Talk:Timur

Spellings

I'm just going to clean up some of the spellings here. Those interested can read my work on Timur, along with the sources for it, at http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1417500 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.116.10 (talk • contribs) 07:52, February 11, 2003, oldid 1850450 (UTC)

Timur versus Timur Lenk

I moved the article back from Timur Lenk: "Lenk" is a not-too-common title, and a derogatory one at that; it means "cripple". He's usually called Timur when he's not called Tamerlane. --Mirv 07:11, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mongol?

Isn't Timur a Mongol? Or shouldn't he has at least Mongolian blood? Someone should work out his ancestry.

Far as I know, Timur is of Mongol ancestry, who adopted Turkic customs since birth, since the Barlas tribe is heavily influenced by the Turks. Mandel 14:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

We need to "work out" the ancestry of one the most famous rulers in history? Excuse the impolite tone, but I find that odd. Doesn't the first para address ancestry:

His father Teragai was head of the tribe of Barlas. Great-grandson of Karachar Nevian (minister of Chagatai Khan, son of Genghis Khan, and commander-in-chief of his forces)...

Or am I missing something?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!)

Hmm, I would have thought the first paragraph mentioned he was Turkish rather than Mongolian. Or is the two terms interchangeable? Mandel 22:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

They are related. The "Turkish" did not exist back then, but evolved from that background. Notice the first line says "Turkic", not "Turkish".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 11:07, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

How related are they, racially? How possible is it that any modern-day Turks be mistaken for a Mongolian? Mandel 14:47, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Some sources say Timur claimed to be descended from Genghis Khan, to support his legitimacy. His primary background traceable is to Turkic tribes, but maybe the tribes had ties to Genghis or Genghis' family.

There are many branches of Turkic people, many have Asian background, and all Turkic ancestors shared the nomadic lifestyle of the ancient Mongolians, and other Eurasian tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR3Y077 (talk • contribs) 17:51, December 27, 2004. oldids 8869630, 10456789 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he had mongol blood in his through ancestory, his origins have been fairly well documented that he was from the regional turkish warlords, not from the previous Khanate line. He only took formally the mongolian ancestory to legitimize his right to rule the other tribal leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.68.9 (talk • contribs) 21:58, January 9, 2006, oldid 34561896 (UTC)

Other meanings of the word

this is off topic, but 'timur' (non-capital 't') means 'east (direction)' in Indonesian (Malay ?) language, which absorbed numerous words from Arabic. but, i dont know whether it's related to Timurlank. (andi_surya [at] yahoo [dot] kom) 2004/11/23 10:49 (GMT+7)

Questions about his lame foot

The articile here states that Timur's left foot was lame from birth, but the work done on the Everything2.com website [(http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1417500)] states that he was either wounded or deformed in his right leg. Plus he may have had other physical problems as well in his elbow.

Is there a way to know for certain which source is wrong, since apparently his skeletal remains were exhumed not so long ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.162.20 (talk • contribs) 13:28, December 26, 2004, oldid 8841320 (UTC)

As the one who wrote the Everything2 article some time ago, I believe the source for that statement was Hookham's Tamburlaine the Conqueror. I don't have it handy, nor do I recall what source it cited, but I do remember that it reported on an examination of his skeleton which ascribed his lameness to injuries rather than congenital defects. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He was lame because because her mother was stabbed when she was pregnant for Timur. He was wounded before birth. His fierce character is explained with this event as he was seeking to fullfil his revenge in his campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.146.215 (talk • contribs) 17:29, May 12, 2005, oldid 13626881 (UTC)

"He was lame...." Sorry but that sounds like an old wives tale. If his mother had been stabbed (and the dagger had pierced the foetus in the womb, the amniotic sac would have been broken and he would have been naturally aborted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.243.102 (talk • contribs) 13:08, May 4, 2006, oldid 51548216 (UTC)

Tamerlane vs. Timur vs. Timur Lenk

I think even Tamerlane was a derogatory name because it derived from Timur Lenk. The name he used, which is known as his full name in Central Asia today is 'Amir Timur/Temur'. This should probably be included in the names list for political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR3Y077 (talk • contribs) 17:51, December 27, 2004, oldid 8869630 (UTC)

knowledge presupposed

Quote:

"the capture of towns or villages accompanied, it might be, with destruction of the houses and the massacre of the inhabitants, the battle before Delhi and the easy victory, the triumphal entry into the doomed city, with its outcome of horrors--all these circumstances belong to the annals of India."

This is written like a discussion about things that are already known by the reader, and therefore don't need further explanation. An easy victory before Delhi? In what sense? Didn't they fight? And what about 'the triumphal entry into the doomed city, with its outcome of horrors'; is this assumed to be known by the reader, or doesn't it need further explanation because it belongs 'to the annals of India'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.33.153 (talk • contribs) 04:39, February 20, 2005, oldid 10456789 (UTC)

Death toll

The article ought to say more about the human cost of Timur's empire. The massacres at Baghdad and Delhi are mentioned, but it ought to be said that there were many other massacres, Isfahan, Sabzavar, Siva, Sus, Crimea, Sarai, Syria, and other conquered cities and countries. He wiped out the Christians of Mesopotamia and Central Asia. Estimates of the total dead in his wars and persecutions range from 7 million to 17 million [1]. Worth mentioning. Gdr 20:07, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Trying to write something about the Nestorians I came across information that Timur is the main person responsible for the almost complete annihilation of the Curch of the East. Can anyone comment to that? nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

The Catholic Encyclopedia says [2]:

The whole structure of the Nestorian Church, unequal to the trial, crumbled under the persecutions and wars of the Tatars. With Timur-Leng (1379-1405) came their utter ruin. He was a bigoted Moslem, and put to the sword all who did not escape to the recesses of the mountains. Thus did Central Asia, once open to Christian missions, see the utter extermination of the Christians, not a trace of them being left east of the Kurdish Mountains. The Christian faith was thrown back upon its last defenses in the West, where hunted and despised, its feeble remnant of adherents continued to retain, as it were, a death-grip on their churches and worship

(Clearly not a 100% neutral source, but perhaps still true.) Gdr 20:52, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Thank you Gdr. It is good enough for me. I'll add a remark to the nl. version of Timur. (and leave it to the locals here to decide what to do). nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

--Yeah, probably partly true except the emphasis on "bigoted muslim". This is the difference... you can't find in any official islamic resource such a sentence for Hitler: "He was a bigoted Christian." Actually I would expect from the resource above a bit supportive attitude :))), as Timur caused such a big damage in Ottoman Empire, that otherwise it could advance much faster into Europe.

Consistency??

This article uses both Chinggis Khan (once) and Genghis Khan (twice). Both spellings link to Genghis Khan so perhaps it would be best to make them all say "Genghis Khan"? Anichan 17:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, stick with one spelling (ideally the same name the English Wikipedia article goes by), if only to maintain a level of consistency.

