Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam

Untitled

This article was written with full of nationalism. The Mongols were defeated by the Tran at every battle?. Let's not forget the history. We are living in a globalized world. --Enerelt (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

--::Yes, the historical fact is that the Mongol invaders were defeated militarily multiple times and forced to withdraw. Were it not so, they would have absorbed Dai Viet and Champa into their empire.

serious neutrality problems in the article

1) This article is written from an exclusively (and absurdly) Vietnamese ultra-nationalist point of view. It rewrites history to make Vietnamese defeats into "strategic victories". The article needs to be rewritten from an objective and neutral point of view. It needs to incorporate non-vietnamese views of the war. 2) The Kingdom of Champa has no place being discussed in an article called "Mongol invasions of Vietnam". Champa is not Vietnam. It has its own history. In my opinion, either the title of the article should be changed or the wars involving Champa should be relocated into a seperate article. 3) The article needs to objectively evaluate the wars. At present it claims that somehow both sides won the wars. It somehow wants to claim that the Vietnamese side won every battle and the war but ended up paying tribute at the end to the Mongols. This is simply not acceptable. 70.234.238.66 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The Mongols invaded Champa from the south sea but not through Annam. I think a neutral view is needed. But I am afraid that the people from Vietnam will be disappointed as were the Koreans.--Enerelt (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

--The edits by both of the above editors is revisionistic, apparently intended to put a positive spin on Mongol military defeats (the ultimate outcomes). The titular tributary relationship between the states of Dai Viet and Champa towards the Mongols, in which both the Viet and Cham kings refused to travel to Dadu to pay homage to the khan (now that would have been a sign of true vassalage), was more akin to pragmatically paying off the neighborhood mafioso to avoid the human and material costs of endless wars.Brisim (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

--I completely agree with the above statement. Although the user Enerelt keeps saying that a neutral view is needed, I think the way he/she revised the page is not neutral at all. I noticed that he/she simply undid (without providing any reason) contributions from others, of which there are some with concerete evidences and (IMO) far more neutral than his text, to the page. The fact that he mistakenly gave "Đại Việt" the name "Bai Viet" is also hardly acceptable from the historical point of view. His/her modification gives me an impression that he/she intentionally tries to hide the military defeats of the Mongols to create an image of an invincible empire. Also, please note that the after-war tributary relationship between Vietnam and the Yuan dynasty does not necessarily mean a victory of the Mongol over Vietnam. Since its foundation, Vietnam virtually always paid tribute to China to avoid endless wars with her much larger neighbour. They also did that after every time China unsuccessfully invaded Vietnam and were forced to retreat to avoid further conflicts. So in my point of view gaining tributary relationship with Vietnam can hardly be considered a significant achievement by the Mongols but a regular act by the Vietnamese to avoid further wars. (Classicalmania (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)).

--@Enerelt: You can keep undoing the contributions of others, but people will keep correcting the page according to historical facts. If you do not agree to any of their views, please clearly state yours and provide concrete references as evidence to support your view. If you want to demonstrate that the Tran dynasty did not defeat the Mongols in military battles, please provide evidence to support your statement. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicalmania (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, they became vassals of them. That's true.--Enerelt (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in terms of diplomatic relation, they did. But it's hardly a vassal if you have to drive kinda thousands of troops into their territories just to impose your authority. Even that did not bring any real success anyway.Oaioai (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is heavily biased, for an example take this sentence " Because there were some Vietnamese who wanted peace with the Mongols, the other Viet faction which wanted war devised a clever scheme which wiped out all desire for any peace with the Mongols by having the Mongols commit mass murder." First of all to remain neutrality remove the words "clever scheme" and replace them with strategy, then reword Mongols commit mass murder, this article is so heavily biased towards Vietnam it's like I'm reading propaganda. also the sentence " Mongol column under Uriyankhadai" should use the Mongol's army units (such as te— Preceding unsigned183.37.73.178 (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We must respect the true history

Don't use the word Annam in this article because the name of the Kingdom that time is Đại Việt (Great Viet) and this time is Viet Nam. And nobody can deny the vietnamese victories, because the China, the Korea finally were merged to the Mongol Empire but the Đại Việt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.60.58 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Death of Sogetu

This article provides two different occasions for the death of Sogetu : during the second Mongol invasion " The Cham were in hot pursuit of Sogetu, however, and managed to kill Sogetu and defeat his army while it was moving north", and during the third invasion : "Caught between the Champa and Đại Việt, Sogetu lost his life". As the first seems to be drawn from a document, i would be inclined to keep it, but i'm not knowledgeable enough to settle the issue. Can someone please correct ? --Tehem (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Was there actually any fighting in the first invasion?

