|WikiProject Central Asia||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Mongols||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
I recommend a separate article on the above!
- There were different Empires under different Khans, and such a separate article would be useful. I am particularly curious about the extent and nature of the Khazar Khaganate.
- Yours truly, a possible Khazar descendent, I am --Ludvikus 22:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Redundant wording and neutrality
Why add "fully recognized" to Temur? Should we add "fully recognized" to every single ruler that is fully recognized (i.e. all but Kublai) in this list, or it means all the other ones were not fully recognized? Also, is "nominal suzerain of the Mongol world" the same as "Khaghan of the Mongol Empire"? Obviously this is debatable and there are different views. From the seal sent by Temur himself to Ilkhan (which reads "真命皇帝和順萬夷之寶", meaning "Mandate of Heaven Emperor who made peace with all foreigners/barbarians") alone will represent a different view. Besides, by mainstream historic conventions, he is usually not really considered as the latter (and the short-lived peace in 1304 is generally not considered that significant either), not to mention the fact that his name had already appeared in the paragraphs right below that list with more explanations. In addition, he was not just a Mongol khan, but also a true emperor (as seen from the seal sent by himself), so "ruler" is a more neutral word. Even if he did not call himself an emperor, do we call the state created by Genghis Khan as "Mongol Empire" or "Mongol Khaghanate" in English? I think we should more closely follow the conventions as well as the policy of neutrality and should avoid inserting our own POV speculations to Wikipedia articles. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have managed to change the structure of the section, first list the khaans of the Mongol Empire prior to the establishment of the Yuan, immediately followed by the paragraph dedicated to the discussion of the khaans of the Yuan, and hopefully it is better than the previous. One reason behind this is that the definition of "Mongol Empire" was considered extremely vague ever since the reign of Kublai and his establishment of the Yuan Dynasty. Some may argue it ended as late as 1635 (the submission of Ejei to the Qing Dynasty; which is claimed in some Chinese books) or even 1687 (the end year of remnants of Chagatai Khanate), but most people won't agree with them. The new structure will probably make it seem less problematic.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Khagan, Kahane, Cohen and Russian
Many Russians cannot pronounce the aspirate letter "H", and replace it with the glottal stop "G". So these people will say, for example, "Gome" instead of the English "Home".
The title "Khagan" used by the Khazars is interesting, because the rulers and aristocracy converted to Judaism. The Khazars were dispersed by several different tribal invaders, some Russian.
It seems possible that the title "Khagan" is really "Cohen", without the glottal stop "G". Further, even today, some Jews of Russian origin hold the surname "Kahane" (Cohen).
Why should the Khazar rulers call themselves "Cohen/Khagan"?, because the Cohens are the descendants of the first Jewish High Priest. It seems reasonable that a ruler who converts from a pagan religion to Judaism would very much like to be a "Cohen".
Khan, Khagan, Hakan
Khanate, is for the country ruled by a Khan. Khaganate, is a country ruled by a Khagan. The article fails to make distinction between Khan and Khagan. Same issue for Khanate and Khaganate.
"Han" is "Khan" and "Hanlık" for "Khanate". "Kağan" is for "Khagan" and "Kağanlık" for "Khaganate". In the other hand, "Hakan" is not "Khagan". It is a third distinct title compared to "Han" and "Kağan". and there is "Hakanlık" as a third distinct form of government compared to "Hanlık" and "Kağanlık".
Therefore, titles, regimes and their English equivalents are as follows:
Han = Khan; Hanlık = Khanate Kağan = Khagan; Kağanlık = Khaganate Hakan = Hakan; Hakanlık = <N.A.>
On the other hand, where does "-ate" come from? Why is it not "Khandom" as in "Kingdom", according to rules of English language? I suggest "Khandom", "Khagandom" and "Hakandom". --220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, -dom comes from Old English, while -ate comes from Latin. It should make sense that we generally use Latin terms for more official terminology, rather than apply English root terms to non-Germanic-related topics. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Turkish hakan appears to be a back-borrowing of the Arabic khâqân, which is how the original Turkic qaghan was borrowed into Arabic. Tkinias (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)