Talk:Northern Yuan

Northern Yuan as continuation of Genghis Khan's empire?

Why isn't Northern Yuan considered a continuation of Genghis Khan's empire? The Northern Yuan in its first decades controlled even more territories than Genghis Khan did in 1206. It wasn't until 1387 that Manchuria was lost to the Ming Dynasty.--Choulin (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If we continue that logic, can modern Mongolia be considered a continuation of Genghis Khan's empire, no matter smaller or bigger its territory is? Gantuya eng (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason I mentioned its size was just to make a more clear image. But it is not really the size matters, but history does. Just consider the following questions: When did Genghis Khan's empire eventually fall? And when was the modern state of Mongolia established?--Choulin (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The time of the establishment of modern Mongolia may indeed imply lack of continuity. Nevertheless modern Mongolia was established by Genghisids again. And Boghda Khaghan would often say, although jokingly, "I am a reincarnation of Zanabazar, therefore I'm a Genghisid."

The Dzungar Khanate is listed as a successor of the Northern Yuan in addition to the Qing Empire in this article. Then, can modern Mongolia be a co-successor of the Qing Empire (and therefore, of the Northern Yuan again) besides the state of China? :)

As there was Jin and Later Jin, didn't Mongolia reemerge in 1911 as "Later Yuan"? :)

Sorry if my questions sound strange. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Modern Mongolia is the continuation of Mongol founded dynasties as successor state. But it can't be for imperalism. --Enerelt (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Italy a continuation of the Roman Emripe? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As historical state in Italy, the country can be the successor of the Romans. But we should regard their ethnic origin. Not all Italians are the Romans as are not all Mongolians the Mengwu that are written in Chinese chronicles. If some one from Italy read it, I do sorry. But we can't change the history. Historically, Itay had a strong Celtic and German presence in spite of the Romano-Greek culture. --Enerelt (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no northern yuan dynasty

These are Chinese centric viewpoint. There was not such thing as northern yuan dynasty. When Yuan broke, Mongolia was separated and was not under anyone's influence. These are Chinese people trying to make Mongolia Chinese by saying Yuan is Mongolia. You have to be careful about these Chinese editors trying to make Mongolia part of China and by implying that Mongolian history is Chinese history!!!71.237.70.49 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You raised an interesting point. But I think we still need to discuss questions in a scholar manner as Wikipedians. The question is, how did the post-1368 Mongol rulers call themselves? How it was called in English language?--Choulin (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see. I added the Modern mongolian term 'Mongolian Khanate'. This was used by J.Bor and Chuluun. As far as I know, Post-imperial Mongolian Khans had seal with the name of Northrn Yuan. This seal still lies in the National History Museum of Mongolia. --Enerelt (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While the term "Northern Yuan" itself may cause some dispute, I don't really think "Mongolian Khanate" is a good term for this article though, because it seems to be more like a general term referring to the khanate created by Mongols rather than this particular state. I think it's better to find out how this state is usually called in English language as well as by themselves. If it's really true that post-1368 Mongol rulers actually had seal with the name of Northern Yuan, then it will be a more appropriate term for this state. --Choulin (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mongol Khanate" and "Northern Yuan Dynasty" are both false and nonexistant, so both of these article should be deleted. There are two main problems with "Northern Yuan Dynasty." 1) POV, this can be extreme Chinese point of view. We can say that China is "Southern Mongolia" or something 2). there is no historical statement that said Mongolia is northern yuan dynasty. Try googling "northern yuan dynasty." Nowhere in Mongolian history there is a name that says "Northern Yuan Dynasty." Mongolia is separate and it came into chaos after the Yuan broke down.

