U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-30-2019, 03:26 PM
 
806 posts, read 483,822 times
Reputation: 754

Advertisements

I've read that a substantial number of people alive today have genes passed down from Genghis Khan, but I never could figure out why. As far as I know he was monogamous until his first wife Borte died, and his military career didn't even start until he's in his forties. In fact he had only four sons when he died if I remember correctly, and one of them may not even be his. So my question is, did he sow a ton of wild oats in his younger days that history failed to record, or were his sons and grandsons ridiculously fecund? If that's the case which ones?

I also wondered about Charlemagne as well. How is it possible for any individual to leave a detectable genetic trace in humanity unless there was an apocalyptic event wiped out 99% of the area's population?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2019, 05:52 PM
 
4,515 posts, read 2,938,164 times
Reputation: 5420
I realize anybody can edit Wikipedia, but from the Genghis Khan page:

As previously arranged by his father, Temüjin married Börte of the Onggirat tribe in order to cement alliances between their two tribes. Soon after the marriage, Börte was kidnapped by the Merkits and reportedly given away as a wife. Temüjin rescued her with the help of his friend and future rival, Jamukha, and his protector, Toghrul of the Keraite tribe. She gave birth to a son, Jochi (1182–1227), nine months later, clouding the issue of his parentage. Despite speculation over Jochi, Börte would be Temüjin's only empress, though he did follow tradition by taking several morganatic wives.

Börte had three more sons, Chagatai (1183–1242), Ögedei (1186–1241), and Tolui (1191–1232). Genghis later took about 500 secondary wives and "consorts", but Börte continued to be his life companion. He had many other children with those other wives, but they were excluded from succession, only Börte's sons being considered to be his heirs. However, a Tatar woman named Yisui, taken as a wife when her people were conquered by the Mongols, eventually came to be given almost as much prominence as Börte, despite originally being only one of his minor wives. The names of at least six daughters are known, and while they played significant roles behind the scenes during his lifetime, no documents have survived that definitively provide the number or names of daughters born to the consorts of Genghis Khan.


I'm no rocket scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, and I would guess having "500 secondary wives" is the main reason his DNA is everywhere, just sayin'!

Even if he just had one child with each of the secondary wives, there's 500 more kids right there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2019, 05:59 PM
 
1,794 posts, read 648,172 times
Reputation: 3382
my uncle's wife was directly linked to the Khans.
well, according to the research (before computers).
she was strikingly beautiful. a slightly overweight super-model (in my 11-year-old-eyes).
my uncle was a lucky man. their daughter is my best-looking cousin if you believe my sisters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2019, 09:22 PM
 
11,020 posts, read 5,346,210 times
Reputation: 7532
I read 1/16 of the population has his gene. Not sure if I remember it right or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2019, 04:21 PM
 
806 posts, read 483,822 times
Reputation: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjseliga View Post
I realize anybody can edit Wikipedia, but from the Genghis Khan page:

As previously arranged by his father, Temüjin married Börte of the Onggirat tribe in order to cement alliances between their two tribes. Soon after the marriage, Börte was kidnapped by the Merkits and reportedly given away as a wife. Temüjin rescued her with the help of his friend and future rival, Jamukha, and his protector, Toghrul of the Keraite tribe. She gave birth to a son, Jochi (1182–1227), nine months later, clouding the issue of his parentage. Despite speculation over Jochi, Börte would be Temüjin's only empress, though he did follow tradition by taking several morganatic wives.

Börte had three more sons, Chagatai (1183–1242), Ögedei (1186–1241), and Tolui (1191–1232). Genghis later took about 500 secondary wives and "consorts", but Börte continued to be his life companion. He had many other children with those other wives, but they were excluded from succession, only Börte's sons being considered to be his heirs. However, a Tatar woman named Yisui, taken as a wife when her people were conquered by the Mongols, eventually came to be given almost as much prominence as Börte, despite originally being only one of his minor wives. The names of at least six daughters are known, and while they played significant roles behind the scenes during his lifetime, no documents have survived that definitively provide the number or names of daughters born to the consorts of Genghis Khan.