Turandot

Timur is also a character in Puccini's opera Turandot. This should probably be mentioned in the Fiction section.

The name Timur

Tamerlane was not the first Asian ruler with the name Timur. As best I know, the first was the Mongol emperor Temür, grandson of Kublai Khan, who was in turn the grandson of Ghengis Khan. Ask a person educated in China who Timur was, and the response is likely to be this emperor, rather than Tamerlane (who was born 29 years after the Mongol emperor's death). There were several other Temürs in the Mongol Dynasty. I am speculating here, but I would imagine that the fact that Tamerlane had such a name lent some legitimacy to his claim to Mongol lineage.

My understanding is that Temür, roughly pronounced TYEH MOO-EHR, is a Mongolian name (as opposed to a Chinese name, which which we could imagine the original Temür might have had since he was also a Yuan Dynasty emperor of China). It is commonly said to mean "man of iron" (much like the name Stalin is said to mean "man of steel"). Perhaps it is related to Ghengis Khan's given name, Temüjin, which is also said to have a meaning related to iron. The Chinese characters for the name Temür translate, I have been told, as "iron mushroom". That sounds odd, so perhaps there is some other meaning, or perhaps there was some other meaning at that time. Or perhaps the Chinese characters are a phonetic adaptation of the Mongolian name, and so any meaning attributed to them is incidental.

I'm not sure about the Mongolian counterpart, but 'Temür' precisely means 'Iron' in Chagatai Turkic. And the other Turkic languages and dialects use the same or similar words to describe 'Iron'.

Inscription on tomb

I have heard that the inscription on Tamerlane's tomb translates as "If I were alive today, mankind would tremble."

origins

I edited the pictures on their and some of the biography. Sources were encyclopedia brittanica and books that actually are written about tamerlane. Most historians agree that Tamerlane was Mongolian. There are a quite a few errors in this article. They've actually exhumed his body. Mano1 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Gerasimov

The last line in the "References" strikes me as dodgy. The former USSR is huge, and I have trouble believing that "most" of its population is superstitious enough to think that exhuming a dead warrior's body caused Operation Barbarossa. I also can't find any references suggesting such a belief (although I'm sure any wouldn't be in English). If there isn't any actual support for the statement that Gerasimov is remembered as the dweeb who caused Stalingrad, it should be removed. --Djur 09:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it is true, I've heard about it first time when I was a kid (I'm from Uzbekistan) from my parents, that people believed that if anyone opened his tomb a terrible war would start, that belief existed before USSR was formed, and you what happened the day after they opened it...

Mongol? Again

Timur's people were inheritors of the nomadic warrior culture of the Mongols, but it is very doubtful that they were actually genetically related to the Mongols or to Genghis Khan. They are more accurately described as "Turco-Mongols," one of the two leading factions of the "Turco-Persian" society that they ruled. (The other faction, which performed the administrative functions, were the "Tajiks" (not necessarily related to the people we call Tajiks today). Acsenray

Where are you getting your information? The encyclopedia Brittanica and other encyclopedias are definitive in stating that he was Mongolian. He himself stated that he was mongolian. His name is a Mongolian name. The reconstructions of his face look Mongolian.

1. Encyclopedia Brittanica states that he was Turkic.

2. He himself stated that he was Turkic.

3. His name means 'iron' in Turkic.

4. Reconstructions of his face may look like Mongoloid, but let's not forget, ancient Turks were not of white race as well, contrarily, they had mongoloid features. Do not confuse yourselves with the countenance of the Turks of modern Turkey and Azerbaijan. They largely mixed with local peoples of the area and the surroundings where they settled.

1. Countless other encyclopaedias (such as Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica) state that he was a Mongol. And since these 2 Encyclopaedias are specialized on Islamic history, they are superior to the Britannica.

2. Timur has never claimed to be a Turk. He has always persisted to be a Mongol and a direct descendant of Ginggiz Khan. Besides that, his heritage is well known and well recorded. It's has never been a big secret that Timur belonged to the Mongol Berlas tribe and that, after his father's death, he became the chief of the tribe. He took the Mongolian name "Gurkān/kürügän" ("son-in-law") after marrying into Ginggiz Khan's family.

3. "Teymur" is Turco-Mongolian and was quite common in Central-Asia back then. His name can't be a proof for his alleged Turkic heritage. Many Turks of back then had Arabic or Persian names. Besides that, all of his children and grand-children had Persian names (Shah-Rukh, Miran-Shah, Jahangir Mirza, Piran, etc). But this does not make Timur or his children "Persians".

4. Agreed.

Tājik 01:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Barlas tribe was originally Mongolian, when they settled in what is now Uzbekistan they mixed with the Turks and soon assimilated in the Turkic majority. And their mother tongue was Turkic. Therefore we refer to him as a Turkic warlord who has to some extent Mongolian blood in his ancestry. For instance, I am a Turk and I have somewhat Georgian blood in my ancestry, but that doesn't make me a Georgian.

2. Timur had never claimed to be a Mongolian. He only claimed that he had Mongolian blood and descended from Genghis Khan out of political reasons, and most probably it was a political manoeuvre to rule the other Turkic leaders.

3. This is not only part of Islamic history, part of Turkic history as well, and I have lots of turkish encyclopaedias and other sources stating that Timur was precisely Turkic. And moreover, I cannot share your idea of Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica being superior to Encyclopaedia Britannica.

4. Not agreed.

1. The Berlas were Mongols, and they claimed to be Mongols, despite their Turkic language. In fact, that was the case with many peoples back then. Descendants of Arab saints - thought totally assimilated by others - still claimed to be "Arabs". And in case of Seljuqs, who were totally assimilated by Persians, noone ever claimed that the Seljuqs were "Persians". This is probably the best comparison: like the Berlas Mongols, the Seljuq Turks were assimilated and had lost their original language. Yet, they are still regarded as "Turks" and not "Persinas" (although some historical documents state that the Seljuq princes were "Tajiks", which would be the same as "Persian"). The same goes to the Berlas: they had lost their original Mongolian tongue (which was quite similar to old Turkic), but they were still Mongols.

2: Timur has always persisted to be a Mongol, this is even written in his biography (the alledged authorbiography of Timur, the so-called "Tuzuk Timur", was written many many years after his death and is not reliable). As far as I know, there is also a family-tree carved on a stone in his mausoleum, desperately trying to link Timur with Ginggiz Khan (though the name of his MOngolain ancestors is well known).

3: it does not matter whether you believe in the superiority of the EI or EoI or not. The only thing that matters is that learned and well-respected experts around the world consider these 2 encyclopaedias superior. Just an example: the Encyclopaedia Britannica has some 4 pages about the Seljuqs, which is quite good. But that is no comparison to more than 100 well-sourced pages in the Encyclopaedia of Islam!

Tājik 10:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The tribe's name was 'Barlas' or 'Barulas' rather than 'Berlas'.

