Talk:Mongol Empire

Fall of the Khaganate

There is a major fallacy in this article that disturbingly repeats itself all over the encyclopedia, to claim that the Mongol Khaganate fell in 1368. There is i believe a serious misunderstandings of what the mongol empire was and what was not, certainly the sources tough incredibly abundant in the internet, are not clear in key concepts like: what was the Mongol Empire and what it was a Mongol Emperor?.

Editors of the encyclopaedia have repeated all over Wikipedia the affirmation that the Mongol Khaganate fell in 1368, that is with the loss of China to the Chinese Ming Dynasty, but to say that the Mongol Khagan authority was dependent on his suzerainty over the Heavenly kingdom is to interpret Mongol history through alien eyes. If to be the Khagan of the Mongols meant to be Emperor of China then certainly we should have to reconsider our view of Genghis Khan as a Mongol Emperor, he would be then by this Sinocentric view a mere tribal chief.

The Mongol Kublayds were certainly traditional Chinese Sons of Heavens (Huángdì or "Emperor" in English language) but at the same time they were the Khagans of the Empire of Genghis Khan, it was a personal union. The Kublayds were the overlords of the other hordes in Persia, central asia, southern Russia not because they were Emperors of China but because they were the recognized heirs of the Genghis Khan. Therefore after 1368 the descendants of Genghis were certainly not Huángdì of China but they still were the Khagans of the Mongols, that's why the Mongol Empire did not fall in 1368. So the establishment of the Ming Dynasty does not in any way mean the end of the Mongol Empire, only of Mongol rule in China.

So, it comes the question of date. For a Mongol aristocrat to be Khagan of the Mongol he should have certain requisites: first to have a very strong claim of descent from the Great Genghis, then he should have the recognition of the Mongol nobles, and lastly the symbols of authority like the Imperial Seal. I can not say for certain if the Khagans after 1370 met this requisites but even if they didnt then that would mean that the last Khagan would have been Ukhaantu Khan who died in 1370, making 1370 and not 1368 the end of the Empire. Of course we know that after Ukhaantu's death he was succedeed by other Khagans so the next date to take in consideration would be 1634 and the death of Ligdan Khan. Ligdan was a legitimate descendant of Genghis Khan but his strong centralizing policies alienated the Mongolian nobility and his former vassals deserted him to the ore benign Manchues. When he died of smallpox in 1634 the Manchu Khan, Hong Taiji, sent an expedition to find Ligdan's family and they captured Ligdan's son, Ejei Khan, and the Imperial Seal of the Mongols in 1635.

From this comes two questions, was Ejei enthroned as Khagan of the Mongols? if so then to be a legitimate Khagan did they have to do a special type of ritual (say like a coronation ceremony) like the kings of Europe or the Emperor of China? or did the death of the Khagan made his heir presumptive automatically the new Khagan?, if there existed such a ritual and Ejei performed it then he would be the Khagan in 1635 when he surrendered to the Manchu and the end of the Empire would be in 1635, but if he didnt did such ritual or he wastn considered the Khagan automatically afther the death of his father then the end of the Empire would be in 1634 when his father died. Andres rojas22 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The same kind of question obviously had occurred in the past. Indeed, there may be several possible options regarding the end year of the Mongol Empire, and certainly more than the options listed above (i.e. 1368, 1370, 1634, 1635). 1368 is not the only option, but indeed a reasonable one, thus supported by many academic sources. The most important thing is not whether Kublayds had became Son of Heaven or not, but the status of the Empire as a whole. The Mongol Empire began to split in the 1260s, and the four major divisions (Yuan, Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate, Ilkhanate) actually had their own development traces (and may be fighting with each another for example). However, since Yuan was later regarded as the normal suzerain of the other three khanates, it may be still possible to talk about a single Mongol Empire, even though it is pretty much notional (and the inter-khanates wars were still frequent). After 1368 however, even such notional overlordship did no longer exist, and some khanates like Ilkanate already fell earlier or became splitted. Indeed, remnants of some khanates (e.g. of Yuan and Golden Horde) still lasted for many centuries, but they existed as regional powers independent from each another, no matter what titles they might nominally have in their own region. One of the remaining khanate of the Golden Horde, Crimean Khanate for example, lasted until the late 18th century, long after Ejen submitted to the Manchus. But all these entities only existed as independent remnants of the original khanates, and the original empire never existed as a whole any more, not even notionally. 1368 as end year of the Mongol Empire is indeed related to the matter of academic convention, but nevertheless also a reasonable one. --216.254.206.254 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Christians ALLIED with Muslims against Mongols !!!??