Also credible source is needed and even if there is a credible source, I assume all the sources will be Chinese literature, we have to take into account POV from Chinese side. Period. Until then Northern Yuan should not be in Mongol Empire template. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC) The legitimacy of this article is fundamentally questioned. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think any of the sources given in the article is a Chinese source or literature (you can check them by the way). They are almost all from reliable English historic sources. Also, if post-1368 Mongol rulers actually had seal with the name of Northern Yuan (as already suggested by Enerelt), then how can you argue it's false and non-existant? The argument itself may be considered questionable and POV.--Choulin (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Mongolia did not come to chaos immediately after the Yuan broke down. It wasn't until 1388 (20 years after 1368) that descendants of Ariq Boke seized power of the Northern Yuan in Mongolia. Even after that, it still existed, though became split in the 15th century. No, it does NOT mean Mongolia WAS "Northern Yuan Dynasty", but its rulers continued to hold the title ruler of the Yuan (and want to reestablish the Yuan Dynasty), and referred to as the Northern Yuan. This has nothing to do with Chinese side per se, though we know that many Chinese sources also refer to it as such. --Choulin (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just name it Post-Imperial Mongolia

the Yuan is of course Chines term. But the Mongol emperors used the Yuan (not Northern but simply Yuan) to ignore the peasents of rebellious Ming. --Enerelt (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "Post-Imperial Mongolia" itself seems more like a general term referring to Mongolia in the post-imperial period (i.e. Mongolia since the end of imperialism), rather than referring to a particular state or entity, and there seems to very few English-language sources actually used this term (and quite informally). Probably Northern Yuan is a conventional term, c.f. Western Xia. --Choulin (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's called Дөчин дөрвөн хоёр or the Forty and the Four Tumens. Even Lingdang Khaghan referred to himself as the ruler of the Forty Tumens in his letter to Nurhaci. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe Mongol rulers in the 17th century had long suspended (though not necessarily abolished formally) the use of name "Yuan". However, they did seem to use it actively and kept much of its bureaucracy at least 2 decades after the year 1368. Do you have any idea exactly when the post-1368 Mongol rulers suspended or dropped this name? Some sources claimed 1388, while some others suggested Gulichi abolished it in 1402 (though probably restored soon after). Maybe this article should focus on the part when they still actively used this name, and the rest will be discussed in other articles (e.g. the link you gave above).--Choulin (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

By chance I saw a post-1990 book mentioning that so-called Northern Yuan to have existed until they abandoned the attempts to restore the Yuan Empire to include China (pitifully can't remember the name of the book and of the author). Perhaps the term "Northern Yuan" should cover the period until they no longer wanted to regain China. Even Altan Khan of Tumed approached Beijing, but instead of taking it he sent a letter requesting to establish trade. A century earlier, Esen Taishi of Oirat also approached Beijing (mid 1400s), but that was an attempt to resolve the trade issue rather than to reconquer China (though Pravdin discussed they could have conquered China would they be as decisive as Genghis Khan). It seems they understood well "it's easy to conquer the universe on the saddle, but difficult to rule it off the saddle". Gantuya eng (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree please rename it "Post-imperial Mongolia," and then we can go on from there. This is just little wrong having it named northern Yuan. I agree 100% with the name change, and then we can discuss further. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I CHANGED THE ARTICLE OF THE TITLE.

This is not correct. There was no Post-Imperial Mongolia. Historically, the Mongols were divided into four Khanates. The last Khanate to collapse was the Yuan Dynasty established by Kublai Khan. Most of the Mongols who had been living in China had been either sinicized or massacred during the rebellions against the Yuan Dynasty. "POST IMPERIAL MONGOLIA" mainly consisted of the three other Khanates. Not many Mongols who were living in China made it back to the modern-day Mongolia... alive anyways. The Mongols plunged into deep civil war after Genghis died and after the Yuan Dynasty collapsed. There is no "Post-Imperial Mongolia." Around 1370, the Mongols retreated back into the Gobi Desert and modern-day Mongolia and continued their nomadic life. There was no unified stated after the death of Genghis Khan needless to say after the Yuan. In other words, there was no established government and most of the Mongols who lived in Yuan Dynasty either sinicized/intermarried or were massacred during the rise of the Ming Dynasty.

