Talk:Mongol Empire

Use References

Use references. Good article, but text within the article needs citation. KyuuA4 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Death toll

In the year 1000 the entire world population was 310 000 000.

In the year 1750 the entire world population was 791 000 000. Asia at this time had 502 000 000.

Genghis Kahn and alike was set during 1200. Now, if we use the 1750 population figures, Mongolians killed off 5% of the entire world population (40 million killed)? But the 1200 population figure, the death toll would have been nearly doubled, like 8%. So the death toll in comparisons killed WAY more than world war one and two combined totals. That's goddamn amazing...

-G

Excellent point, the US Census Bureau lists the world population in 1200 at around 400 million with a large population increase in 1250 and big drop in 1300 (black plague?). 40 million is an absurd number which can only be accepted if you blame the Mongols for the black plague. [1]

-Mirmillo

Thanks for all of you who participated in this topic

It was really appreciated. ~~

Me too. You've helped me understand more about my ancestor.80.195.94.103 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for how the article can be expanded

Someone, I think it would be appropriate to discuss how it was possible to conquer such a land. I think Mongold invaded surrounding areas and villages when their trade network was interrupted.

Well, their push to Europe does not seem to be justified by disruption of their trade network. It looks like simple greed - conquer and plunder.

So it was more trade and system driven invasion, not just wandering around trying to take a lot of land as possible. I think there should be contrast with other empires like the Roman Empire.

Keep in mind that Roman empire existed for 350-400 years and survived through numerous rules. If you count Byzantine Empire, it existed for almost 1500 years. Mongol empire split apart soon after Genghis Khan's death. It is not clear what your favorable comparison is based on. Also keep in mind that Mongol Empire was created about 1250 years later than Roman empire. That means different world population, population density, different technolgy.

It would be good to outline the intention of the Empire. Mongol empire was not over-stretched and the Khanates had very strong control over their areas. Genghis social and economic system worked extremely well in terms of governing different areas, e.g. he would put one general in control of extremely large areas. The reason and rationale aspect of the empire would be good. Thanks for listening.

You can't possibly know the intentions of Mongol rules. And I am not sure your theory is based on facts. Individual khanates pretty quickly fell under influence of other empires (Russian empire, Ottoman empire) or transformed into regular mono-national states. In Europe they were gone by 1550. --Gene s 05:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article needs a proper intro

The article has improved much, but it's very bottom heavy - it has practically no intro. There should be a rounded 1-3 paragraph intro that tells the story of the whole article, for those who don't want to get into details to find out the basics. --Zocky 14:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jack Weatherford's bio of Genhis Khan

I don't know if any of you have seen Jack Weatherford's 2004 biography of Genhis Khan. It does a nice job of tracing the legacy of the empire, and, I think, makes a good case for a reevaluation. There is more there than ravening hoardes. If I can get a chance, I'll try to work some of this into the article. --Mwanner 01:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it is not just 'ravening hordes', but the article seems to lean the other way. Is the image of a highly ruthless invader who massacred millions totally incorrect (even if it's politically incorrect!), and if it is, could some refutation of this point of view be included. As it stands, the Mongol Empire looks like all sweetness and light. --Bathrobe 23:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Area of empire

There is a particular idiot, and a very bigoted one at that, who needs to do a little more thinking and work, if that is at all possible for one of his intellectual prowesses [sarcastically] which [rolling eyes now] are insurmountably imprudent and impudent. He, or it may even be a she, regardless of the sex, needs to fathom [sighing] that fact taht the British empire, while not a contiguous continental empire, was indeed the world's largest empire at 14 million sq. miles [36 million sq. kilometres], this is common knowledge available from just about anywhere. The Mongol Empire, far smaller and much more volatile, was at a mere 11 million square miles [30 million sq. kilometres], this too, is common information. You may receive this sort of information from all over the internet, encyclopedias [kingfisher, dorling kindersley, britannica, etc.], books, almanacs, and the like. Perhaps, before that person reverses the British Empire and Mongol Empire pages back to the stupidity of his bigotry, he might consider his idiocy and actually do some RESEARCH. [oh! The idea!] If time will allow me to continue, which it does not, visual confirmation or comparison I should say of the two empires will reveal [to that idiot's utter consternation I am sure] that the true champion is the British Empire. Thank you for your time and patience. Vale!