in the part of : disbut over succession it is written : "The opposing forces in the region, the Christian Crusaders and Muslim Mamluks, then engaged in an unusual passive truce with each other as they both recognized that the Mongols were the greater threat. Taking advantage of the weakened state of the Mongol forces, the Mamluks advanced from Egypt, being allowed to camp and resupply near the Christian stronghold of Acre, and engaged Kitbuqa's forces just north of Galilee, at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260. The Mongols were defeated, and Kitbuqa executed. This pivotal battle marked the western limit for Mongol expansion, as the Mongols were never again able to make any serious military advances further than Syria."

I think that was not right since it is known and acknowledged that Mongols Allied with crusaders against Muslim Arab Abbasids and Mamluks, and they were successful with the Abbasids, but the Mamluks-without any ally or help from crusaders- successfully marked the first degeat in mongol history which was the reason of mongol dissolution, then they kicked out the crusaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.158.2 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty well-sourced that the Christians engaged in a passive truce with the Mamluks, which helped them to defeat the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut. As for the Mongols allying with the Crusaders, they did have Christian subjects such as those from Cilician Armenia, who helped in the battles against the Abbasids. The Armenians were Christian, but were not Crusaders. There were indeed several attempts to form a Franco-Mongol alliance, but the attempts were not successful. --Elonka 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there was an instance of Count Bohemund of Antioch and Tripoli who allied his crusaders with the Mongols, and rode with Hulegu's army - the only documented West European Christian soldiers who marched with them. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mongols is the name of citizens of multinational state (like Soviet Union or Roman Empire). In this state lived a lot of people with different background and different beliefs (among them Christians and Muslims). They regarded themselves as free people by the will of God (also known as cossacks). So the concept of multinationalism was widely known in that times - so other Christians and Muslims could also unite to fought against warriors from central Eurasia. So you are right - Christians allied with Muslims to fought for freedom against Mongol invaders on near East (Mongols also fought for freedom - but had different understanding of it) Serge-kazak (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Image sourcing

Sourcing please!

If we're going to get this article up to featured status, some of the image information is going to need work, like every single image is going to be cited to reliable sources indicating where the information came from. For example, this image: is great, but has no sources on it. Could anyone help with this? --Elonka 05:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, every paragraph in this article needs to be sourced with an inline citation. Right now there are many paragraphs that have no sources at all. I'm going to be working on sourcing these, but may delete some of it if I can't easily find sources. In the meantime, help would be much appreciated! --Elonka 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no Mongol Empire

From here on talk page of Yuan Dynasty: An empire has an emperor/empress who is the head of the empire. If the emperors of Yuan Dynasty in China (Kublai Khan, or Yuanshizu, and his successors) were not the head of other states established by Mongolians including Golden Horde khanate, Chagatai Khanate and Ilkhanate, and there were no same One head for all the areas controlled by mongolians, then there were no Mongol Empire at the time. If there were an empire called Mongol Empire, then who were the heads(emperors or empresses) of the empire? Where was the capital of the empire? -Swteyoper (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not how the term "empire" is exclusively used in English. For example, the head of the British Empire was first and foremost a King or Queen, and strictly speaking only an Emperor/Empress in India. What an "empire" means, is, generally, a large polity comprised of many ethnicities or different populations groups, but ruled from a relatively centralized location, or organ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:E155:635A:CB53:2DFC (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Invasions in every direction - including north?

Mongol Empire in 1227 at Genghis Khan's death

"The empire grew rapidly ... under the rule of his descendants, who sent invasions in every direction." - six sources, wow. But the animated map does not show any invasion northwards, which does not mean there were none, as not all invasions led to an expansion of the empire. But Mongol conquests does not cover North Asia. Were any invasions there? Against whom, and to what purpose? By the way, according to the map below the Mongol Empire reached further north than shown in the animation. Is it possible to clear this contradiction? --KnightMove (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

the text does not say north of Mongolia. From numerous forward positions they moved north (as into Russia). If the Mongols were South of you, you were not safe. Rjensen (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on animated image

