Talk:Alimqul

Category:Monarchs of Uzbekistan

 * "Monarch of Uzbekistan" -Llc 0
 * "Uzbekistan Monarch" -Llc 0

I think the "Monarchs of Uzbekistan" is wrong concept.

And amirs of the Timur dynasty were not ethnic Uzbeks. So we cannot use Uzbek monarch for them. Takabeg (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Then we can also remove Monarchs of Persia from Timur, according to your logic, he was not an ethnic Persian and he also did not rule Persia but the Timurid empire, a country named Persia did not exist in his time.

This is not about etnicity. This is about a ruler who has ruled the area that is now present day Uzbekistan. Just like the category Category:Monarchs of Persia is for rulers who ruled the area of what was known as Persia sometimes in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, but at least the term "Persia" was used for the region of today's Iran (and its vicinity) for millennia, both before and after Tamerlane. E.g., it's all over the Fra Mauro map (ca. 1450), and it is commonly used to describe that region in that era in modern literature. "Uzbekistan", on the other hand, is a fairly modern term (i.e., post 1920). Older literature would talk about "Turkestan" in general, or about "Samarkand", "Bukhara", "Khiva", "Kokand" (sp?) as the case may be; it would be unusual for a modern historian to use the term while describing events in Alimqul's era (or at any time before the formation of the first "Uzbekistan" republic or oblast in the early USSR). So to anyone who's read any historical literature on the region at all, the very expression, "Monarch of Uzbekistan" would have a ridiculously anachronistic sound to it.  -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)