Turks mixed with us and their families arrived, they did not attempt to assimilate us or change us. They of-course had profound influence but also adapted to our styles and culture. Therefore we FUSED and took elements from one another.

The Persian element is of course very immportant, as Persian was a literary language, influenced the culture and music's aswell. My aim is not to downplay the Persians (as if its possible in that article) but to stop the down-playing of others.

Lets not forget that while Persian culture had profound influence, the BaburNama and other Turk works are epic Literature's in the Turk language, there were profound Hindi Epic works and Urdu became the "Lingua Franca" of the region. There is hardly any mention to the works in Urdu and our contributions.

I have edited that above paragraph slightly to make it at least a little bit more historically accurate.

EXCUSE ME, BABUR WAS A TURK, WHY IS THERE NO MENTION, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THERE BEING PERSIANS IN THE ARMY, THIS IS A COMPLETE HISTORICAL FABRICATION, WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF THE BABURNAME AN EPIC LITERATURE, WHERE IS THE MENTION OF THE ACHIEVMENTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE PUNAJB, HINDI'S, PASHTUN INFLUENCE WHO ON EARTH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH THESE EXTREMIST PERSIANS ITS THIS KIND OF SHOVENISTIC BEHAVIOUR WHICH IS WHY THEY DON'T GET ALOT OF LOVE. PERSIANS HAVE A CULTURE BUT ARE JELOUS AT ANYTHING THAT RIVALS AND OVERTAKES THEM.

Omar Khan- Originally from Lahore Pakistan now in London

Babur and Nationality in Turco culture

Nationhood was passed down through paternal lines in Turco culture. Babur was a Turk, referred to himself as a Turk, even spoke proudly of being a Turk and shows Nationalist sentiments in his epic work the Babur-Nama which I have read, analysed and studied from start to end.

p.s, why is the Qizilbash mentioned and then Turks as if they are somehow different? why are Persian mentioned to be part of Babur's army? these armies were prodimantly Turkic, they had a millitary oligarchy in the previous centuries.

This is basic knowledge, any well established encyclopedia, historian or proffessor in these studies knows this just like they know 2+2=4.

Stop letting Persian extremist romantics trying to lay claim to everything to fill their 1000 year void in history.

johnstevens7

We have shown above that by the time Babur attacked India, the majority of his army was clearly Non-Turkic. He left Ferghana with a "few hundered Turkish soldiers" (according to his own memoires) and in Badakhshan he received the support of a native Tajik ruler. With his new Persianized army, Babur attacked Kabul, recruited more soldiers (probably Tajiks, Afghans and a few Turks) and then attacked India (this is the information one gets from his own memoires).

The Kizilbash were an esoteric confederation of many different tribes - Iranic, Turkic, Indian, Geogrian, etc - who were united by their belief in the Safavid version of Islam. Only the very first Kizilbash were ethnic Turks (the "7 Turkoman Kizilbash tribes") ... and even then, some of the Kizilbash were Persians or Kurds (keeping in mind that the Safavids themselvs were ethnic Kurds and hailed from Persian Kurdistan). By the time of Abbas the Great, the original Turkoman Kizilbash were driven back and the entire army (including the military titles) were Persianized. And even much earlier, at the time of Tahmasep I, the Persian "Tajik" elite of the kingdom was an important element of the dynasty. Bayram Khan, the Kizilbash leader in Mughal-India, wrote many poems in Persian and Turkic. The overwhelming majority of his poems were Persian (see Iranica, "Bayram Khan") and he was considered a Persian by the very few Turkish officers in India. Bayram Khan's grandson Akbar, the later Emperor of India, did not even know Turkish and did not consider himself a "Turk". Now, considerding the fact that the Safavids were considered "Turks" for many years only because the founder of the dynasty wrote poetry in Turkish, why should Bayram Khan and the Kizilbash be considerd "totally Turkish"?! I am a descendant of the Kizilbash myself, and I know for sure that not even my grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-father (who was a direct descendant of the Bayat-Kizilbash Turkomans) considered himself a Turk or spoke any Turkish. Tajik 13:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

This is getting ridiculous, Wikipedia is being destroyed by racist chauvanists.

The Afgan rulers were Turks, at the time Turks had a millitary oligarchy and were the most prized soldiers. Persian's were not known for their fighting skills, no proof is presented its just simply subjective idiocy.

Kizilbash is a Turkish word and refers to the Turkmen tribes who founded this movement.

Safavids were what? do you just make things up as you go along.

There are more Turks in Iran than Persian's even today, Persian's were not involved in the millitary are you trying to re-write history.

The Safavids were toppled because they ignored the Kizilbash Turks who ousted them as they had millitary power.

Writing in Persian doesn't make you Persian, in those time's it was a widely used language, however, has been on the decline since the middle age's and now has lost all power of influence.

Bayat's are a confederate of the Oguz Turks, please stop telling fairytale fantasies.

Babur Han was a Turk, read the BaburName, were taught it and read it in Pakistan and don't share your sick racist chauvanism.

Babur clearly state's, “My people are Turkish. They speak Turkish.”

http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmID/5163

He clearly defines himself as Turkish, and describes himself thus to the rulers of the Punjab, claiming rights over that land by his descent from Timur (Tamerlane) and, perhaps, from the Turkish dynasties who had reigned in northern India since the time of Mahmud of Ghazna. ‘The Turks’ possession of these lands goes back to ancient times. Beware!’, so said his envoys in 1519, to the inhabitants of Bhira.[ii] ‘Provoke not the Turks, emir of Bayana! For their recklessness and courage are known! ’ was his threat to the governor of that place in 1526.

Andijanis are all Turks; everyone in town or bazar knows Turki. The speech of the people resembles the literary language; hence the writings of Mir 'Ali-sher Nawa'i, though he was bred and grew up in Hin (Herat), are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The famous musician, Khwaja Yusuf, was an Andijani.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/babur/babur1.html#contents

Now please stop ruining Wikipedia, do you think the whole world are ignorant and complete idiots, history must be told objectively and not with "nationslist" slants.

Its an insult to the thinking mind to invent these stories.

I really don't understand it, your trying to invent a history because Persian influence has declined and declined to its sorry state today and you take out your anger on everybody but yourselves.

We are PAKISTANI not Persian, Persians have NEVER ruled us or ever had a presence in this region.

Turks however have, this is a fact, from the Gaznivids, Selcuks to the Turkish Mamluke Sultans to Babur's founded Empire.

Babur Khan wrote his epic literature in his native Turkish language and clearly states his origins. Its ridiculous to try and pretend this isn't the case, its historically accepted and proven as fact.

Now the beauty about these guys was they didn't attempt to assimilate the people of this region and were tolerant. Our language Urdu deriving from the Turkish word Ordu - Army, was promoted and became the lingua-franca and still is today for the various people's in our country.

Could you please stop being so desperate, we don't have Turks running around telling Pakistani's they are Turks and that they owe everything to the superiority of the Turkish nation NO! but instead we have some Persian RETARDS trying so hard to tell us that were really Persian and Persian's are our rulers and we owe everything to them bla, bla, bla, total and utter unverifiable crap.

All you do is make yourselves look bad, after reading the trash you have written across this Website its become very evident you people have an Inferiority Complex and take this out on Arabs, Turks and everyone else but don't question your own inadequecies or why Arabs and Turks have overtaken you in all fields, culture, literature, music and arts.

Do yourselves and your nation a favour and get the hell out of Pakistani/Indian area's of this site, we don't want to listen to your rubbish about the so-called superiority of the imaginary Persians.

Omar Khan

Thanks for your comments, but you are making mistakes in here.

First of all, there were many Persian dynasties after the Arabic conquest, any many Persian soldiers and sultans who played a major role in the history of Persia and India. The Ghurids, for example, were an ethnic Persian dynasty from Khorasan. They were the ones who ended Ghaznavid rule in India, and they were the ones who brought Islam to India. It's true that nomadic Turcomans were important soldiers back then - but that was because fighting was their ownly skill (that's why they were known as "ahl al-sayf", "men of the sword"), while Persians and Arabs usually concentrated on administration, religion, and were regarded as the "men of the pen" and the "men of culture". If fact, Persian scholars had more influence on India than any Turkish sultan or soldier.

As for the Safavids, they were not removed by the Kizilbash, but were defeated by Afghans of the Ghilzai tribe. An Afghan confederation of several thousend clan-chiefs marched on Isfahan and badly defeated the Kizilbash (by then, a totally Persianized army), marking the end of the Safavid dynasty and the beginning of Afghanistan. The "Kizilbash" were not exclusively a Turcoman army, but a coaltion of many different peoples (as you can read in the Kizilbash article). From the time of Ismail I. up to Shah Abbas, who more or lessed removed the Kizilbash from Iran's politics, the Kizilbash tribes were commanded by ethnic Persian "amirs" and "wakils", the most famous being Amir Nadjm (who was murdered in Balkh) and grand-vezir Mirza Salman whose murder by the Ustajlu-Kizilbash-Turcomans (and act that was considered "treason") had a significant role in the "Persianization" of the Safavid state and marked the end of Turcoman rule.

Turco-Persian "hybrids", such as Bayram Khan Kizilbash (who was of mixed Turcoman and Persian ancestry), played a major role in the Mughal empire. In fact, his daughter was married to Humayun and thus Akbar (who did not know a word Turkish) was his grand-son.

You also forget that 500 years ago, the word "Turk" was not a name of a certain ethnic group, but the name of a caste within the Islamic community: the caste of warriors who themselvs claimed heritage from the Turco-Mongols and Gingiz Khan. The learned and educated administator's caste, that of the Persians, was called "Tajik" (a Turkish word originally taken from the Arabic word "Tayy", in Turkish meaning "Non-Turks"). The "Tajiks" were the ones who had the most important governmental positions, they were the ones who commanded the Turkish armies, and they were the "de facto" rulers of almost ALL so-called "Turkish dynasties". You may know the Seljuk grand-vezirs Nizam ul-Mulk and Taj ul-Mulk, both being ethnic Persians. Even some of the Timurid Shahs, such as Shah Rukh and his son, Ulugh Beg, were more Persians then Mongols. Shah Rukh's wife, Gauhar Shad - an ethnic Persian and daughter of the Persian noble Giath ud-Din Tarkhan - played one of the most important roles in Timurid history.

As you can read in the authoritive Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam, your idea of a world in which "ethnic Turks ruled everything" is totally wrong. There was not a single important Turk in the Ghaznavid dynasty, and there is not a single document from that time that was written in Turkish. There is not a single Ghaznavid document claiming that Ghaznavids were Turks, while - in fact - they themselvs considered themselvs descendants of the old Iranian heroes of the Persian epics (as very obvious in the writings they left behind; see Encyclopaedia Iranica for more information).

Babur was as much Persian, as he was Turk or Mongol (in fact, he was neither an ethnic Turk nor an ethnic Persian, but clearly an ethnic Mongol - both on his mother's and his father's side).

Tajik 09:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

What is wrong with you people you are OBSESSED CHAUVANISTS, its sick and disturbing, you win no friends acting like this.

There was a Persian led Dynasty after the Arab Invasion, the Samanids and after that there were no others.

This is what you find hard to swallow and so you desperately roam around trying to distort and change history just because it doesn't suit your ideals of Persians being the most important superior nation on the face of the Earth, its making you a laughing stock.

Turks had a Millitary Oligarchy, my field of study is this period of history, please go and research what you are writing because your drastically mistaken.

Another mistake you make is the labelling of Turks as simply fighters and Persians as some kind of superior intellegent lifeforms. The Turks millitary acomplishments is undeniable however, they were patrons of the arts, promoters of culture/literature and had a vast influence.

For eg.

The Great Turk Genius Amir Khusraw and his accomplishments in Music

http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=13&TaxonomySubTypeID=-1&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=526

That great music we love has a lot of credit due to this Turk, this is why I really love these people, they came not to oppress or assimilate us, no but to adapt and improve what they found.

The other problem you and thinkers of your sphere has is this idea of Racial Nationalism, this is not only ridiculous but dangerous.

Being part of a Nation is not determined by race, this pure Persian Aryan whatever thing is a myth, there is no such thing as pure blood, how do you know your "pure" who hasn't mixed sometime in the period of human history with other Nations huh WHO!

Nationhood was for the most part "Paternal", especially in the Muslim world Nation's cannot be determined soley by race, its language, culture etc which have greater importance as we all mixed there were no boundries between people prohibiting racial mixing.

The Kizilbash were never ruled by Perian commander's do you enjoy inventing this? they were a warrior people whose rights had to be respected, infact it was because the rulers of the time tried to meddle with the Kizilbash system that they ousted the Safavid rulers never forget that.

You know nothing about their history what your writting is ludacris. Firstly you mix Mongols and Turks, you don't realise how the Golden Horde was subdued. The Turks scribes and literary elite infiltrated the Mongols, it was the Uygur Turks who rose to the top of the administrative system and they Turkified them from within and took control from within.

The Uygur Turks played a very important role in the beaurocracy of Turkic Empires.

You then attempt again to invent history to your ideals by shamefully denying that the Gaznivids were Turks. The leader Alptekin I mean look at his name for goodness sake was clearly a Turk, from the Mamluke Slave Warrior Class.

Next you'll be claiming Razia Sultana was a Persian, whatever next.

The "Babur Khan Empire" was a multi-ethnic Empire it was neither Persian, nor Turk, nor Pashtun, nor Sikh, nor Hindi it was ALL OF THESE. While the Babur Khan family was initially Turk.

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/babur.html www.indhistory.com/babur.html

www.bengalweb.com/hist/wbenhis1.html

Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character. His family had become members of the Chagatai clan, by which name they are known. …

Britannica

You do not get more "objective" than Britannica Encyclopedia, they do not look at the matter from just a "Persian" outlook but from all sources and verify and source their facts.

Timur married into the tribe of Ghenghiz Khan, Timur was a Turk, his descendants therefore were Turks, they grew up in the region known as Turkestan and would speak the local language.

These are simple facts which anybody with an ounce of knowledge of these issues who isn't an extremist Persian Chauvanist know.

This is such basic common knowledge, Babur referred to himself as a Turk, he had Turk blood in him and spoke and wrote in Turk language.

Later Babur's extensive family mixed with many other Nationalities and so they are a Turk Root family but became a part of this land and the people of this land and so are ours and the Turks, it is a bridge between our people and proves how well we can get along and how our relations today are very good.

The conclusion is, this Empire was not Nationalistic, therefore they didn't have these pychotic paranoid fears that I read in this section. Babur was a Turk, his family later mixed with local rulers in this region.

Your whole and entire aim is to try and pretend Turks, Arabs and everyone else were worthless and did nothing while the Persians are responsible for everything.

I will not stand for this rubbish and I hope Wikipedia stops this project being DESTROYED by racist chauvanits.

Omar Khan

The articles in here are based on authoritive sources, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica.

The article Kizilbash in Wikipedia is based on the information given in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and it is a FACT that the Kizilbash soldiers were headed by Persian commanders and wakils (later by Geogrian wakils). The most important of them was Mirza Salman who was assassinated by insulted Turcoman amirs (see Roger M. Savory's "The significance of the political murder of Mirza Salman"). And you claim that Timur was " a Turk" is deffinitly wrong. As you say, the paternal line was the definition for ethnicity back then, and Timur's paternal heritage was deffinitly Berlas-Mongol (that's why he considered himself a Mongol and a descendant of Gingiz Khan). There were many generations between Timur and Babur, and in those many years, the Berlas-Mongols had become Turkic and Persian by language and culture (that's why Timur's biography was written in Persian and not in Chaghatai, and that's why Babur's daughter, Gulbadan Begum, is known as a great Persian poetess). You are giving too much credit to Babur's autobiography. As you can read in the AUTHORITIVE article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica, Babur's descision was to write in Chaghatai was mostely because he admired Ali Sher Nawa'i ... he himself is also known for his Persian poetry, like the verse that is now written on his grave in Kabul. Here are the article about Babur and his daughter, Gulbadan Begum (the author of "Humayun-Nama", written in Persian), in the authoritive Encyclopaedia Iranica: Babur & Gulbadan Begum. And, by the way, the Ghurids (see Ghurids in Encyclopaedia Iranica) and the Buyyids were Persians and not Turks. The same goes to Safavids, an originally Perso-Kurdish family with strong ties to Azerbaijani Turcomans. The Iranica says this about the Ghurids: "... The chiefs of Ghur only achieve firm historical mention in the early 5th/11th century with the Ghaznavid raids into their land, when Ghur was still a pagan enclave. Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ghurids in general and the Shansabanis in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks. ..."

I think that not Babur's ethnicity in here is the problem (quite funny that you totally reject Timur's and Babur's paternal heritage from Mongol tribes and desperately try to "Turkify" them) but rather the usual Pakistani ill-tempered hate towards Persian ... most of all because Persians are Shias, unlike the majority of Pakistanis who are (radical) Sunnis (see Deobandis). Tajik 15:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

What on Earth is wrong with you, Kizilbash firstly is a Turkish word how can you even deny this, it was founded by Turks and led by them.

Iranian Encyclopedia's are taken from the Persian point of view, obviously Persian sources have a rose-tinted views of events, according to them everything is Persian.

This is ridiculous, let's look at the fact's.

The rivalry between the Turkic clans and Persian nobles was a major problem in the Safavid kingdom and caused much trouble. As V. Minorsky put it, friction between these two groups was inevitable, because the Turcomans "were no party to the national Persian tradition". Shah Ismail tried to solve the problem by appointing Persian wakils as commanders of Kizilbash tribes. However, the Turcomans considered this an insult and brought about the death of 3 of the 5 Persians appointed to this office - an act, that later lead to the deprivation of the Turcomans by Shah Abbas I. [10]

In 1510 Shah Ismail sent a large force of the Kizilbash to Transoxania to support the Timurid ruler Babur in his war against the Uzbeks. The Kizilbash defeated the Uzbeks and secured Samarqand for Babur. However, in 1512, an entire Kizilbash army was annihilated by the Uzbeks after Turcoman Kizilbash had mutinied against their Persian wakil and commander, Amir Nadjm[12]. This heavy defeat put an end to Safavid expansion and influence in Transoxania and the northeastern frontiers of the kingdom remained vulnerable to nomad invasions.

Its hilarious to even sugest that anyone other than a Kizilbas could rule the Kizilbas, they were a warrior elite with strict codes and principle's. Everytime Persian's attmpted to install a Persian ruler they were met with total mutiny and nearly all were killed.

Timur never referred to himself as a Mongol, how ridiclous, he married into the Barlas tribe for power, however, in societies of the region Nationality is paterenal and as Timur was a Turk it made him and his legacy thus aswell.

Why on Earth otherwise would he write this?

"Biz ki Mülük-i Turan, Emir-i Türkistan'ız: (We are the possessors of Turan and Emir of Turkestan) Biz ki Türk oğlu Türk'üz; (We are real Turks that are the sons of Turks) Biz ki milletlerin en kadîmî ve en ulusu (We are the members of the oldest and the highest nation) Türk'ün başbuğuyuz!..." (We are the leaders of Turks

Why would the world renown Ibn Khaldun write this and remember he unlike us two here actually met the man.