The animated image has the Mongol Empire united in the year 1279. But the empire had already split into four parts by 1264. Yes, the Yuan Dynasty was not yet established, but the Golden Horde, Chagatayids, and Ilkhanids had virtual autonomy by the mid-1260s. Shouldn't the map reflect this?--¿3family6 _contribs 22:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, Sakhalin needs to be listed under the 1279 and 1294 dates.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, Byzantium and much of South East Asia became tributaries to the empire.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy/Biased Writing

The current intro, as it stands, sounds like someone of limited English skills has written it, and possibly someone without a proper objectivity on the topic;

"The Mongol Empire emerged from the unification of clans of Great Steppe into one Great Horde (Army), first of all forefathers of modern Mongol and Turkic people of steppes of central Eurasia, but later also some Slavic and Caucasian clans allied with them. They became known in different sources under the names "mongols", "tatars", "cossacks" and so on - unifying multiethnic names. This people proclaimed that all people are equal in the eyes of God, despite of their origin, wealth, language or religion. To defend their freedom and liberties they assembled and elected their leader, who became known in historical sources as Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan was proclaimed ruler about 1206. The Great Army and it's empire grew rapidly under rule of new czar and his commanders and then under the rule of their descendants, who sent armies in every direction to unite all the world under their rule"

It just reads awfully clunky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:E155:635A:CB53:2DFC (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This resulted from a recent edit to the lede ([1]). I have reverted most of this.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Balanced" at cost of accuracy and serious omissions

(1) No link to entry on Destruction of Mongol Empire, which has a neutrality concern, but even if exact numbers are difficult to come-by, the death rates were large, the razing of huge cities undeniable, and the evidence comes from many sources, including Muslim sources embarrassed of defeats and who deliberately were biased toward minimizing losses, (2) Perceptions section suspiciously replaces actual debate, or "real teaching of the conflict" about "Empire's'" impact and a well documented and verifiable section about the enormity of death, dislocation, and plundering which influenced everything from the balance of power between Christians and Muslims during the Crusades, to the modern genetic make-up of Eurasia. (3) Economics Section completely ignores the fact that the Khan's did apply for thirty years a very consistent business model: unsustainable plundering with complex booty distribution systems. This was the economy, to say otherwise is to ignore the bulk of wealth flows. So unsustainable was this system which destroyed the eastern Middle East and nearly the whole of north-western China, that only Chinese advisors, siege engineers, after much struggle spared cities by reminding Khan that if he destroyed western Chinese cities the Khan would lack food for Chinese support staff. (4) Early "unification" of Mongolian tribes, is not an accurate way of putting it: since what really happened was genocide and expulsion (ethnic cleansing) of uncooperative Mongolian tribes, (e.g. the Naimen). (5) Finally, many of the positive impacts where not deliberate developments, such as the writing system, but accidental consequences of apocalypse: the Silk Road was not a managed transportation corridor, but made safer by elimination of tribes and mere Mongol control, when army was nearby--it was not even safe enough for Marco Polo to use when offered emperors protection. And the laws were secret, and not public, a point which should not be overlooked. Since from Hammurabi to Rome, the main achievement of law was social harmony brought by explicated and public presentation of norms. Secret law-books used by absolute powers are instruments of control which serve the propaganda value of exaggerating consistency and fairness. I wish I had time to make these changes and put in the links. Please someone do it. For key features of the Mongols are omitted, and inaccuracies allowed. Perceptions section is fine, but it is conflated with an arguments section. It is true that Khan is seen differently in different parts of the world, but that is not to replace a critical examination of these different views. And, the cost of misunderstanding the Khans, makes history look too story-book. Khan was likely a sociopath, the empire, not a government, but a territory brought under submission by gangsters. We must be accurate, and if there is debate, have a debate section, but don't mix the debate section with a geographical opinion section, because geographical opinions are not historical scholarship, of which there is little, I know of no, substantial disagreement about the Ghengis Khan. Iopis (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)JjIopis, C. Phil. University of California.

Turkic categorization

Must Turkic category to be added to Turkic state. Erim Turukku (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer: NO. Every category should be related to the article and supported by the sources. DO NOT add Turkic categories to this article again. Better read this article and Mongols. Zyma (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

On as similar note, this turkic edition, has been re-added several times by anons. Is the current statement: The Mongol Empire emerged from the unification of Mongol 'and Turkic tribes of historical Mongolia under the leadership of Genghis Khan correct?--PLNR (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mongol-Turkic unification?