Please refrain from personal attacks. --Guettarda 23:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not praising white people for all their great accomplishments is pretty biggoted. White man can't get a break! --Kyle543 04:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I feel most discussion on the respective size of the Mongol and British empires a bit pointless. Surely any figure on the size of the territory controlled by the Mongols is an estimate. Every map you see of the Mongol Empire has a vaguely straight line from the Pacific through Siberia to European Russia. Am i the only one to think this is just a wild guess? I have never seen any evidence whatsoever for the northern limit of Mongol control. And what marks out a place as being part of the Mongol Empire? The recognition the Great Khan as overlord? The payment of tribute? Or the existence of Mongol garrisons? People seem to want to deal in absolutes rather than accepting that in the 13th century there were many grey areas. Mongol control outside China was not based on a systematic bureaucratic tradition but on personal authority, tribal loyalties and the threat of military force. --SRP 15:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've read estimations of an empire's size and the problem in the West is that the historians and cartographers who draw an empire's size at least from an English speaker's point of view are usually Anglo and European. Hence, when drawing the maps, there is a bit of nationalism involved. If you look at what most European historians and how they draw the mongol empire's map, the historians exclude the northern reaches of current day asia. I don't know why, but if you really think about it no one back then and no one today lives in the northern wintry lands in Asia. However, without a doubt the Mongols ruled everthing in Central eurasia including the northern reaches - there was no one populating that area except them. However, when they draw the maps for the British and Soviet empires, they include the nortern reaches of Asia or Canada (ie greenland), although no one lives there still. However, oddly or not oddly enough that is used in their estimations of size of the european empires. Further, British empire maps are exaggerated as most of the countries included in the maps in the 1920's includes countries that actually were somewhat autonomous and not part of the empire. The mongols actually had a stranglehold on eurasia all the way to Russia - most people either submitted or were decimated like the Persian Khwarzaim. Thus, using these interesting methods, the Mongol empire is less in size than the European empires. Steelhead 04:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Empires of the Mongol period controlled people rather than territory- asking whether northern Siberia was in the Mongol empire is asking the wrong question. Mark¹ 04:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a very bizarre statement. First of all, the Mongol empire destroyed most of the armies that belonged to the empires around the areas in question. Hence, once you become the only power in the area, you control the territory and the people. Secondly, once you control a people, you control the land that they live on. by your statement, no empire in history ever controlled any land since most empires in history only controlled the people that lived on the land and not the land itself. Regardless, you haven't answered the question - don't you think it's odd that the size of the Mongol empire in most western texts is displayed in a limited fashion as it regards to its northern borders (the arctic regions) whereas the british empire includes all the territories of canada including the far arctic regions in which no one lived in? Steelhead 16:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Area of empire, again

It stretched from southeast Asia to eastern Europe
and covered more than 35 million square kilometers
(13.8 million square miles); compared to the 36 million
square kilometers (14 million square miles)
of the British Empire, the world's largest empire.

I am removing this above paragraph from the intro paragraph and replacing it with:

It stretched from southeast Asia to eastern Europe
and was the largest contiguous land empire in history.

The earlier paragraph could be restored with a citation and a few changes. My concerns, which are added to some of the concerns already voiced above by others:

There is no citation for this statistic. This is problematic because the borders of the Mongol Empire (and to a lesser extent, the British Empire), were not clearly defined, especially by modern standards, and thus it is possible for historians to get different numbers for the size of the Mongol Empire. Even if a citation were given, it should probably read, "According to X..." rather than stating it outright, because again, different historians can get different figures for area.

Furthermore, the phrase "the world's largest empire" is problematic. The British Empire was certainly the most widespread empire, in the sense of covering a more widely dispersed geographical area, while the Mongol Empire was certainly the largest contiguous empire. Which empire was larger depends on the calculation of area, which as I mentioned above is not exact. --—Lowellian (talk) 07:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the claim of being the 'largest ever' to then being the largest ever. As said, it 'largest ever' either needs to be qualified by 'continuous', or try to say 'largest proportion of the known world' (I don't think the Mongols knew about the Australian and Antartic continents, even if there is evidence for them knowing about North America). Lovingboth 11:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

