History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedWho were the TARTARS...?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
alish View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Aug-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote alish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who were the TARTARS...?
    Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 20:14
I just wanted to clarify who were the tartars - so named by westerns in Mid centuries...
I think the easiest way would be to learn what language did they speak, religion, traditional dresses, and meals they had...
Where did they disappear?
Could anybody help me out, dear members?

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 610
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 21:59
Well, to Marco Polo, the Mongols were the "Tartars", or so he asserts in his narrative Chapter 44):
The circumstances under which these Tartars first began to exercise dominion shall now be related. They dwelt in the northern countries of Jorza and Bargu, but without fixed habitations, that is, without towns or fortified places; where there were extensive plains, good pasture, large rivers, and plenty of water. They had no sovereign of their own, and were tributary to a powerful prince, who (as I have been informed) was named in their language, Un-khan
 
However, the Tartars (or Tatars) as a nomadic people were not Mongols and here we can see that the Italian merchant was coflating information. The original Tartars were probably a branch of the Oghuz Turks (the Kipchaks), pastoralists inhabiting South Central Asia and Western Siberia. By language they are related to the Pechenegs and Cumans. They came under the influence of the Mongols during the time of Jinghiz Khan and formed the western reaches of his empire. These people were integrated into the Mongol Empire under Juchi, the Khan's son so that by the time of Batu Khan (1227-1255) they formed a major component of the Golden Horde that burst into Europe between 1237-1242, eliminating the Cumans, successors to the Pechenegs along the way. Batu Khan set up his capital at Saray on the lower Volga from whence his rule stretched from the Ob River in Western Siberia to the borders of Poland and Hungary. However, by this time the term Golden Horde is synonymous with the Kipchaks and it was the Europeans who labeled them "Tartars". They were the last of the Turkic tribes to adopt Islam and did so in the 14th century. And here is where matters become fuzzy. The actual Kipchak body politic disintegrates in the 15th century first with the advent of Timur, a Turkicised Barlas Mongol, and subsequently with the rise of both Muscovy and the Ottoman Turks. Several independent khanates emerged and to these the Russians applied the generic "Tartary".
 
Was there ever a "Tartar" tribe? I doubt as much, and other than applying the elusive label Oghuz Turks precious little can be discerned other than their early relationship with the Mongols under the term Kipchaks. By the 16th century, the label is more or less a generic descriptive for the non-Russian inhabitants of the Steppes and the Crimea; however, a caution is in order a Cossack is not a Tartar! 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 18:13
nah thats not accurate, the original Tatars had nothing to do with the later Tartars of the former Qypchaq khanat. the original Tatars lived in eastern Mongolia and were more or less annihilated by Temujins Mongols. the later Tartars as known from the Khanates following the dissolution of the Golden Horde are descendants of the Mongolified Qypchaq natives of this region prior to the Mongol conquest.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 23:48

Kypchaks are not Ozhuz Turks. In fact, these are 2 different branches of Turks. Kypchaks lived more in the North and Ozghuz moved to the South, finally reached Anatolia and formed Ottoman empire.

Linguistically also there is a division between Kypchak and Oghuz dialects within Turkic languages because of some notable differences.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 610
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 16:23
Originally posted by Temujin

nah thats not accurate, the original Tatars had nothing to do with the later Tartars of the former Qypchaq khanat. the original Tatars lived in eastern Mongolia and were more or less annihilated by Temujins Mongols. the later Tartars as known from the Khanates following the dissolution of the Golden Horde are descendants of the Mongolified Qypchaq natives of this region prior to the Mongol conquest.
 
Timujin, how does the above differ with what was written as to the fuzzy provenance of the label "Tartar"? Of the "original" Tartars (or Tatars) we essentially know diddly-squat (pardon the Americanism). After all, how does one explain the Lipka Tatars of the Crimea? Are the Tartars specifically related to the Ta-Ta of the Gobi, subjugated by the Khitans in the 9th century and actually forming the nucleus of the lineage of Jinghiz Khan himself? Wiki does a good job of disambiguation here [although weakly referenced as to original sources and dependant upon secondary summations while properly directing toward the sources for further research]:
 
 
Now there is one caution with regard to the assertion that Tartar is a mispelling of Tatar. That claim is difficult to maintain since it derives from external transcriptions of a name presented by contemporary chroniclers in various different languages. The appellative Tartar is a Persic derivative, Tatarus, transliterated in Medieval Latin into Tartar from the classic reference to Tartarus and the Tauride.
 
