Talk:Mongol Empire/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mongol Empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Suggestions for how the article can be expanded

Someone, I think it would be appropriate to discuss how it was possible to conquer such a land. I think Mongold invaded surrounding areas and villages when their trade network was interrupted.

Well, their push to Europe does not seem to be justified by disruption of their trade network. It looks like simple greed - conquer and plunder.

So it was more trade and system driven invasion, not just wandering around trying to take a lot of land as possible. I think there should be contrast with other empires like the Roman Empire.

Keep in mind that Roman empire existed for 350-400 years and survived through numerous rules. If you count Byzantine Empire, it existed for almost 1500 years. Mongol empire split apart soon after Genghis Khan's death. It is not clear what your favorable comparison is based on. Also keep in mind that Mongol Empire was created about 1250 years later than Roman empire. That means different world population, population density, different technolgy.

It would be good to outline the intention of the Empire. Mongol empire was not over-stretched and the Khanates had very strong control over their areas. Genghis social and economic system worked extremely well in terms of governing different areas, e.g. he would put one general in control of extremely large areas. The reason and rationale aspect of the empire would be good. Thanks for listening.

You can't possibly know the intentions of Mongol rules. And I am not sure your theory is based on facts. Individual khanates pretty quickly fell under influence of other empires (Russian empire, Ottoman empire) or transformed into regular mono-national states. In Europe they were gone by 1550. --Gene s 05:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article needs a proper intro

The article has improved much, but it's very bottom heavy - it has practically no intro. There should be a rounded 1-3 paragraph intro that tells the story of the whole article, for those who don't want to get into details to find out the basics. --Zocky 14:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jack Weatherford's bio of Genhis Khan

I don't know if any of you have seen Jack Weatherford's 2004 biography of Genhis Khan. It does a nice job of tracing the legacy of the empire, and, I think, makes a good case for a reevaluation. There is more there than ravening hoardes. If I can get a chance, I'll try to work some of this into the article. --Mwanner 01:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it is not just 'ravening hordes', but the article seems to lean the other way. Is the image of a highly ruthless invader who massacred millions totally incorrect (even if it's politically incorrect!), and if it is, could some refutation of this point of view be included. As it stands, the Mongol Empire looks like all sweetness and light. --Bathrobe 23:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Area of empire

There is a particular idiot, and a very bigoted one at that, who needs to do a little more thinking and work, if that is at all possible for one of his intellectual prowesses [sarcastically] which [rolling eyes now] are insurmountably imprudent and impudent. He, or it may even be a she, regardless of the sex, needs to fathom [sighing] that fact taht the British empire, while not a contiguous continental empire, was indeed the world's largest empire at 14 million sq. miles [36 million sq. kilometres], this is common knowledge available from just about anywhere. The Mongol Empire, far smaller and much more volatile, was at a mere 11 million square miles [30 million sq. kilometres], this too, is common information. You may receive this sort of information from all over the internet, encyclopedias [kingfisher, dorling kindersley, britannica, etc.], books, almanacs, and the like. Perhaps, before that person reverses the British Empire and Mongol Empire pages back to the stupidity of his bigotry, he might consider his idiocy and actually do some RESEARCH. [oh! The idea!] If time will allow me to continue, which it does not, visual confirmation or comparison I should say of the two empires will reveal [to that idiot's utter consternation I am sure] that the true champion is the British Empire. Thank you for your time and patience. Vale!

Please refrain from personal attacks. --Guettarda 23:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not praising white people for all their great accomplishments is pretty biggoted. White man can't get a break! --Kyle543 04:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I feel most discussion on the respective size of the Mongol and British empires a bit pointless. Surely any figure on the size of the territory controlled by the Mongols is an estimate. Every map you see of the Mongol Empire has a vaguely straight line from the Pacific through Siberia to European Russia. Am i the only one to think this is just a wild guess? I have never seen any evidence whatsoever for the northern limit of Mongol control. And what marks out a place as being part of the Mongol Empire? The recognition the Great Khan as overlord? The payment of tribute? Or the existence of Mongol garrisons? People seem to want to deal in absolutes rather than accepting that in the 13th century there were many grey areas. Mongol control outside China was not based on a systematic bureaucratic tradition but on personal authority, tribal loyalties and the threat of military force. --SRP 15:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've read estimations of an empire's size and the problem in the West is that the historians and cartographers who draw an empire's size at least from an English speaker's point of view are usually Anglo and European. Hence, when drawing the maps, there is a bit of nationalism involved. If you look at what most European historians and how they draw the mongol empire's map, the historians exclude the northern reaches of current day asia. I don't know why, but if you really think about it no one back then and no one today lives in the northern wintry lands in Asia. However, without a doubt the Mongols ruled everthing in Central eurasia including the northern reaches - there was no one populating that area except them. However, when they draw the maps for the British and Soviet empires, they include the nortern reaches of Asia or Canada (ie greenland), although no one lives there still. However, oddly or not oddly enough that is used in their estimations of size of the european empires. Further, British empire maps are exaggerated as most of the countries included in the maps in the 1920's includes countries that actually were somewhat autonomous and not part of the empire. The mongols actually had a stranglehold on eurasia all the way to Russia - most people either submitted or were decimated like the Persian Khwarzaim. Thus, using these interesting methods, the Mongol empire is less in size than the European empires. Steelhead 04:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Empires of the Mongol period controlled people rather than territory- asking whether northern Siberia was in the Mongol empire is asking the wrong question. Mark ¹ 04:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a very bizarre statement. First of all, the Mongol empire destroyed most of the armies that belonged to the empires around the areas in question. Hence, once you become the only power in the area, you control the territory and the people. Secondly, once you control a people, you control the land that they live on. by your statement, no empire in history ever controlled any land since most empires in history only controlled the people that lived on the land and not the land itself. Regardless, you haven't answered the question - don't you think it's odd that the size of the Mongol empire in most western texts is displayed in a limited fashion as it regards to its northern borders (the arctic regions) whereas the british empire includes all the territories of canada including the far arctic regions in which no one lived in? Steelhead 16:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Area of empire, again

It stretched from southeast Asia to eastern Europe
and covered more than 35 million square kilometers
(13.8 million square miles); compared to the 36 million
square kilometers (14 million square miles)
of the British Empire, the world's largest empire.

I am removing this above paragraph from the intro paragraph and replacing it with:

It stretched from southeast Asia to eastern Europe
and was the largest contiguous land empire in history.

The earlier paragraph could be restored with a citation and a few changes. My concerns, which are added to some of the concerns already voiced above by others:

There is no citation for this statistic. This is problematic because the borders of the Mongol Empire (and to a lesser extent, the British Empire), were not clearly defined, especially by modern standards, and thus it is possible for historians to get different numbers for the size of the Mongol Empire. Even if a citation were given, it should probably read, "According to X..." rather than stating it outright, because again, different historians can get different figures for area.

Furthermore, the phrase "the world's largest empire" is problematic. The British Empire was certainly the most widespread empire, in the sense of covering a more widely dispersed geographical area, while the Mongol Empire was certainly the largest contiguous empire. Which empire was larger depends on the calculation of area, which as I mentioned above is not exact. --—Lowellian (talk) 07:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the claim of being the 'largest ever' to then being the largest ever. As said, it 'largest ever' either needs to be qualified by 'continuous', or try to say 'largest proportion of the known world' (I don't think the Mongols knew about the Australian and Antartic continents, even if there is evidence for them knowing about North America). Lovingboth 11:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Torture and humiliation

The text says:"outlawed all forms of torture and humiliation in the empire." I am afraid there is something wrong with this claim. I don't know details about torture, but it is well-known any rebellions were swiftly and ruthlessly crushed by total extermination. Also, death was punishment for even minor offenses, according to Yassa. Can it be that "no torture" clause was applicable only to the "masters", i.e., mongols themselves, or to what is called now "civil cases", or else? The original phrase as it stands is simply unbelievable for these times. --Mikkalai 01:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This torture specifically applies to administrative torture and any type of torture authorized by Genghis Khan in terms of government. Simply killing and torture is totally different topics.