2. For God's sake, what are we arguing about? If Timur's mother tongue was Turkic, that means he was Turkic. And we know that the Barlas tribe, which is of Mongolian origin, settled in southern Turkestan in the wake of Genghis Khan. Then they mixed with local Turks there and soon assimilated within the Turkic majority, and of course their mother tongue became Turkic. So, what I mean is this tribe at the time of Timur was not a Turkic speaking Mongolian tribe, but a Turkicized tribe mixed with the Turkic majority with some Mongolian background. And their mother tongue was of course Turkic.

3. I shall give you an example. As you can know the first Bulgarians settled in what is now Bulgaria were Turkic. They founded their own kingdom. And as time went by, they started to get assimilated within the Slavs, eventually they forgot their own language and adopted the Slavic one. So, the modern day Bulgarians are a Slavic nation. Shall we call them a Turkic people? According to your mentality, we have to do so. Because what the Bulgarians went through was quite similar to that of the Barlas tribe.

4. As for the Seljuk Turks, yes the empire they founded used Persian as the official language. Because Persian was the lingua franca of the region at those times. But the Seljuks never forgot their own mother tongue, and used in their daily lives. This is for sure, because otherwise the later Turkification of Anatolia and Azerbaijan would have been impossible.

5. Timur had never persisted that he was a Mongol. He had claimed that he had Mongolian blood and descended from Genghis Khan desperately out of political reasons. Because he had to prove his legitimacy to rule over the other Turkic leaders. Certainly it was a political manoeuvre and does not prove anything.

6. Encyclopedia of Islam or the others may give much more information about Timur than Encyclopedia Britannica gives. This is not the point. The point is how correct and legitimate the information that they give is. And Encyclopedia Britannica has always been a trustable reference regarding the information it gives. Furthermore, I have a Turkish version of Encyclopedia of Islam, it reads that he was an Asian conqueror. Then in later parts, it gives brief information about his Mongolian ancestry too, that we never deny. What we say is, apart from his Mongolian ancestry, he was majorly of Turkic origin and his mother tongue was Turkic.

7. Hopefully agreed.

Kizzuwatna 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison with Bulgars is illogical, because the change from an alleged Turkic background (which is nor really for sure) to Slavic took place more than 1500 years ago. In case of the Berlas and the Kipchak-Turks of Central Asia, it was less than 150 years.

As for the Seljuqs: there is no doubt that the Seljuqs (as well as Ghaznavids, Ilkhanids, and - to a much lesser extent - even the Qarakhanids) spoke Persian and even considered themselvs Persians. There are countless historical documents from the Seljuq persiod proving this fact. They even claimed to be direct descendants of the Iranian Shahs. That's why they gave their children - in addition to Arabic/Islamic names - old Persian names, such as "Kay Kubad" or "Khusrow". The Encyclopaedia Iranica states:

• "... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..." "Shahrbanu" by M.A. Amir-Moezzi in Encyclopaedia Iranica

The Turkification of Anatolia began AFTER the Seljuqs, with the rise of the Turcoman "Beyliqs":

• "... 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. ..." "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish lLibraries" by O.Özgündenli in Encyclopaedia Iranica

As for the EI and EIr: these works are the most authoritative sources for oriental studies. Beitannica is not specialized on oriental and Islamic history, and usually has many shortcommings, though - no question - it is one of the best encycloipaedias available. The EI and EIr are specialized on Islamic history, and more than 300 experts from all over the world write their articles. EI and EIr are totally authoritative. In order to disprove either EI or EIr, one has to present reliable sources written by known experts. Britannica is no match for that. All universities in the world base their sturdies on these two encyclopaedias, not on Britannica. And if Iranica says that he was a Mongol (in fact, that's what Iranica states), then Timur WAS a Mongol.

Tājik 16:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. So, you wrote that if Encyclopaedia Iranica says that he was a Mongol, then Timur WAS a Mongol? Sorry, my friend, but this is quite a prejudice. As you may have noticed, I have never judged that if Encyclopaedia Britannica says he was Turkic, then Timur WAS Turkic. Or I have never judged that if his mother tongue was Turkic, then Timur WAS Turkic. If I had done so it would have been a prejudice like yours. Instead, I have only asserted my claims. And, to my mind, those claims are quite reasonable.

2. My comparison with the Bulgarians was quite logical. Firstly, there is no doubt with the ethnic origin of the first Bulgarians. They were of Turkic stock like their brothers who settled in today's Tartary and founded their Bulgar Khanate. Secondly, Slavization of Tuna Bulgars was accomplished in about 200 years, not in 1500 years as you alleged. :)

3. Maybe there can be some exceptions, but I have to repeat that Seljuk Turks did not forget their mother tongue and kept using it in their daily lives. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for them to Turkify Asia Minor and some other lands. Yes, Persian was the lingua franca of the region at those times, and hence the official language of Seljuk Empire was Persian. And Seljuk administrators were under the influence of Persian culture and language. But this influence did not let them forget their own language. And we should remember that Anatolian Turkish princes who adopted Turkish as the official language instead of Persian after the collapse of the Seljuk Empire were of Seljuk tradition too.

4. So, under the light of this information, I should reiterate my opinion. Timur was ethnically of Turkic and Mongolian stock. But culturally and linguistically he and his tribe was Turkicized. Therefore, he should be refered to as a Turkic, or at least Turco-Mongol, conqueror.

Kizzuwatna 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Encyclopaedia Iranica is superior to Britannica. This is not my opinion, but that of REAL experts - professionals who have specialized on Oriental, Islamic, and Iranian history. If you can't accept this simple fact, then it's your problem, not that of Wikipedia.

2. When Bulgarians entered European history, they were Turkic-speaking. But new archaelogical findings as well as linguistic studies (mostly by Bulgarian scholar P. Dobrev) have revealed that the origin of the Bulgars was the Indo-European-speaking regions of Inner Asia. There are striking links of old Bulgarian names, titles, and words to Sanskrit and Scythian. Besides that, I have not claimed that "Slavization of the Bulgars took 1500 years", but that the Slavization of Bulgarians took place 1500 years ago. That means that Bulgars have been Slavs (keeping in mind that the Turkic-speakers have always been a tiny minority within a strong Slavic-speaking majority) in the past 1500 years. In this regard, your comparison IS illogical, because you are comparing a people who have been Slavic-speaking for at least 1500 years to a few tribes in Inner Asia who had become Turkic-speaking in less than 150 years.

