Talk:Mongol Empire/Archive 4

Fall of the Khaganate
There is a major fallacy in this article that disturbingly repeats itself all over the encyclopedia, to claim that the Mongol Khaganate fell in 1368. There is i believe a serious misunderstandings of what the mongol empire was and what was not, certainly the sources tough incredibly abundant in the internet, are not clear in key concepts like: what was the Mongol Empire and what it was a Mongol Emperor?.

Editors of the encyclopaedia have repeated all over Wikipedia the affirmation that the Mongol Khaganate fell in 1368, that is with the loss of China to the Chinese Ming Dynasty, but to say that the Mongol Khagan authority was dependent on his suzerainty over the Heavenly kingdom is to interpret Mongol history through alien eyes. If to be the Khagan of the Mongols meant to be Emperor of China then certainly we should have to reconsider our view of Genghis Khan as a Mongol Emperor, he would be then by this Sinocentric view a mere tribal chief.

The Mongol Kublayds were certainly traditional Chinese Sons of Heavens (Huángdì or "Emperor" in English language) but at the same time they were the Khagans of the Empire of Genghis Khan, it was a personal union. The Kublayds were the overlords of the other hordes in Persia, central asia, southern Russia not because they were Emperors of China but because they were the recognized heirs of the Genghis Khan. Therefore after 1368 the descendants of Genghis were certainly not Huángdì of China but they still were the Khagans of the Mongols, that's why the Mongol Empire did not fall in 1368. So the establishment of the Ming Dynasty does not in any way mean the end of the Mongol Empire, only of Mongol rule in China.

So, it comes the question of date. For a Mongol aristocrat to be Khagan of the Mongol he should have certain requisites: first to have a very strong claim of descent from the Great Genghis, then he should have the recognition of the Mongol nobles, and lastly the symbols of authority like the Imperial Seal. I can not say for certain if the Khagans after 1370 met this requisites but even if they didnt then that would mean that the last Khagan would have been Ukhaantu Khan who died in 1370, making 1370 and not 1368 the end of the Empire. Of course we know that after Ukhaantu's death he was succedeed by other Khagans so the next date to take in consideration would be 1634 and the death of Ligdan Khan. Ligdan was a legitimate descendant of Genghis Khan but his strong centralizing policies alienated the Mongolian nobility and his former vassals deserted him to the ore benign Manchues. When he died of smallpox in 1634 the Manchu Khan, Hong Taiji, sent an expedition to find Ligdan's family and they captured Ligdan's son, Ejei Khan, and the Imperial Seal of the Mongols in 1635.

From this comes two questions, was Ejei enthroned as Khagan of the Mongols? if so then to be a legitimate Khagan did they have to do a special type of ritual (say like a coronation ceremony) like the kings of Europe or the Emperor of China? or did the death of the Khagan made his heir presumptive automatically the new Khagan?, if there existed such a ritual and Ejei performed it then he would be the Khagan in 1635 when he surrendered to the Manchu and the end of the Empire would be in 1635, but if he didnt did such ritual or he wastn considered the Khagan automatically afther the death of his father then the end of the Empire would be in 1634 when his father died. Andres rojas22 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The same kind of question obviously had occurred in the past. Indeed, there may be several possible options regarding the end year of the Mongol Empire, and certainly more than the options listed above (i.e. 1368, 1370, 1634, 1635). 1368 is not the only option, but indeed a reasonable one, thus supported by many academic sources. The most important thing is not whether Kublayds had became Son of Heaven or not, but the status of the Empire as a whole. The Mongol Empire began to split in the 1260s, and the four major divisions (Yuan, Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate, Ilkhanate) actually had their own development traces (and may be fighting with each another for example). However, since Yuan was later regarded as the normal suzerain of the other three khanates, it may be still possible to talk about a single Mongol Empire, even though it is pretty much notional (and the inter-khanates wars were still frequent). After 1368 however, even such notional overlordship did no longer exist, and some khanates like Ilkanate already fell earlier or became splitted. Indeed, remnants of some khanates (e.g. of Yuan and Golden Horde) still lasted for many centuries, but they existed as regional powers independent from each another, no matter what titles they might nominally have in their own region. One of the remaining khanate of the Golden Horde, Crimean Khanate for example, lasted until the late 18th century, long after Ejen submitted to the Manchus. But all these entities only existed as independent remnants of the original khanates, and the original empire never existed as a whole any more, not even notionally. 1368 as end year of the Mongol Empire is indeed related to the matter of academic convention, but nevertheless also a reasonable one. --216.254.206.254 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Christians ALLIED with Muslims against Mongols !!!??
in the part of : disbut over succession it is written : "The opposing forces in the region, the Christian Crusaders and Muslim Mamluks, then engaged in an unusual passive truce with each other as they both recognized that the Mongols were the greater threat. Taking advantage of the weakened state of the Mongol forces, the Mamluks advanced from Egypt, being allowed to camp and resupply near the Christian stronghold of Acre, and engaged Kitbuqa's forces just north of Galilee, at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260. The Mongols were defeated, and Kitbuqa executed. This pivotal battle marked the western limit for Mongol expansion, as the Mongols were never again able to make any serious military advances further than Syria."

