Rebuilding the army of Genghis Khan

[haviZsultan]

Some Turks here disagreed with Yazlp view of certain things. I don't get why you think Pakistani is not a friend of Turkey unless Yazlp is the president of Pakistani on this forum which would be Unfortunate.

If you come here and share your uninformed opinion about Turco-Mongol history then obviously you will see some backlash from certain Turks. That is why it is important to think twice before you say something.

Errr I don't see many similarities between Mongols and Turks no offense.

It is also said that the name Khan which is very common in Pakistan today came from Mongols yet even we do not claim links to the Mongols. We were also ruled by the Mughals which actually is another term for Mongol and Babur's mothers side was Mongol too. I have never seen a Pakistani claim a link to the Mongols despite.

Mongols came and pillaged the Khwarezmians and murdered a turk King and tortured his women of the harams. Keykhusrov fought the mongols in a pitched battle. So the history is mostly of muslims-us being butchered by the Mongols. Even the fall of Baghdad in 1258 meant the genocide and murder of 1/3rd if not more of its population. Thats a little bit of a historic viewpoint.

The nations can be friends now though.

 

[Samandri]

No, it is ok to talk about history but it is not nice to fixate on genetics. In the Turkic world we never question our genetics and it is annoying if outsiders come here and (purposelessly or not purposelessly) insult us. There is no room for racism here.

Racism? i didnt discuss the genetics of people of Turkey at all. It seems you are a Pan-Turani nationalist who believe in unity of all Turkic speakers irrespective of the different racial backgrounds. But this sentiment can be respected , i simply differed with you when you made claims over Genghis Khan and Mongols as part of your history. Can you give me any reference or census, survey etc which indicate that people of Mongolia consider themselves to be Turks?. Why you are imposing your identity on them? isnt that disrespectful? why you are stealing their history?. Hazaras are partly related to Mongols , people of turkey are not even one percent related to Mongolia yet you have the audacity to mock Hazaras. This ultra-nationalistic bigotry is unhealthy

 

[Ahiska]

Looks like nobody read what i posted so i wll post it again:

Dont see why some of you guys insult each other (or their countries)
It is true that assimilation and Turkification did happen in todays Turkey but mixing between ethnicies and races were always the case and still are even today.
While there are of course idiots who think that Turks and Mongolians are the same most dont think like that.
What is important to all this is that both the Turks and Mongolians have the same origin and before modern times even the same way of life and religion so why should we divide each other?
In the end it doesnt matter if someone has minimal or no genetical relation to the "original Turks" but more about what culture and what language they have.
(Since nobody even knows what genetical imput the Göktürks had)

And in defense to the Anatolian Turks almost all Turkics are mixed :
1. Tatars with Slavs and Ugrics
2. Turks with Greeks/Armenians/Circassians/Laz
3. Azeris with Persians/Caucasian people
4. Uyghurs with Tocharians
5. Uzbeks with Tajiks

Also Atawolf you are much to easily agitated and offended, instantly insulting people who have a different point of view.
All in all it can be said that Turkic and Mongolic people were cousins who always were rivals to each other.
(The same can be said about the Turkic people)

 

[zavis2003]

You are insulting Pakistanis? I shit on your genetics. Go and play your games elsewhere. In my view you're not a Turk. You are just a fvcking troll.

You are the some of the unfortunate people under the tag name of Turks who really make every one laugh at us.

Bayazid Yaldrim was also defeated by Amir Taimor because of such non sense activities.

So better shut your mouth.

Being Turk just dont mean to support your awkward and raciest ideas.

You please check up with your doctor . You might be Greece

 

[madmusti]

Hey,I am unaware that why do Turkish people don't like to discuss genetics,might be some people have discussed in abusive way.However,what is the big deal if someone claims that they resemble with Arab?
Besides,Genetic studies will benefit Turkish people to study of their descendance?

Genetic history of the Turkish people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

regards

I love your source especially this Case:

Turkic Central Asian,British & Turkish combined with Bulgarian,German,Greek & French will have a Finnish as result ?

Do you believe everything that wikipedia claims ?

 

[zavis2003]

Atleast it is appreciable that some Turkish brothers are linking themselves to central asian turks.

Otherwise reality is that many many people in the turkey are not aware of turks of central asia and dont concern about them.

First I had very affection towards oguz turks of Turkey but later I found that when I was in Turkey that they just dont care about central asia.

This is a cruel fact.

It disappointed me so much.

