🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec30.212324.3001@leland.Stanford.EDU> alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes:
>In article <Dec.27.22.14.52.1992.1477@pilot.njin.net>, hubey@pilot (Hubey) writes:
>>Mogul is a variant of Mongol but in this case it's one of mistaken
>>identity. Moguls were Turkic not Mongol.
>
>Were they?  I was under the impression that they were Persian.
>

They were Turkic.  Of the numerous Muslim dynasties of India, most were
Turkic.  Some, like the Ghaznavids considered the Iranian culture to be
superior and used Persian as the court language.  I believe Mahmud
Ghaznavid was the first Turkic ruler to capture and rule Delhi.  The
Shahs of Kharezm also captured parts of the territory when Jalal-ad-din
was attacked by Jenghiz Khan.  He found refuge with the Sultan of Delhi,
Iltutmish.  The region was later attacked by the by-then-Turkicized
Khanate of Jagatai, and Kebek Khan laid waste to Punjab.  Then comes
Tamerlane, also Turkic of the Barlas clan, although he claimed kinship
by way of marriage to the Jenghiz dynasty.  It is the Timurid line that
Baber is descended from.  The Timurid line had a Turko-Persian cultural
revival.  Baber first ruled over the Iranicized Samarkand before ruling
India, and first collaborated with the Iranian Shahs but it was in
Jagatai Turkic that he wrote his memoirs.  

regards,