About a year ago, I released my most popular video,a look at why the Mongols are so often called Tatars in our historical sources, and their relations to the Tatars of 12th century Mongolia, and the Tatars of western Russia in the modern period. The explanation provided in that video didn’t sit well with all examples, however, and left me unsatisfied come new information. In a recent article uploaded only two weeks ago, historian Stephen Pow has provided an explanation which, though radical, does solve the problem. In this video, we examine Pow’s argument, presenting his evidence and letting you in on some brand-new historiography. It will be the most exciting 18 minutes of your life! Pow’s article can be found here. You may need to make an account first, but it’s free and the historian can find many, may great references there. Pow, Stephen. “Nationes que se Tartaros appellant”: An Exploration of the Historical Problem of the Usage of the Ethnonyms Tatar and Mongol in Medieval Sources.” Golden Horde Review 7 no. 3 (2019): 545-567 www.academia.edu/40478303/_Nationes_que_se_Tartaros_appellant_An_Exploration_of_the_Historical_Problem_of_the_Usage_of_the_Ethnonyms_Tatar_and_Mongol_in_Medieval_Sources DONATIONS Paypal: paypal.me/thejackmeister?locale.x=en_US Patreon: www.patreon.com/jackmeister
Well then I am impressed just I don't think its constructed well as in the women were warriors and that is where you find the issues with other Asian sources and of course men who assume they rule over women so they create a false narrative like the middle east - Mongolian woman here
and I recommend a read of the secret history of Mongolian queens as well or Khatuns nobody talks about the female component? and finally if I'm wrong why is there a religious element within the Mongolian Buddhist sect of the fact a goddess of war exists??
Didn't Golden Horde nomads were called as Tatar because their aristocracy was Tatar in majority? The local people and army was majority Kipchaks as Mongol Empire was a tribal confederation. The state was also called as "Kipchak Khaganate". Although, almost every warlike nomads with mongoloid features were called as Tatars after the Mongol invasion including Timurids.
Stephen Pow is right. Even though my fellow Mongolians of today will probably deny it (because we were brought up on Secret History of Mongols as our main reference), I would say that actually the word Tatar sounds more "self" (us or ancestors of Mongols) rather than "the other" or other tribes (Turks or Cumans). Historical texts hint that both endonyms Tatar (so as we knew ourselves, including Temujin himself) and Mongol (so as we started to call ourselves with Hamag Mongol or even later as this video says) are connected to the Rouran Kaganate, which was called also Tantan and the founder of the Khaganate was a famous slave-turned-warrior called Muhuli. The Rourans (Tantans) actually left some inscriptions in brahmi letters yet in a Mongolic language. So, it is probably true that we called ourselves Tatar first, but then preferred the name Mongol. The Turkic tribes calling themselves Tatar is much a later in time development. I think the exonym Tatar among Volga Tatars is already shaken: I hear many calls or arguments on youtube to revive the endonym Bulgar or Kipchaks and so on.
The Mongols were minority steppe people. Chinggis Khan united many other non-Mongolic tribes and called it Ikh Mongol - (The Great Mongol Empire) because it was ruled by Mongols. Tatars had more population number and had lost the battle which made them a part of Mongol Empire. Both people's culture is very same and Mongols valued people by their skills and knowledge. It is a country which united East to West and North to South. This is why people who want to study international relationship study Mongols.
most sources list early tatars as a rival mongolic people to the khamag mongol who conquered them and only after subjugating the turks in the west did the turkic bulgars and cumans etc adopted the name tatar.
A new video! Sometimes I do those. Here, we look at an argument recently suggested by Stephen Pow, offering a solution to the problem of the naming of Mongols and Tatars in our medieval sources. 18 minutes of pure entertainment.
A bit more in support of Pow's argument on the usage of Tatar: Indonesian sources on the Yuan Invasion of Java refer to them as Tatars! medium.com/@siwaratrikalpa/tatar-dc9701a78728
From what I've read in many books both islamic and western, the tatars were a mongolic tribe north of China. They interacted with the chinese, hence the name becoming more famous. Also the tatar and Hamaq, or kamaq whatever chingiz tribe is they were enemies. So in my opinion I dont think they are the same. Also alot of the time, at the frontier of an empire they call everyone outside their border the first tribe they interact with.
In the western part of the steppes the Turgish tribe, which is just "one" of the ten tribes, takes the power and the leadership of the Ten-Tribe (On-Ok) and establishes the Turgish Khaganate, giving their own tribal name to the nation. In the Eastern part of the steppes the Uighur tribe joins and takes the power and the leadership of the Nine-Tribes (Dokuz-Oguz) and establishes the Uighur Khaganate, again, giving their own tribal name to their nation. As we know from the Orkhon Inscriptions the Tatars are called Thirty-Tatar (Otuz-Tatar). 30 tatar tribes... This means they are alot in number in that area... Mongol is just "one" of these 30 tatar tribes. The same way as the Dokuz-Oguz and the On-Ok, the Mongol tribe of the Tatars takes the power and the leadership of the other Tatar tribes and is calling simply their nation Mongol by giving their own tribal name, so yes, they are still Tatars all of them, including Mongol. The nation takes automatically the name after its dynasty/the ruler tribe.
Great video and Interesting arguments, As a Mongolian what we know is Tatars killed Chingis Khaan's Father Yusgei baater by using poison tea when Yusger baater passing by Tatars land. In the revenge Chingis Khaan ordered kill all Tatars tribe people as long as taller then carriage wheel. So in this bloody relationship between Mongols and Tatars we wouldn't call ourself Tatars back in the time!!! Specially Chingis Khaan would never say we are Tatars. I understand the poor history written mislead somehow, Cause Mongolian history all written by all enemies by the time. specially you mentioned some of the history written in Chinese but pronounce in Mongolian. you can imagine if you speak in English but written in Chinese, would be a lot of mistakes to people understand what really is.
Genghis khan and his army & generals called themselves as a Tatars. Later Temudjin called his big nomad empire as a “Mongol” empire, (Eternal people of blue sky “Mengu El”). All turkic-mongolic tribes such as Kiyat/Konyrat/Naiman/Argyn/Uisun/Alchyn/Mangyt/Tabyn/Barlas/Kerei/Merkyt/Kataghan/Jalayir/Kipchak/Uryanhat/Ongut/Kanly/Dulat/Baryn/Shyryn were in Mongol confederation.
Remember Chinggis Khan never called himself as a Tatar! He is Mongol more specifically from a tribe called Borjigon (Borjigin). Tatars lived on steppe and were Muslims. Mongols not! Mongols are Tengri people. Tatars are Muslims.
@@aslof1069 You are confusing two different time periods when Genghis khan came most of nomad Turkic people were not Muslims the became only after his death the majority of Musim heritage in modern day Tatars comes from Volga Bulgars in 10 the century who were not Tatar and from later when Turko-Mongolians(Tatars) accepted Isam in 13th century by Khan Uzbek Khan, that is also the reason why the Turko-Mongolians of Khorezm later created a country called Uzbekistan named after the Khan
The Kok Turuk (Göktürk) writings inform us about the 30-Tatar tribes. The word 'Tat' means 'infidel', 'the ones with a different religion/tradition/laws' in pre-islamic Turkic. İt was used for Persians, and even for Turkic people who converted to different religions. The word 'er' means warrior, human. Ziya Gökalp, an Ottoman-Turkic historian, argues in his book 'Türk Töresi'' that 'Tatar' was a synonym in pre-islamic Turkic for the western term 'Barbarian'.
Shut your fucking mouth, there was no göktürk empire the word is turkish and not mongolian, you tatars are not turkish you are refugees, you are hiding tatar nationalism under the name turk , you have no evidences just comic paintings and artificial names , Tatars are a mongol people and you became assimilated by ottomans, mongols are not göktürks this is so ridiculous, dont deny your mongol tatar origin, turkey is not your origin, there was nevet ever a country called göktürk in china, you dogs are fabricating these terms to feel better.
And by the way fuck your wolgs bulgar tatar alphabet, You Tatars are not turkish in origin no one called tatars as turks in medieval, turkish people are native anatolians we created our empire and we found ottoman language it was not a product of tatar mongols, turkey never haf a tatar population until 1944, turk was a name given by europeans to describe the muslims of ottoman empire, there is no pre islamic turk identity , islam and turkishness go hand in hand, there was a pre islamic tatar origin you were mongols who were conquered by ottomans, STUPID TATARS DONT LIE TO PEOPLE YOU ARE NOT TURKS.
@@archiefeld5801 WTF are you talking about you salty ignorant? Romans called Central Asia as Turk. Göktürk Khaganate was actually Turk/ish-ic Khaganate. Originally Tatars were Mongolic but after the Mongol invasion, Kipchaks and other Turkic people were called as Tatars. Hence majority of the Mongol army was Turkic origin and Golden Horde was mentioned as "Kipchak Khaganate" in the historical sources. Tatars are just like Bolgars. Bulgars used to be Turkic but not at the moment.
another excellent presentation. I'd heard Tatars kept their name, or at least one usage was based on 'tartartis' from the Greek, for "from hell". Have u heard that one?
because Mongol is the origin of Gog Magog Yajooj Majooj identify as == from Hell. The Great Wall of China is the real iron wall. other biblical theories: Revelation 13:14 ...the Beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. (that sword is the symbol of Genghis Khan & his largest contiguous empire during medieval times) : Revelation 13:3: ...the fatal wound was healed! The (whole world marveled) at this miracle and gave allegiance to the Beast. That revived empire is not the Caliphate nor EU (NATO) it will be base on some Asian dominion...This is not yet happening it will occur partly Asia at the nearly end of times. The 10 nation there is probably ASEAN. Many scholars will still don't believe this..There are some biblical texts are not true done by Europeans..They will believe and find the truth....tooo late!
