MovieChat Forums > Tian di ying xiong (2003) Discussion > About the Turks in the movie

About the Turks in the movie


I know this is just a movie and one must not really bother talking about the historical inaccuracies.... But I cannot help myself when I see such ridiculous things in movies.

I'm a Turk. Not that I'm descended from the Tu'chue, but.. you know...

First of all, Turks with European style medieval knight's helmets? Short purple capes? identical uniforms? Aaaaaagh!... My eyes!.. my eyes!

-Turks (And I mean 'Turks', the 'original' ones) were a tribal confederation. They did not have matching uniforms, and if they had, they certainly did not look like Roman praetorian guard after a bad laundry accident.

-They did not fight on foot, they were horse archers.

-They were not Buddhists, they were animist/shamanist people. They were not interested in controlling the Buddhist lands, they were interested in looting them.

-They did not show respect to someone or worship by kneeling (like they did in the fortress), they used to take a head bow. Mongolians get down on one knee, only the Chineese get down on both knees.

-The Tang dynasty was also part Turkish (the Li family) and that's how the Tang get to grow so wide - they used their tribal connections to get the Turks allies at times. The emperor Taizong/Tai-tsung had his own Turkish guard.

-The civilian Turks did not dress like Arabs, they hated the Muslim clothes since it symbolized the 'settled' lifestyle they loathed. Also it was not a convenient dress for horseback riding.

It seems that the filmmakers had the decency to run a research on the Chinese costumes, why not the Turks? Anyways, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and conclude that they had to contrast the individual characteristics of the heroes with the standardized anonymity of the villains. hmm...

reply

Yeah, I chuckled a bit when I saw all the Turks riding into town, dressed like Darth Vader for Halloween. It looked sort of cool, I thought, but most importantly provided an easy escape for the main characters, since no one recognized them. But yeah, pretty ridiculous.

reply

Interesting observation, though as they were basically nomadic they left little of any permanence behind, in fact I suspect that the majority of what we know about them is from the view point of others.

However I think that it [the film] is acceptable as it adds a dimension to the Turks that would be lost if they were portrayed more realistically, which would have been uncivilised, scruffy, dirty horse riding horrors that would think nothing of doing a number 2 while in mid gallop.

This way to our modern eyes they come out looking less like something from Mordor and more like real people, contrast this to the '13th Warrior' where the 'enemy' came out as being nothing more than animals that looked human. I take this as a failing of the people of today rather than a failing of the film maker.

As for the origins and extent of what should be considered 'Turks' it would seem that historians disagree. However it is interesting to note that by 659 Turks carried Chinese titles and fought by their side in their wars. However, that does not mean all 'Turks' were the same, as they numbered millions and covered a vast area of the globe from persia to Mongolia. I also bet that the ones that fought on the side of the Chinese wore similar clothing [to the chinese] and nice stuff at that.

To further quote "Ilteriad (Idat) and his brother Bäkçor Qapaan Khan (Mo-ch'o) managed to found a new realm of "wild" Turks, which in a series of wars from 681 onward gained control of the steppes beyond the Great Wall of China, extending by 705 to threaten Arab control of Transoxiana. Their power centered at the Changai Mountains (then: Ötükän). The son of Ilteri, Bilge, was also a strong leader, but at his death in 734, the empire declined. They ultimately fell to a series of internal crises and renewed Chinese campaigns. After Kutluk (Ko-lo) Khan's military victory in 744, the successors to the Gokturks became their more China-friendly junior partners, known as the Uighurs".

So exactly who these people that are refered to as 'Turks' in the film are is a moot point as it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there was a group of people calling themselves or being called 'Turks' that were Buddhists and on the lookout for conquest. It has to be remembered that just because they were nomadic doesn't mean they didn't have and need a defined 'Territory'. Furthermore, if you look at the history of the region it looks like one continual movement of peoples either being displaced or displacing others. So exactly who was who (and what happened to them) is not an easily answered question especially considering the lack of information we have.

reply

s-kemmitt wrote;
>However I think that it [the film] is acceptable as it adds a dimension to the Turks that would be lost if they were portrayed more realistically, which would have been uncivilised, scruffy, dirty horse riding horrors that would think nothing of doing a number 2 while in mid gallop.

Your perception of the Turkish Khanate is disturbing. It would not be 'realistic' if they were uncivilized, scruffy, dirty horse riders.

Your knowledge about the Turks seems superficial and mostly wrong. The Turks, and I mean 'the' Turks were a distinct tribe. There were not millions of them. They were simply the small group of people who succeeded in uniting most of the nomadic people of Central Asia. The word Turk became a general name for all the 'Turkish'-speaking peoples centuries after the Great Empire of the Turks faded into history - because the name signified imperial glory and royal blood of the Asena (Turkish royalty - Sons of the Wolf).

Most of them had Chinese names because we learn their history via Chinese annals, the Chinese either tried to write down the Turkish names thay heard with similar sounding Chinese characters or simply translated the meanings of the names into Chinese. Many Turks of course fought on the side of the Chinese, because their loyalty were to their chiefs (it was still too early for the French revolution and nationalism). Also, most of the dynasties ruling China had Turkish roots.