Where is 100% proof? I have to say they are one of most famous falsificators, evereyone knows about it. Orgininal name of the empire was "Ikh Mongol Us" (Great Mongol State) and Dai Yuan -Great Yuan (yazguuryn or heavenly), not "Mongol-Turkic Empire", "Mongol-Turkic Yuan", "Turkic Dai Yuan". It was not United State of Mongol-Turkic :List of medieval Mongolian tribes and clans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.15.85 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about exactly? What section of the article is this?--¿3family6 _contribs 14:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is related to this edit. --PLNR (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

Can anyone check this edit [2] the language and the location it was added just don't make sense to me.--PLNR (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Flag?

What was the flag of the Mongols? I can't find any information about it in Wikipedia articles. --Z 14:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

They didn't have one. They used a type of banner to represent the different clans. There was a graphic for this article depicting the nine base banners of the empire, but it had copyright issues.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, a previous Wikipedia uploader used this as the flag of the Mongolian Empire. A quick Google search of Wikipedia Commons reveals this, this (which apparently has a warning on it), and this website, which gleans information from official Mongolian sepcentennial sources, official Mongolian national museums and the Catalan Atlas. Furthermore, this cites a 1999 AD book called "World Encyclopedia of Flags: The Definitive Guide to International Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns". There is DEFINITELY a Mongolian Empire flag. However, all sources agree that Ghengis Khan's rule never had a flag, just the fuzzy banners. --75.182.18.79 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lal cite

An editor has been clumsily removing text related to the Lal cite in footnote 10, but it does appear that this material is mis-sourced. The source appears to be about Muslim invasions of India, not Mongol invasions. As a result, much of the third paragraph of the intro needs to be removed. I am taking out the text sourced to Lal. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the status of the Korean peninsula within the Mongol Empire.

It seems to me that there has been much strife over the status the Kingdom of Goryeo under the Mongol Empire, mainly around the maps based in the time period showing the territories of the Mongol Empire and its successor states. I was hoping to get a mature discussion with other Wikipedians going about this, as it seems as though the editors constantly reverting my edits do not yet seem to be open to communication. Hopefully we can work toward a real consensus about this topic here.

Let me link here the main Wikipedia article talking specifically about this subject: Mongol invasions of Korea. I would like to argue that maps of the Mongol Empire should not include Korea as part of its territory, due to the fact that the Kingdom of Goryeo was never annexed by the Mongol Empire. Cartographic convention is that only annexed states are to be colored as parts of a country on a map, never compulsory allies. Vassal states at most are ever colored in a slightly darker shade of the overlord country's color, which should be the maximum extent that Goryeo should be included on maps of the Mongol Empire. To color in the Korean peninsula completely would historically and cartographically incorrect. The Kingdom of Great Joseon which followed the Kingdom of Goryeo was a tributary state (another way of saying vassal state) of the Ming and Qing Dynasties of China, and yet the Korean peninsula is never colored in Chinese colors on maps based on their respective time periods. The same principle should apply here. See the First French Empire for one of the most famous examples of this cartographic convention in action.

To further clarify my point, I will address the article linked above, the Mongol invasions of Korea. In the very first paragraph, it states that "There were six major campaigns at tremendous cost to civilian lives throughout the Korean peninsula, ultimately resulting in Korea becoming a vassal state and compulsory ally of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty for approximately 80 years." Again, vassal states and allies are not included in the territory of overlord countries on maps by widespread cartographic convention.

Other parts of the same article further elucidate on the fact that the Kingdom of Goryeo was never annexed.

"Although they reached parts of the southern peninsula as well, the Mongols failed to capture Ganghwa Island, which was only a few miles from shore, and were repelled in Gwangju. The Mongol general there, Sartai (撒禮塔), was killed by the monk Kim Yun-hu (김윤후) amidst strong civilian resistance at the Battle of Cheoin near Yongin, forcing the Mongols to withdraw again."

"In 1238, Goryeo relented, and sued for peace. The Mongols withdrew, in exchange for Goryeo's agreement to send the Imperial Family as hostages."

"With the death of Güyük Khan in 1248, however, the Mongols withdrew again."

"The Mongols agreed to a cease fire in January 1254."

"When the Goryeo court sent the future king Wonjong as hostage to the Mongol court and promised to return to Kaegyong, the Mongols withdrew from Central Korea."