ON the other hand turks of central asia are very much affectionate towards Turks of Turkey.

I would appreciate if you mold this thread towards Turan.

you can discuss possibilities for how to reunite.

 

[atatwolf]

I love your source especially this Case:

Turkic Central Asian,British & Turkish combined with Bulgarian,German,Greek & French will have a Finnish as result ?

Do you believe everything that wikipedia claims ?

I don't know why some are so persistent about their racist racial theories. Me and multiple Turkic members have mentioned this here multiple times. We don't care about genetics. That is not what binds us together but for some reason they ignore this message and push their agenda in this Turco-Mongol military thread. Guess why?

 

[madmusti]

I don't know why some are so persistent about their racist racial theories. Me and multiple Turkic members have mentioned this here multiple times. We don't care about genetics. That is not what binds us together but for some reason they ignore this message and push their agenda in this Turco-Mongol military thread. Guess why?

Guess why ? I show you the Reason :

 

[Slav Defence]

I love your source especially this Case:

Turkic Central Asian,British & Turkish combined with Bulgarian,German,Greek & French will have a Finnish as result ?

Do you believe everything that wikipedia claims ?

Duh..I didn't posted it to claim anything,I wanted to know response of Turkish posters over such article present in Wikipedia.I myself don't take this as a source,instead I myself discourage to use wiki as source.If I wanted to claim anything,then I would have selected research papers directly from sources with high impact factor such as Oxford or nature,and not one paper but many,just like I posted human rights research papers to discuss some social issue with Indians.


regards

 

[madmusti]

@cabatli_53

Bi zahmet

 

[zavis2003]

Turks and Mongols are two different races who lived side by side in same region.

Turks were also constituent of mongoliod army but it just don't means that they were exactly related to Mongols.

Turk is a different bread who emerged from Altai mountains under the name of Gok Turks

It is non of our business that what the mongols are really?

Even Mongols are defeated at the current Egyptian border by Mamluk Turks.

and it is not fair to compare the turks with mongols.

"Turks are the people who wrote history on three continents for centuries"

If today you see a Muslim World in current shape, it is because Turkish blood bleeds in defending it historically.

 

[madmusti]

 

[telkon]

From what i have read, he killed and raped the old and true Turks in Central Asia and injected Mongolian genes into the small remnant of Turkic population. If Mongol is synonymous with Turk then why tribe of Usman Khan , the founder of Ottoman empire fled from Central Asia on Mongol invasion and settled in Anatolia.? Why newly established Turkic slave dynasty in India found Mongols to be very weird looking creatures with alien facial features and strange body type (large heads, long torso and short legs). The way Juzjani describes Mongols, you should read it. Turk Sultans of India didnt bond with Mongols on any level, they were greeted with sword for destroying their original homeland.


Not exactly. Central Asians look Mongoloid because they got Mongolized after the Mongol conquest. So much population of central asia was massacred by the Mongols that not much of it was left enough to absorb and dilute the Mongol settlers. Why do you think facial features of Uzbeks, Turkmen etc vary from Mongoloid to Caucasoid?

If you think Subaktagin, Mahmud Ghaznavi, Aibak, Razia sultana, Balban etc were Mongoloid, then change their images in your mind to Caucasoid.

a little secret. 1. during ghengis khan's conquests turkic people lived not only in central asia. they inhabited lands from far northern siberia to central europe. 2. at the beginning of his conquests, when he united 4 khamag mongol tribes (taichuud, kiyat, jalair, jirukhen) his forces were around 40k. when he attacked khwarazmshah, his army consisted of 200-250k soldiers. try to guess where this extra manpower came from. i'm giving you 10 tries LOL massacred "central asians" were persian speaking tajiks of maweraunnahr. turkic tribes 1. turkmens to the west: they fled coz they didn't have necessary manpower to oppose force this strong. 2.kipchaks in bukhara, zaravshan oasis' and karluks in ferghana valley: just accepted ghengis khan's rule in return for freedom and war booty.

Mongols also went through your Baluchistan, why dont you people look like Mongols? Try to understand that the parts of Afghanistan, where Mongols committed genocide, are nowadays populated by Mongoloid people like Hazaras and Aimaq. Read the history of Bamiyan and what Mongols did to it.