How the 'Turks' in the movie looked like means a lot to me, because I was expecting more accuracy and responsibility from the Chinese filmmakers than a know-nothing western director. If you see the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, you see a more realistic portrayal of the Turks.

reply

I was going to go through point by point but actually I just don't have the time. Have a look at some history of the area and specifically the 'turkic' peoples and you will find that what you know is in part 'Turkish' propaganda and not the actual history of Asia and the 'turkic' peoples, which you'll find is a rich, diverse and fascinating one.

One single point I will make though, the Turkic peoples DID number millions.

Damm, actually another point, the majority of Chinese Dynasties could not in any meaningful way be described as 'turkic' or having 'turkic' roots.

reply

S-kemmitt, I assure you that my knowledge of Turkish history is beyond national myths or propaganda.

Let me go point by point.
You seem to misunderstand my point about Turks. The 'Turks' seen in this movie are the 'original Turks', who gave their name to their kinsmen after they united them. So what I called Turks in my posting did not include all 'Turks in the contemporary meaning'.

They DID NOT number millions. A nomadic nation CANNNOT number millions because the lifestyle of the nomad limits numbers. Ony settled cultures with accumulated surplus product can sustain growing populations. Even a confederation of most of the tribes can hardly exceed such a number.

About the Chinese dynasties: Just find a serious source on the subject and count the number of 'Han Chinese' dynasties. Then count the Turkish, Mongolian, Manchurian, Tibetan ones. You'll be surprised that China was mostly ruled by the 'barbarians' rather than the Chinese.






reply

Ok, so I accept that the Turks in the film were specifically Gokturks.

The Romans wore similar garb to the 'turks' in the film and it is a matter of recorded fact that the Huns under Attila (406-453) had already fought the Romans over 100 years before and thus been exposed to roman dress (I also wonder what Atilla's men are wearing on their heads in some of the painting dipicting the huns).

The Gokturk empire existed for an insignificant time in comparison to the Chinese, furthermore by the time they had arisen late 6thC China had already been in existence for longer than from that time to today. The Gokturk empire itself lasted only until the 8thC a paltry 200 hundred years.

You actually agree that the Tang dynasty 618-907 overlapped and out lived the Gokturks so I'm not really sure what your point is, furthermore I find it rather curious that you would suggest by implication that only the 'han' are chinese. Its a bit like saying only the Normans or Anglo-saxons are British, a simplistic and misleading interpretation of history.

I would actually put a bet on it that the 'turkic' peoples did number in the millions, we are not just talking about pure nomads here, we are talking about a people that potentially, depending upon your reading of what constitutes a 'turk', spread from Mongolia to Europe to Persia and lived in settled and semi-nomadic to nomadic ways. Obviously if you're just talking about the Gokturks then you are probably right.

However, if we are limiting it to the Gokturks, then the connection between the original turks and the people living in Turkey today is rather tenuous and I fail to see why you should be getting so hot and bothered by their depiction.

I still stand by the assertion that they were most likely smelly and deficated while riding, Ghengis Khan and his hoards were doing it 100's of years later so why shouldn't they.

reply

Yes I'm specifically talking about the Göktürks. Because the Turks in the film are Göktürks... Were you thinking about Ottomans, perhaps?

Are you really suggesting that Roman armor affected the Turks through Huns? Roman armor was designed mainly for heavy infantry, it is heavy and uncomfortable for mounted archers. Turkish war tactic is striking fast and hitting from afar. Dressing like a Roman with heavy helmets (with visors!!!) and capes is ridiculous. It is suicide.
Also, I do not think you believe that Attila posed for European artists. FYI, Attila and his men were wearing fur-lined conical helmets, light chain mail and/or lamellar armor.

The fact that Göktürk Khanate overlapped with Tang Empire does not make the Tang dynasty and armies Han Chinese. Not all Turks were loyal to the Khan. Some were under the servıce of the Emperor. If you can find it, check out the text carved in the Ordos/Yenisey monuments where the Bilge Khan complains about the Turks who switched sides.

The Göktürk Khanate may seem to exist for a relatively short time compared to China but it is how things work for nomads. For the Chinese, dynasties come and go but since the people of the empire is settled, the country retains its name. For the nomadic steppe empires, the change of the ruling clan, changes the name of the political entity since the empire is "at the back of horses". Before Türks (or Göktürks if you prefer), there were the Huns- after them, there were the Uygurs, the Seljuks, the Timurids, etc. Except for the brief but important period of Mongolian dominance, Asian steppe belt was ruled by the Turks (general meaning) incessantly until the modern era.

The Tang was part Turkish and part Han Chinese. The Emperor Tai-tsung kept his relations with the Turkish side of the family to ensure the loyalty of his Turkish guard, he was known to speak Turkish and live like his ancestors on occasions.

The Normans or Anglo-Saxons were not British, but British indeed are Normans and Anglo-Saxons (and much more). You are turning things upside down.

A Turk and/or a Mongol could do everything while riding. Your choice of the action gives away your malign intentions to describe them. Of course they smelled, but I'm sure they smelled better than a European living in his plague-ridden, sewer-like medieval town.

reply

Of course I wasn't thinking of Ottomans, I was thinking of all the other branches of turkic people.

