Talk:List of Mongol states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wasn't the the name[edit]

"Northern Yuan" abolished in 1400's? Gantuya eng (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulichi abolished the name but Oljeitu Temur restored.--Enerelt (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Great Yuan survived until the 17th century, which is the REAL end of the Genghis Khan's Empire.--Choulin (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

your being very damn bold in saying xiongnu, xianbei, gokturks, and other TURKIC empires were ruled by mongols. i demand this list be renamed into Turkic-Mongol monarchs, or delete the turkic ones...Historian of the arab people (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

renamed.Historian of the arab people (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Mongolian monarchs mean not the Mongols but royal houses that ruled Mongolia.Cheers, --Enerelt (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian?!?[edit]

Why is this list titled "Mongolian Monarchs"? Only about 20% of the people listed are "Mongolian" in any meaningful sense of the word. --Latebird (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? --Enerelt (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that everything before Khabul Khan and the section about the Qing dynasty should be removed. (A see-also link to eg. Chinese emperors family tree (late) would be helpful, of course.)
A theoretical alternative would be to rename the list to "List of Monarchs of eastern Central Asia", but that seems weird. --Latebird (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How about naming it "List of Monarchs of Mongolia/Monarchs that ruled Mongolia".--Enerelt (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't really be adequate either, because there was no "Mongolia" at the time of most of the current entries. I really think that the rulers of different empires should be listed seperately for each one. The current list implies a succession between rulers who had almost nothing to do with each other (other than accidentally living in the same geographical region). --Latebird (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Latebird. Would suggest to keep just the list from Khabul Khan to Ligden. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe one could add some rulers of the Golden Horde etc. though? I know they did not rule what is now Mongolia, but at least some of them were certainly Mongolian, weren't they? Also, what about the Dzungar Khanate? Yaan (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Chi minii zurhnii ugiig yarij baina daa. It would indeed be ahistorical to say that there was only one legitimate line. And the Oirats would be very welcome. (Only, I would prefer if SOMEONE ELSE could do it. I'm not interested in history, I'm only getting drawn into all this stuff because some people try to propagate ahistoric sentiments that go way too far. G Purevdorj (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
I just noted: 1. The females are missing. That mustn't be so. 2. The usurper Qubilai is among the Qagans of the empire. We might either want to delete him from there or replace him with Ariq Böke. 3. As far as I remember, Temüjin never called himself Qagan. Thus, is it justified to have him in the second list as well? G Purevdorj (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Armenian territories and states, List of Russian rulers -- Ancientsteppe (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Qing?[edit]

Manchu Qing Dynasty was also a dynasty of Mongolia, why weren't the Manchu emperors list here? 207.233.67.8 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"of Mongolia" is not the same as "Mongolian", you see? G Purevdorj (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Northern Yuan[edit]