More significant problems

Seems to me that this article breaks down in the Disintegration section. First, if the empire "reached its greatest extent under Kublai with his conquest of China" as the article on Kublai has it, does it make sense to start the Disintegration section before his time? And the writing from this point on needs work, and possibly better coordination with the Kublai article. Also, it is my impression that the legacy of the Mongols is considerably understated by the final section. Finally, the 40 million figure for the death toll needs some hedging, no? I will see if I can work on it, but I need to get my hands on a book that I no longer seem to have (sigh). --Mwanner 16:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The Disintegration section needs to be integrated somehow with the After Gengis section above it, which covers part of the same period. The result is a discontinuity in the description: first it appears to be expanding healthily, then it is disintegrating. Also the section on the Mongol military is already well covered on the Mongols page. — RJH 21:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've cleared up all the problems with the Disintegration section - but I hope I've mostly dealt with the discontinuity with the After Genghis section. --PWilkinson 23:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Torture and humiliation

The text says:"outlawed all forms of torture and humiliation in the empire." I am afraid there is something wrong with this claim. I don't know details about torture, but it is well-known any rebellions were swiftly and ruthlessly crushed by total extermination. Also, death was punishment for even minor offenses, according to Yassa. Can it be that "no torture" clause was applicable only to the "masters", i.e., mongols themselves, or to what is called now "civil cases", or else? The original phrase as it stands is simply unbelievable for these times. --Mikkalai 01:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This torture specifically applies to administrative torture and any type of torture authorized by Genghis Khan in terms of government. Simply killing and torture is totally different topics.

Recursive bow

At the end of the "Disintegration" section, there is a comment on the recursive bow. I'm not sure that it belongs in that section, and it needs to be clarified. While the recursive bow is similar to the longbow in that both were bows which profoundly changed military affairs and gave distinct advantages to the militaries that employed them, they were completely different bows in their design. --69.245.192.52 05:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a small point: it is a 'recurved bow', not a recursive bow. A bow utilising recursion in its design would be a strange sight indeed! --maru 00:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Text from a Korean history website

Ghengis Khan was affected by several Uyghurs, Khitans and Han Chinese, including his Prime Minister Yelü Chutsai (耶律楚材), a former Jin Dynasty governer and a offspring of a Liao Dynasty emperior who explained the importance of tax which payed by Han Chinese at the form of silver, silk and rice, and Qiu Chuji (丘处机), one of the leader of a Taoism branch who was invited by Ghengis Khan for teaching the knowledge of long life. They "civilized" Mongolian to evolve their written language, religion and government. However, Mongolians were so influenced by Chinese culture that "During the 13th and early 14th century, Chinese was the script of choice for writing important Mongolian documents. Mongolians used a modified set of some 500 characters from Early Mandarin Chinese to render the proper pronunciation of words. Perhaps the most important Mongolian document written with Chinese characters is the Secret History of the Mongols. Among the many challenges faced by scholars in deciphering this text was the problem that words were used which appeared nowhere else, not even in the famous Barbarian Glossaries, Chinese dictionaries of the Middle Ages that dealt with a number of Central and Northeast Asian languages. It is interesting to note that using Chinese characters to write Mongolian meant that messages encoded in this system were obscure to a Chinese messenger, yet perfectly understandable to a Mongolian listener."[2]

I think it is widely believed that the Secret History was written originally in (Uigur) Mongolian script and the one that is found is written in Chinese from the mouth of someone reading the original. Temur (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference from the Yuan Dynasty entry

Reference from Yuan Dynasty might be helpful. --Fangyuan1st 07:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance writing paper

I am darrell from the chinese high school in singapore and i would like to ask if there is there anyone who could assist me on writing a research paper on this topic? you can e-mail or add me to msn messenger at david.beckham22@gmail.com. your help will be greatly appreciated. thanks

Darrell, my friend, try writing the paper yourself. You might learn something!

How Mongols transformed to Tatars?

