[Lurker-Dude]

I think I remember reading once that it was painted once he was dead, but during the reign of Kublai Khan ( his grandson who knew Genghis as an old man, so he knew how he looked like) and that Kublai supervised the painting to make sure it really looked like Genghis.

But I cant find anything on the internet thru google or yahoo confirming this story.



I know a turk guy who says Genghis was a turk and not a mongol, and that the portrait is fake (that is really why I am asking)

(he means turk as in tatar, not as someone from turkey obviously) but he does think he looked european asian mixed, and not 100% asian like in the portrait above.


To me that sounds like a very nationalistic theory they probably get taught in school in turkey.
Which sounds wrong to me.

Thats why I ask here.

[ih8eurocentrix]

Turk is an ancient language or culture from altaic mountains,steeppe peoples througout world hisotry have had similiar language or culutre to the ancient language.The real question is What is a Turk?

Yes i have noticed people from turkey claim genghis khan as a national hero too..

[tadamson]

The portrait is the one comissioned by Khubilai for the palace collection when he initiated the Yuan dynasty in 1279 (52 years after Temuljin's death).

Temuljin was a Mongol rather than a Turk. Sadly nationalistic sniping from Turk 'experts' tends to confuse this. There are also claims that he was Korean and many modern Mongolians get confused that he is honoured by Chinese (a 'great Chinese hero' in PRC terminology).

[Slayer]

Genghis didn't want his likeness taken. I always just pictured him as being bright eyed and lean. Everyone looks old in individual paintings.

[DaMo]

Almost all portraits of Mongols that I have seen depict them as being broad not lean. Must be a cultural thing. An outdoors people being too lean is not a good idea in the cold north, I would think.

[Snafu]

DaMo, on Jan 10 2006, 04:32 AM, said:

Almost all portraits of Mongols that I have seen depict them as being broad not lean. Must be a cultural thing. An outdoors people being too lean is not a good idea in the cold north, I would think.

I think it's more because of their new wealth. Whenever you take people who are used to living in poverty conditions and put them in the lap of luxury they tend to go overboard. And Mongol aristocrats went overboard in every way--eating, drinking, etc. That's what killed many of them.

[Kediren]

Snafu, on Jan 10 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

I think it's more because of their new wealth. Whenever you take people who are used to living in poverty conditions and put them in the lap of luxury they tend to go overboard. And Mongol aristocrats went overboard in every way--eating, drinking, etc. That's what killed many of them.

Hehe.. i have hear that some of historian see thingiskhan as kasach or kirgis..

some of burjats see him as a burjat, some of tatar see him as futher kid of sibirian emigrants in a futher mongolia.. like a some turkmens, usbecks and others..

many folks + one famous Conquerer = many legends..

[Yun]

It's mainly the Kazakhs who are doing the "Chinggis Khan was Turkic" thing.

[Snafu]

Yun, on Jan 10 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

It's mainly the Kazakhs who are doing the "Chinggis Khan was Turkic" thing.

That's funny because one book I read claimed that Genghis Khan couldn't even speak Turkic. Only Mongol. But I don't know where that story originated.

[naruwan]

Snafu, on Jan 11 2006, 04:15 AM, said:

That's funny because one book I read claimed that Genghis Khan couldn't even speak Turkic. Only Mongol. But I don't know where that story originated.

Grammar

Mongolian is agglutinative, like Turkish or Finnish, meaning it strings together affixes, adding them to roots. A hallmark of agglutinative languages is that these affixes, unlike in fusional languages, are almost always monomorphemic, composed of a single morpheme. So one affix is required to express plurality, and a separate one to indicate the case of a noun, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmykia

Also, see the only Buddhist territory in Europe. Simi-related to Mongolia.