If the takeaway with this is that "Mongol" was more a "neo" identity pushed forward by the ruling class over Tatar do you think it is possible that "Mongol" could potentially have been "Munkh-Khol" loosely meaning "eternal center/pivot point". Kinda like Mongke Khan's namesake?
Interesting thought but Genghis khan likely inherited Mongol from Hamag Mongol to boost legitimacy. It is any ones guess why Hamag mongols come to call themself mongol.
It's kinda like Canada. Quebec used to be new France and early Canada, then british conquered and annexed us. French, Natives and British Loyalist mixed and Called themselves Canadians. French and mixed French-Natives are the original Canadians.
But Volga Tatars accepted this name only at the end of 19th century, although Russians called them so, like they called dozens of ethnicities, even Caucasian, Siberian, FarEastern as Tatars
@@Ftor945, being a historian, you did not pay attention to Shihabutdin Marjani (second half of the 19th century)! After all, then there were lively discussions among the religious intelligentsia about which ethnonym to choose ... many famous figures, like Rizaetdin Fakhriddin, opposed this name "Tatar", calling it a contemptible nickname given by Russians. You can't look at your history in such a simplistic way, following the nationalist agenda. Both during the Golden Horde and after there was no single identity as "Tatars": people called themselves by ulus or clan: Kipchak, Kungrat, Barlas, Nogai. That is, "Tatars" meant an exonym, not an endoethnonym (like "немцы", "китайцы", etc.). Only at the end of the Golden Horde, a single identity begins to take shape here - namely Uzbek identity(the last Khan of the Golden Horde, Sheikh Ahmed, 1495-1502 said: bizning ozbeg taifasi), and not Tatar...
The genuine appearance and essence of Chinghiz Khan, the real History of the Tatars, of many Turkic peoples and Russians: First of all it must be said, that in official history there are many falsifications and slanders about the ‘Tatars - wild nomads’ etc., which were written by pro-Chinese, Persian, also both Russian tsars Romanovs and Bolshevik ideologists. However primarily we should know the truth about the meaning of the names ‘Mongol’ and ‘Tatar’ (‘Tartar’) in the medieval Eurasia: According to many medieval sources, the name ‘Mongol’ until the 17th-18th centuries meant belonging to a political community, and was not the ethnic name. While ‘‘the name ‘Tatar’ was ‘the name of the own ethnos (nation) of Chinghiz Khan'. Also ‘…Chinghiz Khan and his people did not speak the language, which we now call the ‘Mongolian’…’’ (an academician-orientalist V.P.Vasiliev, 19th century). This confirmed by many little known data. So in fact Chinghiz Khan was from among the medieval Tatars and the outstanding and progressive leader of the Turkic peoples. About the real faith of Chinghiz Khan and his native people: for example, the Turkish traveler Celebi (17th century) wrote the following from the words of Tatar alims (scientists): ‘It is proved that Chinghiz Khan was a Muslim, and the Tatars professed Islam already during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)’. Also, as Tatar alims told Chelebi, Chingiz Khan had been buried in the Volga region, not far from the city of Astrakhan. Moreover, there is a lot of data about this, hidden from us. It is worth saying that according to many little-known data, the ancient and medieval Tatars were a very developed people both in spiritual and material aspects. It was the medieval Tatars who created the first Constitution of Eurasia, which was called in Tatar ‘Great Yasu’ (‘Yasu’ in Tatar means 'Scripture'). But with time many of their descendants became spiritually disabled and forgot invaluable doctrine and covenants of the creators of Great Yasu... So that the Tatars of Chinghiz Khan - medieval Tatars - were one of the Turkic nations, whose descendants now live in many of the fraternal Turkic peoples of Eurasia - among Tatars, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Uighurs, and many others. And few people know that the ethnos of medieval Tatars, which stopped the expansion of the Persians and the Chinese to the West of the World in Medieval centuries, is still alive. Despite to the politicians of the tsars Romanovs tsars and Bolsheviks dictators, which had divided and scattered this ethnos to different nations... About everything above mentioned and a lot of the true history of the Tatars and other fraternal Turkic peoples, that was hidden from us, had been written, in detail and proved, in the book ‘Forgotten Heritage of Tatars’ - it is one of books by an independent historian Gali Yenikey, translated in Engilsh. There are a lot of previously little-known historical facts, as well as 16 maps and illustrations in this book. This e-book (in English language) you can easily find in the Internet here: www.kobo.com/ebook/forgotten-heritage-of-tatars-1 or here: payhip.com/b/Xujb
On the cover of this book you can see the true appearance of Chinghiz Khan. It is his lifetime portrait. In the ancient Tatar historical source ‘About the clan of Chinghiz Khan’ its author gave the words of the mother of Chinghiz Khan: ‘My son Chinghiz looks like this: he has a golden bushy beard, he wears a white fur coat and rides on a white horse’. As we can see, the portrait of an unknown medieval artist in many ways corresponds to the words of the mother of the Hero, which have come down to us in this ancient Tatar epic. Therefore, this portrait, which corresponds to the information of the Tatar source and to data from other sources, we believe, the most reliably transmits the appearance of Chinghiz Khan...’. And here's another interesting thing: We can't keep silent that some 'very important' official historians try to retell the content (or rather, the concept) of the works of the independent historian Gali Yenikey (Yenikeiev). But they conceal where the information was by them taken from. However it turned out they were unsuccessful and confused - this official historians, apparently, do not dare to show the real history of the Tatars, being afraid of their ‘scientific chiefs’. But not only this - see the portrait of Chingiz Khan - see on the 7th minute of the video of the Institute of history of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan (Russia): th-cam.com/video/3WqB71gs5bc/w-d-xo.html - also this portrait is shown there both before and after. This portrait is reconstruction, which made by Yenikeiev on the basis of a lifetime portrait of Chingiz Khan and of information from the medieval Tatar Dastan (epic) 'About the Origin of Ciingiz Khan', as well as from other historical sources. This portrait was used by authors of the video without Yenikeiev's permission and without telling where the portrait came from. This portrait is published on the cover of G. R. Yenikeiev's book ‘Forgotten heritage of the Tatars’: see: payhip.com/b/Xujb For the first time this portrait was published on the cover of the third book by G. R. Yenikeiev ‘In the footsteps of the black legend’ (published in 2009), see its electronic version: payhip.com/b/DNdC This ‘creativity’ of the official historians is called among the decent people as plagiarism - that is, as theft.
hi, a Mongolian here, We wouldn't call ourselves Tatars, The Great Chinggis Khaan lost his father to the Tatars at a very Young and when he grew up ordered the Murder of all Tatars over a Carriages Wheels, Basically only babies and Children Survived at that time we wouldn't call ourselves Mongols, especially Chinggis Khaan, and also even before Tatar we called everyone Humus, Hunus or Huns
@@Mongolian_Lhagvasuren But the Arab historians who were with Hulagu, such as Rashid al-Din al-Hamadhani and al-Juwayni, said that Genghis Khan had many brothers from his father, and they say that his father Genghis Khan is like a Persian or a Turk mixed with the Persians.
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب from his Father he had 5 brothers, TemuLIN was a Girl and the Persian Mix/turkic is a straight up lie, Mongols had no connections to Persia
The old Tatars are pure Mongolian ethnicity lived in southeastern Inner and Outer Mongolia, and they were people of courage, bravery and war planning, and they are neighbors of the walls of ancient China and ancient Chinese sources describe their conditions And the title of the Tatars was circulated to all Mongolians by the Chinese and the Russians, and the title of Mongol was belonging to the federation of tribes in northeastern Inner Mongolia and a part of Russia near Lake Baikal And also generalized
The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars).
The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars).
Europeans made a lot of misleading wrong names. Such as Ghinggis Khan, it is actually Chinggis Haan, why there is “K”? So, it made Muslim people believe they descendent from Mongol Khan. Recently I heard someone calling Tangud was Chinese. Well, not at all. Tangud is closely related to Tibetans, but more to the North.
Enkhzaya Zundui i will tell you more turkic peoples are the only descendants of the Great Tartar empire. And kalkas are descendants of Mongolian People’s republic created by the Soviet union;)
@@dragonsfury3370 you need to study well about Mongols and also stepp tribes, if you really wants to know. Tatar is one of the stepp tribes, Khalxa is dominant etnic group among Mongols. It is just not pop up during communism. Communism actually let different tribes assimilate to each other, also let Mongol tribes such Tuvans, Buriad, Kalmiki and tureg tibes Kirkiz,Tatars forgot about their history, language even teach them how bad being Mongol, everybody has to be only resident of Soviet Union. We not even allow mention Chinggis Khaan. Russian even rewrite Mongol hystory by communist way, and call country of Mongol as Mongolia like Russian sound. Basically Communists were killing Mongol culture during 70 years of control of Soviet Union. We are few Mongols really strugled to survive since Mongol Empire collapse.