I think that was not right since it is known and acknowledged that Mongols Allied with crusaders against Muslim Arab Abbasids and Mamluks, and they were successful with the Abbasids, but the Mamluks-without any ally or help from crusaders- successfully marked the first degeat in mongol history which was the reason of mongol dissolution, then they kicked out the crusaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.158.2 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty well-sourced that the Christians engaged in a passive truce with the Mamluks, which helped them to defeat the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut. As for the Mongols allying with the Crusaders, they did have Christian subjects such as those from Cilician Armenia, who helped in the battles against the Abbasids. The Armenians were Christian, but were not Crusaders. There were indeed several attempts to form a Franco-Mongol alliance, but the attempts were not successful. --Elonka 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, there was an instance of Count Bohemund of Antioch and Tripoli who allied his crusaders with the Mongols, and rode with Hulegu's army - the only documented West European Christian soldiers who marched with them. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mongols is the name of citizens of multinational state (like Soviet Union or Roman Empire). In this state lived a lot of people with different background and different beliefs (among them Christians and Muslims). They regarded themselves as free people by the will of God (also known as cossacks). So the concept of multinationalism was widely known in that times - so other Christians and Muslims could also unite to fought against warriors from central Eurasia. So you are right - Christians allied with Muslims to fought for freedom against Mongol invaders on near East (Mongols also fought for freedom - but had different understanding of it) Serge-kazak (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Image sourcing
If we're going to get this article up to featured status, some of the image information is going to need work, like every single image is going to be cited to reliable sources indicating where the information came from. For example, this image: is great, but has no sources on it. Could anyone help with this? --Elonka 05:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For that matter, every paragraph in this article needs to be sourced with an inline citation. Right now there are many paragraphs that have no sources at all. I'm going to be working on sourcing these, but may delete some of it if I can't easily find sources. In the meantime, help would be much appreciated! --Elonka 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The map is wrong and misleading, it does not accord truth. Territory of modern Belarus was NEVER part of mongol empire. It is GDL territory, which in contrary released territory of Rus(modern Ukraine) after battle at 'Sinija Wody'(Blue Waters) where mongolian khans were defeated. After the battle Kievan Rus' was included in GDL. This is known fact, just wonder who creates such 'maps'?

There was no Mongol Empire
From here on talk page of Yuan Dynasty: An empire has an emperor/empress who is the head of the empire. If the emperors of Yuan Dynasty in China (Kublai Khan, or Yuanshizu, and his successors) were not the head of other states established by Mongolians including Golden Horde khanate, Chagatai Khanate and Ilkhanate, and there were no same One head for all the areas controlled by mongolians, then there were no Mongol Empire at the time. If there were an empire called Mongol Empire, then who were the heads(emperors or empresses) of the empire? Where was the capital of the empire? -Swteyoper (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not how the term "empire" is exclusively used in English. For example, the head of the British Empire was first and foremost a King or Queen, and strictly speaking only an Emperor/Empress in India. What an "empire" means, is, generally, a large polity comprised of many ethnicities or different populations groups, but ruled from a relatively centralized location, or organ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:E155:635A:CB53:2DFC (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Invasions in every direction - including north?
"The empire grew rapidly ... under the rule of his descendants, who sent invasions in every direction." - six sources, wow. But the animated map does not show any invasion northwards, which does not mean there were none, as not all invasions led to an expansion of the empire. But Mongol conquests does not cover North Asia. Were any invasions there? Against whom, and to what purpose? By the way, according to the map below the Mongol Empire reached further north than shown in the animation. Is it possible to clear this contradiction? --KnightMove (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the text does not say north of Mongolia. From numerous forward positions they moved north (as into Russia). If the Mongols were South of you, you were not safe. Rjensen (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on animated image
The animated image has the Mongol Empire united in the year 1279. But the empire had already split into four parts by 1264. Yes, the Yuan Dynasty was not yet established, but the Golden Horde, Chagatayids, and Ilkhanids had virtual autonomy by the mid-1260s. Shouldn't the map reflect this?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 22:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Sakhalin needs to be listed under the 1279 and 1294 dates.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 04:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Byzantium and much of South East Asia became tributaries to the empire.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy/Biased Writing
The current intro, as it stands, sounds like someone of limited English skills has written it, and possibly someone without a proper objectivity on the topic;

"The Mongol Empire emerged from the unification of clans of Great Steppe into one Great Horde (Army), first of all forefathers of modern Mongol and Turkic people of steppes of central Eurasia, but later also some Slavic and Caucasian clans allied with them. They became known in different sources under the names "mongols", "tatars", "cossacks" and so on - unifying multiethnic names. This people proclaimed that all people are equal in the eyes of God, despite of their origin, wealth, language or religion. To defend their freedom and liberties they assembled and elected their leader, who became known in historical sources as Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan was proclaimed ruler about 1206. The Great Army and it's empire grew rapidly under rule of new czar and his commanders and then under the rule of their descendants, who sent armies in every direction to unite all the world under their rule"

It just reads awfully clunky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:E155:635A:CB53:2DFC (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This resulted from a recent edit to the lede . I have reverted most of this.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The Legacy section in particular has been a consistent target of the same type of sloppy and heavily biased writing:

"All conditions in the Mongol empire for women were mitigated by women´s right to divorce, and their discouragement of foot-binding, however Chinese Nationalist women continued to bind their feet. They had the right to divorce, discouraged by Confucianism, but encouraged by the Mongols as the Jasa specially ordained commerce to be for women. Women warriors existed such as Khutulun,[120] and as were reported by an abbot, and women were sometimes in commanding roles as well during the mass executions following the end of pages."