3. Of course, you can deny facts and sources, but this does not change the fact that the Seljuqs were native Persian-speakers from the time they entered mainland Persia. The Kynyk Oghuz Turks were long-time allies of the Samanids, and the had been influenced by Persians way before the Seljuqs entered the scene. It was not the House of Seljuq that tukicized Anatolia - as you claim - but the nomanic "beyliqs" who filled up the political vaccum after the fall of the Seljuqs. Unlike the Seljuqs who were highly educated and had become totally assimilated by the urban Persian populations of Balkh, Nishapur, and Hamadan, the Turcoman "beyliqs" were tribal chiefs with their traditional Turkic warrior-nomads, settling in certain areas that were granted to them by the Seljuq sultans. There is not a single source proving your claim that Seljuqs were "Turkic speaking" ... in fact, ALL sources point to the well-known fact that Seljuqs were native Persian-speakers - especially after intermarriage with the local Iranian nobles. And besides that, the administrators of the Seljuqs were not just "influenced by Persians" - they WERE ethnic Persians, such as the famous Persian vezir Nizam al-Mulk. Turkification of Anatolia began after the collapse of the Seljuq sultans, when the military chieftains of the Turcoman nomads - the traditional backbone of Muslim armies - took over the power in Anatolia. In Iran and Cenntral-Asia where Islamic culture was well-established, Turcoman nomads were not able to take over the power. But in Anatolia that had just been conquered by Muslims and was depopulized, there was no Muslim nobility to take over the power - so, the military chieftains fought each other, and after decades of war, the Ottoman beyliqs conquered all of Anatolia. And since the beyliqs were not as civilized and cultured as the Seljuqs or Timurids, they had to force their own language on the Anatolian population instead of using the established languages of the elite: Persian and Arabic.

4. Timur was ethnically a Mongol, Turco-Persian in language, and his culture was NOT Turkish - as you claim - but evidently Perso-Islamic ("Turkic culture" means traditional nomadic life-stly of the Central Asian stepps). And since we can't lable Timur Turkic, Persian, Arabic, and Mongol at once, we usually take his ethnic origin, which was evidently Mongol and not Persian or Turkic.

Tājik 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. You can claim everything, but one thing you can't change, that his mother tongue was Turkic. And this is fair enough to make him Turkic by alone. And besides, he was ethnically of Turkic and Mongolian stocks. If you give up taking Encyclopadia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica as the only sources and start to research other reliable resources, you will understand what I mean.

2. Turkic culture of southern Turkestan at the time of Timur is not a nomadic life-style of Central Asian steppes only. Instead, Turkic culture of those times was a bundle of Turkic, Sogdian, Persian and Islamic cultures. And Barlas tribe was precisely within this culture, along with their Turkic mother tongue. They had no so much difference from the rest of the Turkic society. Hence, they should be considered Turkic rather than Mongolian.

3. My comparison with the Bulgarians was quite logical. Because, let alone modern Bulgarians, even the Bulgarians during the reign of Boris I are considered Slavic, since he adopted Christianity, threw away the old language and shamanistic traditions and took the Slavic tongue. And this was about 200 years later than the first Bulgarians settled in today's Bulgaria. Moreover, the Bulgarians were definitely of Turkic stock since we know in detail the language and the culture of them from their relatives, the Volga Bulgars. And the modern Chuvash language, which is the unique heir of the ancient Bulgarian language, is a Turkic tongue. I had the chance to study it for awhile.

4. As for the Seljuk Turks, the grand vizier Nizam Ul-Mulk was of course of Persian origin. If you look at the Ottoman history, you can find lots of viziers and grand viziers of non-turkic origin too. It won't make any difference. And when I said that "the Seljuks, although they used Persian and Arabic in their official lives, did not forget their own language", I meant the Turkish origined ones, not the Persians like Nizam Ul-Mulk of course.

5. So, all the serious information we gathered so far suggests that Timur should be regarded as Turkic rather than Mongolian, since his tribe mixed with the local Turks ethnically and they were Turkicized both culturally and linguistically.

6. Finally, I feel that I shoud give up this discussion although whatever you will write in reply to this. What I can advise to you is that you should learn to be much more unbiased and give up to take only the islamic and iranian references seriously and search the other references too.

Kizzuwatna 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. It's not me who is "claiming", but you are. And since you are an ethnic Turk, it's nothing surprising. EI and EIr are authoritative sources written by scholars and experts. Why should I reject their information because of some claims of Turkish nationalists or unreliable sources?! Besides that, the EI and EIr are not the only sources stating the fact that Timur was an ethnic Mongol:

• "... 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. ..." Timur (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press)
• "... 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...." "The Timurid states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries", M.S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth, eds. (Paris: UNESCO, 1998)
• "... A new challenge also arose for these three Khanates, in the form of an invasion of all three by another Mongol leader, Timur. An arrow wound suffered in his youth sufficiently injured his leg as to earn him the name Timur-i-Lenk in Persian, or Timur the Lame ..." The Timurid Empire (The Islamic World to 1600 / The University of Calgary)

So, as you can see, there are plenty of other good sources disproving your claim that "Timur was a Turks".

2. The Turco-Persian culture of back then was well-defined. The caste of religious leaders consisted of Arabic-speaking peopl, many also of ethnic Arab origin. The caste of intellectuals consisted of the cultured and urban Persian-speaking population (see Tajiks or Sart). And the warrior caste consisted of Turco-Mongol warrior-nomads of the stepps. The Timurid culture would have been discribed as "Sart" - a usually Persian-speaking, Muslim elite, with some Turkic intellectuals (such as Nava'i; yet, because of his Turkic heritage, Nava'i was not able to reach the rank of vezir, which was exclusivly reserved for ethnic Persians. That's why Nava'i was called "Amir/Mir", which is a military title and usually given to Turks). By giving his children Persian names, adopting the Persian-language as the official language of the court, and appointing Persian intellectuals to high positions (such as Gith ud-Din Tarkhan, the father of Gauhar Shad), Timur made no question about what culture he belonged to - and that culture was deffinitly not "Turkic".

3. I know what you mean with "Seljuqs", and you are wrong. The Seljuq SULTANS and PRINCES were native Persian-speakers, many of them having Persian mothers. The Seljuqs had no interest in Turkish culture or language. The very very few literary works written in Turkish were due to Sufi mystics who had inspired the Turcoman nomads, such as the Persian saint Hajji Bektash Wali (who wrote his wroks in Arabic) who inspired Yunus Emre to write his poetry. There were no officially supported court poets - there are no documents in Turkish language. All sources and all documents prove that the Seljuqs had become totally assimilated and naturalized. This may also explain the Oghuz revolts against the Seljuq which at some times gave the sultans some hard time. In here, you are only giving claims, but no proves. You are totally ignoring sources and facts.

4. Which sources? lol The ONLY one you have presented above?! You must be kidding ... as far I can see, MOST of the sources simply state the known truth that he was a Mongol. EOD.

5. I am being biased?! Unlike you, I do not have some "nationalistic agenda" to push. I am neither Turk nor Mongolian - I am just analyzing the sources, and it just happens that the most important and most reliable sources state that he was Mongol. EOD. This may be hard for a Turk to understand, but it is simply the truth. EOD.

