Talk:Destruction under the Mongol Empire

Purpose
Was looking at this article to see how copyediting could improve it. I reckon it might be best to just start over, maybe with a new page title. Do we even need this article to stand alone? Why not simply include the relevant info and quotes in the Mongol invasion of Rus and Mongol invasion of Europe articles with new articles specifically dealing with the invasions of China and Persia? The scope of this article seems too broad. Just my thoughts. Scriblio (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article was split from Genghis Khan to satisfy those people who wanted to portray him as a mass murderer while ignoring the constructive work it takes to create a functioning empire. In a way, it serves as a lighting rod to take pressure away from the real thing. Whether that is a good thing or not is once more a matter of opinion... --Latebird (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He was a mass murderer and a genocidal maniac. Its easy to create a functioning empire when you massacre 90% of its inhabitants.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.139.110 (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

hmm ok, thanks for your prompt reply. If it is just a playpen for people nurturing a centuries old grudge (seriously, are people still angry about Genghis Khan?) then perhaps the tags should be removed. There seems little point in spending time copyediting something that is inherently POV in the way you suggest, especially if, as seems likely, the article will be deleted once the dust settles. Rather than encouraging editors in a wasted effort, perhaps this page should simply be allowed to sink without trace. Scriblio (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's just my view on things. Maybe someone else sees an actual encyclopedic purpose in it, although in that case you're right that it would need to be rewritten. And yes, some people do indeed hold "historical grudges". In the present context most often from a persian or arabian background, regions that admittedly had to suffer a lot under the mongols. --Latebird (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, well. Then let's also create articles on "Destruction under the Nazi Germany" and "Destruction under the Soviet Union". I'll be gladly involved in the latter one. --GenuineMongol (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Somewhat relevant articles can be found at Nazi war crimes, German war crimes, War crimes of the Wehrmacht and Soviet war crimes, respectively. Yaan (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * They are not as general as this topic. War crimes are not the only crimes the Soviets committed... --GenuineMongol (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find a better title, try and move the article. I guess it's Ok to have an article that only covers warfare, but "War crime" would be strange for an article that deals with events from before the Geneva and Hague conventions were signed. I.e. I don't think How the Golden Horde ruined the fate of Russia forever (or so) needs to be part of this article. Yaan (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be removed or merged. There is no separate article on the Destructions of Napoleonic invasions or those of Alexander the Great. This article seems to be a remnant of counter-information efforts during the Soviet era to minimize the role of Mongols in history. Ajargals (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Readability
I agree. It's a bit incomprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.105.149 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the question of this article's neutrality, its English is barely readable! On the surface it looks like reasonably educated language considering the vocabulary, but the sentences are convoluted, strangely phrased and contain obscure references. -- Óskar Guðlaugsson (not a registered user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.216.174 (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