(The term Northern Yuan Dynasty appears to be ahistoric for all emperors after Toghus Temur, and later Khans would have related themselves directly to Chinggis Khan (cf. the common Mongolian term "altan urag") instead of to the Yuan dynasty only. As Michael Weiers argued (I could give an exact reference if I had the book at hand, but it is thousand km apart), it was a convenient lie for the Manchu dynasty to claim that they obtained the Yuan seals from the successor of Ligdan Khan. By that way, the term Northern Yuan must have entered Chinese and on that way western historiography. Obviously, even many western historians felt a need to revise it. Now I don’t really want to press for renaming Northern Yuan Dynasty, merely because fighting sinocentrism (which is often so normal that it is perceived as the peaceful mainstream line) in Mongolia-related articles is a desperate and unpleasant task that requires more time than I can spare, but as I have THIS list article on my watchlist, I might have to carry over this discussion to the other article if the issue is pressed. G Purevdorj (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, please try to be in a good mood, and never make it anything related to nationalism (which I hate too). I'm not in China (although I understand Chinese language), and I was mainly considering the common one used in the English language. For your information, while in Chinese language there is indeed the term "Northern Yuan", there seems to be a difference between the common interpretation of this term in Chinese and English languages. Actually in Chinese language the term "Northern Yuan" indeed usually refers to the period until 1388 or 1402 (as can be seen in the Chinese language version of the "Northern Yuan" article), and the period after 1388 or 1402 is usually referred to as the "Tatar" and "Wala" (the latter meaning Oirats) in Chinese language, while in English language this term seem to usually cover after that (until Lidgan). So it's not exactly a sinocentrism for the term Northern Yuan to cover beyond 1388/1402 (although it's generally agreed that Ligdan was the last successor from the family and the Yuan seal is said to be handed in to the Manchus), but seems somehow an English-language convention (as far as I know, a few rulers after 1402 indeed actively held the title of Yuan, e.g. Dayan Khan, although not necessarily all of them). Also, according to an important Mongolian chronicle called "Bolor Erikhe" ("Crystal Beads"), the khans following Ayushiridara to Ligdan had ruled the Northern Yuan ulus. But anyway, don't worry; I like to respect other editors and do not want to press anyone (including you; so I promise I will not further change the name in this article if you don't like). Anyway, thanks for the comment. --173.206.34.15 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to show you the proof that in mainstream Chinese language the term "Northern Yuan" indeed usually cover only 1368-1388/1402 (and not to 1634 as the English language term), the opening paragraph of the Chinese language version of the "Northern Yuan" article contains the following sentence "始于明朝洪武元年(1368年),终于洪武二十一年(1388年)或建文四年(1402年),为鞑靼所代替", which means "began in the first year of Hongwu of Ming Dynasty (1368), and ended in the 21st year of Hongwu (1388) or the 4th year of Jianwen (1402), and was replaced by Tatar", which is obviously different from what Western history books commonly say (e.g. in C.P.Atwood-Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, it says "Northern Yuan" covered until 1634). There are other mismatches in Chinese and English languages too, e.g. in Chinese language it's usually said that during Mongol Empire era there were 4 western khanates (the khanates of Ilkhan, Golden Horde, Chagatai and Ogedei), but in English language it's usually said to have 3 western khanates (Ilkhanate, Golden Horde and Chagatai Khanate). As I'm editing in English Wikipedia, I only think such terms and concepts in the common English interpretation, and not in Chinese interpretation. I expect a peaceful Wikipedia too and indeed tried to avoid anything related to nationalism. Thanks for understanding. --173.206.34.15 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your illuminating comment! My problem is that while I have a certain knowledge about Mongolian history, I am not historian myself, so that I look at a number of developments with suspicion, but not with true knowledge. (Therefore I usually restrict my edits to language-related articles.) I would not be averse to using “Northern Yuan” iff it could be shown that a substantial number of rulers after 1402 indeed “actively [and prominently] held the title of Yuan”. Bolur erike is not a bad source for this, but it is much of an individual (more or less representative) narration and systematization of history, not strictly adhering to the ideology of any individual ruler. you don’t happen to know whether there are scientific papers discussing legitimization of power among Mongolian rulers after the demise of the Mongolian empire and the death of Galdan? And yes, I'm sorry for wrongly using the word "sinocentrism" here. I was just somewhat moody and feared that I might again have to enter a hostile (or at least loaded) discussion about Mongolian-Chinese history. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's a pleasure to talk peacefully. I am not a historian either, but there is a Mongolian friend who seems to have much knowledge about history, and I also respect other Mongolian people and want to be friendly with them. As for the title of Yuan, I heard that Gulichi abolished the name Yuan in 1402 to maintain a good relationship with the Ming Dynasty, and Ming then unilaterally declared the formal end of Northern Yuan, and called it "Tatar" instead. Gulichi's action was considered unacceptable to the Mongols who wanted to retake China, and title was later reused. I cannot say exactly how many of them actively held the title of Yuan, but academic sources show for example Esen and Dayan Khan (not necessarily limited to them) undoubtedly declared the title Great Khan of Yuan, who also boldly presented that to the Ming court (e.g. Cambridge History of China, vol7, pg 398). So to some degree we can say Ming's declaration of formal end of Northern Yuan by 1402 was a "sinocentric" one, as Esen, Dayan, etc still considered themselves as legitimate Yuan rulers after that (that may be why in Chinese language Northern Yuan was usually considered to be end by 1402 and was replaced by Tatar, but in English language it is different). I had heard from my friend (as mentioned above) who seem to be pretty confident that even Ligdan used the title Great Khan of Yuan, although I'm not sure exactly where he got the information from. --173.206.34.15 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Talked to a historical scholar of Manchu and Mongolian history of the 17th century. There do not seem to be any reliable Mongolian sources for the earlier time. There are some Mongolian sources on Ligdan, but they are not particularly specific. We know very little about who Ligdan was and what motivated his acts or ideology. So we are at the mercy of Chinese sources. It might be justified to extend Northern Yuan further towards the present, but given the info that we have on Ligdan, I would conclude from what I heard that extending it to Ligdan is not justified. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on renaming but I would like to present random remarks here.