Recursive bow

At the end of the "Disintegration" section, there is a comment on the recursive bow. I'm not sure that it belongs in that section, and it needs to be clarified. While the recursive bow is similar to the longbow in that both were bows which profoundly changed military affairs and gave distinct advantages to the militaries that employed them, they were completely different bows in their design. --69.245.192.52 05:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a small point: it is a 'recurved bow', not a recursive bow. A bow utilising recursion in its design would be a strange sight indeed! --maru 00:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Text from a Korean history website

Ghengis Khan was affected by several Uyghurs, Khitans and Han Chinese, including his Prime Minister Yelü Chutsai (耶律楚材), a former Jin Dynasty governer and a offspring of a Liao Dynasty emperior who explained the importance of tax which payed by Han Chinese at the form of silver, silk and rice, and Qiu Chuji (丘处机), one of the leader of a Taoism branch who was invited by Ghengis Khan for teaching the knowledge of long life. They "civilized" Mongolian to evolve their written language, religion and government. However, Mongolians were so influenced by Chinese culture that "During the 13th and early 14th century, Chinese was the script of choice for writing important Mongolian documents. Mongolians used a modified set of some 500 characters from Early Mandarin Chinese to render the proper pronunciation of words. Perhaps the most important Mongolian document written with Chinese characters is the Secret History of the Mongols. Among the many challenges faced by scholars in deciphering this text was the problem that words were used which appeared nowhere else, not even in the famous Barbarian Glossaries, Chinese dictionaries of the Middle Ages that dealt with a number of Central and Northeast Asian languages. It is interesting to note that using Chinese characters to write Mongolian meant that messages encoded in this system were obscure to a Chinese messenger, yet perfectly understandable to a Mongolian listener."[1]

I think it is widely believed that the Secret History was written originally in (Uigur) Mongolian script and the one that is found is written in Chinese from the mouth of someone reading the original. Temur (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference from the Yuan Dynasty entry

Reference from Yuan Dynasty might be helpful. --Fangyuan1st 07:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance writing paper

I am darrell from the chinese high school in singapore and i would like to ask if there is there anyone who could assist me on writing a research paper on this topic? you can e-mail or add me to msn messenger at david.beckham22@gmail.com. your help will be greatly appreciated. thanks

Darrell, my friend, try writing the paper yourself. You might learn something!

How Mongols transformed to Tatars?

How Mongols transformed to Tatars and lost their language but not their nomadic lifestyle? How could it happened? Calmouk 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tribes : Mongol Empire were not with only Mongols

its very important i think

From the tribes to the Kurultai, Mongol Empire were not only with Mongol tribes, many people in the mongol army and its empire( its thought to be 75%) were Turkic(Sakha, Tatar,Chatai, Chuvas, Kyrgız, Kazak, Kipchak and others)

i think it must be seen in the Mongol Empire page of wiki, and specially in the military part of the page

and its written in here http://www.ignca.nic.in/ls_03011.htm we cant classify Nomadism in Asia with only one race, Turks are the highest number of people in Mongol Empire

As we know many conquirors and Khans were also Turkic in the empire.. --hakozen 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tatars, that is the tribe that was absorbed by Temujin relatively early in his career, are not the Turkic Tatars of today, the name having been extended to many peoples not originally included under the moniker. However for the others, especially the Kyrgiz, Kazak, and (most prominently) Kipchak, this is absolutely true and needs some explanation. I would suggest, however, that this be incorporated in a general explanation of different tribes and ethnic groupds, rather than focussing so intently on "Turkic" groups. siafu 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, the page should be check and hand

Incorrect slightly off new map

I think the area covered in red to depict Mongol empire is kind a smaller. If you look at other maps in Genghis Khan, it seems little off, especially the Kamchatka area and north western area above japan and close to korea.

Kamchatka is not included in the Mongol Empire in any of the maps, your objection there isn't making sense. Are you referring to Manchuria? siafu 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the little hook on the east coast. That empty area is conquered in other maps 71.196.154.224 01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the map using the few maps i could find on the internet and had to use a little estimation since all maps are in slightly different proportions. The map however was made as a base for others to edit, and was mainly made to replace the old map which did not match others on Wikipedia. please modify it 09:52 22 March 2006 (NinjaKid)

Its a good map. A really good map. but it does need some kind of citations on what it was based. You should specify on what "information off the internet" it was based on. if you do that, its a keeper, but if not I'm sure it will attract problems of people saying it's unsourced. Cheers, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean

"The notion that the Mongol Empire was tremendously destructive should be viewed with caution-establishing it was exceptionally so, ruling it less than most contemporary states." This looks like a combination of two sentences done in an edit, but I don't see how it makes sense Jztinfinity 05:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Area of Empire revisited

Regardless of various nationalisms, the claim that the Mongol Empire had an area of some 40 million km² is absurd since the entire continent of Asia, which includes sizeable territories never ruled by the Mongols, covers anywhere from 44,309,978 km² (Wikipedia) to 44,936,000 km² Encarta). 203.167.67.208 03:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

But the Mongols didn't rule only Asia - they also owned substantial parts of Europe... remember that Asia ends at the Ural mountains. Esn 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

MAP

The map excludes taiwan, which was conquered by the mongols to prevent a safe harbor for the imperialists. [source]--Don Quijote's Sancho 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Taiwan says that "In 1292, Kublai Khan of Yuan Dynasty tried to force minorities in Yizhou (夷州) to pay tribute." which implies that it was unsuccessful at conquering taiwan? --Astrokey44 11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tumen vs. Touman

According to this article, a division of 10,000 men is called a tumen. With my limited resources, namely The Encyclopedia of Military History, it spells it touman. Which is the more accepted spelling? --Narfil Palùrfalas 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

THe Wikipedia article and Google hits say tumen, but the OED says toman and lists tumen as an alternative spelling. --maru (talk) contribs 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Tumen would be correct in modern Mongolian. Temur (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seaborne trade vs. land-based trade

Under Trade networks, somebody made the claim that the Mongols not only did not have much of an effect on seaborne trade, but that seaborne trade was much bigger in terms of volume and value than landbased trade. Now, this doesn't sound implausible or anything to me, but by all accounts a LOT of stuff was going through the overland routes, especially in Central Asia. Could we get a cite?

Use References

Use references. Good article, but text within the article needs citation. KyuuA4 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Death toll

In the year 1000 the entire world population was 310 000 000.

In the year 1750 the entire world population was 791 000 000. Asia at this time had 502 000 000.

Genghis Kahn and alike was set during 1200. Now, if we use the 1750 population figures, Mongolians killed off 5% of the entire world population (40 million killed)? But the 1200 population figure, the death toll would have been nearly doubled, like 8%. So the death toll in comparisons killed WAY more than world war one and two combined totals. That's goddamn amazing...

-G

Excellent point, the US Census Bureau lists the world population in 1200 at around 400 million with a large population increase in 1250 and big drop in 1300 (black plague?). 40 million is an absurd number which can only be accepted if you blame the Mongols for the black plague. [2]

-Mirmillo

Thanks for all of you who participated in this topic

It was really appreciated. ~~

Me too. You've helped me understand more about my ancestor.80.195.94.103 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mongolocentrism it's not doing any good

This article made me create an wiki account because it's biased and with many errors. Mongols raided Central Europe but did not conquered it. They did not raided Kievan Rus in the first campaign but the cumans. There are other errors also. They used old things as composite bow, horse archers and most tactics they used were old. The new things should be emphasized more: winter campaigns, good espionage, chase of enemy leaders, targeting first other nomads, division of force and extremly high speed of the vanguard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosmic (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Empire Picture

I think that the first picture in the page is too large, and should be made to a smaller size. It is too large and dosent look well with the text.--BatzMonkey 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

Shouldn't this section at least mention the more positive and important view on what affect the Mongol Empire had on world, espiecially European, civilisation put forward in Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World for example? --Joey Roe ^talk/contrib 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mongols didn't do anything. They just set Europe back a couple decades.