How Mongols transformed to Tatars and lost their language but not their nomadic lifestyle? How could it happened? Calmouk 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tribes : Mongol Empire were not with only Mongols

its very important i think

From the tribes to the Kurultai, Mongol Empire were not only with Mongol tribes, many people in the mongol army and its empire( its thought to be 75%) were Turkic(Sakha, Tatar,Chatai, Chuvas, Kyrgız, Kazak, Kipchak and others)

i think it must be seen in the Mongol Empire page of wiki, and specially in the military part of the page

and its written in here http://www.ignca.nic.in/ls_03011.htm we cant classify Nomadism in Asia with only one race, Turks are the highest number of people in Mongol Empire

As we know many conquirors and Khans were also Turkic in the empire.. --hakozen 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tatars, that is the tribe that was absorbed by Temujin relatively early in his career, are not the Turkic Tatars of today, the name having been extended to many peoples not originally included under the moniker. However for the others, especially the Kyrgiz, Kazak, and (most prominently) Kipchak, this is absolutely true and needs some explanation. I would suggest, however, that this be incorporated in a general explanation of different tribes and ethnic groupds, rather than focussing so intently on "Turkic" groups. siafu 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, the page should be check and hand

Incorrect slightly off new map

I think the area covered in red to depict Mongol empire is kind a smaller. If you look at other maps in Genghis Khan, it seems little off, especially the Kamchatka area and north western area above japan and close to korea.

Kamchatka is not included in the Mongol Empire in any of the maps, your objection there isn't making sense. Are you referring to Manchuria? siafu 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the little hook on the east coast. That empty area is conquered in other maps 71.196.154.224 01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the map using the few maps i could find on the internet and had to use a little estimation since all maps are in slightly different proportions. The map however was made as a base for others to edit, and was mainly made to replace the old map which did not match others on Wikipedia. please modify it 09:52 22 March 2006 (NinjaKid)

Its a good map. A really good map. but it does need some kind of citations on what it was based. You should specify on what "information off the internet" it was based on. if you do that, its a keeper, but if not I'm sure it will attract problems of people saying it's unsourced. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean

"The notion that the Mongol Empire was tremendously destructive should be viewed with caution-establishing it was exceptionally so, ruling it less than most contemporary states." This looks like a combination of two sentences done in an edit, but I don't see how it makes sense Jztinfinity 05:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Area of Empire revisited

Regardless of various nationalisms, the claim that the Mongol Empire had an area of some 40 million km² is absurd since the entire continent of Asia, which includes sizeable territories never ruled by the Mongols, covers anywhere from 44,309,978 km² (Wikipedia) to 44,936,000 km² Encarta). 203.167.67.208 03:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

But the Mongols didn't rule only Asia - they also owned substantial parts of Europe... remember that Asia ends at the Ural mountains. Esn 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

MAP

The map excludes taiwan, which was conquered by the mongols to prevent a safe harbor for the imperialists. [source]--Don Quijote's Sancho 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Taiwan says that "In 1292, Kublai Khan of Yuan Dynasty tried to force minorities in Yizhou (夷州) to pay tribute." which implies that it was unsuccessful at conquering taiwan? --Astrokey44 11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tumen vs. Touman

According to this article, a division of 10,000 men is called a tumen. With my limited resources, namely The Encyclopedia of Military History, it spells it touman. Which is the more accepted spelling? --Narfil Palùrfalas 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

THe Wikipedia article and Google hits say tumen, but the OED says toman and lists tumen as an alternative spelling. --maru (talk) contribs 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Tumen would be correct in modern Mongolian. Temur (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seaborne trade vs. land-based trade

Under Trade networks, somebody made the claim that the Mongols not only did not have much of an effect on seaborne trade, but that seaborne trade was much bigger in terms of volume and value than landbased trade. Now, this doesn't sound implausible or anything to me, but by all accounts a LOT of stuff was going through the overland routes, especially in Central Asia. Could we get a cite?

Koryo as part of Mongol Empire

As a Korean guy who was taught of Korean history in Korean middle school, I was taught that even though Koryo's royal court had surrendered to Mongol Empire, and became the tributary state to Mongol Empire, Koryo retained its independent governance at the price of being royal son-in-law state of Mongol royal court. So does that make Koryo as a part of Mongol Empire even though it had its own King and government? It sure was much different from what China had gone through at that time. China didn't have their own King or Emperor, Han chinese were colonized by Mongol Empire so Chinese state didn't exist during the period of Mongol rule. However, Koryo retained its own royal court even after the fall of Mongol Empire and had retained its lineage since its foundation until the rise of Chosun dynasty. If Koryo was a part of Mongol Empire, it doesn't make sense, does it? Or is it the same case for the most of other nations at that time? Please enlighten me with the detailed history of Eastern Europe and Arab regions at that time, because I am not sure whether other parts of Mongol empire were allowed to have their own King and retain its own governance at the price of being royal son-in-law state or just being colonized without their own government.

