Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam/Archive 1

Untitled
This article was written with full of nationalism. The Mongols were defeated by the Tran at every battle?. Let's not forget the history. We are living in a globalized world. --Enerelt (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

--::Yes, the historical fact is that the Mongol invaders were defeated militarily multiple times and forced to withdraw. Were it not so, they would have absorbed Dai Viet and Champa into their empire.

serious neutrality problems in the article
1) This article is written from an exclusively (and absurdly) Vietnamese ultra-nationalist point of view. It rewrites history to make Vietnamese defeats into "strategic victories". The article needs to be rewritten from an objective and neutral point of view. It needs to incorporate non-vietnamese views of the war. 2) The Kingdom of Champa has no place being discussed in an article called "Mongol invasions of Vietnam". Champa is not Vietnam. It has its own history. In my opinion, either the title of the article should be changed or the wars involving Champa should be relocated into a seperate article. 3) The article needs to objectively evaluate the wars. At present it claims that somehow both sides won the wars. It somehow wants to claim that the Vietnamese side won every battle and the war but ended up paying tribute at the end to the Mongols. This is simply not acceptable. 70.234.238.66 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. The Mongols invaded Champa from the south sea but not through Annam. I think a neutral view is needed. But I am afraid that the people from Vietnam will be disappointed as were the Koreans.--Enerelt (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

--The edits by both of the above editors is revisionistic, apparently intended to put a positive spin on Mongol military defeats (the ultimate outcomes). The titular tributary relationship between the states of Dai Viet and Champa towards the Mongols, in which both the Viet and Cham kings refused to travel to Dadu to pay homage to the khan (now that would have been a sign of true vassalage), was more akin to pragmatically paying off the neighborhood mafioso to avoid the human and material costs of endless wars.Brisim (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

--I completely agree with the above statement. Although the user Enerelt keeps saying that a neutral view is needed, I think the way he/she revised the page is not neutral at all. I noticed that he/she simply undid (without providing any reason) contributions from others, of which there are some with concerete evidences and (IMO) far more neutral than his text, to the page. The fact that he mistakenly gave "Đại Việt" the name "Bai Viet" is also hardly acceptable from the historical point of view. His/her modification gives me an impression that he/she intentionally tries to hide the military defeats of the Mongols to create an image of an invincible empire. Also, please note that the after-war tributary relationship between Vietnam and the Yuan dynasty does not necessarily mean a victory of the Mongol over Vietnam. Since its foundation, Vietnam virtually always paid tribute to China to avoid endless wars with her much larger neighbour. They also did that after every time China unsuccessfully invaded Vietnam and were forced to retreat to avoid further conflicts. So in my point of view gaining tributary relationship with Vietnam can hardly be considered a significant achievement by the Mongols but a regular act by the Vietnamese to avoid further wars. (Classicalmania (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)).

--@Enerelt: You can keep undoing the contributions of others, but people will keep correcting the page according to historical facts. If you do not agree to any of their views, please clearly state yours and provide concrete references as evidence to support your view. If you want to demonstrate that the Tran dynasty did not defeat the Mongols in military battles, please provide evidence to support your statement. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicalmania (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, they became vassals of them. That's true.--Enerelt (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in terms of diplomatic relation, they did. But it's hardly a vassal if you have to drive kinda thousands of troops into their territories just to impose your authority. Even that did not bring any real success anyway.Oaioai (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is heavily biased, for an example take this sentence " Because there were some Vietnamese who wanted peace with the Mongols, the other Viet faction which wanted war devised a clever scheme which wiped out all desire for any peace with the Mongols by having the Mongols commit mass murder." First of all to remain neutrality remove the words "clever scheme" and replace them with strategy, then reword Mongols commit mass murder, this article is so heavily biased towards Vietnam it's like I'm reading propaganda. also the sentence " Mongol column under Uriyankhadai" should use the Mongol's army units (such as te — Preceding unsigned183.37.73.178 (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We must respect the true history
Don't use the word Annam in this article because the name of the Kingdom that time is Đại Việt (Great Viet) and this time is Viet Nam. And nobody can deny the vietnamese victories, because the China, the Korea finally were merged to the Mongol Empire but the Đại Việt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.60.58 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Death of Sogetu
This article provides two different occasions for the death of Sogetu : during the second Mongol invasion " The Cham were in hot pursuit of Sogetu, however, and managed to kill Sogetu and defeat his army while it was moving north", and during the third invasion : "Caught between the Champa and Đại Việt, Sogetu lost his life". As the first seems to be drawn from a document, i would be inclined to keep it, but i'm not knowledgeable enough to settle the issue. Can someone please correct ? --Tehem (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Was there actually any fighting in the first invasion?
Reading the section right now, it doesn't seem like it - in which case can it still be called an invasion? Banedon (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.21 (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Who won exactly?
I don't get it. It says here that the Vietnamese won a decisive victory, yet in the Aftermath section it stated that to avoid further conflict they decided to pay the Mongols tributes. THis essentially makes them vassals of the Empire. The right result of this battle should be "decisive vietnam victory, Strategic mongol victory".

