Jump to content

Talk:Timur/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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

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

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
Shouldn't the fact be noted though that he emphasized his Mongol acestory? If it does not speak to the importance of Mongols in Central Asian politics at the time it at least speaks to the importance of the legend of the Mongols at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (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

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

"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

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

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

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.

There's a real problem with the death toll. It's beyond any understanding. How one can reasonably believe that:

1) the cities in those times were THAT POPULOUS??? 2) Tamerlane's people were engaged in COUNTING THE DEAD, and all their calculations would end up with round hundreds of thousands??? 3) and many more.

One simple rationale to suggest to look at it from different perspective. Let's assume his army killed 100,000 people in Baghdad. The whole area in few days would turn into a cemetry, as decomposed bodies would inevitably lead to break-up of disease. His soldiers wouldn't be able to stay there for a moment, not mention weeks or months needed for successful campaigns. How they would get labor force? food provision?

I think this chapter has to be re-done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahib-qiron (talk • contribs) 10:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

That is the character’s name, but whether Puccini is referring to the actual Tamerlane is uncertain. The character is described as “Timur, King of Astrakhan”. Tamerlane did sack Astrakhan (the Wikipedia article says he “burn[t] it to the ground”), but was never king of it. All in all, Tamerlane and the Timur of Turandot are probably related in name only. 80.109.42.228 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And he's a character in a PC wargame and there's a company called Tamerlane in some movie and so on and so forth. Does it matter or add anything to the article? 203.97.110.64 (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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'.

That's right. 'Temur', 'temir', 'demir' has the same meaning in Turkish languages. And whether it's Turkic or Mongolian is not that important - both languages have similar words with little or no change. Cf. Ghengiz (mong) - den(g)iz (turk), which means "sea", "lake".--Sahib-qiron (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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 know what happened the day after they opened it...

Well I added the reference to the exhumation because I found it in Tamerlane:Sword of Islam,Conqueror of the World by Justin Marozzi(ISBN: 978-0007116126). --Deuterium1 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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":
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.


Why is it important what race Tamerlane belonged to? I still don't get that, what will change if the other day someone will prove that he was Mongol, Turk, Korean, Zulu? Nothing. He is a national hero of Uzbeks, that's it. We, Uzbeks, as a nation integrated various ethnic, cultural and religious groups throughout centuries - we are heterogenous and are aspiring to enjoy a shared identity - to be Uzbek. To be Uzbek doesn't mean to speak Uzbek or look Uzbek, it means to identify yourself with the nation and land you live on. Who cares whether you are Caucasoid, Mongoloid or African? Does it make you healthier? richer? smarter? nicer?--Sahib-qiron (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I urge everyone to refrain from wasting time on useless topics.

Timur was Turkic. He claimed that he was Turkic. "Biz kim mulki Turon, amiri Turkistonmiz. Biz millatlarning eng qadimi va eng ulug'imiz. Turkning bosh bo'g'inimiz." He was from a Turco-Mongol tribe of Barlas. He never claimed to be a descendant of Genghiz Khan. That is why he never claimed the title of Khan. If you do some research he never claimed to be a monarch of his empire. Officially he was an just an amir, nothing more. All his life he had a puppet Khan from the bloodline of Genghiz on the throne to ensure the loyalty of many nomadic tribes under his control. Sultan-Makhmud Khan, a descendant of Chagatay, second son of Genghiz Khan, was the last puppet khan under Timur. Sultan-Mahmud Khan's name was on coins, his name was mentioned in Friday hutbas in mosques. Only after Timur's death, his descendants stopped having khans on the throne and became official rulers of the state. But even then, none called themselves Khans. Instead they were sultans. So, those haters who try to defame everything Turkic in Central Asia need to do some research. And by the way, the fact that some people like what is written in Encyclopedia Iranica because it pleases their chauvinistic views does not make it superior to other sources. The fact that the above mentioned encyclopedia mentioned that Timur claimed or was of Genghiz Khan's bloodline proves that it is not a reliable source of information. Just read Zafar-nameh written by a Persian historian Nizam ad-Din Shami. Timur himself read his work and corrected things that he considered to be incorrect. It clearly states that Timur never posed as a khan or Ghengizid, but rather as a defender of the throne and a loyal "servant" of the Khan from Genghiz's bloodline. Both Zafar-name books, by Shami and Yazdi are one of the best sources on Timur's rule. So, if "orientalists", and "experts" from Encyclopedia Iranica can write an article about Timur and completely ignore great sources written in his life time by Persian historians, it raises certain doubts about competency of above mentioned "experts")). Musofir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musofir (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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) Moguls are called that way because Mirza Babur, first of the Great Moguls was a descendant of Genghiz Khan, on his mother's side. Besides, Moguls was a common name of all Turkic tribes of Eastern part of former Ulus of Chagatai (that eastern province was known as Mogulistan). Originally it meant Mongols, but the meaning changed later. The amount of real Mongols in Chagatai Ulus was very low. Vast majority of population was Turkic, and the word Mogul (Mongol) was used to identify those Central Asian Turks who were nomadic and lived in the eastern part of the country, as opposed to settled Central Asian Turks (ancestors of modern day Uzbeks) who lived in villages and towns together with Iranic Tajiks in the western part. Timur, who kept many of Mongol military traditions and had many nomads under his banner was in fact a great enemy of Moguls. He lead several campaigns to Mogulistan and it took a long and hard process to incorporate Mogul tribes into his empire. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the term in the West due to poor knowledge of Central Asian history. They simply understood Mogul as Mongol because it literally means Mongol. But as you see now the reality is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musofir (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (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

