Timurid or Mogul

Should we read about all the historical instances or even try to learn history if the context stands to be ignored? 

A logical context relatively is supposed to create perspectives through the region of the environment and of course the witnesses.

The Mughals did not really call themselves as Timurids. They referred to their own dynasty as Gurkaniyan. 

Terms like Timurid and Gurkani are used by historians when referring to the House of Timur. Gurkani is the Latin take on the word.  

The Mughals stressed their Timurid descent and not their Mongol descendants. This is taken up because Changiz Khan's memory was said to have been linked with the massacre of innumerable people.

They prided themselves on the fact that Timur had captured Delhi in 1398.

Babarnama stands apart as the testimony of this very debatable matter. 

It all begins with the name itself. They have always been addressed as Mughals, but did they ever address themselves as so?  

In the Turkish autobiography Babarnama, Babur tried to ensure a distinction between Timuri and Moghal. 

He founded a Taimuri Gūrkāniyān Sultanate historically. 

Babur has according to historians used terms like ‘Mughal, Moghal, and Mogal’ above 400 times in the Babarnama, thereby specifying an apparent distinction. 

Does he not keep the worst opinion of the Mughal clan factually? 

Timur was in the tenth generation while Chengis was in the fifth generation. 

Babur’s ancestors were differentiated from the classical Mongols as they were oriented and tilted towards Persian rather than the Turkish-Mongol culture, as stated. 

British historian John Joseph Saunders writes that Timur was the product of an Islamised and Iranian society and not steppe nomadic Mongols.