And one of the most relevant sentences from that article states the following:

"When the dictator Choe was murdered by the literati party, the peace treaty was concluded. The treaty permitted the maintenance of the sovereign power and traditional culture of Goryeo, implying that the Mongols gave up incorporating Goryeo under direct Mongolian control and were content to give Goryeo autonomy, but the king of Goryeo must marry a Mongolian princess and be subordinate to the Mongolian Khans."

Please let me know what you think. Flamarial (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

First off, no, being a tributary and and being a vassal are not at all the same. A tributary simply pays tribute to an empire. A vassal is considered a part of the empire, and is required to fight in wars.

Now, as to how the maps should depict vassal states: I am certain that there is no standard, either on this wiki or elsewhere, on how to depict vassal states, as it depends on what the map is trying to convey. Right now, the map does not distinguish between the Empire and its vassals. I think that this is unnecessary in this case, as vasssals are a part of the actual empire. Also, Goryeo is the only vassal I've seen complained about. Those who try to color Korea differently on the map do not do so with Antioch, Armenian Cilicia, Champa, Tripoli, Dai Viet, Georgia\Armenia, Novgorod, Pskov, Rum, Bulgaria, Sukhothai, or Trebizond, and, until 1219, Western Xia, all which were also "compulsory" vassals. Because there were so many vassals of the empire, for general maps of the whole empire I don't think we should distinguish vassals with a different color shade. However, you or someone else could create a map specifically to highlight vassal states. That would be okay.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there User:3family6, and thanks for your input.

Yes, I do agree with you when you say that tributaries and vassals are not exactly the same, but it does seem that many unaware individuals use the two terms interchangeably without knowing the nuanced difference. Regardless, I believe this fact to be irrelevant when looking at the bigger picture, since I would argue that vassals should not be colored in the same fashion as fully annexed and directly controlled territories of an empire would be. As you say, it would be much better if a map displayed these vassal states in a different way, mostly commonly as either a lighter or darker shade of the same color as the directly controlled territories are; it would certainly be more informative, which is why I believe this convention to be a widespread practice. I agree with you there. You are also right when you say that there is no "official standard" on how to depict vassal states on maps (as far as I know), which is compounded by the facts that there are no modern-day nominal vassal states and also that there exists no association that oversees and regulates historical cartography internationally. However, I would argue that - as I mentioned before - it is common (and perhaps preferred) to depict vassal states differently on maps, and it should ideally be the same case here.

You mentioned that "the map does not distinguish between the Empire and its vassals," which is true, but even if this is the case, the maps currently used in this article on the Mongol Empire are still erroneous, not only because they do not distinguish in this fashion but also because not all of the vassals are depicted on the map. Either all of the vassals should be depicted or all of them should not; out of the ones you listed, the current main .gif file does not include the Principality of Antioch, Champa, the County of Tripoli, Dai Viet, the Second Bulgarian Empire, the Sukhothai Kingdom, and Western Xia explicitly as of 1219. That is more than half of the countries listed. Looking at this evidence, it is obvious that this map as well as the other maps listed on the Mongol Empire article are highly irregular in the way they depict vassal states. However, one of the most damning pieces of evidence comes from older maps of the Mongol Empire, like the one seen here: [[3]]. If you look at this map and compare it to the vassal states you mentioned above, exactly zero of those vassal states are included in the territory of the empire, except the Kingdom of Goryeo on the Korean peninsula. Combined with the fact that knowledge of Korea, Korean history, and Korean culture was just starting its growth in the West around a century ago around when this map was made (Korea was one of the last -- if not the last -- countries to become widely accessible to Westerners), it is no surprise that Korea is mistakenly colored in on this historical map when the rest of the vassal states are not. I believe the maps in use today on Wikipedia should be fixed to at least be internally consistent, since at the moment they are clearly not. Thanks again for your thoughts, User:3family6; hopefully I've made my position a little bit more clear with what I've written here. Flamarial (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there should be only one version of a map style. Actually, this map, which is used prominently in the infobox, does NOT distinguish between vassals and non-vassals, and personally, I'm fine with that. I have more of a problem with how it depicts the "empire" in 1279 as one empire, when at that point it was four. The older map that is included further down in the article, and that you linked to above, likewise fails to distinguish that the empire was actually divided into four, often warring, factions. Also, the older map you show is depicting the Mongol holdings, in which vassals ARE included, but distinguished, at a later time period, after many of the territories were lost. I'm saying that I don't care either way, but the ONLY region that I've seen hotly contested is Korea, which was subjugated just like most of Eurasia, and really wasn't a special case at all. The status of Dai Viet, Champa, and a lot of the assorted island territories in South East Asia was far more nebulous than Korea (which is why most map versions don't include them, at least not fully.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Further note: The other tricky part aspect of distinguishing vassals states is that a lot of kingdoms and peoples in the heart of the empire, such as the Uyghurs and the Karluks, enjoyed a great deal of autonomy for many decades before the Chagatai Khanate absorbed them. So they would be quite similar to vassals in that regard. The trouble is, the Mongol Empire, just like most empires, was a collection of smaller states and peoples, some of whom surrendered willingly and some unwillingly, with some enjoying more autonomy than others. So it gets very, very complicated.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, look at the previous version of the page and it says "Capitulation of Goryeo Dynasty". In any case, the Mongol Empire won in that incident, not SK. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Large scale, one chunk rewrite