Tatar is not a term for turks you asshole, Turkey and tatary where two different regions look at old maps, Tatars came in 1944 into turkey , ottomans conquered tatars this is qhy they speak our language especially in crimea or central asia, Turk is a new name for the people of ottoman empire since 1923, befoew this period there was no turk people only the name foe a region. Stop calling mongolians as turkish, tatars are mongols and turks are the people asia minor
Central asians are all linked with tatars, there is a clear difference between turkish the people and turkic speakers, central asians are assimilated turkified mongolians same as tatars
the name turkic is fake , it doesnt represent the tatar mongols in anyway its just a update for crimean and wolga tatars who became assimilated by ottomans , tatars are mongolian originally and not turkish people from turkey , this is ridiculous.
Before the mongols came they were called bulgars,suvars etc etc only after the mongols did they start using the name "tatars". Fact modern tatars are not ancient tatars who were a mongolic speaking people.
@@simonh6371 if he is not talking about the tribe “white Tatars” I get what he is saying but I want to know form where he decided that ourself we don’t know
The true appearance of Chinghiz Khan, the real History of the Tatars and many of Turkic peoples: Perhaps you know, that an outstanding historian-scientist D. Iskhakov wrote: ‘the true history of the Tatars, of the people in every respect historical, is not written yet’. However, recently were published books about the unwritten (hidden) real history of the Tatars by independent Tatar historian Gali Yenikey. His books present a new, or rather ‘well-forgotted old’ information about the real history of the Tatars and other Turkic peoples. It must be said, that in official history there are many falsifications and slanders about the ‘Tatars - wild nomads’ etc., which were written by pro-Chinese, Persian, also both Romanovs and Bolshevik ideologists. However primarily we should know the truth about the meaning of the names ‘Mongol’ and ‘Tatar’ (‘Tartar’) in the medieval Eurasia: According to data of many medieval sources, the name ‘Mongol’ until the 17th-18th centuries meant belonging to a political community, and was not the ethnic name. While ‘‘the name ‘Tatar’ was ‘the name of the own ethnos (nation) of Chinghiz Khan'. Also ‘…Chinghiz Khan and his people did not speak the language, which we now call the ‘Mongolian’…’’ (an academician-orientalist V.P.Vasiliev, 19th century). This confirmed by many little known facts. So in fact Chinghiz Khan was from among the medieval Tatars and the outstanding and progressive leader of the Turkic peoples. It is worth saying that according to many little-known data, the ancient and medieval Tatars were a very developed people both in spiritual and material aspects. It was the medieval Tatars who created the first Constitution of Eurasia, which was called in Tatar ‘Great Yasu’ (in Tatar means 'Great Scripture'). But with time many of their descendants became spiritually disabled and forgot invaluable doctrine and covenants of the creators of Great Yasu... So that the Tatars of Chinghiz Khan - medieval Tatars - were one of the Turkic nations, whose descendants now live in many of the fraternal Turkic peoples of Eurasia - among the Tatars, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Uighurs, and many others. And few people know that the ethnos of medieval Tatars, which stopped the expansion of the Persians and the Chinese to the West of the World in Medieval centuries, is still alive. Despite to the politicians of the tsars Romanovs and Bolsheviks dictators, which had divided and scattered this ethnos to different nations... About everything above mentioned and a lot of the true history of the Tatars and other fraternal Turkic peoples, which was hidden from us, had been written, in detail and proved, in the book ‘Forgotten Heritage of Tatars’ - it is one of the dooks by Gali Yenikey, translated in Engilsh. There are a lot of previously little-known historical facts, as well as 16 maps and illustrations in this book. This e-book (in English language) you can easily find in the Internet: www.kobo.com/ww/en/ebook/forgotten-heritage-of-tatars-1 On the cover of this book you can see the true appearance of Chinghiz Khan. It is his lifetime portrait. In the ancient Tatar historical source ‘About the clan of Chinghiz Khan’ its author gave the words of the mother of Chinghiz Khan: ‘My son Chinghiz looks like this: he has a golden bushy beard, he wears a white fur coat and rides on a white horse’. As we can see, the portrait of an unknown medieval artist in many ways corresponds to the words of the mother of the Hero, which have come down to us in this ancient Tatar epic. Therefore, this portrait, which corresponds to the information of the Tatar source and to data from other sources, we believe, the most reliably transmits the appearance of Chinghiz Khan...’. And here's another interesting thing: We can't keep silent that some 'very important' official historians try to retell the content (or rather, the concept) of the works of the independent historian Gali Yenikey (Yenikeiev). But they conceal where the information was by them taken from. However it turned out they were unsuccessful and confused - this official historians, apparently, do not dare to show the real history of the Tatars, being afraid of their ‘scientific chiefs’. But not only this - see the portrait of Chingiz Khan - see on the 7th minute of the video of the Institute of history of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan (Russia): th-cam.com/video/3WqB71gs5bc/w-d-xo.html s - also this portrait is shown there both before and after. This portrait is reconstruction, which made by Yenikeiev on the basis of a lifetime portrait of Chingiz Khan and of information from the medieval Tatar Dastan (epic) 'About the Origin of Ciingiz Khan', as well as from other historical sources. This portrait was used by authors of the video without Yenikeiev's permission and without telling where the portrait came from. This portrait is published on the cover of G. R. Yenikeiev's book ‘Forgotten heritage of the Tatars’: see: www.kobo.com/ww/en/ebook/forgotten-heritage-of-tatars-1
Yes, I do not disagree with that. This video simply looks at a possible explanation for the mixed usage of the names Tatar and Mongol in the 13th century.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory look on old maps tatary and turkish empire are in two different regions , tatars were pure mongols before they moved towards west, ottomans conquered western parts of tatary and tatars became assimilated .
@@Ercan-le8kz Tatar tribesmen were the elite of the Golden Horde. The word Tatar does not actually imply to a nation or an etnicity. It was a cultural think. Timurids were also called as Tatars for example. After the Mongol Invasion, majority of the people who had been called as "Tatar" were Turkic.
Is Genghis Khan Chinese? "We define him as a great man of the Chinese people, a hero of the Mongolian nationality, and a giant in world history," said Guo Wurong, the manager of the new Genghis Khan "mausoleum" in China's Inner Mongolia province. "Genghis Khan was certainly Chinese," he added.Dec 30, 2006
Hi, Mongol is a derogatory term replacing the regional name Mongal since the late 19th century. Mongols called themselves Mong just like Xiongnu called themselves Mong. Existing Mongal's descendants (both in Mongolia & China) still refer to themselves as Mong.
Meng/Mang/Mong + er/ar/or = Mangar/Menger/Mongor > Mogher/Mongher (Chinese Mohe) > Motkit in the East, Maghar in the West > eventually Magyar/Man(g)si/Ma(gl)arulal/Malkar (Balkar) in the West and Mongol/Mangud/Manchur in the East. Mang means “person” (man in English came to mean “male” only later) and “er/ur” means “free person/lord”, both in Indo-European. So the word literally means something like “free person” or “manly person” or “lord of himself”.
Why do you mispronounce "taRtar"? It is "tatar". Also, only the most western catholic nations used to call them "taRtars", as an association with the ancient Roman hell "Tartar". Western Europeans had no clue of Mongol identities.
because Mongol is the origin of Gog Magog Yajooj Majooj identify as == from Hell. The Great Wall of China is the real iron wall. other biblical theories: Revelation 13:14 ...the Beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. (that sword is the symbol of Genghis Khan & his largest contiguous empire during medieval times) : Revelation 13:3: ...the fatal wound was healed! The (whole world marveled) at this miracle and gave allegiance to the Beast. That revived empire is not the Caliphate nor EU (NATO) it will be base on some Asian dominion...This is not yet happening it will occur partly Asia at the nearly end of times. The 10 nation there is probably ASEAN. Many scholars will still don't believe this..There are some biblical texts are not true done by Europeans..They will believe and find the truth....tooo late!
Interesting, it seems then like Tatar was the name of an ethnic group, like uyghers or turks, whereas Mongol is the name for a confederation of tribes and peoples, much like "American."
Not exactly both were names of confederations Tatar was common term to Turkic people which dominated the area before Genghis and Mongolian was a term when Genghis ruled, Turkc tribes and population was a lot bigger so most of generals were Turkic or Turko-Mongolian but spoke Turkic so when asked they called themselves Tatars as were closer to the Turkic culture although both have similarities but there were some differences
Russia only called the people live in the Golden Horde Tatars. Most of the population of the Kipchak Khanate（Also known as the Golden Horde） is the Kipchak and Bulgars turkic.The Mongols occupied the Kipchak Steppe, but the Mongols were assimilated by the Kipchak Turks.
1) In Russian using term Tataro-Mongols or just Mongols. Tatars now is using for Volga Tatars, Crimean Tatars. In older times it was also used for Azerbaijanis (Caucasian Tatars) xd 2) Tatars were Nirun-Mongolic tribe, also in Mongolian still exist word дадар (ᠳᠠᠳᠠᠷ) "pennant".