revert move
I moved the article back to its original title and changed the intro. I believe the destruction of cities and slaughtering of whole populations have been documented often enough, and are one of the things the Mongol conquests are associated with most often. This may or may not be unfair, but describing this as a case of disruption of farmwork or famine and diseases seems very much besides the point. Even if there are authors who blame the Black Death on the Mongols. Yaan (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should be removed from Wikipedia
This POV article is no more than a piece of propaganda against Mongols. Why not to create similar articles like 'Destructions under the People's Republic of China', 'Destructions under the British Empire', 'Destructions under USA' etc? Almost all sources here are not authoritative. Data are unverifiable, mostly old blatant rumors. Such rumors may be found about every nation of the world. It is impossible to improve this article because of its content. The article should be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.228.70 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that this article is a clear POV and should be removed. Most of these accusations are historically unproved and look dubious. Actually, such accusations were addressed to almost all conquerors from different nations since the time of the Bible. E.g. what to say about the Muslim conquest of Asia? Nevertheless, this author blamed to Mongols only. This racist article should be removed.46.138.64.177 (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * unproved? perhaps the anonms will tell us what reliable sources they use which contradict the article????? Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * still no evidence of the RS the critics are using. That strongly suggests they are merely POV edits. Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should use more academic sources then quoted ones. There are unsupported POV phrases unacceptable for an encyclopedy: "The Mongols brought terror to Europe on a scale not seen again until the twentieth century" (from one review to this source: "Superficial similarities resound without resonating in this ambitious but muddled comparative history." - http://books.google.ru/books?id=NSdwEHz66V4C&pg=PT17&redir_esc=y). "The impending arrival of the Mongol hordes spread terror and panic". Probably, other "hordes" did not spread terror and panic. Etc.. The Background section is badly written and historically poor. Mongols fought Naimans and Keraits before issuing of Jassa, then Naimans and Keraits were partly included in Mongols. Inter-tribal fights among nomads were widespread before the Mongol empire; the robbery and vendetta were not the most important there. "Terror and mass extermination of anyone opposing them was a well-tested Mongol tactic." It is wrong and its source is not authoritative in Mongol history. The section on Terror is written not in encyclopedic manner, contains absurd analogies (Fuehrer, proletariat etc.) instead of facts. Sources in this long section are almost lacking. Only Jack Weatherford is quoted, but his descriptions of beneficial effects of the Mongol conquest are lacking. The section Demographic changes in war-torn areas has similar disadvantages. It starts with a banal phrase: "The majority of kingdoms resisting Mongol conquest were taken by force". May be, any other conqueror took resisting kingdoms not by force? Statement that their populations were mostly massacred is unfounded and sources are lacking. All Genghis Khan's campaigns led to some destructions of religious places: can you quote any other large conquest where such destructions were absent? Numerals aimed for support the great Mongol terror are quite dubious (e.g. regarding invalidity of some data quoted by Rashid ad-Din: http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/SIK/sik04.htm#sik04chapter10-1). Data on China lacks any quoted source! "About half the population of Russia may have died during the Mongol invasion of Rus." However, the quoted sources qrote otherwise: "About half of the Russian population was lost during the invasion." Actually, some sources meant mass replacement of population but not its dying. There are no serious scholars in Russian history who think that a half of population of Russia died due to Mongol invasion! Its parallels with "Golodomor" is also POV, not encyclopedic, historically ignorant. Section on Destruction of culture and property is also a clear POV as it contains carefully filtered and unproven data. Its conclusion is right: "The Islamic civilization of the Gulf region was not to recover until after the Middle Ages." Why not to add that the Zoroastric, Buddhist and other non-Islamic civilizations of Central Asia were never recovered after the Islamic conquest? Everything in the Section on Foods and diseases may be attributed to many other wars in Europe and Asia. What's specific for the Mongols? Tribute in lieu of conquest writes only on Korea. Other conquered states did not pay tribute? These data mean almost nothing without comparisons. This concerns whole this article. Yes, it should be removed.46.138.79.165 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange argumentation. The article is a clear POV and should be certainly removed.
 * still no reliable sources cited to answer the many serious scholars who have formed the basis for the article. As for deaths--well everyone died sooner or later, but it was sooner with the Mongols nearby and the total population typically did not recover for decades or centuries. That is the sort of demographic disaster that scholars have studied.  Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * it was shown that this article uses mainly doubtful sources. Still no sufficient response to the critics. As for deaths, any war leads to sooner deaths, but here only Mongols are blamed.46.138.93.198 (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The destruction to civilization and the annihilation of whole cities by the Mongol war machine has been very well documented in scholarly research, and is not a condemnation of the Mongol people as a whole, but of a particular period of warlords and their armies. Facts are facts, and today Mongolia is a peaceful and constructive country that has a bloody past, just as the USA, Germany, the UK, France ...... etc., etc., all have.  The subject must be viewed dispassionately without nationalism.68.19.0.228 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To all: there's plenty of material on Wikipedia that implicates just about every group, organization, country, etc. in atrocities or crimes. Indeed, you won't necessarily find a section on the Mongol invasions in the My Lai Massacre article, because it was an American mass killing. The aforementioned article does not bolster the image of America, but we include it anyway, in accordance with WP:CENSOR. Unfavorable articles on other countries are already here: see Bloody Sunday (1972), Wounded Knee Massacre and Great Leap Forward for the countries mentioned. There are plenty more like them. I strongly agree with 68.19.0.228: history is history. I'm happy to help edit it and include RS citations, but removal is going too far. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy/Pasted material from other articles
Mongol invasion of Europe Mongol invasions and conquests These two articles contain alarmingly similar phrasing in the ledes. The Lary and Landers quotes are repeated, and the material seems too similar overall. Is there any way we can revise this to make distinctions between articles?

