Potemkin wrote:If you simply mean that there was no nation-state called 'Mongolia' before 1911, then I agree with you. There was no such nation-state even in the time of the Mongol Empire. But then, there was no nation-state called 'Turkey' during the time of the Ottoman Empire either. But now there is. Or isn't Turkey 'real' either?
It is the other case. Countries rename themselves everytime. It is only the choice of natives to approve or reject those corrections in their language. I, if we talk about it, prefer the old traditional names. Bombay instead of Mumbai, Burma instead of Myanmar and, um, Kyoln instead of Cologne (thanks God Germans are too civilized and polite to learn me about it). If Ottomans by some reasons (obviously nationalistic) renamed themselves into Turks, well done. The rare example when it became customary, by the way). We can easily understand those Turks are really Ottomans or their sons and grandsons.
The different situation is in Egypt. We can really call those people Egyptians when we talk about the modern politics of Egypt and international relations with Middle East. But it will be an error in the historical discussion, because they are really not Egyptians. They are Arabs. Egyptians live in Egypt up to this date, they are only known by the other name. Arabs did not build the Pyramids, no matter what they say. And Egyptians never converted to Islam.
The situation with Mongolia is even more difficult. The poor country with literally NOTHING, even without the access to the sea, created by foreign powers in their big games. They try to live as they can. With no real history (it is happened nobody built something more or less interesting there before) they start to create the legend about their ancestors - half-legendary nomads who conquered all the world and then by some reasons melted away without a trace for 400-500 years.