"When possibly resisted by Muslim women in the aftermath of the Tangut princess episode, this is reported to have led to close to an infraction in the trafficking in women. Forbidden in the Jasa/Zasaq, women were distributed freely after what has been alleged in footnotes to Igor de Rachewitz edition of the Niuca Mongqol-un Tovcha´an to have been ordered tantamount sexual abuse, with two casualties alleged out of four thousand. Other historians such as William McNeill and David Morgan argue that the Bubonic Plague was the main factor behind the demographic decline during this period."

Someone has been regularly copying/pasting these chunks of text whenever they are removed. The low quality grammar notwithstanding, the content of many of these edits, especially those mentioning "Jasa/Zasaq", read like absurd propaganda and are simply dropped into sections of text regardless of relevance.

"Balanced" at cost of accuracy and serious omissions
(1) No link to entry on Destruction of Mongol Empire, which has a neutrality concern, but even if exact numbers are difficult to come-by, the death rates were large, the razing of huge cities undeniable, and the evidence comes from many sources, including Muslim sources embarrassed of defeats and who deliberately were biased toward minimizing losses, (2) Perceptions section suspiciously replaces actual debate, or "real teaching of the conflict" about "Empire's'" impact and a well documented and verifiable section about the enormity of death, dislocation, and plundering which influenced everything from the balance of power between Christians and Muslims during the Crusades, to the modern genetic make-up of Eurasia. (3) Economics Section completely ignores the fact that the Khan's did apply for thirty years a very consistent business model: unsustainable plundering with complex booty distribution systems. This was the economy, to say otherwise is to ignore the bulk of wealth flows. So unsustainable was this system which destroyed the eastern Middle East and nearly the whole of north-western China, that only Chinese advisors, siege engineers, after much struggle spared cities by reminding Khan that if he destroyed western Chinese cities the Khan would lack food for Chinese support staff. (4) Early "unification" of Mongolian tribes, is not an accurate way of putting it: since what really happened was genocide and expulsion (ethnic cleansing) of uncooperative Mongolian tribes, (e.g. the Naimen). (5) Finally, many of the positive impacts where not deliberate developments, such as the writing system, but accidental consequences of apocalypse: the Silk Road was not a managed transportation corridor, but made safer by elimination of tribes and mere Mongol control, when army was nearby--it was not even safe enough for Marco Polo to use when offered emperors protection. And the laws were secret, and not public, a point which should not be overlooked. Since from Hammurabi to Rome, the main achievement of law was social harmony brought by explicated and public presentation of norms. Secret law-books used by absolute powers are instruments of control which serve the propaganda value of exaggerating consistency and fairness. I wish I had time to make these changes and put in the links. Please someone do it. For key features of the Mongols are omitted, and inaccuracies allowed. Perceptions section is fine, but it is conflated with an arguments section. It is true that Khan is seen differently in different parts of the world, but that is not to replace a critical examination of these different views. And, the cost of misunderstanding the Khans, makes history look too story-book. Khan was likely a sociopath, the empire, not a government, but a territory brought under submission by gangsters. We must be accurate, and if there is debate, have a debate section, but don't mix the debate section with a geographical opinion section, because geographical opinions are not historical scholarship, of which there is little, I know of no, substantial disagreement about the Ghengis Khan. Iopis (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)JjIopis, C. Phil. University of California.

Turkic categorization
Must Turkic category to be added to Turkic state. Erim Turukku (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Simple answer: NO. Every category should be related to the article and supported by the sources. DO NOT add Turkic categories to this article again. Better read this article and Mongols. Zyma (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On as similar note, this turkic edition, has been re-added several times by anons. Is the current statement: The Mongol Empire emerged from the unification of Mongol 'and Turkic tribes of historical Mongolia under the leadership of Genghis Khan correct?--PLNR (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mongol-Turkic unification?
Where is 100% proof? I have to say they are one of most famous falsificators, evereyone knows about it. Orgininal name of the empire was "Ikh Mongol Us" (Great Mongol State) and Dai Yuan -Great Yuan (yazguuryn or heavenly), not "Mongol-Turkic Empire", "Mongol-Turkic Yuan", "Turkic Dai Yuan". It was not United State of Mongol-Turkic :List of medieval Mongolian tribes and clans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.15.85 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about exactly? What section of the article is this?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure it is related to this edit. --PLNR (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism
Can anyone check this edit the language and the location it was added just don't make sense to me.--PLNR (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)