-G

Sorry no headline.

"At the empires peek it resembled Kyles Dick in size, shape and density."

Somebody remove this please.

have more information

History Channels wonderful program about them

The History channeled showed an interesting program years ago called The Mongol Hordes. This is what I remember from it.

Wore a silk shirt for armor, so that any arrow that hit them could be easily removed, the barb not able to gouge out flesh. Arrows did more damage when you tried to remove them normally. They also wore a metal disc over the shirt in the front, for additional armor I believe.

They spent most of their daily lives on their horses, riding about socializing with each other and whatnot all day. Some even suggested they were part horse, centaurs, since you never saw them apart. They would cook meat under the warmth of their saddles.

They dominated in battle because of their cavalry archers. I think that is important to mention. Most of their enemies fought on foot, and with melee weapons. So, they fired arrows at them, and if any got close enough to attack back, they'd just ride off a bit, letting them chase them until they were exhausted, then turn and fire some more arrows at them. I see this artical currently mentions they used lances, and that playing an important part of their victory somehow. I'd like some sources for that information, since it seems to me its best to just keep shooting your enemy from a safe distance, your bows strong enough to penetrate anything they had.

The History Channel mentioned how their leaders would blend in with the rest of them in the battle, not standing out at all for their enemy to be able to target. They'd also lure out their enemy whenever possible, then flank them, attacking from all around.

When they were conquering Europe, the Roman Catholic Church declared it armaggedon, the end of the world, the devil's horsemen destroying them all.

When conquering a city, they'd only slaughter everyone there if they resisted. Everyone but a few that would be kept alive, and sent on horseback to all the other cities in the area, to warn of what happened to any who resisted. In this manner, they didn't have to fight, most cities having the sense to just surrender early on. They'd kill anyone who was sent out to try to negotiate with them.

They drove their herds of livestock with them as they traveled.

Even today, the people of the Step, have bags of dirt with them, that they toss across ice, so their horses can cross without problems. They drink fermented mare's milk for their choice of alcoholic beverages.

The bows they used were introduced from trade with the Ayserians I believe, who they traded with, they needing a lot of horses in their empire, getting it from the mongols. They'd have little wood on the Step, so would make composite bows of other materials.

Thats all I remember from the program. It was several episodes, each two hours long I believe.

Oh, and they lived in silk tents. Even after conquering cities, they built an area of silk tents for their people to live in, so they wouldn't loose their ways.

Hope someone can use all of that to improve the artical. Dream Focus 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but some of that are popular myths, some is blatant nonsense, and the little that remains is already mentioned in related articles. You shouldn't rely on TV documentaries about such topics. There may be exceptions, but most of them are horribly researched. --Latebird 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most of this stuff is just wrong. The part about relying on horse archers is true, but they did not get their bow design from the "Ayserians" (Assyrians?). The Mongol bow is similar enough to the Hun bow to make it pretty clear that this design was developed in central Asia. siafu 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias in "Areas that avoided conquest"

"The point is that the Mongols were unable to bring a unified army to bear on either Europe, or Egypt, after 1260. Bluntly, had the Mongol Great Khanate remained intact, and not fallen apart due to infighting between the various cousins, the European powers and the Mamluke Sultanate would have either surrendered to the authority of the Great Khan, or more likely, been conquered and razed."

Is it the Chinese Government that's writing this article? This is entirely theoretical opinion and therefore I am removing it. Wikipedia articles are not racial superiority contests or "what if" discussions, they need to be fact-based. 71.234.96.121 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this isn't the only part of this section of the article that needs to be rewritten, the fact that the passage contains "probably" and "if" in it several times points to that fact. Once again, this is not an article on theoretical history. 71.234.96.121 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

I notice that in the section Law and Governance, the fact that the Mongols wiped out entire cities is added almost as an afterthought.

"At the same time, any resistance to Mongol rule was met with massive collective punishment. Cities were destroyed and their inhabitants slaughtered if they defied Mongol orders." That's it. That is the entire description of any negative aspects to Mongol rule in the entire section. I'm not saying we should perpetuate the stereotype of the Mongols as bloodthirsty savages, but this to me seems too unbalanced in the sort of "Weren't the Mongols wonderful, they had law and order and meritocracy and all sorts of good things" direction.

Maybe I'm just taking it the wrong way. What do others think? WikiReaderer 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that information belongs into this section at all. Law and governance within a state is a seperate topic from the methods used to fight its enemies (whatever the reasons for such a fight might be). Instead, information about combat related victims belongs into a section (or seperate articles) about the conquests that established the empire. --Latebird 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Shadowcry1000 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)How come Christianity is given a prominent subsection as opposed to the other two religions which had a greater impact on the Mongol way of life then Christianity????

Because people were willing to spend time and effort finding sources and writing something about it, instead of just complaining. --Latebird (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Translation

Reading this is like reading a translation from someone who does not speak English too well. Chock full of mistakes and incomplete and improper sentences.

It's reasons like this why a lot of people don't take Wikipedia seriously, and make fun of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.157.90 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Organization

The organization of this article is a total mess. It ought to describe the reigns of the different khans in rough chronological order, including descriptions of the individual military campaigns, rather than the current weird topical organization. Then it can go on and describe the histories of each of the major divisions. john k (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This article and the one about Genghis Khan are in a constantly bad sbgbuwdgkhhape. If you want to do anything about it, please do. I somehow lack the enthusiasm. Yaan (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Technological Achievements?

The statement "The Mongol Empire is also responsible for many technological achievements that are in wide use today." lacks any facts or examples, except for the adjoining, sourceless claim: "In addition, they discovered a unique way to increase the population of fish in a given body of water.". I would recommend the first statement be removed until it is substantiated.

Viet

The article currently gives the impression that the Mongols destroyed the Kingdom, while History of Vietnam gives the impression that they only suffered defeats (I am assuming that Viet and Dai Viet are just two different terms for the same state?). Which one is correct? Yaan (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This fact is incorrect. There is no quote and the other parts in this article have indicated that Northern Vietnamese avoided Mongol conquer. Anyone know how to edit? Please edit as correct. Thanks.--Vuhoantran (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Khagan

It's true that the Mongol Empire was ONCE joined by a Great Khan (or Khagan). The five Great Khan are (in order): Genghis Khan, Ögedei Khan, Guyuk Khan, Mongke Khan, and Kublai Khan, who was the last Great Khan. During Kublai Khan's reign (actually from the beginning at 1260), the Mongol Empire was already in the processing of splitting, with only Ilkhanate recognizing Kublai Khan as the Great Khan, whereas all other khanates (Chagatai Khanate and Golden Hord) didn't recognize and even fought again him. When Kublai Khan died, and no more accepted Great Khan existed, all khanates (including lkhanate) were formally splitted up, as explained in the main article. Even Kublai Khan's successors didn't attempt to sommon the kurultai to claim the title of Khagan, but ruled as emperor of the Yuan Dynasty instead. So by this time Mongol Empire was fragmented and indeed existed in theory only.--128.100.109.52 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that one Ilkhan tried to gain approval from the successor of Khubilai, and got it. I will try to look up sources, but it will take some days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaan (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw. how do I have to imagine the formal split of the empire? Did Khubilai or his successor send documents to each of the other Khans and released them to independence? Yaan (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't say if one Ilkhan indeed tried to gain approval and got it (please try to look up sources if you can), but if it was really the case, then the only possibility seems to be Baydu, who however only ruled Ilkhante for only 4-5 months in 1295, and was executed on the same year. The khan before Baydu was Gaykhatu, who ruled from 1291 to 1295, so he had no need to get any approval from the successor of Kublai. Gaykhatu even tried to introduce paper money to Ilkhante, but was a complete failure and disaster, and he himself was assassinated shortly after. The khan after Baydu was Ghazan, who managed to take power after a civil war in 1295 and executed Baydu. He reorganized the khanate and actively converted the entire country to Islam, and prosecuted all other faiths as soon as he got power from the civil war. He obviously did not try to get approval from the successor of Khubilai.

