Talk:Nomadic empire

Title, definition, scope

"Horse archer empires" has one single google hit outside wikimedia, in a game discussion forum. the term seems ad hoc coinage. "Nomadic Empires" has 11,000 hits. I suggest we move this. dab (𒁳) 15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see why we need such detailed discussions of each empire here. The Xiongnu Empire should be discussed at Xiongnu Empire; this article should list them, and look at commonalities, not give rehashes of its sub-articles. dab (𒁳) 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I copied pasted much of the examples and when I'll have time I'll considerably shorten it. Nomadic Empires is not exactly correct since there were nomads who erected empires in other regions of the world esp. in Africa. The distinctive of these empires are that all were erected by horseback nomads of the Eurasian steppe. Actually some was not strictly saying horse archers (the Sarmatians), but I don't know any better term. Maybe Eurasian Nomads Empires? Eurasian nomadic Empires? Horse peoples Empires? Horseback Empires? Nik Sage ^{(talk/contrib)} 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

well, we'll have to go with whatever term is current in pertinent literature. We cannot just make up our own terms, even if we think ours is better. Strictly, you'd have to establish that the empires you list are even sufficiently connected to warrant treatment in a single article. All they appear to have in common is that they originate in Central Asian nomadic culture. The only titles in the literature section that appear to indicate a similar scope as that of this article are "The Empire of the Steppes: a History of Central Asia" and *Warriors of the steppe: A military history of Central Asia, 500 B.C. to A.D. 1700.". There will be a lot of overlap between this article and History of Central Asia. We should even consider moving this to "Military history of Central Asia", I'm not sure. In any case, let's try to duplicate as little material as necessary; duplicate material means double rate of article attrition (Wikipedia half-life of quality prose). dab (𒁳) 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many other terms for that subject. Inner Asian, Asian, Central Asian, Eurasian, Eurasian Periphery, Euro-Asian, Steppe and Nomadic are all used with empire to refer to the same thing. Sinor, Di Cosmo, Grousset, Seaman and others all reflect on that and there is no one agreed upon term in the pertinent literature. Grousset uses Steppe Empires. Sinor uses Nomadic Empires and Inner Asian Empires. Seaman sometimes uses Steppe and Nomadic cultures and sometimes Rulers from the Steppe. Khazanov calls it Nomadic States or Eurasian States. Barfield calls it the Imperial Confederacy of the Eurasian Nomads. There is no one conclusive term. It cannot be Military histoy of Central Asia because a lot of it happened in western Asia and eastern Europe (Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, and so on). Steppe Empires sound all right to me. Also Eurasian Steppe Empires Eurasian Nomads Empires and Horse people Empires. There is overlapping because these regions overlap. Steppe Empires have one common feature, all were ruled by Eurasian Steppe nomads, all were on horseback, almost all of them used the bow as their main weapon. Nik Sage ^{(talk/contrib)} 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Any of Nomadic empires, Steppe Empires, Central Asian empires, Inner Asian empires are fine with me. It would be nice if you did a brief overview of these terms in the article, citing who uses which in what sense. dab (𒁳) 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Will do that. I'm leaning to Steppe Empires or to Eurasian nomads Empires. From this two what's better in your opinion. Nik Sage ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest change of title from "Nomadic empires" to Nomadic supremacy. As they did not actually rule that region as mentioned in the article at the beginning. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about Timurid Empire

It seems that the Timurid Empire was focused in the Iranian Plateau,far from the steppe.So can we list it as a Nomadic Empire.Of course it is a empire but not a nomadic one.--Ksyrie 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Split?

Should we split the article, as per current practice? For instance, we still have no article about the Göktürk Khaganate. What's the point of keeping the extensive coverage of this polity hidden from our readers at this low-traffic page? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Manchu

How about the Manchu state? Gantuya eng 15:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike other neighboring tribes, the Manchu were agriculturalists and sedentary. So, no, their state was never "nomadic".201.37.64.244 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, depends when you draw the line, as the Jurchen they would almost certainly be called nomads, but the period of Jin rule over N. China definitely changed things for that culture. So were they full agriculturalists by the time of the Manchu conquest of China? Maybe, but then again, where do you draw the line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.42.121 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unknown origin

It reads:The Xiongnu were a confederation of nomadic tribes from Central Asia with a ruling class of unknown origin and other subjugated tribes. No origin for the rulers and the people has been given. But at the end of the paragraph it reads that they were Turk and Mongol. Clear contradiction. I am going to clear out the last sentence. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Scythians and Cimmerians

Were Scythian and Cimmerian kingdoms empires? How large were these states in size? In List of largest empires nothing mentioned about them. Kingdom and large empire are different. Pazkyle (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a published size for Scythia which was then reverted by this editor Johnbod then reverted it again. On the talk page here Talk:Scythia#Size_of_Scythia_valid_citation_removal I mentioned its removal and again Johnbod removed the size figures again when a issue is disputed you are supposed to leave the original IN PLACE then seek consensus to back up your own argument for permanent removal however this editor Johnbod just flouts the rules on wikipedia ignoring consensus (more than just 1 objection) he just pushes his own point of view on all Scythian related articles. The size of Scythia was presented in a published book from a good source his excuse for removing is the fact that its dated 1832 but rescanned in 2006 you could use the same argument for ignoring information presented in the Bible with his date reasoning the book on google is found here A Grammar of Ancient Geography which is free to download and you will find a size in square miles provided. He quoted "You will not find any modern sources" giving an approximate figure of size at all yet when I asked him to produce sources disputing the figure he simply ignored it again. I may still take take the matter to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard incidents .--Navops47 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that! Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Scythians weren't an empire in the usual sense (see the article), & probably wouldn't count as any form of unified state, though like most things about them, this is not very clear. Depending on the definitions, they covered a very large area as a broad culture, but the kings recorded at the Western end probably had no influence at the Eastern end. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Political history of the Xiongnu better recorded than Scythians. This article contains all kings' name of the Xiongnu. The Xiongnu was an unified and powerful state and the state had about 2 million population and China had 22,000,000 population. My opinion is the first nomadic state was founded by the Scythians and Cimmerians but the first nomadic empire was established by the Xiongnu. Ancient Persians didn't write any clear information whether powerful and unified Scythian empire existed. It can be strong evidence against Scythians. Pazkyle (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Source explicitly stating that Manchus were not nomads

"This is not, however, to excuse modern historians who — most commonly out of a wish to simplify, and less commonly out of real ignorance — confuse Mongols and Manchus to the extent of referring to the early Manchus as 'nomads'.... What is important to note here is that the Qing empire led by the Manchus was not nomadic in economic impulsion, in political organization, or in style. Comprehensive theories of nomadic conquest which attempt to include the Manchus inevitably go rather wrong." (Pamela Crossley, The Manchus, p. 3)

Rajmaan (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Özmiş

In section Uyghurs it reads "It was established by Özmish Khan in 744". Well Özmiş Khagan was not the founder of Uyghur Empire. Just the reverse he was the last Turkic Khagan before, a coalition of Uyghurs, Basmils and Karluks revolted and overthrew the Turkic rule. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No reply from the editor. I fixed it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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:

• East-Hem 800ad.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)