Ibn Khaldun "You know how the power of the Arabs was established when they became united in their religion in following their Prophet. As for the Turks ... in their group solidarity, no king on earth can be compared with them, not Chosroes nor Caesar nor Alexander nor Nebuchadnezzar."

Tamerlane demurred on a technical point: Nebuchadnezzar was not a king, "he was only one of the Persian generals"

We don't have to assume anything about the Ghaznivids, they were Turkish Slave's who turned on their Persian masters and here's the part you can't swallow, they took control of your precious Samanids, established a mighty Empire and have controlled that region ever since.

Do you want to read the Britannica or various Islamic sources on the matter.

I am not trying to Turkify Babur, he was a Turk, all historian's accept this, everybody in the region (Except Persian's) accept this, Timur's wife was from the Barlas tribe their original ethnicity was Mongolian, however they were 5th generation by the time Timur married and had been Turkified as they were in the region known as "Turkestan".

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/babur.html www.indhistory.com/babur.html

www.bengalweb.com/hist/wbenhis1.html

Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character. His family had become members of the Chagatai clan, by which name they are known. …

Britannica

Indian sources, Pakistani sources, Bengladeshi sources, Islamic history sources, Britannica all say the same.

Babur in his book the Babur-nama say's he is a Turk and in the region he is from they all speak Turkish, in addition he wrote his book in his native tongue.

However, they did not come to assimilate and oppress us, they promoted our arts and culture and Urdu rose to be the Lingua Franca of the region and still is!!!

We do not speak Persian today, we are not Persian, Persian's have never ruled us and we want no part in your Racist Chauvanist complex's.

And no, I'm not writting all this because of some Shia complex you may have, people of the Pan-Persian mentallity are not religous to say the least, I simply don't like your mind-bogglingly disgusting fascist attitude.

Beside's, its the Dari and Tajik's of Afganistan who don't like the Persian's for being Shia, as far as I know your language's have similarities howerver, the Dari I know have no love for Persians and they call the Tajik a mix between Turks and Persians.

We don't speak Persian and this is Pakistan, we have our own identity and history which is unique and definately not Persian.

Now keep your nonsense to the Persian sections, please don't pollute my history with your lies and nonsense, your not welcome around here, in Pakistan or among our communities while doing this and are definately in no position to invent our history.

Regards

Omar Khan

---

Oh boy, now you are even denying the authority of the Encyclopaedia Iranica - a work that is being written by more than 100 experts in the West. And by denying the authority of this encyclopaedia, you also deny the authority of the [Encyclopaedia of Islam]], which is written by the very same authors. I've reverted your edits from the page.

And by the way: the name "Kizilbash" was given to the Shia militia by their Ottoman enemies. It was not invented by themselvs. They simply adopted the name as a mark of pride. And I think that you have no competence to have any say in this article. I mean, you do not even know that "Dari" (which is the short form of "Farsi-e Darbari", "Persian of the royal court") is not the name of an ethnic group, but the name given to classical Persian poetry-language (and in Afghanistan, it is wrongly applied to the Persian dialect of the country).

Since you have admitted that your aim is not presenting history, but to publish your own, invented, anti-Persian history, I think that your edits have no place in Wikipedia. You say: "we are not Persians and we do not speak Persian". Well, as far as I know, you do not speak Turkish and are not Turkish either. Tajik 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Christ, here we go again. Tajik, I deplore the language this guy is using, and the way in which he has brought current jealousies into the argument, but so far as Babur is concerned (and to some extent Timur as well) he has a point. You're far too dismissive of the language and evidence of the Babur-nama, not to mention what Ibn Khaldun had to say about Timur. As I've said before, primary sources trump secondary ones every time, and for all the Iranica's sterling qualities (see what I wrote above), it is not so AUTHORITATIVE (and yes, that's how you spell it) as simply to quell all argument, particularly not when that argument is backed up by good evidence from primary sources. I've said before, and I'll say it again: Lehmann has it all wrong in that article by claiming that it was Babur who was responsible for the Persian ethos of the Mughal court, and paying no attention to the substantial changes in Mughal culture brought about by Humayun's exile. He fails to draw the obvious and necessary conclusion from the fact that Akbar had to have his grandfather's memoirs translated from Chagatai into Persian, because he couldn't read the former language: the Mughal court had become a different place from Babur's day, much more Persian in its influences and emphasis than had been the case before, when Babur first invaded India. I share your suspicion of pan-turkicists, but you've got to accept that there are instances where Turks will have been significant actors in History - and I'm equally suspicious of your refusal to concede the point so far as Babur is concerned, in the face of very strong evidence from what the man himself wrote for posterity. As for all this anti-Persian feeling in Pakistan and (so we're told) Afghanistan: Omar, please keep this stuff off the talk pages. It just inflames the debate unnecessarily. I thought we'd come to an acceptable compromise to this issue, which acknowledged the Turkic, Mongolic and Iranic elements which made up Babur's cultural world, and it would be nice if we could avoid hysterical denials that one or the other element was of any importance. Sikandarji 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Sikandarji

The problem I am having is these wacko's comming here to section's of the encyclopedia which do not concern them and ridiculously stating that everything is Persian this and Persian that.

I use the Turkish sources because I know how much it annoys them, these people cannot stand or accept that people other than Persians have any importance what-sover.

He denies Britannica Encyclopedia and come's here telling us that were all wrong, they tell us people who are actually from the region that were Persian and we owe it all to Persians, I don't see Turks comming here telling Indian's and Pakistani's who and what we are and why we should be greatfull to them bla bla bla

I simply stated a fact, Babur was initially a Turk, later the Empire absorbedd our populations into the running of the state and fused into becomming what is distinctly "Moghul" which is a unique culture to the Indian Sub-continant. It is neither Turkish, nor Persian, it is Moghul which has elements of Turkish-Mongol-Persian culture but is overwhelmingly Northern Indian and what is today Pakistani culture, the Sikhs, Punjabi's, Pashtun's, Hindi are ultimately what shaped and made the Moghuls what they were and influenced the culture we to some part share today.

Therefore I totally reject these historical inventions that the Moghuls were some band of undercover Persians ruling us and the entire world, its total and utter nonsense and we all know it accept these weird people comming here spreading lies.

Its ridiculous to reject the truth, Babur wrote an epic literature work the Baburnama in his native language which was Turkish, he clearly states his Nation, I really don't see why its causing such a big fuss with the Persian's.

The language Urdu was promoted and become the lingua-franca thanks to them, Urdu actually is dereive from the Turkish word Ordu which means Army. There are alot of influences and vica-versa, if people like the Persian's visiting here had there way they would have tried to enforce Persian on us, happily they were not in control and werent able to do this.

My source's are from Britannica Encyclopedia

Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character. His family had become members of the Chagatai clan, by which name they are known. …

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

Courtesy -- Brend, B. (1991). "Islamic Art". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

These are objective sources, they are neither Persian or Turk, they simply state fact's that some stuck up racists sadly don't seem to able to accept.

I think a section should be added in this article to the BaburNama as it is an epic literature work which has been noted in Unesco.

Andijanis are all Turks; everyone in town or bazar knows Turki. The speech of the people resembles the literary language; hence the writings of Mir 'Ali-sher Nawa'i, though he was bred and grew up in Hin (Herat), are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The famous musician, Khwaja Yusuf, was an Andijani

Baburnama

Please make the article a bit closer to reality without the Persian distortions, this is an encyclopedia and should not allow biased one-sided source's ruin it for everyone.

p.s I never said Dari speaker's language wasn't very close to Persian, I said they dislike Persian's as does alot of Afganistan and there is no point even beginning to deny this.

Another note, it says Babur drew support from "Iranian" people and includes Pashtun's, I'm very sorry but Pashtuns are Pashtuns and Punjabi's and Punjabi we are not Iranian, our language may be Indo-European but then so is French and Russian it doesn't mean anything, we are totally seperate and distinct people to "Iranian's" or "Iranics" please can this be cleared up.

Also this

 The name, 'Babur', is a nickname, derived from the Indo-European word for beaver.

Britannica state's something very different

Babur (bä'bər) [Turk.,=lion],

My sincerest regards

Omar Khan

This derivation is the one given by Wheeler M. Thackston, the Harvard Professor of Eastern Languages, in the introduction to his recent translation of the Babur-nama (see the quotation in the 'Babur's name' section above. He generally knows what he's talking about. By the way, go to the Andijan page and you will see that I have added the passage you refer to there. It might be a little too long for this page. Sikandarji 09:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

@ Sikanderji: if you believe that the Encyclopaedia Iranica (and Encyclopaedia of Islam, since both encyclopaedias are written by the same authors) are wrong in this case, you should write them a message and correct them. Let's see what happens. What you forget is that the articles in the EI are based on primary sources, such as the Baburnama. Lehman is neither a "Persian nationalist" nor a "rookie". He had good reasons for writing that article that way.

@ Omar: Babur was NOT a Turk, but an ethnic MONGOL. That's why he and his family were called "MOGHUL" which is the Persian word for "Mongol". Speaking Turkish does not make one a "Turk", the same way speaking Persian does not make one a "Persian". Let me show you a passage from the Encyclopaedia of Islam from the article "Sart":

• "... When the western Iranians secured control of the trade with nomadic peoples, the Turks and Mongols applied the term 'sart' to them in the same sense as 'tadjik'. Because Iranians were a sedentary Muslim people, the term also designated all sedentary Muslims, irrespective of language or ethnicity. Thus, the Mongols referred to Arslan Khan, the prince of the Muslim Turkic Karluks as 'sartaktai' (-tai being the masculine ending) which Rashid al-Din explained as meaning 'tadjik' ..."

You are deffinitly giving too much credit to the word "Turk" in Babur's biography! And you are too much concerned with "Persian vs. Turk", although 500 years ago, these words had totally different meanings! Maybe you should have a look at the "Humayunnama", his son's biography, written by Babur's daughter Gulbadan-Begum ... unlike Babur's biography, the Humayunnama is written in Persian!

And by the way: assuming that "Babur" is taken from the word "Babr", then it's NOT Turkish, but Persian, meaning "leopard". The Turkish word for "lion" is "arslan". As for Timur:

• University of Calgary: "... Although he was of Mongol descent, Timur was really more Turkish than Mongol, in his language and religion. ..." [4]
• The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press: "... Timur or Tamerlane [tăm'urlān], c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. He is also called Timur Leng [Timur the lame]. He was the son of a tribal leader, and he claimed (apparently for the first time in 1370) to be a descendant of Jenghiz Khan. With an army composed of Turks and Turkic-speaking Mongols, remnants of the empire of the Mongols, Timur spent his early military career in subduing his rivals in what is now Turkistan; by 1369 he firmly controlled the entire area from his capital at Samarkand. ..." [5]
• "The Timurid states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries", M.S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth, eds. (Paris: UNESCO, 1998): "... The disintegration of the Mongol Empire left a power vacuum in Central Asia into which stepped one of the most notorious empire-builders of all time, Timur, popularly known as Tamerlane. He was born probably in the 1320s in the Mongol Barlas tribe, which contended for power in the region around Kesh (Shahr-i Sabz) south of Samarkand. He fought his way to power and secured it in part by marrying true royalty, that is, a woman who descended from Chingis Khan...." [6]

Tajik 11:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

@ Omar: I almost forgot ... the source you were using was [7], which is not really a credible source. Besides that, you had copied an entire paragraph out of that site into Wikipedia, which is against Wikipedia's rules. As for the population of Kabul during Babur's lifetime, let me quote directly from his own memoires: "... Eleven or twelve dialects are spoken in Kabul Province: Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Mongolian, Hindi... It is not known if there are so many different peoples and languages in any other province ..."Tajik 11:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

Tajik, speaking Turkish is precisely what makes one a Turk. Ethnicity is a much less sure guide. If you don't accept that definition then you don't accept that the Turks exist at all (maybe that's what you're driving at here). The quotations you have posted above actually undermine your argument by laying emphasis on the Turkic elements in Babur and Timur's respective backgrounds, n.b.:"... Although he was of Mongol descent, Timur was really more Turkish than Mongol, in his language and religion. ..." - just move the apostrophes around and you will get the result you want. Perhaps I will write a critique of Lehmann's article someday (I am an academic, and I have published a couple myself, though not in this area). However, NO secondary source is above criticism, and in this instance the Iranica article does not represent a scholarly consensus, because there isn't one. You might wish to read Mohibbul Hasan's Babur, for instance, which takes a rather different view of him. I suggest you widen your reading a little, and use your own judgment to analyse what you read, rather than merely accepting it as gospel (at least when it chimes with what appear to be preconceived views). I know that babr is the Persian for leopard - I quoted Thackston saying as much above - and nobody has suggested otherwise. However, it does not appear to be the derivation of his nickname. I have read the Humayun-nama, it is in Persian: so what? We're talking about Babur, who wrote his memoirs in Chagatai, and my argument all along has been that the later Mongols were different, owing to Humayun's exile in Persia. Writing in Persian was the default setting for elites in this period - that is what makes the Babur-nama so unusual. Omar - please don't cut and paste stuff from other websites. Sikandarji 12:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way Tajik, when Babur uses the term Sart he is referring to the inhabitants of Margelan in the Ferghana Valley. Whilst he means that they were Persian-speaking, I don't think it is accurate to describe them as 'Persians', which has different modern connotations. 'Tajik' or 'Sart' would be better, although the latter term is always tricky because its meaning changed in later years.Sikandarji 12:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If "speaking Turkish" is the definition for "being Turk", then what is the deffinition of "being Persian"? Did you know that according to the Iranica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam, there is not such thing as "Persian ethniicty"?! There is not a single article about a "Persian ethnic group". Let's take the so-called "Turkish Ghaznavids" as an example: is there a SINGLE document from the Ghaznavid period which was written in Turkic?! Is there a single proof that the Ghaznavids themselvs spoke Turkish?! Sow hy then are these people called "Turks"? Iranica writes:

"... Mas'ud III was an enthusiastic warrior whose armies were active in India against the infidels. It seems that Mas'ud, like the rest of his dynasty, employed the spoils of war and the temple treasures of India to beautify his capital Ghazna and to construct gardens and palaces (Bosworth, Later Ghaznavids, pp. 35, 87-89). Adjacent to the minaret of Mas'ud (formerly, and wrongfully, attributed to Sultan Mahámud), the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan excavated a palace of his, notable for what was apparently a Persian poetic text on marble slabs forming a dado round an inner courtyard. The poem extolls the sultan and his forebears both as Muslim ghazis and as heroes connected with the Iranian epic, legendary past (see Bombaci) ... The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them ... The fact that the personnel of the bureaucracy which directed the day-to-day running of the state, and which raised the revenue to support the sultans' life-style and to finance the professional army, were Persians who carried on the administrative traditions of the Samanids, only strengthened this conception of secular power. The offices of vizier, treasurer, chief secretary, head of the war department, etc., were the preserves of Persians, and no Turks are recorded as ever having held them. ... Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court ... The Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianised to a perceptibly higher degree than other contemporary dynasties of Turkish origin such as Saljuqs and Qarakhanids ... as emerges from the pages of Bayhaqi, Mas'ud I had a good knowledge of Arabic poetry and was a competent Persian chancery stylist (Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 129-30) ..." [8]

So, reading the article above, WHAT is the deffinition of "being Turkic" or "being Persian" ... or, in this context, "being Mongol"?!

Tajik 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the deiffintion of "Sart" given here in Wikipedia is not correct. Send me an E-Mail, and I'll send you the "Sart" article from the Encyclopaedia of Islam. It's actually a Sanskrit word, meaning "merchant". It became a synonym for "Persians", because Persians were merchants in Central-Asia and the first to establish ties to the Turco-Mongols of the stepps. Tajik 12:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is another nice comment I found in the net:

• "... But he may have come closer to the truth in his first poem, a ghazal, written at the age of 18: `Other than my own soul I never found a faithful friend/ Other than my own heart I never found a confidant.´ It was possibly a sense of loneliness - or rather apartness - that compelled Babur to set down these reflections on his life; it was probably the intimacy of that endeavor that led him to choose Turkish - his domestic language - rather than the courtly Persian that was generally used in his circle. Whatever the reason, the result was a memoir that was anything but a judicious chronicle of affairs of state. Written centuries before the discovery of the Self, The Baburnama is still, astonishingly, a narrative of self-discovery. Its tone is disarmingly open and trusting, and in self-revelation it yields nothing to the confessional memoir of the 1990s. Babur does not, for instance, neglect to record the sexual hesitancies of his first marriage ("since it was my first marriage I was bashful, I went to her only once every 10, 15 or 20 days"); he writes lyrically about an adolescent infatuation with a boy ("before this experience I had never felt a desire for anyone, nor did I listen to talk of love and affection or speak of such things"). His estimations of his relatives and contemporaries are so frank and unguarded as to suggest that he did not expect his memoirs to be widely circulated. ..."[9]

Tajik 13:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, we read the same passages, and seem to draw entirely different conclusions from them. "Turkish - his domestic language", his mother-tongue, perhaps? Have you read any of what I wrote above about the different status of Turkic and Persian in the medieval and early-modern Ajam? That explains clearly enough why choosing to speak and write in Turkish means something different from using Persian, a prestigious language of culture. And what on earth do the Ghaznavids have to do with anything? As for the Sarts article (much of which I wrote): it says clearly that the word is "from an Indic root meaning a merchant or caravan-leader" - and that at various times it has been used to refer to both Persian and Turkic-speakers: please read it a little more carefully. I have read Barthold's article in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Subtelny's in the second, so there is no need to send me a copy. Sikandarji 14:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You have still not explained to me the definition of "being Persian". Tajik 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you how I see it (I make no claims for having a precise or authoritative definition: "Persian" as a nationality is a slightly old-fashioned term used by westerners to describe the inhabitants of Iran (including Kurds and Azeris), etymologically derived, via ancient Greek, from the province of Pars. It has been used fairly consistently with this meaning by western writers such as Jean Chardin (or even Montesquieu) since the Safavid period. Persian as a written language covers the language of government, poetry, high culture and courtly discourse over a vast area stretching from Istanbul to Bengal and from Shiraz to the southern parts of the Dasht-e Kipchak. It can also be used to describe the spoken languages of Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand, but it is more usual today to refer to the latter as Dari and Tajik, and only to the language of Iran proper as Persian. When speaking of actual ethnicity it is more usual to refer to 'Iranian' or 'Indo-Iranian' peoples. The Sarts article needs more work incidentally, as at the moment it isn't clear that the meaning of the term has changed over time. If you can improve it please do.Sikandarji 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, you do not have a definition at all. And while you regard everyone who speaks Turkish a "Turk" (regardless of his/her background), you do not consider Persian-speakers as "Persians" but still "Turks" or whatever. With all due respect, this does not seem to very logical. More of a method to "Turkify" everything. If someone speaks Turkish but is not really Turk by heritage, he/she is still considered "Turk". But if someone is of ethnic Turkish background, but speaks another language (for example Persian), he is still considered "Turk" but not "Persian". Really strange ... Tajik 14:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you do any better? I doubt it. These are not easy questions to answer. What possible interest could I have in "Turkifying" everything? Unlike you I have no ethnic axe to grind. I'm fed up with repeating myself, so I urge you to re-read what I have written above. There you will see a clear explanation of why I think Persian and Turkic have to be treated differently in this period. Sikandarji 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to help jog your memory:

"Looking back over this debate, I think what has to be clarified is the somewhat different status of Turkic and Persian at this time. The use of Persian as a language of Government, in poetry, in aristocratic culture, is rarely taken to be a sign of ethnicity or regional origin in the medieval and early modern periods, precisely because of its high status as a lingua franca for the Ajam. It is is similar to the use of French by European elites between the 16th and the 19th centuries: it had prestige, it was a marker of culture and status. Therefore, when you see a member of the settled elite deliberately choosing to use Turkic, a language widely seen as barbaric and fit only for nomads at the time, you have to ask yourself why. Ali Sher Nawa'i deliberately set out to make Turkic more fit for use in literature by using large numbers of Persian and Arabic loan-words, urging other members of the elite to follow suit (in itself very interesting: Persian needed no such advocacy), which Babur did. What was in it for them, if not some form of Turkic linguistic identity? As rulers of Persianised, settled polities, surrounded by Tajik scholars, administrators and bureaucrats, it was a way in which the Turco-Mongol political and military elite of Central Asia could hark back to their nomadic origins. In the end the flowering of Chagatai proved relatively brief, as it was only consistently used into the 19th century in Khwarezm, and Persian retained its position of dominance. This is why comparisons with the Ottomans and Ghaznavids' use of Persian are missing the point: it's exactly what you'd expect them to do. Writing in Turkic went against the dominant cultural trend, and that is why, with respect, I would attach rather more importance to Babur's own memoirs and the language they were written in." Sikandarji 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally understand your point, however, I still think that you give too much credit to the Turkish poetry, while denying the importance of the Persian identity to Babur, his ancestors, and his descendants. While you're correct that there must have been some kind of a "Turkish identity" among the Turco-Mongols of Central-Asia (although they were not Turks by ethnicity, but only by culture and language), you forget that there was also a "Persian identity" very present among these Turco-Mongols (or better: Turco-Persians). Babur identified himself as much with the Persian culture as he did with Turkish. The position of Persian in the Islamic world is - along with Arabic - comparable to Latin and French in the European world. Speaking Persian was not just a symbol for "being educated", but it was also a mark of pride for a culture that considered itself superior to other cultures and languages. It was the languages of poets such as Rumi, Hafiz, or Khayyam. It was the language of Sufism, and it was the language of art, science, and court. When people in Europe wrote in Latin, it was not only because it was "common to write in Latin". Those people totally identified themselvs with the Latin language, and with the pride and history of the Roman Empire/Catholic church. Most of those European scholars were ethnic Saxons, Franks, Bavarians, etc. And when - some centuries later - people started to write in French, it was because they identified themselvs with a certain culture. Babur's daughter, Gulbadan Begum, wrote most of her poetry in Persian. Not just because it was "common back then", but because she identified themselvs with the Persian gardens of Kabul, with the Persian poets of the past, and with the Persian-dominated court of her father and her brother.

A few centuries earlier, Persian scholars, mystics, and scientists wrote most of their works in Arabic. It was not only because they regarded Arabic a "holy language", but also because they identified themselvs with the Arab-Islamic culture. Avicenna, for example, wrote most of his works in Arabic, with only a few written in Persian. Like other contemporary scholars, such as Ferdousi, he could have totally rejected Arabic. Yet, that was not the point back then, because people identified themselvs both with Arabic and Persian.

Only because Babur wrote his biography in Chaghatay (as Iranica writes, that was probably because he admired Nawa'i), it does not mean that he only "felt Turkish" and rejected all the Arabic and Persian elements he grew up with. After all, he was a descendant of Ulugh Beg and Shahrukh, and thus also partly Persian by ethnicity (both Ulugh Beg and Shahrukh had Persian mothers). This is all I am trying to say: only pointing toward his Turkish language while totally ignoring the Perso-Arabic culture and life-stly surrounding him and his family is deffinitly not right. Within a few decades, his family had totally forgotten Chaghatay (the same way his ancestors had forgotten their native Mongolian tongue in favour of Chaghatay and Persian). The Mughals would have stayed "Turkish" if the "Turkish identity" among them were as strong as some in here claim. This is what Iranica says about Gulbadan Begum:

• "... Golbadan Begom reportedly was a poet in both Persian and Turkish, but very little of her poetry has reached us (probably only one couplet, see Dehkoda, s.v. "Golbadan Begom"; Abd-al-Raháman, p. 436). According to Sa'id Nafisi, she and Akbar's wife Salima Soltan were the main force behind the emperor's patronage of artists and men of learning (Nazám o natr, pp. 363, 668). ..." [10]

So, there must have been some kind of a "Persian identity", that made them support Persian culture, arts, and literature.

Tajik 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I told you all these Pan-Persian's do is screw everything up and ruin it.

Persian's this isn't anything to do with Persian's, as Sikh kindly explained speaking Persian does not make you one.

This wacko thinks the Ghaznivid's were Persian, how ridiculous even Iranian sources would never go as far as to claim they were Persian.

Its very clear they were Turkish Slave Guards who turned on their Samanid master's, these Slave Warriors founded the Ghaznivid Empire crushed their ex-master's and took control of the region.

Maybe its due to either sheer embarrasment or not being able to come to terms with the fact that these Slaves became the master's of their ex-master's.

I think its a great tale of Slave's getting justice and a story of their suffering and the unbreakable spirit of those people who turned the table's.

Tajik's stories are as ridiculous as, say if Black African slave's of the Brittish Empire rebelled took charge and founded an Empire and toook power away from their ex-masters, now they would have been educated by the Brittish, probobly would have known English and their ways, however, the Brittish would never be able to claim those slave's as Brittish and then have the AUDACITY to tell African's that they weren't African.

This just show's the shamefull logic of this Tajjik character, it defies belief.

Stop stealing other people's histories, being part of a Nation was Paternal, it wouldn't matter if your mother was Persian or from the Moon, if your father was Turkish, Arabic, Punjab etc that's what they would be!

Ulug Bek was never a Persian what a smoking jamoke you are, Oh and Rumi was not a Persian, he was a man of the world of no Nationallity, if you want to attack a Nation to him he was Afgan! or Selcuk as that is where he lived most of his life and produced most of his masterpiece;s.

Stop brining this Persian Extremism to well known Humanist's, its a disgrace to their work.

Don't you get it, Mughals were not NATIONALISTS!!!!!!!! Babur was a Turk that's just a simple FACT, DEAL WITH IT, he did't make an ethno-central pure Turkish Empire, the foundation of the Empire was laid in typical Turkic style however, the emphasis was Islam and the local populations in this new region. The emphasis was not assimilation and forced Turkification! that's why were not all speaking Turkish or why the Mughals didn't push this.

This is what you horrible people cannot understand, a Racist cannot understand why the ruler's would not be racist tyrants forcing people to become of that nation, that is why these extremist's will never understand the Mughals.

As Britannica states.

Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character. His family had become members of the Chagatai clan, by which name they are known. …

Britannica

That isn't hard to get now is it.

Babur wasn't a Persian, he had a thin strain of Mongol blood and alot of Turkish blood aswell as feeling and growing up in a Turkish environment and speaking their language.

He was from Andijan Turkestan for goodness sake, just open your eye's.

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

-- Brend, B. (1991). "Islamic Art". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Its very clear everyone here except the PERSIAN EXTREMISTS that Babur was a Turk, Britannica and practically every historian accepts this simple reality.

There is no point even debating with these people Sikh, Babur wrote his epic litarary work in Turkish, Ali Nevai was from same region as Babur, he was also a Turk and is very popular in the Turkic world to my knowledge.

But that is neither here nor there, this isn't a Persian section or Turkish section, however, seen as though Babur was a Turk is does create some connection although in the long run the Mughal Empire become's one of India and what is today Pakistan and infuses the cultures of the region.

Thanks for adding that bit Sikh, could you add the source above to this article? the Persian's have tried to make it very un-clear of Babur's origin, its better we just tell it how it is as is explained above.

Now Tajik, please find another playground where kids can gather round saying that's mine, mine, mine because Mughals are not Persian and we today in the region are not Persian or have any intentions of becomming such people.

Sincerest Regards

Omar Khan

I'm sorry to disappoint you Omar, but that wasn't an extract from an article, merely something I wrote earlier on this talk-page; I'm glad you find it so convincing. Please, can we keep the personal and national insults out of this discussion? You may disagree with Tajik, but that is no grounds for abuse. Your point would be made much more effectively if you argued in a calm and reasoned manner. For the record, I am not trying to argue that "Babur was a Turk" merely that this was an extremely important part of his identity, alongside Mongol and Persian elements. I am also not trying to apply this argument to the entire dynasty, which, after Humayun's exile, clearly became much more Persian-influenced. Persian culture has been immensely important in the History of the Subcontinent (you only have to look at the enormous number of loan-words from Persian in Hindustani), and the peoples and languages of Iran and the Subcontinent are closely related; this is not to deny that Pathans, Punjabis, Hindi & Urdu speakers and the other peoples of Northern India and Pakistan do not have a vibrant history and culture of their own. I'm British, and acknowledging that Germanic, Celtic, Latin, and latterly Indian and West-Indian influences have all had a profound impact on my culture and identity does not make me any less so. We all want to make this a better article, don't we? So perhaps this page could become less of a battleground and more of a place for debate.

Khuda Hafiz

Sikandarji 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Sikandarji hi,

This article is about Babur, not about anyone else and I simply stated a Fact, Babur was a Turk and quite frankly I don't see why Persian's are foaming at the mouth with this reality.

The Ancient Persian Empire did rule especially the Afganistan region, however, Empire's from our region's have also ruled parts of Iran.

Add to that the Ancient Persians cannot be confused with today's Persian's and that for the past 1000 years they have not ruled in this region it is logical to say that today;s people in the region do not feel Persian, connected to Iranian people or Iranian.

He was from the area known as Turkestan, referred to himself and his people as Turk's, wrote his major literature works in Turkish.

Never did he say he was a Persian.

Now these are simple fact's.

In the article its very confusing and not very clear, in no place does it directly state, Babur was Turkic.

Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character. His family had become members of the Chagatai clan, by which name they are known. …

Britannica

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

-- Brend, B. (1991). "Islamic Art". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

This sums it up perfectly.

Babur's family 14 generations ago on his mother's side was from the Barlas tribe.

Let us not forget that Nationality was paternal.

Also 14 generations ago on your mother's side, I mean exactly how does that affect somebody 14 generations later.

Your Brittish, well so am I (Brittish Citizen), now, if say if somebody lived in Britain and that on the mothers side there was German or French 14 generations ago how would this affect the man/woman living today?

If you look into most Brittish people's family lines 14 generations back you may find French, German, Irish, Scottish, Carribean etc but it doesn't make the slightest difference because they would have grown up generation over generation in an English environment, their fathers would be English, they would speak English, become English, have English culture etc etc etc

Do you see the point I'm making?

Babur's family had 14 generations on his mothers side and who knows how many more probobly lots more on his father's side, living in the Turkestan region.

So it's completely and utterly logical and proven that he was a Turk.

I wanted to clear this up because this is an Encyclopedia and should be realistic and objective and they quite frankly are the realities and anyone except a die-hard Persian extremist can argue against this, I mean there is nothing to argue against these are simple realities.

Ofcourse this region's culture has Persian influences, however, this was not imposed on us by Persian rulers, Persian was a litary language and used in the court's and literature.

However, today this is not the case, Persian does not have a role in our socities, we don't speak the language and are not Persian's.

People like Tajik find this hard to understand and complain that we don't teach Persian anymore.

Once upon a time Latin and French were very important in Europe, today they are not, English is the most popular/important language.

Its what happened with Persian, it was once very important however, today it has little importance to any non-Persians.

Omar Khan

Not Babur's mother from from the Mongol Berlas tribe, but his father Omar Sheikh Mirza, through his ancestor Timur-e Lang (who himself was the son of Taraghai, the chief of the Berlas). His mother was a Mongol noble who claimed to be a descendant of Gingiz Khan.

The fact that Persian and Arabic were the linguae francae of that time already proves that everyone who poke these 2 languages considered himself part of the Perso-Arabic and Muslim world. Writing in Chaghatay was a short-lived phenomenon that started with Nawai and ended with Babur - a whole of maybe 30-50 years. Only 2 generations later, noone in India was interested in Turks, or in Babur's Turkish mother-tongue.

Until today, Indian Muslims (especially those in Pakistan today), are "Persianized" in culture and even in their language, since "Urdu" is a mix of Hindi and Persian. Until today, Pakistan's national anthem is in Persian [11], although Persian-speakers are a tiny minority in Pakistan. Even Pakistan's greatest poet, Muhammad Iqbal, wrote his poetry in Persian. Why?! Because he considered himself a member of the Persian Mughal community that had once ruled India and Pakistan for more than 300 years (and even before that through Persian-speaking Turkish and Pashtun dynasties).

You may not consider yourself "Persian" ... that's fine ... but it does not change the fact that Persian has always been THE language in the eastern parts of the Muslim world, and Babur, too, considered himself a part of that community. That's why he also wrote poetry in Persian, one of his Persian poems is written on his grave/mausoleum in Kabul. And that's why he married Persian wives (for example Hamida Begum), gave his children Persian names, and that's why his dynasty became totally Persian in character and language. Not even you can deny this.

Tajik 15:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

---

This is shocking, Timur was not from a Mongol tribe, he was from very humble beginnings and a native Turkistan Turk, didn't you know he began as a shephard?

Timur was actually a Nationalistic Turk, read his material once you understand this you may apologise or if you want I can show you various source's regarding this.

Babur was 14th generation Barlas Tribe on his mother's side, would you start using some logic and understand that if your father was a Turk if you lived in an area called Turkestan for 14 generations then it would be perfectly natural to be a Turk THIS ISN'T DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO GET IT JEEZ.

Also, No, speaking Persian did not make people feel Persian, does us writing in English make us feel English? please use some common sense! Persian was a widely used language in that era in the same way English is widely used today this isn't Rocket Science.

Babur's native language was Turkish and was the language he wrote his autobiography in.

This is one of the first time's a Muslim leader wrote an autobiography so its a pretty important litarary work.

We arn't Turks, Babur didn't force or try to assimilate us into becomming Turks, Urdu was promoted and thankfully so it became the Lingua-Franca of the people and still is.

Persian was a literary language in the era, Arabic was not widely used except for religous purposes.

You really are a total bigot arn't you, we are not "Persianized" we are Pakistani the lingua-franca is Urdu not Persian. Urdu word etymology is not Persian its Turkish, there are many Turkic, Arabic aswell as Persian words in the language its not a simple Persian only mix as you'd like us all to believe.

Secondly you seem to think that writing poetry or using Persian make's you a Persian which is ludacris and plain stupid.

According to your logic we are all now Anglo-Persians, Anglo-Pakistani's because we are sitting here writting in English.

So this thesis must be discredited and if you believe it means anything then I pity you.

The Mughals were not Persian, the Mughlas are the people of this regions Empire and was founded by a Turk not a Persian.

Just like the previous Sultanates were led by Turkic and Indian people's

Previous to that the Arab Empire was in the region.

The reason that these Arab and Turkic rulers arn't hated today in our region is because they did not try to Arabify or Turkify us, it was an Islamic Empire and as Muslims we were an equal part of this aswell.

Nationalism had no importance, do you comprehend.

You act as if Babur marrying a Persian is somthing for you to be proud of, many Persians would be offended as they often are when they hear tale's of Arab and Turkic leader's having many Persian wive's.

Babur wrote his most important work his biography in Turkish, he was a Turk from Turkestan, YOU CANNOT DENY THIS he was Sunni Muslim and most of Pakistan today is Sunni Muslim we were not ruled by Persian's if so they would have imposed Shia on us.

The Mughal Empire was Mughal in character, a distinct character ofcourse with its various influences but nethertheless Distinct.

Regards

Omar Khan

Babur's mother was NOT from the Berlas tribe! She was the daughter of Yussuf Khan, the MONGOL Khaqan of Tashkent and a DIRECT descendant of Gingiz Khan! His FATHER, Omar Sheikh Mirza of Andijan, was a Berlas Mongol through his ancestor Timur the Lame, the CHIEF of the Berlas Mongols.

Actually, I've read Timur's biography (which, btw, was written during his lifetime in Persian and not Turkic), and Timur was not a "Turkic nationalist", as you claim, but a proud Mongol who saw himself as the successor of Gingiz Khan. Timur's family-bachground is very well docuemnted, and even the genetic tests of his bones have revealed that he was Mongol).

As for English: yes, writing, singining, and speaking English today is - for many - a mark of pride and a symbol for the Western World. Today, people of all kinds of backgrounds dress Western, they live in Western nations, and many of them know how to speak English. I consider myself part of the Western World (I live in Germany), and I do identify myself with the Western standards, INCLUDING the English language.

And 500 years ago, in Babur's Persianized world, speaking Persian, readin and writing Persian poetry, and playing Persian msuic (ghazals, for example) was not only a mark of pride, but a major element of the culture everyone in India, Persia, and Central-Asia knew and identified himself with. Babur knew Persian perfectly, better than you and me English. He was - through his father - a descendant of Persian nobles, including the Persian princess Gauhar Shad. This does not mean that he was "Persian" like the ancient Achemenids or Sassanids ... but since the deffinition of "being Persian" has changed after the Arabic conquest and all kinds of people became "Persian" by culture, language, and way of life (starting with the Abbasids), Babur was not only an ethnic Mongol (that's why his dynasty is known as "Mughals", meaning "MONGOLS" and not "Turks"), but also a Turkic warrior AND a Persian noble.

--Tajik 00:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. Timur called himself a Turk. He wrote his own Tuzak-i Timuri in Chaghatai, and that was then translated into Farsi. see This. Now, babur.. His baburnama was written in Turki, because, he was a Turki speaking Muslim. Bayram Khan, who served both Humayun and Akbar wrote poetry in this Turci language. Of his own town, babur writes "The people are turks (Eli Tűrktűr). There is no one who wouldn't know Turki, wheter among the townspeople or at the Bazaar. their speech is identical with the written idiom, for the literary compositions of Mir Ali Shir Navi, altough he was born and bred in Herat, are in this language.."--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, THIS is getting rediculous! The only reliable biography written during Timur's life-time was the "Matla'u's-Sa'dain" of Nizām-e Shāmi (also known as the "second Zarafnāma"). It was written in Persian. The Tuzuk-e Temur ist a later fabrication applied to Timur ... but it was neither written by Timur himself, nor during his lifetime!