As for the formal split of the empire, it can happen in several ways. For example: separate king for each kingdom, and no "overlord" who can join them together exists. Even in the case of personal union, these entities are considered separate and sovereign states. With each khan for each khanate, and the a absence of a great khan after Kublai ("the last great khan"), the empire was formally and permanently splitted. Consider the example of Roman Empire. It was divided into Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire in 286. However, the Roman Empire was not permanently splitted until Theodosius I, the last Roman Emperor who ruled over a unified Roman Empire, died in 395. After 395, both the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire are considered independent from each other, since they were not joined together by an "overlord". The Mongol Empire was kind of similar in this aspect, as explained above.--128.100.109.22 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I will look up the bit on the Ilkhans, but I think the wording in "By the time of Kublai Khan's death, the Mongol Empire was formally splitted into four separate khanates." is rather misleading. I think what you mean is that the empire had already de facto split up. What it sounds like is that, upon Khubilai's death, someone released the other Khanates into independence, or that they declared their independence upon Khubilai's death. I think it would be more accurate to write ""By the time of Kublai Khan's death, the Mongol Empire had already split up into four separate khanates." - unless we find sources that describe the formalities involved in the split-up of the empire. Yaan (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the wording, I think. The word "formally" was originally used as a response to the IP user 71.229.195.124's statement "the joint property of khagan, Kublai Khan, it didn't became independent". By using "formally", I was roughly saying "so then, after the death of Kublai Khan, the last khagan, they did become independent after all". Yes, I admit this usage was somewhat informal in another sense, unless more sources are found. "By the time of Kublai Khan's death, the Mongol Empire had already split up into four separate khanates." is more accurate in a general sense.--128.100.109.9 (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, after our changes, it now reads "However, by that time the empire had already fragmented, with the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate being de facto independent and refusing to accept Kublai Khan as Khagan. By the time of Kublai Khan's death, with no accepted Khagan existed, the Mongol Empire had already splitted up into four separate khanates", which stated the two steps: during the time of Kublai Khan's rule and after the time Kublai Khan died.--128.100.109.9 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ghazan of Ilkhanate did renounce all allegiance to the Great Khan after he converted to Islam in 1295[3].--128.100.109.9 (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Micheal Weiers, Die Mongolen im Iran, in Michael Weiers (editor), Die Mongolen. Beitraege zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur, Darmstadt 1986, p.323ff states that beginning with Gaikhatu, the Ilkhans did not await their appointment from Beijing before declaring themselves Khan. Weiers also states that Ghazan began using a new title on the coins he had made etc., but describes these steps towards independence as rather informal ("formlos"). However, the Ilkhans and Yuan dynasty did remain friendly, and Oljeitu Temur sent the Ilkhan Oljeitu an official seal in 1304 (ibd. p.333). So while none of the later Ilkhans actively sought approval from Beijing, one of them at least received it. Yaan (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good information. Just a quick note, remaining friendly to some degree and being a vessel are different concepts. Ilkhans no longer sought approval from anyone else, as Ilkhanate started to become independent and Khagans ceased to exist. Sending a seal once later in the history may represent a symbolic peace and/or friendship between them (which in effect also acknowledged its practical independence), but not an authority or so.--207.112.4.206 (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

agree. Yaan (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

J.Bor had written about a commonwealth of sub-khanates of Mongol empire in his book, "The history of Eurasian diplomatic relations" Евразийн дипломат шашстир боть 2',: Great khan in Peking is a king of kings. grand lord Uzbeg (known as Ozbek), Khan in moghulistan, and Abusai (Abu said) respect him and sent tributes such as jewels, furs and pets to the great khan every year. (talk) 8:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassals of Mongol Empire

Though the above article appears to have been created in good faith, it has no sources, and I'm not sure it's really an appropriate subject for its own article. For now, I am recommending that the information be merged here, unless someone has a better idea? --El on ka 02:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that much of the information at Vassals of Mongol Empire is already included here. I too would support a merge of whatever useful information may be salvaged from the former. Aramgar (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Aramgar and support merge. The other article looks like a partially listified excerpt from here. --Latebird (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I created the page. Although, you guys have written so much about Mongol empire, there is so much to be done. For example most of people still believe Mongols not invaded Lithuanina. And mongols in russia counted them as their special subjects (see a book by Gumilev) Enerelt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.1.12 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Was Korea a vessal of Mongol Empire or a part of Mongol Empire? During that time Korea (Goryeo) was ruled by its own kings, and maintained its sovereign power according to the treaty with Mongols (see Mongol invasions of Korea for details). Hence, I think it's more accurate to say Korea was a vessal of Mongol Empire, rather than a part of it.--207.112.122.3 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is merged. everything. i think this is a good information and i didn't remove anything but source seems to need to verify these information. it is helpful information 71.237.70.49 (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

- not merged clearly. I modified Korea as a vassal, but someone keeps reverting the page as if Korea as a part of Mongol Empire. Explanations in the page are also baised to exaggerate Mongol conquest. The page should be fixed to show how and why Mongol failed to annex Korea.

Define "annex" Korea? Mongol troops were garrisoned in Korea, and the Koreans were completely at their mercy. During the years of Kublai's attempt to invade Japan, vast amounts of Mongol troops were in the southern part of the country. If the Koreans had attempted any independent action, they would have been subjected to a military destruction and civilian massacre that would have bordered on genocide. By any definition of the word, Korea was subjugated. Were they part of the "Empire of the Great Khan" on a map? No - but that doesn't change the reality. 98.67.185.187 (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan

Questioned information?

Someone previously added the sentence "(Note: This information is questioned, since Möngke died on July 21st 1259.)" to a paragraph discussing Möngke Khan and Kublai in the main article, but it seems that he did not understand the information correctly. What really happened is: (1). Möngke Khan assigned Kublai to a province in North China before his death; (2). Möngke Khan died in 1259; (3). Kublai won a chance to become Khan in 1260. The event (3) is the result from (1) and (2), i.e. the chance was provided unwittingly by Möngke Khan's action of (1) before his death. It clearly does not mean that Möngke Khan assigned Kublai to a province in North China in 1260 after his death in 1259, which would be ridicious. Obviously that sentence should be removed.--128.100.109.33 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why?

While reading the article I was thinking about why the Mongolians created/conquered such a huge empire. I know near to nothing about the period or the subject, but read the article out of curiosity. It made me wondering whether there are any theories of historians around. I know a little more of the Roman empire, which seems to have initially been a result of fear for neighbouring people or states, attacking and conquering them out of defence. Later, when the Roman state found itself winning a lot of battles and taking possession of a lot of territory, they occasionally justified their conquest with an ideology of civilization. So, what about the Mongolians? TJR Lanjouw (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting question. Mongols conquered many empires and won numerous battles. Great khan was seen as the God or messenger of the lord above heaven (tengri)by the mongols. That's why they were considered as lord of earth. You know that Guyuk khan said in his letter to Pope, "There is only God in heaven, and only one lord, Genghis khan on land.".

Otherwise, foreigners especially Jurched, Khwarizmians, turks and russians, hungarians all killed mongol messengers and was threatening safety of their empire. For example, jurcheds destroyed and enslaved mongols once a year in order to keep them weak. So, mongols had only one way. That was conquest!. Enerelt 8:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So, the Mongols saw themselves as 'natural' conquerors, following Genghis Khan who was considered the lord of the earth. But this still leaves the question of how this ideology, as you might call it, came into being. This was the first time, and the last time they conquered 'the earth'. Did they see their Khan as 'lord of the earth' before Genghis? Did they have a conquerors mentality before Genghis?

In another article on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Central_Asia, it is written in the introduction that the mongols initially unified all 'people in felt tents'. This all happened with little bloodshed. They could have stopped at this point.. but no, now they had become a power to be reckoned with, they got involved with other empires.