More on the Oirats (or the Kalmykia)

Quote

One of the earliest mentions of the Oirat people in a historical text can be found in the Secret History of the Mongols, the 13th century chronicle of Genghis Khan's rise to power. In the Secret History, the Oirats are counted among the "forest people" and are said to live under the rule of shaman-chiefs known as bekis. In one famous passage the Oirat chief, Quduqa Beki, uses a yada or "thunder stone" to unleash a powerful storm on Genghis' army. The magical ploy backfires however when an unexpected wind blows the storm back at Quduqa. Although they initially oppose Genghis' rule, the Oirats eventually ally themselves with the khan and distinguish themselves as a loyal and formidible faction of the Mongol war machine.

From the 13th until the middle of the 18th century, the Dörvn Öörd or Oirats at various times dominated Central Asia. The Oirat people were often in conflict with other Mongols. Illustrative of this history of confrontation is the Oirat/Kalmyk epic song, "The Rout of Mongolian Shulum Ubushi Khong Tayiji," about the war between the Oirats and the first Altan Khan of the Khalkha.

Esen Tayisi led the Oirats from 1439 to 1454, during which time he unified Mongolia under Oirat rule. "Tayisi" (variant spellings Taisi, Tayishi, Tayiji) is a Oirat language word which can be translated as "grand marshall," indicating a military leader of high rank but below the level of a khan. In 1449 Esen Tayisi invaded the Ming Empire and captured the Zhengtong Emperor at Tumu. He was deposed only after attempting to claim the title of khan to which, among the Mongol tribes of that time, only members of Genghis Khan's family could be elected.

This post has been edited by naruwan: 11 January 2006 - 08:19 AM

[tadamson]

Snafu, on Jan 11 2006, 12:15 PM, said:

That's funny because one book I read claimed that Genghis Khan couldn't even speak Turkic. Only Mongol. But I don't know where that story originated.

The Golden Book describes Temuljin as a poor , illiterate 'man of the people' type. However the recent discovery of a poem (in Chinese) apparently written by him suggests that not only did he speak several languages (strongly implied in the Secret History) but may well have been literate in several. Actually the two positions are not entirely contradictory, he may well have educated himself later. This would tie in with his obvious diplomatic abilities af fill some of the 'missimg' years from his life.

This post has been edited by tadamson: 11 January 2006 - 11:04 AM

[Akskl]

I have read in many sources where it was said that he did not know any other language but his own one.
At that times the Turkic language was a lingua franca all over the Great Steppe between the Danube river and the Great Wall of China. The Genghis Khan's "Mongols'" neighbors were Turkic speaking Kereits, Naimans, Tatars, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Merkits, etc. , who are parts of modern Kazakhs today (see www.elim.kz),(see Paul Ratchnevsky, Tu Chi, I.Berezin, L.Viktorova, Rene Grousset, Leo de Hartog, etc.).
Genghis"Khan' "Mongols" encountered huge language and cultural problems when they were attacking Hori-Toumats (see the "Secret History") - direct ancestors of modern Buryats - people who are practically the same as the modern Khalkha-Mongols.
All this means that Genghis Khan (and his so-called "Mongols") did speak Turkic language only, and he is related to modern Kazakhs - not to modern Khalkha-Mongols, who monopolly claim his heritage.

[tadamson]

Akskl, on Apr 8 2006, 06:48 PM, said:

I have read in many sources where it was said that he did not know any other language but his own one.
At that times the Turkic language was a lingua franca all over the Great Steppe between the Danube river and the Great Wall of China. The Genghis Khan's "Mongols'" neighbors were Turkic speaking Kereits, Naimans, Tatars, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Merkits, etc. , who are parts of modern Kazakhs today (see www.elim.kz),(see Paul Ratchnevsky, Tu Chi, I.Berezin, L.Viktorova, Rene Grousset, Leo de Hartog, etc.).
Genghis"Khan' "Mongols" encountered huge language and cultural problems when they were attacking Hori-Toumats (see the "Secret History") - direct ancestors of modern Buryats - people who are practically the same as the modern Khalkha-Mongols.
All this means that Genghis Khan (and his so-called "Mongols") did speak Turkic language only, and he is related to modern Kazakhs - not to modern Khalkha-Mongols, who monopolly claim his heritage.

Hi Akskl,

I though you had given up promoting this rubbish after all the folk on the 'All Empires' fora explained why it was rubbish.