Like Japan is the name of the country and Yamato is the name of the people, Mongol was the name of the state and Tatar was the name of the people. That point of view I heard from academic from modern Tatarstan. That is why when western Khanate was named Golden Horde, name of the people remained to be Tatar. There are Tatars even in Afghanistan who live there since the invasion of 13th century. They call them selves Tatars and have near identical language to Tatars from Tatarstan.
Their language is similar to ours but not identical I would use the term identical when referring to their language in comparison to Uzbek or Turkmen which are both similar to modern day Tatr but not identical its a 75% match not need for interpret to discuss simple things but you get like 7-8 words out of 10
Mongol never call themselves Tatar. Why should we call ourselves Tatar, Who is coming out with this idea? Just wake up one morning, started talking nonsence. Tartar is Russians misleading name for Mongols.
@@dragonsfury3370 Mongol has many tribes. One of them was Tatar, as well as Naiman, Merkit, Hongriads...many many. So? We are all Mongols. Kalha was just also tribe had specific role of protecting palaces homes of Kings and Queens...meaning of the word Khalha means covered and protect. Turegs are not different either. But dont mixed with todays Turk people though.
Enkhzaya Zundui Tatars (Otuz tatar bodun and dokuz tatar), Borjigins (Boru Teginler - wolf princes), Kiyats all are Turkic tribes and are not related to Tungusic Mongolian ones
@@enkhzayazundui1063 Those who remained in Mongolia are purely Mongolian tribes but the generals of Genghis were most Turkic or Turko-Mongolian , Tatar just means Turko-Mongolian that's why those who were Turko-Mongolian called themselves Tatar , a good example of that is Tamerlan or how he often called Amir Timur , Mongoian by the tribe of his father Turkic by the tribe of his mother he was Muslim and didn't speak Mongolian only Turkic he also married a woman from a high Mongolian tribe. So the mx happened in Central Asia not in Mongolia. With all the respect to our Mongolian brothers from your Tatar cousin :)
What does make you a turk you fucking bastard, the name turk was given to the land first, turk= people of turkey this is the origin, tatars were mongolian people, tatars have no roots in turkey , we have tatars in turkey they came back in 1944 as refugees BECAUSE SOVIETS EXPELLED THEM, living in turkey doesnt make tatars turkish, tatars are tatars and turks are turks. STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE DONT BE ASHAMED OF YOUR TATAR ORIGIN.
@@archiefeld5801 He is not referring to anatolian Turks u moron... Turkic is a modern term. Even Magyars were called as "a race of Turks" but the Muslim and Roman sources. Anatolian Turks are Oghuz. Köktürks were the people who gave their name just like the Mongols. Originally Tatars were not Mongols, they were Mongolic. Just like a Swedish is not German but Germanic.
@@archiefeld5801 The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars).
Tatar in turkic language means strangers. And they are definitely mongols origin. They were later turkified and mixed with Europeans later . There are more and original sources they lived in outer mongolia. They were mongol origin but turks still use that name
This question does not scientific. Let's ignore it. It's vulgar or troll.. Wherever you like ;) but not important to the even whole topic. So focus on more important things. I'm saying it as a descendant of kypchak steppe which later ruled by mixed in kypchak people the tribes manghyt. Which made a big influence on ethnogenesis of dozen of nations from Afghanistan, Kazakhstan to Lithuania and Hungary. Simpler.. Keep in your mind a word ethnogenesis, and forget your meaningless question or thesis or whatever. Freedom to East Turkistan. Let's call whole turkic battle cry TURAN. to help our bloodbrothers in East Turkistan which erasing in concentrational camps by chinise communist fascist regime. It's a XXI century holocaust 2.0
I'm not sure this makes Chinggis a Turk: rather, the implication from the sources was that at least a number of the tribes of 12th century Mongolia were called Tatars, no matter if they were Turkic or Mongolic speakers. We have to wonder if these kinds of ethnic divisions we modern people put on them would be recognizable to the exact situation though. The Liao and Jin Dynastic sources are somewhat similar, referring to all the tribes in the area by a general term ('zubu, 'shubo' or variations of). However, the Mongols in the west certainly mixed with Turkic tribes: probably in the Golden Horde the amount of Mongols actually from Mongolia was very small, so those Tatars are definitely Turkic, with Mongolian political influences.
Well, No. We have DNA samples of Old Turks and Mongols. Both are definetly different than each other. Nowadays Kazakhs have a lot Mongol influence but still not close to Mongols. Ulanbatur Mongols are probably still the same since beginning of Mongol khanate. Old Turkic people had %20 - %45 Eastern Euroasian DNA while nowadays Kazakh for example have around %30-%60. Old Mongolians where %98 Eastern Euroasian and nowadays they are around %85 Eastern Euroasian. So Mongols still the ancestors of nowadays Mongols.
Yes, but modern Tatars have some small Mongolian ancestry, and Mongol political system influenced them for centuries. This video here is only looking at an argument relating to the historical usage of the names Mongol and Tatar in the thirteenth century.
The Jackmeister: Mongol History Yes, and there was also the Golden horde. Also, sometimes azeris are called caucasian tatars and they are oghuz turks, are they related to tatars? I know crimean tatars are kipchaks
So from what I understand, it seems that (mostly) Russians would call Azeris 'Tatars,' basically just because they were Turkic, and the Russian Empire for a time basically used Tatar and Turk interchangeably (or Turk specified the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, and anyone outside of it was a Tatar). There doesn't really seem to be any relation beyond that, but Europeans were very flexible with the term: the Manchu, for example, were sometimes called Tatars. There is also the Kalmyks and the Kumyks, who sometimes are called Caucasian Tatars as well in older literature. But along with the Azeris, this just seems to be mislabeling from outside peoples.
In the strictest modern sense, 'Tatar,' as in the ethnic group, are Turkic peoples who are descendants of the Golden Horde and its successor states (Crimean Khanate, Kazan, Sibir, and so on) living mostly in western Russia and in neighbouring countries, and are speakers of languages in the Qipchaq branch of Turkic. This is of course, a very wide and distinct group, from Crimean Tatars, Volga Tatars and Siberian Tatars, and many more. But when we refer to Tatars today, this broad grouping is typically what we mean. There are, I am told, Tatar clans as subdivisions among modern Mongols, Kazakhs, and Hazaras, but I don't know much about them beyond that.
About a year ago, I released my most popular video,a look at why the Mongols are so often called Tatars in our historical sources, and their relations to the Tatars of 12th century Mongolia, and the Tatars of western Russia in the modern period. The explanation provided in that video didn’t sit well with all examples, however, and left me unsatisfied come new information. In a recent article uploaded only two weeks ago, historian Stephen Pow has provided an explanation which, though radical, does solve the problem. In this video, we examine Pow’s argument, presenting his evidence and letting you in on some brand-new historiography. It will be the most exciting 18 minutes of your life!
Pow’s article can be found here. You may need to make an account first, but it’s free and the historian can find many, may great references there.
Pow, Stephen. “Nationes que se Tartaros appellant”: An Exploration of the Historical Problem of the Usage of the Ethnonyms Tatar and Mongol in Medieval Sources.” Golden Horde Review 7 no. 3 (2019): 545-567
www.academia.edu/40478303/_Nationes_que_se_Tartaros_appellant_An_Exploration_of_the_Historical_Problem_of_the_Usage_of_the_Ethnonyms_Tatar_and_Mongol_in_Medieval_Sources
DONATIONS
Paypal: paypal.me/thejackmeister?locale.x=en_US
Patreon: www.patreon.com/jackmeister
Fact is tatars spoke originally a mongolian language and they were mongols from east asia
Well then I am impressed just I don't think its constructed well as in the women were warriors and that is where you find the issues with other Asian sources and of course men who assume they rule over women so they create a false narrative like the middle east
- Mongolian woman here
and I recommend a read of the secret history of Mongolian queens as well or Khatuns nobody talks about the female component? and finally if
I'm wrong why is there a religious element within the Mongolian Buddhist sect of the fact a goddess of war exists??
Didn't Golden Horde nomads were called as Tatar because their aristocracy was Tatar in majority? The local people and army was majority Kipchaks as Mongol Empire was a tribal confederation. The state was also called as "Kipchak Khaganate". Although, almost every warlike nomads with mongoloid features were called as Tatars after the Mongol invasion including Timurids.
Mongols had many different tribes, one of them is Tatar. So what?
Stephen Pow is right. Even though my fellow Mongolians of today will probably deny it (because we were brought up on Secret History of Mongols as our main reference), I would say that actually the word Tatar sounds more "self" (us or ancestors of Mongols) rather than "the other" or other tribes (Turks or Cumans). Historical texts hint that both endonyms Tatar (so as we knew ourselves, including Temujin himself) and Mongol (so as we started to call ourselves with Hamag Mongol or even later as this video says) are connected to the Rouran Kaganate, which was called also Tantan and the founder of the Khaganate was a famous slave-turned-warrior called Muhuli. The Rourans (Tantans) actually left some inscriptions in brahmi letters yet in a Mongolic language. So, it is probably true that we called ourselves Tatar first, but then preferred the name Mongol. The Turkic tribes calling themselves Tatar is much a later in time development. I think the exonym Tatar among Volga Tatars is already shaken: I hear many calls or arguments on youtube to revive the endonym Bulgar or Kipchaks and so on.
This is one of the most informative channels on TH-cam, and I'm so happy I discovered it.
Thank you! It might not be flashy, but I like to think I've stuffed them with information like filling in a twinkie.