As for Bayram Khan, he was of mixed origin, his father being of the "Qara Qoyunlu Turcomans" of Fars. When he went to India, he was not known as a "Turk" or as a "Turcoman", but as an "Iranian", having certain Persian titles, such as "berādar-e nik-u siār" (good natured brother) or "yār-e wafādār" (loyal friend). He wrote MOST of his potery in Persian, and not in Turkic. His Turkish poetry consists of ca. 360 verses, while his Persian "diwan" contains ca. 620 verses. And earlier copy of his "diwan" had ca. 2000 verses (as reported by his son Abdul Rahim). For more information, read this artcile of the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Tajik 16:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Babur the Turk

Hi,

Its been hilarious reading what some Persians would like us to believe.

Its very clear Babur referred to himself as a Turk and the region he was from was referred to as "Turkistan", I mean you have to be in denial to try and persuade the world to believe that Babur was actually lying about who he was and was an undercover Persian its not only ridiculous and absurd but really quite sad.

I have added a passage from the "Baburnama" which clears it all up, its well sourced and objective, also I included an image from this epic work.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the wrong paragraph you had "installed" in the article although we had explained you quite a few times that the way YOU put is totally wrong:

... Babur was a fourteenth generation descendant from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin on his mothers side. Over these generations they had become Turkified in language, manners and custom as they resided in Turkish areas. Therefore the Western term "Mughal" is a misnomer as Babur referred to himself as a Turk, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was initially Turkish in character. He was racially a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins;[2] It is clear, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur. ...

Babur's mother was NOT a Berlas Mongol, but the daughter of the Mongol Khan of Tashkent:

• "... The noble mind of Yunus Khan was thus set at rest; Sultan Abu Said Mirza changed an old enemy into a new friend. Yunus Khan was desirous of making a return for his kindness, and [said to himself]: "Perhaps in the same way that he has changed an old enemy into a new friend, I will change a friend into a relation." To this end, he gave to the three sons of Mirza Sultan Abu Said (namely, Sultan Ahmad Mirza, Sultan Mahmud Mirza, and Omar Shaikli Mirza) three of his daughters in marriage...[the youngest, Kutluk Nigar Khanim, being Babur's mother]. ..." - taken from the "Baburnama". Yonus Khan was NOT a "Berlas-Mongol"!

His FATHER, Omar Sheikh, was a Berlas-Mongol, through his ancestor Timur:

• "... Timur placed much of his early legitimacy on his genealogical roots to the great Mongol conqueror, Chinggis or Genghis Khan. What is known is that he was descended from the Mongol invaders who initially pushed westwards after the establishment of the Mongol empire. His father Taraghai was head of the tribe of Barlas, a nomadic Turkic-speaking tribe of Mongol origin that traced its origin to the Mongol commander Qarachar Barlas. Taraghai was the great-grandson of Qarachar Noyon and, distinguished among his fellow-clansmen as the first convert to Islam, Teragai might have assumed the high military rank which fell to him by right of inheritance; but like his father Burkul he preferred a life of retirement and study. Teragai would eventually retire to a Muslim monastery, telling his son that "the world is a beautiful vase filled with scorpions." ..." [12]

Which part of this don't you understand?! You are falsefying history and ignoring sources just to make your own wrong claims look "right".

And Babur's kingdom was NOT "Turkish" or "Chaghatai" in character, as you claim, but typically perso-arabic, typically Muslim, later with much Indian infleunce. Babur was driven out of Central-Asia and he did not have much Turkish support when he reached and conquered Kabul (with the help of "Tajik" warriors he had recruited in Badakhshan).

• "... At that time the Chaghatai were very rude and uncultured, and not refined as they are now; thus they found Zahir-ud-Din Muhammad difficult to pronounce, and for this reason gave him the name of Babar ..." -Taken from the "Baburnama".

This sentense proves that Babur's family was quite different from their subject peoples in Central-Asia who did not even know how to pronounce his name. Taken from the (authoritative) Encyclopaesia Iranica:

• "... Babor, Zaher ud-Din Muhammad, ... Timurid prince ... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ... During his stay in Herat, Babor occupied Nava'is former residence, prayed at Nava'i's tomb, and recorded his admiration for the poet's vast corpus of Torki verses, though he found most of the Persian verses to be "poor and flat". Nava'is pioneering literary work in Torki, much of it based, of course, on Persian models, must have reinforced Babor's own efforts to write in that medium ... with the long connection between the Mughals and Safavids begun by Babor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. It was his grandson Akbar who had the Babor-name translated into Persian in order that his nobles and officers could have access to this dramatic account of the dynasty's founder ..." [13]

So, please, stop adding wrong information to the article!

Tajik 09:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some good points from the primary sources Tajik, but I wish you'd stop bringing up that opening paragraph from Lehmann's article on Babur in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Lehmann is wrong in saying that "Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent". This is the work of his successors, after Humayun's return from exile, and I can't see why you find it so hard to accept this. For the umpteenth time, if Akbar had to have the Baburnama translated into Persian because he couldn't read Chagatai, surely that tells you that something sigificant has changed in the interim? Lehmann fails to draw this conclusion, largely, I suspect, because that opening paragraph is there by way of an overly-laboured justification for including Babur, a Turco-Mongol, ina work of reference with "Iran" in the title. I like the Iranica (I'd like it still more if they finished it) but it is not infallible. The passages about Nawa'i only reinforce the impression that the Turkic tongue was very important to Babur, and that alone is enough to justify referring to the Turkic elements in his identity, insofar as that's even very important. You appear to see pan-Turkic nationalists hiding behind every sentence containing the word "Turk". Relax - nobody is seriously disputing the overwhelmingly Persianate culture of the Mughal dynasty - but this article is about Babur himself, and his character, language and background have been rather obscured by the later culture of the Mughal court. There is no harm in redressing the balance by pointing out that most people in his birthplace spoke Turki, and that he wrote his memoirs in that language. Sikandarji 10:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not about "Persianizing" Babur, because - and that is very clear - he was not an ethnic Persian. Babur's mother tongue was NOT Persian, but Chaghatay. But STILL: this does not mean that some Pakistani, anti-Persian, anti-Shia zealot should be allowed to add wrong information into athe article.

"Persian", "Persian language" and "Persian culture" have a much wider meaning than "Turkish" or "Mongol". "Persian" is - like "Arabic" or "Latin" - a civilization, consisting of many different peoples of different backgrounds. To Babur, Persian was as important as Latin to European kings, and this should be mentioned in the text. Persian, more than Torki or Arabic, was the "lingua franca" and characteristic element of the Timurids, as VERY evident in the works of Timurids poets, the preserved letters, and royal family members, such as Gauhar Shad or Shah Rukh.

However, claiming that "Babur was Turkic in race" is TOTALLY WRONG. Babur was NEITHER Turkic NOR Persian "in race" - he was Mongol, borth through his mother and through his father. That'S why he and his family became known as "Mughals" - because they WERE Mongols, they looked like the Mongols of Central-Asia (see picture in the article), and they claimed to be descendants of Mongol conquerors.

The fact that he rather called himself "Turk" than "Moghol" (keeping in mind that 500 years ago these terms had totally different meanings than today) doesn't change the other fact that he was an ethnic Mongol. Grand Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad call themselvs "Persians", although they are ethnic Azeris. Does that make them "Persian in race"?! The Indian actor Shahrukh Khan is an ethnic Pashtun now speaking Hindi and playing in Indian movies. Does that make him "Indic in race"?

We have discussed this before: there is no such thing as "Turkic or Persian in race", because - like "Arabic" and "Latin" - these words are simple expressions for certain peoples in the Islamic world. 500 years ago, Babur was as much "Torki" as he was "Persian" ("Tajik"). 1000 years ago, the Persian mystics in Baghdad were as much "Persians" as they were "Arabic". This Pakistani zealot is not trying to improve the article, he is pushing for an anti-Persian and anti-Shia POV.

Tajik 11:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, I think I agree with almost every point there, with the one caveat that Babur seems to have considered the appelation "Mongol" or "Mughal" slightly insulting, as implying he was a barbarous Chaghatayid from the North. This debate over 'race' is sterile and even slightly disturbing. Sikandarji 11:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Goodness me your unbelievable.

On Babur's father's side they were 14th generation descendants of the Barlas Tribe of Chenghiz Khan and on the fathers side descendants of the Turkic Timurlane.

He was racially a Turk with a small stream of Mongol blood in his veins.

If you moved to England from France or Ireland, mixed with the locals after 14 generation you would be pretty much an Englishman this isn't exactly rocket science.

Now this paragraph is comletely objective and has non-IRANIAN, non-TURKISH sources to back it up.

Babur was a fourteenth generation descendant from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin on his mothers side. Over these generations they had become Turkified in language, manners and custom as they resided in Turkish areas. Therefore the Western term "Mughal" is a misnomer as Babur referred to himself as a Turk, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was initially Turkish in character. He was racially a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins;[2] It is clear, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

Hambly (1968) - Wheeler M. Thackston, The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor -

What is the problem with this?

The reality is Babur was a Turk and initially drew most support from among his people, Persians were not renown as fighters and did not command much power in that age.

Pretending Babur was Persian is just wishfull thinking by Tajik.

In addition the whole idea that after living in a Turkish area for 14 generations, having Turks in the family and being desecended on side from Timurlane that Babur somehow was not a Turk is hilarious, its plain outrageous and quite disturbing to think somebody could be so far in denial.

In addition, they were Sunni not Shia, if the Persians were ruling the Mughals the Empire would have been Shia when infact it wasn't and regarded the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph.

The only person here pushing an "anti" theory is you in regards to Turks, if he had his way they wouldn't even be mentioned, it would have all been Persian this Persian that, Pashtuns, Sikhs, Punjabi's etc would not even get a word in.

Regardss

Your source is wrong, because Timur (Tamerlane) was NOT a Turk. Timur was an ETHNIC Mongol. His origin is well-recorded, and even coins from Timur's time varify that he was a Mongol and he considered himself a Mongol. The onyl reason why Babur called himself "Turk" and not "Mongol", was because the term "Mongol" had become a synonym for "infidle, un-silamic barbarians", while the "Turks" - the Central-Asian nomads were Muslims. And the only reason why he did not call himself "Tajik" or "Sart" was because he was a semi-nomad, a "Mirza" (prince) from Turkistan, and not a settled, "civilized" intellectual from Herat or Nishapur! Babur calling himself "Turk" does not mean that he was Turkic by race, but that he was a Central-Asian Islamic nomad.

Only 2 generations later, his ancestors refused to call themselvs "Turks" or "Mongols". They were embarrassed of their Central-Asian heritage, important scholars and artists from Persia, and pretended to be Persian.

500 years ago, the terms "Persian", "Turk", and "Mongol" had totally different meanings than today. From TODAY's point of vire, Babur was NOT a Turk, but an ETHNIC MONGOL. He was Chaghatay-Turkish AND Persian in language (as VERY evident in his "Diwan"), and UNLIKE his cousin Sultan Hussayn Bayqara, he regarded himself a member of the Chaghatayid Turks of Central-Asia and not a member of the "civilized Tajik ruling class" of Herat and Isfahan.

But to the world outside, he was a "Moghol" - a "Mongol". And that was because of the very simple fact that Babur was Mongol in race - on his mother's AND father's side. As for Timur:

• "... Timur (timoor') [key]or Tamerlane (tăm'urlān) [key], c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. He is also called Timur Leng [Timur the lame]. He was the son of a tribal leader, and he claimed (apparently for the first time in 1370) to be a descendant of Jenghiz Khan. With an army composed of Turks and Turkic-speaking Mongols, remnants of the empire of the Mongols, Timur spent his early military career in subduing his rivals in what is now Turkistan; by 1369 he firmly controlled the entire area from his capital at Samarkand. ..." - Timur (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press)
• "... He [Timur] was born probably in the 1320s in the Mongol Barlas tribe, which contended for power in the region around Kesh (Shahr-i Sabz) south of Samarkand. ..." -"The Timurid states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries", M.S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth, eds. (Paris: UNESCO, 1998)

And now please stop messing up the article!

Tajik 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

GOOD GRIEF

This guy is absurd, now he's going to try and claim that Timur a self-professed Nationalist Turk wasn't a Turk.

Timur has not been extrensively researched in the West, the stories about him being a Mongol are totally unsourced and nothing but hear-say.

Arnold Toynbee, one of the most distinguished modern historians, called Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah ("Introduction to History") "undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place."

Now nobody here can question Ibn Khaldun so let's see what he wrote and I'm quoting WORD FOR WORD.

"You know how the power of the Arabs was established when they became united in their religion in following their Prophet. As for the Turks ... in their group solidarity, no king on earth can be compared with them, not Chosroes nor Caesar nor Alexander nor Nebuchadnezzar."

WHY ON EARTH WOULD IBN KHALDUN LIE!!!

Further more

"Biz ki Mülük-i Turan, Emir-i Türkistan'ız: (We are the possessors of Turan and Emir of Turkestan)

Biz ki Türk oğlu Türk'üz; (We are real Turks that are the sons of Turks)

Biz ki milletlerin en kadîmî ve en ulusu (We are the members of the oldest and the highest nation)

Türk'ün başbuğuyuz!..." (We are the leaders of Turks)

WHY ON EARTH WOULD TIMUR WRITE THIS,

Please read

Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World Justin Marozzi ISBN: 0007116128

Robert Irwin writes:

Justin Marozzi ably retells the story of Tamerlane and his semi-nomadic Chagatai Turkish army, who, from the late 14th century onwards, terrorised the greater part of the known world . . . Marozzi vividly describes the places he visited while researching this biography. These include Shakhrisabz, where Tamerlane was born, Samarkand, his capital, and the Aral Sea, once one of the world’s largest inland seas, but now the site of an ecological catastrophe in the centre of a poisonous dust bowl . . . Tamerlane’s predatory career also gives Marozzi many...

LOOK EVEN PERSIAN SITES ADMIT IT

In 1381 Tamerlane the Turk attacked again and destroyed more of Iran's cities. http://www.persianmirror.com/culture/history/mongols.cfm

Or

The following passage, drawn from Guy Le Strange's 1928 translation of Gonzalez de Clavijo's Spanish text

On a June morning in the year 1404, a party of Spaniards on horseback crossed the frontier between Armenia and Persia and headed for the nearby city of Khoy, in the Persian province of Azerbaijan. The group's leaders, Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Friar Alfonso Paez de Santa Maria, and Gomez de Salazar, were the ambassadors of King Henry III of Castile and Leon - an uncle of Portugal's Prince Henry the Navigator and grandfather of Queen Isabella I, Columbus' patron

Tamerlane, a Turk of the Barlas clan. Perhaps the Mamluk envoy Manglay Bugay, probably of Turkish origin, interpreted for his Spanish traveling companions.

It was in this unstable world that Temur Barlas built up his political machine. He was born in 1336, not far from Samarkand, the son of a lesser chief of the Barlas obogh. The Barlas were one of a group of five or six ex-Mongol, now Turkish, oboghs or pseudo oboghs which provided the four qarac beys or regents who constituted an informal council of state with or against the khans. The Barlas held the area between the Oxus and the Jaxartes around Samarkand. The Qaraunas and the Arlat held the middle Oxus and points south into Khorasan and Afghan Turkestan.......

S. A. M. Adshead. "Tamerlane and the Global Arsenal, 1370-1405" from his Central Asia in World History, Chapter 5

THATS WHAT YOU CALL REAL HISTORY, REAL FACTS, REAL SOURCES.

• personal attack removed*

Regards

--Johnstevens5 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God, you are writing pure nonsense. Besides the fact, that now your OWN sources disprove your claim that "only Babur's mother was a Berlas-Mongol" (in fact, ONLY his father was a Berlas, not his mother), you are quoting unimportant sources, obviously presenting some false, pan-Turkic nonsense about "Turan" and "oldest nation" ... BS! Not even Justin Marozzi denies Timur's Mongol heritage:

• "... By the time of his death in 1405, the Mongol conqueror Tamerlane - a pejorative derivative of the nickname "Temur the Lame" - commanded as much land and fear as any ruler in history ..." -J. Marozzi, "Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World", Introduction

Your own source says: "... It was in this unstable world that Temur Barlas built up his political machine ..."

What's wrong with you, man?! Can't you read or are you not able to understand?!

Tajik 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Marozzi calls him a Turco-Mongol

S. A. M. Adshead. "Tamerlane and the Global Arsenal, 1370-1405" from his Central Asia in World History, Chapter 5

It was in this unstable world that Temur Barlas built up his political machine. He was born in 1336, not far from Samarkand, the son of a lesser chief of the Barlas obogh. The Barlas were one of a group of five or six ex-Mongol, now Turkish, oboghs or pseudo oboghs which provided the four qarac beys or regents who constituted an informal council of state with or against the khans. The Barlas held the area between the Oxus and the Jaxartes around Samarkand. The Qaraunas and the Arlat held the middle Oxus and points south into Khorasan and Afghan Turkestan.......

Ibn Khaldun says he was a Turk, the Spanish envoy says the same, however, Mr Tajik says they're all lying, I'm sorry but that's not how History works, we have to work with the facts and First Degree sources which are provided.

Ibn Khaldun met Tamerlane and wrote he was a Turk, end of story.

Why don't we listen to Babur?

Now none of us were alive in Babur's time, we don't have the convenience of actually asking him what he was to his face.

However, what we do have is his Memoirs!

In his memoirs Babur clearly states that he is a Turk.

Now that's the end of the story, there can be no other arguments or approaches as Babur himself states what he is.

He didn't write "I am a Turco-Mongol or a Turco-Persian" just simple a Turk and everyone from his home town was a Turk.

This is the reality and should be clearly highlighted in the article,

"Babur himself felt that he was a Turk"

End of argument

Regards

--Johnstevens5 15:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, memoirs and autobiographies and the like—though admittedly psychologically fascinating—are hardly 100% reliable and objective sources. —Saposcat 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But they are his own personal works, he wrote how he percieved himself, if he felt he was a Persian he would have wrote it but he didn't he wrote that he was a Turk.

--Johnstevens5 18:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got no objection to that; I'm just saying that the unreliability of a person's perception of him- or herself must always be taken into account. I know more than a few people in Chicago, for example, who, if they wrote their memoirs, would boldly assert their Irish heritage while sweeping their Polish and German heritage under the rug. Not that I necessarily believe that Babur was non-Turk (in fact, I find ethnicity nearly as repulsive an idea as nationalism), but that his perception of himself may not (or, indeed, may) have reflected reality. —Saposcat 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Saposcat I agree entirely however, if somebody percieved themselves to be "Irish" and had a reason to do so via family, culture, percieved identity..... then that person would be Irish, you cannot tell somebody that they are somthing that they don't percieve themselves to be.

Nationallity for the most part is perceptive, not many of us know our racial roots 20 generations back.

