For further reading. If you're interested in any of these but cannot find a copy, please contact me and I will provide you. Atwood, Christopher. “The Administrative Origins of Mongolia’s ‘Tribal’ Vocabulary.” Eurasia: Statum et Legem. 1 no. 4 (2015): 7-43. www.academia.edu/18163390/The_Administrative_Origins_of_Mongolia_s_Tribal_Vocabulary Atwood, Christopher. “Historiography and transformation of ethnic identity in the Mongol Empire: the Öng’üt case.” Asian Ethnicity 15 no. 4 (2014): 514-534. Atwood, Christopher. “Mongols, Arabs, Kurds, and Franks: Rashīd al-Dīn’s Comparative Ethnography of Tribal Society.” in Rashīd al-Dīn. Agent and Mediator of Cultural Exchanges in Ilkhanid Iran. Warburg Institute Colloquia 24 (2013): 223-250. www.academia.edu/4831541/Mongols_Arabs_Kurds_and_Franks_Rash%C4%ABd_al_D%C4%ABn_s_Comparative_Ethnography_of_Tribal_SocietyAtwood, Christopher. “Banner, Otog, Thousand: Appanage Communities as the Basic Unit of Traditional Mongolian Society.” Mongolian Studies 34 (2012): 1-76. www.academia.edu/9626389/Banner_Otog_Thousand_Appanage_Communities_as_the_Basic_Unit_of_Traditional_Mongolian_Society Atwood, Christopher. “Six Pre-Chinggisid Genealogies in the Mongol Empire.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Edited by Th. T. Allsen, P.B. Golden, R.K. Kovalev, and A.P. Martinez. 19 (2012): 5-58. Brose, Michael. “Qipchak Networks of Power in Mongol China.” How Mongolia Matters: War, Law, and Society. Edited by Morris Rossabi, 69-86. Boston: Brill, 2017. Lhamsuren Munkh-Erdene. “Political Order in Pre-Modern Eurasia: Imperial Incorporation and the Hereditary Divisional System.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3. 26 no. 4 (2016): 633-655. www.academia.edu/27308900/Political_Order_in_Pre_Modern_Eurasia_Imperial_Incorporation_and_the_Hereditary_Divisional_System Lhamsuren Munkh-Erdene. “Where did the Mongol Empire come from? Medieval Mongol Ideas of People, State, and Empire.” Inner Asia 13 no. 2 (2011): 211-37. www.academia.edu/5715162/Where_Did_the_Mongol_Empire_Come_From_Medieval_Mongol_Ideas_of_People_State_and_Empire Liu Yingsheng. “From the Qipčap Steppe to the Court in Daidu: A Study of the History of Toqtoq’s Family in Yuan China.” in Eurasian Influences on Yuan China, edited by Morris Rossabi, 168-177. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2013. 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. Rashiduddin Fazlullah. Jami’ u’t-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles: A History of the Mongols. Translated by W. M. Thackston. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1998. Shurany, Vered. “Tuqtuqa and Hes Descendants: Cross-Regional Mobility and Political Intrigue in the Mongol Yuan Army.” in Along the Silk Roads in Mongol Eurasia: Generals, Merchants, Intellectuals. Edited by Michal Biran, Jonathan Brack, and Francesca Fiaschetti, 120-140. Oakland: University of California Press, 2020. Sneath, David. The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
I've now marked it so TH-cam should always approve your comments now. I don't know why it did that, as your comments were the only ones it did that to today.
I've read Okada Hidehiro, late Asian historian's book named Start of the World History. It was the greatest read about how Mongolian Empire started unified world history and it's start of written history. Sadly I couldn't find English translation from the net. I read it in Mongolian. He wrote great chapters about history, east and west separately in the start. Amazing. I wish you could read it. He had great direct sources from Taiwanese library right after they moved it from Beijing during ww2, and his research on lineages about different races in both eastern/ western literature was mind-blowingly rich.
Exactly the arguments we learned in class. I am a history grad student in the National University of Mongolia. It seems like modern western historians had had a bias that exoticized other peoples and polities. Trivia: in socialist Mongolia the use of obog was eradicated and after two generations we are trying to bring it back to fight incestuous marriages. So there was a big movement to restore obog names. Many people chose Borjigin, the obog name of Chinggis Khan. Some chose arbitrarily. While others did some research or asked their elders. Some chose to name their obog after their eldest family member, often the name of their grandparents. Mine for example is Qataghin, we asked local elders of my father’s birthplace and determined we are Qataghin. Also if someone is a genuine Borjigin there is a chance that person’s ancestors were aristocrats during the Qing period.
I am very pleased to hear this; it backs up exactly what researchers like Sneath and Munkh-Erdene were saying (they even talked about the worry over incest, too!). I think you're exactly right with the exoticization aspect. So much of the idea of Mongols being in clans/tribes depends entirely on westerners expecting this to be the case, and overlooking all other evidence. I am very glad to be able to totally abandon it now.
i dont think western sources exoticizied it ... it is just they didnt have a great deal of information on this topic, in the eyes of most 19th and 20th century European writers the mongols were pretty much alien brutal hoard, like a reversal of civilization.. .. but when you read period accounts from the 13th century from europeans of their military and social structure its described as very disciplined and structured society.. look at marco polo and other italian descriptions of the time. they make point to describe the very strict social structure and not some wild tribal society.
Thank you! I was very happy to finally work in those Jurchen; I drew them well over a year ago but never found a chance to use them. The nice thing about getting better at drawing is that it's more suitable to showing what I was envisioning or the historical topic; the bad thing is it makes it harder to reuse my older stuff since it will stand out quite a bit...
The Kipchaks played key roles in many nations the mamluk nobles in Egypt and the Kipchaks fought side by side with the mongol Calvary in the Golden Horde some are found fighting for Kublai Khan in the Far East it’s impressive
@@kaybevang536 Without the Kipchaks the Mamlukes would have lost at Ain Jalut. The Kipchaks knew what Mongols are capable of. And the Kipchaks themselves are nomads from the steppes. Instead of falling to the feigned retreat and many other nomadic tactics they were informed by the Kipchaks and won the battle against the Mongols.
@@kaybevang536 unfortunately, Kipchaks' history was almost eradicated first by Russian Empire and then by Stalinists. In 1944 there was a decree by Politburo that prohibited studying Turkic history, particularly Kipchaks and Golden Horde. They were trying to downplay Kipchaks role in the Eurasian history. They even broke Kipchak stone statues (balbals) that were widespread in Southern Russia and Ukraine, or chiseled out their faces (Asiatic) to try to remove any trace that those areas used to belong to non-Russian people.
Chinggis Khan is well known for breaking down the tribes of Mongolia to form his empire... but a recent trend in scholarship on the Mongol Empire suggests that these "tribes" did not exist in the form we imagine them. In this video I present this theory, and offer a new interpretation of Mongolian society. It's a long trek into the historiography, so buckle your seat belt.
@@nugnorab5257 DNA descent from Chinggis Khan is not directly relevant to this topic, but recent studies have shown that the famous study which decided 0.5% of people are descended from Chinggis Khan is not accurate. More likely, this simply is a haplogroup associated with the Mongolian population and not Chinggis himself, as the few surviving Chinggisids with recorded Genealogies do not share it.
good and convincing video. It's neat and well structured. I find it very useful as well, because it focuses on a distinct history rather than just generalized battles and generalized structures of political entities.
Thanks for good job !This is very good channel about the history of the Mongol Empire. I watch your videos from the Republic of Kalmykia, although I don't know English well. I am Kalmyk, desendent of Four-Oirads. We still preserved the "tribal" division. There are several subethnoses among Kalmyks, one of them Torghuds, which i am from. We have many "clans" among the Torghuds. According to some sourses Torghud leaders were desendents of Ong khan of the Kereids. But probably not all Torghud people are desendents of Kereids, but only one clan which now named "керәд" (Torghud leaders belonged to the specifig lineage of that clan). Some historians claim that Torghuds are desendents of Chinghis Khan’s "kheshig"
Greetings from Canada to Kalmykia! I am always very happy to learn that I reach people when discussing their ancestors. This too also supports the argument; specifically having the Torghud leaders descended from from Ong Khan, rather than the entire people. It may even be a case of both, though; perhaps the original body of the Torghud came from a minggan of a khan's keshig, but that minggan was led by a kereyid/descendant of Ong khan. I don't see these as exclusive options.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thanks for the answer! Yes, i think you are right, this is exactly how our historians interpeptide the origin of the Torghuds! But of course, then Torghud nobility added new subjects who were not part of original «keshig». Desendents of Ong Khan were a «tsagan yasun» of Torghuds. Although «tsagan yasun» was elite with specific genealogy, desendents of «hara yasun» also know there genealogy and clan name (we call it «tokhm» or «yasun»). This is part of our tradition, for example, we can not marry to person with the same genealogy. For example, I am Kalmyk, Torghud, my tokhm named Bagud (Баhуд). I am waiting new video about Nogai ))
That is really cool! I am also a descendant of Four Oirats. I got Bayad and Durvud lineage. My family also researched and asked around to find that our Surname/ Ovog is Tsoros. I think it is also because the noble of the khoshuu or aimag had that name which the subjects adopted. For example, my mother’s side is Bulgadar which is also what most people from that county claim as well.
Insane that your channel doesn't have more followers, literally college course quality info for free online. You truly have shown yourself to be a real scholar
Excellent, finally someone attempts to cover this topic to the public. This paradigm has been discussed for a very long time, extensively by the Western Asian historians, why? Because after 13th century, literally every states emerged in Western Asia, had the same model and paradigm of the Mongol Empire or the Inner Asian as a whole, even some considered the post-13th century states were all the successor and the legacy of the Mongol Empire, including the three Gunpowder Empires - Ottoman, Safavid and obviously the Mughal (or the Baburid to be exact). This process happened over and over again in the steppe, it became a circle: a bunch of people leading by various nobles fighting each other and then someone like Chinggis Qan came, defeated them all, united them so that they could become autonomous and fought each other again, for this region the Steppe States were all volatile, for example the Mongol Empire only existed as a whole for like 50 years and then all the khanates quickly dissolved after that. The Western Asian States post 13th met the same fate: the Timurid, the Safavid, the Ottoman, the Mughal, etc... they tried to stop it, tried to avoid the fate of the Mongol Empire, even took extreme measure like the fratricide of the Ottoman Empire, but none succeeded but one, that is the Ottoman Empire thanks to various factors.
I only really came to understand it in the previous weeks- I imagine it will be difficult to ever hope to replace the convenience of tribe/clan in everyone's mind, but I find that this makes much more sense in terms of what the historical sources describe happening. To counter a very famous TH-camr, this is but another example of the Mongols NOT being an exception.
@@QuanHoang-qd1ye As far as we can tell, the succession in these groups goes much the same in pre-Chinggisid times as it was after Chinggis Khan. These positions are hereditary in the sense that the successor must be picked from the ruling lineage. Usually father-to-son or brother-to-brother; the leaders/rest of the family within that ulus then hold a quriltai to select from the candidates. The person who won at the quriltai will then be "confirmed," by the overlord, if there is one. In cases with a strong central government (as we often see happen during the Mongol Empire) the Khan may not like this candidate and select or impose a different one; when the central government is weaker, they can offer a totally nominal 'confirmation' since it is no longer in their power to do anything about it. Take for example, when Khubilai Khaan would send his yarliq "confirming" the Il-Khan. Khubilai had no power to do anything about if he didn't like the candidate, and the Il-Khan was already elected by his peers, and thus could ignore the Khaan if he wished. This is basically how things went before the Mongol Empire, as far was we can tell, with all the succession struggles we often saw in the Mongol Empire (To'oril Ong Khan only took the Kereyid throne after killing most of his brothers, for instance). In many respects, the Mongol Empire was simply a much larger version of a lot of these "institutions," from earlier nomadic polities.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thanks for clarifying. Now I understand more about the Khitans as well. History of China describes the pre-Liao Khitans as having eight "tribes". I once wondered how did these roaming nomadic tribes met and elect a Great Khan if they did not stay in Inner Mongolia. Their organizations were like the Mongols' I guess.
Yes, and further (especially in the case of the Khitans, who weren't full nomads) they were not roaming anywhere, but would have had allotted camps and seasonal bases. So when it came time for a quriltai (or whatever) the other relevant parties would know where to send their messengers. Khitans, Jurchen Mongols, Turkic tribes etc., all of their societies were much more structured and organized than often portrayed.
This video actually opened my eyes! Among Oghuz Turks we were taught there are 24 boys. My father tells me we are Afshar similiar to Nader Shah or some of the Anatolian Beyliks. I always wondered what that exactly means. I guess before the foundation of Seljuk state Oghuz Yabgu state had a similiar aristocracy division as you described in the video. So anyone claiming being of a certain boy simply says to which aristocratical group in Oghuz Yabgu state his ancestor was subject to.
What I like about this theory is that it relies on the local understanding of the terms within their context, rather than the English model of clan/tribe. I am frustrated I did not know this sooner, as in hindsight I find it makes much more sense than the strict idea of tribal hierarchies. From what I understand, a lot of recent study has gone into demonstrating that tribe/clan, as popularly imagined, does not fit many societies very well; but we keep using it out of habit and forcing societies to fit into this model.
Thank you very much for clearing up this suspicion of mine. After becoming familiar with African history, I realized that the "tribes" people kept talking about there were just feodal like lord and their subjects and did not always share ancestors like you mentioned. I think this discussion at large over the term tribe and clan should be challenged more in media.
Even in perhaps the most well-known case in the UK and North America, the Scottish clans, the common misconception is that everyone in the clan is descended from the founder, even though that is not the case. It's the problem when anthropology and social sciences try to find models to fit all human societies; you'll end up with so many exceptions to the rule that you don't really have much of a rule at all by the time you're done.
Well done! Very credible analysis. It can be a book, but you did an excellent, concise sum up! Indeed the terms like 'irgen' or 'ulus' are interesting. Apparently the Mongols and others pre-Genghis Khan called themselves simply 'irgen' (of Borjigin/Kiyad rulers?) according to some sources. I read that the Tungusic word for 'gathering' is 'irgen' (correct me if I'm wrong). "Ulus" is likely from "uul us" (homeland = mountain, river/lake/water). Even today in Mongolia we refer to homeland folks as "uul usnykhan maani" (folks of my homeland/birthplace). "Zubu/Shubo/Shubugu" sounds like the bigger endonym "Shiwei". Probably the Kiyad/Borjigin (Mengu Shiwei), Kereids or Kidans all considered themselves of/connected to Shiwei origin. I read so also somewhere else. It's not mutually excusive.