Isn't Chosun much earlier dynasty? Temur (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can say Han Chinese were colonized by Mongol before Kublai Khan's reign. When Kublai Khan founded the Yuan Dynasty, Kublai Khan (and his successors) was officially the emperor of Yuan China, although not ethnic Chinese. But anyway, according to the traditional Chinese ideology, anyone who attains the "Mandate of Heaven" can rule as the emperor. And Kublai did claim that and ruled as Emperor of China, so China at this time had emperors, although not native ones. As for Koryo, the things were very different. Korea became an independent country long time ago, but it was also an tributary state of China for a long time until the end of the 19th century. In this aspect, although Korea was an independent state, it was also a subordinate of the Celestial Empire according to the traditional values, at least nominally. Kublai, like native emperors of China, didn't attempt to annihilate Koryo, but instead just requested the Koryo/Korea to be a subordinate and pay tributes. So Koryo still had its own kings. This was kind of similar to what happened to Korea when Manchu Qing Dynasty was established in northeast China.--207.112.51.98 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongolocentrism it's not doing any good

This article made me create an wiki account because it's biased and with many errors. Mongols raided Central Europe but did not conquered it. They did not raided Kievan Rus in the first campaign but the cumans. There are other errors also. They used old things as composite bow, horse archers and most tactics they used were old. The new things should be emphasized more: winter campaigns, good espionage, chase of enemy leaders, targeting first other nomads, division of force and extremly high speed of the vanguard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosmic (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

---

Empire Picture

I think that the first picture in the page is too large, and should be made to a smaller size. It is too large and dosent look well with the text.--BatzMonkey 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

Shouldn't this section at least mention the more positive and important view on what affect the Mongol Empire had on world, espiecially European, civilisation put forward in Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World for example? --Joey Roe ^talk/contrib 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mongols didn't do anything. They just set Europe back a couple decades.

-G

Sorry no headline.

"At the empires peek it resembled Kyles Dick in size, shape and density."

Somebody remove this please.

have more information

History Channels wonderful program about them

The History channeled showed an interesting program years ago called The Mongol Hordes. This is what I remember from it.

Wore a silk shirt for armor, so that any arrow that hit them could be easily removed, the barb not able to gouge out flesh. Arrows did more damage when you tried to remove them normally. They also wore a metal disc over the shirt in the front, for additional armor I believe.

They spent most of their daily lives on their horses, riding about socializing with each other and whatnot all day. Some even suggested they were part horse, centaurs, since you never saw them apart. They would cook meat under the warmth of their saddles.

They dominated in battle because of their cavalry archers. I think that is important to mention. Most of their enemies fought on foot, and with melee weapons. So, they fired arrows at them, and if any got close enough to attack back, they'd just ride off a bit, letting them chase them until they were exhausted, then turn and fire some more arrows at them. I see this artical currently mentions they used lances, and that playing an important part of their victory somehow. I'd like some sources for that information, since it seems to me its best to just keep shooting your enemy from a safe distance, your bows strong enough to penetrate anything they had.

The History Channel mentioned how their leaders would blend in with the rest of them in the battle, not standing out at all for their enemy to be able to target. They'd also lure out their enemy whenever possible, then flank them, attacking from all around.

When they were conquering Europe, the Roman Catholic Church declared it armaggedon, the end of the world, the devil's horsemen destroying them all.

When conquering a city, they'd only slaughter everyone there if they resisted. Everyone but a few that would be kept alive, and sent on horseback to all the other cities in the area, to warn of what happened to any who resisted. In this manner, they didn't have to fight, most cities having the sense to just surrender early on. They'd kill anyone who was sent out to try to negotiate with them.

They drove their herds of livestock with them as they traveled.

Even today, the people of the Step, have bags of dirt with them, that they toss across ice, so their horses can cross without problems. They drink fermented mare's milk for their choice of alcoholic beverages.

The bows they used were introduced from trade with the Ayserians I believe, who they traded with, they needing a lot of horses in their empire, getting it from the mongols. They'd have little wood on the Step, so would make composite bows of other materials.

Thats all I remember from the program. It was several episodes, each two hours long I believe.