Today in America many famous "Americans" actually racially or ethnically are somthing quite different however, this doesn't stop them being part of the American nation and percieving themselves to be American.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 19:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by Johnstevens5

I do not know why this person keeps adding the following paragraph to the article:

"... Babur was a fourteenth generation descendant from the Turkic Barlas tribe which was originally Mongol. Over the generations they had become Turkified in language, manners and custom as they resided in Turkish areas. Therefore the Western term "Mughal" is a misnomer as Babur referred to himself as a Turk, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was initially Turkish in character. It is clear, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur. ..."

• He claims that the Berlas were "Turkic", which is not true. The Berlas were MONGOLS.
• He claims that Babur was a Turk through his paternal line. That is NOT true: Babur was a MONGOL through his paternal line.

Since this Johnstevens5 himself beliefs that the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 is the gospel (see Talk:Al-Farabi), I will disprove his claims from his own favourite source:

Taken from the "Timur" article of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911:

"... TIMUR (Timur i Leng, the lame Timilr), commonly known as, TAMERLANE, the renowned Oriental conqueror, was born in 5336 at Kesh, better known as Shahr-i-Sabz, the green city, situated some 5o m. south of Samarkand in Transoxiana. His father Teragai was head of the tribe of Berlas. Great-grandson of Karachar Nevian (minister of Jagatai, son of Jenghiz Khan, and commander-in-chief of his forces), and distinguished, among his fellow-clansmen as the first convert to Islamism, Teragai might have assumed the high military rank which fell to him by right of inheritance; but like his father Burkul he preferred a life of retirement and study. ... By the death of his father he was also left hereditary head of the Berlas. ..." [14]

So, as evident from the information of the Britannica, Timur was NOT a Turk, as this person claims, but a MONGOL.

This needs to be removed from the article!

Tajik 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Per a request at WP:RfPP, I've now protected this article to prevent further edit-warring. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once consensus has been reached and disputes resolved, the article will be unprotected. Please that my protecting the current version, as always, is not an endorsement of that version--I merely protected the version it was at when I got here. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Final Addition regarding Babur the Turk

This paragraph I wrote is fully researched and has all the sources to back it up, could it please be added.

Babur was a fourteenth generation descendant from the Turkic Barlas tribe which was originally Mongol[S. A. M. Adshead. "Tamerlane and the Global Arsenal, 1370-1405" from his Central Asia in World History, Chapter 5].

Over the generations they had become Turkified in language, manners and custom as they resided in Turkish areas. Therefore the Western term "Mughal" is a misnomer as Babur referred to himself as a Turk, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was initially Turkish in character[^ Hambly (1968) Brend, B. (1991). "Islamic Art". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 

].

It is clear, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

Timur was a Turk

Arnold Toynbee, one of the most distinguished modern historians, called Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah ("Introduction to History") "undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place."

Now nobody here can question Ibn Khaldun so let's see what he wrote and I'm quoting WORD FOR WORD.

"You know how the power of the Arabs was established when they became united in their religion in following their Prophet. As for the Turks ... in their group solidarity, no king on earth can be compared with them, not Chosroes nor Caesar nor Alexander nor Nebuchadnezzar."

S. A. M. Adshead. "Tamerlane and the Global Arsenal, 1370-1405" from his Central Asia in World History, Chapter 5

It was in this unstable world that Temur Barlas built up his political machine. He was born in 1336, not far from Samarkand, the son of a lesser chief of the Barlas obogh. The Barlas were one of a group of five or six ex-Mongol, now Turkish, oboghs or pseudo oboghs which provided the four qarac beys or regents who constituted an informal council of state with or against the khans. The Barlas held the area between the Oxus and the Jaxartes around Samarkand. The Qaraunas and the Arlat held the middle Oxus and points south into Khorasan and Afghan Turkestan.......

The following passage, drawn from Guy Le Strange's 1928 translation of Gonzalez de Clavijo's Spanish text

On a June morning in the year 1404, a party of Spaniards on horseback crossed the frontier between Armenia and Persia and headed for the nearby city of Khoy, in the Persian province of Azerbaijan. The group's leaders, Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Friar Alfonso Paez de Santa Maria, and Gomez de Salazar, were the ambassadors of King Henry III of Castile and Leon - an uncle of Portugal's Prince Henry the Navigator and grandfather of Queen Isabella I, Columbus' patron

Tamerlane, a Turk of the Barlas clan. Perhaps the Mamluk envoy Manglay Bugay, probably of Turkish origin, interpreted for his Spanish traveling companions.

In Western sources before the technological age, they didn't bother researching what people actually were, however, modern scholorly and historical sources all point to Timur being a Turk.

Most striking is that Ibn Khaldun wrote that about him as Ibn Khaldun actually met him.

As for BABUR its soooooooooo obvious he was a Turk, he even says so, its getting very childish now, there is nothing left to debate.

Babur is proven to be a Turk and that's the end of the story.

--Johnstevens5

You are repeating the same stuff again and again and again and again ... and you have been proven wrong! See talk above, and see all the other talks in which you stubbornly tried to mess up the article! Tajik 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise a little with User:Johnstevens5, but he hasn't helped his cause by being rude on this talkpage. The reference to Ibn Khaldun is important, although probably belongs in the Timur article. I would stress though, that arguments about what 'nationality' important historical figures before the 18th-19th centuries (at least outside Europe) belonged to are framing the debate in anachronistic terms. There's an interesting essay by B.F. Manz "The Development and Meaning of Chaghatay Identity" in Jo-Ann Gross (Ed.) Muslims in Central Asia. Expressions of Identity and Change (Duke University press) 1992 pp27-45, in which she examines precisely these issues of Identity amongst the Chingissid and, later, Timurid elites of Central Asia. What is really important here is that it is an elite identity, taking pride in various elements, most obviously Chingissid descent (Mongol); the nomadic warrior heritage (shared by Turks and Mongols); the Turkic literary language, Chagatai, and elements of Persian courtly and literary culture amongst the Chaghatayids of the Southern oasis regions of Turkestan, who by Babur's time considered themselves separate from, and superior to, their fellow-Chaghatayid 'Mughals' of Moghulistan (Djungaria) to the north. User:Tajik is wrong to deny the importance of Turkic elements in this identity, which are quite clear from the literary heritage. He is also wrong to allege that to take pride in Chingissid descent (a prerequisite for anyone who wanted to hold sovereignty in Central Asia) is the same thing as being Mongol by nationality: 'ethnicity' is irrelevant here, what matters is family descent, and by Timur's time the Barlas tribe were thoroughly Turkicised and Mongol had not been spoken for several generations, whilst they had also intermarried with the Qarluq Turkic peoples of the settled regions of Central Asia. JohnStevens5 however, is wrong in asserting the Timur was a Turkic 'nationalist', and that Persian culture was unimportant in Central Asia. Once protection is lifted from the page I will add a brief summary of Manz's arguments and a reference, and then hopefully this pointless dispute can be laid to rest once and for all. Sikandarji 09:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sikandarji, I am not denying the improtance of Turkic identity among the Central-Asians Mongols. However, I believe - and as you can see in the article of the Iranica and in the articles of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, I am not alone - that calling Timur and Babur Turks and pointing toward a Turkic culture (whatever that may be, since there is no such thing as Turkic culture in Central-Asia) is not correct, because "language" is not the only thing that defines "nationality", but also culture and life-style - which in this case was NOT "Turkic" (as some in here claim), but evidently Persian and Islamic.

The culture of the Timurids and other Berlas-Mongols was NOT Turkic. They were NOT shamanistic nomads, praying to their forefathers and worshiping Tengir. They were totally Persianized Muslims, dressing like Persians and Arabs, living like Persians and Arabs, and practising the Perso-Arabic religion and confessions.

Timur - who proudly pointed toward his Mongol heritage - had no interest in Turkic identity. In fact, he invaded Ottoman Anatolia because of a very simple reason: he did not accept the Turkic Ottomans, because they were not the ones who were appointed by the Mongol Il-Khans (the Il-Khans had granted the Seljuqs some control over Anatolia). Only this shows clearly that Timur regarded himself as a Mongol, and as the successor of Ghingiz Khan and his empire.

If "speaking a language" is the deffinition of "nationality" and "ethnicity", then the so-called Ghaznavid Turks and the so-called "Turkic Sultans of Delhi" were not "Turks", but "Persians" and "Indians".

There is no a single document from the Ghaznavid era that could possibly hint toward a Turkic heritage. An d the Ghaznavid Sultans - starting with Sultan Mahmoud himself - were Persian poets, at some point even identifying themselvs with the heroes of the Persian epic.

It is even clear from old Mongol letters, that at some point, even the Turkic Seljuqs were considered "Persians" by the Mongols and Turkic tribes of Central-Asia: because they spoke Persian, they lived and behaved like Persians, they dressed like Persians, etc.

All this talk is totally useless, because - as you yourself have pointed out - 500 years ago, terms like "Persian" and "Turkic" had totally different meanings than today (this is the main reason why I am reverting this Johnstevens5, because he is trying to convince everyone that Babur was a Turk like the ones today in Turkey, although today's so-called "Anatolian Turks" are not Turks at all and were simply named "Turks" in the beginning of the 20th century).

What I do not like about your edits is that you - for some reason, intended or unintended - deny the existance of a "Persian people". While you explain that "speaking Turkic means being Turkic", you reject the idea of "speaking Persian meaning being Persian", saying that "Persian was only a language spoken by the kings".

This is totally wrong! Because a "Persian people" DOES exist, and this group existed 500 years ago. They were as much part of the Timurid court as the Turkic or Mongol elements.

Persian nobles - such as Gauhar Shad - were at certain points of history the main characters of the dynasty.

Babur may have written his memoires in Chaghatai, but other memebers of his family, such as Sultan Hussein Bayqara, were not half as proud of their Turkic- or Mongol heritage. In fact, it was Shahrukh Mirza who left Turkic Central-Asia and appointed Persian Herat his new capital, because he - who had a Persian mother - was not accepted by the "royal Chingizzid Mongols" who rather supported Pir Soltan.

The problem is that this Johnstevens5 has some extreme minority-complexes and has some grudge against Persians. He is vandalizing all kinds of articles, from Alisher Navoi (deleting the sections about his Persian poems) to Kizilbash (pushing for an extreme POV-version about "Kizulbash being Turkish nationalists"). He is totally rejecting any Persian influence on Babur (even the FACT that one of Babur's Persian poems is written on his grave in Kabul), on his children (the fact that all of them had Persian names, and wrote more on Persian than in Chaghatai), or his other descendants (the Mughals who did not even know Chaghatai; in fact, Babur's grandson Akbar had the Baburnama translated into Persian in order to read the memoires of his grandfather).

Babur's mother-tongue might have been Chaghatai-Turkic, but the culture he came from, the life he knew, and the courts he knew had nothing to do with "Turkic culture" or "Turkic life-style". Babur was not a nomad, he was a sedentary Muslim of Central-Asia, just like the Persians. Babur was not a shamanistic totem-worshipper like the Turks and Mongols of Central-Asia, he was a learned and educated Muslim, just like most of the the Persians back then.

And as a last point: the name "Mughal" does not come from nowhere! Babaur looked like a "Mughal", he claimed descent from "Mughals", and he was considered a "Mughal" by his subjects.

Tajik 18:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

oh dear - reading through this passage, you may not wish to deny the importance of Turkic identity amongst the Timurids, Chagatayids or whatever else we want to call them - but you're certainly giving a damned good impression of it. If you can point out to me where I have made edits denying the existence of the Persians I would be grateful - and if you have interpreted anything I wrote as such, then bebakshid. I have explained at length why the use of Persian by courtly elites is qualitatively different from the use of Turkic, but you don't appear to have taken this on board. I have also explained, quoting Thackston and other authorities, why the term Mughal is a misnomer when applied to Babur: it was used for the other principal branch of the Chagatayids, in Moghulistan (jatah, Djungaria) well to the north of Babur's homeland. And to say that only those who have continued to adhere to shamanism can be considered Turkic is just plain barmy. By that criterion the Ottomans weren't Turks, and nor are the modern Uzbeks and Kazakhs. You'd reduce the Turkic peoples to the inhabitants of the Altai and Yakutia! Even in the 15th century the Kazakhs were already substantially Islamised through the agency of the Naqshbandiyya and Yasaviyya Sufi Brotherhoods, but that doesn't stop them being Turkic! Maybe that's what you're on about here, but it is a very extreme POV. Timur was noticeably more lenient to his fellow Chagatayids in Central Asia (to whom he was closely related), but otherwise everyone seems to have felt his wrath more or less indiscriminately. To attribute the pattern of his conquests to a sense of Mongol particularism (almost 200 years after the death of Genghis Khan, whose 'Mongol' armies contained large numbers of Turks) is as ridiculous as attributing it to Turkic nationalism, as Johnstevens5 does. The division that matters rather more is that between settled and nomadic, but what we see in this period is settled, partly-Persianised former nomadic elites in Central Asia starting to compose literary work in Chagatai, in direct opposition to Persian, as we see from the Muhakamat al-Lughatain of Nawa'i. Doesn't that strike you as significant? Of course, within the Mughal dynasty this is very short-lived, but that doesn't mean it isn't important for Babur himself. There is a very substantial body of scholarly work which supports this view, and you're not going to make it disappear by endlessly quoting the same single passage from the Iranica.User:Johnstevens5's views are extreme and, in my view, quite wrong, but that doesn't mean that yours are correct. Sikandarji 22:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course my version is correct in comparison to johnsteven5's version (I've written large parts of the article). Because I point to the simple fact that since the Timurids were such a "mixed dynasty", it's totally impossible to call them only "Turks" or only "Persians", while johnstevens5's is totally against the word "Persian". In the past 2 weeks he has tried to remove the word "Persian" from every article he saw, like Ulugh Beg, Timurids, Alisher Navoi, Kizilbash, Safavids, etc etc etc.

As for the Timurids: calling Babur only a "Persian" would be totally wrong, because he was from the Turkic-speaking Ferghana vally. And calling Shahrukh only "Turk" would be totally wrong, because Shahrukh - born to a Persian mother and married into a Persian noble family - was more "Persian" than anything else (the same goes to his son "Ulugh Beg").

The complex ethnic structure of those royal families of the past (from Abbasids, who were mixed with the Iranian nobility, up to the Ottomans who were mixed with the European nobility) is mentioned in the articles. However, the Ottomans are still classified as a "Turkic dynasty", because their male linage was Turkic (some Sultans would have interpreted the term "Turk" as a big insult, as very evident in the letters of the Sultans to Persian Safavid Shahs).

The Ghaznavids are also classified as "Turks", although there is absolutely no evidence that they had any feelings for a "Turkish identity" or a "Turkic language".

Yet, in case of Babur and the Timurids, there seems to be a totally different classification: no one is intersted in their male linage (in opposite to Ghaznavids, Sultans of Delhi, or Ottomans), but they are simply classified as "Turks" because of their language. What I am doing is simply "imposing" the same logic on the Timurids and Mughals: since the male line was Mongol (since Timur was a Berlas-Mongol), they must also be classified as "Mongols" and not "Turks" (the same way Ghaznavids are not classified as "Persians" but "Turks").

From Nava'i on, Chaghatai literature experienced some growth, but it was still nothing in comparison to Persian or Arabic. Nava'i himself composed poems in Persian and Arabic, and Bairam Khan - the Kizilbash chief in India - composed 3 times more Persian poetry than Turkic (see Bairam Khan's "Divan").

Among all of these poets, Nava'i was the ONLY one who actually asked the Turkic writers of Central-Asia to write in Chaghatai ... and some followed, for example Babur or Sultan Husein Bayqara. But in case of Husein Bayqara, it was still only a small collection of Turkic poems that he composed in honor of his friend. Not even Babur's daughter, Gulbadan Begum, kept that tradition, because the "Humayun-Nama" was written in Persian and not Chaghatai.

And, at the end, just for you: B. Gascoigne, "Die Grossmoguln" (German version), p.11:

"... Babur war jedoch viel stolzer auf seine Verwandtschaft zu Timur, den er als Türke betrachtete. Der Name Mongole war inzwischen gleichbedeutend mit barbarisch geworden und wurde hauptsächlich den wilden Stämmen nördlich und östlich von Transoxanien zugedacht, die immer noch Nomaden waren ..."

So, in other words: Babur only considered himself a "Turk'", because he wrongly believed that Timur was also a Turk. Since the word "Mongol" had become so kind of an insult (that's what you had already pointed above), he tried to avoid that word an instead chose the term "Turk" (500 years ago, there was not really a difference between Turks and Mongols). But this does NOT mean that he was a "Turk". As I have said above, some Ottoman sultans considered the word "Turk" an insult (because in their opinions, Turks were "barbarians"). During the wars with the Safavids, the Ottoman Sultan wrote letters in Arabic or Persian to the Shah and tried to insult him by focusing on his Turcoman background (Shah Ismail's mother was Turcoman and related to the "Aq Quyunlu" who were regarded as "backward nomads" by the Ottomans). The Shah replied in Turkic in order to insult the Shah by pointing towar his tribal, Turkic background. Only because the Ottomans did not considere himselvs "Turks", it does not mean that they were no Turks ...

Tajik 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You make some very good points here Tajik, I agree with almost all of that. However, by the end you reveal an error in your thinking. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether we think that Babur was wrong to believe that Timur was a Turk (and to be frank, I think it shows great historical arrogance to assume that we know better than someone who was a descendant and lived much closer to his time). There are simply no objective criteria for determining 'ethnicity' in the way you seem to want to do here, by fixing on a single ancestor many generations before, and simply assuming that all his descendants, because they have the same blood, have the same ethnic identity, regardless of who they intermarried with and the cultural milieu in which they lived. If you don't mind my saying so, that is a very German way of looking at things. When it comes to questions of identity it is precisely what people consider themselves to be that matters, not some sort of pseudo-objective criteria based on the supposed 'ethnicity' of their paternal great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather (hence there are indeed problems with the classification of the Ghaznavids and the Sultans of Delhi as 'Turkic', although as I have said before, the fact that they did not commission writing in Turkic does not mean they did not speak it). Incidentally, the Ottomans, the Mamluks and other Turkic rulers also took pride in a nomadic warrior past, with symbols such as drinking Koumiss and using the horse-tail standard. It is quite untrue to say that the Ottomans "did not consider themselves to be Turks" - utter balderdash. You write above "Babur...considered himself to be a Turk", or, more accurately in my view, took pride in the Turkic language and considered that there were important Turkic elements in his makeup. Almost uniquely for an early modern ruler we know this because he wrote his own, very frank memoirs rather than commissioning a court hagiography. And that, really, is that as far as I'm concerned. Sikandarji 08:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Ghaznavids "spoke Turkic" is not a fact, but a plain assumption with no proofs. And keeping in mind that the background of the Ghaznavids was well-known to everyone back then, they had no other choice but to confirm that they were "Turks" - also to please their Turkic military nobles. Otherwise the Ghaznavids would have proclaimed that they were "descendants of the Sassanians" (like their former Samanid masters or some Abbasid Caliphs) and "direct descendants of the prophet" (liek so many dynasties back then). As Bosworth points out, the Ghaznavids present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianised to a perceptibly higher degree than other contemporary dynasties of Turkish origin such as Saljuqs and Qarakhanids. Whereas most of the Great Saljuq sultans seem to have remained illiterate, many of the Ghaznavids were highly cultured; as emerges from the pages of Bayhaqi, Mas'ud I had a good knowledge of Arabic poetry and was a competent Persian chancery stylist. (-Bosworth, "Ghaznavids", pp. 129-30). Iranica writes:

... Adjacent to the minaret of Mas'ūd (formerly, and wrongfully, attributed to Sultan Mahmūd), the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan excavated a palace of his, notable for what was apparently a Persian poetic text on marble slabs forming a dado round an inner courtyard. The poem extolls the sultan and his forebears both as Muslim ĝāzīs and as heroes connected with the Iranian epic, legendary past (see Bombaci). ... So, there is absoluetly no reason to actually believe that "Ghaznavids were Turkic". Yet, they are still classified as "Turks" ... totally in opposite logic to Babur, Timurids, or certain other dynasties.