I'm well aware that Attila didn't pose for artists and that wasn't really the point.

Simply that (a) The majority of what we know about these peoples is not from them, and (b) Attila had come into contact with Romans, that soldiers are by nature looting scum, and that even so-called barbarians would have been able to tell that the Romans were more stylish. Its quite implausable to suggest that the Huns remained uninfluenced by their contact with the Romans. Howevere, it is quite plausible to suggest that via the Huns other turkic peoples back in central asia could have come into contact and been influenced by Roman dress. This is not even mentioning that there is also the prior Greek route of influence along with their fancy helmits and cloaks too.

No one is suggesting that the 'Turks' wore heavy armour, simply that they (the small group in the film) could have plausibly worn Roman/Greek style helmits and long flowing capes. As I've tried to point out, while perhaps improbable it is far within the realms of possibility.

These people were nomads and so didn't have sophisticated manufacturing industries, they must have got their cloths etc from looting and trade with settled peoples and were thus open to outside influences, I'm pretty sure that they didn't just wear skins and wool, and what did they do with all that silk tribute.

As for who is what and genetic inheritance, I'm just not going there. The Hans are not the be all and end all of China. One quarter does not a turk make, nor does the occasional camping trip.

It seems somewhat akin to modern Americans researching their geneology in the belief that it has meaning beyond that which they themselves give it.

Of course European cities stank, who's disputing that? Its something that would have surely hit a visitor the second they walked into one. I wonder then what would have been the first thing you'd notice about some 7thC nomad? His well groomed face, natty clothes, dirt free appearance? His gentlemanly conduct or his impeccable table manners perhaps?

reply

Roman effect on dress: NO, Roman dress did not influence the nomad more than marginally. Nomad armor was SUPERIOR to that of Romans FOR THE NOMAD's PURPOSES. It was actually the other way around, the settled peoples of Russia, China, Middle East and Balkans gradually adopted the Turko-Mongolian armor and weaponry. Just look at the medieval Russian armor. They copied the Kipchak armor and weapons to the extent that they carved Arabic inscriptions on their swords.

The argument of possibility and probability: So in your opinion, the filmmakers could have flown an UFO on the background as well? It was not probable but possible.

Nomads did not have manufacturing industries? The Göktürks specifically were described as the MINERs and IRONSMITHs of Asia. Of course they were not purely self-sufficient, but they produced their weaponry and armor. They amassed their military power by producing and selling them (to Juan-Juans, to Chinese, etc...).

Why it is too difficult for you to see the point about the Turkic ancestory of some dynasties? I do not claim that the Chinese were Turks- I simply say that the imperial family had Turkish blood...

That is my point- everybody in that age stank, was dirty, and uncivilized. The point is you single out the nomad with such description. That is a clear syptom of racist prejudice, xenophobia and ignorance.
(Looking back at your words: Turks were UNCIVILIZED, SCRUFFY, DIRTY horse riding HORRORS that WOULD THINK NOTHING OF DOING A NUMBER 2 while in mid gallop... WILD TURKS... they were SMELLY and DEFOCATED while riding... Attila's soldiers were BY NATURE looting SCUM...)

Get help... from a historian that is...

reply

There's really no point in talking to you, you obviously have a chip on your shoulder, thinking that everyone is out to bash the Turks.

All soldiers are by nature looters, take a look at a history book.

If you really believe that the Huns and Turks remained unaffected by those they came into contact with then you are living in a fantasy.

As for possibility and probability, I showed that there was at least 1 path in which the Gokturks could have worn natty helmits and stylish cloaks. As cloth generally doesn't last and metal being useful is easily converted into something else I think that the onus is on you to prove that it wasn't the case. ... What you can't ... why? ... oh, I forgot there just isn't much that remains of them other than in other peoples records.

... And no you didn't just say that about turkish blood, you were attempting to large up the influence of the turks, so you can take your bogus agenda and stick it up your ass.

As for talking to an historian, I think you really need to read up a bit on how history is an interpretation of facts, and how that interpretation is never value neutral.



reply

s-kemmitt wrote;
>>There's really no point in talking to you


Agreed. Have a nice life.

reply

It actually went pretty well for awhile. I almost thought that you are teaching each other something but of course the weak one had to insult and close his'her ears to some challenging information... We Turks will never win in this world (at least now) because when the west doesn't want to admit how racist and subjective they're, they will always blame on our paranoia and "uncivilized" behavour. Turks are not some joke like couple monsters in the movie of "Mummy." They are the people that is worth the human history as Africans and Indians (from India; the others are called Native Americans). However, this is too complicated to reveal for western scholars and when it happens, it will also prove the lies that western historians have been feeding the world to make tehmselves look superior. Eg. Greek(Herodot as the first historian b.s etc).

