Talk:Turco-Mongol tradition

}}

"Kazakh Khanate"

Kazakh Khanate is not referred to Tatar Khanates, as Kazan, Astrakhan or Crimean Khanates. So I just cut it from the list of Tatar Khanates and put it into successor states' list of Golden Horde.

"Matrilineality?"

Mongols do not trace their descent matrilineally. If they did, Chinggis Khaan would have been a Qongiraat, not a Borjigid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.233.79 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Turco-Mongols"

were simply Turkic-speaking Mongols. Of course, these Mongols had mixed with Iranians and Turks over time, but that's not improtant. The "Turco-Mongol" ruling caste of Medieval Central-Asian society was of Mongol descent - their alledged descent from Mongol warriors and nobles was their legitimacy to rule.

Over the centuries, these original Mongol warriors had lost their language and adopted Chaghatay-Turkic and/or Persian.

Tājik 16:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pal, instead of whining around, why don't you simply google "Turco-Mongol" and see how many hits you get. At the very beginning of the Mongolian Empire the armies of Chingis Khan were ethnically not solely comprised of Mongolic but also of Turkic tribes like for instance that of the Kerait. The original ruling tribe was Mongolian speaking, originally. But mixing of the tribes happened. And don't forget the role that the Uyghurs played within that empire. The self-designation "Mongolian" as that of Mongolian Empire entered history during the reign of Kublai Khan. And please, I am begging you, don't associate the term Turco, derived from Turkic, with the Ottomans and Anatolia, that would be fucking ridiculous, the term Turk came about in 'Greater Mongolia' in the 5/6th century C.E.. Turco/Turkic is an ethnic/linguistic term. Mind the historial context. 134.100.32.213 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... what if we renamed that article as "Mongol-Turkic"? It would certainly do more justice to the 'Chingisid nature' of those empires and the ethnic origin and composition of their rulers. 134.100.32.213 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but in English academic usage, the term Turko-Mongol or Turco-Mongol is generally used. Padishah5000 10:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the googling... -> Wanggu.134.100.1.177 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the Mughal Empire, because the Mughals were not Turco-Mongols (anymore). They were mixed with the local populations of India and Persia, they were not nomadic, the refused to call themselvs "Mongols" (the English word "Mughal" is derived from the pejorative Persian name "Moghul", used by the enemies and subjects of the dynasty), they were thoroughly Persianized in language, and later became Urdu-speaking (Bahadur Shah II, the last Moghul Emperor of India, wrote poems in Urdu). The Timuirds lost their (nomadic) Turco-Mongol traditions when they conquered mainland Persia and moved their capitals to Samarqand and Herat. Timur himself may be regarded as the last real Turco-Mongol. Babur was the last Turkicized Timurid. Already his son, Humayun, began to abolish the Turco-Mongol elements of the dynasty. This was complete at the time of Akbar, who had the Baburnama translated into Persian, because he was not able to understand Chagatai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.200 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are so wrong or you are stupid, Tajik. To be nomadic does not mean automatically to be Turk, to live settled does not automatically mean not to be Turk. The Uyghur Turks and the Uzbek Turks have always been sedentary.

Even if Akbar did not talk Turkic thsi does not mean, that Babur - the founder of the empire - is not Turco-Mongol. It also does not mean Akbar himself would not be Turkish. 85.178.168.3 15:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Uyghurs" have always been nomadic, so were the "Uzbeks". The Uyghurs were nomads up to the 13th century, in fact Mahmud of Kashgar was himself an Uyghur and praised the nomadic way of life of Uyghurs. The "Uzbeks" were also nomads. It was nomadic Uzbeks under the Shaybanids who forced the Timurids out of Central Asia. In the Islamic world, "Turk" is synonymous with "nomadic" or "barbaric". That's the reason why the Ottoman sultans, though being Turkic themselves, considered the word "Turk" insulting. Modern Uzbeks are not identical to the historical Uzbeks. Modern Uzbeks were labled "Uzbeks" by the Soviet regime. Before that, the people in Central Asia identified themselves through with their way of life. Sedentary agriculturists were known as Sarts, nomads were known as Turks. That's why Babur, though being a Mongol in origin, called himself a "Turk" - because he was a nomad. The nomadic way of life of Babur and his family is also mentioned in the poetry of his daughter, Gulbadan Begum. This changed immediately when Humayun was forced to leave India. From then on, no Mughal ruler every again called himself "Turk" or "Mongol". The Mughals became identical with "Sarts" and became fully sedentary. That'S why it is a big mistake to call the Mughals "Turko-Mongols". And Akbar was not Turkish. Akbar's father, Humayun, was born to a Persian mother (Dildār Begum) in Kabul. Unlike Kāmrān Mirzā, his mother was not a Chingizzid. Humayun was also married to a Persian noble, namely Hamida Banu Begum, Akbar's mother. Akbar married a Rajput princess, Mariam-uz-Zamani. And their son, Jahangir, married another Persian noble, Nur Jahan, whose family traced its origin to the old Zoroastrians of Yazd. So, if blood-line is what you base your claim on, then you have no valid points. After Babur, there was not a single "Turko-Mongol" ruler within the Mughal dominion. They had become thoroughly Persianized and Indianized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.143.128 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Uyghurs have not always been nomadic. check your facts. why do you put that name in inverted commas?