Reading the section right now, it doesn't seem like it - in which case can it still be called an invasion? Banedon (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Who won exactly?

I don't get it. It says here that the Vietnamese won a decisive victory, yet in the Aftermath section it stated that to avoid further conflict they decided to pay the Mongols tributes. THis essentially makes them vassals of the Empire. The right result of this battle should be "decisive vietnam victory, Strategic mongol victory".

I will revise the page if no one disagrees with this thread. 124.104.254.147 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the sentence "Strategic mongol victory" should be removed. Because it seems contradictory that say one side won "decisively" and another side won "strategically". 七战功成 01:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody talked about this? Well, I am going to remove the sentence. 七战功成 01:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply but actually, its more appropriate to use the terms "strategic" and "tactical" victory since the Vietnamese technically won many of the fights, but the Mongols won the war as a whole. Vietnam did ebcame a vassal of the Mongol Empire since they started paying tributes to the khan in exchange for a cease in violence, the same way that other Mongol conquered territories like Hungary and Serbia did. However, I will use the more common terms "Initial" and "Final" victory so as to not cause anymore confusion. Godzilladude123 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now. You are clearly wrong on this point. Vietnam just agreed to "maintain" the tribute relationship, which was already established many years ago. This has nothing to do with if they won the war. What was the goal of these invasions? Conquering the Vietnam, not just let it be a vassal state. Obviously, Mongols failed dismally. So it's surely a Vietnamese victory and Mongol's defeat in every respect. By the way, Hungary never became a vassal state of Mongol empire. 七战功成 20:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why the hell does Adachi link to a fruit?

Its not a mongolian general or person of significance whatsoever Lolbash (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Results

I'm gonna put this section here since some stubborn editors keep revising the Results section. Yes Vietnam won most of the battles but it was the Mongol Empire who won the war as a whole since Vietnam became a vassal state to the Empire the same way with Bulgaria, Hungary, Korea and many others. Any further stubborness and I will lock this page. Godzilladude123 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is nonsense. Vietnam already accepted to be a vassal state of Mongol Empire since the first invasion to reconcile with Mongol (although they militarily beat the Mongol). However, Mongol Emperor keep demand personal visit from Tran's Emperor. That demand was not acceptable because the transport system was not advanced at that time. Thousand miles of travel would highly kill the Tran's Emperor. That is why Vietnam refused that demand which lead to the second and third Mongol invasions. Again Mongol got defeated another 2 times without gaining anything more (nor territory or personal visit from Tran's emperor). Here is undeniable things: Not like Korea, Vietnam's land is not annexed to Mongol empire. Not like Hungary and Bulgaria, Vietnam destroyed Mongol army.
It is clear that Vietnam won the war. If you know Vietnamese history, you would know that accepting to be a vassal state of Mongol Empire is just the way she always did to avoid prolonged wars with her giant northern neighbour China. However, if the enemy keep being stubborn and determine to violate her territory, Vietnam never submit and always kick out any powerful invaders.

Dude they submitted since they sued for a peace treaty and became a Mongol vassal. Vietnam's results is not different from Bulgaria, Serbia or Korea. Yeah you can argue that Vietnam won many battles but they still lsot the war became they were the ones who asked for peace and subjected themselves to a tributary relationship aka a Vassal kingdom. Saying that a vassal country like Vietnam "defeated the Mongols" is a big insult to other vassal countries who fought well against the Mongosl and still lost. A big and very illogical insult. Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Godzilla Read my answer below this section mate.