The Mongols were minority steppe people. Chinggis Khan united many other non-Mongolic tribes and called it Ikh Mongol - (The Great Mongol Empire) because it was ruled by Mongols. Tatars had more population number and had lost the battle which made them a part of Mongol Empire. Both people's culture is very same and Mongols valued people by their skills and knowledge. It is a country which united East to West and North to South. This is why people who want to study international relationship study Mongols.
most sources list early tatars as a rival mongolic people to the khamag mongol who conquered them and only after subjugating the turks in the west did the turkic bulgars and cumans etc adopted the name tatar.
Based on which source?
A new video! Sometimes I do those. Here, we look at an argument recently suggested by Stephen Pow, offering a solution to the problem of the naming of Mongols and Tatars in our medieval sources. 18 minutes of pure entertainment.
A heads up: I was able to add proper closed captioning to this video, and will do so for future videos too. Older ones will be slowly updated
We love your work, it's fantastic!
Thank you!
A bit more in support of Pow's argument on the usage of Tatar: Indonesian sources on the Yuan Invasion of Java refer to them as Tatars!
medium.com/@siwaratrikalpa/tatar-dc9701a78728
From what I've read in many books both islamic and western, the tatars were a mongolic tribe north of China. They interacted with the chinese, hence the name becoming more famous. Also the tatar and Hamaq, or kamaq whatever chingiz tribe is they were enemies. So in my opinion I dont think they are the same.
Also alot of the time, at the frontier of an empire they call everyone outside their border the first tribe they interact with.
They were like neighbors 😂
Everyone interested in this topic I encourage you to listen the Kings and Generals podcast on the topic. It features Jackmeister and Dr Stephen Pow.
In the western part of the steppes the Turgish tribe, which is just "one" of the ten tribes, takes the power and the leadership of the Ten-Tribe (On-Ok) and establishes the Turgish Khaganate, giving their own tribal name to the nation. In the Eastern part of the steppes the Uighur tribe joins and takes the power and the leadership of the Nine-Tribes (Dokuz-Oguz) and establishes the Uighur Khaganate, again, giving their own tribal name to their nation. As we know from the Orkhon Inscriptions the Tatars are called Thirty-Tatar (Otuz-Tatar). 30 tatar tribes... This means they are alot in number in that area... Mongol is just "one" of these 30 tatar tribes. The same way as the Dokuz-Oguz and the On-Ok, the Mongol tribe of the Tatars takes the power and the leadership of the other Tatar tribes and is calling simply their nation Mongol by giving their own tribal name, so yes, they are still Tatars all of them, including Mongol. The nation takes automatically the name after its dynasty/the ruler tribe.
Great video and Interesting arguments, As a Mongolian what we know is Tatars killed Chingis Khaan's Father Yusgei baater by using poison tea when Yusger baater passing by Tatars land. In the revenge Chingis Khaan ordered kill all Tatars tribe people as long as taller then carriage wheel. So in this bloody relationship between Mongols and Tatars we wouldn't call ourself Tatars back in the time!!! Specially Chingis Khaan would never say we are Tatars. I understand the poor history written mislead somehow, Cause Mongolian history all written by all enemies by the time. specially you mentioned some of the history written in Chinese but pronounce in Mongolian. you can imagine if you speak in English but written in Chinese, would be a lot of mistakes to people understand what really is.
Reminds me of the Jurchen->Manchu change 😮
we call them Tatars here the term Mongol is in use though
Genghis khan and his army & generals called themselves as a Tatars.
Later Temudjin called his big nomad empire as a “Mongol” empire, (Eternal people of blue sky “Mengu El”).
All turkic-mongolic tribes such as Kiyat/Konyrat/Naiman/Argyn/Uisun/Alchyn/Mangyt/Tabyn/Barlas/Kerei/Merkyt/Kataghan/Jalayir/Kipchak/Uryanhat/Ongut/Kanly/Dulat/Baryn/Shyryn were in Mongol confederation.
Remember Chinggis Khan never called himself as a Tatar! He is Mongol more specifically from a tribe called Borjigon (Borjigin). Tatars lived on steppe and were Muslims. Mongols not! Mongols are Tengri people. Tatars are Muslims.
@@aslof1069 Tartars were Muslims 😂😂😂😂😂
@@aslof1069 You are confusing two different time periods when Genghis khan came most of nomad Turkic people were not Muslims the became only after his death the majority of Musim heritage in modern day Tatars comes from Volga Bulgars in 10 the century who were not Tatar and from later when Turko-Mongolians(Tatars) accepted Isam in 13th century by Khan Uzbek Khan, that is also the reason why the Turko-Mongolians of Khorezm later created a country called Uzbekistan named after the Khan
@@user-dw1ue9vy6h Tatars were Muslims during Chinggis Khan's period. You can clearly see it through their clothes, beliefs, etc.
Aslof I am Tatar bro... just read the history carefully and you will see
There were many groups non concurrently who were called tartars or called themselves tartar
top me it seems as if the Mongol state found their ancestors on their road of conquest.
The Kok Turuk (Göktürk) writings inform us about the 30-Tatar tribes. The word 'Tat' means 'infidel', 'the ones with a different religion/tradition/laws' in pre-islamic Turkic. İt was used for Persians, and even for Turkic people who converted to different religions. The word 'er' means warrior, human. Ziya Gökalp, an Ottoman-Turkic historian, argues in his book 'Türk Töresi'' that 'Tatar' was a synonym in pre-islamic Turkic for the western term 'Barbarian'.
Tarih, Kültür ve Siyaset sa
Shut your fucking mouth, there was no göktürk empire the word is turkish and not mongolian, you tatars are not turkish you are refugees, you are hiding tatar nationalism under the name turk , you have no evidences just comic paintings and artificial names , Tatars are a mongol people and you became assimilated by ottomans, mongols are not göktürks this is so ridiculous, dont deny your mongol tatar origin, turkey is not your origin, there was nevet ever a country called göktürk in china, you dogs are fabricating these terms to feel better.
And by the way fuck your wolgs bulgar tatar alphabet, You Tatars are not turkish in origin no one called tatars as turks in medieval, turkish people are native anatolians we created our empire and we found ottoman language it was not a product of tatar mongols, turkey never haf a tatar population until 1944, turk was a name given by europeans to describe the muslims of ottoman empire, there is no pre islamic turk identity , islam and turkishness go hand in hand, there was a pre islamic tatar origin you were mongols who were conquered by ottomans, STUPID TATARS DONT LIE TO PEOPLE YOU ARE NOT TURKS.
@@archiefeld5801 WTF are you talking about you salty ignorant? Romans called Central Asia as Turk. Göktürk Khaganate was actually Turk/ish-ic Khaganate. Originally Tatars were Mongolic but after the Mongol invasion, Kipchaks and other Turkic people were called as Tatars. Hence majority of the Mongol army was Turkic origin and Golden Horde was mentioned as "Kipchak Khaganate" in the historical sources. Tatars are just like Bolgars. Bulgars used to be Turkic but not at the moment.
No
another excellent presentation. I'd heard Tatars kept their name, or at least one usage was based on 'tartartis' from the Greek, for "from hell". Have u heard that one?
because Mongol is the origin of Gog Magog Yajooj Majooj identify as == from Hell. The Great Wall of China is the real iron wall.
other biblical theories: Revelation 13:14 ...the Beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. (that sword is the symbol of Genghis Khan & his largest contiguous
empire during medieval times)
: Revelation 13:3: ...the fatal wound was healed! The (whole world marveled) at this miracle and gave allegiance to the Beast. That revived empire is not
the Caliphate nor EU (NATO) it will be base on some Asian dominion...This is not yet happening it will occur partly Asia at the nearly end of times. The 10 nation there
is probably ASEAN. Many scholars will still don't believe this..There are some biblical texts are not true done by Europeans..They will believe and find the truth....tooo late!
That is incorrect
If the takeaway with this is that "Mongol" was more a "neo" identity pushed forward by the ruling class over Tatar do you think it is possible that "Mongol" could potentially have been "Munkh-Khol" loosely meaning "eternal center/pivot point". Kinda like Mongke Khan's namesake?
Interesting thought but Genghis khan likely inherited Mongol from Hamag Mongol to boost legitimacy. It is any ones guess why Hamag mongols come to call themself mongol.
It's kinda like Canada. Quebec used to be new France and early Canada, then british conquered and annexed us. French, Natives and British Loyalist mixed and Called themselves Canadians. French and mixed French-Natives are the original Canadians.
But Volga Tatars accepted this name only at the end of 19th century, although Russians called them so, like they called dozens of ethnicities, even Caucasian, Siberian, FarEastern as Tatars
@@Ftor945, being a historian, you did not pay attention to Shihabutdin Marjani (second half of the 19th century)! After all, then there were lively discussions among the religious intelligentsia about which ethnonym to choose ... many famous figures, like Rizaetdin Fakhriddin, opposed this name "Tatar", calling it a contemptible nickname given by Russians. You can't look at your history in such a simplistic way, following the nationalist agenda.
Both during the Golden Horde and after there was no single identity as "Tatars": people called themselves by ulus or clan: Kipchak, Kungrat, Barlas, Nogai. That is, "Tatars" meant an exonym, not an endoethnonym (like "немцы", "китайцы", etc.).
