Talk:Guo Kan

Untitled

Since a large part of the article is devoted to an autobiography which is false, it should be eliminated. Discussion anyone?old windy bear 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the completely false claims about the exploits of Guo Kan. They simply misled people who did not know better, and diminished his very real accomplishments. old windy bear 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hospitallier Citing as to Guo Kan's opposition to Kitbacqu Noyan must be provided, since that is a disputed claim, (attempting to save face for him for a lousy military decision to leave insufficient troops to handle the Mamluks), also the statement that any actions attributed to Guo Kan after 1259 since he reported to Mongke Khan in Mongolia is especially ridiculous, since Mongke Khan was dead, killed in China that year, prior to Guo Kan's departing the Middle East with the main army in Hulagu's return to seek power! They returned precisely because of Mongke Khan's death, and the necessity to select a new Great Khan, a position his brother wanted and was eligible for. In addition, you stated Guo Kan destroyed the Assassins in battle, another incredibly wrong fact. They surrendered without a fight at all to Hulagu, fearful of his terrible reputation. Your facts are not just wrong, but extremely wrong. Where is your proof that the autobiography was intended as Mongol Propaganda? It is not remmebered in Mongolian history, but in Chinese! You have to cite sources for these outrageous claims. You also destroyed much of the citing in your edits. Please stick to facts, and do not destroy the citing, which takes time to prepare and insert.old windy bear 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I did delete some of that specific posts because of the assumption there are various crusader outposts in the region that are conquered by the Mongols notably Syria, where many of the crusader churches still stand today.

There also stated in those citings that Guo had suffered serious defeat but there is not evidences that he did suffered a defeat in battles that he participated.

As for the destruction of the assassin sect, these links provided support that Guo did destroyed the Hassassin sect.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:1x0wJiIRhttp://www.insteadof.com/TerrorAttack/p19.htm 4GkJ:www.uglychinese.org/mongol.htm+Guo+Kan+assassin&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1 http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:4-tNS0xxiucJ:www.iranian.com/History/2002/November/Mongol/index.html+kuo+kan+Mongol&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3

There are some other sites in Japanese and Chinese, but since not many people can read them, i don't want to post them unless asked. Hospitallier

The background info for History of Yuan

The History of Yuan shall not be granted as open lie or fiction. It is by now the most valuable work for studying Yuan Dynasty due to its source, despite its flaw in the ending part. Hospitalliers, you seem to know Chinese well then you should know the history of Yuan came from a source of authenticity. In 1261 Yuan Dynasty started to compile history at their own National History Academy(翰林国史院)， which later yielded 13 volumns of chronicles for that history. In 1368, the year Yuan perished in war fare. The Ming Dynasty started to ready for the history compilation. In 1369, The Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang started the huge project for Yuan History compilation, based on the 13 volumn passed down from Yuan Dynasty. The flaw of the book is no written recorded for the last emperor of Yuan (元顺帝)was left due to war, thus many scholars went out to the countryside and cities for their oral passage of this period of history. Those orals could still somehow preserve the authenticity as that was only one year after the fall of Yuan Dynasty.

For those who knows and reads Chinese, please visit this website about the Chronicle Yuan Shi. This is far from a fiction, but a serious book given by the Ming government on history.

http://baike.baidu.com/view/158366.htm

The Story of Guo Kan comes from History of Yuan and was echoed in the New History of Yuan (新元史)　by Qing Dynasty historians.The author is 柯劭忞, the teacher Ke for the last emperor of Qing. He visited Japan and other countries in 1906. Later became a congressman in the Republic of China. By using Mongolian History（多桑蒙古史） written by a 19 century Swedish orientalist scholar Scholar （not able to find the original name in French but his name pronounced as Tourssant in french）, and previous resource, he wrote the New History of Yuan. This book was also recognized as the reason he was granted a Japanese History Doctorate by the Tokyo University. The story of Guo Kan was reconfirmed in the book. The book written by the swedish expert can be downloaded here. Sorry Chinese version again. But I guess people of your knowledge can find the French version pretty easily.

http://www.verycd.com/search/star/%28%E7%91%9E%E5%85%B8%29%E5%A4%9A%E6%A1%91

I strongly disagree with the motivation that this story serves as propoganda for Han as the source were kept by Mongolians. Even if one can argue the sources could be altered by the Ming Dynastry historians, I do not see a necessity to do so. Ming Dynasty was one of the strongest at the moment and such a history does not bring too much honor to people at that time as Europe at Medieval age, was petite, weak, and bavarian, for Chinese at that time(I know that is too assured and very wrong). Chinese have Zheng He with the grandest ship in the world while Christopher Columbus was only like steeting a lovely Gondolla. (But his importance is highly recognized as it starts a history of colonization of West, which fundamentally changes the world.) Chinese emperors at the time take it as something they deserve and won`t really make it a big stuff. They worry more about their power.

It was until recent when Europe gets strong and west dominatines the world that Chinese start to feel attracted to this historical factor. Not so many Chinese ever heard of Guo Kan and many know of him even through a book by a Japanese author.

The defeat in Egypt does not mean there would be no victory in another place for Mongolian army.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)