It's often difficult to translate history into a foreign language, especially when the most simple terms have unique local connotations. How you describe Mongolian society reminded me of how Qing dynasty organized the Manchu ruling class--i.e. 8 flags/banners (八旗, "jakūn gūsa"). It was a military administrative unit of the Manchu elite, which eventually became a hereditary social class after losing much of its original military purpose. Given the long and complex history of the Manchus and Mongols, I presume some traditions, cultures, and governing systems overlap between the two. If I recall correctly, Manchu letters were based on Mongolian letters (which were based on Uighurs, Sogds...). But again, this basic knowledge is from my junior highschool days, so I'm sure far more detailed information is available. Fortunately, much documentation on the Manchus exist so if you research how Manchu society was organized in early Qing era, you may get a better understanding on how Mongolian society functioned. I also recall that early Qing/Manchu Emperors had to marry daughters from Mongol aristocrats to maintain the alliance and peace in the north. This suggests that aristocracy (and military social units) in Mongolian society survived throughout most of Qing/Manchu dynasty, and that Mongols were perceived as a special partner in the Qing dynasty.
Thank you! I'm sure you would have done it admirably as well; frankly I would encourage you to do it anyways and offer your own viewpoint on it, or additional evidence/arguments either in favour of, or against it. This is more of an overview than a really deep dive in to it, so there is certainly much more room for it.
For the first time ever I watched 30 mins video without skipping a sec. Because the quality is so damn good and matches my point of view which I had carried for a long time but never seen anyone else sharing it. I cannot thank you enough for spreading your wisdom. However the views and recognition of you is awfully low. I hope you get time to visualize this video and reupload it so that these idiots will finally understand how amazing and informative your content is. I wish you the best in life and I hope to see your channel grow as it deserves more than any idiotic historic channel.
I feel like a term along the line of "faction" would make a lot more sense than "tribe" or "clan" this sort of grouping could also be applied to numerous other societies.
Yes, that's a much better idea. Even dynasty might be a better idea, or even comparing them to a feudal estate. Though obviously not European feudalism, the idea of hereditary nobility ruling over an allotment of people and lands while owing military service and taxes to higher levels of elite is much more accurate than the image we associate with 'tribes.'
Thank you, I'm very glad you enjoyed it. I find there is no shortage of work that can be done in attacking popular misconceptions- it's one of my favourite things to do in these projects.
I wonder if could have been the same with Celtic and Germanic "tribes" (decimal system perhaps non included). Reading The Secret Story of the Mongols sometimes I have the feeling I was reading about a society not that removed from Germanic-Celtic-Indoeuropean.
Yes this is exactly what David Sneath and others have argued. The modern conception of tribal systems basically has few, if any, actual historical or modern counterparts, but by trying to make them fit into this tribal/kinship based model historians inadvertently distort the understanding of these groups.
I am not sure about Mongols but in Kazakhs genealogies survived not just for aristocracy (Ak suyek or white bone), but for commoners (Kara suyek, black bone). Aristocracies were all Chingizids.
The impression I had, is that that observations in Mongolia up to the twentieth century revolutions tended to indicate little knowledge of ancestors beyond grandparents, or someone particularly notable. Most medieval commentators wrote similarly- though it is sometimes hard to tell when they are genuine observations or just a writer trying to dismiss a certain people.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistoryYou are talking about the Mongolian origin of the Kazakh tribes. But understand that, on the contrary, there are many Turkisms in the Mongolian language, and not vice versa. And the C2 gene (which is considered to be the Mongolian gene) is larger in Kazakhstan, which indicates the origin of this gene among the Turks and spread throughout Asia. And today's Mongols are Khalkha, Buryats and Kalmyks, a mixture of Turks and Manjurs. But this does not make them Turks. While the Turks were the founders of the Hunnic Empire, Scythia, the Turkic khaganates 1 and 2 (by the way, the self-name will be Mangy El - eternal country), the Uighur Khaganate, the Kyrgyz Khaganate and the Turkic Khaganate 3 Shyngys Kagan (Mangy El). One more thing about the tribes. Each Turkic tribe has its own ancestral tamgas, Naimans, Kereyts, Kiyats, and so on, no exception. Which have been used since the time of Runic writing, and their own battle cry. Everyone knows that Shyngys Kagan is a Turkic from the Kiyat tribe. And yes, you can only be born in a tribe, but not how not to appropriate someone else's. And Borjugun (Bori Tegin) is not a tribe, but translates as the Prince of Wolves. I think as long as Turkophobia reigns in the world, everything will be hushed up. In any case, everything is changing and perhaps Turkophobia and Eurocentrism will pass. By the way, on the map of the Mongolian Empire it is not clear why the upper part was cut off, the Turks also lived and live there.
@@keteket your tribes in Kazakhstan all came to the Central Asia during the Chingiskhan invasion. Most of your tribe’s descendants are the Khongirad clan, we are living around the Lake Baigaal Dalai (Baikal). And most of the procentages of Y-chromosome C2 haplogroup is in the bloodline of the Buryad-Mongols (Northern Mongols). We are the First Nation of Siberia.
Hey man I was a commentator who have a long discussion with you about tribes in imperial period and hereditary military command stracture of Mongols (and yes,merkits in marco polo too🙂) I should say;video just perfect,well studied and one of your best Your channel is realy oasis for learn correct info about Mongol Empire,especially considering internet filled with meaningless bullshits such as ''meritocratic mongol army'', ''medieval-communist genghis khan replaced tribal system with modern mongol idenity'' etc
I am very, very happy you found this a worthwhile exploration of the topic. Our discussions sat in my mind for a long time and with this project, I finally started to feel like things fit into place. I will do a "Mongol Myths" sometime soon on Chinggis Khan's "1206 social revolution," and talk more about that aspect specifically. I hope to do much more "myth busting" in general. With Kings and Generals we have some topics along these lines planned; the next one will be the famous "1 in 200 men in Asia is descended from Chinggis Khan." Basically that original study was full of holes, and we're going to do a video pointing it out, as well as the new research in this field.
Thank you for this excellent video. I am currently doing my doctoral thesis on nationalism in Kazakhstan, and one of the big obstacles I have in my research is understanding the manner in which its clan-based system functioned up to their incorporation in the Russian sphere of influence. Many Kazakh clans bear Mongol names, or at least a direct link to a historical Mongol tribe, and much of what you have spoken about applies to them. I find it interesting how well-organized the nomads of Inner Asia were, yet it ended up being their biggest flaw as it didn´t force adaptation and change. In the end, they were outdone by those they once conquered, and ended up adopting a foreign model of socio-economic development. Again, thank you. Your sources have helped me greatly.
My pleasure, I am very glad you found it insightful. That is my hope for all of these videos, is that they become useful tools for someone else's research, and a sort of easily acceptable springboard.
Alin, you probably have already seen this th-cam.com/video/N5I_t7GW9pI/w-d-xo.html. The guy talks about genetic traces in Kazakh tribes. One of his points (probably in some other of his videos) is that often Kipchak or other autochthonous tribes adopted Mongol tribe names according to Chingiskhans military organization, but not necessarily were direct descendants of those tribes.
@@arystanbeck914 Thank you. I will have to translate that first though. I know the topic of Mongol ancestry is pretty dividing among the Kazakhs. The idea is reasonable, a lot of literature hints at the fact that conquered tribes were reorganized and took the identity of their newly-appointed official.
Nice work Jack. Your discussion on the term 'tribe' reminds me of talks we had on the subject during masters work in Japan. Clearly the translation of the word 'tribe' is problematic in many languages.
Also, regarding the social system among old Turkic people, we also used Kara Budun and Ak Budun, and Kara Sumuk/Kemik and Ak Sumuk / Kemik. Kara and Ak means black and white, Budun means tribal confederation, sumuk and kemik means bones. The white budun / Kemik was the higher class, the beks (lords), while kara budun were the common people.
@Amanjol Məmbetjanulı Has Tore another meaning in Kazakh? In medieval Anatolian Turkish it means tradition and the center of the house where the aksakal (white beard, elder person, leader of the house/family) would sit. In old Turkic it meant law.
It idea of a strict aristocracy seems very much the standard in medieval Turkic-Mongolic peoples- simply another demonstration of why "tribes without social stratification," are very poor fit to these societies. The medieval genealogies are usually very clear that they are a genealogy only of the White Bone people, and don't share ancestry with the commoners. Because if the commoner had White Bone ancestry, well they wouldn't be commoners, would they?
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory There were actually some terms in Karakhanid (Karluk) and Kok Turuk (Orchun) Turkic to refer to such people. For people who were originally from the Kara Budun / Kemik, but who were related to a person of Ak Budun / Kemik origin through marriage. If I find the actual term in my archive, I will share it.
@@karabudun-tarihvesiyaset8037 In the Mongol empire these people were the güregen, "the son-in-laws." If they married into the Chinggisids. It's a common title that we see, and perhaps most famously it was a title Emir Temür proudly bore. In the Mongol Empire there was also the qarachu. It still refers to "commoners" in the sense that they don't have Chinggisid ancestry, but the qarachu were the military elite and their descendants, and the ones appointed to lead the minggad. So almost like a triple level of social standing: the altan uragh (which was now the chaghan yasa), the qarachu (the non-Chinggisid military elite) and the qara yasu/dürlügin (common people).
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory You're wrong. Kazakh tribes have tribes with Ak and Kara in the beginning. But they are of the same origin. There is something else here, because in ancient Turkic kara (Black) meant strong, big.And the capital of Shyngys Kagan was Karakorum, the ruler would not name his capital after commoners.😂
Interesting. You may still see subgroups of noble houses with the Qara (suiek) black bone prefix among Kazakh clans. Like Kipchaks, they have subgroups QaraKipchak (black-Kipchak). Basically, they have been historically carried not just nobility but their commoners as well; that's crazy. At least that's the way I have understood this video.
I think that one of the reasons why Aq Suiek included commoners was that nomads were not obsessed with "blood purity" like the European nobles. Instead, our ancestors were focused on having the healthy and smart offspring. That's why they probably came up with 7 generations rule and the tradition of wooing brides from remote locations. We know that "batyr" which is definitely "aq suiek" could be anyone as long as he proved himself to be skillful and smart warrior in the eyes of the public, wait even woman could become "batyr" if she managed to face all the challenges and earn the people' respect.
İn old Turkic "oymak" means tribe, a big group of people. Oba means a smaller tribe, a region were a tribe has opened it tents and gets ready to settle and in my village in Turkey it is used for small villages.
The thing is that the discussed language is Mongolian. Even if that word was borrowed, borrowed words usually have a tendency to gain new meaning in another language.
@@Singgenwhen words are borrowed they gain the same or a new but related meaning. The example of the same meaning: Küč, Kuč, and hüch, which is sthrenght/power in turkic languages, in middle-mongolian (Guyuk khan's letter to Pope), and khalkha mongol
Plz observed widely on other steppe people (structure,military,economy) as well,i followed your channel since 2017 and i found these type of channel so rare who talk and research about whole civilian and military and financial structure of Nomadic people ,now the settled people understand that the nomads are not just rough,tough raiders , they're made system of their own.
The system of 'tribal' creation tracks with the Romans and the Goths, a client buffer state supported by and politically influenced by the Romans. The Goths then grew in sophistication and organization to the point where they could challenge and weaken the authority of their one time overlord. Another parallel is in Sub-roman Britain armed groups with the label of 'Legion' remained on Hadrian's wall as a kind of local defense force either as full time soldiers or farmer/soldiers militia.
A great example. Especially since the English word tribe comes from latin, and while it carried some of the connotations the 19th century scholars added a lot more connotations to it, which have affected how in turn, we go look back and understand the Germanic tribes. The idea of uncontrollable Germanic rabble who overwhelmed their foes through sheer numbers, fighting naked and without regard to their own safety, is very hard to dismiss from public mind, regardless of how little it actually reflects their actual societies or political/military interactions with Rome.
I've ALWAYS wondered this. It's really confusing reading through Mongol history and trying to discern who is Mongol and who's not. Who's of the steppe but not a Mongol was never clear to me. Also this may be a really basic question and probably because I don't know anything about agriculture but why didn't the steppe never adopt it? My idiot brain is like "grass! grass is like plants! grass grows in the steppe! can't other crops?" but I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
This is a very good question actually! Agriculture is actually practiced in the steppe, albeit only in certain regions and limited quantities (evidence of agriculture around lake Baikal actually predates the evidence for animal husbandry/pastoral nomadism in the region), even during the Mongol Empire period. The Yenisei River Valley, northwest of Mongolia today, was and still is an important grain producing centre. There are a number of things that make steppes unsuited to extensive agricultural production, but perhaps the most notable is dryness. Steppe biomes are characterized generally as dry grasslands, and have very little or very irregular rainfall. Grass can make due off of this, but very few crops can. It is notable that any agricultural sites in the pre-twentieth century Mongolia plateau are almost all near bodies of water like lakes or rivers. There are other things at play such as the soils temperaturs, and a short growing season, as well as cultural (animal herding is so prestige that being reduced to fishing or harvesting for survival was basically how the Mongols described poverty, as seen in the Secret History of the Mongols.). Animal herding is simply a much more effective means of production in the majority of Mongolian territory than any efforts at agriculture could be. Khubilai Khaan sought to make his frontier with the Central Asian Khanates a series of self-supporting farming garrisons, and almost without fail these were unsuccessful. Qaraqorum itself had to be supplied by hundreds of DAILY cartloads of food stuffs from North China, as the attempts at farming around it brought meagre results.
a mongol is a person who speaks mongolian, but i think those mongol and turkic people assimilated each-other and anyone who dwelt with them frequently in history, hence there extreme genetic diversity. a person may have been from a turkic speaking tribe but having sworn allegiance to a mongol tribe or married a member of one and so could have assumed their identity ect.. many of the mongol generals were turkic people but they had assumed mongol identity in the mongols society... i think tribes is not accurate but more clans is a batter explanation.. these clans are present in all turkic and mongol and tungustic societies even the most remote.
It is a very important note that often etnonyms of peoples of eurasian steppes were got after names of ruler or rulying dynasty like Oghuzs, Seldjuks, Uzbeks, Nogajs and etc. Mongol seems to be at the start the title of ruler kin meaning the eternal realm or celestial state. Remember for example the empire of Great Moghuls in India. It was an enigma for me in school where mongols come from and where they suddenly disappear. But they alvays have been there and still the are kinships in Eurasia who claims to be of "mongolic" origin.