It seems to me that the Mongol empire was, in fact as I believe like rise of many empires, partly a result of a series of coincidental military and political successes that gave them a lot of power. As their successes accumulated, Genghis Khan slowly came to be seen as the legitimate ruler and lord of the earth. This may have been the incitement for more conquest.

Ah, well. This is just a theory. As I have said above: I have close to no knowledge (apart from the wikipedia articles) of the Mongol empire and this part of world history. What do the specialist historians have to say about this matter? Hm... maybe I should read some real books... TJR Lanjouw (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not that hard to understand. Basically they invaded people and when the resisted, they were notoriously brutal, killing almost everyone. When people submitted they were expected to behave submissive and supportive to Mongol garisson. Follow the Yasa and respect the Mongol leaders. If not they were wiped out. Mongols needed land, goods, property and action. Simple as that. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple — and wrong." (H.L. Mencken) --Latebird (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What they did was not in any way surprising considering what had happend before. Nomads from the eurasian steppe east of the urals had periodicly crossed the urals into the european portion of eurasia and raided/conqoured. Sythians, hunss, Sarmatians, Bulgars, the slavs, the list goes on. Hell, the turks were in the central asian steppe, The only difference is that the mongol empire was founded on the beleif that its founder was a godlike being, lord of the east and then later, the world.--Jakezing (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Purportedly major events

The two subsections Major events in the Early Mongol Empire and Major events in the late Mongol Empire are continously getting filled up with stuff that isn't major at all. They should both be radically reduced to include only the really important and crucial events. Many of the battles are rather insignificant in context, and most administrative trivia (eg. the establishment of a school nobody's ever heard of) is of no importance at all. On top of that, according to WP:STYLE#Bulleted and numbered lists, the two lists should be turned into normal running text to begin with. Who's up to the task? --Latebird (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Latebird,

Thank you for your offer. We should make the section more useful. But the school founded by Kubla is true fact. Mongols were not simple barbarians ad you think. They had and still have their own unique culture. Thank u. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.1.11 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether those schools existed or not (you'd need sources for that anyway), their creation clearly wasn't a "major event" in the big picture of things. --Latebird (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

vassals

no single item from the vassals list seems to be sourced. The Second Bulgarian Empire article sais the Bulgars (who have already been removed from the list) paid tribute, but nothing about military support or protection. I am somewhat inclined to remove all of them unless someone presents a reliable source. Any thoughts? Yaan (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria was under protection of Nogai khan, the great grand son of Genghis khan. Although, he invaded the kingdom a dozen of times, mongols and bulgars together attacked Byzantine empire. So it should not be removed. Enerelt 9:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you really want Sources, See: The books of Rene Grousset, Amite Press, J.Saunders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerelt (talk • contribs) 10:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you have the sources, just add them. In fact, I have now also found sources for the Bulgars recognizing Nogai as their souzerain, but very scetchy ones - not good enough to add here. It would also be cool to give some additional info - when did they become vassals, etc. I am also still unsure about using some other word than "vassal" - "tributary" might be a better choice, unless we can show that the attack on Byzantium was more than just a case of common interests.

~~In any case: what is the source for the Byzantine empire being in any way subordinate to the Mongols?~~ And when did Nogai become a Khan? Regards, Yaan (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Byzance, I just checked Rene Grousset's Empire of the Steppes, New Brunswick 1970 (those pages mentioned in the index under "Byzantine Empire" and "Constantinople", anyway) and could not find any references to "tribute", only to "alliance". I will therefore put up a "dubious" sign for now. Yaan (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian Archipelago

In Harmonia Progressio! (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Here is written that the only five accessible regions that successfully avoided Mongol conquest were Japan, Indochina, South Asia, Western Europe, and Arabia. In fact, Indonesian Archipelago (not including Malay Peninsula) was also had never been conquered by Mongols even though it was accessible (Kublai sent an envoy to Kertanegara, one of the local ruler and he refused to submit to the Mongols, so Kublai sent forces and so on, you could see the details here. I'd like to edit that but I don't have sources or references. Anyone can help me?

See Mongol invasion of Java --Enerelt (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If lands that was not conquered by mongols, we can say even Antarctica, America, Australia. In the artcicle, we are talking about only land that mongols tried to occupy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerelt (talk • contribs) 03:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who decides which areas were accessible to the Mongols? That really sounds like Original Research alltogether. --Latebird (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is true. I am sorry but I think that We don't need to add sentences about Indonesian Archipelago. --Enerelt (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But I stated before that Mongols under Kublai Khan TRIED to conquer Java. We even have an article called MONGOL INVASION OF JAVA and yet the Mongols failed to do so. Tell me how much I must retype that. I stated that at my first post and I won't mind to retype those 1000 times if that could make you understand. Or did I miss something here?In Harmonia Progressio! (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you write just that then? not "Indonesian archipelago" but "Java", and not "accessible and avoided", but "tried and failed". The basic idea is very simple: Just write the facts but no interpretative speculations. --Latebird (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just gathering opinions. Mongols also tried to conquer Japan, Western Europe, India, etc. But I saw someone adding Mongol invasion of Java as reference in Indochina section, so to make it more properly I will change 'Indochina' to 'Southeast Asia'. Is it OK? In Harmonia Progressio! (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Foundation

I think we should expand the section Foundation of Mongol empire. What do u think?--Enerelt (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"Chambers" :
- Chambers, James, ''The Devil's Horsemen'' Atheneum, 1979, ISBN 0-689-10942-3
- Chambers, James, The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe
"Nicolle" :
- Nicolle, David, ''The Mongol Warlords'' Brockhampton Press, 1998, ISBN 978-1853141041.
- [[David Nicolle]], ''The Mongol Warlords'' Brockhampton Press, 1998, ISBN 978-1853141041.

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cause of the success

Why no information about cause of the successes. Did they employ some new technology to defeat their enemies?--Dojarca (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mongol armies under Genghiz-Ogedai-Kublai were the most effective military "machine" in history up to that time. Their speed and maneuverability, their employment of the crossbow and horse management, their tactics both military and political were abilities their adversaries did not possess. One could almost say they utilized a "blitzkrieg" sort of policy. They also used sheer terror in a way so that news of them became so mythical that opposing forces were often demoralized so that they fought poorly, if they didn't surrender first. The Mongols employed the Chinese so that they could lay siege to cities. They also had an excellent comraderie which would last until the empire began to split up into its rival khanates. Until the invention of firearms, these (original) tactics were unbeatable.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan

Alliances

The fact about Alliances written here when we talk about their conquests. So it is not neccessary to create new section for this.--Enerelt (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ghazan and Great Khan

Do not forget Ghazan's policy. He changed his mind after the defeat of Oirat Nowruz.--Enerelt (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese records also regard he was a vassal, though they described the relationship as subordinate to the court of China.--207.112.124.205 (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, China was the part of the Mongol Empire.--Enerelt (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Religions

Gwern claims that Christianity and Islam are significant religions for the Mondol Empire and should be included in the infobox. According to sources I've seen, Shamanism and Buddhism are the dominant religions of the Mongol Empire. One of the important features of the Empire was its tolerance for other religions.[4] While Christianity and Islam came into contact with Mongol culture at various times, essentially the ideas of these religions were assimilated into the dominant religion by the Mongols. Although representatives of various religions were, at times, recruited by the Mongols, it gives a false impression to list these religions as significant in the infobox. Today, the numbers of adherents to Christianity in Mongolia is around 2 percent; Islam = six percent. So these are neither significant religions for the Mongol Empire nor for Mongolia today.Sunray (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the infoboxes of other countries, I note that most do not list religion. Therefore, I have deleted that heading from the ME infobox. Sunray (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m not Gwern, but I think it really depends on whether you consider its descendant khanates as part of its history or not. They were not significant religions on an official level by Kublai Khan's death in 1294. Later though, Islam was adopted by three of its four descendant khanates (except Yuan) as the state religion, and certainly became dominant within them. --207.112.86.168 (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The information in the infobox was perfectly accurate and I see no reason to delete it. Other country articles lacking in this regard are no justification. --Latebird (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You want to have a section in the infobox on religion, despite the fact that it is not generally done in articles on nations? Well, I note that it is done in some cases for empires (e.g., Roman Empire). I can live with that. However, we should make sure we have correct information about the most influential religions. The information in the infobox currently implies that Christianity and Islam were religions of significance to the Mongol Empire. I'm not convinced that is the case. The empire took a tolerant stance towards outside religions, but their religion was shamanistic.[5]