@Lauren68:A large scale rewrite of the article has been done without discussion or explanation (what are these "fascist toned sentences" that were removed, for instance?). Because of the way this was accomplished, it is quite difficult to tell what has been done, and some questionable changes have been made. The lead, for instance, should be a summary of the body, which it was before. Now it has extensive detail about some points while removing other aspects of the summary. It now states that the empire is "often identified" as the Mongol World Empire; a quick search of Google Books shows only three uses of that term. Much sourced content has apparently been removed without discussion or explanation, while long paragraphs with little or no sourcing have apparently been added.

Making all these changes at once makes it impossible to follow what the editor has done without a line by line review, which I frankly don't have time for right now. This was a stable article, and no discussion or proposal was made prior to this rewrite. Perhaps the changes were all warranted, but the manner of execution has made it a huge project just to discern what has been changed/removed/added. In the future, I would suggest discussing such a large scale reworking ahead of time, pointing out the problems you see in an article and proposing changes. Then accomplishing those changes in smaller pieces would be preferable, so that other editors may follow what you are doing. The method of this rewrite defeats what should be a transparent process. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

He reverted to a previous version for some reason. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that this is now a previous version of the article? If so the user has reverted the work of many other users without explanation, and I am not convinced that this is an improvement. The user has also apparently chosen not to discuss what was done. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, check this diff with a version back in early 2010! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming this, Plastikspork. Since this is a rollback, the user has reverted many other editors without explanation, while leaving a string of problems as well. The user has not discussed the issue here even after inquiry, so I am restoring the stable version of the page until the user gains consensus here for the rollback. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Images and maps

There are so many images on this page that the layout was already as tight as it could handle. A user is now adding more images, creating a cluttered and unorganized layout, as well as removing useful maps. The maps will need to be restored, and new images will need to go into a gallery to reduce the clutter. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Information regarding Mongol Khaganate have to be included in the Mongol Empire

If we consider the empire was founded in 1206, we have to consider the Mongol Khaganate as its successor state at least. Its size was just same as when Genghis Khan founded the empire in 1206. Mongols just lost their colonies, not themselves nor their homeland. We shouldn't consider the empire was founded in 1206 if we don't agree that the Mongol Khaganate as its successor state. It seems like a chinese editor has problem with it. But history should be written as world history, not a chinese history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't on the Mongols "themselves" or their homeland. It is on the Mongol Empire. It is also not on the successor states of the Empire. Further, copying content from one article to another is improper, particularly when the passage is so lightly sourced that rewriting would be difficult. Perhaps you could begin a new article on that period, but simply copying the material from the main article would still be improper. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said we shouldn't consider that the empire was founded in 1206 if we don't agree that the Mongol Khaganate as its successor state at least. Its size and population were not much different from the Genghis Khan's original Mongol state. A country just lost its colonies and reverted back into its original state? Can we say the country is no longer exist? It is just illogical. At least, Mongol Khaganate should be in the relic state section even if we agree that. The fall of Yuan is very different from the fall of Qin. Manjus lost completely. They assimilated, their homeland and original state is lost. But Mongols just returned to their original size. They still existed as a country and they still had their Great Khans even though the power were sometimes strong and sometimes weak. So let's be logical. This page had information regarding Mongol Khaganate few years ago when I was active but it has changed so much and removed almost all of the old contents. The content about Mongol Khaganate is written well and there is little to change. I don't think it is necessary to write a new article and I don't remember there is any rule regarding duplicated content. Can you post a link? I'll change the article if it is really forbidden to duplicate or excerpt. Uniquark9 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. It is strange that there is no article here about what happened after 1368. Sparta300+1 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But it is better if you summarize it. It is just too long.Sparta300+1 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There are articles about what happened after 1368, including the one Uniquark9 is copying from directly, History_of_Mongolia#Mongolian_Khaganate_and_Four_Oirat, as well as those specifically dedicated to the Mongolian Khaganate and the Four Oirat. Notice how these articles do not refer to these periods as part of the Mongol Empire? They have their own articles and do not need to be copied here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(It also appears that Sparta300+1 is a sockpuppet of User:Uniquark9, used to perform an extra revert to avoid WP:3RR and to add this helpful agreement. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC) )