I really hope to. Once I finish my overview series on the Mongol Empire and on Nogai, I will be open to covering some other topics most distant in time and space.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory no, I just hail from Khori and wondered whether you encountered any mentions of them after 13th century. We consider ourselves to be descedant of Khori Tumeds. Khori people made an exodus from Yehe Nara area in 17th century and said that majority of their people have stayed there and they are themselves but a small fraction. Thi territiry was a territory of Tumed Mongols. It'sj just that partcular Khori ethnonym kinda disapeared after 13th century and reemeged only in 17th century. So I wondered whether you encountered any mentions of Khori during that missed period of time.
@@Singgen ah, well I can't say I have seen it listed, but I should emphasize that I haven't really searched for it either. Most of the reading I do is on 13th century stuff. I'll keep an eye out for the term, though
This is interesting. I was just reading up on the Timurids and when discussing the origin of the Barlas 'tribe' it was alluded to that it was originally a Mongol division settled in Transoxiana. The next day this video is recommended to me, this is creepy.
The idea that states are actually what creates 'tribes' and 'clans' is interesting, as I have also previously noticed this trend. Specifically, when studying Ottoman Kurdistan. Where they would set up Kurdish territorial emirates, these often did have some sort of origin before the conquest, much of it was the Ottomans centralising and building up a structure they could understand, by giving authority to figures of local importance, which they may or may not have previously possessed (Much of this was done with the help of a Kurd named Idris Bitlisi). (I mention this as an example of supposedly bottom-up territorial and tribal units actually being created, or at least rigidly enforced, from the above.)
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory There is also a case for a similar thing to have happened in Feudal France. The various de-facto independent duchies and counties of feudal France were not descendants of Germanic 'tribes' that would be ridiculous (Though some of the ruling families did indeed come from old Frankish aristocracy). No, most of the fiefdoms were at least initially based on old Frankish and Roman territorial divisions, which became independent when the power of the central government declined. No one is arguing that all people in the duchy of Aquitaine were members of the 'Ramnulfid tribe'. This was also a trend in German history I believe, the so-called stem-duchies, supposedly based on old-Germanic tribal lines, when in reality they were likely just administrative divisions of the Franks (In some cases based around states/kingdoms that formed in the area before the Franks conquered them, such as Bavaria or Alemannia, but this doesn't imply they were ingenious tribes, just an area ruled by the same dynasty). It sounds ridiculous when you try to apply the old model to European history. I suppose people don't usually see it due to the perceived inherent exoticness and foreign-feeling of Mongol, Nomadic or generally Asian societies?
Those are all very pertinent example. A more modern case in North America, might be looking at Canadian provinces and American states, and assuming that these were created by a "Manitoban"/"British Columbia"/"New Yorker"/Californian" ethnic groups- and that these provinces and states reflect some inherent quality of the people who live there, rather than administrative divisions (many of which are quite arbitrary, and made with little input from the actual population.) The way people in these states will assume qualities about the people who live there, and have pride in the regional identity which develops over time- it's a similar process to the "tribalization," we can imagine with these hereditary aristocratic divisions.
There's a tendency in humans to look around at their current situation and just assume "this is the way things are/always have been/are supposed to be, and assume to them a certain permanency or inherent qualities, even when these may be very recent inventions. The fact an individuals grandfather happened to be born in the same area makes it easy for them to take it as part of their identity.
How far back do you think this process goes? Like certainly the Kherites and Liao did it so did the Uyghurs? Rouran? GokTurks? does it go as far back as the Xiongnu?
I tried read Jack Weatherford and ı know his work based on his fantasy world But man,this is so much: ''Her captor and the man destined to be her new husband was Yesugei of the small and insignificant band that would one day be known as the Mongols, but at this time he was simply a member of the Borijin clan,subservient to its more powerful Tayichiud relative''
I find something silly on every page of that book. His version of the Jin Dynasty, for example, bears utterly no relation to the actual state or the conflict with the Mongols. At one point he has the Jin Emperor as a child. Now, that is the one succession mistake the Jin never did- they had every sort of bloody succession, assassination, and fool on the throne, but they never placed a child on it. It's such a poor level of research in that book that my opinion of it gets lower anytime I look through it
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory You still work with the Kings and Generals cchannel, right? Will you guys cover downfall period of Mongols? Like Dzungar period and their collapse?
We will at some point. We've talked about Tumu, Dzungars etc. Everyone is on board, but it's not something we will likely get to in the near future. I have to get around to researching and writing it, but they already have a lot of stuff booked for me at the moment. Once we get through the current plans we'll reassess and get to post-1368 stuff, but not for a while.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I think it easy readable book but thats it realy Its a fiction who loosely connected to actual history Many people learned Mongol history from his books,lol
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Ah, like the fall of Yuan - court's scheming which eventually led to the fall of the dynasty? Toghon literally lost the Mandate by killing essential people. Would be great to see!
2) (15: 45) Though Mongol Tuman (Ten Thousand Households)-Minggan (One Thousand Households) system may be similar to those of Xiongnu, each of them comes from different lineage and historical backgrounds. Chinghizid Mongols have no relationship with the Xiongnus at all because Mongol system is based on those of Altan Ulus (The Golden Dynasty of the Jushen) and its predecessor Balhae (Bohai in Chinese) Kingdom of Korea. 3) (21: 50) Mukusu (Marguz, Marcus, the Nestorian Kereit Khan) recorded in is not the Grandfather of Ong Khan the Kereit, but he is the Great-Grandfather of Ong Khan in
really? koreans like to fabricate history nowadays using its last 50 years riches from various corporations, the only relationship the xiagnu had with koreans be tribute and women paid by koreans, in 2020 we found the capital city of the xiagnu or (hunnu), dragon city capital of hunnu ulus, and artifact that are found there represented mongol culture non of koreans, i never heard Koreans calling them ulus ^^
@@Neverdyingpride Saiin baina oo? How are you my little brother. Thank you for your reply even though that is much nationalistic response. What tribe do you belong to? For example, Borjigin or Taichiud? Khatakin, Jalair? like that? The Xiongnus do not exist anymore. A part of them became Koreans and some part of them became Chinese and some of them Kazakhs, like that. But as of today, the biggest Xiongnu descendant group is in fact Koreans. More than 1.5 Million Koreans are Xiongnu descendants, the two Kim families in Korea, for example. That population is 5 times bigger than your Mongol republic population. and more than 90 % of Mongol and Buryat population are Korean descendants! How do you think abou that? and Chinghiz Khan himself was a Kidanified Korean descendant. How do you think about that?
@@Neverdyingpride Another issue. You said that Korea gave women to somebody. To whci country? But do you know the fact that Mongke Khan gave his daughter, Princes s to Korean prince first, before we gave any women to Mongol? Do you also know that the last empress of Korea was a Mongol princess?
Soon-ish. I'm doing a collaboration with Hikma History on Berke which we originally planned to have come out next week, but due to some stuff in our schedules it will be pushed back to probably November 5th. So I will probably do a short Mongol Myth before the end of October.
The Secret History (§202) records the names of the lords of the ninety- five minggan thousand units of the Mongol ulus that Chinggis Khan established in 1206. It is clear that the Barulas, Onggirad, Ilkires, and the probably Turkic Önggüd are included in this monggol ulus category, and the numerous Borjigin nobles mentioned in the list must have been ruling many former subjects of the Tatar, Kereid, Merkid Tayi’chud and Naiman nobles. Sneath, D., n.d. The headless state: aristocratic orders, kinship society, & misrepresentations of nomadic inner Asia. p.230.
The word "Mongol" was indeed used to mean nation, just like "American". In this case, the only thing that will determine the ethnicity of the tribes will be their language. Especially Mongolic, Tungusic, Turkic or Para-Mongolic languages.
I hadn't thought about it actually, but now that you mention it that would be a good topic. I actually did a lot of reading on the Guards, El-Temür and Toghto/Tuqtuqa for the podcast episodes on the Yuan, but unfortunately very little of it made it into the episodes (I was very pressed for time at that point and we ended up rushing through the Yuan stuff faster than I would've like). Kings and Generals will basically publish anything send them (though when they get around to doing it is another matter) so I cold definitely do something on that.
Timothy May's "The Mongol Empire" (2018) is a favourite of mine for a concise, easy to read overview of the Mongol Empire's history, and many additional aspects to it. That is a very good place to start, before going into more dedicated works.
There is a lot of that "Chinggis' social revolution" in it. But he points out the hereditary nature of command; in fact, it's a key part of his approach for understanding the empire's history. He views it as a weakening of the khan's power against these hereditary miltiary elite (the qarachu) and emphasizes it repeatedly throughout. While I do have some critiques on specific sections (his section on Nogai and the Golden Horde is definitely very... out of date let's say. I referred to it a lot in my thesis, and not in a good way. Mostly to go "here's the common scholarly view, and why it is wrong.") I think the book as a whole does a good job of pointing out some of the recent research, while also being an easily accessible (both in terms of reading, and in actually finding a copy) overview of the empire and the khanates. It provides a great list of sources for further reading, and useful family trees and timelines, while also not being a mammoth work. That's why I like to recommend it for someone just looking for a general overview, rather than something more specific.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory According to what ı have read from primary sources,hereditary command stracture was still sole system during Chinggis Khan's rule. Only ''meritocratic'' promotion in Chinggis' rule belonged to pre-1206,like Jebe began as commander of ten and appointed to commander of thousand in 1206. But after 1206,military units of 1204 became hereditary regiments/divisions and command stracture passed from father to son Also,he gave example of Muqali for how Chinggis broke steppe aristocracy and appointed slaves too. But the thing is,these serf groups also have nobility among themselves. Muqali's father and Sorgan Shira were such people for example Apart from few Tarkhan who came from realy low statue(like Badai and Kishlig) most of commanders in 1206 has aristocratic background. I think his works generally useful for beginners who dont know about mongol history,but there are tons of flaw in his books like ı mentioned
Juvaini (the main source for Küchlug's life, and basically the source everyone else used who mentioned him) describes all the troops who fled with Küchlug into Qara-Khitai eventually being killed over the course of Jebe's attack. Either they were stationed in cities in the Tarim Basin and killed when the locals rose up, or were with Küchlug when he got surrounded and captured in Badakhshan, were presumably they were killed along side him. During Küchlug's initial flight some may have fled west with the remaining Merkit to the Qangli. But anyone who fled with Küchlug was killed or dispersed.
i think these nomads had a very vague concept of being turkic or mongol or juchen ect.. ect it was based more of loyalty to a military leader, many "mongols" were turkic peple and im sure it was the same in the uyghur khanate or other turkic periods.. just as the "mongolised" tungustic people, juchen, manchus.. ect.. considered some of their "ancestors" to be the same as the mongols and there was a very grey area as to whos who.. nomadic people were exogenous cultures that also had practices of adopting or assuming other more powerful tribes, its why genetics is so varied there. you could just assimilate or join with another tribe.. language also seems to have been very flu there too look how the mongols became turkish speaking in many areas of the mongol empire within a very short period of time gue to assimilation of large groups of turkic tribes ... .
Does this same framework of minghaans being designated with hereditary rulers who then go on to become essentially aristocrats ruling over fiefdoms or whatever also apply to the Islamised Mongols to the West of the Yuan, or are they explained by a different process?
It seems largely to have been a similar process. Given the strength of the military elite in the Ilkhanate especially, you could make the argument it was an even stronger process there. In the Yuan Dynasty, since the Mongols in the army were mostly kept near the capital or in Mongolia itself, the process continued with the same general patterns. Obviously certain aspects differ, but the argument is that the process was the same because we see groups of similar names to pre-Chinggisid minghaans apparently reemerge after the fall of the Ilkhanate or fall of the Yuan.
@@earlmahmud3911 There was not, actually, Manghit among Nogai's soldiers. No 13th or 14th century sources attests to Nogai ever being connected with them; the only Mongol group among Nogai's forces ever mentioned in a contemporary source was a minggan or so of Adargin Mongols, according to Rashid al-Din. The connection of Nogai to the Manghit just comes from the fact that one of the core bodies that formed the Nogai Horde were the Manghit, and relies on the assumption that Nogai (13th century) had some relationship to the Nogai Horde (15th century). But there is no evidence to support this.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory ı found passage in Rashid Al-Din about Adarkin thousand in Nogai's force ''He(Mukur) ruled over a thousand hadarkin.He belonged to the right wing emirs. Currently, most of that army was in Desht-i Kipchak along with Nogai.''
@@earlmahmud3911 As far as I am aware, there was no significant Manghit in the Golden Horde at this time. None of their representatives play a role in politics at least until the reign of Özbeg- and I only say that because I don't know Özbeg's reign as well as I do the preceeding years. If the Manghit start to appear at this point, it may because Özbeg brings the Blue Horde under his control (I believe the Blue Horde was totally independent before Toqta and Özbeg's efforts to bring it under their control). The Manghit may have lived in the Blue Horde, and started to move west after this point.
I was reading Rashid al-Din and incidentally ı find Jebe was alive after Kalka and even Chinggis Khan's death(page 35): ''...after Genghis Khan’s death when Börkä, Jäbä, and Sübätäi came to Iran and returned via the Temür Qahalqa (Iron Gates), they went to Ögödäi Qa’an’s presence and made obeisance''.
I am familiar with this mention. The problem with it, is that it is essentially the only mention of Jebe after 1222. This mention (I think there is one other one too somewhere, but I can't remember right now. I think it is something in the war with the Jin Dynasty) is almsot certainly just a scribal error/mistake made during the compilation of the Jami' al-Tawarikh, or perhaps was supposed to represent one of his family members. Jebe went from being Chinggis Khan's #1 general, mentioned with a leading role in basically every campaign of the early Mongol Empire, to all of a sudden having almost no appearances after 1222? If Sübe'edei had a major role in the 1230s campaigns against the Jin, it seems inconceivable that, if Jebe was still alive, he would not also be taking part. Rashid al-Din oversaw the compilation of the Jami' al-Tawarikh, and he certainly wrote many sections of it. But he was not the sole person working on it, or editing and copying it- he had an entire team doing this at the Rab'i-Rashidi. So there is plenty of opprotunity for small errors to slip into the work, if a given individual was not as familiar with the persons or events (which, it should be noted, happened 70 years prior by the time the Jami' al-Tawaraikh was written, which itself was a decade long process). At one point Rashid al-Din gives three different genealogies of the Chagatais, and he also had a habit of sticking in contrasting information in later sections of his work, when he found a new source he liked better. So I don't find the one or two mentions of Jebe in the 1230s as firm evidence that he was still alive by that point.