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


Timur killed more Muslims than non-Muslims. His stated piety was usually an excuse. It is true that he paid special attention to non-Muslims on occasion. He attacked Georgia a record six times. His planned attack on China was justified in religious terms. He attacked Smyrna (modern Izmir) just to defeat the Crusaders in Anatolia -- and yet, curiously, he made no attempt on Constantinople, also in Anatolia and the seat of the Byzantine Christian empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.114.187 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2008 (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:
In case of his "Turkic" ethnicity, Britannica is very obviously contradicting itself:
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)

Please give the exact reference (name of the translator of the Zafarnama, its version, the page, etc). As far as I know, the Zafarnama is completely written in Persian (see the article Timur by Prof. B. Manz in Encyclopaedia of Islam).
Tājik 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Yes its written in Farsi, the biographer wrote it in this language and all is included in it, there is a Turkish translation which I can quote from or a Persian one and translate it, I'll try to find an English version aswel..


The most mis-leading and shocking comment I came across in this debate is this

Timur was a Mongol in origin, Turk in language, Persian in culture, and Arab in faith.

More misconception's.

Timur followed the Arab relgion...

Timur did not follow "Arab religion", Islam is not the "Arab" religion, Islam is Islam its demeaning and patronising to call it an "ethnic/racial" religion when it's clearly meant for all humans.

Timur was a descendant of Ghenghiz Khan...

He married to the daughter of a ruler descended from Chinggis Khan. It is as a result of this marriage that Tamerlane was often referred to as the "son-in-law”, but his authority was not based on descent from Chinggis Khan. It was a pollitical move to gain dominance over the Mongol clan leaders and to unite them and the Turkic tribes in the area.

Timur's culture was Persian...

Again, what a statement, Turkic culture had Persian infuences and vica-versa, Brittish culture had French influences am I now somebody whose culture is "French" because of this influence, this is ridiculous, we all have different influences to a various degree. Timur had a clear conscience of his culture, for example he built a huge complex and grand mausoleum for Ahmad Yasawi the Turkic phillosopher and founder of an Islamic school who had a key role in the conversion of Turks to Islam. During the Timurid period "Chaghtai Turkish" became the lingua-franca of Central Asia. Turkic arts flourished, during this period revolutionary figures in Turkic literature emerged like Navoi, Lufti etc their influence spread far and wide, they were read in the Ottoman court and are today known in geographically distant Turkic areas.

This is not to dismiss that Persian culture was also of great importance during the era, literary figures like Jami, the Zafarname was written in Farsi and Persian was the Islamic literary language of the era. After Navoi Turkish joined Persian as joining the ranks of great literary languages of the Muslim world with Arabic and Persian.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Islam is an Arabic faith, and it is strictly linked and knotted to the national history of Quraysh Arabs as well as to their language. Although Arabs constitute only 10% of the Islamic world, their political history of 1400 years ago still splits the Islamic world into a "Shia", "Sunni", and many other smaller branches. Timur was deffinitly an "Arab in faith", the same still today the overwhelming majority of Muslims are "Arabs in faith". There are only a very very few exceptions who see and live Islam as an independent religion free from Arab-nationalist ideas.
  • Being a Mongol is not the same as being a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. Timur was not a direct descendant of the Khan (although he claimed to be a descendant of Timüjin), but he was certainly a Chingizzid Mongol in ethnicity. He was the head of the Berlas tribe who were one of 5 or 6 original royal Mongol clans in Transoxania. Timur's shared origin with Geghis Khan and his identity as a Mongol chief was his legitimacy to rule. Of course, the Berlas had strongly mixed with the Turks of the steppe, as well as to a much smaller extent with the Arabs and Iranians of the Central Asian cities.
  • Timur's culture was deffinitly Persian. The terms "Turk" and "Mongol" was descriptions of a very special way of life: nomadism. The "Turks" were the nomadic warrior tribes of the steppe, distinguished from the civilized urban population. Timur was the head of such a nomadic tribe, but as a ruler, he was deffinitly a "Non-Turk". He resided in Samarqand, he was highly educated, and his kingly court was dominated by Persian way of life, language, literature, and traditions. Only the fact that all of his sons had names taken from the Persian epic Shahnameh proves that he was not just a "Turk", as you claim. Turkic culture (= nomadism and shamanistic beliefs) had almost no influence on the Perso-Arabic tradition of Iran. The Persians and Arabs, on the other hand, totally changed the immage of Turks.
  • The only thing that really was "Turkic" about Timur was his Qarluq language. Due to tribal interaction and intermarriage with Turkic nomads, the Chingizid Mongols had become Turkic (and later Persian) in language. Qarluq Chaghatay was his mother tongue - but he was certainly equally at home in Persian. That'S why his contemporary biography - the Zafarnama by Ali Yazdi - was written in Persian.
Your attempts to lable Timur as a "Turk" (a word that has a totally different meaning today than 500 years ago) is biased and wrong. As User:Sikandarji has suggested, the best description would probably be "Persianized Turco-Mongol" ... but since ethnicity had absolutely no importance to Timur himself, but only his royal Chingizid heritage, it's totally nonsense to add such a description into the intro.
Tājik 23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