Bottom line is there is more than white man's history and it's much deeper than a typical shallow brain can handle.

reply

[deleted]

I also as a Turk and a historian was at least couple of times just went "hah?" during the movie. Turks dressed up as arabs yelling like old women on their horses and none of them are horse archers. I asked myself what the hell is going on? Movie was not great but above average. Seriously, Turks as budhist worshippers, pleassee! Uygurs, Chinese friendly??

s-kemmitt, do you know how many Uygur people are massacred and are still being massacred in China. You wrote an good advice on reading more history books but I wonder if you are giving any credit to your own advice.

thank you ulnoyman, I am glad I am not the only one who saw those dumb historical mistakes on trying to portray the Turks.

reply

Frankly, I'm no historian (and reading such fascinating comments, I really think I should have chosen this branch !) but I've known some Turkish people — one of them a diplomat, not exactly a "smelly towelhead" — and even I found the depiction of Turks in the movie pretty weird. Though I don't think they were portrayed in a demeaning manner. For bandits, they had class. It's still better than most Hollywood "historical" crap that would have you believe that no civilisation is possible without a white man to take the reins.
If I dare say so, I guess you guys, both obviously clever and well-learned, fell into one of those misunderstanding that the 'net seems to generate. But who am I to say ? Thanks anyway for those historical stuff. I feel less stupid already ! :)
BTW some people seems to think of Turkey of today as a nation of peasants. Wake up ! The country is growing, education level is high, and there are brains and talents in there that Old Europe could really use !

reply

I totally agree.
Hollywood gives nothing but crap about Turkish citizen portrait. For instance, at the famous TV series "24" Turk did not even had real Turkish names and they were not talking Turkish (yeah, cos i didn't understand what they have been speaking).

Beyond any cinema sector, the most succesful Turkish modelling was in "L'Empire des loups".

Thanx for the historical debate anyway.

reply

A pleasure to have read that hotheaded intellectual battle of historical wit I'm sure. The person who was commenting on the hygiene of Turks was refering to Turks from over 1400 yrs ago...don't retaliate by taking his comment out of it's meaning, by bringing up someone you know, unless you're...a...CENTURIES OLD VAMPIRE!

It's a known fact that 'barbarians' were not unitelligent...to me at least, figures like Attila and Ghengis Khan (and some of his successors) etc...were highly intelligent for the times in which they lived, masterful tacticians, able to control lords, kings, and even emperors. Others like Ricimer (a germanic 'barbarian' turned Roman soldier of high rank) were even Kingmakers.
Barbarians produced some of the greatest people history can tell us...who are portrayed purely or even demonized but at least aren't frauds like Richard the Lionhearted, who couldn't speak english (a muslim slaughtering, homosexual Norman!) and many others like him.

Most of the facts brought to the table by ulnoyman were from the BC era and not relevent in the late 9th century in which the movie was based.

reply

Talking about the context - I was not taking his remarks about hygene out of context but putting them in it. His remarks were singling out the Turks as 'dirty' at an age where everybody is dirty. <<I'm sure there were dirty>> - the act of singling them out is malign. Especially when the pastoral life of the nomad is cleaner than the sewer ridden medieval towns.

Just for the record, not being able to speak the language of the land you are ruling does not make you a 'fraud'. It was long before the nation-state emerged and homogenized the languages withing one's borders.



reply

[deleted]

Princeharming wrote;
>>Most of the facts brought to the table by ulnoyman were from the BC era and not relevent in the late 9th century in which the movie was based.

Please let me know which facts are not relevant to IX. century. I'm talking about the "Turks" (Tukyu/Tuchue)- it is exactly relevant. The BC era stuff refers to the sub-discussion about the Roman armor with one of the respondants.

reply

do you know how many Uygur people are massacred and are still being massacred in China.


I am a Chinese.I assure you that I know China better than you.China have been practising a policy in favor of minorities since 1950 which even became a envy of we Han Chinese:Uygur people have own highly autonomic government as many other minorities do,Uygur people are and have been a member of China family and they are also Chinese despite different custom and religion.As much as I know there were few violent incident set in Xing jiang China(Eastern Turkistan as Uygur call themselves)caused by Han Chinese who lived there ,instead, many Uygur people tend to pick on Han Chinese even provoke riots.you must have been wrongly told about bloody incidents in Xing jiang.Don't forget that Eastern Turkistan has been accused of terrorism.
If any words offend you please don't mind

reply

"ulnoyman on - About the Chinese dynasties: Just find a serious source on the subject and count the number of 'Han Chinese' dynasties. Then count the Turkish, Mongolian, Manchurian, Tibetan ones. You'll be surprised that China was mostly ruled by the 'barbarians' rather than the Chinese.
"

Actually, you are totally wrong. There were no Turks that ruled China, and there were only 2 dynasties that were foreign powers. The first was when the Mongols conquered China (along with the rest of the known world all the way to Poland), and set up the Yuan dynasty in China. The other time was when the Manchurians (Manchurian Chinese nowadays) invaded the Ming dynasty and created the final dynasty - the Qing dynasty.