Many nomadic/sami-nomadic of Eurasian steppes had such structure. The Turkic khagane was of celestial origin of Ashina dynasty. And could be only from this dynasty. As example the Khazar kaganat. The real power had the begs but the title of kagan was belonging to descrndant of Ashina dynasty that flad to west after colapse of Western Goekturks.
It's so weird to listen to the European POV. Cuz what you're mindblown by is birth knowledge to us, we say tribe or nomad in a lack of context and no better way to put in another word. Modun Shanyi of Hunnu empire was biggest nomad empire king before Chingis. We were always trading, empirical, ambitious and has diplomacy, etc. people with intricate system of societal norms, workings, culture and traditions. Btw even dragon first was our creation before Chinese copied it as classic Chinese attitude. And no it's not some sky lizard it's snow leopard that's so smart and flexible in motion. You can see it from the Hu band's emblem. Dragon was Hunnu's capital name, put on the main gate and whole theme of power and prestige with many archeological proof. We're unique af people and country. Anyway, when Mongolians say tribes or nomad we're implying with higher developed systematic way not in a Wikipedia way of low wanderers without state. We were trading thousands of horses way before Chingis, forcing ancient Chinese to build Great Walls and getting tax from them cuz we were trading with them and giving pressure when they were betraying trade rules etc.
I thought the naming of groups belonging to the smaller powerful group/family in the population was commonly understood, of course with variation/differences but akin to european and muslim world and elsewhere polities.
Your notion about tribes is corroborated by this guy who does DNA studies in Kazakhs : th-cam.com/video/N5I_t7GW9pI/w-d-xo.html. He says that DNA compositions in some former nation-forming tribes, such as Naimans and Kipchaks are very variable, which show that they do not come from a single family.
That's what I would expect you would find, but interesting to know there were genetic studies to back this up. That is the benefit of this model; when you look at historic, literary, ethnographic and now genetic data, it supports this interpretation in a way that the previous idea of clans and tribes bound by kinship does not.
@@earlmahmud3911 It feels like an Anglo-Saxon England but with strong cavalry. Probably because I saw the films and the artwork by John Howe so early, I never had a chance to form my own image of Rohan without their influence. I believe J.R.R. Tolkien at one point said the Rohorrim were supposed to be "Anglo-Saxons but one horses," and I think that comes across in the books. I certainly never got the impression of strong nomadic influences on them.
@@earlmahmud3911 I think the best discussion I ever saw on this was in this blog by military historian Bret Devereaux: acoup.blog/2020/05/22/collections-the-battle-of-helms-deep-part-iv-men-of-rohan/ He puts it into words much better that I can, and basically outlined the impression I always had.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory In book,they always seem very centralized state to me Country divided by military marshals,who are governors of king rather than feudal lord No fief,no vassals,nothing about feudalism
Nice to watch this video. But, I have some comments. 1) (11: 14 play time) Mongol 'Aimag (Village)' is not the same as Manchu 'Aiman (Ethnic group)' , though Chinese 部落(village)(of any ethnic or tribal, clan group) may be similar to Aimag. 2) (15: 45) Though Mongol Tuman (Ten Thousand Households)-Minggan (One Thousand Households) system may be similar to those of Xiongnu, each of them comes from different lineage and historical backgrounds. Chinghizid Mongols have no relationship with the Xiongnus at all because Mongol system is based on those of Altan Ulus (The Golden Dynasty of the Jushen) and its predecessor Balhae (Bohai in Chinese) Kingdom of Korea. 3) (21: 50) Mukusu (Marguz, Marcus, the Nestorian Kereit Khan) recorded in is not the Grandfather of Ong Khan the Kereit, but he is the Great-Grandfather of Ong Khan in
how about the Keraites they where a Turco-Mongol Nestorian Christian tribe with sub-tribes? im still learning forgive me for my ignorance but ive saved you video.
3) (21: 50) Mukusu (Marguz, Marcus, the Nestorian Kereit Khan) recorded in is not the Grandfather of Ong Khan the Kereit, but he is the Great-Grandfather of Ong Khan in
@@earlmahmud3911 Even the Byzantines hardly get attention in Ilkhanid sources, beyond references to the Ilkhan marrying an imperial daughter. Anatolia is mentioned by Ilkhanid writers during 1) Mamluk attacks 2) large revolts (especially like that of Temürtash), though usually there is no information provided beyond "a revolt happened there in ___ year" 3) the fact that an important figure/prince/general was made governor there. Other than that Anatolia was seen as a distant frontier by these writers. Now, whether the Ilkhans themselves thought of it like that is hard to say. The silver mines were certainly highly regarded and the governor of Anatolia was a powerful person is significant. The indication of its distant-ness from the centres of power in the Ilkhanate may be represented by the fact that almost every Anatolian governor from the reign of Ghazan onwards rebels at least once. If it was an area under closer attention of the Ilkhans, then we wouldn't suspect this to be quite so regular.
The name mongol was used since the 8th century for his ancestors military confederation. 8th century Menggu Shiwei(Mongolchuud)- 10-11th century- Khamag Mongols- 12th century Genghis Khan used it for all the mongolic speaking people he united.
I listened fall of ilkhanate today Man,events goes just f.cking crazy Put a young man of Sassanid dynasty on throne of Ilkhanate instead of Chinggisid prince ? That is chad move
And that was the more simplified version of events too. The post-Ilkhanate period is so complex, the Ilkhanate itself seems refreshingly straight forward in comparison
@@earlmahmud3911 It's been a while since I read about this matter in particular, so this is coming entirely off my memory ( so I apologize if I make a mistake here). If I am remembering correctly, the first mention of the Qara Qoyunlu is around 1360, from a Jalayirid (?) source. Basically they just sort of appear in the decades after the fall of the Ilkhanate, with no obvious predecessor. I don't know what specific arguments have been put forward regarding their origin, but there is no union or body before Abu Sa'id's death which they obviously emerged from.
@@earlmahmud3911 My personal guess has always been basically a "tribal" (for lack of a better word) alliance made by a number of Turkic groups (there never seems to be great Mongolic influence on the Qara-Qoyunlu, from what I saw) in reaction to fighting between the Ilkhanid successors. It is an alliance which ends up becoming an effective regional power and able to go toe-to-toe with those Ilkhanid successors in time.
I wish I had known about this theory when we were working on that. I feel like that idea fits better into this understanding, than the regular clans/tribes view. But I only really began to read into this this month.
Chinese,koreans and turks used to call Mongolic peoples Tatars generically and even many mongolic peoples did as well up til the 1400s. Now only turks used that term for themselves.
@@teovu5557 There is no such thing as a Mongol. Mongol is the name of the Empire of Mangyel - the Eternal country. Tatars, that's what Europeans called the Turks, and Tartary means the land of the Turks. And the self-designation of the Turkic khaganates was Mangyel. Stop confusing the history of the Turks. And today's Mongols are Khalkha, Buryats and Kalmyks. They are a mixture of Turks and Manchus (a wild tribe). All the so-called Mongolian tribes(Naimans, Kereyts, Kiyats, etc.) are Turkic tribes, because Turkisms have penetrated into the Mongolian language and not vice versa. The confirmation is that every Turkic tribe has Tamgas since the time of Runic writing, and a battle cry.
@@keteket the first mention of the mongols is from the 7th century ad tang dynasty where a tribe of xianbei/shiwei is mentioned as the menggu or shiwei menggu(chiuud mongols) Modern Mongolians call themselves mongolchiuud today still. Lol Turkic sources like the gokturks and Seljuk s states the tatars and kai spoke there OWN language along side Turkic. Confirming they were mongolic as they list them as from xianbei and states they are related to and can understand the language of the khitans which is confirmed mongolic. Turks called mongols as tatar means the strangers or strange people due to them speaking a different language. Mongol was a name of one tribe of xianbei/shiwei that came to be applied to all mongolic tribes after Genghis Khan. Barely any Turks like bulgars and kipchaks used the name tatar until the mongols conquered them and they adopted the tatar name. Facts
It's a mess if you try to stick to dividing things into clans and tribes, and look for them to mimic what we expect from those terms. The best would be to forget about clans and tribes entirely... though I know I'm going to keep accidentally using tribe, simply out of habit
Unless you understand Korean history, you cannot decipher the SECRETs hidden in . 1) Temujin means he is the descendant of King Temushin (King The Great Godly Martial, the 3rd king of Koguryeo of Korea, 1 C AD). 2) Mongol comes from Mol-Gol (Mal-Gal, Horse Kingdom/Province in Korean). 3) Chinghiz Khaan means the King of Chingui (Jingook=Chin Kingdom) of Korea, also called Barhae and Koryeo as well from where comes the country name Korea. Ghenghiz Khan is the 19th generation of the younger brother of the Founding Father of this kingdom whose title was Tinghiz Qaan.
no . they had a complex system of clans just as the mongols.. if you changed the allegiance of your tribe or clan to some defection.. conflict or swearing your loyalty to a new clan (which was common with nomads) you would adopt this clan name as your new clan just like the mongols.
The joke is that today's so-called "Mongols" attributed themselves to the Borjigin tribe in 1991. But you can only be born into a tribe. And all the tribes of Shyngys Khan are located among the Central Asian Turks. And they have always been Turks, since you can only be born into a tribe. For example, an outsider who has become a Nayman is impossible.😊
No, Mr. Polo existed. There is actually a good deal of evidence for him, and his work, "the Description of the World," is actually seen as a quite reliable (if difficult) source to use. People disbelieving him usually knew very little about the Mongol Empire or China, and usually pointed out that Marco Polo did not describe their popular stereotypes about China (things like the Great Wall- which, as it exists today, was not built until well over two centuries after Marco Polo's death). In the 1990s a woman named Frances Woods' published a book calling Polo's journey into doubt, but her book was absolutely awfully researched and full of so many errors. There are a great number of historians who have pointed out how bad her book is, and pointed to the veritable mountains of scholarship which support Polo's authenticity. Unfortunately, Woods' book sold very well, and got a lot of media coverage, so it keeps getting repeated, even though the scholarship has thoroughly (and I mean thoroughly!) debunked it. Marco Polo was real, his trip happened, and his book is mostly reliable- the errors in it mostly come from the many, many, many translations and editings it went through following the initial publication. Polo himself even released an edited version at one point (we don't actually have the original, so we don't quite know what he first wrote down). It's something I will be writing some stuff on for Kings and Generals and my own channel at some point.
For further reading. If you're interested in any of these but cannot find a copy, please contact me and I will provide you.
Atwood, Christopher. “The Administrative Origins of Mongolia’s ‘Tribal’ Vocabulary.” Eurasia: Statum et Legem. 1 no. 4 (2015): 7-43.
www.academia.edu/18163390/The_Administrative_Origins_of_Mongolia_s_Tribal_Vocabulary
Atwood, Christopher. “Historiography and transformation of ethnic identity in the Mongol Empire: the Öng’üt case.” Asian Ethnicity 15 no. 4 (2014): 514-534.
Atwood, Christopher. “Mongols, Arabs, Kurds, and Franks: Rashīd al-Dīn’s Comparative Ethnography of Tribal Society.” in Rashīd al-Dīn. Agent and Mediator of Cultural Exchanges in Ilkhanid Iran. Warburg Institute Colloquia 24 (2013): 223-250.
www.academia.edu/4831541/Mongols_Arabs_Kurds_and_Franks_Rash%C4%ABd_al_D%C4%ABn_s_Comparative_Ethnography_of_Tribal_SocietyAtwood,
Christopher. “Banner, Otog, Thousand: Appanage Communities as the Basic Unit of Traditional Mongolian Society.” Mongolian Studies 34 (2012): 1-76.
www.academia.edu/9626389/Banner_Otog_Thousand_Appanage_Communities_as_the_Basic_Unit_of_Traditional_Mongolian_Society
Atwood, Christopher. “Six Pre-Chinggisid Genealogies in the Mongol Empire.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Edited by Th. T. Allsen, P.B. Golden, R.K. Kovalev, and A.P. Martinez. 19 (2012): 5-58.
Brose, Michael. “Qipchak Networks of Power in Mongol China.” How Mongolia Matters: War, Law, and Society. Edited by Morris Rossabi, 69-86. Boston: Brill, 2017.
Lhamsuren Munkh-Erdene. “Political Order in Pre-Modern Eurasia: Imperial Incorporation and the Hereditary Divisional System.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3. 26 no. 4 (2016): 633-655.
www.academia.edu/27308900/Political_Order_in_Pre_Modern_Eurasia_Imperial_Incorporation_and_the_Hereditary_Divisional_System
Lhamsuren Munkh-Erdene. “Where did the Mongol Empire come from? Medieval Mongol Ideas of People, State, and Empire.” Inner Asia 13 no. 2 (2011): 211-37.
www.academia.edu/5715162/Where_Did_the_Mongol_Empire_Come_From_Medieval_Mongol_Ideas_of_People_State_and_Empire
Liu Yingsheng. “From the Qipčap Steppe to the Court in Daidu: A Study of the History of Toqtoq’s Family in Yuan China.” in Eurasian Influences on Yuan China, edited by Morris Rossabi, 168-177. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2013.
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.
Rashiduddin Fazlullah. Jami’ u’t-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles: A History of the Mongols. Translated by W. M. Thackston. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1998.
Shurany, Vered. “Tuqtuqa and Hes Descendants: Cross-Regional Mobility and Political Intrigue in the Mongol Yuan Army.” in Along the Silk Roads in Mongol Eurasia: Generals, Merchants, Intellectuals. Edited by Michal Biran, Jonathan Brack, and Francesca Fiaschetti, 120-140. Oakland: University of California Press, 2020.
Sneath, David. The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
my comment deleted 6 time by youtube😞
I've now marked it so TH-cam should always approve your comments now. I don't know why it did that, as your comments were the only ones it did that to today.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
Okey,its done
My last comment appear now
They came from Turkish people from West Asia.
I've read Okada Hidehiro, late Asian historian's book named Start of the World History. It was the greatest read about how Mongolian Empire started unified world history and it's start of written history. Sadly I couldn't find English translation from the net. I read it in Mongolian. He wrote great chapters about history, east and west separately in the start. Amazing. I wish you could read it. He had great direct sources from Taiwanese library right after they moved it from Beijing during ww2, and his research on lineages about different races in both eastern/ western literature was mind-blowingly rich.