  • The same topic is discussed at Talk:Northern Yuan Dynasty. How about merging the discussions?
  • Generally speaking, it is not so uncommon to use ahistorical terms in historiography for the sake of convenience.
  • We are not very comfortable to refer to Mongol stuff by Chinese terms, but the term "Northern Yuan Dynasty" is not so sinocentric as you might think. A truly sinocentric narrative would be as follows:
    The mandate of heaven was passed down from the Song Dynasty to the Yuan Dynasty in 1279, and from the Yuan Dynasty to the Ming Dynasty in 1368. Remnants of the Yuan Dynasty? Who cares?
  • That is why Ming China refused to use the therm "Mongols" and consistently called them "Tatars." Even today such a narrative can be found in Chinese literature. So the Northern Yuan framework is a great step forward in Chinese historiography.
  • The Japanese historian Morikawa Tetsuo discusses this problem in an article titled "Memory of the Dai Yuan ulus (the Great Yuan dynasty)." An English abstract is provided but is not a good summary of the paper. Here is my own summary.
    • Ming sources confirm that the term "Dai Yuvan" was used by Esen and Dayan Khan (at least in negotiations with China). Ming sources also trace the whereabouts of the imperial seal until the reign of Markörgis Khan. It was very important at least for Chinese to hold the imperial seal to guarantee dynastic legitimacy.
    • According to 17th-century Mongol chronicles, Mongols called their nation Mongɣol/Mongɣol ulus/Yeke Mongɣol ulus while Ming China never called them Mongols.
    • It seems that Mongols of the 17th century did not consider their country the continuation of the Yuan Dynasty and even forgot the name.
      • The 17th-century Mongol chronicle erdeni-yin tobči makes no mention of Khubilai's declaration of the dynastic name "Da Yuan." All it was interested in was Khubilai's relationship with 'Phags-pa. It is doubtful whether the author Saɣan sečen recognized Khubilai as the founder of the Yuan Dynasty. It should also be noted that 17th-century Mongol chronicles were not influenced by Chinese historiography.
      • The title Dayan Khan certainly derived from "Da Yuan." However, Mongols of the 17th century may not have recognized the meaning.
      • The episode of Ligdan Khan's seal is well known. However, Ligdan seems to have not used the term "Dai Yuvan" by himself. Also, he called his nation "Forty-tümen Mongols" in his letter to Nurhaci in 1620.
    • Mongol intellectuals of the 18th century "rediscovered" the Yuan Dynasty through Chinese sources. The altan kürdün mingɣan gegesüü bičig, the bolur erike and other chronicles refer to Dai Yuvan/Dayiyuvan. We must be alert to anachronism.
      • The bolur erike, mentioned above, heavily relies on the Yuan shi and other Chinese sources.

--Nanshu (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to "List of Mongol states"![edit]

Still think that this page is a mess, but anyway: it is not about "Mongolian" states, but about rather historical ones, i.e. "Mongol states". I suggest that we move it there. G Purevdorj (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The List is a complete mess[edit]

No sources are provided for ANY of the disputed states, including states established by the Xiongnu, who are widely regarded to be NOT Mongolic. Ancientsteppe is obviously pushing a Mongolian POV here.Lathdrinor (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Xiongnu is not Mongolian, there is no evidence it should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talkcontribs) 14:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I reiterate my above criticism. This list has a virtual absence of sources for its primary thrust of anachronistically applying the label 'Mongols' to various ancient states. It's fine to use the term 'Mongolic' - as linguists do - to denote states speaking said languages, but the article is obviously not talking about languages but identity, for which there is *no* evidence that 'Mongols' existed before the 7th century. Lathdrinor (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Altaic languages: Supporters of Altaic formerly set the date of the Proto-Altaic language at around 4000 BC, but today at around 5000 BC. Timeline of Georgian history: The Georgian people are believed to be the first culture to produce Wine. Toghuchar (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Timurid dynasty and Mughal Empire[edit]

Should Timurid dynasty and Mughal Empire be included in this list as well? Both were obviously more Mongolic than Turkic. --Evecurid (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm Mongol, but i removed these 2 states from this list. Timurids were greatly assimilated into other cultures and other ethnicities so it is difficult to prove that these two states were real Mongol states. I think that it's better to leave this discussion for professionals. Wikipedia users are not professional historians. But proving that Xiongnu were Mongolic tribe is more easy. You added note on the Xiongnu (not yet confirmed to be Mongolic) but it should be added on the Timurid dynasty and Mughal Empire, not on the Xiongnu. Khorichar (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The point that Timurids were greatly assimilated into other cultures did make some sense. By no means I would insist to add these states to the list if there are people in disagreement. You could have even replied to my message earlier before I waited for a few days and found no objection so that I decided to add them by myself. As for Xiongnu, its article already lists many theories, including the Mongolic theory, but while it is an important theory, it is obviously not the only theory. --Evecurid (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed your statement about Xiongnu because it's wrong to say Xiongnu has not been confirmed to be Mongolic when trolls deleting large content of Mongolic theory from Xiongnu's page. Khorichar (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't add the statement myself in this case, but I wonder if the contents become inconsistent now among Wiki pages, especially when there are even multi-ethnicity theories in addition to single-ethnicity theories like Mongolic theory listed in the Xiongnu article. --Evecurid (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Scholars develope different theories for variety of reasons: political, territorial interest, personal view or ambition, lack of knowledge etc. Khorichar (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Now both states are listed as Turco-Mongol states in List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Should they be (re-)add into this list as well? --Evecurid (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)