Tājik 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new link. Actually, in the book that Timur have written himself he says he is Turkish. That was why he couldn't use "Khan" because at that time you had to be descended from Genghis Khan to be called "Khan". Instead he was called Gurgen, which meant something like groom. Also his name Timur is Turkish, all of the reliable sources say he is a Turk or at most a Turco-mongol.

Yes. The claims of lineage were made up to legitimize his right to rule the other turkish tribes.

His later descendants the Moguls?

If he was a descendant of the Mongolian Barlas tribe (which even today exist in the Kashmiri and Punjab states of the Indian subcontinent) and his later descendants, the Mogul emporers of India were all referred to as Mogul, then surely that should indicate his Mongolian heritage? I do believe that the Turkic peoples were a community that spoke the Turkic language as opposed the modern day Turkey being the true descendants of the Turkics i.e. somewhere mentioned his caste statue looks more mongolian than Turkish (or to that effect). Just my 2cents worth... --Raja 11:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Do We Need Translations?

No need to speak.

Another article should be used as a template

What does this mean?

"Please read the following accordingly and refer to other sources in order to have the facts :"

The writer is suggesting that we read the article? Thanks for the tip but it's not really necessary to suggest that we read the article - we will do so if we want.

Baghdad?

Timur was said to be a Turk living in the tribe of the Chagatai Khanate. However, due to assimalation of the races, Timur possess Mongolian features (as well as many Turks did) and would later claim to have Mongol blood and a descendent of Genghis Khan.

But what I'm wondering is why did he attacked Baghdad? Didn't it get sacked bad enough a hundred years before by Hulagu?

OK final say on the article of turkic vs. mongol

Turkic is not an ethnic group - it is a linguistic and cultural group!!!

Hence, you can be turkic but white; turkic but mongol - hence timur is mongolian by heritage - but he was turkicized. that does not mean that he is a turkic person - just that his family has adopted turkic ways. an african in denmark who adopts danish ways is not truly danish by ethnicity...

1. Ethnicity is largely determined by the linguistics and culture rather than racial features. Hence, the term 'Turk' does indicate an ethnic group. Yes, they largely mixed with the local peoples of the lands wherever they settled, thus while the westerners gained somewhat caucasian countenance, the easterners retained their mongoloid features. But you can be sure that Turks are not the only ethnic group having different racial features. In fact, you can hardly find any ethnic groups in which ethnic diversity doesn't prevail. Look at the Arabs, while the Sudanese ones are almost Negroid, you can find blonde Arabs in Palestine or Lebanon. Or see the Russians, Greeks, Israelites or Persians, all of them are mixtures of different races. But when we mention about them we refer to them as ethnic groups.

2. So much for the ethnicity, what about the African in Denmark :) Joke apart, this has not been a good comparison. A foreigner in another country retains his mother tongue and his ethnic background. But this is not our case. Barlas tribe was originally Mongolian, it's ok. But when they settled in today's Uzbekistan, they largely mixed with the Turks and soon assimilated within the Turkic majority. Their mother tongue was Turkic. So, they were not Mongolians who adopted the Turkic language. They were majorly of Turkic origin who had to some extent Mongolian blood.

read from the encyclopedia brittanica... Life "Timur was a member of the Turkicized Barlas tribe, a Mongol subgroup that had settled in Transoxania (now roughly corresponding to Uzbekistan) after taking part in Genghis Khan's son Chagatai's campaigns in that region. Timur thus grew up in what was known as the Chagatai khanate. After the death in 1357 of Transoxania's current ruler, Amir Kazgan, Timur declared his fealty…"

I think you missed the first paragraph. It reads that he was a Turkic conqueror of Islamic faith. Of course, Barlas tribe was originally Mongolian, but they largely mixed with the Turks and soon assimilated within the Turkic majority. So, he was majorly of Turkic origin with somewhat Mongolian blood.

Damascus

Information regarding his conquest and sacking of Damascus is worthy of inclusion. Of particular interest is also what he had to say, prior to this venture: "Bow down low, for I am the scourge of God appointed to chastise you, since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity except me. You are wicked, but I am more wicked than you, so be silent and suffer your doom." Inclusion of this reference within the videogame Eternal Darkness, while cheesy, may also be warranted among the "fictional" or "reference" sections of this piece. --AWF

Continuation of the Mongol/Turkic debate

Can't verify the accuracy of this article found on this site : http://www.tibet.com/Status/mongol.html

But on it, it states : "Timurlane was a descendant of Kantchar-Noyan, Chinggis Khan's half-brother (from a different mother). "

Missing religion!

According to one Arab historian that lived at that time, Taimor was a Mangolian descent from his mother only, while being Turkic from his father. He became lame due to injury in his early life where he was steeling sheep.

The human cost of Timur's empire is astronomical compared to the number of people at that time. Many major cities have been destroyed completely by him, and some never recovered.

In his invasion of Baghdad, he killed between 90,000 to 100,000 after he entered the city. That does not include people who died in the siege, or because of hunger, or because they threw themselves in the river. Details are well documented.

Someone asked: "But what I'm wondering is why did he attacked Baghdad? Didn't it get sacked bad enough a hundred years before by Hulagu?" Okay, he had a habit of attacking the city multiple times so he can make sure their are no survivors. Aleppo is an example.

One thing important that was not mentioned here. His religion! Timur was Nusairi. He made most of his wars to destroy any Sunni civilization. Please see the Arabic version of this article. It has much more details about him.

--Islami 23:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Timurs religion was almost irrelevent to him, not so to other members of the family, but Timur broke oaths sworn on a Qur'an, and killed Muslims and Kafir with equal abandon. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of ironic since although there is a big claim on how it is against Islam for a Muslim to kill other Muslims, just take a look at the recent conflicts : Iran vs Iraq, Iraq vs Kuwait, Saddam vs Kurds, Saddam vs everybody, Bin Laden vs everybody, extremists vs civilians. Religion is thrown out the door when it comes to achieving a particular intrests.

Blows landed on other Muslims (?)