 
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 22-Jan-2008 at 16:25
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 610
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 17:14
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Kypchaks are not Ozhuz Turks. In fact, these are 2 different branches of Turks. Kypchaks lived more in the North and Ozghuz moved to the South, finally reached Anatolia and formed Ottoman empire.

Linguistically also there is a division between Kypchak and Oghuz dialects within Turkic languages because of some notable differences.
 
Sarmat, regardless of how current identities wish to interpret the term Oghuz, it remains a simply geographic and/or historical description and has nothing to do with ethnicity and discussion would then move into the nebulosity that is the Gogturk. After all even the Seljuks are classified as "Oghuz Turks". Be that as it may, the notion of "Western Turks" does become arbitrary given the fact that the Kipchaks were pretty far West and remained a Turkic people. Even if you go to the niceties of dialectical differences, you run up against the wall of linguistic disntinction premised upon class and not ethnicity (e.g. Ottoman Turkic in Istanbul was quite different from the vulgar Turkic of Ottoman Anatolia). That tribes such as the Azeri later transformed the term Oghuz as a distinctive in their conflicts with the Pecheneg and later Kipchaks [much can be attributed to the process of Islamicization] does not invalidate the supposition that these latter groups had identical origins consequent to the Hunnic disruptions. The connections between the Alpamish and Dede Korkuk dastans suffice for the analogy.


Edited by drgonzaga - 22-Jan-2008 at 17:15
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 17:50
Qypchaqs were descendants of the Kimek group, and Seljuks basically are Oghuz. Seljuk was just a rulers name, like Ottoman, it didn't really described an ethnic group, just a political entity. the Qypchaqs displaced the Torks/Uzes that shortly occupied the Pontic-caspian steppe after the Pechenegs. those Torks/Uzes were indeed Oghuz, but not the subsequent Qypchaqs.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 610
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 22:42

Well, Temujin, I could say the same over Oguz and Ogur and the division of Eastern and Western Turk, with the labels having nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with political organization. Try following this time line:

Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 00:58
Drgonzaga
After all even the Seljuks are classified as "Oghuz Turks". Be that as it may, the notion of "Western Turks" does become arbitrary given the fact that the Kipchaks were pretty far West and remained a Turkic people.
 
Seljuks are classified Oghuz Turks because their founding fathers were members of the "Kinik" clan, one of the major 24 Oghuz clans listed by Mahmud Kasghgari and Rashid al-din.
 
The Kipchaks were even further West geographically than the Oghuz Turks stretching into the Balkans and even Eastern Europe like the Cumans.
 
The impact of Islam had a lesser role on the Kipchaks, they remained more nomadic and lived further North, some adopting religions other than Islam and others keeping their old religous traditions alive within new faiths.
 
 
 
Drgonzaga
 Even if you go to the niceties of dialectical differences, you run up against the wall of linguistic disntinction premised upon class and not ethnicity (e.g. Ottoman Turkic in Istanbul was quite different from the vulgar Turkic of Ottoman Anatolia). That tribes such as the Azeri later transformed the term Oghuz as a distinctive in their conflicts with the Pecheneg and later Kipchaks [much can be attributed to the process of Islamicization] does not invalidate the supposition that these latter groups had identical origins consequent to the Hunnic disruptions.
 
The accents and dialects are a confusing matter your right, for example standard colloquial Anatolian Turkish especially in Central and Eastern regions of Turkey is more or less the same as the Turkish spoken in Azerbaijan and Iran, in parts more similar than it is to Istanbul Turkish.
 
However, Azeri are not a tribe. The Turks of Azerbaijan are comprised mainly of Oghuz Turks, major branches of the clans which settled in the region were the "Bayats", "Afshars", "Igdirs", "Begilli" "Bayindir", "Salur", "Teke" etc all have hundreds of sub-tribes and large families. For example the Bahurlu are prominant in todays Iran especially among the Qashqai, however, they are a branch of the major Oghuz clan "Yiva". This is quite a complex matter and would need a post of its own to be able to understand the breakdown of these in detail.
 
The Pechenegs are a major Oghuz clan, from the "Uc oks" branch of the "Gokhans", the Pechenegs had migrated West before the other Oghuz clans, they were known in Byzantium realms and some had adopted Christianity in the Balkans. The Gagauz Turks today trace descendancy in part to the Pechenegs.
 
You are correct that these terms are not ethnic terms, they are Turkic tribal confederations generally based upon the large clans of a geographic area forming a pollitical union. I just thought I'd bring some clarity to the confusing matter of the various tribes, clans, sub-tribes etc
 
 
 
 The connections between the Alpamish and Dede Korkuk dastans suffice for the analogy.
 
