Talk:Golden Horde

Today's sedentary european pacifist turkified finno-ugric Kazan Tatars (Bulgars) are not descendants of the Golden Horde nomad warriors

Modern Tatars, also known as Kazan Tatars of Tatarstan are not descendants of medieval Tatars, they are descendants of Volga Bulgaria, so they are Bulgars. They even never were nomads, they always were sedentary and they look european. The main population and army of the Golden Horde were nomads, whose descendants are modern Kazakhs, Nogais, Bashkirs, Crimean Tatars (not Kazan Tatars) and Karakalpaks. Those nomads of the Golden Horde were all named "Tatars" by Europeans and "Uzbeks" by other Asians. The only reason why modern world mistakenly thinks that Bulgars are descendants of medieval nomads is that Bulgars were the first turkic-speaking nation that was colonized by Russians and as sedentary nation they were more numerous and adopted European culture and education faster, then Bulgar intellectuals formed a new identity and wrote a new history for their people, just using the fact that they speak turkic language and are muslims. We should get the world to know who are the real descendants and heirs of the Golden Horde, the real nomads, Kazakhs, Nogais, Bashkirs, Crimean Tatars (not Kazan Tatars) and Karakalpaks. Bekzatakhmetov (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

change chancery to chancellery 46.97.177.203 (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reason? Beshogur (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1953 source

A good portion of this article is based solely on a work from 1953, which reflects the prejudices and biases of the time. Surely there’s newer sources? Volunteer Marek 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm… do I really need to go through and tag everything with “better source needed”? Volunteer Marek 05:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Vernadsky is often no longer a reliable source on the history of Eastern Europe. I've been reading some Janet Martin, Charles J. Halperin and Serhii Plokhy, amongst others, who seem much more balanced and up to date. At the moment I'm trying to find more information about the taxation system/practices of the Golden Horde towards the Rus' principalities. Both Ukrainian and Russian national(ist) interpretations at times seem to want to have it both ways: the Mongol-Tatar "yoke" didn't really impact this or that principality (such as Vladimir-Suzdal, Muscovy, but also Galicia-Volhynia), but simultaneously said prince was given the privilege to collecting the Golden Horde's taxes "in all of Rus', therefore" they had the best claim to the title of "Grand Prince of all (Kyivan) Rus'." I don't think they can have their cake and eat it, too. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

  • Bitva na sinix vodax.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert by Mellk

@user:Mellk, which source did I ignore? What did I add that needs a source?[1] (What is a blind change?) —Michael Z. 01:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Halperin phrased it as "Russian aristocrats" and "Russian aristocracy", but you changed "Russian aristocracy" to "Slavic aristocracy". Why? This does not follow the source. You cannot just replace every instance of "Russian" with something not written the way it is in the source. Mellk (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 1980s when Halperin wrote that, historians have agreed that Kyivan Rus was not Russia, and there is a consensus here to respect that. Making general statements in the article that apply to Rus or all East Slavic lands with the name “Russia” is non-NPOV. So yes I can and should change it, if it’s not a direct quotation, and if I know what the source is referring to or what our article is referring to. Here’s what Halperin writes now:[1]: 7–8 
I have previously erroneously translated “russkaia zemlia” for the Kievan (Kyivan) period as the “Russian Land.” Because the East Slavs had not yet divided up into Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians, technically russkaia zemlia should be translated as the “East Slavic Land.” The translation “Russian” represents Great Russian chauvinism toward the Kievan inheritance. In an effort to finesse that prejudice, some scholars invented a hybrid anglicization of Rus’ as an adjective, the “Rus’ian Land.” I find both “East Slavic Land” and “Rus’ian Land” artificial, and awkward. I prefer to lose the grammar but keep the content by translating it as the “Rus’ Land,” despite the fact that “Rus’” is not an adjective. I am not alone in such usage. Of course, russkii referring to the Muscovite grand principality and later tsardom from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century could legitimately be translated as “Russian,” but that would entail employing two translations of the phrase, “Rus’ Land” for the Kievan and Mongol periods as well as for early modern Ukraine, and “Russian Land” for early modern Muscovy. Because I am trying to emphasize the evolution of a single myth I have for that reason preferred to use only a single form. For simplicity’s sake I will disregard variant medieval spellings such as ruskaia and variants such as rustaia and use only the normative spelling. I have previously too often used other noun place names as adjectives when preceding “land,” for example, the “Novgorod Land.” To accentuate the uniqueness of the Rus’ Land I have now standardized all cognate terms using adjectival forms, ergo the “Novgorodian Land.”
 —Michael Z. 01:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)  —Michael Z. 01:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the policy is WP:V. Where does "Slavic aristocracy" come from? If you think a better source can be used, replace the source instead. Mellk (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was short for East Slavic, used in the preceding sentence, meaning the same as aristocracy of Rus, and as opposed to Mongolian/Tatar which is the other group mentioned. You’re right that I shouldn’t have abbreviated that. —Michael Z. 01:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is verifiable. There is no question that when Halperin is talking about the principalities of Kyiv, Moscow, Riazan, or whatever in the pre-Russia period he means East Slavic or Rus. It is not a problem to transpose it knowing that. We can still keep using old sources even if the exact terminology has changed, if we can read them with a critical eye. There’s absolutely no suspicion that Halperin meant that it was Russia and not Rus. He just used different terminology.  —Michael Z. 02:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you provided here refers to the translation of "russkaia zemlia". And how do you know exactly when "Russian" and "Russian Orthodox Church" should be substituted and with what? Mellk (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it is not like I can simply replace "Rus'" with "East Slavic". It also depends on the context. "Rus'" for example has a narrow definition depending on the context. Mellk (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don’t think you can call it “Russian Orthodox Church” while it was based in Kyiv, before Russia existed, and before it split into several churches, and before one of them had a patriarchate. It was a metropolis of the Byzantine Church, a.k.a. the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. So I linked the Kyiv Metropolis article, which is more specific and perfectly appropriate.
Yes, it depends on the context, and I didn’t just search-and-replace all.  —Michael Z. 02:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not based in Kiev anymore at this point. Mellk (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mongol invasion started 1223. The Metropolis moved from Kyiv to Vladimir in 1299 and to Moscow in 1324. So it was in all three. So?
Its successors include the Russian Orthodox Church (patriarchate est. 1589), the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (metropolis est. 1596), and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (1620–1686, 2018–).
The Russian Orthodox Church is not in the scope of this article. Misrepresenting that also “represents Great Russian chauvinism toward the Kievan inheritance.”  —Michael Z. 03:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to walk you through every sentence I changed? Let’s just restore it and fix where I wrote “Slavic,” already. If you find any more mistakes let’s fix them then too.  —Michael Z. 03:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without a source supporting the changes I do not think it is a good idea. For example For three centuries, Mongol (or Tatar) presence was an undeniable fact for the fractured principalities of former Kievan Rus'. This is inaccurate. Mellk (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What it replaced was just wrong. Since it is unreferenced, I will just remove “for Russians” and the following silly sentence explaining that Russians doesn’t mean Russians. Okay?  —Michael Z. 15:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title did not change but it was not based in Kiev anymore. I did not say anything about inheritance. This is just factual. Mellk (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what text is unacceptable given that?  —Michael Z. 15:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Charles J., Halperin (2022). The Rise and Demise of the Myth of the Rus' Land. Leeds, UK: Arc Humanities Press. ISBN 978-1-80270-011-4. OCLC 1366290847.