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you can merge the two. If you need two articles to reach different groups of readers, then overlap is not a problem. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Destruction under the Mongol Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231051250/http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Three.html to http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Three.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Destruction under the Mongol Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217124035/http://www.ajms.co.in/sites/ajms/index.php/ajms/article/viewFile/559/488 to http://www.ajms.co.in/sites/ajms/index.php/ajms/article/viewFile/559/488
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150317023041/http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C06/E0602.htm to http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C06/E0602.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Academicide/Brain-Massacre of Iranian and Arab Scientists Intellectuals in Khorasan
Something that is not mentioned on this page are the massacres of the famous scientific hubs of the Islamic World nestled in Khorasan and Transoxiana by brutish Turko-Mongol armies which resulted in the deaths of some of the most reknowned intellectuals, the destruction of their schools, teaching traditions and future students, and essentially sputtered out all academic and scientific development in the Islamic world for centuries to come. The Islamic world, arguably the world's most advanced society at the time, fell into civilizational decline and was surpassed by Europe immediately after the Turko-Mongol invasions and warring khaganates. In addition to the widespread destruction throughout the Islamic world by Mongol marauders that lead to this, a large part was undoubtedly the targeted mass murders of it's brightest people and the torching and destruction of it's centres of learning.

A similar scenario occurred in Baghdad if i'm not mistaken.