Exactly the arguments we learned in class. I am a history grad student in the National University of Mongolia. It seems like modern western historians had had a bias that exoticized other peoples and polities.
Trivia: in socialist Mongolia the use of obog was eradicated and after two generations we are trying to bring it back to fight incestuous marriages. So there was a big movement to restore obog names. Many people chose Borjigin, the obog name of Chinggis Khan. Some chose arbitrarily. While others did some research or asked their elders. Some chose to name their obog after their eldest family member, often the name of their grandparents. Mine for example is Qataghin, we asked local elders of my father’s birthplace and determined we are Qataghin.
Also if someone is a genuine Borjigin there is a chance that person’s ancestors were aristocrats during the Qing period.
Qataghin according to the Secret History of Mongols is a brother obog of Borjigin
I am very pleased to hear this; it backs up exactly what researchers like Sneath and Munkh-Erdene were saying (they even talked about the worry over incest, too!).
I think you're exactly right with the exoticization aspect. So much of the idea of Mongols being in clans/tribes depends entirely on westerners expecting this to be the case, and overlooking all other evidence. I am very glad to be able to totally abandon it now.
intresting
That, or perhaps descended from aristocrats within the Muslim successor states of the Mongol Empire (Altyn Orda, Tsagadaina Khaanat Ulus, Ilkhanate).
i dont think western sources exoticizied it ... it is just they didnt have a great deal of information on this topic, in the eyes of most 19th and 20th century European writers the mongols were pretty much alien brutal hoard, like a reversal of civilization.. .. but when you read period accounts from the 13th century from europeans of their military and social structure its described as very disciplined and structured society.. look at marco polo and other italian descriptions of the time. they make point to describe the very strict social structure and not some wild tribal society.
Your drawings are getting more and more impressive. I liked the way you drew the Jurchens and the Kipchaks.
Thank you! I was very happy to finally work in those Jurchen; I drew them well over a year ago but never found a chance to use them. The nice thing about getting better at drawing is that it's more suitable to showing what I was envisioning or the historical topic; the bad thing is it makes it harder to reuse my older stuff since it will stand out quite a bit...
The Kipchaks played key roles in many nations the mamluk nobles in Egypt and the Kipchaks fought side by side with the mongol Calvary in the Golden Horde some are found fighting for Kublai Khan in the Far East it’s impressive
@@kaybevang536 Without the Kipchaks the Mamlukes would have lost at Ain Jalut. The Kipchaks knew what Mongols are capable of. And the Kipchaks themselves are nomads from the steppes. Instead of falling to the feigned retreat and many other nomadic tactics they were informed by the Kipchaks and won the battle against the Mongols.
@@daimyo-awaji Kublai Khan has them in his personal guard as well in the Yuan Dynasty and played a key roll against the Song Dynasty
@@kaybevang536 unfortunately, Kipchaks' history was almost eradicated first by Russian Empire and then by Stalinists. In 1944 there was a decree by Politburo that prohibited studying Turkic history, particularly Kipchaks and Golden Horde. They were trying to downplay Kipchaks role in the Eurasian history. They even broke Kipchak stone statues (balbals) that were widespread in Southern Russia and Ukraine, or chiseled out their faces (Asiatic) to try to remove any trace that those areas used to belong to non-Russian people.
Chinggis Khan is well known for breaking down the tribes of Mongolia to form his empire... but a recent trend in scholarship on the Mongol Empire suggests that these "tribes" did not exist in the form we imagine them. In this video I present this theory, and offer a new interpretation of Mongolian society. It's a long trek into the historiography, so buckle your seat belt.
Wer did u get your info? How about DNA test descended to Gingish khan?
@@nugnorab5257 all sources used for this topic are listed in the video description , with links to online versions when available
@@nugnorab5257 DNA descent from Chinggis Khan is not directly relevant to this topic, but recent studies have shown that the famous study which decided 0.5% of people are descended from Chinggis Khan is not accurate. More likely, this simply is a haplogroup associated with the Mongolian population and not Chinggis himself, as the few surviving Chinggisids with recorded Genealogies do not share it.
good and convincing video. It's neat and well structured. I find it very useful as well, because it focuses on a distinct history rather than just generalized battles and generalized structures of political entities.
Thanks for good job !This is very good channel about the history of the Mongol Empire. I watch your videos from the Republic of Kalmykia, although I don't know English well. I am Kalmyk, desendent of Four-Oirads. We still preserved the "tribal" division. There are several subethnoses among Kalmyks, one of them Torghuds, which i am from. We have many "clans" among the Torghuds. According to some sourses Torghud leaders were desendents of Ong khan of the Kereids. But probably not all Torghud people are desendents of Kereids, but only one clan which now named "керәд" (Torghud leaders belonged to the specifig lineage of that clan). Some historians claim that Torghuds are desendents of Chinghis Khan’s "kheshig"
Greetings from Canada to Kalmykia! I am always very happy to learn that I reach people when discussing their ancestors. This too also supports the argument; specifically having the Torghud leaders descended from from Ong Khan, rather than the entire people. It may even be a case of both, though; perhaps the original body of the Torghud came from a minggan of a khan's keshig, but that minggan was led by a kereyid/descendant of Ong khan. I don't see these as exclusive options.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thanks for the answer! Yes, i think you are right, this is exactly how our historians interpeptide the origin of the Torghuds! But of course, then Torghud nobility added new subjects who were not part of original «keshig».
Desendents of Ong Khan were a «tsagan yasun» of Torghuds. Although «tsagan yasun» was elite with specific genealogy, desendents of «hara yasun» also know there genealogy and clan name (we call it «tokhm» or «yasun»). This is part of our tradition, for example, we can not marry to person with the same genealogy. For example, I am Kalmyk, Torghud, my tokhm named Bagud (Баhуд).
I am waiting new video about Nogai ))
That is really cool! I am also a descendant of Four Oirats. I got Bayad and Durvud lineage. My family also researched and asked around to find that our Surname/ Ovog is Tsoros. I think it is also because the noble of the khoshuu or aimag had that name which the subjects adopted. For example, my mother’s side is Bulgadar which is also what most people from that county claim as well.
I was redirected here from Khan's Den and there from Kings and Generals. This channel deserves atleast a million followers. I love your work❤
Insane that your channel doesn't have more followers, literally college course quality info for free online. You truly have shown yourself to be a real scholar
Hi. Mongolian here. Irgen means citizen in our language. Ulus means country/nation. Hope it helps
Ulus is rather a turko-mongolic word
Excellent, finally someone attempts to cover this topic to the public.
This paradigm has been discussed for a very long time, extensively by the Western Asian historians, why? Because after 13th century, literally every states emerged in Western Asia, had the same model and paradigm of the Mongol Empire or the Inner Asian as a whole, even some considered the post-13th century states were all the successor and the legacy of the Mongol Empire, including the three Gunpowder Empires - Ottoman, Safavid and obviously the Mughal (or the Baburid to be exact).
This process happened over and over again in the steppe, it became a circle: a bunch of people leading by various nobles fighting each other and then someone like Chinggis Qan came, defeated them all, united them so that they could become autonomous and fought each other again, for this region the Steppe States were all volatile, for example the Mongol Empire only existed as a whole for like 50 years and then all the khanates quickly dissolved after that.
The Western Asian States post 13th met the same fate: the Timurid, the Safavid, the Ottoman, the Mughal, etc... they tried to stop it, tried to avoid the fate of the Mongol Empire, even took extreme measure like the fratricide of the Ottoman Empire, but none succeeded but one, that is the Ottoman Empire thanks to various factors.
I only really came to understand it in the previous weeks- I imagine it will be difficult to ever hope to replace the convenience of tribe/clan in everyone's mind, but I find that this makes much more sense in terms of what the historical sources describe happening.
To counter a very famous TH-camr, this is but another example of the Mongols NOT being an exception.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory I want to have a question: was the Khan of each ulus elected before the Mongol Empire, or was the position hereditary?
@@QuanHoang-qd1ye As far as we can tell, the succession in these groups goes much the same in pre-Chinggisid times as it was after Chinggis Khan.
These positions are hereditary in the sense that the successor must be picked from the ruling lineage. Usually father-to-son or brother-to-brother; the leaders/rest of the family within that ulus then hold a quriltai to select from the candidates. The person who won at the quriltai will then be "confirmed," by the overlord, if there is one. In cases with a strong central government (as we often see happen during the Mongol Empire) the Khan may not like this candidate and select or impose a different one; when the central government is weaker, they can offer a totally nominal 'confirmation' since it is no longer in their power to do anything about it. Take for example, when Khubilai Khaan would send his yarliq "confirming" the Il-Khan. Khubilai had no power to do anything about if he didn't like the candidate, and the Il-Khan was already elected by his peers, and thus could ignore the Khaan if he wished. This is basically how things went before the Mongol Empire, as far was we can tell, with all the succession struggles we often saw in the Mongol Empire (To'oril Ong Khan only took the Kereyid throne after killing most of his brothers, for instance). In many respects, the Mongol Empire was simply a much larger version of a lot of these "institutions," from earlier nomadic polities.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Thanks for clarifying. Now I understand more about the Khitans as well. History of China describes the pre-Liao Khitans as having eight "tribes". I once wondered how did these roaming nomadic tribes met and elect a Great Khan if they did not stay in Inner Mongolia. Their organizations were like the Mongols' I guess.
Yes, and further (especially in the case of the Khitans, who weren't full nomads) they were not roaming anywhere, but would have had allotted camps and seasonal bases. So when it came time for a quriltai (or whatever) the other relevant parties would know where to send their messengers. Khitans, Jurchen Mongols, Turkic tribes etc., all of their societies were much more structured and organized than often portrayed.
This video actually opened my eyes! Among Oghuz Turks we were taught there are 24 boys. My father tells me we are Afshar similiar to Nader Shah or some of the Anatolian Beyliks. I always wondered what that exactly means. I guess before the foundation of Seljuk state Oghuz Yabgu state had a similiar aristocracy division as you described in the video. So anyone claiming being of a certain boy simply says to which aristocratical group in Oghuz Yabgu state his ancestor was subject to.
In Qashqai turkic oba means “house of”, qashqai organization is very similar to how you have just explained, im amazed
Oba is used in every Turkic dialect, in one or another form.
What I like about this theory is that it relies on the local understanding of the terms within their context, rather than the English model of clan/tribe. I am frustrated I did not know this sooner, as in hindsight I find it makes much more sense than the strict idea of tribal hierarchies. From what I understand, a lot of recent study has gone into demonstrating that tribe/clan, as popularly imagined, does not fit many societies very well; but we keep using it out of habit and forcing societies to fit into this model.
Im from Alanoba clan from Balkars and my mothers clan is Orsoba from Karachay. We use Oba too but also ossetian words mixed in.
Thank you very much for clearing up this suspicion of mine. After becoming familiar with African history, I realized that the "tribes" people kept talking about there were just feodal like lord and their subjects and did not always share ancestors like you mentioned. I think this discussion at large over the term tribe and clan should be challenged more in media.
Even in perhaps the most well-known case in the UK and North America, the Scottish clans, the common misconception is that everyone in the clan is descended from the founder, even though that is not the case. It's the problem when anthropology and social sciences try to find models to fit all human societies; you'll end up with so many exceptions to the rule that you don't really have much of a rule at all by the time you're done.
Well done! Very credible analysis. It can be a book, but you did an excellent, concise sum up! Indeed the terms like 'irgen' or 'ulus' are interesting. Apparently the Mongols and others pre-Genghis Khan called themselves simply 'irgen' (of Borjigin/Kiyad rulers?) according to some sources. I read that the Tungusic word for 'gathering' is 'irgen' (correct me if I'm wrong). "Ulus" is likely from "uul us" (homeland = mountain, river/lake/water). Even today in Mongolia we refer to homeland folks as "uul usnykhan maani" (folks of my homeland/birthplace). "Zubu/Shubo/Shubugu" sounds like the bigger endonym "Shiwei". Probably the Kiyad/Borjigin (Mengu Shiwei), Kereids or Kidans all considered themselves of/connected to Shiwei origin. I read so also somewhere else. It's not mutually excusive.
It's often difficult to translate history into a foreign language, especially when the most simple terms have unique local connotations. How you describe Mongolian society reminded me of how Qing dynasty organized the Manchu ruling class--i.e. 8 flags/banners (八旗, "jakūn gūsa"). It was a military administrative unit of the Manchu elite, which eventually became a hereditary social class after losing much of its original military purpose. Given the long and complex history of the Manchus and Mongols, I presume some traditions, cultures, and governing systems overlap between the two.
If I recall correctly, Manchu letters were based on Mongolian letters (which were based on Uighurs, Sogds...). But again, this basic knowledge is from my junior highschool days, so I'm sure far more detailed information is available. Fortunately, much documentation on the Manchus exist so if you research how Manchu society was organized in early Qing era, you may get a better understanding on how Mongolian society functioned. I also recall that early Qing/Manchu Emperors had to marry daughters from Mongol aristocrats to maintain the alliance and peace in the north. This suggests that aristocracy (and military social units) in Mongolian society survived throughout most of Qing/Manchu dynasty, and that Mongols were perceived as a special partner in the Qing dynasty.
Yeah, was thinking of making a video on this. You did a great job here!
Thank you! I'm sure you would have done it admirably as well; frankly I would encourage you to do it anyways and offer your own viewpoint on it, or additional evidence/arguments either in favour of, or against it. This is more of an overview than a really deep dive in to it, so there is certainly much more room for it.
For the first time ever I watched 30 mins video without skipping a sec. Because the quality is so damn good and matches my point of view which I had carried for a long time but never seen anyone else sharing it.
I cannot thank you enough for spreading your wisdom. However the views and recognition of you is awfully low. I hope you get time to visualize this video and reupload it so that these idiots will finally understand how amazing and informative your content is.
I wish you the best in life and I hope to see your channel grow as it deserves more than any idiotic historic channel.
Excellent channel! Wish I'd found it sooner but will be binge-watching for awhile now. 😁👍
---Marya Kamilla 🐎🐎🐎 🇺🇸 🇭🇺 🇲🇳👑
We need more longer-format videos like this!
They're alot of work, but the response has been very positive so I'll consider
Man, you're a machine when it comes to producing high quality content and providing responses in the comments.
I feel like a term along the line of "faction" would make a lot more sense than "tribe" or "clan" this sort of grouping could also be applied to numerous other societies.