Tajik 08:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K., then the Ghaznavids are classified wrongly, particularly if, as is written above, they are so markedly more Persianised than the Karakhanids and the Seljuks. I'm not going to disagree with that. Why repeat this error with regard to Babur? And, as a reminder, we are not talking about the Mughal dynasty as a whole here, as after Humayun it clearly loses most of its Turkic elements. When it comes to the Central Asian Timurids, and to Babur himself, it's rather different. This reflects what I said before: identities are flexible, they change over the years. Some of Babur's ancestors were Mongols, but he spoke Turkic and Persian. Babur's descendants, after Humayun's exile in Persia and their long residence in India, no longer spoke or knew Turkic, but spoke Persian, and, later, Urdu (Bahadur Shah Zafar composed verse in the latter language). The Mughals were now an Indian dynasty by any meaningful criteria. Their family lineage remained important to them, but this should not be confused with modern ideas of nationality. But for the founder of the dynasty, for whom Central Asia was more than a poetic trope, who spoke and wrote in Chagatai and admired Nawa'i, being 'Turkic' did mean something. And this article is about him. Sikandarji 09:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You commenty noted (the question should be: why continue the mistake about the Ghaznavids and not correct it, for example in the Ghaznavid article?!). Don't get me wrong: I am not opposing you, but certain changes of this Johnstevens5, especially this paragraph:

... Babur was a fourteenth generation descendant from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin on his mothers side. Over these generations they had become Turkified in language, manners and custom as they resided in Turkish areas. Therefore the Western term "Mughal" is a misnomer as Babur referred to himself as a Turk, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was initially Turkish in character. He was racially a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins;[2] It is clear, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur. ...

... for it contains MISTAKES. It claims that Babur was a "Berlas" on his mother's side, which is wrong: his mother was the Mongol princes of Tashkent. His father, Omar Sheikhy, was a Berlas. It claims that the Berlas were "Turkified in manners and custom", which is wrong: they were only Turkified in language, not in culture or costom, which were evidently Perso-Islamic (this is even pointed out in his "Baburnama", explaining that the Chaghatayids did not even know how to pronounce his name!).

It claims that he "drew much of his support from Turks", which is wrong, because according to his own words, he drew much of his support from "local warriors from Badakhshan and Kabul", a region that has NEVER been Turkic. Babur himself says that Kabul consisted of "Indians, Turks, Arabs, and Persians" ... claiming that his supporters were "largly Turks" is pure assumtion and - frankly - illogical.

The paragraph claims that Babur was "racially Turkic", a totally stupid POV comment. Babur was "racially mixed" with Mongol, Iranian, and Turkic background. It claims that the empire was "initially Turkic in character", which is total nonsense, because Babur was only the ruler, not to one who gave his empire a "character". The character of the Mughal empire was Perso-Islamic from the very beginning on (and that's exactly what Lehman is trying to say in the Iranica) - this is even confirmed by Babur's daughter Gulbadan Begum (who never accompanied her brother in Persia but stayed in India and Khorasan).

It claims that Babur's "Mongol linage ment less to him", which again is only an assumtion, because all Chingizid Turco-Mongols were proud of their Mongol heritage - that's why Babur's mother is pointed out as a "direct descendent of Gingiz Khan".

The ONLY true comment is that "Babur regarded himself being a Turk" - that's it! Even the claim that "Timur was a Turk" is totally wrong, because Timur was no Turk and he did not consider himself to be a "Turk". He claimed to be a Mongol, he belived to be the "savior of the Mongol empire", and he spent much time to fabricate an "official geneology" of his family, trying hard to link himself to Gingiz Khan and the Mongols. This is even confirmed on ancient coins, in which Timur is depicted as a "Mongol Khan" ("Timur Mughol" in Persian).

And I do not know if you have noticed it, but Johnstevens5 has deleted the word "Persian" from the list of Babur's supporters in the article.

Tajik 09:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending the changes he has made - from what I have written above it should be clear that I do not share his view that Babur's supporters were 'largely Turks' (I was the one who listed the various peoples who made up his army in altering the article at your request, if you remember). Nor do I share his view that Babur was 'racially Turkic' or that Timur was a 'Turkic nationalist'. My argument is about the culture and felt identity of this man, no more. I hadn't noticed that the Persians had been deleted from the list of his supporters - that is wrong. So I think we agree. By the way - it is Mirza Muhammad Haidar in the Ta'rikh-e Rashidi who states that the Chagatai of Moghulistan who could not pronounce his name, not Babur himself. Sikandarji 09:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tajik, let me quote you here: "[...]that calling Timur and Babur Turks and pointing toward a Turkic culture (whatever that may be, since there is no such thing as Turkic culture in Central-Asia) is not correct[...]". Your claim that there 'is no such thing as Turkic culture in Central Asia' is definitely POV and simply outrageous! What can you back that claim with? I mean, I don't support any Pan-Turkist ideology or Turkish nationalism, but that statement of yours is going too far, for anyone objective, reasonable, and educated enough (on the subject matter) to maintain a neutral view. There is no way denying the huge impact and influence that islamicised Persian culture (which itself vastly got influenced by Islamic religion, hence Arabian Language and Culture and vice versa, however, influenced it) had on the various and more or less related Turkic tribes converting to Islam and migrating to Transoxiana and further south and west, be it those under the Uyghur/Turkic Karakhanid dynasty or the later Turkic AND Mongolian tribes which under the leadership of Chingiz Khan's Mongols conquered, among other regions, e.g. what later became 'Western Turkestan/Turkistan' (that had a rather long history linked with both Iranian/aryan peoples and Iran) whereas Turkic languages almost exclusively prevailed over Mongolian (think of the Tatar and Kazakh). For heaven's sake, before their conversion to Islam the Turkic Uyghur Khaganats let the religions practised by the Soghdians, namely Buddhism, Manichaeism and the Nestorian Church flourish in their domain; these got widespread among the primarily animist and shamanist populace, and relicts of scriptures and artifacts dating back to the 8th century from modern-day Mongolia and East Turkestan like the city of Turpan tell us that there must have been Uyghur Turkic monks in huge numbers translating from various languages to Uyghur and back, and Uyghur literature was thriving at that time (I've stumbled upon one of your comments that, to sum it up, kind of deny the existence of Turkic literature before Chagatay!). Chinese, Soghdian, Sanskrit, Tokharian etc. loanwords found their way into the Turkic languages (No, bagatyr, baatoor, batyr etc. is Turkic, Altaic at least). Fact of the matter is, the Turkic languages, even in their earliest recorded form show a tendency toward certain sounds that predominate in the Aryan languages that set them a little apart from the other Altaic languages like Mongolian supposedly due to contacts with the Scythians and such which resulted in sound shifts. In other words: cultures and languages influence eath other, the Aryans, the Persians in particular were not the only relevant historic group in that region, neither did they invent the weel. Indeed, an undeniable amount of 'original' and 'aboriginal' Aryan and Persian culture and religion fell prey to their fellow Muslims just like Persian Language suffered great losses not surprisingly because of the increased usage of Arabic as the 'holy language of Islam' though Persian became - in its islamicised form - the predominant language of court and literature in many Islamic kingdoms and Persian Culture, now adjusted to Islamic requirements, flourished. But, say, how many words in Persian are of Arabian origin, is e.g. nowadays' Persian a direct lossless transition from ancient Avestian without any foreign influences? What about modern Persian grammar compared to its historic predecessors? When considering topics that involve Turkic peoples, one has to bear in mind the simple fact that they were nomads who more or less originated in eastern, and particularly north-eastern Central Asia (and Siberia), who invaded ancient civilisations and became their rulers, but often - as rulers caste - showed great interest in these cultures and over generations assimilated to them. 'Turkic slaves heroically becoming kings' is almost something like a historical motif: the Turkic tribe that first carried the name Türk and became renowned with it (6th century onwards), was actually a tribe that was enslaved by another one. In fact the tribe name Türk, Türküt might go back to the name of the Turghut, who now speak a Mongolian language, and originally might have been of Mongolian stock . Turkic and Mongolian tribes originally had similar or equal lifestyles, cultures and religions and often formed confederacies, sometimes the Turkic would assimilate to the Mongolian, sometimes it would be the other way round; their languages belong to the Altaic language family, and are closely related by the way. To some extent the populations where they migrated to sometimes would assimilate to them via intermarriage or direct assimilation; in other cases they assimilated to those as stated above. This has clearly no 'racial ' implication, someone with a racist ideology would most definitely consider them a 'mixed race' or something (Pan-Turkism and Turkish nationalism are another matter though...). Maybe I ought to point out that the Aryan people, that migrated to Iran from the northern regions, originally seemed to possess lighter complexion and hair colour, like the Skythians. I mean, there are no 'pure races', the very concept of 'human races' is ridicolous. When dealing with the history of an ethnicity, which is mostly defined by language and culture, not race, or with closely related ethnicities as is the case here (al-Qashgari considered Oghuz, Uyghur and Kyrgyz as dialects of the same language that he called Turk), it is essential to do justice to them in terms of socioanthropological categories.

You can't deny the presence of Turkic peoples, their languages, histories, and I have to say common shared history and also, yes I have to stress that FACT, their cultures as millenia old in what is to be considered Central-Asia, a region that thus was not solely inhabited by Aryans and by far DID NOT belong to 'Greater Iran' but was a melting pot of cultures throughout HUMAN HISTORY (Silk Road, anyone?). Notanativespeaker 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting

There has been no discussion for weeks and weeks. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts

It took me a few hours to go through all the comments over here. Very knowledgeable crowd, I must add. I can't resist to add a few thoughts of my own. First, I am a Turk, born and raised in Pakistan. And no, I am not a Mughal (in fact, some Mughals do claim to this day in Pakistan that they are Turks, Chaghtai Turks, to be more precise). What can we do about perceptions (I believe someone made a comment about that earlier in discussions). Anyways, I am a Karluk Turk, my family has lived in North West Pakistan for the past 600 years ever since Timur invaded India and on his way back left my ancestors in the Hazara Division area as protectors/rulers. We were that for the three hundred years, till 17th century, establishing Turki Shahi dynasties. The Mughals acknowldged us as the rulers when Babur and his later descendants ruled India. Over these past 6 centuries, we have lost touch with our Turk heritage specifically language and traditions and have become totally acclimatized. Kind of sad but I guess human necessity for survival is adaption. However, to this day, you would find villages after villages, and thousands of people who proudly proclaim themselves as Turks. And all the locals acknowledge that too. Now, going by all the debates in trying to calssify who Babur and Timur were, I think a more significant point (though mentioned multiple times but never emphasized) was at what point we become what we are. For example, the transition and acceptance of Syeds as a Pathan tribe even though racially speaking they have arabic origins. I believe that to be the case with Timur and Babur. Whether Barlas were mongol or not, they were turkicized just like my turk family has become "Indianized" over centuries. However, the interesting fact is that even in 600 years, we are still Turks! And Syeds who are Pathans are still called "Syeds", the descendants of Prophet. Neither these Syed Pathans speak arabic (their original language at some point) nor us turks speak Turki. But not speaking these mother tongues or not practising all the ancient traditions has not made us any less Syeds or Turks! I am sure there would be counter examples to that as well where races have infact lost their identity. Which just means to say that there is no conclusive "Absoulte Truth" when it comes to race or ethnicity. There is no denying the fact that Persian language and culture has a great influence on Indian subcontinent and I am sure vice versa. But to say that by speaking Persian, I become one is stretching it, if I say it politely. I don't speak turkish anymore, neither have my ancestors for a while, but if I can take anyone who wants to hundreds of years old graveyeards where my ancestors lie peacefully. And all of their grave markers do say who they were. Turks! So if Babur felt pride in saying he was a turk, let him be. Who are we to say he was not?

Your argumentation does not make any sense. On the one hand you say that "speaking a particualr language does not define ethnicity", i.e. that your family - although being totally assimilated by Hindustanis - is still "Turkish". On the other hand, you claim that Babur, evidently a Mongol on his maternal and paternal line, became a "Turk" only by "adopting the language"?!

It'S true that Babur considered himself "Turk", but not in an ethnic way. 600 years ago, "Turk" was a loose expression, a name given to various peoples with a similar life-style and a similar language in Central-Asia - in contrast to "Tajiks", the Persian-speaking, urban population of the cities of Khorasan.

This article is based on scientific works, and most of the authors have tried to keep a NPOV status of the article. Babur may have considered himself "Turk", but his family-tree - well recorded by many classical scholars and authors - does not support this claim (which at the same time proves the non-defined meaning of "Turk"). In comparison to Babur, many evidently Turkic rulers, like the founders of the Ghaznavid or Seljuq states, openly denied their Turkic heritage and proclaimed that they were "descendants of the old Iranian Shahs". In fact, the famous Mughal scholar Ferishta has recorded the alleged ancestory of Sebüktegin (founder of the Ghaznavid Empire) who claimed to be a descendant of Yazdgard III - although it is well established the the Ghaznavids were Turks, though Persian in language.

Babur may have called himself "Turk", but he was not a Turk - he was a Mongol, and that's why he and his descendants became known as "Mughals" (="Mongols") - their self-designation was "Gurkani" (from the Mongolian word "kürügän", "son-in-law").

We can't just change facts only because someone "believed something". Sebüktegin and the Ghaznavids "believed" that that were ethnic Persians and descendants of the old Iranian Shahs - fact is that their paternal line was Turkic. Only some of the Ghaznavid rulers - for example Sultan Mahmoud - had Persian mothers. The Seljuqs claimed that they were descendants of the Sassanids. They even gave their children Sassanid names ("Khusrow", "Kaykubad", etc.), because they really belived to be Sassanians. Fact is that the Seljuqs were Oghuz-Turks who became assimilated by Iranians because of centuries of direct contact with Iranian populations.

Now, Babur may have spoken Chaghatai-Turkic because of direct contact with Turkic nomads in Central-Asia. But fact is that his father belonged to the Mongol Berlas tribe and that his mother was a direct descendant of Chingiz Khan. That makes him a "Mongol" and not a Turk.

Tājik 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I claim that Babur became a Turk by adapting the language? I guess I did not at all but if you think so, read above again. I gave two real present day examples of Turks and Pathans that live in the Frontier province of Pakistan. The Turks, my family and extended family, speak pushto or urdu or hindko or english but not turki. Yet they are considered turks based on their lineage even though they have become "Indianized" or "Hindustanized" etc. This actually supports your point Tajik that ethnicity is by parentage!!! Flip argument are the Syed Pathans. Syeds, as we all know, descend from the family of prophet, which by extension implies their arabic roots. However, over a period of time, by adapting the code of pukhtoon-wali, some of these Syeds became Pathans and accepted as such by the other Pathans and locals. This is the argument that doesn't support your logic that claims of ethnicity are by lineage alone. A really good example, I can become "Indianized", "Hindustanized" or even Hindu, but not a Brahmin (in which case lineage is essential). In essence, what I was talking about was the transition from being one to another race. Agreed that Barlas were mongol tribe but if they had become turkicized enough and accepted as turks by other turks, then perhaps that is why Babur or his kind thought of them to be ones. I hope I make myself a little clearer but then again I am not an expert at all on these issues. Just gave relevant examples from relevant areas. --LopezKahn 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Berlas were not regarded "Turks" by others. The family of Omar Sheikh (Babur's father) was only a small fraction of the large Timurid dynatsy; the main linage of the Timurids was centered in Herat. They were all Persian-speaking (and knew Chaghatay), they were patrons of Persian literature and culture, and so forth. Omar Sheikh's family was centered in Turkic Andijan and was linked to the Mongol Khans of Tashkent, direct descendants of Ginggiz Khan.

In his autobiography, Babur identifies himself with the Turkic conquerors of the past, and identifies himself with the few loyal soldiers left in his army.

This is not the case with his children. His daughter, Gulbadan Begum, is considered one of the greatest female Persian poets ever. Neither Gulbadan, nor Humayun considered themselvs "Turks" - and certainly not their descendants.

Babur was the only one among all of the late Timurids who identified himself with his hometown Andijan and with the Andijani Turks ... but this still does not change the fact that he was a Mongol. The only reason why he did not call himself Mongol was because the term "Mongol" had become an insulting name. That's why it was replaced with "Turk" - a people who had the same life-style as Mongol nomads and to a large extent the same physical appearance (in contrast to Caucasian Perso-Tajiks).

In the Ottoman Empire, both "Mongol" and "Turk" were considered insults - that'S why Ottoman Sultans never called themselvs "Turks". Yet, despite their own beliefs, modern scholars call them "Ottoman Turks" - because of the simple fact that they WERE Turks.

As for Sayeds: do you really believe that all so-called "Sayeds" are "real Sayeds"?!

Tājik 13:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

All you ever try to do is distort and change anything to do with Turks, they can never be a Turk they have to be this they have to be that but can never be a Turk, these Pan-Iranists have a dep rooted paranoia and inferiority complex and sadly are trying to get there views onto Wikipedia.

What exactly is the problem, Babur himself wrote he was a Turk he actually took a pen to his hand and decided to write it. Who are you to say, um nope he's not a Turk, he's a Mongol, he's this he's that but we can't allow him to be a Turk.

The Berlas were regarded Turks after a few generations. They became muslims married with local Turks and became Turks in language and culture.

The Timurids were Turks, Timurlame was a Turk he aswell wrote this, this is well known. Timulame was a Turkish shephard he didn't have anything to do with Genghiz Khan except marrying into the Barlas tribe and then claimed to be descended from Ghenghiz Khan as a pollitical stunt.

Arnold Toynbee, one of the most distinguished modern historians, called Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah ("Introduction to History") "undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place."

Now nobody here can question Ibn Khaldun so let's see what he wrote and I'm quoting WORD FOR WORD.

Ibn Khaldun "You know how the power of the Arabs was established when they became united in their religion in following their Prophet. As for the Turks ... in their group solidarity, no king on earth can be compared with them, not Chosroes nor Caesar nor Alexander nor Nebuchadnezzar."