I will revise the page if no one disagrees with this thread. 124.104.254.147 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the sentence "Strategic mongol victory" should be removed. Because it seems contradictory that say one side won "decisively" and another side won "strategically". 七战功成 01:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody talked about this? Well, I am going to remove the sentence. 七战功成 01:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my late reply but actually, its more appropriate to use the terms "strategic" and "tactical" victory since the Vietnamese technically won many of the fights, but the Mongols won the war as a whole. Vietnam did ebcame a vassal of the Mongol Empire since they started paying tributes to the khan in exchange for a cease in violence, the same way that other Mongol conquered territories like Hungary and Serbia did. However, I will use the more common terms "Initial" and "Final" victory so as to not cause anymore confusion. Godzilladude123 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now. You are clearly wrong on this point. Vietnam just agreed to "maintain" the tributary relationship, which was already established many years ago. This has nothing to do with if they won the war. What was the goal of these invasions? Conquering the Vietnam, not just let it be a vassal state. Obviously, Mongols failed dismally. So it's surely a Vietnamese victory and Mongol's defeat in every respect. By the way, Hungary never became a vassal state of Mongol empire. 七战功成 20:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why the hell does Adachi link to a fruit?
Its not a mongolian general or person of significance whatsoever Lolbash (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Results
I'm gonna put this section here since some stubborn editors keep revising the Results section. Yes Vietnam won most of the battles but it was the Mongol Empire who won the war as a whole since Vietnam became a vassal state to the Empire the same way with Bulgaria, Hungary, Korea and many others. Any further stubborness and I will lock this page. Godzilladude123 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is nonsense. Vietnam already accepted to be a vassal state of Mongol Empire since the first invasion to reconcile with Mongol (although they militarily beat the Mongol). However, Mongol Emperor keep demand personal visit from Tran's Emperor. That demand was not acceptable because the transport system was not advanced at that time. Thousand miles of travel would highly kill the Tran's Emperor. That is why Vietnam refused that demand which lead to the second and third Mongol invasions. Again Mongol got defeated another 2 times without gaining anything more (nor territory or personal visit from Tran's emperor). Here is undeniable things: Not like Korea, Vietnam's land is not annexed to Mongol empire. Not like Hungary and Bulgaria, Vietnam destroyed Mongol army. It is clear that Vietnam won the war. If you know Vietnamese history, you would know that accepting to be a vassal state of Mongol Empire is just the way she always did to avoid prolonged wars with her giant northern neighbour China. However, if the enemy keep being stubborn and determine to violate her territory, Vietnam never submit and always kick out any powerful invaders.


 * Dude they submitted since they sued for a peace treaty and became a Mongol vassal. Vietnam's results is not different from Bulgaria, Serbia or Korea. Yeah you can argue that Vietnam won many battles but they still lsot the war became they were the ones who asked for peace and subjected themselves to a tributary relationship aka a Vassal kingdom. Saying that a vassal country like Vietnam "defeated the Mongols" is a big insult to other vassal countries who fought well against the Mongosl and still lost. A big and very illogical insult. Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Godzilla Read my answer below this section mate.

It is clear that Vietnam won the war
The argument that "Vietnam lost the war because it accept to be a vassal state" is nonsense. Vietnam already accepted to be a vassal state of Mongol Empire since the first invasion to reconcile with Mongol (although they militarily beat the Mongol). However, Mongol Emperor keep demand personal visit from Tran's Emperor. That demand was not acceptable because the transport system was not advanced at that time. Thousand miles of travel would highly kill the Tran's Emperor. That is why Vietnam refused that demand which lead to the second and third Mongol invasions. Again Mongol got defeated another 2 times without gaining anything more (nor territory or personal visit from Tran's emperor). Here is undeniable things: Not like Korea, Vietnam's land is not annexed to Mongol empire. Not like Hungary and Bulgaria, Vietnam destroyed Mongol army.