Yes, that's a much better idea. Even dynasty might be a better idea, or even comparing them to a feudal estate. Though obviously not European feudalism, the idea of hereditary nobility ruling over an allotment of people and lands while owing military service and taxes to higher levels of elite is much more accurate than the image we associate with 'tribes.'
Great breakdown and awesome drawings, Jack. I love this kind of stuff that challenges our assumptions and anachronistic notions.
Thank you, I'm very glad you enjoyed it. I find there is no shortage of work that can be done in attacking popular misconceptions- it's one of my favourite things to do in these projects.
I wonder if could have been the same with Celtic and Germanic "tribes" (decimal system perhaps non included). Reading The Secret Story of the Mongols sometimes I have the feeling I was reading about a society not that removed from Germanic-Celtic-Indoeuropean.
Yes this is exactly what David Sneath and others have argued. The modern conception of tribal systems basically has few, if any, actual historical or modern counterparts, but by trying to make them fit into this tribal/kinship based model historians inadvertently distort the understanding of these groups.
Really cool stuff dude, I love these kinds of historiographic reviews.
Thank you, I am very glad to hear that; everyone's response has been quite positive so far
I am not sure about Mongols but in Kazakhs genealogies survived not just for aristocracy (Ak suyek or white bone), but for commoners (Kara suyek, black bone). Aristocracies were all Chingizids.
The impression I had, is that that observations in Mongolia up to the twentieth century revolutions tended to indicate little knowledge of ancestors beyond grandparents, or someone particularly notable. Most medieval commentators wrote similarly- though it is sometimes hard to tell when they are genuine observations or just a writer trying to dismiss a certain people.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory although Kazakh Chingizids called Tore are Jochi descendants, so they may not be pure Chingiskhan descendants.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistoryYou are talking about the Mongolian origin of the Kazakh tribes. But understand that, on the contrary, there are many Turkisms in the Mongolian language, and not vice versa. And the C2 gene (which is considered to be the Mongolian gene) is larger in Kazakhstan, which indicates the origin of this gene among the Turks and spread throughout Asia. And today's Mongols are Khalkha, Buryats and Kalmyks, a mixture of Turks and Manjurs. But this does not make them Turks. While the Turks were the founders of the Hunnic Empire, Scythia, the Turkic khaganates 1 and 2 (by the way, the self-name will be Mangy El - eternal country), the Uighur Khaganate, the Kyrgyz Khaganate and the Turkic Khaganate 3 Shyngys Kagan (Mangy El). One more thing about the tribes. Each Turkic tribe has its own ancestral tamgas, Naimans, Kereyts, Kiyats, and so on, no exception. Which have been used since the time of Runic writing, and their own battle cry. Everyone knows that Shyngys Kagan is a Turkic from the Kiyat tribe. And yes, you can only be born in a tribe, but not how not to appropriate someone else's. And Borjugun (Bori Tegin) is not a tribe, but translates as the Prince of Wolves. I think as long as Turkophobia reigns in the world, everything will be hushed up. In any case, everything is changing and perhaps Turkophobia and Eurocentrism will pass. By the way, on the map of the Mongolian Empire it is not clear why the upper part was cut off, the Turks also lived and live there.
@@keteket your tribes in Kazakhstan all came to the Central Asia during the Chingiskhan invasion. Most of your tribe’s descendants are the Khongirad clan, we are living around the Lake Baigaal Dalai (Baikal). And most of the procentages of Y-chromosome C2 haplogroup is in the bloodline of the Buryad-Mongols (Northern Mongols). We are the First Nation of Siberia.
Hey man
I was a commentator who have a long discussion with you about tribes in imperial period and hereditary military command stracture of Mongols (and yes,merkits in marco polo too🙂)
I should say;video just perfect,well studied and one of your best
Your channel is realy oasis for learn correct info about Mongol Empire,especially considering internet filled with meaningless bullshits such as
''meritocratic mongol army'', ''medieval-communist genghis khan replaced tribal system with modern mongol idenity'' etc
Sorry for constant comment report btw
TH-cam annoying with me again and made invinsible my comments
I am very, very happy you found this a worthwhile exploration of the topic. Our discussions sat in my mind for a long time and with this project, I finally started to feel like things fit into place. I will do a "Mongol Myths" sometime soon on Chinggis Khan's "1206 social revolution," and talk more about that aspect specifically. I hope to do much more "myth busting" in general. With Kings and Generals we have some topics along these lines planned; the next one will be the famous "1 in 200 men in Asia is descended from Chinggis Khan." Basically that original study was full of holes, and we're going to do a video pointing it out, as well as the new research in this field.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
I waiting impatiently and great appetite🙂
Thank you for this excellent video. I am currently doing my doctoral thesis on nationalism in Kazakhstan, and one of the big obstacles I have in my research is understanding the manner in which its clan-based system functioned up to their incorporation in the Russian sphere of influence. Many Kazakh clans bear Mongol names, or at least a direct link to a historical Mongol tribe, and much of what you have spoken about applies to them.
I find it interesting how well-organized the nomads of Inner Asia were, yet it ended up being their biggest flaw as it didn´t force adaptation and change. In the end, they were outdone by those they once conquered, and ended up adopting a foreign model of socio-economic development.
Again, thank you. Your sources have helped me greatly.
My pleasure, I am very glad you found it insightful. That is my hope for all of these videos, is that they become useful tools for someone else's research, and a sort of easily acceptable springboard.
Alin, you probably have already seen this th-cam.com/video/N5I_t7GW9pI/w-d-xo.html. The guy talks about genetic traces in Kazakh tribes. One of his points (probably in some other of his videos) is that often Kipchak or other autochthonous tribes adopted Mongol tribe names according to Chingiskhans military organization, but not necessarily were direct descendants of those tribes.
Sunteți român ??
@@arystanbeck914 Thank you. I will have to translate that first though.
I know the topic of Mongol ancestry is pretty dividing among the Kazakhs. The idea is reasonable, a lot of literature hints at the fact that conquered tribes were reorganized and took the identity of their newly-appointed official.
@@seicsamir5350 Da
Nice work Jack. Your discussion on the term 'tribe' reminds me of talks we had on the subject during masters work in Japan. Clearly the translation of the word 'tribe' is problematic in many languages.
Tribe does suffice but the problem is the connotation implied by using the word.
Also, regarding the social system among old Turkic people, we also used Kara Budun and Ak Budun, and Kara Sumuk/Kemik and Ak Sumuk / Kemik. Kara and Ak means black and white, Budun means tribal confederation, sumuk and kemik means bones. The white budun / Kemik was the higher class, the beks (lords), while kara budun were the common people.
@Amanjol Məmbetjanulı
Has Tore another meaning in Kazakh? In medieval Anatolian Turkish it means tradition and the center of the house where the aksakal (white beard, elder person, leader of the house/family) would sit. In old Turkic it meant law.
It idea of a strict aristocracy seems very much the standard in medieval Turkic-Mongolic peoples- simply another demonstration of why "tribes without social stratification," are very poor fit to these societies. The medieval genealogies are usually very clear that they are a genealogy only of the White Bone people, and don't share ancestry with the commoners. Because if the commoner had White Bone ancestry, well they wouldn't be commoners, would they?
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
There were actually some terms in Karakhanid (Karluk) and Kok Turuk (Orchun) Turkic to refer to such people. For people who were originally from the Kara Budun / Kemik, but who were related to a person of Ak Budun / Kemik origin through marriage. If I find the actual term in my archive, I will share it.
@@karabudun-tarihvesiyaset8037 In the Mongol empire these people were the güregen, "the son-in-laws." If they married into the Chinggisids. It's a common title that we see, and perhaps most famously it was a title Emir Temür proudly bore. In the Mongol Empire there was also the qarachu. It still refers to "commoners" in the sense that they don't have Chinggisid ancestry, but the qarachu were the military elite and their descendants, and the ones appointed to lead the minggad. So almost like a triple level of social standing: the altan uragh (which was now the chaghan yasa), the qarachu (the non-Chinggisid military elite) and the qara yasu/dürlügin (common people).
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
You're wrong. Kazakh tribes have tribes with Ak and Kara in the beginning. But they are of the same origin. There is something else here, because in ancient Turkic kara (Black) meant strong, big.And the capital of Shyngys Kagan was Karakorum, the ruler would not name his capital after commoners.😂
Interesting. You may still see subgroups of noble houses with the Qara (suiek) black bone prefix among Kazakh clans. Like Kipchaks, they have subgroups QaraKipchak (black-Kipchak). Basically, they have been historically carried not just nobility but their commoners as well; that's crazy. At least that's the way I have understood this video.
I think that one of the reasons why Aq Suiek included commoners was that nomads were not obsessed with "blood purity" like the European nobles. Instead, our ancestors were focused on having the healthy and smart offspring. That's why they probably came up with 7 generations rule and the tradition of wooing brides from remote locations. We know that "batyr" which is definitely "aq suiek" could be anyone as long as he proved himself to be skillful and smart warrior in the eyes of the public, wait even woman could become "batyr" if she managed to face all the challenges and earn the people' respect.
İn old Turkic "oymak" means tribe, a big group of people. Oba means a smaller tribe, a region were a tribe has opened it tents and gets ready to settle and in my village in Turkey it is used for small villages.
"oy" also meant / means house and idea. The modern Turkish "ev" (house) and "oy" (vote) evolved from this.
The thing is that the discussed language is Mongolian. Even if that word was borrowed, borrowed words usually have a tendency to gain new meaning in another language.
@@Singgenwhen words are borrowed they gain the same or a new but related meaning. The example of the same meaning: Küč, Kuč, and hüch, which is sthrenght/power in turkic languages, in middle-mongolian (Guyuk khan's letter to Pope), and khalkha mongol
Excellent work. Thank you.
Plz observed widely on other steppe people (structure,military,economy) as well,i followed your channel since 2017 and i found these type of channel so rare who talk and research about whole civilian and military and financial structure of Nomadic people ,now the settled people understand that the nomads are not just rough,tough raiders , they're made system of their own.
at first i was ready of pointing out your errors at the end i was clapping hands how you explained thing's differently great lecture
The system of 'tribal' creation tracks with the Romans and the Goths, a client buffer state supported by and politically influenced by the Romans. The Goths then grew in sophistication and organization to the point where they could challenge and weaken the authority of their one time overlord. Another parallel is in Sub-roman Britain armed groups with the label of 'Legion' remained on Hadrian's wall as a kind of local defense force either as full time soldiers or farmer/soldiers militia.
A great example. Especially since the English word tribe comes from latin, and while it carried some of the connotations the 19th century scholars added a lot more connotations to it, which have affected how in turn, we go look back and understand the Germanic tribes. The idea of uncontrollable Germanic rabble who overwhelmed their foes through sheer numbers, fighting naked and without regard to their own safety, is very hard to dismiss from public mind, regardless of how little it actually reflects their actual societies or political/military interactions with Rome.
Jackmeister ı really liked the video keep it up
Thank you!
I've ALWAYS wondered this. It's really confusing reading through Mongol history and trying to discern who is Mongol and who's not. Who's of the steppe but not a Mongol was never clear to me. Also this may be a really basic question and probably because I don't know anything about agriculture but why didn't the steppe never adopt it? My idiot brain is like "grass! grass is like plants! grass grows in the steppe! can't other crops?" but I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
This is a very good question actually! Agriculture is actually practiced in the steppe, albeit only in certain regions and limited quantities (evidence of agriculture around lake Baikal actually predates the evidence for animal husbandry/pastoral nomadism in the region), even during the Mongol Empire period. The Yenisei River Valley, northwest of Mongolia today, was and still is an important grain producing centre. There are a number of things that make steppes unsuited to extensive agricultural production, but perhaps the most notable is dryness. Steppe biomes are characterized generally as dry grasslands, and have very little or very irregular rainfall. Grass can make due off of this, but very few crops can. It is notable that any agricultural sites in the pre-twentieth century Mongolia plateau are almost all near bodies of water like lakes or rivers.
There are other things at play such as the soils temperaturs, and a short growing season, as well as cultural (animal herding is so prestige that being reduced to fishing or harvesting for survival was basically how the Mongols described poverty, as seen in the Secret History of the Mongols.). Animal herding is simply a much more effective means of production in the majority of Mongolian territory than any efforts at agriculture could be. Khubilai Khaan sought to make his frontier with the Central Asian Khanates a series of self-supporting farming garrisons, and almost without fail these were unsuccessful. Qaraqorum itself had to be supplied by hundreds of DAILY cartloads of food stuffs from North China, as the attempts at farming around it brought meagre results.
a mongol is a person who speaks mongolian, but i think those mongol and turkic people assimilated each-other and anyone who dwelt with them frequently in history, hence there extreme genetic diversity. a person may have been from a turkic speaking tribe but having sworn allegiance to a mongol tribe or married a member of one and so could have assumed their identity ect.. many of the mongol generals were turkic people but they had assumed mongol identity in the mongols society... i think tribes is not accurate but more clans is a batter explanation.. these clans are present in all turkic and mongol and tungustic societies even the most remote.
That voice is just awesome.
It is a very important note that often etnonyms of peoples of eurasian steppes were got after names of ruler or rulying dynasty like Oghuzs, Seldjuks, Uzbeks, Nogajs and etc. Mongol seems to be at the start the title of ruler kin meaning the eternal realm or celestial state. Remember for example the empire of Great Moghuls in India. It was an enigma for me in school where mongols come from and where they suddenly disappear. But they alvays have been there and still the are kinships in Eurasia who claims to be of "mongolic" origin.
Amazing work can you make videos on other steppe people like the scythians,sarmatians,roxolani,Huns and the white huns
I really hope to. Once I finish my overview series on the Mongol Empire and on Nogai, I will be open to covering some other topics most distant in time and space.
Buryad-Mongol from Khongirat Tribe (Khongodor)
Great vid thx man.
Thank you!
As a Kazakh of the Kerei tribe/clan I have to ask you...how far can we go back in the history of the Kereis/Kereid?
love your videos, i came here looking for more content, I'm listening to the age of conquest mongol history podcast. and kings and generals videos. ^^
Have you ever encountered anything about Khori Tumeds in your researches?
I have read about them, but are you asking specifically about how they relate to the topic covered in this video?
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory no, I just hail from Khori and wondered whether you encountered any mentions of them after 13th century. We consider ourselves to be descedant of Khori Tumeds. Khori people made an exodus from Yehe Nara area in 17th century and said that majority of their people have stayed there and they are themselves but a small fraction. Thi territiry was a territory of Tumed Mongols.