"Chinggis Khaan and his successors idolised shamanism and holy spirits... Buddhists, Christians, Nestorians, Muslims and Confucians co-existed by setting up their own temples and monasteries..." [6]

Surely we cannot list all the religions that came under the empire at various times. However, we know that shamanism was important. Later Buddhism became a major influence,[7] and continues to be significant in Mongolia today, with currently 94% of the population being Buddhist. So I'm fine with listing Shamanism and Buddhism, but if you want to list the others, please provide citations to illustrate their importance. Sunray (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Islam was adopted by three of its four descendant khanates (except Yuan) as the state religion. Do you consider these descendant khanates as part of the history of the Mongol Empire? If yes, don't you consider Islam to be significant? If no, shouldn't we change the current end year of the Mongol Empire in the top of the infobox? --207.112.86.168 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

These were subject peoples who the Mongols allowed to keep their religion. It is a bit of a leap to suggest that the religion was important to the empire. But if you can produce a citation to that effect, please do so. Sunray (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is very inaccurate to say "These were subject peoples who the Mongols allowed to keep their religion" in the post-1294 period. Don't mix up the pre-1260 Mongol Empire with its descendant khanates in the west in the later period. Unlike in the pre-1260 Mongol Empire and the Yuan Dynasty, Islam officially became the STATE RELIGION of the three western khanates beginning with Ghazan in 1295. Many people in these khanates (especially Ilkhanate and Chagatai Khanate) were forced to convert to Islam, and other faiths were often persecuted (e.g. Ghazan required all Buddhists in the Ilkhanate either to convert to Islam, or to leave the country).--207.112.86.168 (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Says who? Just produce a citation for this and we are done. Note, however, you will likely have more difficulty producing a citation regarding Christianity. Sunray (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Providing a citiation for *what I have said* is pretty easy. For example: here and here. Note, however, I did not mention anything regarding Christianity above whatsoever, so there is no need for me to do anything about it.--207.112.86.168 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good cites, thank you. Sunray (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, if I understand you correctly, you seem to think that only the religion practised by the rulers matters, and that of their subjects is irrelevant? How exactly do you justify such an exclusion? The part about christianity is rather easy as well btw., as Nestorianism was quite popular in Mongolia at the time, exemplified most prominently by Sorghaghtani Beki, the mother of Kublai Khan and three other Great Khans (all well sourced in the respective articles). --Latebird (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Latebird, you did not understand me correctly. I have only questioned whether there is evidence, from a reliable and verifiable source that these religions were important to the empire. The reason for that seems obvious to me. Information included in an infobox is summary in nature, necessarily limited by space, and must be accurate. Do you have a good citation regarding Christianity? Sunray (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The role of christianity in the Mongol Empire is well known and equally well documented. May I refer you to Mongol Empire#Christianity and the sources given there? Somehow I increasingly get the impression that you didn't even bother to read the article (and the others recommended to you above) before starting to make demands about it here. --Latebird (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Those references were the very ones that led me to ask the question in the first place. They do not show that Christianity had any particular importance for the Mongol Empire. Sunray (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As strange (and possibly counter-intuitive) it might seem to the Modern Man, whole tribes of the Mongols were actually Christians (the Naiman, the Merkit, the Öngüd, and to a large extent the Kara Khitan). Please see the Christianity among the Mongols article. Cheers PHG (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the conclusive sources (and civil tone). Sunray (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The section Mongol Empire#Christianity I recommended to you above references Christianity among the Mongols as the related Main article, which again links to the others mentioned. But if you're more easily willing to accept that information from someone else, no problem... --Latebird (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also in this section, could someone better explain the sentence: "While three out of the four Mongol khanates converted to Islam, Mongol men did not fully prohibit women's political influence." I'm not sure I fully understand the connection being made here, or the reason for it. --208.101.133.168 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

At a guess, it's trying to say that 'they converted to Islam, but weren't hardcore about it'. --Gwern (contribs) 14:55 4 October 2008 (GMT)

should christianity included in the infobox before islam?!! i think it dosent make any sense to even include christianity in the infobox however it even included before islam (which became the dominate religion in three parts of the four parts of the mongol empire and was the state religion for the three parts in addition of the existence of many muslims in the fourth part of the empire such as uygurs!! ) due to the dominance of islam in central asia,persia , volga bulgaria and cucasuse before being conquered by mongols . and i realy want to know the relation between islam and the prohibition of women's plolitical influence regarding to examples such as muslim ruler of egypt queen Shajar al-Durr which was a muslim and a queen in the muslim world so what is the relation between the two subjects?!!!!

additional citation for massive annual human sacrifices wanted

The text currently states, under Organization -> Religions -> Buddhism (emphasis mine):

"Khatun Chabi influenced Kublai to be converted to Buddhism. She received the Hévajra tantra initiations from Phagspa and was very impressed. Khubilai offered Phagpa rule over the thirteen trikhors of Tibet. On the completion of the second stage, Khubilai offered Phagpa a white dharma conch shell and rule over all the three provinces of Tibet. The third stage of the initiation was followed by Khubilai taking a vow to renounce the yearly mass sacrifices of his Chinese subjects. The sacrifices involved an annual ritual of throwing a large number of Chinese subjects into Lake Miyou to check the growth of the Chinese population in his empire."

The source (which seems to be copied verbatim, btw.) is http://www.tibet.com/Status/mongol.html. Large-scale killing during the Mongol conquests is, of course, a well-established fact, as are (occasional) human sacrifices performed by Mongols, e.g. the death of Tolui, Khubilai's father, or the "sacrifice to the flag" ritual performed by Khatanbaatar Magsarjav at the siege of Hovd in 1912. I personally, however, have not come across a reference to massive, and regular, human sacrifices so far, though this may just be ignorance. This particular statement from Tibet.com seems to uncited, and I was also unable to locate a Miyou lake. It does not seem implausible that some Tibetan chronicle should mention such claims, and be it just to reinforce the self-image of the Tibetan lamas as spiritual teachers. But are there any reliable and verifyable secondary sources for this?

Yaan (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Small addition: I seem to remember the boiling-to-death of 70 princes of the Chinos (sp?) (Wolf) clan has been explained as "shamanistic ritual" by Michael Weiers in his Geschichte der Mongolen. So this may be another instance of human sacrifice, and one of more than 3 or four people. Yaan (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Destruction under the Mongol Empire article devoted to the negative influences of the empire. Should we move all related infos and the external link recently added by someone to this article?--209.90.146.54 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving incorrect statements around doesn't make them true. Let's just delete everything that can't be independently verified. If the above link is the only source for those alleged "mass sacrifices", then I'd consider them unsourced. Such strong claims (especially negative claims) need to be based on several sources, preferrably of a scholarly nature. --Latebird (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I don't mean to just move incorrect statements around, but try to move the useful part regarding this topic from this article. As for unverified ones, I agree to delete them.--209.90.146.54 (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That text also has other problems. For example, what do "second stage" and "third stage" mean? They appear to be completely undefined. Deletion should be the best solution.--209.90.144.245 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the source, these are stages of some Hévajra tantra initiation. But I agree with the deletion.

The text about "Tengriism" also seems a bit strange. The first issue is that it is so far down the line, when Islam and Buddhism only became powerful much later, the other issue is that it is completely unsourced, and also seems a bit one-sided: Did the Mongols of the 12th century not also worship the hearth fire, or mountains? How can Mongol shamanism (assuming there is at least some similarity between what is practiced today and what was practiced in the 12th/13th century) be described as monotheistic? Or even a monotheistic religion? The name dropping also seems a bit suspicious, what is the source for Khormusta already being revered in the 12th or 13th centuries, was it really Köke Möngke Tngri or maybe just Möngke Tngri that the Mongols revered, etc.