Mongols were wiping out populations in their first wave as a terror and war tactic, but once they consolidated their rule, they slowed down. Central Asia and Northern Afghanistan suffered the most.
The mountainous Pashtun part with difficult terrain remained safe from such genocidal invasions of Mongols except for few raids. Mongols forces tasted their first defeat in the eastern Afghanistan in which Afghans formed half the forces of Jalaludin Khwarzimi. Pashtuns didnt live in the cities but in the hills and carrying out genocidal campaigns against villages of tribes on hills would have served no purpose , nor it was an easy task as mongols were not accustomed to hill warfare and avoided it. Thats why i dont look like a Hazara. I gave you example of diversity in the looks of Central asians from Uzbeks etc, . It simply implies that Caucasoid turanis have been Mongolized. For example when skull of Amir Timur was analyzed , it was noted on the basis of skull structure that , he had some Caucasian features even though his Barlas tribe was originally from Mongolia and settled in central adia, they concluded that at this time Mongols of Barlas had been Turkized due to admixture with remnants of original Turanis.

Uzbegs, Kazaks , Krghyz etc are heirs of Mongols rather than the Turks that we are familiar with in our history before 1217 AD. Its because of their language that they were Turks otherwise their culture , customary laws, traditions , military formations and tactics were all fully or partly Mongolian, not just the genetic make up.

Where was that kinship and familiarity between Turks and Tatars, when Tatari emperor Timur destroyed Bayazid of the Ottomans?. From the primary sources of Turkic slave dynasty of India, it is evident that Mongol invaders were totally perceived as strange, weird looking , foriegn invaders rather than familiar blood brothers (they were first generation Turks from central asia). . In such scripts Mongols are described as "monstrous" looking, why they were calling Mongols monstrous and hideous looking if they were their blood brothers.?

LOL Kyrgyz are genetically the farthest group from both turkic and mongolian paragroup. read some papers on genetics of central asian and siberian peoples before babbling nonsense. tho, uzbek and kazakh have some turkified mongol tribes among them (after all, they're sons of the golden horde).

Where was that kinship and familiarity between Turks and Tatars, when Tatari emperor Timur destroyed Bayazid of the Ottomans?. From the primary sources of Turkic slave dynasty of India, it is evident that Mongol invaders were totally perceived as strange, weird looking , foriegn invaders rather than familiar blood brothers (they were first generation Turks from central asia). . In such scripts Mongols are described as "monstrous" looking, why they were calling Mongols monstrous and hideous looking if they were their blood brothers.?

Tatar was a name of mixed tribes of mongol and turkic origin. really, stfu if you don't have knowledge. Mughal weren't slave dynasty (you're thinking about Mamluks of Egypt methink). rulers descended from Timur. soldiers were turkic.

what many people fail to realise is that, for many millenia (the oldest recorded being hunnu empire) mongol and turks lived mixed, were neighbours, formed confederations, fought each other. 16 tribes of wei empire consisted of 7 mongol and 9 turkic tribes and they ruled china for several centuries.

 

[zavis2003]

Looks like nobody read what i posted so i wll post it again:

Dont see why some of you guys insult each other (or their countries)
It is true that assimilation and Turkification did happen in todays Turkey but mixing between ethnicies and races were always the case and still are even today.
While there are of course idiots who think that Turks and Mongolians are the same most dont think like that.
What is important to all this is that both the Turks and Mongolians have the same origin and before modern times even the same way of life and religion so why should we divide each other?
In the end it doesnt matter if someone has minimal or no genetical relation to the "original Turks" but more about what culture and what language they have.
(Since nobody even knows what genetical imput the Göktürks had)

And in defense to the Anatolian Turks almost all Turkics are mixed :
1. Tatars with Slavs and Ugrics
2. Turks with Greeks/Armenians/Circassians/Laz
3. Azeris with Persians/Caucasian people
4. Uyghurs with Tocharians
5. Uzbeks with Tajiks

Also Atawolf you are much to easily agitated and offended, instantly insulting people who have a different point of view.
All in all it can be said that Turkic and Mongolic people were cousins who always were rivals to each other.
(The same can be said about the Turkic people)

Well I agree with the last paragraph partially.

well concluded at the end.

But race is not about the language or culture it is about your blood line.

People of different geographic have different habitats.

Like jews are good businessmen

Turks are good warriors

Arabs are good at doing mistakes

Afghans are very hospitable and emotional

Europeans are clever thinker

Japanese are very consistent and motivated.

So whoever is one of them speak whatever language and live where ever will have the same attributes to very extend.

The every moment you live is defined by the history at your back and sense in your mind.