Don't know if this is suitable for the article, so I'll mention it here. A friend who is a history buff mentioned to me a a quote from Colin McEvedy, that considering what a pious Muslim Timur was it's odd that his blows nearly all landed on other Muslims. --Singkong2005 ^talk 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Who said Timur was pious ? Whoever said it either knows little about Timur or little about Islam. Timur was a warlord, one of the most effective history has seen, his religion is somewhat trivial. Timur was as Muslim as Napolean was Catholic. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why did he go out of his to order his troops only to sack the Hundu parts of Delhi? Why did he deliberatly destroy the Nestorian church and try to annhilate the Christians of Georgia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.64.154 (talk • contribs) 15:12, August 29, 2006 (UTC)

The same reason why he decided to sack Baghdad and make mountains of severed heads from the inhabitants(Muslims). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.204.2 (talk • contribs) 15:16, October 3, 2006 (UTC)

Turco-Mongol vs. Mongol

I think the term Tuco-Mongol is correct, because it explains both his Mongol ethnicity as well as his Turkic language. Unfortunately, it does not explain his mostly Persian culture and Islamic faith, but so far Turco-Mongol does not have an alternative (maybe Turco-Persian ?!?! I do not know.). Some poeple believe that Turco-Mongol means ethnic Turkish, but that's wrong. It means Turkic speaking Mongol, and therefore it is the best description for Timur. Ever thought about leaving the ethnic lable out of the intro?! By replacing it with something like Central Asian warlord?! --82.83.156.223 23:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statement completely.. Except for the proposal to exclude his ethnicity.. That would not be encyclopedic at all - all other encyclopedia articles (in Wiki and outside Wiki) of persons, especially important figures, have a reference to that person's nationality or ethinicity in the intro. Removing that would be simply dodging the issue: kicking the ball out of the field basically.. regards Baristarim 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be smart. Personally, I'd go halfway: break it down according to each of the seperate categories: i.e. genealogy, language, culture, etc. For example, the current wording of the article uses descent (genealogy), which means that actually either Turco-Mongol or Mongolian would be correct, because Turco-Mongols (according to Wikipedia's article, anyway), are of Mongolian descent. If we can get sources of well-known and reputable historians who have commented specifically one way or another about the ethnicity of Timur (and not just a bunch of articles from encyclopedias), we can use that.

There are still a few objections (previously raised by various editors):

• Timur was not actually Mongolian at all, rather, he assumed that in order to gain influence
• Timur was more Turk than Mongol. Note that in this context we are referring to Turk as a genealogy, as there is little doubt that Timur spoke mostly Turkish (language)
• The constant citing of other encyclopedias, which, as tertiary sources, are not really sources
• How far back in history should we go: if his great great great grandparents were Mongolian, had enough time passed to change that?
• Also, the huge discussion in Mongol? Again has to be summarized and condensed. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Preview the books :

1. Searching for Hassan: An American Family's Journey Home to Iran
2. Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube
3. The Turks of Central Asia in History and at the Present Day
4. Exploration by Land: The Silk and Spice Routes
5. Lonely Planet Delhi by Patrick Horton
6. Brief History of Islam

--85.96.214.146 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, please tell us what your position is, as it's not immediately obvious from the books you have cited (and you have no user contribution history). Here is my analysis:

Books 1 and 5 do not clarify the meaning of Turkic, so it's safe to assume that they're using it in a linguistic context. Books 3, 4 and 6 use the term Turkic but imply that there is some meaningful connection to genealogy (3 refers to "Turkic blood", 4 refers to a "Turkic origin" in contrast to his control of the Mongolian empire, 6 talks of "Turkic parents"). Book 2 directly labels Timur as a Turk.

In terms of reputability, 1, 4 and 5 seem to be primarily focused on other topics, so they cannot be called expert opinions on the subject. Book 6 appears to be an overview of the subject, and thus can be considered a tertiary source. Maria Czaplicka (wrote book 3) appears to be a reputable historian, although I'm not sure she is most qualified for the subject at hand. Book 2 is also a survey text by the fairly obscure Gerard Chaliand, although reader response to the book was overall positive. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 01:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me say, currently reside in Istanbul, not of Turkish origin. Meanwhile, I admired your book review, not less than a pro. Keep up the good work. --85.96.214.146 01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with IP 82.83.156.223. There is - all in one - no need to mention Timur's origin in the intro, Central Asian warlord would probably be the best and most neutral solution. The article Babur, for example, says Muslim conqueror from Central Asia. His Mongol origin, Turkic native tongue, and his Persian culture are mentioned in the text.

@ Edward Z. Yang: you are totally underestimating the improtance of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. While Britannica, Columbia Encyclopaedia, etc are only encyclopaedias, the EI (as well as the Encyclopaedia Iranica) is a master-piece of authoritative articles written by leading experts who have specialized on certain fields. Being nominated as an author for the EI is one of greatest honors for an orientalist - and only a very few are nominated! (Not even Bernard Lewis has ever had such an honor, as far as I know!).

The article "Timur" is written by Beatrice F. Manz, the leading expert on Central Asian history, especially when it comes to Timur and his family. She has written several books about Timur and the Chaghatayyid royals, and enjoys much respect in this field. Thus, the article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam is the most scholarly and authoritative source available, and this source makes clear that Timur was evidently Mongol.

500 years ago, the terms "Turkic", "Mongol", "Indian", "Persian", etc had totally different meanings. "Turkic" and "Mongol" were designation of a certain way of life, namely the "primitive" nomadic way of life of the stepps - while "Turks" were Muslim nomads (regardless of ethnic origin), "Mongols" were considered pagans (that's why usually later Mongols were termed "Turks"). The term "Persian" was not used at that time, but without doubt all kinds of peoples regarded themselvs part of the so-called Persian culture, and - in case of the Timurids - part of the national identity of Greater Khorasan. While Timur was without doubt a Mongol/Turk in his early life, he was not a "foreign conqueror" to the established Persian tradition. He himself was part of this culture, and the fact that all of his sons had ancient Indo-Iranian names taken from the Persian national epic Shahnameh (Shah-Rokh, Piran, Miran, Jahangir) proves this. By the time he became the legendary "world conqueror", Timur was not a "simple nomadic (=Turco-Mongol) warlord" anymore, but a highly civilized Islamic conqueror, surrounded by countless artists, scholars, and writers.

Your claim that his alleged Mongol origin was "political propaganda" is wrong. Timur did not have to claim that he was Mongol, everyone knew that he was Mongol (that's also the reason why his descendants in India became known as Mughals which means Mongols). He was the chief of one of the few last original Mongol tribes that had once invaded Central Asia. He was warlord and chief by inheritance, and when he married into Chaghatay's family, he took the name son-in-law - that was totally enough for him. His political propaganda followed much later when he conquered Persia proper and was in need of local allies. That's why he further claimed to be a descendant of Ali ibn Abu Talib and turned his focus on the Muslim population of his large empire.

The change of language and culture within the small Mongol elite in Central Asia describes the cultural evolution of these people from primitive Mongol butchers to Islamaized Central Asian nomads (= Turks), later to urban nobles (=Persian), and at the end to a highly civilized and well-respected dynasty of Muslim nobles (= Indo-Persian India). 500 years ago, Timur was a Mongol in origin, Turk in language, Persian in culture, and Arab in faith. And because the modern concept of "nationalism" did not exist back then, he was all at the same time. Yet, analyzing his life and what he stands for, it is very clear that he personally put his Mongol origin above all - above his Turkic tongue, his Persian culture, and his Arabic faith.

I am fine with Turco-Mongol, but Central Asian would be better.