So out of all of these dynasties:
Xia
Shang
1st Zhou
2nd Zhou
Qin
East Han
West Han
Jin
Sui
Tang
Northern Song
Southern Song
Yuan
Ming
Qing

only 2, the Qing & Yuan, were actually "foreign." (And the Qing-Manchurians are considered Chinese nowadays anyways)
The vast majority of the time period were ruled by Han-Chinese.

reply

If you mean that all-of-China, you can be right (with two foreign dynasties for about five centuries), but northern China-proper and large chunks of contemporary China was ruled by Turks, Mongolians, Tibetans and the like. Here is a list I took from "A Short History of Chinese People" by Carrington Goodrich, page 85. I have little incentive for doing a deeper research, I'm sure you can verify this yourself.

The Chao (Hsiung-nu) in Shansi (304-329)
Later Chao (Hsiung-nu) in Hopei (319-352)
Later Liang (Turko-Mongol) in Kansu (386-403)
Southern Liang (Hsien-pi/Turkic) in Kansu (397-404, 408-414)
Northern Liang (Hsiung-nu) in Kansu (397-439)
Early Yen (Hsien-pi/Mongol) in Hopei and Honan (349-270)
Later Yen (Hsien-pi) in Hopei (384-408)
Western Yen (Hsien-pi) in Shansi (384-396)
Southern Yen (Hsien-pi) in Shantung (398-410)
Early Ch'in (Mongol) in Shensi (351-394)
Later Ch'in (Mongol/Tibetan) in Shensi (384-417)
Western Ch'in (Turkio-Mongol) in Kansu (385-390, 409,431)
Northern Wei (Turkic) in Shensi and Loyang (386-535)
The Hsia (Hsiung-nu) in Shensi (407-431)

Among these guys, most notable is the Northern Wei which was established by the Turkic To-ba (Tabgac in Turkish) with more than two centuries of domination.
and of course the Mongolian Yuan for a couple centuries and Mancurian Qing for almost three for all China...

Enjoy...

reply

I know very little about the subject of "Turks" in that area, but I am quite fascinated by your comments and I agree with your conclusion. Thank you for adding your scholarly views.

reply

I am a Chinese, honestly, i dont know much about the history of "turks"... so have no idea how they looked and behaved.......however, my point here is that what you said about chinese history was totally wrong.....the Tang dynasty(li family ) had nothing to do with the turks though Li Yuan(Taizong's father) had some relationship with the Xianbeis who were very different with the turks whosoever....my family name is Li too, i could tell you this family had no elements of Turks, maybe some Xianbei and Koreans.

reply

I just want to point out that this whole discussion is turning on the English translation of "Tu-Que" as Turks.

I mean, the "Tu-Que" was simply an asian race identified and named by the ancient Chinese as such. Although the closest English translation is Turk, the "Tu-Que" is just one of the possible ancestor races of present day Turkish races in Turkey or Turkmenistan.

It's like the way the "Xiong-Nu" race recorded in Chinese history is most conveniently translated into English as the "Huns", although they are just one of the possible ancestor races of the Huns that later threatened Europe.

The film-makers had a good historical basis for choosing the "Tu-Que" to represent the "desert marauders", but took a bit of artistic licence with the dress and language of the "Tu-Que". I wouldn't really fault them-- since no one can be sure exactly how any particular "Tu-Que" tribe/nation at the time would dress and talk.

P.S. The ancestor race of the present-day Uighurs was already identified and named in Tang Dynasty as the "Hui-Gu" and seen as a seperate race from the "Tu-Que". So while present-day Uighur language is similar to Turkish, generalising Uighurs as Turks (in the modern sense) is a bit much.

P.P.S. Tang Dynasty China had a very open society where Persians and other races adopted Chinese names and lived amongst the Chinese, but it is a bit strange to say that the Chinese had Turkish (which "Turk"?) "roots"-- it's more like the Chinese (even the Han majority) are descended from many asian races.

N.B. Most of the central asian races, including the "Hui-Gu" & "Tu-Que", were was buddhist at the time of Tang Dynasty China-- so a buddhist "Tu-Que" is not an inaccuracy. Islam arose in the middle east during the Tang Dynasty and only reached central asia much later.

reply

The "Tu-que" and the "Hui-gu" (adopting your transliteration) WERE TURKIC groups speaking TURKIC languages. They HAD their own alphabets and scripts that reached us - so there is NO DOUBT about their origin, original Turkish names, and language.

The above-stated scipts tell us that the TU-QUE were not Buddhist but had an animist polytheistic religion. The Turk/Tu-que Khan pleads the TENGRI, sky god, in the Orkhon/Yenisey monuments. It was written in Turkish and Chinese so you can look it up easily. (Individual Turks or even groups of Turks could have accepted Buddhism much like many were under the service of the Tang as mercenaries and the like - But this is no more significant than Christian Japanese or Muslim Indians. The religion of the Turks was shamanistic Tengri-worship)

And once again, my original posting does not claim that the Chinese people has Turkic roots. The Li family that established the Tang had blood relations with Turkic nobility. And once more - blood means nothing> They were Chinese, of course.

reply

Erm, the point that I didn't make clear in my post was that you can't really take the Tu-Que or the Hui-Gu as a uniformed and unchanging society without considering the era, location or specific tribe referenced. Talking about the "original" Tu-Que or Hui-Gu also depends on the "point of origin" chosen.