"Islam is an Arabic faith"

Not according to Islam, the religion explicitly state's its not an "Arab religion". You may subjectively percieve it to be an Arab religion, however, it's far from the truth. Being a muslim is not about joining the "Arab religion", please stop Zorastrian propoganda. Is Christianity a religion which solely belong's to the people where it first began in the Levant? no.

Regarding the tribes which made up the Mongolian Empire, are you suggesting that they were only Mongol? if you refer to Mongolian Empire you'll realise that it was comprimised of uniting Mongol and Turkic tribes in the region.

The Barlas Clan had many sub-branches and tribes, we know that Dawood Dughlat and Abbas Kipchak were Timur's entrusted tribesmen generals who recruited the cavalry. Dughlat a Mongol and Kipchak a Turk. At the time of Timur, his branch evidently were Turks in identity, language and culture.

Timur's culture was deffinitly Persian.

Again, this is a total mis-representation, Timur wasn't educated or bought up in the courts, his actions clearly show that he wanted to appeal to Turks, make them more sedentry and show importance to influencial people's of history etc He had grand "tents", its known that he favoured pavillions and these grand-tents rather to traditional courts, Ibn Khaldun notes this. The court's of the Timurid's produced, Navoi, Lufti, Babur etc who influenced and elevated the Turkish language to becomming the most important languages in the muslim world along side Arabic and Persian.

You claim Turkic culture = nomadism and shamanism, well this is ridiculous, you cannot just pick an era of a nation's history and fix them into this box forever. Nomadic and Tengrism influenced sedentry life. Turkic groups have examples of being semi-nomadic and even sedentry prior to Islam, this can be witnessed in newly discovered cities in North Western china like Tongwancheng.

Arabs also were mostly Nomadic prior to Islam like Turks were.

You say Timur took all of his son's names from the Shahname, well "Umar Shaikh" is an Arab name, ShahRukh means Spirit of a King, Rukh is derived from Arabic Shah from Persian. There son's had names like Ulugh Bek, Taraghay Ulughbek, Abu Said Gurgan, Baysunkur, Huseyin Bayqara etc etc so there were plenty of Turkic names aswell which you fail to mention.

The Arabs totally changed the image of Persians so did the Turks. As the Turks and Arab's were rulers they could pick, choose, change and adopt what they liked to enrich their own culture and did this successfully.

Your attempts to try and wipe the history books clean of any mention of Turks will as usualy like in the case of Babur fail.

Timur was Turkic, the empire he founded was Turko-Mongol due to the unificaition of their clans and tribes and the culture was a fusion of Arabic, Turkic, Persian, Indian influences. That's the reality.

--Johnstevens5 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'Notable' Name

Since he is generally known (at least to English-speaking people, and this *is* the English version of Wikipedia) as Tamerlane, and that's what most historians and history books call him, that's clearly what most people are going to search for. I just read a biography of him, and although the historian/author calls him "Timur" in the text, the *title* of the book is "Tamerlane", so that people will recognize it on a bookshelf. The book title, I submit, is analogous to a Wikipedia title.