Tājik 09:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned before here in the discussion, removing nationality or ethinicity would be simply dodging the issue: kicking the ball out of the field basically. Everyone who reads the article will conceive that he was Central Asian. So, let's keep Turco-Mongol, it seems ok.

--Chapultepec 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be the other way arround. The question of ethnicity is the critical point, not his Central Asian heritage. He should be mentioned as a "Central Asian conqueror" while his ethnic, cultural, and linguistic background should be mentioned in the article in detail. Tājik 10:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim's before-mentioned comments will answer this I think. That would not be encyclopedic at all - all other encyclopedia articles (in Wiki and outside Wiki) of persons, especially important figures, have a reference to that person's nationality or ethnicity in the introduction. Central Asian seems a bit geographical rather than national or ethnic. So, Turco-Mongol seems much better for the intro. You said as well that you're fine with Turco-Mongol. So, let's keep it.

--Chapultepec 10:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Baristarim and Chapultepec think that ethnicity should be mentioned at the beginning of the article. 82.83.156.223 and Tajik like Central-Asian. The primary argument for mentioning ethnicity is that this is an essential piece of information. I suppose that this is a valid argument, however, it's fairly well established that Turco-Mongol does have some baggage associated with it that is not desirable. Regardless of which we choose, I think a footnote would definitely be in order that explains all the circumstances of the time that make a specific ethnic assertion slightly controversial (though not very) and points to a more comprehensive description of his background.

@Tajik: You present a compelling case for the reputability of EoI, so I won't dispute that. I'm not precisely sure what you are trying to assert in your discussion of the changing meaning of terms: since we are writing this encyclopedia for modern people, we should use modern terms. You also discuss his changing identity from Turco-Mongolian warload to civilized Islamic: while genealogy cannot change, ethnicity can, which make it all-the-more important to not use ambiguous terms. Finally, I did not make the claim: I was simply restating it from an earlier person. I am inclined to believe you, but a source would be nice. :-)

Your conclusion "Timur was a Mongol in origin, Turk in language, Persian in culture, and Arab in faith" strikes at the core of this debate. You then assert that he was, above-all, Mongolian, but you still would back "Central Asian." Perhaps we should say Central Asian, but still the big four facts are important enough to be worth mentioning in the leading section. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 15:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

@ Chapultepec: no, not all encyclopaedias mention ethnicity in the very first sentense. In case of Timur, neither the Encyclopaedia of Islam, nor the original version of the Britannica call him "Turkic" or "Mongol", but simply "Central Asian". Also check the 1911th edition of Britannica: [3].

@ Edward Z. Yang: if we are writing this text for modern people, then we should neither use "Turkic" nor "Persian", but maybe simply "Muslim" and "Central Asian". It's already disturbing that "modern people" easily confuse the Turks of the Midieval Central Asia with the modern population of Turkey - in fact, these two groups have almost nothing in common. The difference between the Medieval Turk of Central Asia and modern Turks of Turkey is as big as between the ancient Latin-speaking population of Rome and modern so-called "Latinos". This is exactly why I want to avoid the term "Turk" - and, unfortunately, that's the reason why Turkish nationalistis desperately want to include it.

There is no need to mention his ethnic background in the intro. And even IF, it should be "Mongol" and not "Turkic". An African-American may be Germanic in language, but he is certainly not Germanic in origin.

Tājik 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have EoI, but I can see that in Britannica it reads in the beginning that he was a Turkic conqueror. And the encyclopedias generally tend to give the nationality or ethnicity of the important personages in the beginning of the article. To call him as Central Asian would be dodging the issue, kicking the ball out of the field, as Baristarim said. This term is much more geographical rather than national or ethnic.

And I think a couple of hours ago you yourself wrote that you're fine with Turco-Mongol, so there shouldn't be any problems. Even the anon user who suggested the word 'central asian' wrote that Turco-Mongol is the best description for Timur.

As for the Turkish nationalists or the Turkic-Turkish difference, believe me, anyone with a brief knowledge of the topic would understand the difference between Turkic and Turkish. So, there won't be any confusion.

--Chapultepec 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Britannica does not say "Turkic", it says:

“ ... Timur Lenk means “Timur, the lame.” But the handicap did not stop Timur from becoming one of the fiercest and most successful of the conquerors to come out of Central Asia. ... [4] ”

In case of his "Turkic" ethnicity, Britannica is very obviously contradicting itself:

“ ... As ruler of the principality of Fergana in Turkestan, his birthplace, Baber first tried to recover Samarkand, the former capital of the empire founded by his Mongol ancestor Timur Lenk, or Tamerlane ... [5] ”

I think that "Central Asian" is the best solution. "Indian", "American", and "Mesopotamian" are also geographical descrioptions, but widely used in Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias.

Tājik 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Concise Britannica Online, Turkic conqueror of Islamic faith whose conquests reached from India and Russia to the Mediterranean Sea. This is also Britannica and it gives the nationality in the beginning.

And I repeat, the encyclopedias tend to give the nationalities or ethnicities of important personages in the beginning. You can check it with various encyclopedias.

Mesopotamian can be a geographical term, but Indian and American have national meanings as well. To put his background as Central Asian would be dodging the issue, as I said thousand times, by giving only a geographical term.

And as far as I can see you are the editor of the article 'Turco-Mongol'. So, there shouldn't be any reason for you to object to writing the origin of Timur as Turco-Mongol.

--Chapultepec 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, I think your real motivation above all is this:This is exactly why I want to avoid the term "Turk".. That is not an encyclopedic way of putting things, just because you want to avoid a term for sociopolitical considerations on the street doesn't mean it would be academic.. Every academician knows the difference between Turkic and Turkish, I mean I think the Wiki would be the first encyclopedia not to include Timur's ethnicity! :)) Please refrain from accusing people who dont think like you of being a nationalist et al.. Based on your statement that I cited, I also have the right to wonder whether your efforts are motivated by nationalism.. Again, nobody is going to take the easy way and simply opt for Central Asian, we have to be as informative as possible.. I mean, why don't we change all biographies in Wiki then? :) Bill Clinton is a North American politician, Beatles were a Western European band, Stalin was a Eurasian dictator etc.. You see, that wouldn't make sense either.. :)) Baristarim 03:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Timur was not Turkic, he was a Mongol. The most authoritative sources and the most respected scholars on this issue (including Beatrice F. Manz, THE leading expert on Timur's life and history) agree that he was MONGOL. See here. And since you seem not to trust anyone except ethnic Turks, let me show you the work of a leading Turkish historican, namely Prof. Uli Schamiloglu:

• "... Ruy Gonzáles de Clavijo writes that the country over which Tamerlane ruled was known as Mongolia [...] Perhaps it would be fair to say that Tamerlane did not promote a Turkic Islamic high culture as much as he did the Islamic culture of his time, which in Central Asia relied on Persian as the major literary language. [...] Certainly, the major chronicles written to record his campaigns [...] were written in Persian. ..." (U. Schamiloglu, "The Rise Of An Islamic Turkic Culture In Transoxania", University of Wisconson-Madison; published in "Beautés du mélange", trans. V. Fourniau, Samarcande, 1400-1500. La cité-oasis de Tamerlan: coeur d'un Empire et d'une Renaissance, ed. V. Fourniau (Paris: Autrement, 1995), Chapter 12, pp. 191-203)

Tājik 15:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The article you gave does not say that Timur was a Mongol.