Only at the end of the Golden Horde, a single identity begins to take shape here - namely Uzbek identity(the last Khan of the Golden Horde, Sheikh Ahmed, 1495-1502 said: bizning ozbeg taifasi), and not Tatar...
They say all most of the commanders was tatar in mongolia army . Most of the soldiers also
Most talented people about innbattle
The genuine appearance and essence of Chinghiz Khan, the real History of the Tatars, of many Turkic peoples and Russians:
First of all it must be said, that in official history there are many falsifications and slanders about the ‘Tatars - wild nomads’ etc., which were written by pro-Chinese, Persian, also both Russian tsars Romanovs and Bolshevik ideologists.
However primarily we should know the truth about the meaning of the names ‘Mongol’ and ‘Tatar’ (‘Tartar’) in the medieval Eurasia:
According to many medieval sources, the name ‘Mongol’ until the 17th-18th centuries meant belonging to a political community, and was not the ethnic name. While ‘‘the name ‘Tatar’ was ‘the name of the own ethnos (nation) of Chinghiz Khan'. Also ‘…Chinghiz Khan and his people did not speak the language, which we now call the ‘Mongolian’…’’ (an academician-orientalist V.P.Vasiliev, 19th century). This confirmed by many little known data. So in fact Chinghiz Khan was from among the medieval Tatars and the outstanding and progressive leader of the Turkic peoples.
About the real faith of Chinghiz Khan and his native people: for example, the Turkish traveler Celebi (17th century) wrote the following from the words of Tatar alims (scientists): ‘It is proved that Chinghiz Khan was a Muslim, and the Tatars professed Islam already during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)’.
Also, as Tatar alims told Chelebi, Chingiz Khan had been buried in the Volga region, not far from the city of Astrakhan. Moreover, there is a lot of data about this, hidden from us.
It is worth saying that according to many little-known data, the ancient and medieval Tatars were a very developed people both in spiritual and material aspects. It was the medieval Tatars who created the first Constitution of Eurasia, which was called in Tatar ‘Great Yasu’ (‘Yasu’ in Tatar means 'Scripture').
But with time many of their descendants became spiritually disabled and forgot invaluable doctrine and covenants of the creators of Great Yasu...
So that the Tatars of Chinghiz Khan - medieval Tatars - were one of the Turkic nations, whose descendants now live in many of the fraternal Turkic peoples of Eurasia - among Tatars, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Uighurs, and many others.
And few people know that the ethnos of medieval Tatars, which stopped the expansion of the Persians and the Chinese to the West of the World in Medieval centuries, is still alive. Despite to the politicians of the tsars Romanovs tsars and Bolsheviks dictators, which had divided and scattered this ethnos to different nations...
About everything above mentioned and a lot of the true history of the Tatars and other fraternal Turkic peoples, that was hidden from us, had been written, in detail and proved, in the book ‘Forgotten Heritage of Tatars’ - it is one of books by an independent historian Gali Yenikey, translated in Engilsh.
There are a lot of previously little-known historical facts, as well as 16 maps and illustrations in this book. This e-book (in English language) you can easily find in the Internet here: www.kobo.com/ebook/forgotten-heritage-of-tatars-1 or here: payhip.com/b/Xujb
On the cover of this book you can see the true appearance of Chinghiz Khan. It is his lifetime portrait. In the ancient Tatar historical source ‘About the clan of Chinghiz Khan’ its author gave the words of the mother of Chinghiz Khan: ‘My son Chinghiz looks like this: he has a golden bushy beard, he wears a white fur coat and rides on a white horse’. As we can see, the portrait of an unknown medieval artist in many ways corresponds to the words of the mother of the Hero, which have come down to us in this ancient Tatar epic. Therefore, this portrait, which corresponds to the information of the Tatar source and to data from other sources, we believe, the most reliably transmits the appearance of Chinghiz Khan...’.
And here's another interesting thing:
We can't keep silent that some 'very important' official historians try to retell the content (or rather, the concept) of the works of the independent historian Gali Yenikey (Yenikeiev). But they conceal where the information was by them taken from. However it turned out they were unsuccessful and confused - this official historians, apparently, do not dare to show the real history of the Tatars, being afraid of their ‘scientific chiefs’.
But not only this - see the portrait of Chingiz Khan - see on the 7th minute of the video of the Institute of history of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan (Russia): th-cam.com/video/3WqB71gs5bc/w-d-xo.html - also this portrait is shown there both before and after.
This portrait is reconstruction, which made by Yenikeiev on the basis of a lifetime portrait of Chingiz Khan and of information from the medieval Tatar Dastan (epic) 'About the Origin of Ciingiz Khan', as well as from other historical sources.
This portrait was used by authors of the video without Yenikeiev's permission and without telling where the portrait came from. This portrait is published on the cover of G. R. Yenikeiev's book ‘Forgotten heritage of the Tatars’: see: payhip.com/b/Xujb
For the first time this portrait was published on the cover of the third book by G. R. Yenikeiev ‘In the footsteps of the black legend’ (published in 2009), see its electronic version: payhip.com/b/DNdC
This ‘creativity’ of the official historians is called among the decent people as plagiarism - that is, as theft.
We are Mongols but others especially western people called us as Tatars in history.
hi, a Mongolian here, We wouldn't call ourselves Tatars, The Great Chinggis Khaan lost his father to the Tatars at a very Young and when he grew up ordered the Murder of all Tatars over a Carriages Wheels, Basically only babies and Children Survived
at that time we wouldn't call ourselves Mongols, especially Chinggis Khaan, and also even before Tatar we called everyone Humus, Hunus or Huns
Is it true that Genghis Khan had 7 brothers?
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب No he had 6 siblings + him which made 7 Kids
Belter
Beltugei
Temulen
Temuge
Hachiun
Jurchi (Khasar) + Genghis (Temujin)
@@Mongolian_Lhagvasuren But the Arab historians who were with Hulagu, such as Rashid al-Din al-Hamadhani and al-Juwayni, said that Genghis Khan had many brothers from his father, and they say that his father Genghis Khan is like a Persian or a Turk mixed with the Persians.
@@Mongolian_Lhagvasuren One of his brothers, Genghis Khan, died fighting the northern Chinese Jin Empire
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب from his Father he had 5 brothers, TemuLIN was a Girl
and the Persian Mix/turkic is a straight up lie, Mongols had no connections to Persia
Very simple, the Tatars and Mongols had a coalition. They dissipated amongst some Tatar populations since the 1200s.
Did you even watch the video?
The old Tatars are pure Mongolian ethnicity lived in southeastern Inner and Outer Mongolia, and they were people of courage, bravery and war planning, and they are neighbors of the walls of ancient China and ancient Chinese sources describe their conditions And the title of the Tatars was circulated to all Mongolians by the Chinese and the Russians, and the title of Mongol was belonging to the federation of tribes in northeastern Inner Mongolia and a part of Russia near Lake Baikal And also generalized
Where did you get that ?!
@@BrotherGamingTR From the book The Secret History of the Mongols and the writings of Chinese historians
@@BrotherGamingTR from his a..🤣🤣
The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars).
Nope
So like ethnicity
The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars).
Europeans made a lot of misleading wrong names. Such as Ghinggis Khan, it is actually Chinggis Haan, why there is “K”? So, it made Muslim people believe they descendent from Mongol Khan. Recently I heard someone calling Tangud was Chinese. Well, not at all. Tangud is closely related to Tibetans, but more to the North.
Enkhzaya Zundui i will tell you more turkic peoples are the only descendants of the Great Tartar empire. And kalkas are descendants of Mongolian People’s republic created by the Soviet union;)
@@dragonsfury3370 you need to study well about Mongols and also stepp tribes, if you really wants to know. Tatar is one of the stepp tribes, Khalxa is dominant etnic group among Mongols. It is just not pop up during communism. Communism actually let different tribes assimilate to each other, also let Mongol tribes such Tuvans, Buriad, Kalmiki and tureg tibes Kirkiz,Tatars forgot about their history, language even teach them how bad being Mongol, everybody has to be only resident of Soviet Union. We not even allow mention Chinggis Khaan. Russian even rewrite Mongol hystory by communist way, and call country of Mongol as Mongolia like Russian sound. Basically Communists were killing Mongol culture during 70 years of control of Soviet Union. We are few Mongols really strugled to survive since Mongol Empire collapse.
@@dragonsfury3370 Kalmyk are descendants of refugees from that 17th century.
@@dragonsfury3370the best answer i ve Heard up to now
@@enkhzayazundui1063so all Turks are Mongol..according to you😂
Long live the Tarars
*Mongols
Turks not mongols
@@griffinleib3843😂😂😂
Why do mongols think that all asians are mongols? Türkics are more crowded
Tatars was riding horses with wifes war together and live everything together maybe tatars is the first people think women and man are equal 😂
I’d love to see a origins of the Huns also I don’t think tartar is a term for Turks I think it refers to all central Asian Nomads
Tatar is not a term for turks you asshole, Turkey and tatary where two different regions look at old maps, Tatars came in 1944 into turkey , ottomans conquered tatars this is qhy they speak our language especially in crimea or central asia, Turk is a new name for the people of ottoman empire since 1923, befoew this period there was no turk people only the name foe a region. Stop calling mongolians as turkish, tatars are mongols and turks are the people asia minor
Ercan 44231 ok Asshole
Ercan 44231 oh yeah it’s 2019 your probably butt hurt so I don’t care go ahead and get mad lol 😂 fckn prick
Central asians are all linked with tatars, there is a clear difference between turkish the people and turkic speakers, central asians are assimilated turkified mongolians same as tatars
@@archiefeld5801 ye? Where are Turks apparently? If east is Mongols, central Asia is Mongols, it means no Turks are left xD
It was Genghis Khan who called the Tatars Mongols.