The fact that he wouldn't have used "Tamerlane" to refer to himself is irrelevant. Christopher Columbus wouldn't have called himself that (his real Italian name was Christopho Columbo), but anybody searching for "Columbo" is likely to be looking for an old TV detective show, not the explorer. Henry Hudson's "real" name wasn't remotely "Henry Hudson" (in fact he wasn't even English, although he worked for them, and the Wikipedia article about him is pure baloney). So Wikipedia's policy is not to use the notable name, the name someone is historically known by to English speakers, but rather to use the most politically correct name? That's ludicrous, especially in a situation like this (which frequently occurs in historiography) where's the person's "real" name is ambiguous, and there is no standard transliterated spelling of it anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.211.144 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Section on Fall of Timur

This article seems baseless, completely contradictory to the "Last Campaigns and Death" section. The quotation is a non-sequitur. Chengiz 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC) My earlier similar change was reverted without comment by Khoikhoi, I'd love to hear why. Chengiz 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that current section is completely a lie. How could he die from a wound in his hand. Everyone knows he died from tuberculosis, it was even confirmed when the Russians dug up his tomb. I thing it should be changed back to how it was before.

74.116.49.212 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Timur's Speech?

Does anyone have a copy of Timur's speech after sacking Damascus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.240.65 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Of Beggars and Flags

Many years ago my father told me he'd researched Timur for a school project on great conquorers. (All the other students were doing Alexander the Great) He mentioned two aspects of Timur's operations that stick in my mind. The first is he was called Tamerlane the Lame by enemies and because he snuck into target cities dressed as a lame begger to incite dissaffected beggers into supporting him when his armies invaded and laid siege. The second is that if a city resisted too much, he'd have a white flag displayed by his army. If the city failed to surrender he'd kill all males of military age. If the city further resisted he'd send up a red flag which indicated he'd kill all the males of military age and enslave everyone else. If he raised the black flag the city would be exterminated, raised to the foundations, and the earth salted. Is there anything to this?

Cause of Lameness

The current page states that Timur sustained his laming injury during a battle. This is not accurate, as he in fact was lamed as a child while he attempted to steal a sheep from a farmer. The injury persisted to plague him till he died. Coldbourne 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! I saw this (twice or thrice) on History Channel in a documentary on Timur. --AltruismTo talk 05:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've heard the same thing, so I've added a fact tag to that one. Gatoclass 08:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Persian Culture

It's claimed that Timur's culture was heavily Persian. I added a tag so that a proper reference is provided to this sentence. Thanks. Atabek 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Timur was no stranger to controversey.

Controversey about the affiliation and nature of Timur existed in his time. Timur himself added to it, with his bad feelings toward the Persians, as an example.

I think arguements about whether he was Turk or Mongol, a real king or a usurper, as well as his religious scruples are best seen in the light of controversey. He was controversial then, and still is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtloweman (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

rape?

He was a patron of the arts, but also raped, pillaged and massacred, and destroyed great centers of learning during his conquests. How can you rape a center of art? 67.189.70.93 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE MONGOL BIAS

Okay okay okay okay!!! people we get it okay now some of Timur's ancestors were Mongol... He might've mentioned that also, but enough with filling this article about him being Mongol, aspiring to restore Mongol culture, loving Mongol culture, being a true Mongol... enough. His grand grand grand parants might've been Mongols, we get it, but he was Turkic, we mentioned that and that is enough already! How about we actually expand the article by writing ABOUT Timur, and NOT about his ancestors being Mongol?

Introduction section

The names of Timur at the introduction is cluttering that section, since the intro is aimed to give a consice info on Timur, it should be rewritten into a compact form. Timur's names can be moved to notes section, and the fourth paragraph can be shifted to a legacy section. Regards. E104421 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why have you removed the following sentence: Timur was also steeped in Persian culture. It is a sourced information (Gérard Chaliand, "Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube", translated by A. M.Berrett, Transaction Publishers, 2004, pg 75: [6]). You deleted it twice. And the section about the names is POV. The part about Gonzáles de Clavijo is WP:OR, because his reports are neither mentioned by Manz in Encyclopaedia of Islam nor by Thackston. So obviously, leading experts do not find his reports worthy. I have no problems with mentioning that info, but it should also be stated that leading experts do not support his claim and ignore his report in their publications.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.133.46 (talk • contribs)
This is again a falsification by User:Tajik (82.83.) who still falsifies Wikipedia though he is blocked indefinitely because he made use of disruptive sock puppets for years to falsify Wikipedia. Here you can see, how often Beatrice Manz mentions the reports of the contemporary witness Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo. History is not a musical request programme but a serious scholarship that prohibits nationalistic feelings that merely distort serious sources. 85.178.185.30 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Gérard Chaliand's book "Les Emp'res nomades de la Mongolie au Danube, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1995" says that Timur was a Turk. The section on Timur is written in the 3rd chapter under the section the Turks. You just selected a sentence partially but pasted into a totally irrelevant place. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The question is not about Timur being Turkic, but about the referenced sentence that he was steeped in Persian culture. Again: why did you remove it?! Almost all Turkic rulers of the past were steeped in Persian culture, dressed like Persian kings and even gave their children Persian names (Timur's sons were called Jahangir, Shahrokh, Piran, etc., all being Persian names). The claim that he was called "Timur the Lame" only by his Persian enemies is wrong. Persian was the lingua franca of Central Asia, Iran, India and Anatolia and many different peoples - even Turks - called him "Timur-e Lang" (that's where the Ottoman expression "Timur-i Lenk" is derived from; see Britannica 1911). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.133.46 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