Revert by Qiushufang

@User:Qiushufang, you reverted my edit with “ rv deletion of cited content ,”[2] but did you even look at my original edit and read my edit summary??[3] The exact same passage is repeated twice in the article, and it has a non-POV quote poorly translated from an old source (there was no “Russian custom” nor “Russia” in Nevsky’s time). I left one version plus improved it from the exact same source. —Michael Z. 01:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for for the inconvenience. Yes I realize the passage exists twice, but I thought it was worth mentioning in the main history body. Perhaps it could be shortened. I have no problem with the translation of Russia as Rus' or Slavic in this instance. Qiushufang (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will restore it and add a mention in the other place.  —Michael Z. 02:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that, with a bit more description from the original source.[4] The event is actually mentioned three times in the article.  —Michael Z. 03:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to with Golden Horde

Golden Horde was formed in 1240's or 1259 by Batu Khan, in todays Europe to Kazakhstan. While the Golden family was from Mongolia was from 1180's to 1210.Gemmaso (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the genetic study because there is no correlation. The word Golden in Golden Horde is already explained, and it has nothing to do with Golden family from Mongolia. The appellation "Golden" is said to have been inspired by the golden color of the tents the Mongols lived in during wartime, or an actual golden tent used by Batu Khan or by Uzbek Khan,[11] or to have been bestowed by the Slavic tributaries to describe the great wealth of the khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmaso (talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It it not even sure if Batu Khan is paternally related to Genghis Khan. Regardless, it makes no sense for the user:Hunan201p to make a fake correlation when Golden family and Golden Horde mean two different things. Also geographically, Golden Horde bodies are located is in Kazakhstan to Europe while bodies of Golden family is located from Mongolia.Gemmaso (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 genetic study is suggesting that it was Mongol soldiers and their slave women. Given that all the Mongols even in the early 1200's were already over 85% (many even 92-100%) East Eurasian, you could even say they looked just like any other East Eurasian population who carried East Eurasian haplogroups...." The authors observed a special link between haplogroup R1b-M343 and the populations residing in the former territory of the Golden Horde, noting a high frequency of R1b-M343 among populations such as the Hazara, as well as Bashkirs and Eastern Russian Tatars.[160][161] "

The author is basically claiming ancient population of Iran, Tatarstan did not have haplogroup R1b before spread of Mongol soldier. Apparently East Asian appearance carriers of R1b intermixing with native women of Iran and Tarstanstan, or Baskhir women is the reason why they have R1b ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmaso (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 talvan bodies genetic study edited on Golden Horde

I change my mind, it does make mention of Golden Horde but indirectly and is a hypothesis. I still think it shouldn't be in Golden Horde.