Монголы, которых китайцы называли тада,!!! Так получается, что современные татары самозванцы - никакие не татары???
No
maybe mongol is the official geghis khan family
tartar is the general population ethnic?
my primitive guess
But the Chagataids have called their ulus the Mogulistan.
Могул по тюркски, тот же монгол!!!
No
Because they emerged from Mongolia.... Today still West Side bayan ulge is full of kazaks..Türkics...in the north turkic duha people
Also its said that the tatars conquered and burned down Baghdad, i think they used tatars because the army was mostly turkic
the name turkic is fake , it doesnt represent the tatar mongols in anyway its just a update for crimean and wolga tatars who became assimilated by ottomans , tatars are mongolian originally and not turkish people from turkey , this is ridiculous.
@@bandohoxton5870 He is not referring Turks. Tatars were Turkic people, not Anatolian Turkish.
@@RandomGuy-df1oy sa
@@bandohoxton5870 mongolic is fake name 🤣🤣
@@papazataklaattiranimam as
Inside of Russia there are beautiful republic - Tatarstan. Capital - Kazan . The flag of Kazan is the same as Golden Horde. They are white tatars.
almost eeverything is accurate except "white tatars"
Before the mongols came they were called bulgars,suvars etc etc only after the mongols did they start using the name "tatars". Fact modern tatars are not ancient tatars who were a mongolic speaking people.
@@user-dw1ue9vy6h They are Turkic so yes technically they are white.
@@simonh6371 and “black Tatars”were not Turkic and “the white” ones were? Send me source
@@simonh6371 if he is not talking about the tribe “white Tatars” I get what he is saying but I want to know form where he decided that ourself we don’t know
The true appearance of Chinghiz Khan, the real History of the Tatars and many of Turkic peoples:
Perhaps you know, that an outstanding historian-scientist D. Iskhakov wrote: ‘the true history of the Tatars, of the people in every respect historical, is not written yet’.
However, recently were published books about the unwritten (hidden) real history of the Tatars by independent Tatar historian Gali Yenikey. His books present a new, or rather ‘well-forgotted old’ information about the real history of the Tatars and other Turkic peoples.
It must be said, that in official history there are many falsifications and slanders about the ‘Tatars - wild nomads’ etc., which were written by pro-Chinese, Persian, also both Romanovs and Bolshevik ideologists.
However primarily we should know the truth about the meaning of the names ‘Mongol’ and ‘Tatar’ (‘Tartar’) in the medieval Eurasia:
According to data of many medieval sources, the name ‘Mongol’ until the 17th-18th centuries meant belonging to a political community, and was not the ethnic name.
While ‘‘the name ‘Tatar’ was ‘the name of the own ethnos (nation) of Chinghiz Khan'. Also ‘…Chinghiz Khan and his people did not speak the language, which we now call the ‘Mongolian’…’’ (an academician-orientalist V.P.Vasiliev, 19th century). This confirmed by many little known facts. So in fact Chinghiz Khan was from among the medieval Tatars and the outstanding and progressive leader of the Turkic peoples.
It is worth saying that according to many little-known data, the ancient and medieval Tatars were a very developed people both in spiritual and material aspects. It was the medieval Tatars who created the first Constitution of Eurasia, which was called in Tatar ‘Great Yasu’ (in Tatar means 'Great Scripture').
But with time many of their descendants became spiritually disabled and forgot invaluable doctrine and covenants of the creators of Great Yasu... So that the Tatars of Chinghiz Khan - medieval Tatars - were one of the Turkic nations, whose descendants now live in many of the fraternal Turkic peoples of Eurasia - among the Tatars, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Uighurs, and many others.
And few people know that the ethnos of medieval Tatars, which stopped the expansion of the Persians and the Chinese to the West of the World in Medieval centuries, is still alive. Despite to the politicians of the tsars Romanovs and Bolsheviks dictators, which had divided and scattered this ethnos to different nations...
About everything above mentioned and a lot of the true history of the Tatars and other fraternal Turkic peoples, which was hidden from us, had been written, in detail and proved, in the book ‘Forgotten Heritage of Tatars’ - it is one of the dooks by Gali Yenikey, translated in Engilsh.
There are a lot of previously little-known historical facts, as well as 16 maps and illustrations in this book. This e-book (in English language) you can easily find in the Internet: www.kobo.com/ww/en/ebook/forgotten-heritage-of-tatars-1
On the cover of this book you can see the true appearance of Chinghiz Khan. It is his lifetime portrait. In the ancient Tatar historical source ‘About the clan of Chinghiz Khan’ its author gave the words of the mother of Chinghiz Khan: ‘My son Chinghiz looks like this: he has a golden bushy beard, he wears a white fur coat and rides on a white horse’.
As we can see, the portrait of an unknown medieval artist in many ways corresponds to the words of the mother of the Hero, which have come down to us in this ancient Tatar epic. Therefore, this portrait, which corresponds to the information of the Tatar source and to data from other sources, we believe, the most reliably transmits the appearance of Chinghiz Khan...’.
And here's another interesting thing:
We can't keep silent that some 'very important' official historians try to retell the content (or rather, the concept) of the works of the independent historian Gali Yenikey (Yenikeiev). But they conceal where the information was by them taken from. However it turned out they were unsuccessful and confused - this official historians, apparently, do not dare to show the real history of the Tatars, being afraid of their ‘scientific chiefs’.
But not only this - see the portrait of Chingiz Khan - see on the 7th minute of the video of the Institute of history of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan (Russia): th-cam.com/video/3WqB71gs5bc/w-d-xo.html s - also this portrait is shown there both before and after.
This portrait is reconstruction, which made by Yenikeiev on the basis of a lifetime portrait of Chingiz Khan and of information from the medieval Tatar Dastan (epic) 'About the Origin of Ciingiz Khan', as well as from other historical sources.
This portrait was used by authors of the video without Yenikeiev's permission and without telling where the portrait came from. This portrait is published on the cover of G. R. Yenikeiev's book ‘Forgotten heritage of the Tatars’: see: www.kobo.com/ww/en/ebook/forgotten-heritage-of-tatars-1
Vikings are joke compared to steppe raiders 😂
The people that called tatar nowadays is not tatar,they are turkic peaople that used to live in golden horde and named tatar.
Yes, I do not disagree with that. This video simply looks at a possible explanation for the mixed usage of the names Tatar and Mongol in the 13th century.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory look on old maps tatary and turkish empire are in two different regions , tatars were pure mongols before they moved towards west, ottomans conquered western parts of tatary and tatars became assimilated .
Turk, Hun(magyar), white Hun, Mongolia, are from mongolia....please study history start from thousand years ago not from mongolian invasion
Archie Feld please first educate yourself than comment here
@@Ercan-le8kz Tatar tribesmen were the elite of the Golden Horde. The word Tatar does not actually imply to a nation or an etnicity. It was a cultural think. Timurids were also called as Tatars for example. After the Mongol Invasion, majority of the people who had been called as "Tatar" were Turkic.
I belong to Tatari Mongolian family
Is Genghis Khan Chinese?
"We define him as a great man of the Chinese people, a hero of the Mongolian nationality, and a giant in world history," said Guo Wurong, the manager of the new Genghis Khan "mausoleum" in China's Inner Mongolia province. "Genghis Khan was certainly Chinese," he added.Dec 30, 2006
Nope
Maybe the mongol used word tartar because tartar was widely known
Hi, Mongol is a derogatory term replacing the regional name Mongal since the late 19th century. Mongols called themselves Mong just like Xiongnu called themselves Mong. Existing Mongal's descendants (both in Mongolia & China) still refer to themselves as Mong.
Meng/Mang/Mong + er/ar/or = Mangar/Menger/Mongor > Mogher/Mongher (Chinese Mohe) > Motkit in the East, Maghar in the West > eventually Magyar/Man(g)si/Ma(gl)arulal/Malkar (Balkar) in the West and Mongol/Mangud/Manchur in the East. Mang means “person” (man in English came to mean “male” only later) and “er/ur” means “free person/lord”, both in Indo-European. So the word literally means something like “free person” or “manly person” or “lord of himself”.
It's incorrect because the “Mughals" never called themselves Mughals, that's a much later anglicizaton.
Why do you mispronounce "taRtar"? It is "tatar". Also, only the most western catholic nations used to call them "taRtars", as an association with the ancient Roman hell "Tartar". Western Europeans had no clue of Mongol identities.
because Mongol is the origin of Gog Magog Yajooj Majooj identify as == from Hell. The Great Wall of China is the real iron wall.
other biblical theories: Revelation 13:14 ...the Beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. (that sword is the symbol of Genghis Khan & his largest contiguous
empire during medieval times)
: Revelation 13:3: ...the fatal wound was healed! The (whole world marveled) at this miracle and gave allegiance to the Beast. That revived empire is not
the Caliphate nor EU (NATO) it will be base on some Asian dominion...This is not yet happening it will occur partly Asia at the nearly end of times. The 10 nation there
is probably ASEAN. Many scholars will still don't believe this..There are some biblical texts are not true done by Europeans..They will believe and find the truth....tooo late!