reference

The reference "steeped in Persian culture" is from an academic book and it was removed. It is unacceptable. I hope it was not done by users E104421 because removing this information is not acceptable. I do not care about the rest of mongol vs Turkic or both origin. But that statement is sourced and must not be removed.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I have the book but not with me now. I removed that since the link is dead. I already wrote in the edit summary [7]. If you have the book, you can add the information and quotation to the notes/references section. There is no ignorance on my side but just hesitated because of the anonymous ip reverts. I'll check it tomorrow. If that sentence is correct, i'll add it immediately. Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't need the book: [8]. But just because the link is dead it does not mean we can remove the whole book reference as well. A dead link should be removed without actually removing the book.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're right. As i stated above, i did this since i do not trust the ip reverts much. If you were the one who added this, i did not remove it. Btw, you removed the Britannica reference and quotation, too. Anyways, the article needs much work. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Turko-Mongol

See, for example, Jean-Paul Roux's "Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée", Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2000" or Gérard Chaliand's book "Les Empires nomades de la Mongolie au Danube, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1995". Encyclopedias reflect the consice compilations of the published works of mainstream scholars. See the references of the Britannica article for "Timur", "Central Asia, history of Timur", "Islamic world", "Babur", Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Academic Edition, 2007. All these articles have "Additional Reading" sections. Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have another powerful source. Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo has visited Timur, he is a contemporary witness. Clements Markham was the first scientist who published Clavijo's reports in English. and in these reports we read folowing information about Timur's derivation:
[9]Timour was of the race of Toorkish wanderers, and he was of noble lineage, amongst a people who thought much of their descent. 85.178.155.20 17:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, Timur himself said he is Turk (see excerpt from Timur's memoirs in the articleTimur#Early life), contemporary witnesses (Clavijo) say Timur is a Turk, many actual sources say Timur is Turk, Timur speaks Turkish(Chagatai) as mother tongue. Which proof system makes Beatrice Manz sure, that Timur was Mongol in origin? A genetic test of Timur's corpse? An information about the proof system is missing in the article if Timur was really Mongol in origin. I propose that Timur should first be given as Turkic in origin in the article (nor as Turco-Mongol) until someone does not only provide any arbitrary source but also the proof system or the primary source on which e.g. Beatrice Manz bases her claim about Timur's Mongol origin. This would provoke the "Timur was a Mongol"-camp to provide better sources. (I actually cannot edit the article because it is semi-protected) 85.178.155.20 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Timur himself never said anything of the kind. His "memoirs" are considered by virtually ever scholar in the field to have been a later creation. Timur was part of the Barlas tribe, which is identified as Mongolian in the Secret History of the Mongols. Why would Timur uniquely have been a Turkish product of a Mongolian tribe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.252.240 (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Those are all good and sourced. But why change "Timur was also steeped in Persian culture" to "later Timur was also steeped in Persian culture". That is called OR. Let the sources speak for themselves. --alidoostzadeh 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Needs full citation: The spoken-language of this new culture was Turkic.[1][unreliable source?]. This is not in the actual google book source given.
  • Ali, the reference was already given but you ignored. Please, do not remove the sources without even checking them. The reference is The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane by Beatrice Forbes Manz, see the link from Google book search. Regards. E104421 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I did. But it was referenced to page 3 which is not viewable. If you have the book, then please write the sentences of pg 3. Other than this, I did not remove any reference. I also mentioned that the source does not identity at what age Timur was steeped in Persian culture. (could have been early). So I left it as is. Regards. --alidoostzadeh 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, cool. So as you see, I didn't remove any sources except that one. And the reason is simply because the google books page did not open as advertised. Have a good day.--alidoostzadeh 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually the link is working. Anyways, the quotation is as follows:

The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, by Beatrice Forbes Manz. p.3: As the Mongol rulers had adopted to the needs of the individual regions they ruled, they had not abandoned their nomad heritage, but had created a new culture combining steppe principles with strong elements of their subject populations - both Turkic nomads of the western steppe, and the settled peoples of their agricultural regions. The spoken language of this new culture was Turkic, its religion Islam, its political legitimation Mongolian. Turko-Mongolian tradition became predominantly throughout all the western Mongol domains from Central Asian to Russia, with only Mongolia and China remaining apart. In most of the lands it affected the Turko-Mongolian heritage was not the only cultural system. It coexisted with Persian culture in the Middle East and with the Russian culture in Russia and Ukraine, but it affected all aspects of political and military life throughout the large area of its influence.