However, somethings that were left out (deliberately or not)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/

" All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023095/

"Additionally, Tavan Tolgoi bodies may have been the product of marriages between the lineage of Genghis Khan's Borjigin clan and the lineage of either the Ongud or Hongirad clans, indicating that these individuals were members of Genghis Khan's immediate family or his close relatives."

These should be included. Gemmaso (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most important source for the R1b Golden family.

"The 2016 is only a hypothesis and it says " Considering the historical, archaeological, physical anthropological, and molecular archaeological evidence obtained, it seems most likely that the Tavan Tolgoi bodies are members of Genghis Khan’s Golden family, including the lineage of bekis, Genghis Khan’s female lineage, and their female successors who controlled Eastern Mongolia in the early Mongolian era instead of guregens of the Ongud clan, or the lineage of khans, Genghis Khan’s male lineage, who married females of the Hongirad clan, including Genghis Khan’s grandmother, mother, chief wife, and some daughters-in-law. "
The author suggest that it is the female lineage of Genghis Khan that is related to Tavan Tolgoi golden family is related. This should be edited if we are to include this 2016 genetic study but so far Hunan201p is preventing me, or failed to respond, failed to reply to me (even after I send a message on talk page) . Someone should edit if it gets remove without proper explanation."Gemmaso (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read very carefully. The authors suggest that that the Tavan Tolgoi bodies represent either bekis or Genghis Khan's male lineage. Not marriages to Ongud.

it seems most likely that the Tavan Tolgoi bodies are members of Genghis Khan’s Golden family, including the lineage of bekis, Genghis Khan’s female lineage, and their female successors who controlled Eastern Mongolia in the early Mongolian era 'instead of guregens of the Ongud clan, or' the lineage of khans, Genghis Khan’s male lineage, who married females of the Hongirad clan

Physical evidence for their Borjigin affiliation is provided throughout the article. The Golden Family is of course related to the Golden Horde; the Golden Horde elite are descended from them. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you must acknowledge there is a problem with the way it's edited. It says this " The authors proposed that R1b may be the patrilineal lineage of Genghis Khan, and that the R1b-carrying Tavan Tolgoi specimens were the descendants of prior mixed marriages between West Eurasian migrants and women indigenous to the Mongolian plateau.
Yet it makes no mention that the Golden family being only maternally related. The problem is the way you edited make it seem that the Golden family can only be paternally related with Genghis Khan with the proposed R1b.
Golden Horde and Golden family, related? What a bold claim. Sure if it's female lineage but claiming the paternal lineage is related is essentially claiming that the Genghis Khan male lineage is R1b and all the Khans, not to mention Batu Khan founder of the Golden Horde was suspected by Genghis Khan not to be his child, but a product of other male who impregenated Borte when she he was held captive as a slave.

Gemmaso (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC) @Hunan201p: This really sounds silly. I still can't get the connection. Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits done by @Pervezmusk.:

Also Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate.

First your dates listing are problematic. Did those states suddenly become "functionally independent sovereign state" in 1260? You have to provide, where exactly the source state that Golden Horde was a "functionally independent sovereign state" and suddenly turned into "Great Horde"? I don't even know what this means. Great Horde is the period of Golden Horde, losing almost all areas except the steppes around Don and Volga. Also it was discussed on Talk:Great Horde that 1459 isn't the date of the establishment of the Great Horde, but rather 15th century as whole, without a precise date.

Also what about the gaps? It should be 1242–1259 and 1259–1458 for example, as well as using small text on the infobox. This is disruptive editing and WP:OR. Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pervezmusk seems like a really stubborn problem editor. However, I am noticing a problem with the stable version of the article, which gives an SFN citing Halperin (1987) for the date of 1242-1502. There is nothing on page 78 of Halperin (1987) about dates. Most reliable sources give a date of 1227-1502 (see for example Encyclopedia Britannica). - Hunan201p (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Halperin (1987) stood for a while, so that doesn't mention any date at all? Beshogur (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some scholars say 1221 as well, some mention 1241. It seems like there is not fixed establishment date. Beshogur (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ya unfortunately it looks like the longstanding version was just using failure-to-verify. I don't know how this happened and it doesn't really matter; in any case it's clear that Pervezmusk is unjustifiably edit warring. The article should reflect what the majority of sources say, perhaps with a "sources vary" disclaimer. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hunan201p: how do you propose to change the date? 13th century–1502 or a certain date–1502? Beshogur (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your words. But the division of the Mongol Empire it is written after 1259 the western part of Khanate does not recognise Kublai khan as their king Pervezmusk. (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that, Pervezmusk? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fedor

who is fedor? Gediminas did not have such a brother. 88.223.213.190 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Horde&oldid=1210497791"