Oh, and they lived in silk tents. Even after conquering cities, they built an area of silk tents for their people to live in, so they wouldn't loose their ways.

Hope someone can use all of that to improve the artical. Dream Focus 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but some of that are popular myths, some is blatant nonsense, and the little that remains is already mentioned in related articles. You shouldn't rely on TV documentaries about such topics. There may be exceptions, but most of them are horribly researched. --Latebird 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most of this stuff is just wrong. The part about relying on horse archers is true, but they did not get their bow design from the "Ayserians" (Assyrians?). The Mongol bow is similar enough to the Hun bow to make it pretty clear that this design was developed in central Asia. siafu 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias in "Areas that avoided conquest"

"The point is that the Mongols were unable to bring a unified army to bear on either Europe, or Egypt, after 1260. Bluntly, had the Mongol Great Khanate remained intact, and not fallen apart due to infighting between the various cousins, the European powers and the Mamluke Sultanate would have either surrendered to the authority of the Great Khan, or more likely, been conquered and razed."

Is it the Chinese Government that's writing this article? This is entirely theoretical opinion and therefore I am removing it. Wikipedia articles are not racial superiority contests or "what if" discussions, they need to be fact-based. 71.234.96.121 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this isn't the only part of this section of the article that needs to be rewritten, the fact that the passage contains "probably" and "if" in it several times points to that fact. Once again, this is not an article on theoretical history. 71.234.96.121 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

I notice that in the section Law and Governance, the fact that the Mongols wiped out entire cities is added almost as an afterthought.

"At the same time, any resistance to Mongol rule was met with massive collective punishment. Cities were destroyed and their inhabitants slaughtered if they defied Mongol orders." That's it. That is the entire description of any negative aspects to Mongol rule in the entire section. I'm not saying we should perpetuate the stereotype of the Mongols as bloodthirsty savages, but this to me seems too unbalanced in the sort of "Weren't the Mongols wonderful, they had law and order and meritocracy and all sorts of good things" direction.

Maybe I'm just taking it the wrong way. What do others think? WikiReaderer 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that information belongs into this section at all. Law and governance within a state is a seperate topic from the methods used to fight its enemies (whatever the reasons for such a fight might be). Instead, information about combat related victims belongs into a section (or seperate articles) about the conquests that established the empire. --Latebird 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Shadowcry1000 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)How come Christianity is given a prominent subsection as opposed to the other two religions which had a greater impact on the Mongol way of life then Christianity????

Because people were willing to spend time and effort finding sources and writing something about it, instead of just complaining. --Latebird (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Organization

The organization of this article is a total mess. It ought to describe the reigns of the different khans in rough chronological order, including descriptions of the individual military campaigns, rather than the current weird topical organization. Then it can go on and describe the histories of each of the major divisions. john k (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This article and the one about Genghis Khan are in a constantly bad shape. If you want to do anything about it, please do. I somehow lack the enthusiasm. Yaan (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Technological Achievements?

The statement "The Mongol Empire is also responsible for many technological achievements that are in wide use today." lacks any facts or examples, except for the adjoining, sourceless claim: "In addition, they discovered a unique way to increase the population of fish in a given body of water.". I would recommend the first statement be removed until it is substantiated.

Viet

The article currently gives the impression that the Mongols destroyed the Kingdom, while History of Vietnam gives the impression that they only suffered defeats (I am assuming that Viet and Dai Viet are just two different terms for the same state?). Which one is correct? Yaan (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Khagan