So, i'm adding this back to it's place. Btw, the sentence you added in "italics" belongs to Timurids article (Persian was used as the Diwan language). I'm doing the necessary changes. Regards. E104421 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

E104421's claim that Timur's army was essentially Turkic-speaking is un-sourced and in fact contradicts this site:

"Autobiography"

This article (in the section "Indian campaign," discusses the Tuzk-i Timur as though it were actually Timur's autobiography and he actually recorded the Delhi campaign for posterity. No scholar that I know of still considers Tuzk-i Timur to be an authentic autobiography. It was a later construction. The article should be amended to reflect this. It's unclear whether Tuzk-i Timur could be used as a source for this at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.18.149 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources & Quotations

1."Timurids", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Qotation: "Timurid dynasty (fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia."

2."Babur", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character."

3."Central Asia, history of Timur", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007., Quotation: "... Timur first united under his leadership the Turko-Mongol tribes located in the basins of the two rivers...."

4."Islamic world", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Timur (Tamerlane) was a Turk, not a Mongol; but he aimed to restore Mongol power. He was born a Muslim in the Syrdarya valley and served local pagan Mongol warriors and finally the Chagatai heir-apparent; but he rebelled and made himself ruler in Khwarezm in 1380. He planned to restore Mongol supremacy under a thoroughly Islamic program."

5."Timur", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. Quotation:"Timur or Tamerlane, 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...."

6. Gérard Chaliand, Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube translated by A. M. Berrett, Transaction Publishers, 2004. (see p.75)

7. Jean-Paul Roux's "Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée", Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2000" or Gérard Chaliand's book "Les Empires nomades de la Mongolie au Danube, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1995".

See also the other references cited in the article. Regards. E104421 22:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You removed one reference again about the primary language and culture. Also the Turkification of Mongol tribes is something that occured pre-Timurid time. It was their spoken language (does not equate to the culture of whole vast realm where many groups lived). Note the quote is discussed in the Timurid page. Yet from the same reference you removed primary language and culture. --alidoostzadeh 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You removedn almost all the territories Timur brought under his control, Persian was the primary language of administration and literary culture. As per the Turkic vs Mongol debate of Timur, I am not too concerned. Basically as I said, it is interesting that the poet Navai considers Hulaku as a Turk but the Seljuqs as a Persian. For me such a preception is primary. Thus the Mongols who were minority in the Turco-Mongol confederation of Chinghiz Khan were Turkified and thus Timur although probably more Mongol in origin, but by his own era, their language was Chagatay and not Mongolian. All the quotes above is about the spoken language of the rulers/military, which was Turkic/Turkified although their empire's origin was Mongolian. So I guess Turks, Mongols or Turo-Mongols are all correct. --alidoostzadeh 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note the source you brought: [11]. It talks about Spoken culture (not just culture but spoken culture) of Turkified Mongolian nomads in pre-Timurid times. The predominant culture though at the time of Timur:"In almost all the territories which Timur incorporated into his realm, Persian was the primary language of administration and literary culture". That is the re-Persianization of parts of Central Asia (samarqand, bukhara) after the Mongol invasion. --alidoostzadeh 22:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Turkification of Mongols is quite interesting. The same happened in Golden Horde, too. Now, i have to quit, I'll continue editing tomorrow. Take care. E104421 23:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think a major part is actually due to Uighyurs who had developed a high culture. Take care. --alidoostzadeh 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Also note pg 3 is about pre-Timur era. --alidoostzadeh 23:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
E104421, as I explained to you in details on your talk page, the vast majority of academic sources on the topic refer to Timur and Timurids as Mongols, none of the sources you've listed for "Turko-Mongol" are primary sources (they're not even secondary sources, they're all tertiary sources ie Encyclopedias which do not override primary sources) All the PRIMARY sources I have seen on the topic, take the mainstream position that Timur was a Mongol, but Turkic-speaking. Labeling him "Turko-Mongol" is a controversial issue, If you're going to change the lead based on selective tertiary sources, at least get a consensus for it on the talk page. --07fan 07:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I already provided the sources and the quotations above. The mainstream academicians call them Turko-Mongols. The references were also cited in the article. You never checked any of them but still complaining. I provided tens of sources on that. Please, do not remove the sourced information. Regards. E104421 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the cited references here:

1. René Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, Rutgers University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-8135-1304-9 (p.409) Quotation: "...In fact, he was no Mongol, but a Turk...."

2. Gérard Chaliand, Les Emp'res nomades de la Mongolie au Danube, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1995.

3. Jean-Paul Roux, Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée", Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2000.