It'sj just that partcular Khori ethnonym kinda disapeared after 13th century and reemeged only in 17th century. So I wondered whether you encountered any mentions of Khori during that missed period of time.
@@Singgen ah, well I can't say I have seen it listed, but I should emphasize that I haven't really searched for it either. Most of the reading I do is on 13th century stuff. I'll keep an eye out for the term, though
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Would be great! Thanks!
This is interesting. I was just reading up on the Timurids and when discussing the origin of the Barlas 'tribe' it was alluded to that it was originally a Mongol division settled in Transoxiana.
The next day this video is recommended to me, this is creepy.
Exactly as I planned it
The idea that states are actually what creates 'tribes' and 'clans' is interesting, as I have also previously noticed this trend. Specifically, when studying Ottoman Kurdistan. Where they would set up Kurdish territorial emirates, these often did have some sort of origin before the conquest, much of it was the Ottomans centralising and building up a structure they could understand, by giving authority to figures of local importance, which they may or may not have previously possessed (Much of this was done with the help of a Kurd named Idris Bitlisi).
(I mention this as an example of supposedly bottom-up territorial and tribal units actually being created, or at least rigidly enforced, from the above.)
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory There is also a case for a similar thing to have happened in Feudal France. The various de-facto independent duchies and counties of feudal France were not descendants of Germanic 'tribes' that would be ridiculous (Though some of the ruling families did indeed come from old Frankish aristocracy). No, most of the fiefdoms were at least initially based on old Frankish and Roman territorial divisions, which became independent when the power of the central government declined. No one is arguing that all people in the duchy of Aquitaine were members of the 'Ramnulfid tribe'. This was also a trend in German history I believe, the so-called stem-duchies, supposedly based on old-Germanic tribal lines, when in reality they were likely just administrative divisions of the Franks (In some cases based around states/kingdoms that formed in the area before the Franks conquered them, such as Bavaria or Alemannia, but this doesn't imply they were ingenious tribes, just an area ruled by the same dynasty).
It sounds ridiculous when you try to apply the old model to European history. I suppose people don't usually see it due to the perceived inherent exoticness and foreign-feeling of Mongol, Nomadic or generally Asian societies?
Those are all very pertinent example. A more modern case in North America, might be looking at Canadian provinces and American states, and assuming that these were created by a "Manitoban"/"British Columbia"/"New Yorker"/Californian" ethnic groups- and that these provinces and states reflect some inherent quality of the people who live there, rather than administrative divisions (many of which are quite arbitrary, and made with little input from the actual population.) The way people in these states will assume qualities about the people who live there, and have pride in the regional identity which develops over time- it's a similar process to the "tribalization," we can imagine with these hereditary aristocratic divisions.
There's a tendency in humans to look around at their current situation and just assume "this is the way things are/always have been/are supposed to be, and assume to them a certain permanency or inherent qualities, even when these may be very recent inventions. The fact an individuals grandfather happened to be born in the same area makes it easy for them to take it as part of their identity.
How far back do you think this process goes? Like certainly the Kherites and Liao did it so did the Uyghurs? Rouran? GokTurks? does it go as far back as the Xiongnu?
The implication is that yes, this goes back to the Xiongnu, and was standard for all the Turkic and Mongolic peoples.
Well explained video Sir 👍
I am glad you think so! I was worried it might be a bit complicated to get across in TH-cam but so far it seems to click for people
I tried read Jack Weatherford and ı know his work based on his fantasy world
But man,this is so much:
''Her captor and the man destined to be her new husband was Yesugei of the small and insignificant band that would one day be known as the Mongols, but at this time he was simply a member of the Borijin clan,subservient to its more powerful Tayichiud relative''
I find something silly on every page of that book. His version of the Jin Dynasty, for example, bears utterly no relation to the actual state or the conflict with the Mongols. At one point he has the Jin Emperor as a child. Now, that is the one succession mistake the Jin never did- they had every sort of bloody succession, assassination, and fool on the throne, but they never placed a child on it. It's such a poor level of research in that book that my opinion of it gets lower anytime I look through it
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory You still work with the Kings and Generals cchannel, right? Will you guys cover downfall period of Mongols? Like Dzungar period and their collapse?
We will at some point. We've talked about Tumu, Dzungars etc. Everyone is on board, but it's not something we will likely get to in the near future. I have to get around to researching and writing it, but they already have a lot of stuff booked for me at the moment. Once we get through the current plans we'll reassess and get to post-1368 stuff, but not for a while.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
I think it easy readable book but thats it realy
Its a fiction who loosely connected to actual history
Many people learned Mongol history from his books,lol
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory Ah, like the fall of Yuan - court's scheming which eventually led to the fall of the dynasty? Toghon literally lost the Mandate by killing essential people.
Would be great to see!
2) (15: 45) Though Mongol Tuman (Ten Thousand Households)-Minggan (One Thousand Households) system may be similar to those of Xiongnu, each of them comes from different lineage and historical backgrounds. Chinghizid Mongols have no relationship with the Xiongnus at all because Mongol system is based on those of Altan Ulus (The Golden Dynasty of the Jushen) and its predecessor Balhae (Bohai in Chinese) Kingdom of Korea. 3) (21: 50) Mukusu (Marguz, Marcus, the Nestorian Kereit Khan) recorded in is not the Grandfather of Ong Khan the Kereit, but he is the Great-Grandfather of Ong Khan in
really? koreans like to fabricate history nowadays using its last 50 years riches from various corporations, the only relationship the xiagnu had with koreans be tribute and women paid by koreans, in 2020 we found the capital city of the xiagnu or (hunnu), dragon city capital of hunnu ulus, and artifact that are found there represented mongol culture non of koreans, i never heard Koreans calling them ulus ^^
@@Neverdyingpride Saiin baina oo? How are you my little brother. Thank you for your reply even though that is much nationalistic response. What tribe do you belong to? For example, Borjigin or Taichiud? Khatakin, Jalair? like that? The Xiongnus do not exist anymore. A part of them became Koreans and some part of them became Chinese and some of them Kazakhs, like that. But as of today, the biggest Xiongnu descendant group is in fact Koreans. More than 1.5 Million Koreans are Xiongnu descendants, the two Kim families in Korea, for example. That population is 5 times bigger than your Mongol republic population. and more than 90 % of Mongol and Buryat population are Korean descendants! How do you think abou that? and Chinghiz Khan himself was a Kidanified Korean descendant. How do you think about that?
@@Neverdyingpride Сайн байна уу дүү минь. Хэдийгээр энэ нь үндсэрхэг үзэлтэй хариулт байсан ч хариу өгсөнд баярлалаа. Та ямар овгийнх вэ? Жишээлбэл, Боржигин уу, Тайчиуд уу? Хатакин, Жалайр? ингэж? Хүннү нар байхгүй болсон. Нэг хэсэг нь солонгос, нэг хэсэг нь хятад, нэг хэсэг нь казах болсон, тэрэн шиг. Гэвч өнөөдрийн байдлаар Хүннүгийн удмын хамгийн том бүлэг нь үнэндээ солонгосчууд юм. 1.5 сая гаруй солонгосчууд Хүннүгийн удам, Солонгос дахь Ким-ийн хоёр OVOGuud yum. Тedgeeriin хүн ам нь танай Монголын бүгд найрамдах улсын хүн амаас 5 дахин их. Монгол буриад хүн амын 90 гаруй хувь нь солонгос гаралтай! Та энэ талаар хэрхэн бодож байна вэ? мөн Чингис хаан өөрөө Киданжсан солонгос гаралтай. Та энэ талаар хэрхэн бодож байна вэ?
@@Neverdyingpride Another issue. You said that Korea gave women to somebody. To whci country? But do you know the fact that Mongke Khan gave his daughter, Princes s to Korean prince first, before we gave any women to Mongol? Do you also know that the last empress of Korea was a Mongol princess?
Өөр нэг асуудал. Солонгос эмэгтэйг хэн нэгэнд өгсөн гэж та хэлсэн. Аль улс руу? Гэхдээ бид Монголд эмэгтэй хүн өгөхөөс өмнө Мөнх хаан охиноо Солонгосын ханхүүд түрүүлж өгсөн гэдгийг та мэдэх үү? Солонгосын сүүлчийн хаан хатан bas Монгол гүнж байсныг та мэдэх үү?
Wait your opinion and info about Yujiulu Tatar
Yujiulu Celun
Yujiulu datan.of course modu chanyu
Modu Chanyu or how its actually pronounced in Turkic/Mongolic language Bagatur Tarkan
So what you are saying is that khitan, manchus, xianbei, xiongnu are all one people and mongol. Or even turkic at times.
Amazing research. Kudos!!
New video when ?
Soon-ish. I'm doing a collaboration with Hikma History on Berke which we originally planned to have come out next week, but due to some stuff in our schedules it will be pushed back to probably November 5th. So I will probably do a short Mongol Myth before the end of October.
What do you think about Karachu begs in late golden horde
The Secret History (§202) records the names of the lords of the ninety- five minggan thousand units of the Mongol ulus that Chinggis Khan established in 1206. It is clear that the Barulas, Onggirad, Ilkires, and the probably Turkic Önggüd are included in this monggol ulus category, and the numerous Borjigin nobles mentioned in the list must have been ruling many former subjects of the Tatar, Kereid, Merkid Tayi’chud and Naiman nobles.
Sneath, D., n.d. The headless state: aristocratic orders, kinship society, & misrepresentations of nomadic inner Asia. p.230.
The word "Mongol" was indeed used to mean nation, just like "American". In this case, the only thing that will determine the ethnicity of the tribes will be their language. Especially Mongolic, Tungusic, Turkic or Para-Mongolic languages.
This is a great summary
@@papazataklaattiranimam so are oirats turkic?
Will we see video about Kıpchak guards and Tuqtuqa in KaG ?
I hadn't thought about it actually, but now that you mention it that would be a good topic. I actually did a lot of reading on the Guards, El-Temür and Toghto/Tuqtuqa for the podcast episodes on the Yuan, but unfortunately very little of it made it into the episodes (I was very pressed for time at that point and we ended up rushing through the Yuan stuff faster than I would've like). Kings and Generals will basically publish anything send them (though when they get around to doing it is another matter) so I cold definitely do something on that.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
OH YES !
Just cant wait see badass guards with kıpchak masks who encirle Great Khan
Can you recommend me a good book for the history of Mongol empire?
Timothy May's "The Mongol Empire" (2018) is a favourite of mine for a concise, easy to read overview of the Mongol Empire's history, and many additional aspects to it. That is a very good place to start, before going into more dedicated works.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
I have serious doubt with his books
Its seem full of ''meritocratic,revolutionary Genghis Khan'' baloney
There is a lot of that "Chinggis' social revolution" in it. But he points out the hereditary nature of command; in fact, it's a key part of his approach for understanding the empire's history. He views it as a weakening of the khan's power against these hereditary miltiary elite (the qarachu) and emphasizes it repeatedly throughout.
While I do have some critiques on specific sections (his section on Nogai and the Golden Horde is definitely very... out of date let's say. I referred to it a lot in my thesis, and not in a good way. Mostly to go "here's the common scholarly view, and why it is wrong.") I think the book as a whole does a good job of pointing out some of the recent research, while also being an easily accessible (both in terms of reading, and in actually finding a copy) overview of the empire and the khanates. It provides a great list of sources for further reading, and useful family trees and timelines, while also not being a mammoth work. That's why I like to recommend it for someone just looking for a general overview, rather than something more specific.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
According to what ı have read from primary sources,hereditary command stracture was still sole system during Chinggis Khan's rule. Only ''meritocratic'' promotion in Chinggis' rule belonged to pre-1206,like Jebe began as commander of ten and appointed to commander of thousand in 1206.
But after 1206,military units of 1204 became hereditary regiments/divisions and command stracture passed from father to son
Also,he gave example of Muqali for how Chinggis broke steppe aristocracy and appointed slaves too. But the thing is,these serf groups also have nobility among themselves. Muqali's father and Sorgan Shira were such people for example
Apart from few Tarkhan who came from realy low statue(like Badai and Kishlig) most of commanders in 1206 has aristocratic background.
I think his works generally useful for beginners who dont know about mongol history,but there are tons of flaw in his books like ı mentioned
Sources give any info about fate of Naimans who fled with Guchluk ?
Juvaini (the main source for Küchlug's life, and basically the source everyone else used who mentioned him) describes all the troops who fled with Küchlug into Qara-Khitai eventually being killed over the course of Jebe's attack. Either they were stationed in cities in the Tarim Basin and killed when the locals rose up, or were with Küchlug when he got surrounded and captured in Badakhshan, were presumably they were killed along side him. During Küchlug's initial flight some may have fled west with the remaining Merkit to the Qangli. But anyone who fled with Küchlug was killed or dispersed.
Do you think that when turks ruled over Mongolia, that they used the same method of administration?
i think these nomads had a very vague concept of being turkic or mongol or juchen ect.. ect it was based more of loyalty to a military leader, many "mongols" were turkic peple and im sure it was the same in the uyghur khanate or other turkic periods.. just as the "mongolised" tungustic people, juchen, manchus.. ect.. considered some of their "ancestors" to be the same as the mongols and there was a very grey area as to whos who.. nomadic people were exogenous cultures that also had practices of adopting or assuming other more powerful tribes, its why genetics is so varied there. you could just assimilate or join with another tribe.. language also seems to have been very flu there too look how the mongols became turkish speaking in many areas of the mongol empire within a very short period of time gue to assimilation of large groups of turkic tribes ... .
Does this same framework of minghaans being designated with hereditary rulers who then go on to become essentially aristocrats ruling over fiefdoms or whatever also apply to the Islamised Mongols to the West of the Yuan, or are they explained by a different process?
It seems largely to have been a similar process. Given the strength of the military elite in the Ilkhanate especially, you could make the argument it was an even stronger process there.
In the Yuan Dynasty, since the Mongols in the army were mostly kept near the capital or in Mongolia itself, the process continued with the same general patterns. Obviously certain aspects differ, but the argument is that the process was the same because we see groups of similar names to pre-Chinggisid minghaans apparently reemerge after the fall of the Ilkhanate or fall of the Yuan.
@@earlmahmud3911 There was not, actually, Manghit among Nogai's soldiers. No 13th or 14th century sources attests to Nogai ever being connected with them; the only Mongol group among Nogai's forces ever mentioned in a contemporary source was a minggan or so of Adargin Mongols, according to Rashid al-Din. The connection of Nogai to the Manghit just comes from the fact that one of the core bodies that formed the Nogai Horde were the Manghit, and relies on the assumption that Nogai (13th century) had some relationship to the Nogai Horde (15th century). But there is no evidence to support this.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
Was there any significant Manghut presence in Golden Horde in late thirteen-early fourteen.century ?