E.g. present-day Uighurs (who trace back to the Hui-Gu) are in western China and use the Arabic script to record their language, but the Hui-Gu were identified in northern China before Islam and the Arabic script reached them, so the Hui-Gu is really a "predecessor" race or civilisation of the Uighurs.

All I'm saying is that the movie took a lot of artistic licence with certain historical facts like: 1) in the 6th-8th century CE, 2) the "Tu-Que" were active in north-western China, 3) where Bhuddism was widespread. Hence, the European(?) armour, Turkic(?)-looking/ speaking people, etc...

It is more of a historical-fantasy (although fantasy elements only popped up in the 2nd half of the film), so I don't think it's too meaningful to determine precisely which races or tribes were represented in the film... 8^S

reply

I get your point about the "artistic choices". But I have a personal thing with filmmakers distorting history - especially when it is Turkish history (call it pet peeve or psychosis). I just cannot stand it. What would your reaction be if the Chinese in a foreign film were dressed as Celtic or Mayan warriors for artistic purposes?

Also, I feel that calling the hui-gu predecesor of the Uighurs is not very different then calling the Han the predecessor of the Qing. The continuity in Chinese history is not exactly same with the Turkic one only because of the sedenary-nomadic differences of life - Otherwise, deny it or not, the Hui-gu are the "predecessors" of the Turks in Turkey as much as they are that of the Uighurs.
All branches of the tree grow out of the same trunk.

reply

[deleted]

>First of all, I see that some of the people here confuse Turk(people from Turkey) with Tyurk(the people in the movie, my ancestors).

Of course there is a difference between the Turks of Turkey and the Central Asian Turkics, but referring to the ancient Turks with the Russian 'Tyurk' you are making a mistake. The people of the ancient Turkish Khanate were called "Türk" or "Türük" and they were ancestors of both Kazakhs and Turks (of Turkey) alike. They gave their name to many peoples of Asia who speak the same language from the Anatolian version to that of the Yakuts. The difference between Turetskiy and Tyurkskiy in Russian is necessary for practical purposes today, but do not forget the main reason that the Russians used this semiotic difference in the first place. Why are the Turks of Anatolia called 'Turetskiy' and separated from the greater Turkic speaking peoples while the rest are grouped together under the general name 'Tyurkskiy'?

reply

Ok since there are a lot of "Turk" people here in this forum, please help me with some confusions I been having here. First of all, after speaking with some "Turks" on other forums, I've noticed that they are very, very swift to defend their "turkish heritage" wether it be language, race, history, etc. While it is admirable, it does get hostile at times and eventually very annoying just to get to the little gritty useles detail.

But nontheless, i need to get something clear. There seems to be a mix up between the term "Turkish" and "Turkic" and "Turk". Now i've read that those term are NOT the same but yet "Turks" members have said that its ALL the same people. From my understanding, the words "Turk" and "Turkic" refer to a group of people who speak the same Turk language, and live the nomadic lifestyle, but NOT ethnically the same people - such as the wide variety of people from central Asia. While the term "Turkish" would refer to the modern day Turkey, Ottomon Turkish people. Can anybody confirm this or is it true that they are actually all the same people?

Many Turks folks i spoke with also claims that Mongols are turks also, but ironically the Mongols i've spoke with found that somewhat offensive and say that they're not turks but are Mongols - a seperate ethnic group themselves, even though they both share similar way of life.

So anyways, can anyone clarify this a bit more?

reply

Rachid, I'l try to clarify as well as could,

-Starting with the Mongol/Turk distinction: Mongolians and Turks are two different people, with different but closely relative languages (two major languages of the Altaic family sharing a considerable vocabulary). Since they lived side by side for centuries living the nomadic life on the Central Asian steppe, they looked much alike to the foreign observer. They followed a similar state-tradition, Turkish states included Mongolians, Mongolian states included Turks... However, being more populous, Turks moved west and south in huge numbers, settling and adopting foreign confessions. This made Turkish-Mongolian cultural distinctions more visible.
Mongolians certainly are not Turkish, but many Turks with a nostalgia for the ancient roots of the nation, mistakingly see them as Turk-"ish", if you know what I mean.

-Distinction between Turkish and Turkic: First of all there had been no such distinction in Turkish language until recently. Turks of Turkey simply consider Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Turkmen, Uzbek, etc as "other Turks'. During the Ottoman times, Turks of Turkey did not call themselves as Turks per se, but Ottomans or Ottoman Turks. Meanwhile, it was the Westerners who called the Ottomans simply Turks, since they know little about the rest of them. At one time, Iran, Southern Russia, India and Central Asia were all ruled by Turks, but they were called Safevids, Sultans of Delhi, Moguls, etc. When the westerners realized that there are other peoples speaking the same language as the Turks, a new all-encompassing term was needed to include all. Hence the word Turkic.
So, Turkic includes Turkish - All Turkish people are Turkic, but not all Turkic people are Turkish...
You can compare this to Finnic (includes Finnish, Estonian, and many other smaller groups living in former USSR) and Germanic (includes Germans, Austrians, northern Swiss, etc...)
I can imagine that if you call a Kazakh a Turk, he would react almost the same way an Austrian respond to be called German.