It's true that the Mongol Empire was ONCE joined by a Great Khan (or Khagan). The five Great Khan are (in order): Genghis Khan, Ögedei Khan, Guyuk Khan, Mongke Khan, and Kublai Khan, who was the last Great Khan. During Kublai Khan's reign (actually from the beginning at 1260), the Mongol Empire was already in the processing of splitting, with only Ilkhanate recognizing Kublai Khan as the Great Khan, whereas all other khanates (Chagatai Khanate and Golden Hord) didn't recognize and even fought again him. When Kublai Khan died, and no more accepted Great Khan existed, all khanates (including lkhanate) were formally splitted up, as explained in the main article. Even Kublai Khan's successors didn't attempt to sommon the kurultai to claim the title of Khagan, but ruled as emperor of the Yuan Dynasty instead. So by this time Mongol Empire was fragmented and indeed existed in theory only.--128.100.109.52 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that one Ilkhan tried to gain approval from the successor of Khubilai, and got it. I will try to look up sources, but it will take some days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaan (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw. how do I have to imagine the formal split of the empire? Did Khubilai or his successor send documents to each of the other Khans and released them to independence? Yaan (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't say if one Ilkhan indeed tried to gain approval and got it (please try to look up sources if you can), but if it was really the case, then the only possibility seems to be Baydu, who however only ruled Ilkhante for only 4-5 months in 1295, and was executed on the same year. The khan before Baydu was Gaykhatu, who ruled from 1291 to 1295, so he had no need to get any approval from the successor of Kublai. Gaykhatu even tried to introduce paper money to Ilkhante, but was a complete failure and disaster, and he himself was assassinated shortly after. The khan after Baydu was Ghazan, who managed to take power after a civil war in 1295 and executed Baydu. He reorganized the khanate and actively converted the entire country to Islam, and prosecuted all other faiths as soon as he got power from the civil war. He obviously did not try to get approval from the successor of Khubilai.

As for the formal split of the empire, it can happen in several ways. For example: separate king for each kingdom, and no "overlord" who can join them together exists. Even in the case of personal union, these entities are considered separate and sovereign states. With each khan for each khanate, and the a absence of a great khan after Kublai ("the last great khan"), the empire was formally and permanently splitted. Consider the example of Roman Empire. It was divided into Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire in 286. However, the Roman Empire was not permanently splitted until Theodosius I, the last Roman Emperor who ruled over a unified Roman Empire, died in 395. After 395, both the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire are considered independent from each other, since they were not joined together by an "overlord". The Mongol Empire was kind of similar in this aspect, as explained above.--128.100.109.22 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I will look up the bit on the Ilkhans, but I think the wording in "By the time of Kublai Khan's death, the Mongol Empire was formally splitted into four separate khanates." is rather misleading. I think what you mean is that the empire had already de facto split up. What it sounds like is that, upon Khubilai's death, someone released the other Khanates into independence, or that they declared their independence upon Khubilai's death. I think it would be more accurate to write ""By the time of Kublai Khan's death, the Mongol Empire had already split up into four separate khanates." - unless we find sources that describe the formalities involved in the split-up of the empire. Yaan (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the wording, I think. The word "formally" was originally used as a response to the IP user 71.229.195.124's statement "the joint property of khagan, Kublai Khan, it didn't became independent". By using "formally", I was roughly saying "so then, after the death of Kublai Khan, the last khagan, they did become independent after all". Yes, I admit this usage was somewhat informal in another sense, unless more sources are found. "By the time of Kublai Khan's death, the Mongol Empire had already split up into four separate khanates." is more accurate in a general sense.--128.100.109.9 (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, after our changes, it now reads "However, by that time the empire had already fragmented, with the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate being de facto independent and refusing to accept Kublai Khan as Khagan. By the time of Kublai Khan's death, with no accepted Khagan existed, the Mongol Empire had already splitted up into four separate khanates", which stated the two steps: during the time of Kublai Khan's rule and after the time Kublai Khan died.--128.100.109.9 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ghazan of Ilkhanate did renounce all allegiance to the Great Khan after he converted to Islam in 1295[3].--128.100.109.9 (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Micheal Weiers, Die Mongolen im Iran, in Michael Weiers (editor), Die Mongolen. Beitraege zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur, Darmstadt 1986, p.323ff states that beginning with Gaikhatu, the Ilkhans did not await their appointment from Beijing before declaring themselves Khan. Weiers also states that Ghazan began using a new title on the coins he had made etc., but describes these steps towards independence as rather informal ("formlos"). However, the Ilkhans and Yuan dynasty did remain friendly, and Oljeitu Temur sent the Ilkhan Oljeitu an official seal in 1304 (ibd. p.333). So while none of the later Ilkhans actively sought approval from Beijing, one of them at least received it. Yaan (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good information. Just a quick note, remaining friendly to some degree and being a vessel are different concepts. Ilkhans no longer sought approval from anyone else, as Ilkhanate started to become independent and Khagans ceased to exist. Sending a seal once later in the history represented a symbolic peace and friendship between them, but not an authority or so.--207.112.4.206 (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)