Laszlo, So are you refusing to be logical? Don't you answer my questions? How the hell does your logic work? +There is no rule that a content can not be on another page.Uniquark9 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is on the Mongol Empire. There is a different article on the Mongol Khaganate. There is no need for the articles to overlap. Is that clear enough for you? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't you get how illogical you are thinking? Let me repeat we should not consider the empire was founded in 1206 if we don't agree that the Mongol Khaganate was the original Mongol state of 1206.Uniquark9 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This is completely incoherent. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Roman empire was still considered as an empire even after it lost its territories and disintegrated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Empire#Final_partition_of_the_Empire It has only ended when Ostrogoths invaded Italy. We shouldn't have a double standard.Uniquark9 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources consistently distinguish the period of the Mongol Empire from its later successor states. This article is on the Empire, not on its successors. They have articles of their own, and there is no reason to duplicate that material here. You give no reason that it should be, your position is incoherent and unsupported by reliable sources, and you have no consensus for including the period after 1368 here. Please stop adding this disputed content and accept that the successors have articles of their own. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note on copying from one article to another. If it is appropriate to do so, you, can, but you must attribute it, the easiest way being to state in the edit summary "copied from this article". If you don't, it's a copyright violation. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Persian empire vs. Persia vs. Iran

Re these recent changes, it strikes me that the designation Iran is anachronistic here. I haven't reverted, but thought that I would comment here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese name adopted by Genghis for the Mongol empire

In 1217 a Chinese title, Da Chao (大朝; Wade Giles: Ta-ch'ao ; English: "Great Dynasty") was adopted by Genghis Khan to refer to the Mongol state, alongside Da Menggu Guo (大蒙古國 ; Wade Giles: Ta Meng-ku kuo), the Chinese translation of the Mongol name "Yeke Mongghol Ulus" (The Great Mongolian State), until Kublai Khan imposed the new name Da Yuan (大元; Wade–Giles: Ta-Yüan).

• Chan 陳, Hok-Lam 學霖 (1991). ""Ta Chin" (Great Golden): The Origin and Changing Interpretations of the Jurchen State Name". T'oung Pao. Second Series. 77 (Livr. 4/5). BRILL: 253–299. JSTOR 4528536. Retrieved 23 May 2014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Other sources for 大朝 "Great Dynasty" oe "greater dynasty"

https://books.google.com/books?id=AcObAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&dq=da+chao+genghis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=umPIVI-sH8ScgwTBu4KQAw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=da%20chao%20genghis&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=FVgzAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=da+chao+genghis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wmPIVPnXMYOqgwSWyoCgBA&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=da%20chao%20genghis&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol. It has never happened. Your source simply stating that it is a translation of Yeke Mongghol Ulus in chinese, not Genghis Khan or any other Mongols adopted that name. Read your source before trolling throughout the wiki.Uniquark9 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a translation, not a name adopted by Genghis Khan. "The Great Mongol State" was the full translation for Yeke Mongghol Ulus, while "Great dynasty" was a simple translation. Even if it was a translation endorsed by the government for its Chinese subjects, this is not the same as a name officially adopted by Genghis Khan for his empire. --Evecurid (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC) All Chinese people think that Mongol Empire was a Chinese state that created by Chinese king and China must reconquer its "lost land" (territory of the Mongol Empire - 26,000,000-33,000,000 million km2). That is why the Chinese name so important to China. See Han chauvinism, Sinocentrism, Chinese nationalism. Ceithe (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)