I would not say that a Turk of Turkey and a Kirghiz are genetically same - which is not possible after millenia, but identity for me is language, not blood.

-The origin of the name Turk goes back to the Turk Empire (Gokturk/ Blue Turk Empire) ruled over a huge landmass from the Caspian Sea to Northern China. Since the Turk clans were the most successful militarily and politically, their enemies made note of the name, and every other clan speaking the same language became known as Turks afterwards. Today, the people known as Turks are not the same people with the ancient Turks - they are the descendants of the Oghuz clans (which, ironically, was one of the first enemies the Turk clan clashed with).

So, the name Turk became a general name of the people speaking the same language. The Huns, for example, preceded the Blue Turk Empire chronologically, but they spoke the same language - hence, retrospectively, they are called Turkic also.

Similar name expansion happened elsewhere: For example the Mongols were one of the number of clans speaking a common language, but since the Mongol clan under Genghiz Khan united them and led them to glory, the name Mongol became their common name. Similarly, The English are made of Danes, Celts, Saxons, Normans, Juts, Angles - but the name Angl prevailed to become the national name.

Hope this rambling clears a few questions you might have.





reply

Wow, very detailed and thankyou much for the clarifications.

So, Turkic includes Turkish - All Turkish people are Turkic, but not all Turkic people are Turkish...

So I'm assuming that means that both Turkish and Turkic people are in essence safe to be refered to as "Turks"? Also, I've been told that my great great grandparents from my mothers side are of Kazahk and Mongolian descent. I currently identify as an South East Asian, but would that mean that I am also a Turk descent? And, what can you tell me about the Xiongnu and the Huns in cordinations with the Turks?

thanks again for the info...learned alot today!

reply

>> So I'm assuming that means that both Turkish and Turkic people are in essence safe to be refered to as "Turks"?

For me, there is no real reason for not doing so. Depends on the context though.

>>Also, I've been told that my great great grandparents from my mothers side are of Kazahk and Mongolian descent. I currently identify as an South East Asian, but would that mean that I am also a Turk descent?

Sure. I have Mongolian blood too. But again, after the rapid expansion of the Mongolian Empire, it is hard to find anybody without Mongolian DNA :) Also, identity is a constructed thing, you can call yourself anything.

>> And, what can you tell me about the Xiongnu and the Huns in cordinations with the Turks?

They are the same people, a Turko-Mongolian tribal confederation led by a dominant Turkic tribe and elite. They were known to the Chinese as Xiongnu (a pejorative Chinese word probably resembles the original Hunnish word), and to the Europeans as Huns. The little we know about their language indicate that they spoke an earlier form of what the Turks speak today. o retrospectively, they are called Turkic, or proto-Turkic, if you will. Many historians call them Turko-Mongolian instead of simply Turkic, because of the fact that they left no records of their own - but given their military and political organization, weaponry, armor, etc.. they were almost absolutely Turkic, or Turkic-led. Also, in any given time in history, Turkic-speakers outnumbered other steppe dwellers overwhelmingly - even in Genghis Khan's armies, Turks outnumbered Mongolians sometimes seven to one.

For Turks, there is no doubt in minds that Huns were Turks. In the coat-of-arms of the President of the Republic of Turkey, of all 16 stars symbolising great Turkish Empires, on is for the Hun Empire. You can find many Turks named after Hun Khans, such as Teoman, Mete, Attila, etc...

reply

"ulnoyman on - About the Chinese dynasties: Just find a serious source on the subject and count the number of 'Han Chinese' dynasties. Then count the Turkish, Mongolian, Manchurian, Tibetan ones. You'll be surprised that China was mostly ruled by the 'barbarians' rather than the Chinese.
"


Actually, this is wrong. There were no Turks that ruled China, and there were only 2 dynasties that were foreign powers. The first was when the Mongols conquered China (along with the rest of the known world all the way to Poland), and set up the Yuan dynasty in China. The other time was when the Manchurians (Manchurian Chinese nowadays) invaded the Ming dynasty and created the final dynasty - the Qing dynasty.

So out of all of these dynasties:
Xia
Shang
1st Zhou
2nd Zhou
Qin
East Han
West Han
Jin
Sui
Tang
Northern Song
Southern Song
Yuan
Ming
Qing

only 2, the Qing & Yuan, were actually "foreign." (And the Qing-Manchurians are considered Chinese nowadays anyways)
The vast majority of the time period were ruled by Han-Chinese.


Also, the so called "Turk blooded" Tang dynasty. There was a common practice of marrying off royal concubines or the regeant's princess to the nomads. The Tang imperial family, however, remained Chinese. Also, the Turks of the time period were not the "modern day Turks" of today.

reply

Can someone explain to me if these guys make any sense in the Turk/Mongolian discussion? From what these guys are saying, that Turks, Mongolian, etc are all the exact same people. I was trying to say that they are very similar in tradition but not neccessarily the same people.

check it out here in the Attila the Hun message board : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259127/board/nest/53841307?d=58978194&p=2#58978194

reply

Mongols are of the yellow race; meaning they have much in common phyisically with the Chinese such as slanted eyes, straight silky black hair, short stature, sometimes abnormally large heads, and the yellow skin.