In addition, some of the main characters and stories of Dede Korkud are continuations of the legends of Alpymysh.


Edited by Bulldog - 23-Jan-2008 at 01:01
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 00:59
Drgonzaga, Kypchaks and Oguzs are different names for different people, this is an established historical fact.
 
You contradict youself by calling Tatars oguz and then saying that those classification are not important at all.
 
If you continue to argue that Kypchaks=Oguzs, I will have to say that you are simply not very familiar with the subject.
 
You'll never find any serious historian writing that Kypchaks are the same with Oguz and all these names do not have any meaning except showing "geographical location."
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 23-Jan-2008 at 01:05
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 01:05
Oghuz is not an ethnic name, and it can be simply translated into "Turkic tribes". The "Oghuz Turk branch" or "Western Turk branch" is one of the traditional six branches of the modern Turkic peoples. The "Oghuz branch" is a geographical and historical designation, not a separate ethnic term since the Turkic peoples of the world share the same ethnic roots.
 
By ethnic, racial or other such connotations are not being implied, instead the same roots regarding language, identity, historical bonds, sense of kingship etc
 
Regarding today, Oghuz is the largest Turkic group with speakers ranging from estimates of 100-120 million.
 
However, Oghuz, Kipchak etc cannot be called distinct different peoples, they are different tribal confederations of the same people who over centuries developed unique attributes.
 
 Today there are differences due to living centuries to a millenia apart, however, we see that in geographic regions with Oghuz and Kipchak living side by side, like Crimean Tatars and Kipchak groups in the Caucusus, they are more similar to Oghuz in language due to the Ottoman influence.
 
When people live in isolation they will start to seperate, when connections are established or re-established people speaking similar languages due to the close proximity over time will form a common language by themselves as languages naturally evolve based upon their location and contacts.


Edited by Bulldog - 23-Jan-2008 at 01:14
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 610
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 12:12
What a brouhaha I've started, a veritable donnybrook in an Irish Pub! Which brings to mind the discussion earlier in the forum over the Gokturk and current interpretational trends among Istanbul's intellectuals. The fact is that particularist politics have led to strange suppositions. One can not argue that that Seljuk and Ottoman are but dynastic names distinguishing the same people and then turn around and deny a similar rationale to Kipchak dynasts under a nebulous tribal distinction, it would be akin to calling the Campbells a different people from the McClouds because the former were not Highlanders! The problem here Sarmat is not one of unfamiliarity but of perspective apart from national mythologies. Think of the ridiculous stance of present day Bulgaria with regard to its anti-Turkic "racial" policy when historically the Bulgars were a Turkic tribal group. Recall, that I opened the present discussion with a quote from the Travels of Marco Polo and his narration on the origins of the "Tartars" as gleaned from Persic sources in the 13th century. Nevertheless, if one turns to Chinese sources one can grasp the complexity of the subject as well as the arbitrary classifications set in the 19th century and its early efforts in the social sciences.
 
 
Present pretension at defining the term Oghuz as an ethnic rather than geographic reference [West vs East] is in conflict with the original usage of the term. Placing aside traditional nomadism and the misguided attempt to claim Oghuz as a specific identity associated with the Islamic Turks generates as much conflict as it seeks to eliminate. How then does one reconcile the Mamelukes within this schema? Likewise, unless one wishes to entertain persistent genocide as an integral part of confederation movements one has to accept, as Bulldog implies, a commonality between the Turkic migrations westward from the 5th century onward. Try this essay on for size:
 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 19:13
well we cannot say Qypchaq is the same as Oghuz because they are all turkic, likewise we can say all slavic peoples are the same. even in germany, a confederation of a couple of tribes, lignual differences remained even though living in the same political entity for centuries. so we cannot just argue "they are different because of geography".

it is true, Seljuk and Ottoman are just dynastical names, but those terms cannot be used interchangably with Oghuz. all Seljuks were Oghuz, but not all Oghuz were Seljuks. Qypchaqs developed completely independent of the Oghuz. both Oghuz and Qypchaq are names of political entities, however tribal confederations (as opposed to mere dynastical names like Seljuk and Ottoman).
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 782
Post Options Post Options   Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 20:54
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Kypchaks are not Ozhuz Turks. In fact, these are 2 different branches of Turks. Kypchaks lived more in the North and Ozghuz moved to the South, finally reached Anatolia and formed Ottoman empire.

Linguistically also there is a division between Kypchak and Oghuz dialects within Turkic languages because of some notable differences.
 