"Turco-Mongol"

the term isn't used for Altaic people in general. It refers specifically to the 13th century Mongol invasions and the resulting 14th century empires. This shouldn't be a disambiguation page, it should redirect to an article on the 13th century invasions where the term can be explained. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the term is used beyond the 13 century Mongol invasions well through the time of Tamerlane and into the Mughal period. It is even used lightly today to describe certain ethnic populations within Central Asia. So to limit and redirect the term specifically to the period of the Mongolian Empire's expansion seems much to limiting in scope. This article, in fact, should be expanded on. The Scythian 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The term is not used for the Mughal Empire. The Mughals are known as Indo-Persian instead. Tājik (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is in the article Mughal Empire. The Scythian 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mughals are known as indo-persian? listen i understand that afghanistan is impoverished and your people like to claim all central asian history for yourselves, call yourself so called aryans, name turkic scientists as persian, and claim every turkic controled empire as persian, but please stop this. The mughals were never known and will never be known as indo-persian. they always are known as turks, as babur himself called himself a turk in the baburnama. Have you read the baburnama? I doubt that. You may spread persian propaganda here in wikipedia, but keep in mind that your propaganda only will reach ignorant Persians themselves and not the educated communities of the world. And above u mentioned in central Asia that central Asian sedentary people were known as sarts (which is true, it means yellow dog in Turki) but nomads were not known as turks, that is a lie, they were known as Kipchaks, and the word Turk has no connection with the word "barbarian" i understand as an afghan and tajik (which itself is a derogatory Uzbek term referring to persians of central asia the term itself created by Uzbek Turks). So calling yourself a tajik, u need to keep in mind that the word was invented by Uzbeks. People like you make wikipedia the least credible source of information. shame on you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.144.66 (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article says "Tamerlane who was considered Turkic was probably of Mongol Origin". Why does the admin here not see Iranian Chauvinistic propaganda making judgmental introductions to articles? How can you know whether he was "probably" of Mongol origin? He never was mongol, he statted saying that after he decided to unite the various tribes to conduct further conquests. He was never a Mongol nor spoke Mongolian. He Spoke Chagatay Turki. I advise the admin to remove the introduction as it is an opinion based comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.178.180 (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyedited

Richard asr (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Template

Hello, I am trying to do a proper template for it. Can you please contribute, and/or say your opinions how I can improve this: User:Beshogur/Template:Turco-Mongol tradition. Beshogur (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Move/Publish it to the main template space and I will contribute. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Created. Template:Turco-Mongol tradition. Beshogur (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at it Template:Turco-Mongol. Plus Rouran Khaganate =/= Turco-Mongol. And modern ethnic groups like Hazaras moved to their own group. I moved the template and now I think "Turco-Mongol topics" would be a better name. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The map of Asia in 1335

In 1335 Central And eastern Arabia was ruled by the Jabrids

Hijaz “western Arabia” was ruled by Sharifate of Mecca

Yemen was ruled by the Rasulids

Oman was ruled by the Nabhani dynasty

It wasn’t just bedouin tribes lol! 46.184.88.214 (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Title

I cannot easily find mention of the term "Turco-Mongol tradition" in the sources listed. How can we sure there isn't some kind of SYNTH or otherwise wikipedia-invented title.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not wikipedia invented title. See google books, there are older mentions than the wikipedia itself. Badly sourced is something else. Beshogur (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)