Turks are mor closer to white people. Infact, Baibar who is a kipchak turk from the Crimea (present day Ukraine) had blond hair and blue eyes.

The people along the silk road which is present day Uzebekistan, Afhganistan, Turkmenistan range from white to some Asian characteristics. Like another poster said, there is ALOT of Mongol DNA out there. These people raped so much women, it is said the Genghis Khan himself had 500 concubines and about 32 million people in Central Asia are direct descendants of him alone! So in short, Turk whites and Mongols like Chinese.

For those who wonder why would Mongols attack those of their same race, Imperial Japan anyone.

As for Baibar he was the head of the Egyptian Mamluk army, the only army in the world to defeat the Mongols! FYI, the Mamluks of Egypt were composed of Turks. And if you ask if Turks were enemies of Mongols, why were there Turks in the Mongol army? It was eigther that or death!

reply

Hm, I am slightly perturbed by your ignorant stereotype of Chinese and Mongolians. Mongolians do look significantly different from the majority of Chinese.

So check your facts. But you make another ignorant stereotype on asian looks and make yourself look like a fool.

reply

I am also disturbed by Metto's remarks. It is also extremely untrue.

The Ural-Altaic language family includes several languages of the Steppes all the way to Finnish and Hungarian. Linguistically, there is controversy with how related these two groups are, mostly because there wasn't really any writing from this large language family until relatively recently (about one thousand years give or take, compared to the Indo-European language family that had writing for over three and a half thousand years). Due to some linguistic and historical features, Korean and Japanese were, for a brief time, also included as part of this language group. Linguistics has become a very vigorous discipline, so they are now simply language isolates, whatever the personal feelings of Linguists might be. I happen to think they are quite related, but that is not born out due to the lack of historical recorded evidence.

I know a lot about Mongols and studied how to read the the old cursive writing as well as the modern Cyrillic. Mongols could be called Turkish, as indeed they were in the past. Russians tend to call Mongols "Tartars" despite being an enemy of Mongols (although Mongols formed alliances with them as part of Ghenghis Khan's unification of the tribes). Essentially, Turks, Khirghiz, Mongols, Tartars, etc, were primarily tribal names of various nomadic people that spoke related languages that may have been mutually intelligible.

The Magyar people (Hungarians) also shared enough linguistic and social similarity that Hungarians recognized Mongols as a similar people when Subodai's army reached Eastern Europe. Incidentally, the word "Huns" is a Mongolian word meaning "people" (written 'humun' in the old cursive script, maybe pronounced "hoo-moon" in the distant past but even in Ghenghis Khan's time was probably pronounced Hun "hoon"). They were and are called the Magyar. The only controversy is where the Magyar originated from before reaching the Roman Empire. They may have lived (according to one theory) near northern Iran for a couple of centuries before reaching Rome. That they came form the Steppes in the distant past is not really contradicted. They are a Turkish people.

Of all the languages in the family, it is Finnish that is most controversial. There are competing theories whether they belong in the family at all and how isolated linguistically they are from the rest of the language family. I personally believe they belong in the family, but perhaps there is not enough evidence to back it up. I learned a bit (just a bit) of Finnish and find it to be uncannily similar to Mongolian, grammatically at least.

Arctic people and American Indians are also remarkably similar. I remember watching a program on TV showing Dakota people hosting Mongols and remarking how similar some dances were (such as the bear dance). But that is another discussion.

By the way Ulnoyman, I agree with most of your points including the ludicrous portrayal of Turks in the movie. I will add that in China (where I live at the moment) several dynasties were considered to have too much northern influence (ie, Turkish influence). In addition, the Qing dynasty was a Manchurian dynasty and was never considered "Chinese" even in modern times as asserted by another poster. The fact that the Qing dynasty was considered corrupt and incompetent in dealing with the Europeans probably contributes to this feeling of Chinese wanting to distance themselves from the Qing.

In addition, several scholars, such as Lu Xun and Dr, Lin Yutang considered the Tang dynasty the beginning of several power struggles with Turks where they had considerable influence and sometimes even holding governmental powers in Northern China. Dr. Yutang even made an argument that it was this very power struggle that allowed China to survive so long as a civilization (One I disagree with).

I know this is a very long post, but I want to add one more thing. S-Kemmitt's comment that Mongols defecated while mounted is offensive, and not true. I am sure there were a few drunk young men that may have tried it, but it was not something done as a general rule. They would and could ride all day and night, sleeping, eating and playing music while mounted, living off the their mounts in some cases. Several untrue tales are told, such as Mongols eating horses or bleeding them dry. No Mongol would ever disrespect a horse like that. Sometimes a bit of blood might be drunk during a long march in inhospitable terrain, but Mongol horses are very hardy and can eat and drink where modern horses would simply die. In addition, bowed instruments, such as the violin, cello and the Chinese Urhu owe their heritage to the Steppe people that made the strings from intestines of animals, the sound board from snakeskin and the bow from horse hair. To this day, most bows are still made of horse hair.

reply