Tatars are the people as whole. Mongol is a family name, the ruling Tatar family of that time. It's that simple!
Interesting, it seems then like Tatar was the name of an ethnic group, like uyghers or turks, whereas Mongol is the name for a confederation of tribes and peoples, much like "American."
Not exactly both were names of confederations Tatar was common term to Turkic people which dominated the area before Genghis and Mongolian was a term when Genghis ruled, Turkc tribes and population was a lot bigger so most of generals were Turkic or Turko-Mongolian but spoke Turkic so when asked they called themselves Tatars as were closer to the Turkic culture although both have similarities but there were some differences
Tatars are exterminated by Chinggis Khaan himself because they assainated his father. Very weird why Mongol Empire of Russia are called "tatars".
Even stranger is that Ogedei, the second great khan, in a letter to the monarch of Korea refer to himself as Tartar.
UzbekKhan was mog’ul but we uzbeks call ourselves as Turukic
not mongol of russia.The Golden Horde was a country of Kipchak Turks.Kichak turkic live in southeast europe at that time not russia
Russia only called the people live in the Golden Horde Tatars.
Most of the population of the Kipchak Khanate（Also known as the Golden Horde） is the Kipchak and Bulgars turkic.The Mongols occupied the Kipchak Steppe, but the Mongols were assimilated by the Kipchak Turks.
1) In Russian using term Tataro-Mongols or just Mongols. Tatars now is using for Volga Tatars, Crimean Tatars. In older times it was also used for Azerbaijanis (Caucasian Tatars) xd
2) Tatars were Nirun-Mongolic tribe, also in Mongolian still exist word дадар (ᠳᠠᠳᠠᠷ) "pennant".
Like Japan is the name of the country and Yamato is the name of the people, Mongol was the name of the state and Tatar was the name of the people. That point of view I heard from academic from modern Tatarstan. That is why when western Khanate was named Golden Horde, name of the people remained to be Tatar. There are Tatars even in Afghanistan who live there since the invasion of 13th century. They call them selves Tatars and have near identical language to Tatars from Tatarstan.
Their language is similar to ours but not identical I would use the term identical when referring to their language in comparison to Uzbek or Turkmen which are both similar to modern day Tatr but not identical its a 75% match not need for interpret to discuss simple things but you get like 7-8 words out of 10
There are no Tatars in Afghanistan so what are you talking about?
Mongol is the name of a tribal confederation that later became the name of the mongolic peoples later on.
tatar speak a kichak turkic language not mongol!kichak turkic live volga/tatarstan before mongol!
Mongol never call themselves Tatar. Why should we call ourselves Tatar, Who is coming out with this idea? Just wake up one morning, started talking nonsence. Tartar is Russians misleading name for Mongols.
Enkhzaya Zundui . You have always called yourself kalkas, Tatars are turkic peoples, and Mongolian empire is a turkic state
@@dragonsfury3370 keep going.
@@dragonsfury3370 Mongol has many tribes. One of them was Tatar, as well as Naiman, Merkit, Hongriads...many many. So? We are all Mongols. Kalha was just also tribe had specific role of protecting palaces homes of Kings and Queens...meaning of the word Khalha means covered and protect.
Turegs are not different either. But dont mixed with todays Turk people though.
Enkhzaya Zundui Tatars (Otuz tatar bodun and dokuz tatar), Borjigins (Boru Teginler - wolf princes), Kiyats all are Turkic tribes and are not related to Tungusic Mongolian ones
@@enkhzayazundui1063 Those who remained in Mongolia are purely Mongolian tribes but the generals of Genghis were most Turkic or Turko-Mongolian , Tatar just means Turko-Mongolian that's why those who were Turko-Mongolian called themselves Tatar , a good example of that is Tamerlan or how he often called Amir Timur , Mongoian by the tribe of his father Turkic by the tribe of his mother he was Muslim and didn't speak Mongolian only Turkic he also married a woman from a high Mongolian tribe. So the mx happened in Central Asia not in Mongolia.
With all the respect to our Mongolian brothers from your Tatar cousin :)
Tatars are turks not mongols
What does make you a turk you fucking bastard, the name turk was given to the land first, turk= people of turkey this is the origin, tatars were mongolian people, tatars have no roots in turkey , we have tatars in turkey they came back in 1944 as refugees BECAUSE SOVIETS EXPELLED THEM, living in turkey doesnt make tatars turkish, tatars are tatars and turks are turks. STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE DONT BE ASHAMED OF YOUR TATAR ORIGIN.
@@archiefeld5801 He is not referring to anatolian Turks u moron... Turkic is a modern term. Even Magyars were called as "a race of Turks" but the Muslim and Roman sources. Anatolian Turks are Oghuz. Köktürks were the people who gave their name just like the Mongols. Originally Tatars were not Mongols, they were Mongolic. Just like a Swedish is not German but Germanic.
@@archiefeld5801
The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars).
Tatar in turkic language means strangers. And they are definitely mongols origin. They were later turkified and mixed with Europeans later . There are more and original sources they lived in outer mongolia. They were mongol origin but turks still use that name
This is the Turkic vs China 2021 edition. Propaganda. "Mixed toghether for unknown reasons" 😂😂
First
That makes Genghis Khan a Turk which makes sense, since mongols now have a lot of chinese genes while kazakhstan have more Genghis khans genes
This question does not scientific. Let's ignore it. It's vulgar or troll.. Wherever you like ;) but not important to the even whole topic. So focus on more important things. I'm saying it as a descendant of kypchak steppe which later ruled by mixed in kypchak people the tribes manghyt. Which made a big influence on ethnogenesis of dozen of nations from Afghanistan, Kazakhstan to Lithuania and Hungary. Simpler.. Keep in your mind a word ethnogenesis, and forget your meaningless question or thesis or whatever. Freedom to East Turkistan. Let's call whole turkic battle cry TURAN. to help our bloodbrothers in East Turkistan which erasing in concentrational camps by chinise communist fascist regime. It's a XXI century holocaust 2.0
D III we must agree that Genghis is Turkic and not Mongol now. We Turkic people should be proud about our Genghis :)
Y haplogroup C3 is major haplogroup of Kazakhstan.
I'm not sure this makes Chinggis a Turk: rather, the implication from the sources was that at least a number of the tribes of 12th century Mongolia were called Tatars, no matter if they were Turkic or Mongolic speakers. We have to wonder if these kinds of ethnic divisions we modern people put on them would be recognizable to the exact situation though. The Liao and Jin Dynastic sources are somewhat similar, referring to all the tribes in the area by a general term ('zubu, 'shubo' or variations of).
However, the Mongols in the west certainly mixed with Turkic tribes: probably in the Golden Horde the amount of Mongols actually from Mongolia was very small, so those Tatars are definitely Turkic, with Mongolian political influences.
Well, No. We have DNA samples of Old Turks and Mongols. Both are definetly different than each other. Nowadays Kazakhs have a lot Mongol influence but still not close to Mongols. Ulanbatur Mongols are probably still the same since beginning of Mongol khanate. Old Turkic people had %20 - %45 Eastern Euroasian DNA while nowadays Kazakh for example have around %30-%60. Old Mongolians where %98 Eastern Euroasian and nowadays they are around %85 Eastern Euroasian. So Mongols still the ancestors of nowadays Mongols.
Tatars are turks not mongols
Yes, but modern Tatars have some small Mongolian ancestry, and Mongol political system influenced them for centuries. This video here is only looking at an argument relating to the historical usage of the names Mongol and Tatar in the thirteenth century.
The Jackmeister: Mongol History Yes, and there was also the Golden horde.
Also, sometimes azeris are called caucasian tatars and they are oghuz turks, are they related to tatars? I know crimean tatars are kipchaks
So from what I understand, it seems that (mostly) Russians would call Azeris 'Tatars,' basically just because they were Turkic, and the Russian Empire for a time basically used Tatar and Turk interchangeably (or Turk specified the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, and anyone outside of it was a Tatar). There doesn't really seem to be any relation beyond that, but Europeans were very flexible with the term: the Manchu, for example, were sometimes called Tatars.
There is also the Kalmyks and the Kumyks, who sometimes are called Caucasian Tatars as well in older literature. But along with the Azeris, this just seems to be mislabeling from outside peoples.
The Jackmeister: Mongol History oh thats why there are lots of “tatars” in russia.
Who are the “true” tatars?
In the strictest modern sense, 'Tatar,' as in the ethnic group, are Turkic peoples who are descendants of the Golden Horde and its successor states (Crimean Khanate, Kazan, Sibir, and so on) living mostly in western Russia and in neighbouring countries, and are speakers of languages in the Qipchaq branch of Turkic. This is of course, a very wide and distinct group, from Crimean Tatars, Volga Tatars and Siberian Tatars, and many more. But when we refer to Tatars today, this broad grouping is typically what we mean. There are, I am told, Tatar clans as subdivisions among modern Mongols, Kazakhs, and Hazaras, but I don't know much about them beyond that.