I guess one could find some answers in the comments of Igor de Rachewiltz' translation of the Secret History of the Mongols, unfortunately my library does not have this work, and it's a bit expensive to buy for myself. Yaan (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That section makes unsourced claims that aren't even mentioned in Tengriism (and not in the much more complete de:Tengrismus either). I think it should be rewritten to summarize the elsewhere existing sourced information. --Latebird (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"civil strife in Mongol Empire from 1260-1304"

Any support for considering the wars and disintegration since 1260 a "civil strife in Mongol Empire from 1260-1304"? The source given instead mentioned that "The united empire lasted only until around 1260, but the major sucessor states continued on in the Middle East, present day Russian, Central Asia and China for generations, ...".--207.112.71.179 (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you should register your account first. Thanks--Enerelt (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion (and I'll do it). However, I don't think this would prevent any discussions though.--207.112.71.179 (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)--

FYI, I will use this account from now on.--Choulin (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I am sorry if the message above sounds stubborn. But I told you the reason before as you know. I usually agree with what you say. I believe the Mongols in Middle east, China, Mongolia and Russia all considered themselves as a part of Mongol Empire, however, they didn't want to be ruled by Kublai. When Kaidu was fighting against the Mongol Yuan, he certainly wanna be Great Khan instead of establishing his own khanate.--Enerelt (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I found your message only a few days later because my IP changed. I'm really sorry if it caused any displeasure. Regarding Kaidu, there is actually a different view about this. The paper "Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State In Central Asia" concludes that "Kaidu did not aspire to become the Great Khan but played a crucial role in the emergence of an independent Chaghate Khanate in the early 14th century." (see [8]). I really respect your belief, though I think the article should tolerant different views by selecting more neutral words.--Choulin (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Official Motto of the Mongol Empire

What is the source for this - I assume it is not some letterhead? Yaan (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is also not the Shahada, or is it? Yaan (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

One source seems to be Möngke's letter to the king of France, as related by William of Rubruck: search for "in Heaven there is only one eternal God, and on Earth there is only one lord, Chingis Chan" here. So it actually is a letterhead, and from a quite reliable source, so my mockery from above stands corrected. However, Rubruck admits that he only has an approximate translation, and one (so far) instance of this sentence being employed does not yet make it the motto of the empire, I think (per WP:UNDUE?). Yaan (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Historiography

I think it's better to keep the different historiography, because it does provide useful information to reveal the influence and legacy of the Mongol Empire as observed by its subjects and/or historians. Furthermore, the establishment of the Qing Dynasty in 1636 was also influenced by the Northern Yuan, thus it did have a link to the Mongol Empire.--Choulin (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. --Enerelt (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone is doing vandalism from IP 75.111.37.124--Enerelt (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So is IP 74.174.2.194. I have undone his edit.--Choulin (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

This article should be semi-protected. --Enerelt (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

United operation

It is unfair that Western khanates didn't provide sources to Great Khans. Ozbeg sent Russian captives of Tver who revolted against Mongol Rule in 1327. And Tokhta and Chagatai Khans sent tumens to buttress the Yuan frontier. Only Ilkhanate couldn't provide real military forces regarding its distance and total manpower. One real fact is that they didn't give enough men to the Yuan. --Enerelt (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you have perhaps misapprehended it. The original quote from The Cambridge History of China: Alien Regimes and Border States is: "But the four khanates never again pooled their resources in a cooperative military endeavor. The campaigns against the Southern Sung and the Abbasid Calisid Caliphate were the last unified military ventures of the Mongolian empire." That "the four khanates never again pooled their resources in a cooperative military endeavor" in this text means a cooperative military campaigns as in the earlier period, and does not precisely mean the same thing as "Western khanates didn't provide sources to Great Khans" as you said. I think we all know that there exist instances where some khanates did send some support to another, but these are not exactly what the quote from Cambridge History of China is actually talking about. The same page also has a summary about the later period, though I never put it in the article: "The four khanates continued to interact with one another well into the fourteenth century, but they did so as sovereign states; they formed alliances, fought one another, exchanged envoys, and traded commercial products."--Choulin (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I have changed the wording a bit, which is probably more precise.--Choulin (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what we must do in order to protect the page. Editing one's vandalism especially from unknown IPs is annoying. --Enerelt (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While every single instance is annoying, the level of vandalism on this page is very low, so that a protection request would most likely be denied. --Latebird (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Officially fell in 1368?

What does it mean by Genghis Khan’s Empire "officially fell in 1368"? How did it "officially" fall in that year? Toghun Temür of the Yuan Dynasty fled from Dadu to Shangdu in 1368, then from Shangdu to Yingchang in 1369, and died in Yingchang in 1370, followed by his successor's retreat in the same year (1370) to Karakorum, where he still ruled, usually known as the Northern Yuan. I could not see a point to the claim that Genghis Khan’s Empire "officially" fell in the year of 1368. Compared with this year (if we ignore the fact that the empire was split as early as 1260), it's even more reasonable to state that Genghis Khan’s Empire officially fell in 1635, when Ejei surrendered to Hong Taiji, who soon established the Qing Dynasty. I have changed it to "Yuan Dynasty in China fell in 1368".--Choulin (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

hit-and-run tactics. sourced.

why is it hidden that the major part of the Mongol success were the hit-and-run tactics? mentioned everywhere in bibliography as "typical of the horse archers of the Eurasian steppe peoples". at least a mention should be given.. what i ask is where in the article and how. some sources>

1. Mongols and Mamluks, By Reuven Amitai-Preiss,
2. Transactions, American Philosophical Society (vol. 36, Part 1, 1946),
3. Mongolia: a Profile, By Viktor Porfirievich Petrov,
4. The Conquests of Genghis Khan, By Alison Behnke
--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A successful empire is built on many factors, and any specific military tactic is only a minor detail among them. The information you're looking for is appropriately covered in Mongol military tactics and organization#Tactics. Btw.: The feigned retreat tactics as applied by the Mongols were much more elaborate than a simple "hit-and-run". --Latebird (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fall

The empire itself obviously broke apart since 1260. The Encyclopedia of Mongolian and the Mongol Empire (see its Mongol Empire and Yuan Dynasty entries) for example clearly explains this. Unfortunately, however, some theory or historiography seems to use this term to mean the extended "imperialism" after the breakup of the empire. While I partially respect this theory or historiography, but you can't ignore the very important facts that 1) the empire already became fractured into four empires beginning 1260; 2) the Yuan Dynasty officially established in 1270s was also intended to be the genuine successor of previous Chinese dynasties; 3) Kublai's edict in 1271 in theory really changed the name of the whole empire to "Great Yuan", even though the empire was already split at that time; 4) the Genghisid empire (or its descendant empires) certainly did not suddenly end in the year of 1368, but for example the rulers of the Northern Yuan Dynasty surviving in Mongolia continued to hold the title Emperor of the Great Yuan and lasted for a few centuries, and some other descendant empires such as the Golden Horde also continued for a long time after the year 1368.