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
ı found passage in Rashid Al-Din about Adarkin thousand in Nogai's force
''He(Mukur) ruled over a thousand hadarkin.He belonged to the right wing emirs. Currently, most of that army was in Desht-i Kipchak along with Nogai.''
@@earlmahmud3911 As far as I am aware, there was no significant Manghit in the Golden Horde at this time. None of their representatives play a role in politics at least until the reign of Özbeg- and I only say that because I don't know Özbeg's reign as well as I do the preceeding years. If the Manghit start to appear at this point, it may because Özbeg brings the Blue Horde under his control (I believe the Blue Horde was totally independent before Toqta and Özbeg's efforts to bring it under their control). The Manghit may have lived in the Blue Horde, and started to move west after this point.
I was reading Rashid al-Din and incidentally ı find Jebe was alive after Kalka and even Chinggis Khan's death(page 35):
''...after Genghis Khan’s death when Börkä, Jäbä, and Sübätäi came to Iran and returned via the Temür Qahalqa (Iron Gates), they went to Ögödäi Qa’an’s presence and made obeisance''.
I am familiar with this mention. The problem with it, is that it is essentially the only mention of Jebe after 1222. This mention (I think there is one other one too somewhere, but I can't remember right now. I think it is something in the war with the Jin Dynasty) is almsot certainly just a scribal error/mistake made during the compilation of the Jami' al-Tawarikh, or perhaps was supposed to represent one of his family members. Jebe went from being Chinggis Khan's #1 general, mentioned with a leading role in basically every campaign of the early Mongol Empire, to all of a sudden having almost no appearances after 1222? If Sübe'edei had a major role in the 1230s campaigns against the Jin, it seems inconceivable that, if Jebe was still alive, he would not also be taking part.
Rashid al-Din oversaw the compilation of the Jami' al-Tawarikh, and he certainly wrote many sections of it. But he was not the sole person working on it, or editing and copying it- he had an entire team doing this at the Rab'i-Rashidi. So there is plenty of opprotunity for small errors to slip into the work, if a given individual was not as familiar with the persons or events (which, it should be noted, happened 70 years prior by the time the Jami' al-Tawaraikh was written, which itself was a decade long process). At one point Rashid al-Din gives three different genealogies of the Chagatais, and he also had a habit of sticking in contrasting information in later sections of his work, when he found a new source he liked better. So I don't find the one or two mentions of Jebe in the 1230s as firm evidence that he was still alive by that point.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
I think you are right
is that the "temir qapig" in orkhon inscriptions? supposed canyon in uzbekistan
Many nomadic/sami-nomadic of Eurasian steppes had such structure. The Turkic khagane was of celestial origin of Ashina dynasty. And could be only from this dynasty. As example the Khazar kaganat. The real power had the begs but the title of kagan was belonging to descrndant of Ashina dynasty that flad to west after colapse of Western Goekturks.
Fascinating
It's so weird to listen to the European POV. Cuz what you're mindblown by is birth knowledge to us, we say tribe or nomad in a lack of context and no better way to put in another word. Modun Shanyi of Hunnu empire was biggest nomad empire king before Chingis. We were always trading, empirical, ambitious and has diplomacy, etc. people with intricate system of societal norms, workings, culture and traditions. Btw even dragon first was our creation before Chinese copied it as classic Chinese attitude. And no it's not some sky lizard it's snow leopard that's so smart and flexible in motion. You can see it from the Hu band's emblem. Dragon was Hunnu's capital name, put on the main gate and whole theme of power and prestige with many archeological proof. We're unique af people and country. Anyway, when Mongolians say tribes or nomad we're implying with higher developed systematic way not in a Wikipedia way of low wanderers without state. We were trading thousands of horses way before Chingis, forcing ancient Chinese to build Great Walls and getting tax from them cuz we were trading with them and giving pressure when they were betraying trade rules etc.
I thought the naming of groups belonging to the smaller powerful group/family in the population was commonly understood, of course with variation/differences but akin to european and muslim world and elsewhere polities.
Your notion about tribes is corroborated by this guy who does DNA studies in Kazakhs : th-cam.com/video/N5I_t7GW9pI/w-d-xo.html. He says that DNA compositions in some former nation-forming tribes, such as Naimans and Kipchaks are very variable, which show that they do not come from a single family.
That's what I would expect you would find, but interesting to know there were genetic studies to back this up. That is the benefit of this model; when you look at historic, literary, ethnographic and now genetic data, it supports this interpretation in a way that the previous idea of clans and tribes bound by kinship does not.
did you read lotr
I used to reread the series every year until a few years ago. Why do you ask?
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
I am curious about your opinion on political and social organization of Rohan society
@@earlmahmud3911 It feels like an Anglo-Saxon England but with strong cavalry. Probably because I saw the films and the artwork by John Howe so early, I never had a chance to form my own image of Rohan without their influence. I believe J.R.R. Tolkien at one point said the Rohorrim were supposed to be "Anglo-Saxons but one horses," and I think that comes across in the books. I certainly never got the impression of strong nomadic influences on them.
@@earlmahmud3911 I think the best discussion I ever saw on this was in this blog by military historian Bret Devereaux: acoup.blog/2020/05/22/collections-the-battle-of-helms-deep-part-iv-men-of-rohan/
He puts it into words much better that I can, and basically outlined the impression I always had.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
In book,they always seem very centralized state to me
Country divided by military marshals,who are governors of king rather than feudal lord
No fief,no vassals,nothing about feudalism
Nice to watch this video. But, I have some comments. 1) (11: 14 play time) Mongol 'Aimag (Village)' is not the same as Manchu 'Aiman (Ethnic group)' , though Chinese 部落(village)(of any ethnic or tribal, clan group) may be similar to Aimag. 2) (15: 45) Though Mongol Tuman (Ten Thousand Households)-Minggan (One Thousand Households) system may be similar to those of Xiongnu, each of them comes from different lineage and historical backgrounds. Chinghizid Mongols have no relationship with the Xiongnus at all because Mongol system is based on those of Altan Ulus (The Golden Dynasty of the Jushen) and its predecessor Balhae (Bohai in Chinese) Kingdom of Korea. 3) (21: 50) Mukusu (Marguz, Marcus, the Nestorian Kereit Khan) recorded in is not the Grandfather of Ong Khan the Kereit, but he is the Great-Grandfather of Ong Khan in
how about the Keraites they where a Turco-Mongol Nestorian Christian tribe with sub-tribes? im still learning forgive me for my ignorance but ive saved you video.
3) (21: 50) Mukusu (Marguz, Marcus, the Nestorian Kereit Khan) recorded in is not the Grandfather of Ong Khan the Kereit, but he is the Great-Grandfather of Ong Khan in
Any ılkhanate source mentioned about Osman Ghazi or his son Orhan Ghazi ?
No, but that's not surprising since they hardly discuss Anatolia at all.
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
Its strange because Byzantine Emperor gave his daughter to Ghazan Khan because of Osman Ghazi
@@earlmahmud3911 Even the Byzantines hardly get attention in Ilkhanid sources, beyond references to the Ilkhan marrying an imperial daughter. Anatolia is mentioned by Ilkhanid writers during 1) Mamluk attacks 2) large revolts (especially like that of Temürtash), though usually there is no information provided beyond "a revolt happened there in ___ year" 3) the fact that an important figure/prince/general was made governor there. Other than that Anatolia was seen as a distant frontier by these writers. Now, whether the Ilkhans themselves thought of it like that is hard to say. The silver mines were certainly highly regarded and the governor of Anatolia was a powerful person is significant. The indication of its distant-ness from the centres of power in the Ilkhanate may be represented by the fact that almost every Anatolian governor from the reign of Ghazan onwards rebels at least once. If it was an area under closer attention of the Ilkhans, then we wouldn't suspect this to be quite so regular.
Do a non-mongol peoples and warriors that played a key role in the mongol empire
yeah lots of Uyghurs,Khitans,Sodians,Chinese,Persians and even Alans/Ases.
@@teovu5557especially The Cuman Khipchaks That Made Up Of The Horde Archers Alongside Mongols and Part Of Kublai Khans Elite Keshig
Genghis united the tribe steppes and then called themselves the Mongols.
The name mongol was used since the 8th century for his ancestors military confederation.
8th century Menggu Shiwei(Mongolchuud)-
10-11th century- Khamag Mongols-
12th century Genghis Khan used it for all the mongolic speaking people he united.
I listened fall of ilkhanate today
Man,events goes just f.cking crazy
Put a young man of Sassanid dynasty on throne of Ilkhanate instead of Chinggisid prince ?
That is chad move
And that was the more simplified version of events too. The post-Ilkhanate period is so complex, the Ilkhanate itself seems refreshingly straight forward in comparison
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
indeed
@@TheJackmeisterMongolHistory
Is there any info on Kara Koyunlu during Ilkhanate ?
@@earlmahmud3911 It's been a while since I read about this matter in particular, so this is coming entirely off my memory ( so I apologize if I make a mistake here). If I am remembering correctly, the first mention of the Qara Qoyunlu is around 1360, from a Jalayirid (?) source. Basically they just sort of appear in the decades after the fall of the Ilkhanate, with no obvious predecessor. I don't know what specific arguments have been put forward regarding their origin, but there is no union or body before Abu Sa'id's death which they obviously emerged from.
@@earlmahmud3911 My personal guess has always been basically a "tribal" (for lack of a better word) alliance made by a number of Turkic groups (there never seems to be great Mongolic influence on the Qara-Qoyunlu, from what I saw) in reaction to fighting between the Ilkhanid successors. It is an alliance which ends up becoming an effective regional power and able to go toe-to-toe with those Ilkhanid successors in time.
i listened to the podcast that talked about mongols calling themselves tatars, was a bit confused by that, this made it make more sense.
I wish I had known about this theory when we were working on that. I feel like that idea fits better into this understanding, than the regular clans/tribes view. But I only really began to read into this this month.
Chinese,koreans and turks used to call Mongolic peoples Tatars generically and even many mongolic peoples did as well up til the 1400s. Now only turks used that term for themselves.
@@teovu5557 There is no such thing as a Mongol. Mongol is the name of the Empire of Mangyel - the Eternal country. Tatars, that's what Europeans called the Turks, and Tartary means the land of the Turks. And the self-designation of the Turkic khaganates was Mangyel. Stop confusing the history of the Turks. And today's Mongols are Khalkha, Buryats and Kalmyks. They are a mixture of Turks and Manchus (a wild tribe). All the so-called Mongolian tribes(Naimans, Kereyts, Kiyats, etc.) are Turkic tribes, because Turkisms have penetrated into the Mongolian language and not vice versa. The confirmation is that every Turkic tribe has Tamgas since the time of Runic writing, and a battle cry.
@@keteket the first mention of the mongols is from the 7th century ad tang dynasty where a tribe of xianbei/shiwei is mentioned as the menggu or shiwei menggu(chiuud mongols)
Modern Mongolians call themselves mongolchiuud today still. Lol
Turkic sources like the gokturks and Seljuk s states the tatars and kai spoke there OWN language along side Turkic. Confirming they were mongolic as they list them as from xianbei and states they are related to and can understand the language of the khitans which is confirmed mongolic.
Turks called mongols as tatar means the strangers or strange people due to them speaking a different language.
Mongol was a name of one tribe of xianbei/shiwei that came to be applied to all mongolic tribes after Genghis Khan.
Barely any Turks like bulgars and kipchaks used the name tatar until the mongols conquered them and they adopted the tatar name.
Facts
Awesome
Glad you think so!
Long Story short: The Terminology is a mess.
It's a mess if you try to stick to dividing things into clans and tribes, and look for them to mimic what we expect from those terms. The best would be to forget about clans and tribes entirely... though I know I'm going to keep accidentally using tribe, simply out of habit
Unless you understand Korean history, you cannot decipher the SECRETs hidden in . 1) Temujin means he is the descendant of King Temushin (King The Great Godly Martial, the 3rd king of Koguryeo of Korea, 1 C AD). 2) Mongol comes from Mol-Gol (Mal-Gal, Horse Kingdom/Province in Korean). 3) Chinghiz Khaan means the King of Chingui (Jingook=Chin Kingdom) of Korea, also called Barhae and Koryeo as well from where comes the country name Korea. Ghenghiz Khan is the 19th generation of the younger brother of the Founding Father of this kingdom whose title was Tinghiz Qaan.
The Jurchen had much more simple way to describe tribes. For example, if your surname is Wanyan then you must come from the Wanyan tribe.
no . they had a complex system of clans just as the mongols.. if you changed the allegiance of your tribe or clan to some defection.. conflict or swearing your loyalty to a new clan (which was common with nomads) you would adopt this clan name as your new clan just like the mongols.
Wrong, they had exactly the same system.
The joke is that today's so-called "Mongols" attributed themselves to the Borjigin tribe in 1991. But you can only be born into a tribe. And all the tribes of Shyngys Khan are located among the Central Asian Turks. And they have always been Turks, since you can only be born into a tribe. For example, an outsider who has become a Nayman is impossible.😊
Marco Polo is a fictional figure wasn’t he?
No, Mr. Polo existed. There is actually a good deal of evidence for him, and his work, "the Description of the World," is actually seen as a quite reliable (if difficult) source to use. People disbelieving him usually knew very little about the Mongol Empire or China, and usually pointed out that Marco Polo did not describe their popular stereotypes about China (things like the Great Wall- which, as it exists today, was not built until well over two centuries after Marco Polo's death).
In the 1990s a woman named Frances Woods' published a book calling Polo's journey into doubt, but her book was absolutely awfully researched and full of so many errors. There are a great number of historians who have pointed out how bad her book is, and pointed to the veritable mountains of scholarship which support Polo's authenticity. Unfortunately, Woods' book sold very well, and got a lot of media coverage, so it keeps getting repeated, even though the scholarship has thoroughly (and I mean thoroughly!) debunked it. Marco Polo was real, his trip happened, and his book is mostly reliable- the errors in it mostly come from the many, many, many translations and editings it went through following the initial publication. Polo himself even released an edited version at one point (we don't actually have the original, so we don't quite know what he first wrote down). It's something I will be writing some stuff on for Kings and Generals and my own channel at some point.
Exist
👍👍👍