Tamerlane demurred on a technical point: Nebuchadnezzar was not a king, "he was only one of the Persian generals"

It was in this unstable world that Temur Barlas built up his political machine. He was born in 1336, not far from Samarkand, the son of a lesser chief of the Barlas obogh. The Barlas were one of a group of five or six ex-Mongol, now Turkish, oboghs or pseudo oboghs which provided the four qarac beys or regents who constituted an informal council of state with or against the khans. The Barlas held the area between the Oxus and the Jaxartes around Samarkand. The Qaraunas and the Arlat held the middle Oxus and points south into Khorasan and Afghan Turkestan.......

S. A. M. Adshead. "Tamerlane and the Global Arsenal, 1370-1405" from his Central Asia in World History, Chapter 5

The Timurids promoted Turkish literature and culture, Navai, Lufti and so on.

There were no Mongol rulers in Tashkent, were did they ever refer to themselves asv Mongol.

Did you personally ask them "what" theyy were, NO, so we rely on what they left, Babur says he was a Turk this is a fact wether you like it or not. The otherr Timurid rulers saw themselves as Turks and would read Navai, Lufti etc Who are you to call Babur a Mongol when he wrote he was a TURK AND SPOKE TURKISH AS HIS MOTHER TONGUE, WHAT LOGIC IS THIS. DID YO RUN A DNA TEST ON BABUR, DID YOU PERSONALLY SPEAK TO HIM, OBVIOUSLY NOT YET YOU INSIST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE AND EVEN BABUR HIMSELF! HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA ACCEPT SUCH NONSENSE HOW! HOW BIASED AND DISTORTED ARE THESE VIEWS ITS TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING TURK.

You have obviously never read what the Ottoman Sultans wrote, they wrote they were Turks were proud of this and when they wrotev their history they traced it back to "Oghuz Khan" leader of Oghuz Turks.

Please get your facts correct.

--Johnstevens5 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Babur's Name

Thackston writes "Babur's name has also appeared as Baber and Babar. There is not the slightest doubt, however, that the name is Babur (BAH-boor), which is ultimately derived from the Indo-European word for beaver. Although it has often been suggested that Babur means tiger, it has, in fact, nothing to do with the Persian word babr 'tiger' " Wheeler M. Thackston The Babur-nama (New York) 2002 note 1, pxvii —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sikandarji (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 September 2006.

The word "Babr", "Baber", "Babur" and "Babar" are all derived from the Tungusic languages and mean Tiger in each of them. Mongolian and Turkish languages are a part of this family.

I do not think we can ignore Thackston without good reason: he is the Professor of Persian at Harvard and translator of the Baburnama. If he thinks the name is derived from "Beaver", I'm willing to accept it. "Babr" or "Babar" meaning "Tiger" is also Persian, at least according to Platt's (a dictionary which, rather usefully, indicates the derivation of words with H for Hindi, S for Sanskrit, T for Turkish, P for Persian). See here Sikandarji 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Babr" is not a Turkic word, it's Persian. It's even used in ancient Persian, Sogdian, and Bactrian documents, the most famous being the documents of Bactria in which the expressions "Zīn-e babr" and "Zīn-e palang" ("skin of a tiger") are used - a reference to the epic Iranian hero Rustam. See Nicholas Sims-Williams "Bactrian Documents from Ancient Afghanistan". Tājik 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No-one has claimed otherwise. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the IP-anon did. Tājik 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Babur as an "Uzbek"

This is a completely absurd assertion. Timurid rule in Central Asia was overthrown by the semi-nomadic Uzbeks under Shaybani Khan who invaded the region in the early 16th century. Babur spent most of his early career fighting them in order to regain Mawara'al-nahr, only retreating to Kabul and then to India when he was defeated. See Khwandamir Habibu's-siyar Tome 3 Part 2 Ed. & Trans Wheeler M. Thackston (Cambridge, Mass./Istanbul: Harvard University Press) pp305-6; Also this.

This is not the only absurd assertion in the intro. It is also totally absurd to claim that Babur and his tribe spoke the Turkish language which is a member of the Oghuz branch of languages, in contrast to Babur's mother-tongue (Chagatay language).

It's also totally stupid to state Babur's ethnic background in the intro, because that is explained in detail in the "Origins" section. The importance of the Mughals in India was not their Mongol background or their Persian language (Babur and Humayun were the only rulers who actually spoke Chagatay), but their Muslim faith in a land that was overwhelmingly Hindu.

Babur's ethnic background (=Mongol), his language (=Chagatay Turkic), and his culture (=Perso-Arabic) should not be mentioned in the intro, but in the "Origins" section.

Tājik 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever said that Babur spoke a Turkish language must have made a mistake, as you said he did indeed speak the Chagatay language, which is a Turkic, not Turkish language, Turkish language refers to the language of Turks in Turkey, Turkic language refers to the various languages of the Turkic peoples.

That's quite right - Chaghatai is a Qarluq Turkic language. I personally think the fact that he was a Timurid is more important than the fact that he was a Muslim (he was only the latest in a long line of Muslim rulers in Upper India, after all) but I won't press the point. I think the "Origins" section is perfectly well-balanced now after long debate, so I do hope nobody feels the need to start mucking around with the intro again in a crude attempt to "claim" Babur for one nationality or another.Sikandarji 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Babur's Name in the Intro

I hope we can come to a decision on something that should be very basic — the name used in the intro and in the infobox. The birth name in the infobox should definitely be Zahiruddin Muhammad, as noted by the quote under #Babur's name. Now, how about the name in the first line? I'm not exactly married to having just Zahiruddin Muhammad, but I would like to emphasize that full, real names are most often used in introductions to Wikipedia articles (note Osama bin Laden and Bill Clinton). I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know whether Babur was part of his name, and, to be honest, since there probably was no way to officially change names, it does not really matter. However, one way to clarify the name is to start off with...

Babur, born Zahiruddin Muhammad (February 14, 1483 – December 26, 1530) ....

Alternatively, we could just go with Zahiruddin Muhammad, most commonly known as Babur or even Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur (if that is correct). Comments are, of course, welcome. -- tariqabjotu 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, I suggest to use a better transliteration of the name (from Arabic to English), because "Zahiruddin" is wrong. I suggest: Zāher ud-Dīn Mohammad Bābur.

Tājik 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You agree with what? The first, second, or third option? -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the 3rd option, starting with:

• "... Zāher ud-Dīn Mohammad Gurkānī, most commonly known by his nickname Bābur, 16th century Muslim conqueror from Central Asia ..." For the name "Gurkāni" see: Thackston, Wheeler M.: "The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor." Modern Library Classics. ISBN 0375761373

Tājik 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Which page in the Baburnuma is Gurkani following Zaher ud-Din Mohammad? -- tariqabjotu 00:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thackston writes:

“ ... History has conspired to rob Babur not only of his fame as a Central Asian sovereign over the kingdom of Kabul for much longer than he was in the subcontinent, but also of his primary identity as a Timurid by labelling him and his successors as 'Mughals' - that is, Moghuls, or Mongols - an appellation that would not have pleased him in the least. In India the dynasty always called itself Gurkani, after Temür's title Gurkân, the Persianised form of the Mongolian kürügän, 'son-in-law', a title he assumed after his marriage to a Genghisid princess. Nonetheless, Europeans, recognising that there was some connection between Babur's house and the Mongols but ignorant of the precise relationship, dubbed the dynasty with some variant of the misnomer Moghul (Mogol, Mogul, Maghol etc.) and made the name synonymous with greatness. ... ”

- Wh. M. Thackston, "The Baburnama" (New York) 2002 p. xvii

Tājik 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's still not evidence that Gurkani was actually part of his name. Also, can you correct the page number (that's not a valid Roman numeral). -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That quote is not in there on page xvii. -- tariqabjotu 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Resolving this Edit War

Would each of the two parties involved in this dispute please present several sources that support his or her side? Please try to avoid using the academic edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica as not all of us are able to access it. -- tariqabjotu 00:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My sources are all presented in the article. I want the article to be in the compromise-version written by User:Sikandarji after hours and hours of talk and discussion. We agreed not to mention any ethnic or linguistic lables in the intro, but only the important points that he was a Timurid and a Muslim. Everything else - INCLUDING the eth detailed explanation of his origin - is mentioned in the "Background" section.

User:E104421, however, does not agree with this. He stubbornly pushes for a - IMO - POV version by claiming that Babur was Turkic. While this may be partly correct, it does not give any credit to Babur's REAL (= genetic) origin from the Berlas Mongol tribes of Central Asia, as well as his almost entirely Persian (NOT Turkic!) culture and environment as an educated Timurid prince. User:E104421 persist on only ONE single version of the Britannica which calls Babur a "Turkic warlord", while purposely ignoring other reliable sources - INCLUDING 2 other Britannica article - which clearly describe Babur's origin as being "Mongol".

Since Britannica does not have a clear opinion on that, and because there are so many reliable sources all claiming something different, we agreed NOT to mention his disputed ethnic background in the intro, but explain all possible elements in the "Background" section (see User:Sikandarji's comment above).

Only User:E104421 does not agree with that.

Tājik 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

First, let's not throw around accusations like He stubbornly pushes for a - IMO - POV version by claiming that Babur was Turkic. They do nothing to resolving the situation, so stop. Also, it appears from your revert that you removed two sources (albeit to Encyclopedia Brittanica's Academic Edition) in place of one. Thus, I don't understand your statement that begins with User:E104421 persist on only ONE single version.... -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:Tariqabjotu, I gave the information from Britannica cause it's an easily reachable source. It's possible to check the information in a second. The problem here is related with ethnocentricism, there are some users, who searches turkic related subjects, and then replaces all the turkic related entries with persian or deleting the entries. These users also accusing everyone who provides information contrary to their arguments as pan-turkists or vandals. If a stubborn person comes and provides information based on reliable sources, they start revert war until the page protected to their version. It's impossible to communicate them even at the very basic level cause of their impolite manner as clearly seen from their comments in talk/discussion pages or edit summaries. Actually, i could provide more information and sources on these protected articles (‎Babur, Khwarezmian Empire, Mughal Empire, Seljuq dynasty, Ephtalites), but i do not think that they are kind enough to read. Regards E104421 14:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, the academic version of Encyclopedia Britannica is not accessible to everyone. It's a paid service (and most people are not going to sign up for that). -- tariqabjotu 17:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Tariqabjotu is also invited to take a look at the Talk:Hephthalites page and at the nonsense E104421 posted there. He did not even have any respect for the opinion of User:Sikandarji, an Oxford academic specialized on Central Asian history. All E104421 does is pushing for Pan-Turkistic POV. He is the one who is ethnocentric ... I mean, he does not even know that Babur's mother tongue was NOT the Turkish language (as he claimed in trhe article), but the Chagatay language which was known as "Torki" 500 years ago.

The difference between Chagatay Turkic and modern Turkish, as well as between Chagatay Turco-Mongols and modern Turks of Turkey is as big as between modern English people and Medieval Scandinavians.

Tājik 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I urge you both to stop the accusations of ethnocentrism and the mudslinging. Remember, assume good faith. Focus on getting this conflict resolved and getting the article unprotected, rather than insulting the other party. The latter course is not going to get us anywhere. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:Tariqabjotu: Yes, Encyclopedia Britannica requires subscription, but it's a world wide accepted source, its classic version is available on the net. Columbia Encyclopedia is also available on the net. The comments related with the languages above made by the user is so ridiculous, especially to the ones having a glimpse of historical linguistics. Although Chagatai language was an extinct language, it's genetically Turkic. This means Turkish and Chagatai language show predictive/productive correspondences. Furthermore, they are typologically similar. Anyway, i have well-sourced information based on world-wide-recognized sources, but the user is so impolite to read them carefully but accusing all the time as pan-turkist. What about the user? Regards E104421 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As you have stated earlier, you are no expert on history. And - to be honest - this is also very clear from your edits.

The Britannica is a widely accepted and reliable source, but it is NOT the best source for topics related to Islam or Central Asia. The Britannica is a general encyclopaedia, not specialized on anything. What you - as an amateur who has not much knowledge about schjolarly stdudies of Central Asia and Islam - do not understand (or do not want to understand) is that there are better and superior sources, the Encyclopaedia of Islam being the most prominent (a masterpiece of scholarly work specialized on Islamic history and written by more than 300 world-renowned scholars). When it comes to the history of Central Asia and Iran, then the Encyclopaedia Iranica - a grand project of the Columbia University, written by more than 500 experts and schoalsr from European, American, and Asian universities - is the most authoritative source.

The link to the article of the Iranica (written by Prof. F. Lehmann [15])is given in the article. The article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam is not available for everyone - it's a paid service. But it's (along with the EIr) the most authoritative source at the moment.

What you are writing in the article is neither supported by the EI nor by the EI (thus, the two most powerful sources do NOT support your view), and Britannica does not have a clear opinion on Babur. While in some articles, Babur is described as a "Turk", others describe him - correctly - as (linguistically) "Turkicized Mongol". Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam even explain further that Babur's culture and surrounding environment was Persian.

As for the languages: what you are saying is the typical Pan-Turkist propaganda of the Turkish nationalists, as well as the nonsense that is being propagated by the modern Turkish nation. The Chagatay language and modern Turkish are indeed related - but they were NOT the same language, the same way modern English and Swiss German are NOT "one and the same language", only because they belong to the same language family.

While modern Turkish is an Oghuz language, Chagatay belonged to the Qarluq language family, and thus, NOT modern Turkish, but the modern Uzbek language is the direct descendanht of that language. The difference between modern Turkish and modern Uzbek is as big as between German and English, or between French and Italian: these languages belong to the same language families and show many similarities, but they are NOT the same languages.

Besides that, the Chagatay language strongly depended on Arabic and Persian vocabulary and even grammar. Here is a scholarly article about the Chagatay language (from Encyclopaedia Iranica): [16]

Just an example:

• "... Even when Chaghatay authors deliberately set out to write in Turkish they were not able to avoid using Persian words. For example, when the vizier and poet Mir Ali Shir Nava'i (844-906/1441-1501), encouraged by Sultan Husayn Bayqarah, wrote Mohakamat al-logatayn in order to prove the superiority of Turkish over Persian (See CENTRAL ASIA iv. HISTORY UNDER THE MONGOLS AND TIMURIDS), he used a language that contained 62.6 percent Persian and Arabic words (sample: 122 of 195 words). ..."

What you are saying in here is pure nonsense. You are pushing for POV and therefore your edits are unacceptable.

Tājik 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're expecting us to let you push pov-fork. Sorry, Tajik. We cannot let you mislead people. World-wide recognized sources says contrary to what you push here. Wikipedia is not your own encyclopedia. Live with this! E104421 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You were already taught by User:Sikandarji in the Hephthalites talk that there are sources better and more detailed than Britannica or Columbia (interestingly, you alsways talk of Columbia when it servs your purpose, while you openly reject it when it supports a different view). Sikandarji is - unlike you - a REAL expert, and an academic at Oxford University who is specialized on Central Asian history. And it is really a shame that you do not accept his opinion although you have already admitted that you are NO expert on history. I do not think that YOU are the right person to judge what's a realiable source and what's not.

You are clearly pushing for a nationalistic POV, openly rejecting world-renowned and scholarly - partly authoritative - sources (as you have already done in Hephthalites).

You are right that Wikipedia is not my own encyclopaedia. But you have also to understand that Wikipedia is not a tool for Turkish nationalists to propagate a sick ideology that is not supported by any serious scholar. Live with this!

Tājik 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hey YOU, do you have any other words other than accusations? You cannot mislead people. You'll see. E104421 21:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that it was E104421 who tried to claim that Babur was an Uzbek, but it was User:Zaparojdik whose ignorance of the subject in hand would appear to be even greater (as I said before E104421, when I try to lecture you about particle acceleration, you can lecture me on matters relating to Central Asian History). I don't want to make too many claims about my expertise here - I work on a much later period of Central Asian History, but I can assure you that Tajik is right about the version of the introductory paragraph which should stand, even if his language has been rather too intemperate. As you will see above, I had a very long debate with Tājik about the enormous importance of the fact that Babur wrote his memoirs in Chaghatai, not Persian as would have been more normal at the time. I think Lehmann's Iranica article is wrong to emphasise that it was Babur himself who was largely responsible for introducing Persian culture to India - that was much more characteristic of the period following Humayun's exile in Iran. There is no doubt that important elements of Babur's identity were Turkic, and I think I managed to persuade Tajik to acknowledge that. However, some people here clearly have no conception of just what a mish-mash of cultures, languages and ethnicities are to be found in Central Asia, a region that has seen enormous numbers of invasions and migrations. Babur's ancestors were Mongols, and he belonged to an elite group for whom Chingissid descent was the sole legitimate basis for rule. He was born and grew up in Andijan, a town where, as he says, most of the inhabitants spoke the language of Nawa'i (i.e. Qarluq Turkic), a language he would later compose his own memoirs in. However he also notes that in the neighbouring town of Marghelan most people spoke Persian (I've been to the Ferghana Valley, and these places really are very close together) emphasising the mixed character of the population in the oasis regions of Mawara'al-nahr. The courtly culture of the Timurids was largely Persianate, because that was the pre-eminent model for all courtly elites in the Ajam (i.e. the non-Arab Muslim world) at the time. Turkic was associated with nomadism, warlike qualities, a certain crudeness. Persian with refinement and urban living (see the quotation from Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat's Ta'rikh-e Rashidi above). For all these reasons, Persian would have been important to Babur too - and for these reasons his Chaghatai memoirs are all the more remarkable and worthy of mention.

Thus to push for one particular ethnicity to be mentioned in the opening paragraph, setting the tone for the article and privileging it above all others, is quite unacceptable. The complex nature of Babur's identity is given fair and detailed treatment in the section on "Background". In my view what first and foremost needs to be stated is his identity as a Timurid: descent from powerful leaders such as Genghis Khan and Timur was what mattered to rulers in Babur's day, not some sort of anachronistic national attachment. If Tājik were pushing to have Babur described as an "Iranian Emperor" in the opening paragraph then E104421 and User:Zaparojdik would have a point - but he's not, and they don't.