A solution may be to avoid showing the end year at all; but if it is shown, then the above facts must not be ignored, and the article should not stick to a particular historiography or nationalist view (while a historiography considers the the fall of the Yuan Dynasty in China in 1368 to be the end of the Mongol Empire (i.e. Yuan is just a continuation of the Mongol Empire), another significant historiography considers the Yuan Dynasty started in 1206, when Genghis Khan set up the foundation of the dynasty, and later his grandson Kublai Khan officially changed its name to "Great Yuan" (i.e. Mongol Empire is a part of the early Yuan history). They are almost exactly the opposite, but both are in fact nationalist views; we cannot just present one of them but not the other). The Wikipedia article itself, as a convention, may focus on the real empire before its split, while extended versions or other variations may be presented in relevant sections or fit in other articles or maybe a separate article, just like what is done in the relevant entries of the Encyclopedia of Mongolian and the Mongol Empire.--Choulin (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're starting an edit war based on one single source? As far as I know, regarding the fall of the Yuan as the end of the Mongol Empire is the prevalent view. In 1260, the Empire was split, but it didn't end. Kublai and his successors were both emperors of China and Great Khans of the Mongols. But of course it may not hurt to compare what different sources actually say. I've now put in both dates. The first one marks the end of a united Mongol Empire, the second marks the point where the Mongol rule over almost all of Asia ended. The detailed interpretations must be explained in the text. --Latebird (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly (perhaps you have already noticed now because I did not see you make any changes after all). Actually, yesterday I already left a message in Template talk:Infobox Former Country to request the maintainers of the former country template to make the start/end year optional, even before any potential edit war occurred (notice that I already said "a solution may be to avoid showing the end year at all" in my original message above). In that talk page, I mentioned that there is significant disagreement about its end year, and listed some possible candidates and waited for a change. Also, soon after I reverted the edit in this article, I decided to create a modified version of this template without showing the start/end year (Template:Infobox_Former_Country_without_lifespan) myself, and replaced the template in this article to this modified version, obviously in the hope to avoid further disputes and edit war. Note that I don't really insist a particular end year, and end years such as 1260, 1294, 1368, 1635 in my opinion are all just candidates, either list none of them in the template (but will be explained in the article anyway), or follow some existing convention (the year 1294 seemed to be a pre-established convention in Wikipedia, though I don't really know when it became so).

Now return to the real topic. Yes, in 1260 the empire was split into four, and in 1368 the Yuan Dynasty in China ended, and in 1635 the Northern Yuan Dynasty in Mongolia also ended. From the time Kublai Khan officially established the Yuan Dynasty in the early 1270s by renaming the empire to "Great Yuan", he and his successors (including the Northern Yuan Dynasty rulers after 1368) held the title "Emperor (Khagan/Huangdi) of the Great Yuan", and *this* was their regnal title, i.e. Khagan (of the Great Yuan) in Mongolian language and Huangdi (of the Great Yuan) in Chinese language. Thus, a traditional view is to treat Yuan Dynasty and Genghis Khan's empire as synonyms, and it naturally leads to two (opposite) historiographies as already discussed in my original message: 1) the fall of the Yuan in China marked the end of the Mongol Empire (i.e. Yuan is just a continuation of the Mongol Empire); 2) the Yuan Dynasty started in 1206 (though officially renamed to Great Yuan later), and ended in 1368 with the fall of Dadu (i.e. Mongol Empire is a part of the early Yuan history). Though I personally don't necessarily agree with either of them, we can't deny that *both* are prevalent views. That's why I already partially explained it in the notes in this article, though I haven't done so in the Yuan Dynasty article.--Choulin (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I didn't actually submit my changes. Your template will be deleted as an unnecessary POV fork. Every former country has ended by definition, so there is no point in omitting that information.

Argueing about who used which name when doesn't really get us anywhere, because it is simply original research. The only relevant question is this: Do modern English language sources predominantly see Mönke's death as the end of the Empire, or do they include the four Khanates in its definition? That is the only neutral way to answer the question, and it avoids both Mongolian and Chinese nationalistic points of view.

A quick search on google books gave the following results:

Empire ends with split

Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire, Paul. D. Buell, 2003
Encyclopedia of Mongolian and the Mongol Empire (according to you, unfortunately I'm unable to verify this. Or is this really the same one as above?)

Empire includes the four Khanates

The Mongol Empire, Its Rise and Legacy, Michael Prawdin, Gerard Chaliand, 2006
The Mongols, David Morgan, 2007
Daily life in the Mongol Empire, George Lane, 2006
China, A New History, John King Fairbank, Merle Goldmann, 1998
The Mongol Empire and its Legacy0, Reuven AMitai, 1940, p263
Eastern Destiny, Patrick March, 1996, p17

So we have two lonely dictionaries/encyclopedias disagreeing with all the historians. I think that's quite an unambiguous result. It is important to note that most sources won't state explicitly "it ended in year X". But we can infer their opinion from the way they talk about the various parts. Reality is, western sources generally assume an imperial continuity from 1206 until at least 1368. There's hardly any book about the Mongol Empire that ends the story in 1260.

It is important to understand that the definition of an empire doesn't require unity. In fact, if there was only one part, it would be a simple kingdom. An empire is a larger entity, which combines several parts of varying souvereignity. In other words, a schism doesn't necessarily equal the end of an empire, it only ends its unified command. Given the above results, I think we can safely put the Chinese nationalist position aside, and say that the Mongol Empire lasted (at least) until the end of the Yuan Dynasty. Thanks for your cooperation. --Latebird (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the forked template is only meant to be a TEMPORARY measure (when waited for a possible change of the main template and to avoid potential edit war in a short time), and it is NEVER intended for constant use. It's fine for me that this template is not used, but this does not really solve the main problem.

Now consider the end year. As I already said above, these are ALL just candidates for me, and I don't really insist on ANY of them. While I agree with you that a schism doesn't necessarily equal the end of an empire and the imperial continuity (nominally or theoretically) in some degree lasted until at least 1368, but you also mention that most sources in fact won't state explicitly "it ended in year X", then why the year 1368? For example, some sources such as The Mongol World Empire (by John Andrew Boyle) put the year 1370 instead. I already stated in my original message "the Genghisid empire (or its descendant empires) certainly did not suddenly end in the year of 1368, but for example the rulers of the Northern Yuan Dynasty surviving in Mongolia continued to hold the title Emperor of the Great Yuan and lasted for a few centuries, and some other descendant empires such as the Golden Horde also continued for a long time after the year 1368." If the Empire includes the four Khanates, but (Northern) Yuan Dynasty and Golden Horde actually lasted until 1635 and 1502 respectively, why put 1368 instead? In fact, your message simply does NOT answer the above questions, and nor is it an unambiguous result. For one, it's obvious that "at least X" and simply "X" are completely different matters. Just putting 1368 as the end year is simply ignoring the fact that the surviving (Northern) Yuan in Mongolia WAS (at least nominally) imperial continuity of the Genghisid empire. As far as I know, many Chinese pages (particularly) in fact consider the year 1635 to be the end of the Mongol Empire. One notable example is Baidu Baike, a very influential collaborative Web-based encyclopedia in China (surpassing Chinese Wikipedia), which clearly states that the empire lasted from 1206 to 1635. On the other hand, if the theory of nominal or theoretical imperial continuity does not really hold, then we cannot ignore the fact the empire became fragmented in the latter half of the 13th century, and a few English pages conventionally consider the empire fell apart in 1294. In addition, the question about who used which name is not exactly an original search, because there are sources supporting it, though I would not talk it much here as it's not the main problem.

Now consider the example Roman Empire, whose end year had resulted in major edit wars in the past. While English (and other western) sources seem to predominantly consider the year 476 to be the end of the Roman Empire, some people clearly do NOT agree with it and favor the year 1453 instead: why would the empire end in 476 as suggested by overwhelming western sources when the empire in the east in fact survived for a few centuries? Edit wars occurred and the compromise is to put both years (476/1453) in the template, and the main article will focus on the pre-split empire (395) as a convention (see its last statement in the introduction paragraphs). Given the precedent, I don't agree to put simply one year in the template, and it should be changed to put at least two years. Thanks.--Choulin (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I also don't really care about a specific year, as long as it isn't before 1368, and that again seems the most reasonable candidate (the largest and arguably most important part of the empire was reduced to a rather insignificant rest). The problem with the current template is that it also assigns categories, which is obviously a bad idea. The solution is not to make date as such optional, but to remove the auto-categorisation. But in either case, we need very good arguments (and sources!) for every year listed in the infobox. Remember that the infobox is only meant to give a very quick overwiew, and not to duplicate every dispute that is mentioned in the rest of the article. --Latebird (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)