So what happened to the Mongols that made it back to modern-day Mongolia and Russia? They continued their nomadic lives. The Northern Yuan was the last attempt by Mongols who were part of the Yuan to established a second dynasty. Like the first Yuan Dynasty, the Northern Yuan was in deep conflict with the other Mongol tribes and did not allow them to live in their part of China - Northern Yuan. Only roughly 120,000 Mongols lived in Northern Yuan. Source: "China: A New History" by JOHN FAIRBANK. By far, most Mongols were living in the Gobi Deserts as nomads after the collapse of the Mongol Empire.

There was really no more form of government after the 1400s. It was anarchy and tribal. Post-Imperial Mongolia is a false title. Most of the Mongols were living in modern-day Mongolia and did not reside in Northern Yuan Dynasty. Ironically, the Mongols in Northern Yuan expelled the Mongols from other Khanates in order preserve their power.

Please help with Mongol/Tatar invasions articles

Can you please discuss/help, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mongol_Empire#Excellent_article_and_general_mongol_invasion_conquest_articles 97.118.116.250 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Western/Eastern tumens -- wrong, wrong, wrong

Baruun 3 tumen and Zuun 3 tumen should not be perceived as geographical directions West/East. Geographically the Zuun 3 tumen were in the north while Baruun 3 tumen were in south or south-east. I use the term "the 3 left wing tumens and the 3 right wing tumens" in the article on Mongolian history. The concept right/left in medieval Mongolia comes from a perception that left side is superior. The 3 left wing tumens were superior in the sense that they were ruled by the Khagan while the right wing tumens were ruled by the Jinong. These are no geographical directions at all. Please correct it.

Also the sub-article "Restoration" is difficult to understand syntactically. Please rewrite it. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you are confused. Most of scholars use west/east but not right and left in their books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.1.11 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please give me example of those "most" scholars. Also please show those "West" and "East" tumens on the map so that I can believe that they really located on the west and on the east. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

status = Dynasty ???

The infobox has this equation. What does it mean? Gantuya eng (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Split

• 1368~1402:From Ukhaantu Khan, Emperor Huizong of Yuan to Gün Temür Khan, Emperor Shuntian of Northern Yuan. They claimed to be Northern Yuan;
• 1402~1634:From Örüg Temür Khan to Ejei Khan. They claimed to be Ta-ta Khan, and their countey are called Ta-ta Empire (Zh:鞑靼 (蒙古));
• 1402~?: Oirat Empires.
• 1389~c. 15xx: Uriangha Mongols Zh:兀良哈三卫.

Please respect what names those emperors use, or it would be POV. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

---

There had been never Uriankhai, Tata empires except in case of Chinese annals.--Enerelt (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Uriangha is totally not Uriankhai, totally different concept;
2. It's Gulichi who claimed to be Ta-ta Khan, and ancient Han Chinese respect his title and recorded that. Now it's time for the world to respect him. One's name is the name given by oneself if one did so.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Uriangha, you mean the Three Guards or Kharchins?. It is still debated that Gulichi was really emperor of the Mongols. While some says he was, other say he had a Tatar nobelman enthroned as Khagan. Since the dynasty was Mongol one, it is right to follow Mongolian chronicles. According to Saghan Sechen and Lubsandanzan, late emperors, especially Esen and Tayisung, enthroned as Bogd Khagan of the Great Yuan, long after deaths of Orug - Temur or Oljei Temur.

The Four Oirats founded their empires in the late 16th c. In 1402, they were united under Mahamu and his successors as the Dorben Oirad.

The Ming annals call the Mongol khans little princes. So if we follow the Ming chronicle, should we call all the Emperors small princes?.--Enerelt (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the modest size of this article, I see no reason to split it. We would only create several mini-articles, each of which lacking context. I suggest to first expand the sections, and as soon as one of them gets too big, it can easily be farmed out. But there's really no hurry to do that at the moment. --Latebird (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To Enerlt: Yes, I mean the three guards of Uriangha. Uriangha is not a state but it's still one of the three tribes (Oirats, Tata and Uriangha) of Mongols after Northern Yuan (1402) and before Qing dynasty.

If you think Gulichi wasn't Mongols (give citations!), then did any Khan after Gulichi change back the name of the the state? Perhaps you would say Esen Taishi, but Esen Taishi was an Oirat Mongols, being opposition of Tata, of course he wanted to unified Oirats and Tata-Mongols to "the Mongol Empire", but at last he failed to do that, so there still are 2 states.

