Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 10th, 2011, 07:24 PM   #1

The Imperial's Avatar
MentalManja
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: 3rd rock from Sol
Posts: 4,253
Blog Entries: 1
Can the Mughals be termed as 'Mongols' ?


As the title..... can the Mughals be considered Mongols?

As Wikipedia says -

Quote:
Babur was a descendant of Timur through his father, and Genghis Khan through his mother.[2] He identified his lineage as Timurid and Chaghatay-Turkic, while his origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so he was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results
The Imperial is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 10th, 2011, 07:49 PM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Yes, the Timurids were a continuation of the Mongol Empire. They are as much Mongol as the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman.
scholar is offline  
Old May 10th, 2011, 07:53 PM   #3

The Imperial's Avatar
MentalManja
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: 3rd rock from Sol
Posts: 4,253
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
If you can't tell that I was talking about the Mughal Empire in India then I really can't help you. Especially since I not only directly referenced it, it was the main topic I was talking about.

The French army is not the same army that it was in other engagements. You used the fact that the type of military force that invaded Europe was not the same as the one that invaded India as proof that the relation was in name only. I cited the French Army throughout the ages to say that each France must be a completely different France that is only France in name only. That was the errors.

Imperial, we are discussing whether or not the Mongols could have conquered Europe if Genghis Khan didn't die (which makes little sense because it was Ogedei that made Europe his playground), discussing the successor states to the Mongols and the states that survived Mongol Invasions is very closely related to the topic at hand. Should we debate as to whether or not Europe would fall, we must examine those regions that did not fall.
Ok. Now we were discussing about why the Mongols could easily crush eastern Europe.

The answer lied in their modern swift army(traveling 160 km per day), with advanced military tactics and their extensive intelligence network. That was a general advantage had.

But the advantage they had over most of the armies they crushed was-
*Huge army
*Their Mongol re-curved compound bows were powerful than most bows of their day
*Their horse archers could not be caught could not be countered most of the time.

In Eastern Europe-

The limited number heavily armored slower knights, were overwhelmed by the super fast Mongols. The only thing they could do was hide behind high walls.

But this scenario changes in India-
*Mongols' huge army is dwarfed by India's behemoth Sultanate armies
*Their bows are again beaten by Indian longbow in range and power. Plus, the Mongol bows quickly got destroyed by Indian wet weather.
*Now here's the trump card- war elephants.... lots of them. Now the Mongol horse archers could be countered by long ranged foot archers(longbowmen), and the longer ranged elephant archers(longbowmen again) plus the elephants themselves.

The Mughal armies were different. Babur who defeated the Sultanate had a much smaller army but a huge advantage- cannons. He quickly routed the Sultanate's elephants even before the actual battle started(the sound of cannons scared the elephants) quickly destroying the Sultanate army.

So the Mongols defeating European armies and the Mughlas defeating Indian armies was totally different. The timespan, the ethnicity, the armies, etc are totally different.

If we have to compare, compare the clash between the actual Mongols vs Alauddin Khilji. Mongols have been crushed several times by Indian armies.
The Imperial is offline  
Old May 10th, 2011, 07:55 PM   #4

The Imperial's Avatar
MentalManja
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: 3rd rock from Sol
Posts: 4,253
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
Yes, the Timurids were a continuation of the Mongol Empire. They are as much Mongol as the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman.
Eastern Roman Armies =/= Professional classical Roman armies.
The Imperial is offline  
Old May 10th, 2011, 08:09 PM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by imperialmen View Post
Eastern Roman Armies =/= Professional classical Roman armies.
Name one nation which you believe can be called by the same name now as it was, say, fifty years ago.

The United States?
France?

Take your pick.
scholar is offline  
Old May 10th, 2011, 08:09 PM   #6

The Imperial's Avatar
MentalManja
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: 3rd rock from Sol
Posts: 4,253
Blog Entries: 1

One good material here-

Quote:
The Mughals were the last powerful descendants of the Mongols; descended from Mongol stock in Turkestan, in the early 1500's they engaged in the last series of conquests to bear the Mongol name. They were, however, quite distant from their original ancestors. The Mughals had become Islamic, for the Middle Eastern Mongol invaders had converted to Islam long before. They had also thoroughly absorbed Middle Eastern culture, especially Persian culture (the Persian word for Mongol is "Mughal," from which we get the English word, "mogul," meaning "tycoon"), and their wars of invasion spread Persian culture throughout India. Much of Persian culture was based on Shi'a Islam and its mystical doctrine of a Divine Light present in the earth in the form of the Imam, or religious guide on earth. It was equally influenced by Sufi mysticism, a branch of Islamic religion that stressed the mystical union of human with god. Much of Persian culture was also derived from Mongolian culture, particularly art, which was based on Chinese models of painting. In many ways, then, the Mughal invasion of India and its importation of Persian culture was a roundabout way of importing far eastern culture into India
The Imperial is offline  
Old May 10th, 2011, 08:09 PM   #7
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by imperialmen View Post
Ok. Now we were discussing about why the Mongols could easily crush eastern Europe.