ReformedPenal (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment to the above
If I may comment on the above. I believe the opposite it true. When the Mongols captured the major cities in Iran, they separated out artists, artisans, merchants and learned people, and recruited them into state service. The common people were the victims of massacre. An example of this is Baghdad. The Mongols besieged the city, but they welcome the defection of many scholars and men of religion, notably shiites who were alienated from the Caliphate. In Mongol period in Iran is now being acknowledged as a golden age in the arts, in literature and in historical writing. So the notion that there was some kind of brain-massacre appears improbable. There are substantial new intepretations of the Mongol era. See George Lane below. Template:Unsigned --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by David chaffetz (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As a native Persian speaker and someone who is pretty well versed in historical narratives and study found in Iran, I have no clue what you are talking about. Iranians have never had an outright rejection and resentment towards everything about the Ilkhans. Their cultural contributions have always been recognized and used. Even if there was resentment towards them, their works were used and recognized regardless because of necessity. They ruled at that time, so what comes out of that time will always have their color. Persians have always known about the works of that time, but these works aren't going to change people's opinion on the Mongols like you are suggesting. I should also mention that Iranians may have Shia sentiment towards them, but this won't be found amongst mostly Sunni Tajiks. This Shia sentiment would have existed in the past as well, so once again I find your claims to be unfounded.
 * Secondly, ignoring the whole letting scholars live and how that is silly, your comment on the historiography part is not true. The peak of Persian historiography was the time of the Ghaznavids when you had not only the best historians but also the most dynamic. You had Gardezi(Similar to Ilkhan era historians), Biruni(deep research and understanding of sociology), Bayhaqi(dubbed: "first historical novel"), Firdausi's Shahname(mythical and nationalistic), and others. There is more I can say about how you are misleading, but I think this gives a good idea. Iranians didn't need thousands massacred in every city for an inferior golden age in historical writing or the
 * true realities of the other things you stated. 2607:FEA8:4ADF:8AB0:8F00:F513:8CE5:4ACA (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Carbon footprint vs destruction of civilisations, mass torture, slaughter
Does this paraphrased comment (of a study, out of context) belong to a historic article as this? Morover, it seems to endorse mass destruction and slaughter in the name of carbon reduction. Icer CRO (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's just an observation, so it doesn't endorse anything. As to whether it belongs, why not? It's related and fairly interesting, and it seems like just as valid an observation as those regarding the Mongol impact on global demography and genealogy. Similar observations have been made about the Syrian war: climate science doesn't stop simply because of conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see what reaction a remark such as this in conjunction with the holocaust would be, for example. The "observation" implicitly states: genocide has positive aspects as well -> look carbon foot print reduction, great.
 * Politicized remarks and/or observations do not belong to encyclopedic articles. Icer CRO (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Events that took place 800 years ago are inherently less emotive than those that took place in modern times. Either you look back dispassionately at the pre-modern history or you best not look back at all, because it is just one long succession of empires beating each other around the head with big sticks. Genghis Khan's was just the biggest of the day. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is "Destruction under the Mongol Empire". The topic of carbon emissions is totally irrelevant, this topic could be added to a page on the historical research of atmospheric carbon for example. It also insensitive to publish such material on an article about mass murder. If someone wishes to revert the article I am going to demand that you put forward a robust argument about why this is crucial information for this article.--2A02:C7C:40E6:E500:8477:CEAC:4909:8278 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Conversely, you need to put forward a better case for why information showing the planetary-scale effects of the destruction is not warranted in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article should stick to the relevant physical destruction of the Mongols. Atmospheric carbon levels is a scientific area for debate, it is not historically relevant. Take it to the a "climate change" article. 2A02:C7C:40E6:E500:E0D7:9A8E:F7A0:6129 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This entire article is an area of debate. Whether it's "scientific" or not makes no difference. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does make a difference. Should an article on the "100 years war" or the "Napoleonic wars" - include at atmospheric carbon section. Don't be ridiculous. Take your biased, unscientific, ahistorical tripe elsewhere. Or argue your point a little bit better. 2A02:C7C:40E6:E500:2888:95B8:3150:2F32 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources discuss it, then yes. That's the point of Wikipedia; if you don't like that, that's on you. Incidentally, I would advise against terming a paper from a well-respected journal "biased, unscientific, ahistorical tripe". That just makes you look silly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Having read the discussion - I must agree with the point that it is not relevant to the article. It is an article about mongolian physical military destruction. The tangential effect on atmospheric carbon levels needs to be discussed in a seperste article. Also as previously stated it introduces a concerning trend of intimating that there is a positive aspect to mongolian destruction. If you can't understand these two points stay out of the dicussion. Furthermore quit the inane argument that - if a section has some "reliable source" it should be included in the article no matter how irrelevant it is. The article is about physical destruction, go edit an article on atmospheric science to content yourself. 101.53.216.209 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mate, you have yet to acquire any consensus for your argument, and no, going to a new IP doesn't change that. You will be reverted until you gain consensus. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per a request at WP:RPPI, I just semi-protected the article. If the dispute continues it will be necessary to follow WP:DR which boils down to setting up a useful WP:RFC after setting out the arguments for and against inclusion of the disputed text. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024
TLDR: change the 16th citation to this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3632138

Explanation: The Line in the article titled "Destruction under the Mongol Empire" under the "Demographic changes" section states that "The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. Population exchanges also sometimes occurred." This statement is supported by a citation of this website: https://web.archive.org/web/20061231051250/http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Three.html. This citation should be changed to the source that the current citation is citing from. The website is citing from this source found on JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3632138. The exact citation is as follows: "Hulego's agents, however, could only account five tumens in those regions: one in Azerbaijan, three in 'Iraqi-i 'Ajem, (Qumm, Kashan, and Isfahan), and one in Khurasan (Nishapur-Tus). These five units, or 50,000 men, imply a population of only 250,000 people where, even by undemanding early nineteenth century standard, there should have been two and a half millions. This is a very small figure-not ridiculously, but pitifully small. It shows, not mistaken arithmetic nor an Persian eagerness to evade enumeration by Mongol willingness to use drastic methods and plenty of manpower in taking the census, but rather the impact of the Mongol's total conscription and total warfare upon a sedentary society. The consequences of the Mongol invasions, always known to have been catastrophic, are here quantified. Many Middle Eastern chroniclers produced exaggerated estimates of the death-toll of the onslaught; the Mongols actually counted the survivors, potential tax payers and soldiers and found only about one-tenth of what we might consider the normal minimum population. The Mongols had destroyed the rest, some two millions and more" (J.M. Smith, page 291). This is the same source as used in the current source cited, although different page.

By citing the JSTOR source, it allows for more accurate information to be portrayed. Acoldcupofcoffee (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)