Finally, on the naming issue - I disapprove of the use of diacritics as obscurantist in a non-specialist publication: if you know the language in question they are usually superfluous, and if you don't they're meaningless. Where the name is supplied in the arabic script as well I really can't see the point. Thackston's definitive edition of the Babur-nama refers to him as "Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur" and that's the version of his name we should use. The article itself should remain at Babur as he, in common with the other great Mughals, is generally known by a single name. "Gurkani" is the title assumed by members of the dynasty, but arguably not part of the personal name. Sikandarji 07:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• To Sikandarji: You're certainly right. I agree. On the other hand, i never thought that in the introduction paragraph stating his origin would be that much problematic. However, this is a common introduction style of mainstream of encyclopedias. In addition, i also agree that the name of the article should remain the same. Britannica is using the same title name, too. Tajik's edits are always favoring or glorifying the persian aspects and ignoring or reducing the value/quality of the others. It's him who assume bad faith in all turkic related subjects and accusing everyone as pan-turkist or ultra-nationalist-vandals. His impolite manners caused the page to be protected as in other articles. His accusations and personal attacks also clutter the talk pages. I do not think that this kind of behavior is accaptable. Lets focus on the articles. Regards. E104421 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing the topic. As Sikandarji has explained to, the previous version was the best and probably most neutral version possible. You were the one who started to mess up an article that was shaped after weeks of constructive discussions (see above). YOU are the one who is not agreeing and YOU are the one who started the edit-wars. Right now, it is YOU who is pushing for a version which is biased, and it is YOU who does not accept the historically correct description that the Timurids were Muslims and Chingizids FIRST; they were NOT acting in the name of Turks, as you claim, but in the name of ONE SINGLE FAMILY. Claiming that the Timurids were "Turkic" is just as stupid as claiming that the Safavids were "Persians". Tājik 01:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Timurids were a muslim empire, the establishers were Turkic, they're the reason Turki is the dominant language in Central Asia and had a big role in promoting it to joining Arabic and Persian as the great literary language's of the muslim world. Timur was not related to Ghenghiz Khan, he married a female desecendant and used it as a pollitical stunt. They were not "Mongol" first, what did they do for Mongols? also your forgetting that today's Mongols in Mongolia were not a part of the Mongol and Turkic tribes who migrated out of the area with the armies of Ghenghiz Khan. They were acting in the name of Turks as in the Zafarnama written in Persian Timur is quoted as referring to himself as "Basbug" (Leader of Turks) and saying "were Turks son's of Turks".

Nizameddin Sami. Zafername, Turkish Trans. Necati Lugal.(Ankara,1949)

--Johnstevens5 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

also your forgetting that today's Mongols in Mongolia were not a part of the Mongol and Turkic tribes who migrated out of the area with the armies of Ghenghiz Khan. This is not true; though many of the tribes that accompanied Genghis Khan were Turkic (particularly the Naiman), the current Altaic residents of Mongolia are, in fact, descendants of the same-- that is, from the same source. siafu 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

When will the "DNA/genetics" extremist nationalists stop pushing their racist agenda;s

This sentance is used in the Introductory paragraph of the article

He was a direct descendant of Timur, and believed himself to be a descendant also of Genghis Khan

Where does Babur ever claim this!

How do you know "Babur's" DNA, who here or anywhere has conducted a DNA test saying he was a Mongol, when did Babur evern claim he was a Mongol, where is this all comming from, who is making this all up.

Its very clear, that it's the work of some certain extreme nationalists who try to divert anything remotely connected to being Turkic and invent the wildest theories to dismiss any type of connection while emphasising any other connection they can find.

There is no Turkic "DNA", the whole notion of thinking you can identify people via their look/genetics etc is totally Racist and reminiscent of Nazi ideas where people with Noses of certain sizes were slaughtered and those with smaller noses were saved. If somebody has more Oriental eyes and higher cheekbone than another Turk are they more Turkic then the other, is this really how we measure and identify people on Wikipedia? this isn't ACCEPTABLE.

We have to rely on primary and secondary historical sources. In this case we have First Hand historical sources and evidence from the man in question himself.

In his autobiography he very clearly states he is a Turk, he does not refer to himself as a Mongol.

Now who are we to tell Babur that no he wasn't a Turk, he was just confused and said it to annoy some extremist Persian nationalists.

This is ridiculous.

We must respect what Babur himself said, why is something Babur never wrote ie Him being from the family of Genghiz Khan highlighted prollifically while the fact he was a Turk is ignored in the opening paragraph.

Babur had Turkic lineage, he was also descended from Timur, the Barlas clan had long been Turkified before Babur was even born.

Let's keep to history and stop being swayed by pollitical extremist nationalists!

p.s Tajik's theory regarding Chaghtai Turki and Ottoman Turki is absolutely fraudalent once again, he compared the difference to English and Scandanavian languages.

The reality is Oghuz Turki speakers don't need to go to language school to understand Uygur-Ozbek Turki speakers. They can read Chaghtai Turki with relative ease, Navoi is taught, Isa Alptekin founder of the short lived Eastern Turkistan state in Xinjiang China made a comparison and found that there were only a few hundred words difference between Chaghtai and Ottoman Turki, that the structure is the same and that the mutual intellegebility is high.

Yet again, this member is trying to dismiss and diminish anything and everything related to Turkic people's, this has got to stop.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 21:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you claim that you easily understand Uzbek, could you please translate these two Uzbek songs for me? Thanks. #1#2 It shouldn't take you that long. As for Babur: OK, let's say that Babur called himself "Turk" and that we should fully respect his thoughts. Then why are you such a hypocrite and do not respect the belief of later Seljuq Sultans and the opinion of the Ghaznavid Sultans who considered themselvs "descendants of the Sassanians"?! Achiological findings in Afghanistans clearly prove that Ghaznavid sultans, starting with Sultan Mas'ud or possibly even earlier, openly declared themselvs descendants of Sassanid Persians. Why do you not respect their beliefs and thoughts?! Later Mughal authors, such as Ferishta, recorded Ghaznavid family trees, starting with Yazdgerd III (see Sebük Tigin).

The point is that you yourself are extremely biased in your thoughts. You claim to be "neutral", but you are not.

Tājik 23:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't trust/believe him/her

Don't trust/believe him/her (there is no masculine feminine, he/she, unga does not mean this but in this context it's probobly he because their woman singing.)

Every moment i'm weeping/upset/missing, waiting for your words/comments, You stop my world from moving

etc etc

Basically a typical love song with heartbreak etc of the dark eyed lover who cannot be trusted.

Babur wrote this in his personal autobiography, they were his personal memoirs. Nobody can realistically try to claim the ridiculous theory that Ghaznivid Sultan's were actually descended from Sassanid Kings. Ofcourse unless the Sassanids were Turkic slave's in the court, which was what the Ghaznivid's originally were. This claim could only have been made for pollitical reasons. Alot of the area ruled by the Ghaznivids was ex-Sassanid land, to create the image that they were legitimate rulers and to pacify the populations they were ruling they carried out this pollitical stunt.

Many states and rulers like to claim a long lineage and connections to the king's of the past to show their importance and that they carry noble blood. This practice was common in Europe and other parts of the world.

Even the Ottomans claimed they were directly descended from "Oghuz"/Mete Khan who live almost one and a thousand years before their state was founded.

These actions are pollitical, they have a clear motive and cannot be taken seriously.

However, Babur was not adressing the whole Empire or writing a national history. They were his personal memoir's.

If you actually believe that the Ghaznivids were descended from Sassanid Kings than you should also believe that the Nordic Kings were descended from Troy, a common medieval story by their nobility.

--Johnstevens5 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the point, Johnstevens. In almost all of your previous posts, you were preaching that it is not important what others think of Babur, but only what he himself believed - It's true: Babur called himself a "Turk" when he reached India. Maybe he really believed to be a "Turk"?! (This is your theory). Maybe it was political propaganda to scare his Indian enemies who had been defeated by Turkic slave-armies in the past (see Slave dynasty). Or maybe the word "Turk" had an absolutely different meaning 500 years ago.

You persist that "Babur should be considered a Turk because he called and considered himself a Turk", yet, when it comes to the Ghaznavids, you suddenly change your mind. Now you say: "it does not matter what the Ghaznavids thought of themselvs; it's only important what others/historians say."

Of course it's a well known fact that the Ghaznavids as well as the Seljuqs sprang from an ethnically Turkic origin. But it's also well-known that they were assimilated into the Iranian nobility to an extent that they did not consider themselvs "Turks" anymore. Both dynasties tried hard to fabricate their own version of history, linking themselvs either to Arab saints or Iranian kings of the past. In both cases, it does not matter what the kings said or believed: it's a known FACT that both dynasties were originally Turkic and this information MUST be mentioned in Wikipedia articles.

As for Babur, it's a known FACT that he was originally Mongol in origin - on his father's and mother's side. He may have spoken Chaghatay Turkic at home (the same way the Ghaznavids spoke Persian and wrote poetry in Persian), but this does not change his original Mongolian origin. He was a Berlas Mongol, and his Berlas origin that linked him to the Chaghatayid hordes of Timur was - in his view - the legitimacy to rule. Not his "Turkic language" was improtant to him, but ONLY his direct blood-relation to Mongol conquerors of the past. That's why his descendants became known as the "Mughal Shahs" - the "Mongol kings" of India.

Tājik 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not "my theory" that Babur identified himself as a Turk, it's his, he's the one that wrote it not me and they were his personal memoirs which are pretty rare regarding Muslim leaders.

We can create many conspiracy stories but the fact of the matter is, Babur viewed himself as a Turk and wrote this in Turki.

Do you actually believe that the Ghaznivid's were not Turkic? do you know how many dynasties have established a long lineage connecting themselves to the King's of the past, the list is pretty extensive.

Regarding the Ghaznivid's your correct, they were slaves in the court of the Iranic Sassanid's, as they were a small number and ruling a predominantly Iranic society they had to adapt to this.

However, the Seljuk's differ as they founded their own dynasty which in its essence originally was Turkic, later as it also ruled a largely Iranic populated area there is a clear influence, also it must be mentioned that later during the Seljuk period when the capitol was in Konya and Alanya there was a large Turkic influence again and subsequently they are one of the primary reason's of why today Turks became dominant and their language that of the official state. Leaders of the Seljuk's like AlpArslan only converted to Islam in later life, there were some Seljuk leaders who had more Iranic influence while other's had a more Turkic influence it depended on the ruler, his upbringing and the era.

Babur was not originally a Mongol and neither was Timur, Babur never called himself a Mongol and determining Mongol and Turk in that era is a difficult issue in itself because they had mixed tribes and similar language's which were often sub-dueing each other or forming tribal confederacies.

--Johnstevens5 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Babur did call himself "Mongol", as one can see on his mausoleum in Kabul (in the famous "Bāgh-e Bābor", "The Ganrden of Babur") which contains some quotes from Babur personally (here is a picture; in Mughal calligraphy (picture 8/9), Babur is directly linked to Genghis Khan). And that's also the reason why he and his descendants became known as "Mughals" - "Mongols" - and not "Turks".

Babur's direct descent from Genghis' and Timur's royal tribe - his so-called "Chingizid" (=Mongol) heritage - was in his own view his legitimacy to rule.

As for the Ghaznavids: they were not slaves at the Sassanian courts (as you have claimed many times), but at the court of the Samanids. And they were not "slaves" in the actualy meaning of the word, but rather "Turkic bodyguards" who had been trained and Islamized from their childhood on.

The Ghaznavids were ethnically Turks, but their language and culture was evidently non-Turkic. They had been Islamized and Persianized from their childhood on, when they were brought as slaves to the markets Balkh and Samarqand. That's why the Ghaznavids were never labled "Turks", because at that time, it was a synonym for "slave" or "backwardness". They fabricated their own version of history, and claimed to be descendants of Persian heros and kings, and of Arab saints.

What we know for sure that starting with Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni, none of the Ghaznavids had a Turkic mother. Mahmud himself was born to a Persian noble from Zaranj in Sistan.

As for the Seljuqs: the Seljuqs as a family were deffinitly of Oghuz Turkic origin. But they were Persianized to high degree and had intermaried with Iranian noble families, that - starting with the rule of Malik Shah - they are not to be regarded as "Turks". They used Persian in their every-day speeches, and they even claimed to be descendants of the old Iranian Shahs (that's why the later Seljuq kings had ancient Persian names of the epic, like "Kay Khusrow" and "Kay Qubadh").

Your claim that the Seljuqs started the Turkification of Anatolia is certainly wrong. Not the rule of the Seljuqs, but the fall of the Seljuqs marked the beginning of the Turkification. It were the Anatolian Beyliks who started the language-replacement. The "Rum sultanate" was - like all Seljuq sultanates - a highly Persianized state, and understood itself as the "protector of Perso-Islamic identity" during the Mongol invasion. Countless Persian scholars and writers, such as Rumi, fled to the Rum Seljuqs. Turkish scholar, Prof. Özgündenli explains:

• "... The Saljuq conquests, which took place in the second half of the 11th century, and the establishment of the Saljuq sultanate of Rum in the last quarter of the same century spread Islamic culture through Anatolia in a relatively short period. The Saljuqs championed Persian letters, and this led to the spread and production of works in Persia and Anatolia. [...] The transmission of Persian culture to Anatolia begun with the foundation of the Saljuq state in the 12th century and gained speed after the Mongol invasion of Persia in the 13th century. Many Persian scholars, writers, and poets fled to the empire of the Saljuqs of Rum, following the Mongol onslaught on the Iranian lands. These highly educated men played an important role in the revival of Persian culture and literature, which had begun already at the beginning of the 13th century. Subsequently, many works in Persian, dealing with history, literature, philosophy and Sufism, were produced in Anatolia in the 13th and 14th centuries. As a result, Persian became the language of instruction at several madrasas, and Persian words were often used for place-names, personal names, and occupational activities, as well as in certain religious, legal, and official records. As a result of those developments, in the 13th century, Anatolia was thus intensively influenced by Persian culture. Intellectual life developed very effectively in the cities, where scholars copied or created religious works. One of the most important centers at that time was Konya, the flourishing capital of the Saljuqs of Rum and the home to [...] important personalities [...] During the period of the Anatolian beyliks, following the collapse of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance, and consequently the influence of Persian culture and language weakened in Anatolia to a certain degree. ..." (- Prof. O.G. Özgündenli in Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Persian Manuscrips In Ottoman And Modern Turkish Libraries", [17])

Language is not always the definition of "ethnic origin". Both Timur and Babur were evidently of ethnic Mongol origin. Their Turkic language and their largly Persinized culture does not change this fact.

Tājik 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What you just presented above shows that if it were not for the Seljuq Turks at the time, the Persian language and culture would not have spread in Anatolia as well as it would without the Seljuq Turks. After the fall of the Seljuq Empire as you said, the Persian culture's dominance started to diminish in Anatolia as the Seljuq Empire broke up into Anatolian Beyliks and these Beyliks started to promote Turkish culture and tradition.

This is all I was trying to say: language and culture are not always the definition of "ethnicity", and the Persianized Seljuqs are the best proof. The Seljuqs not only helped feeling Persians from the east, they actively promoted Persian culture and language (because it was their own culture and language). The fall of Seljuqs also ment the end of the Persianized culture of Anatolia, since the nomadic Beyliqs - warlords and Khans of nomadic clans who dominated the Seljuq army - had neither much knowledge nor interest in the common civilized court-culture of that time. In the following decades and centuries, they fought each other, until only the Ottomans were left. And even this dynasty was still Persianized and Arabized to a high degree.

Tājik 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that the Persian culture was the culture of the Seljuqs. That is true to a certain degree. Yes it is true that Seljuqs promoted Persian culture and used the Persian language, but, the Seljuqs' only culture was not Persian. Yes, Persian culture definitely had a major impact upon the Seljuqs and their culture, but Turkish culture still existed and thrived relatively well, because if it did not, The Republic of Turkey today would not be speaking Turkish, but Persian, since the Turks in the republic of Turkey are the descendants of Seljuqs which broke up into beyliks. But again you are correct to say Seljuqs did live in a society where Persian culture was dominant, but the Seljuqs who had conquered Iran and the vicinity did not lose their Turkish culture or their language. An example could be Turks living in America or Germany, where they live with an American or German culture but still continue to uphold their Turkish traditions and speak the Turkish language at home. Nonetheless we should not be discussing the Seljuqs in a talk page for Babur.

I agree with you that the Seljuqs are not the subject of discussion in here, and therefore it is my last comment. The reason why I mentioned the Seljuqs was the comparison - the Seljuqs represent a phenomenon of the Middle Ages and prove that the modern concept of "ethnicity" is not necessairily correct for kingdoms and dynasties of the past.

The Seljuqs were certainly a totally Persianized family. Only very few old Turkic elements, such as the "clan system" and the "Atabeg" tradition, had remained.

It's preserved in the chronicles of the Ghaznavids that at the time of the Ghaznavid-Seljuq wars, the entire number of Oghuz Turks in Central Asia was not more than 70,000 - in a time, when Baghdad alone had a population of more than 300,000!

The Seljuqs and the Oghuz Turks in general were a tiny minority within a large and powerful Iranian domain, and the assimilation of the Seljuqs was just a matter of time. In order to maintain and strengthen their power in the Persian mainlands - in a time, when Persia was in political chaos after the collapse of both the Buyids and Ghaznavids - the Seljuqs had to ally themselvs to the powerful Persian and Arab nobility. They married into these nobles families, and further underlined their ambitions to rule.

Your assumtion that today's Turkey has its origin in the Seljuq dynasty is certainly wrong. It is a common misbelief. The Seljuq dynasty was NOT responsible for teh Turkicfication of Anatolia, and Turkey's origin is NOT the Seljuq era.

The COLLAPSE - the END - of the Selju Empire marks the beginning of the Turkification. Wherelese in Persia the Persian nobility, as well as the newly arrived Mongol lords, filled the political vacuum after the fall of the Seljuqs and Khwarizm Shahs, in Anatolia, there was no nobility left except the Oghuz nomads and warlords who had accompanied the Seljuqs in their wars.

That's why the original Persian language and culture (which were brought to Iran by the Seljuqs from Central Asia) were preserved in mainland Persia. In Anatolia, however, countless "beyliqs" created their own mini-states and fought each other in the following 2 centuries. Unlike the "Great Shahs" of Persia and Central Asia - most of all the Timurids - the rulers of Anatolia were still primitive nomads, not cultured. They did not know Arabic, Persian, or Greek, and thus, the local population of Anatolia was forced to lear the language of the new rulers (language replacement, the same way the European conquerors of America forced their own languages on the native population).

If the Seljuqs had been Turks in language and culture, then the Turkish language would have flourished in their entire kingdom. But the truth is that only those parts are Oghuz-speaking now that came under "beyliq" control after the fall of the Seljuq dynasty. This proves that the Seljuqs themselvs were not the ones who brought the Turkish language to Anatolia.

And this also proves that language and culture do not define ethnicity or ethnic backgroung. Although the Seljuqs were certainly Persian-speaking and highly Persianized in culture and ways of thought, they were still ethnic Turks, of original Oghuz Turkic descent.

As for Babur: hey may have been Turkic in language, but his origins and ethnicity were evidently Mongol.

Tājik 12:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Last Days

This is a minor complaint, but can you add the persian way of spelling the saying "If there is a paradise on earth, it is this, oh it is this, oh it is this" like it was before?

I found the following but I'm not sure if it is correct "Agarfirdaws bar r-yi zamfn ast, hamfn ast u hamfn ast u hamfn".

The Persian spelling (in Wiki standard) is: "... Agar Pardīs rūye zamīn ast - hamīn ast, wa hamīn ast, wa hamīn ast ...". Tājik 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)