4. Beatrice Forbes Manz. The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

5. G. R. Garthwaite, "The Persians", Malden, ISBN 9781557868602, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007.

6. "Islamic world", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Timur (Tamerlane) was a Turk, not a Mongol; but he aimed to restore Mongol power...."

Check my reply on Timurids' talk page, the mainstream view is Mongols who spoke Turkic, not "Turko-Mongols", that's a fringe view.--07fan 13:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

pg 3 of the book is not talking about Timur. It is from the pre-Timurid era and connecting to a sentence on Timur is really OR. It should be connected to the Turkification of Mongol tribes. I'll look at that whole section during the weekend but that section is written before Timur was born. Also there is no "later" he was steeped in that source and adding "later" is intrepretation. regards--alidoostzadeh 13:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Alright. Actually, i'd propose to shorten the introduction section and carry the pre-Timurid Empire and Barlas discussion into early life section, since in the intro the 2nd and 4th paragraphs are quite long. Maybe better to summarize these and give the details in the main article. I had added the pre-Timurid section there, since that sentence "...he aspired to restore the Mongol Empire in which the Turko-Mongolian tradition was predominant throughout its territories..." refers to pre-Timurid Mongol Empire which Timur aimed to restore. I think there is nothing wrong adding this. Anyways, better to improve the main article rather than making the intro long. Regards. E104421 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit Warning

While all of you are arguing about his ethnicity, would you mind terribly if I were to do some copyediting here and there? I might even add some of the references that have been cited here but not not listed in the article.

Just for the record, I am asking as a complete outsider. I have almost no knowledge of Timur and the little I have is from extremely biased sources. I merely wish to clean up and make things better if I can.

JimCubb (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Real ethnicity of Timur: African

Before making up your mind or replying please read through the whole thing, including the article stated within.

I propose that we say that Timur was African, based on many facts that all humans are from Africa(see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_Origin.) According to this Wikipedia article, Timur's ancestors were actually from the land of what now is known as Africa. Even though Timur lived in what was then known as Transoxania, people want to add “Mongolian” to his ethnicity based on facts that his archaic ancestors were from Mongolia, and few claims from unreliable sources that state that “Timur himself said that he was Mongolian.” So I, based on these reliable facts, propose that we change Timur's ethnicity to African, to end the argument of some people that are very dedicated to amend Timur's real ethnicity into a Mongol, or argue whether he was actually Turkic or Mongol. After all his ancestors were indeed African. If it is possible to say that Timur was Mongol, based on sole facts that Barlas Turks' ancestors were once people from Mongolia, then it would be more accurate to say that his origin is actually Africa. This will take a little rewriting to do, and as one example, we would need to change lines such as this “Timur belonged to a family of Turkicized Barlas clan of Mongol origin,” to something like “Timur belonged to a family of Turkicized Barlas clan of Mongol origin, which in turn were of African origin, (making his true ethnicity African)” to make it more accurate.


To sum this up: If people want to say that Timur was Mongolian, based on facts that his archaic ancestors were from Mongolia, we should go just a little bit more back in time and say that he was African. Even though he considered himself as Turkic, this statement would be more accurate about his true ethnicity and his origin, since there is no question about all the humans originating from Africa (and it would end the endless arguments about it too).

So if people could please make this article more accurate that would be great. Thanks. 63.243.173.108 (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do mind. Some of Timur's ancestors, a hundred years back, were probably Mongols. This was important to Timur himself. If you think that that is irrelevant to the article, ok, that's something you can argue about. But he was no more African than everyone in the world, including the Mongols, is African. Adding "African" to this article, and not to an article about, say Napoleon, strikes me as deliberately unhelpful. Maproom (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have also added "Timur met a guy names Miles, he was an astounding warrior." This does make it look as if you are engaged in vandalism, not in a serious attempt to be constructive. Maproom (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but where does African comes into effect, if you base it on the THEORY that we came from Africa then it is a THEORY and no solid evidence has been accepted to this term. As for the African thing then call all Europeans AFRICAN.... I suggest you correct this as it is misleading to the modern term. We are not discussing Anthropology but an historical figure. How about we call Alexander being Greek, African mix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.60.165 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • First, sorry about "Timur met a guy named Miles," it was my buddy messing around with my account while I was away. Second, I am serious about contributing to the article. The reason I added Timur's real origin is to point out that, his origin couple hundred years ago from before he was born, is just as relevant to the article, as his "real" origin. If you consider it very important, fine, if you don't, that's fine too. But, it is just as relevant. The thing is, many western historians thought of Timur as Mongol, well they were right in some sense, in that his ancestors were Mongols, but he himself was Turkic. And for some reason, the thought that he was Mongol sticked around. If his ancestors from couple hundred years back are more important than his actual ethnicity, then why when I read about lets say Bill Gates or George Bush I don't see that they are English? After all their ancestors are from England or Britain, then they must be British? Then why the hell everyone says that they are American? You see what I mean? I am not denying that Timur's ancestors were Mongols, what I'm saying is he himself is Turkic, period. This article should mention that his ancestors were Mongol, but then point out that he is Turkic, so when many people misled by old western historians that he himself was a Mongol, learn the truth when they come to the reliable Wikipedia.