It is clear that Vietnam won the war. If you know Vietnamese history, you would know that accepting to be a vassal state of Mongol Empire is just the way she always did to avoid prolonged wars with her giant northern neighbour China. However, if the enemy keep being stubborn and determine to violate her territory, Vietnam never submit and always kick out any powerful invaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General6889 (talk • contribs)


 * No. Know your military history friend. Becomign a vassal means you were put under control by an Empire. The same way that Serbia and Bulgaria was integrated into the Mongol Empire. Look it up. The Vietnamese won many battles but in the end IT WAS THEM WHO WENT TO THE MONGOLIAN COURT AND ORDERED A PEACE TREATY, THUS BECOMING A MONGOL VASSAL FOR SOME TIME.


 * Here are some examples:
 * * Mongol invasion of Bulgaria and Serbia - They actually defeated the Mongols but still ended up suing for peace. LIKE VEITNAM THEY DEFEATED THE MONGOLS BUT STILL BECAME A VASSAL. AND LIKE VIETNAM THEY TOO PAID TRIBUTE TO THE MONGOLS.
 * * First Mongol invasion of Hungary - unlike Vietnam they were defeated. LIKE VIETNAM SOME OF THEIR PARTS WERE INTEGRATED TO THE EMPIRE.
 * * Mongol invasions of Korea - ALSO BECAME A MONGOL VASSAL.


 * All of these countries, whether they defeated or was defeated by the Mongols, also became a vassal like Vietnam. Like Vietnam they too sued for peace and ended up paying tribute. It is a big insult to rule out one vassal country "defeated the Mongols" while the others didn't. Its pure nonsense.Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Look at your examples. Please show me clearly how Hungary, Bulgaria and Serbia won the Mongol invasion in 1241-1242 ? Your documents clearly show that If they have any victory over the Mongol ,it is just small raids. When Mongol start to raid with bigger force (20000-25000 man), they all got defeated. Are you sure you read what you give to me mate

For Bulgaria and Serbia. All I see is the total destruction of their countries and Mongol horde roam without any significant resistance. "It is unlikely that the Bulgarians scored a victory over anything greater than a small raiding party." It was written from your source. Please read mate.

For Hungary, you have to admit that Hungary lost to Mongol and some of their parts integrated to the Mongol Empire right? But remember none of Vietnam territory lost to Mongol.

For Korea, They surrender because Korean military was defeated. They lost nearly all territory and unable to counter attack to take it back. Korean surrender not only mean to pay tribute to the Khan court but their land is annexed to Mongol Empire as well. Have you never ask yourself why Mongol annex Korean land into their territory but not Vietnam? It is clear that none of the countries you mention scored a significant victory over Mongol. However Mongol invasions of Vietnam was conduct in a big scale and 3 times their invading army all got completely destroyed. That is a huge difference.

Remember if Vietnam did not DEFEAT MONGOL 3 TIMES, accepting to be a vassal state would DEFINITELY NOT ENOUGH for Mongol. Mongol wanted to conquer Vietnam. It is undeniable. Vietnam already accept to be a vassal state since the first invasion but Mongol still sent another 2 bigger invasions right?

It is diplomatic term mate, don't need to be very smart to understand this. Accepting to be a vassal state is a symbolic only to not let Mongol lose face. It just show Vietnamese are NOT arrogant, war-monger and stupid enough to fight tit for tat with her giant neighbor. If you said accepting to be a vassal state for Vietnam is a humiliation, why did not you ask the Great Mongol Empire that forgiving a small Vietnam for defeating her 3 times in exchange of a peace offer and little tribute is a humiliation for Mongol too? Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs)
 * Hungary was never a vassal state of the Mongol Empire. After the Mongols withdrew to attend the great meeting to elect a new Great Khan, no territory of Hungary became Mongol. Almost 20 years later, various raids were conducted by the Golden Horde, and Hungary and others paid tribute to Nogai - for example - to avoid being attacked, but they were never under Mongol control. In the same manner, the Byzantines bought off the Huns.50.111.19.21 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Please Keep This Page Neutral
It's a common theme in several areas of the Mongol invasions on wiki that various ultra-nationalists (such as Russian and Hungarian) continually vandalize pages to make ahistorical and unsubstantiated claims, often relying on very biased sources that do not take all sides into account. This article has also seen multiple problems. These include claiming the 1258 as a Dai Viet victory, as well as that the Yuan armies were destroyed in 1287. Toghan was disgraced, but his army was not destroyed or routed. He had to retreat because of the great Dai Viet naval victory. That is a critical difference. It is also undeniable that the Mongols originally forced Dai Viet to submit as a vassal in 1258, but successful Champa and Dai Viet resistance in 1285 and 1287 allowed them to renegotiate their status to a somewhat hostile tributary. Both sides need to be addressed in considering the status of the campaign.