It is clear that Vietnam won the war

The argument that "Vietnam lost the war because it accept to be a vassal state" is nonsense. Vietnam already accepted to be a vassal state of Mongol Empire since the first invasion to reconcile with Mongol (although they militarily beat the Mongol). However, Mongol Emperor keep demand personal visit from Tran's Emperor. That demand was not acceptable because the transport system was not advanced at that time. Thousand miles of travel would highly kill the Tran's Emperor. That is why Vietnam refused that demand which lead to the second and third Mongol invasions. Again Mongol got defeated another 2 times without gaining anything more (nor territory or personal visit from Tran's emperor). Here is undeniable things: Not like Korea, Vietnam's land is not annexed to Mongol empire. Not like Hungary and Bulgaria, Vietnam destroyed Mongol army.

It is clear that Vietnam won the war. If you know Vietnamese history, you would know that accepting to be a vassal state of Mongol Empire is just the way she always did to avoid prolonged wars with her giant northern neighbour China. However, if the enemy keep being stubborn and determine to violate her territory, Vietnam never submit and always kick out any powerful invaders.

No. Know your military history friend. Becomign a vassal means you were put under control by an Empire. The same way that Serbia and Bulgaria was integrated into the Mongol Empire. Look it up. The Vietnamese won many battles but in the end IT WAS THEM WHO WENT TO THE MONGOLIAN COURT AND ORDERED A PEACE TREATY, THUS BECOMING A MONGOL VASSAL FOR SOME TIME.

Here are some examples:

* Mongol invasion of Bulgaria and Serbia - They actually defeated the Mongols but still ended up suing for peace. LIKE VEITNAM THEY DEFEATED THE MONGOLS BUT STILL BECAME A VASSAL. AND LIKE VIETNAM THEY TOO PAID TRIBUTE TO THE MONGOLS.

* First Mongol invasion of Hungary - unlike Vietnam they were defeated. LIKE VIETNAM SOME OF THEIR PARTS WERE INTEGRATED TO THE EMPIRE.

* Mongol invasions of Korea - ALSO BECAME A MONGOL VASSAL.

All of these countries, whether they defeated or was defeated by the Mongols, also became a vassal like Vietnam. Like Vietnam they too sued for peace and ended up paying tribute. It is a big insult to rule out one vassal country "defeated the Mongols" while the others didn't. Its pure nonsense.Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Look at your examples. Please show me clearly how Hungary, Bulgaria and Serbia won the Mongol invasion in 1241-1242 ? Your documents clearly show that If they have any victory over the Mongol 
,it is just small raids. When Mongol start to raid with bigger force (20000-25000 man), they all got defeated. Are you sure you read what you give to me mate 

For Bulgaria and Serbia. All I see is the destruction of their countries and Mongol horde roam without any significant resistance.  "It is unlikely that the Bulgarians scored a victory over anything greater than a small raiding party." It was written from your source. Please read mate. 

For Hungary , you have to admit that Hungary lost to Mongol and some of their parts integrated to the Mongol Empire right? But remember none of Vietnam territory lost to Mongol. 

For Korea, They surrender because Korean military was defeated. They lost nearly all territory and unable to counter attack to take it back. Korean surrender not only mean to pay tribute to the Khan court but their land is annexed to Mongol Empire as well. Have you never ask yourself why Mongol annex Korean land into their territory but not Vietnam?

It is clear that none of the countries you mention scored a significant victory over Mongol. However Mongol invasions of Vietnam was conduct in a big scale and 3 times their invading army all got completely destroyed. That is a huge difference. 

Remember if Vietnam did not DEFEAT MONGOL 3 TIMES, accepting to be a vassal state would DEFINITELY NOT ENOUGH for Mongol. Mongol wanted to conquer Vietnam. It is undeniable.  Vietnam already accept to be a vassal state since the first invasion but Mongol still sent another 2 bigger invasions right?

It is diplomatic term mate, don't need to be very smart to understand this. Accepting to be a vassal state is a symbolic only to not let Mongol lose face. It just show Vietnamese are NOT arrogant, war-monger and stupid enough to fight tit for tat with her giant neighbor. If you said accepting to be a vassal state for Vietnam is a humiliation, why did not you ask the Great Mongol Empire that forgiving a small Vietnam for defeating her 3 times in exchange of a peace offer and little tribute is a humiliation for Mongol too? Right?