2. In the beginning of this discussion (namely Turco-Mongol vs. Mongol) there are some links to several books added by user 85.96.214.146. In all of those books Timur's ethnicity was given as Turkic.

3. Timur followed the political tradition of Genghis Khan since he had to rule over the other lords in the area. So, it is not abnormal if the area was known as Mongolia during his reign. It won't make any difference.

Chapultepec 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, he ruled over mongolia.. In that case Ottomans also ruled over Greece, Armenia, Romania, would that make them Greek, Armenian or Romanian? Is she THE leading expert because she agrees with your thesis? Again, please tell us why we should use Central Asian rather than his ethnicity as I pointed out in my post above.. There are many sources that say he was Turkic (Britannica) and other sources (fewer) that say he was Mongolian, therefore Turco-Mongol seems very reasonable to me, I don't understand why u disagree with this.. You said yourself This is exactly why I want to avoid the term "Turk", is that the real reason? It just means that u r not motivated by academic concerns, but rather with political considerations of toady.. We are going to include your sources that say he was Mongolian but we cannot include sources that say he was Turkic? That also seems a bit arrogant, dont u think? Baristarim 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We are only here to report what other sources report, not to advance our own theses by arguing which one of them is correct and which one is not.. As I said, Turco-Mongol seems right since there are sources that say he was Turkic and there are other sources that say he was Mongol.. That's all I am saying. Baristarim 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

@ Chapultepec: which article are you talking about?! The one written by the Turkish historian?! Well, that article does not say that he was "Turkic" either. As for the area in which he ruled: the area was known as "Moghulistan" (that's why Ruy Gonzáles de Clavijo called it "Mongolia") because it was ruled by Mongol Khans and clan-chiefs (including Timur). Europeans did know Turks and Mongols, yet, Ruy Gonzáles de Clavijo - after 3 months in Samarqand at Timur's court - still called him "Mongol" and NOT "Turk". The question is: WHY?! (I do not recall any source in which Europeans called the Ottomans "Mongols", "Greeks", or "Romans"?!)

@ Baristarim: Prof. Beatrice Manz is not "THE leading expert" because I say it, but because she is accepted as THE leading expert by other scholars. Her book: "The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane" is THE standard refrence - and most of this article is based on that book. Only the fact that she was chosen by the editors of Encyclopaedia of Islam - which is one of the biggest honors for an orientalist - proves her special status.

MOST of the sources, INCLUDING many articles of the Britannica, underliune the FACT that Timur was an ethnic Mongol. Turco-Mongol ist OK, as long as it is interpreted the correct way: Turkic-speaking MONGOL, still bond to Mongolian traditions. It does NOT mean "Turk" or "ethnic Turk" - language does NOT define ethnicity. If that were the case, then the Seljuks should be classified as Persians and not Turkmens, because - from the time of Malik Shah - there is absolutely no proof that there was any usuage of the Turkish language among the ruling family, and all preserved sources point to a native Persian tongue. Scholarly sources (including the publications of B.F. Manz) use the term "Turco-Mongols" for Mongol tribes living and ruling in Turkic-dominated areas. I think the problem is that the supporters of the "Turkic" theory do not have any academic motives (otherwise they wouldn't stick to one single Britannica article - keeping in mind that 3 other Britannica articles contradict their claims).

Tājik 21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

@Tajik, you were the one who gave the article to support his Mongol origin. Now, you defend yourself with its not citing him as Turkic. Of course, it will not cite him as Turkic, because the article you gave is not related with his ethnicity.

There are a lot of sources giving his ethnicity as Turkic. Some of them are given in the beginning of the discussion. If you click the links you can easily see them. And the Britannica article, that you tried to delete a couple of times, defines Timur as a Turkic conqueror. So, we precisely do not stick only to one Britannica article. There are lots of sources more supporting us.

He had to follow the Mongol tradition to be able to rule over the other tribal chiefs. So, the empire he founded was politically Mongol rather than ethnically.

Mongol tribes settled down in Turkestan in the wake of Genghis Khan soon started to get mixed with the Turkic people then they became assimilated within the Turkic majority.

So, the term Turco-Mongol is the best way to define his ethnicity than the other ones.

Chapultepec 21:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Timur was a Mongol in origin, Turk in language, Persian in culture, and Arab in faith" - I think that pretty much sums it up.

Would that ^ be called Uzbek today? (Minus the Mongol part)

Cultural depictions of Timur

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mongol?!?

If you are from the area where Timur was, you would learn in history classes today that, he called himself Moghul(Mughal), which in Wikipedia states that Babur, descendant of Timur, founded it(making that statement incorrect), and the European historians, misunderstood that as being the same as Mongol, since some signs hint that he was Mongolian. Although his cultural beliefs were much of Turkic. I think this is a serious issue and we need to find out about it more.

It is my understanding that Mughal is Mongol in Persian. --Jayson Virissimo 14:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So much mis-information, so many misunderstandings

Firstly the issue of "Mongol" must be tackled.

Turkic people's are originally from an area which includes Western Mongolia, they are not Mongol's.

Being from this area doesn't make one a Mongol, today's Mongols migrated to today's Mongolia at a later date. The Mongol armies had many Turkic soldiers and scribes like the Uygurs who wrote the Secret history of the Mongols among them.

Secondly DNA/GENETIC Nationalism must be dismissed as it's an archaic and ridiculous method by which to determine people's identities.

Having Mongoloid features does not make a person a Mongol, Koreans, Chinease, Japanease etc also have Mongoloid features as do many Turkic people's.

Timur did not refer or identify himself as a Mongol, he was a Turk from humble beginnings who rose to immense power. Being a great polliticians he married into the Barlas clan and claimed descendance from Ghenghiz Khan as a pollitical stunt to show his stature.

However, Timur himself spoke Turki as his mother-tongue and was from a Turkic community, the sources available to us proove this aswell.

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."

He referred to himself as a "Basbug", "leader of Turks"

" Emir-i Türkistan'ız:

         Biz ki Türk oğlu Türk'üz;
                       Biz ki milletlerin en kadîmî ve en ulusu
                       Türk'ün başbuğuyuz!..."

Were son's of Turks, a great nation........ from the "Zafarnama" of Timur by his biographer Ali Yazdi

Timur rose to power by sucessfully taking control of the Mongol tribes in the region and united the majority Turkic population. Thus it was in its essense Turco-Mongol, however he himself wasn't a Mongol.

--Johnstevens5 22:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)