I'm no rocket scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, and I would guess having "500 secondary wives" is the main reason his DNA is everywhere, just sayin'!

Even if he just had one child with each of the secondary wives, there's 500 more kids right there.
500 progeny might be impressive if you're a humpback whale, but doesn't sound like it would be enough for your genes to be everywhere in a species as numerous as ours. Then maybe there are other prolific individuals, itinerant merchants like Marco Polo whose genes are even more widespread but we just didn't test for their contributions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2019, 05:16 PM
 
4,515 posts, read 2,938,164 times
Reputation: 5420
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky View Post
500 progeny might be impressive if you're a humpback whale, but doesn't sound like it would be enough for your genes to be everywhere in a species as numerous as ours. Then maybe there are other prolific individuals, itinerant merchants like Marco Polo whose genes are even more widespread but we just didn't test for their contributions.
You have to think back to the 1100's and 1200's and how many people were there back then? 500 offspring might be a conservative estimate, maybe Genghis had 2,000 or more children, then think about how many kids his children had and so on. I always heard stories of him having a "ton" of offspring not just 4!

Being a scientist, there is term called fitness and it goes from 0 to 1. If you have no offspring, then your fitness is 0, the person whoever had the most offspring ever and their offspring continued to reproduce and so on and so forth and continue to this day would theoretically have a fitness of 1 and everyone else would be in between. I could see Genghis having one of those high "fitness" numbers in the history of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2019, 06:47 PM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
1,934 posts, read 703,038 times
Reputation: 10718
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky View Post
500 progeny might be impressive if you're a humpback whale, but doesn't sound like it would be enough for your genes to be everywhere in a species as numerous as ours. Then maybe there are other prolific individuals, itinerant merchants like Marco Polo whose genes are even more widespread but we just didn't test for their contributions.
500? Pffft. It would take a lot less than that.

Let's say Khan had a mere three children who survived to adulthood, and let's peg 1200 as the average year of birth of Khan's issue. Let's say that they each produced, on average, 2.5 offspring that lived to adulthood. And let's say that thirty years is the average general gap. By the year 2010, Khan would have roughly 66 billion living descendants. Of course, that's not possible since there's only about 8 billion people. This is because most of his descendants would be descended from him in numerous paths.

It takes a fairly small imprint on a gene pool to ripple dramatically through it over two dozen generations later. They key is sowing one's seed far and wide. If that can be accomplished, the years do the rest.

It's just math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 09:13 AM
 
806 posts, read 483,822 times
Reputation: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856 View Post
500? Pffft. It would take a lot less than that.

Let's say Khan had a mere three children who survived to adulthood, and let's peg 1200 as the average year of birth of Khan's issue. Let's say that they each produced, on average, 2.5 offspring that lived to adulthood. And let's say that thirty years is the average general gap. By the year 2010, Khan would have roughly 66 billion living descendants. Of course, that's not possible since there's only about 8 billion people. This is because most of his descendants would be descended from him in numerous paths.

It takes a fairly small imprint on a gene pool to ripple dramatically through it over two dozen generations later. They key is sowing one's seed far and wide. If that can be accomplished, the years do the rest.

It's just math.
Are you taking death into account in your calculation? But yeah I can see that these things can add up.
However the same math would work in favor of other, historically unknown individuals. Maybe it just isn't that hard to create ripples in the gene pool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:59 AM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
6,826 posts, read 4,357,220 times
Reputation: 15209
It's possible that descending directly from Khan conferred upon his children a measure of wealth and power that gave them an advantage over many other people of that age and that culture - better food, better health, greater survivability. This would make his DNA more likely to survive through at least the first few generations, although there's no way to assign a mathematical probability to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top