The answer lied in their modern swift army(traveling 160 km per day), with advanced military tactics and their extensive intelligence network. That was a general advantage had.

But the advantage they had over most of the armies they crushed was-
*Huge army
*Their Mongol re-curved compound bows were powerful than most bows of their day
*Their horse archers could not be caught could not be countered most of the time.

In Eastern Europe-

The limited number heavily armored slower knights, were overwhelmed by the super fast Mongols. The only thing they could do was hide behind high walls.

But this scenario changes in India-
*Mongols' huge army is dwarfed by India's behemoth Sultanate armies
*Their bows are again beaten by Indian longbow in range and power. Plus, the Mongol bows quickly got destroyed by Indian wet weather.
*Now here's the trump card- war elephants.... lots of them. Now the Mongol horse archers could be countered by long ranged foot archers(longbowmen), and the longer ranged elephant archers(longbowmen again) plus the elephants themselves.

The Mughal armies were different. Babur who defeated the Sultanate had a much smaller army but a huge advantage- cannons. He quickly routed the Sultanate's elephants even before the actual battle started(the sound of cannons scared the elephants) quickly destroying the Sultanate army.

So the Mongols defeating European armies and the Mughlas defeating Indian armies was totally different. The timespan, the ethnicity, the armies, etc are totally different.

If we have to compare, compare the clash between the actual Mongols vs Alauddin Khilji. Mongols have been crushed several times by Indian armies.
Your argument is based on timespan, ethnic grouping, and armies being different? Do you know this applies to every nation in existence. Even in a group of people such as the Chinese or the Russians, the actual genetic make up of that ethnic group changes over time. As do their armies. And "timespan" though timespan, as far as I'm concerned, means nothing.

And if you call the Chagatai Mongols, but do not recognize the Timurids, then your argument is, essentially, hypocritical (no offense.) The Chagatai Mongol timespan, ethnic grouping, and armies were different from the Mongol armies that invaded Europe. How so? Because the armies that invaded Europe involved a lot of infantry being mostly Russian and Tartar. The Cavalry was mostly composed of turkic and tartar peoples. Siege warfare was used to tremendous success, and arabs and chinese were significant members of that army.

The Chagatai, however, did not have a lot of infantry. It's cavalry make-up was significantly different from that used in Europe. The Chagatai were a blend of Turkic and Persian influences. Only the Aristocracy was "Mongol" and even they were rapidly losing any distinction from the Turkic peoples they ruled.Their siege weaponry was also different as well. And there was a stark lack of Chinese and Arab members of their army. Hell, they were a fully Islamic state as well.

Last edited by scholar; May 10th, 2011 at 08:18 PM.
scholar is offline  
Old May 10th, 2011, 08:12 PM   #8

The Imperial's Avatar
MentalManja
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: 3rd rock from Sol
Posts: 4,253
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
Wrong topic.
that was an answer to the quoted post

Tries to compare why the Mughal armies conquering India is not the same as the Mongol armies conquering India.
The Imperial is offline  
Old May 10th, 2011, 08:16 PM   #9
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by imperialmen View Post
As the title..... can the Mughals be considered Mongols?

As Wikipedia says -
The Timurids in general and the Indian Mughal dynasty in particular were clearly not ethnically Mongols, irrespectively of the potential maternal ascendancy mentioned above ...

(An ascendancy which was BTW on one hand most arbitrarily claimed by virtually any contemporary chietain , and on the other hand seems to be the actual case for about 0.5 % of the global human population nowadays ...)

"Mughal" & "Mogul" are of course just alternative Persian and Arabic translations of the endonym Mongol, theoretically coming from Mong, "brave".

The elementary distinction between the Indian dynasty and the nomadic ethnicity is of course indispensable; conventionally the term "Mughal" has been reserved by the scholar community for the former and "Mongol" for the latter, but exceptions are not rare.
sylla1 is offline  
Old May 10th, 2011, 08:20 PM   #10
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by imperialmen View Post
that was an answer to the quoted post

Tries to compare why the Mughal armies conquering India is not the same as the Mongol armies conquering India.
I edited that post once I realized you were shifting the topic of conversation here. I'm surprised you responded so quickly.
scholar is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
mongols, mughals, termed


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions about the Mongols Wookiesteve History Help 1 September 30th, 2010 07:12 PM
Questions about the Mongols Wookiesteve Asian History 3 September 29th, 2010 08:01 PM
Lakota vs. Mongols berserknurple Speculative History 26 May 2nd, 2010 07:59 PM
Mongols vs Indians Nick Speculative History 35 March 1st, 2010 02:40 AM
Mongols vs. Confederates Salah Speculative History 9 November 11th, 2009 01:29 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.