"The Four Oirats founded their empires..." Yes, you agree there were 2 states in Mongolia, too.

I did never say "follow the Ming chronicle", I mean, follow the official name of each state. So if you give me evidence that emperors (from Eastern Mongols, not Oirats) after Gulichi use the name "Great Yuan", I'll consider changing my ideas.

1. We need to follow the official name: the (northern) "Great Yuan", "Oirats Empire", "Tata Empire" and "Guards of Uriangha", it's not a problem about the article's size, but a problem of respect;
2. We need to follow the de facto state of Mongolia after Gulichi: he abolished the (northern) "Great Yuan" and splited Mongolia into "Oirats Empire", "Tata Empire", you can't say "Tata Empire" is the entire "Mongol Empire", nor can you call it "Mongol Empire";
3. In ancient times, the changing of the Empire name is considered as supersession of a regime. So "Tata Empire" and (northern) "Great Yuan" are different.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are confusing the Oirat Urianhai with the Urianhai of Nagachu. The strange names like "Tata Empire" or "Oirats Empire" seem to original research. If there was independent of Oirats, then why didn't their ruler wear a title of Khaan or Huangdi or whatever? They remained Tayishi. They remained vassals of the Mongol Khaan. Oirat rulers (except the short lived reign of Esen, but in a sense of Mongol Khaan rather than Khaan of Oirats) couldn't become Khaans until late 17th century. By the way I tried your "Boljoo" which didnt work. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I think I need to read more before continue talk. So I temporarily removed the tag. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Boljoo Instand Messenger or Boljoo IME? I tried, both work. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would offer one more option to type in the Traditional Mongolian Script, but it shows a box demanding something with cubes instead of letters. I couldn't understand what it was. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the IME. You need to run the "FontRelation" first.

You'd better read the Mongolian help document first: every sentence is a link, and that'll guide you to use it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you wrote that program. No? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if I wrote those programs, I'll change all those Mongolian script (espc. Boljoo Chat) vertically. Personally, I like Menksoft Mongolian IME more. Also, Boljoo IME seems not be popular in China, since I know it as late as today. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All Emperors after Gulichi bear title of Khagan of the GREAT YUAN. Erdeni- in erkhi gives clear information about it. I read that Gulichi abolshied the name YUAN in order to have good terms with the Ming. But I didn't mean he was a Tatar. Instead, he had a Tatar (from the Golden Horde) crowned. According to H.H.Howorth, Gulichi is corruption of Ugetchi Khashika as well as Orug Temur. If it is true, he might be an Oirad or Ogedeid prince. The Guards were wavering between the Mongols and the Ming but they didn't establish own state.--Enerelt (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All=Who? (mention some eastern Mongols.)--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure following khans used Khagan of the Yuan, in accordance with Mongolian chronicles (But they were called Tata khan or little princes in the Ming annal as you said):

• Tayisung Khan ToghtoqBukha
• Esen.
• Batumongke Dayan Khan.
• Buyan Sechen Khan
• Ligden Khan.

As Gantuya said, the Oirat leaders were not called khans until Dalai Lama bestowed the title on them.--Enerelt (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is named after not only the Yuan but also The Forty and the Four.--Enerelt (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you please cite some reference here? Thanks! Also, how about the period between 1402 and 1416, when Tayisung Khan became the emperor? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Following are good references about Da Yuan Khagan:

(original sources)

• Bluva-bsang-bstan-ʼjin, Nina Pavlovna ShastinaBluva-bsang-bstan-ʼjin, Nina Pavlovna Shastina - Altan tobchi: ("Zolotoe skazanie")‎
• Saghan Setcehn-Erdene yin Erikhi
• Lubsandanzan-Altan Tobchi

Secondary sources

• C.P.Atwood-Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire
• Willard J. Peterson, John King Fairbank, Denis Twitchett-The Cambridge History of China, p.320
• Walther Heissig-A lost civilization: the Mongols rediscovered‎ , p.119--Enerelt (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)