Where was that kinship and familiarity between Turks and Tatars, when Tatari emperor Timur destroyed Bayazid of the Ottomans?. From the primary sources of Turkic slave dynasty of India, it is evident that Mongol invaders were totally perceived as strange, weird looking , foriegn invaders rather than familiar blood brothers (they were first generation Turks from central asia). . In such scripts Mongols are described as "monstrous" looking, why they were calling Mongols monstrous and hideous looking if they were their blood brothers.?

Mr Samandri you misunderstood the history, there was not a big war between Bayazid and Timur. You know how Taimorr pondered every civilization on its way, but he never did a big bloodshed in Ankara. He respected the Bayazid and after three months when enjoyed his meal in Ankara he ashore the ruling of Bayazid and never took that area into his territory. There was and always will be brother hood in Turks.

Also the slave dynasty was turkic but they were different from moguls who were also turkic. But the fair strike on Lodhi of India by Babur was not against turkic but against the local lodhies who may have nothing to do with word turk.

 

[telkon]

What I am quoting is a joint research by
Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Department of Medical biology, Harbin Medical University, Wellcome Trust center for Human Genetics, Institute of genetics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Biomedical and Genetic Engineering Labs, Islamabad, Institute of Immunology, Academy of Sciences, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge and The Institute of Biotechnology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


In our language, we call the Chagatai the "Chugtai".

The Ilkhanate's official languages were Persian and Mongolian.
The Golden Horde's official languages were Mongolian and Kipchak. The Rulers used Mongolian, while the Locals, being Turkic used Kipchak.
The Chugtai Khanate used Middle Mongolian.
This is according to Wikipedia, a supposedly neutral source.

according to wikipedia: "The [Chagatai] khanate lasted in one form or another from 1220s until the late 17th century," which is an ignorance at best. as i'm always saying, don't trust wikipedia.

We therefore conclude that the Y chromosome of a single individual, probably Genghis Khan (Or strictly his father, since some chromosomes may derive from his brothers) has spread rapidly during historical times.

this is utter bullshit. guys who wrote this paper fucked logic in really unimaginable ways. it's more probable that this specific haplotype originates from a tribe, not an individual. besides, there are 4 haplogroups, not 2, dominant among hazara, which supports at least a partial descendance from mongols:


"Haplogroup frequencies across the major ethnic groups revealed large differences. In particular, frequencies of haplogroup C3-M217, which is mainly found in East Asia, and haplogroup R1a1a-M17, which is found in Eurasia, varied substantially among the Afghan groups. C3-M217 was significantly more frequent (p=4.55610 29 ) in Uzbeks (41.18%) and Hazaras (33.33%) than it was in Tajiks (3.57%) and Pashtuns (2.04%). On the other hand, R1a1a-M17 was significantly more frequent (p=3.00610 26 ) in Pashtuns (51.02%) and Tajiks (30.36%) than in Uzbeks (17.65%) and Hazaras (6.67%). RM networks of C3-M217 (Figure S1A) and R1a1a-M17 (Figure S1B) show that when a haplogroup was infrequent in an ethnic group, its haplotypes existed on branches not shared with other Afghans, suggesting that the underrepresented haplogroups are not the result of a gene flow between the ethnic groups, but probably a direct assimilation from source populations.
Haplogroups autochthonous to India [15]; L-M20, H-M69, and R2a-M124 were found more (p=0.004) in Pashtuns (20.41%) and Tajiks (19.64%) than in Uzbeks (5.88%) and Hazaras (5%). E1b1b1-M35 was found in Hazaras (5%) and Uzbeks (5.88%) but not in Pashtuns and Tajiks. RM network of E1b1b1-M35 (Figure S1C) shows that Afghanistan’s lineages are correlated with Middle Easterners and Iranians. We also note the presence of the African B-M60 only in Hazara, with a relatively recent common founder ancestor from East Africa as shown in the RM network(Figure S1D)"

don't get me wrong. IMO you're the only one writing some senseful posts in this thread. and again, IMO no one's trying to steal your history. it's just viewing last 6-7 centuries of central asian history as belonging only to certain group (be it mongol or turk) is a little off. too many interactions, too much inter-ethnic marriage, too much political alliances between the two.

edit:

There's one more, by a Frenchman. By far the best book i've read about the Mongols. I forgot his name though. Will update as soon as I find him.

rene grousset, l'empire des steppes (empires of the steppe). it's translated into turkish.