Bmn187 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "ethnicity" means the recent origin . If you want to apply mitocondrial eve theory in this article , then all of the the humankind are originaly from Africa . Then that would be better to omit the term ethnicity at all : because all of the humans are African in origin ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Temurs ancestors were Mongol...Temurs ancestors were Turkic...the reality is, the distinction is blurred because nomadic Mongol and Turkic peoples were living together in the same tribes, the armies were mixed. Temur identified as a Turk so that's what he is, we can't argue with this, if his father taught him that they were Turks, if his mother-tongue was Turki and he felt he was a Turk well that's final, no need for any arguments its not a contestable matter.

--Torke (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This guy was a sadist butcher and he actually sought to be considered as Temujin's descendant for various reasons so what's the fuss about whether he was Turkic or not?He considered himself Mongolian and took pride of it so what we say centuries after his death are a little bit irrelevant. Τα πάντα ρει (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Amir Temurs contributions to the culture of the Turks

Amir Temurs contribution to Turkic culture is totally ignored. During this period, Turki rose to become one of the great literary languages of the Islamic world, it was a period when Navoi, Lufti, Sakkokiy, Baikara, Babur, Ulugh beg etc etc lived. The Khoja Ahmad Yasavi shrine was renovated and turned into a major architectural work winning the hearts and minds of all Turks. The Aqsaqal courts which are still in practice today...etc etc --Torke (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag of Timur's tribute to the Ming Empire

I had a serious problem with the paragraph on Timur's early relations with the Ming Empire. I find it doubtful that Timur seriously ever feared a Ming military invasion. First of all Timur's domain never bordered China, so the Chinese would have had no way to directly invade. Secondly, the Ming would have been more focused on Mongolia itself where the Kublaids were still in power, instead of Transoxiana where Timur was. I'm not disputing that Timur may have sent gifts to the Ming court but I highly doubt that the Ming Chinese would ever invade. Ro4444 (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the wording seems a bit dramatic, vis-a-vis Timur/Ming relations. I don't know anything historically about the matter, but since no one else has commented since Feb, will take the liberty of doing a light edit. I will also remove the tag, and hope that we are talking about the same line! If not, please feel free to put it back! Cheers, Isocephaly (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Timur's Mongol heritage

I want to correct a few misunderstandings I've seen on here:

1) that "Turkic" and "Mongol" are alternative and exclusive groups. No, "Turkic" is a very broad group, which includes Turks, Azeris, Kurds, Khitan, Kipchack, and in some opinions, the Mongolians and Jurchens too. The Mongols were one of several Mongolian tribes before Chingis. Chingis combined them into one identity, the "great Mongol nation." The Secret History lists the Barlas as a local tribe that joined Chingis before he invaded Central Asia (for what it's worth, I saw a genealogy claiming the Barlas descended from Chingis' ancestor Kaidu Khan, a Mongol). At that point, the Barlas were as "Mongol" as anyone in the "Mongol" army/nation except for Chingis' own family. By the time Chingis died, his "Mongols" had absorbed most Turkic peoples, most Turkic peoples had experienced "Mongol" leadership, and "Mongol" no longer meant anything at the tribal level. Of course Timur was not a Mongol in the strictest sense; he would have to have been born in Mongolia to the Mongol tribe. But to say he had no Mongol heritage is to strip almost all meaning from the word "Mongol."

2) that Timur did not have or claim descent from Chingis Khan. No, he DID claim descent from Chingis Khan. His ancestor Prince Kerachar married one of Chagatai's daughters, he claimed.

3) that Timur is Turkic because "Timur" is a Turkic name. No, it's one of many, many words and names that the Altaic languages share. There were Timurs in Mongolia before Chingis, and there were Yuan dynasty emperors named Timur long after. If you are saying this you are just telling us you know nothing about Mongols.

4) Someone implied Gurgen is a Turkic title meaning "groom." No, Gur-khan is a Mongol title meaning a great prince or son-in-law of the Khan. Jamugha (a Mongol) took this title in his war with Chingis in Mongolia.

This whole dispute is dumb. Of course he's Turkic. If "Mongol" meant anything, he was a Mongol too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitem420 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Timur/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs references plange 06:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
  1. ^ Beatrice Forbes Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-521-63385-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. (p.3)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timur/Archive_1&oldid=1137255532"