Sarmat,  Turkic languages (precisely after kokturk) had the main seperation of Uyghur and Oghuz-Qipchaq, respectively the eastern and western one.  Oghuz and Qipchaq seperation occured much later. Linguistical history indicates the closer tie between Oghuz and Qipchaq group. Mongol expansion changed the scene quite significantly.  
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 610
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 21:30
Thank-you barbar, you've hit the nail right on the head and and cleared the smoke generated by nationalist biases. The interaction at two historical stages both in the Gokturk period and again in the 16th and 17th centuries (and as you noted the role of Mongolized Turks in the intervening years) is essential to any understanding of the distinctions raised by the term Tatar. Then there is the consolidation of Ottoman rule in the Balkans and the reintegration of the remnants of other Turkic tribes (e.g. the Cumani and, yes, Bulgars) that makes the claim to exclusivity over Oghuz ring hollow and renders the original distinction that gave rise to the term meaningless [as with the novelty of Northern and Southern Turk].
 
By the way, Temujin, there is a classification distinguishing between Eastern and Western  Slavs, even Southern ones to boot, under just such a geographic criteria.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 22:12
Originally posted by Temujin

well we cannot say Qypchaq is the same as Oghuz because they are all turkic, likewise we can say all slavic peoples are the same. even in germany, a confederation of a couple of tribes, lignual differences remained even though living in the same political entity for centuries. so we cannot just argue "they are different because of geography".

it is true, Seljuk and Ottoman are just dynastical names, but those terms cannot be used interchangably with Oghuz. all Seljuks were Oghuz, but not all Oghuz were Seljuks. Qypchaqs developed completely independent of the Oghuz. both Oghuz and Qypchaq are names of political entities, however tribal confederations (as opposed to mere dynastical names like Seljuk and Ottoman).
 
Exactly
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 22:18
Originally posted by barbar

 
Sarmat,  Turkic languages (precisely after kokturk) had the main seperation of Uyghur and Oghuz-Qipchaq, respectively the eastern and western one.  Oghuz and Qipchaq seperation occured much later. Linguistical history indicates the closer tie between Oghuz and Qipchaq group. Mongol expansion changed the scene quite significantly.  
 
 
Please note that I didn't say that Oghuz/Kypchak separation happened due to the linguistic differences, nor did I say that this kind of linguistic separation was very ancient. The only thing I said is that in "addition" there also exists a linguistical difference between Kypchak and Oghuz dialects.
 
Nevertheless the difference between Kypchaks and Oghuzs is mentioned by more or less all ancient sources.
 
And for sure, no historian wrote that Kypchaks=Oghuzs
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 22:21
Originally posted by drgonzaga

 
By the way, Temujin, there is a classification distinguishing between Eastern and Western  Slavs, even Southern ones to boot, under just such a geographic criteria.
 
This classification of Slavs totally entails cultural and linguistic differences. Slavic languages are divided into Western, Eastern and Southern groups and there is also an obvious specifical cultural affinitty within each group.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 610
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 23:43
Ah, but these differences are more-or-less a historic phenomenon surfacing rather late and the key is the commonality found in Old Church Slavonic, Sarmat. The Latinization of the Western Slavs is a relatively recent (in historical terms) phenomenon. Even recall the tinkering the Soviets did with the Slavic Cyrillic, which it sought to impose in the Balkans as well. Which then brings us once again full circle over the antic with identity with the denigration of Ukrainian as peasant speak and when contrasted to "Great" Russian Big%20smile and the question of who are the real Rus!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 23:44
By the way, Temujin, there is a classification distinguishing between Eastern and Western  Slavs, even Southern ones to boot, under just such a geographic criteria.
Absurd. Geography only triggers the labels (eastern, western, southern), but the criterion is a linguistic one.
Talking of which, Oghuz and Qipchak seem today to be in different branches of Turkic (they probably were rooted from the same language, but similarly all Slavic groups were rooted in a "common Slavic") and they also are included today by some scholars (Lars Johanson, Éva Ágnes Csató, The Turkic languages, Routledge, 1998) in the groups "northwestern Turkic" (Qipchak) and "southwestern Turkic" (Oghuz).
 
And whatever the dark history of the Turkic languages was, by the times invoked here in the thread (13-14th century) when we have the Tartars, the Oghuz and Qipchak Turks were, as Sarmat says, mentioned as different groups of people and their languages should have been quite different as Ottoman Turkic or Cuman language seem to point out.


Edited by Chilbudios - 23-Jan-2008 at 23:58
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.