Anyone who wants to claim that Uriyangkhadai's 1258 invasion was anything other than a total Mongol success needs to be able to address and refute Yuan Shi 10:2981, and Vietnamese scholar Le Tac's Annan Zhi Lue, 85. This matches other Yuan records (in YS 1: 61-2) that Uriyangkhadai was able to march unhindered through Dai Viet territory the next year (1259) in order to attack the Song Dynasty from an unprotected flank. This would not have been possible had Dai Viet not submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldwinthebold (talk • contribs) 06:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yuan army got destroyed in 1287. It is the fact. You did not read the whole article carefully. Togan had to retreat because his supply got cut off by Tran army. Both his land and naval army got routed and suffer heavy casualty during the retreat. There is NO historical record from Yuan or Vietnam that "Toghan's still-intact army retreated to China". This sentence's reference from Paul Buel books. However, it is not paraphrased properly. This is exactly what he said "Toqan army was not destroyed, but the whole fleet was". What Paul Buel said just means "Toquan land army was not TOTALLY destroyed". Sentence "Toghan's still-intact army retreated to China" was made up by Mongol fanboys.

Stop giving excuse for Mongol's defeat
I think this page has been changed many times by Mongol fans. Look at this part "The first invasion began in 1258 under the united Mongol Empire, as it looked for alternative paths to invade Song China. Mongol General Uriyangkhadai was successful " "The second and third invasions occurred during the reign of Kublai Khan of the Yuan Dynasty. By this point, the Mongolian Empire had fractured into 4 separate entities, who were busy fighting each other. These invasions resulted in a disastrous land defeat for the Mongols in 1285 and the annihilation of the Mongol navy in 1288"

It makes people misunderstand that Mongol defeats in second and third invasion due to their internal conflict. Actually, when Mongol Empire fractured into 4 separate entities, Yuan dynasty (the empire who conduct these invasions of Vietnam) was the strongest and biggest empire amongst 4 fractures of Mongol Empires. It was at its peak during the reign of the Great Kublai Khan and it did not have any civil war with other fractures of Mongol Empire during these time. Mongol fans should stop changing this page in order to keep its neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs) 02:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Better read your history books again. Kublai had major wars with a brother (Ariq Borke) and a grandson of Ogedai (Kaidu).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.21 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yuan Shi did not record any return of Uriyangkhadai in Vietnam in 1259 . The first invasion was a military defeat for Mongol.
Hi, again. I have read the source from Haw, S. G. (2013) "The Deaths of Two Khaghans", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, p. 365-366. The information this author provide is doubtful. For example in page 365, he said "Moreover, the campaigns against Dali, and later against Annam, allowed the Mongols to invade the Song empire, successfully, from the south. This has sometimes been overlooked. It has even been claimed that they were somehow forced to withdraw from Annam at this time (1258). This is based on an incorrect understanding of Chinese source material, which says that the Mongol forces, led by Uriyangkhadai, withdrew from the Annamese capital after only nine days, because of the unhealthy climate. Other records, however, state that the Annamese king submitted, and that the army then returned to Yachi (modern Kunming)." That reference came from the book "P.D. Buell,Mongols in Vietnam: end of one era, beginning of another ” . In that paper of P.D. Buell, there is nothing such as "Anamese King submitted, and that the army then returned to Yachi", nothing imply the submit of Tran Emperor in 1958. I don't know if Haw. S.G deliberately or accidentally misinterpret the information from P.D.Buell.

Another thing, Haw, S, G is ONLY ONE who said Uriyangkhadai return in Viet nam in 1959. He said that information came from YuanShi, i, 51, 53. I have read Yuan Shi and yes it claim Mongol invasion of Vietnam in 1258 as victory because Uriyangkhadai was able to capture capital of Tran Dynasty, NOT because Tran King submit. In addition, the return of Uriyangkhadai in Vietnam 1259 was not recorded in Yuanshi, i think it never happen and Haw. S. G again made up that information. YuanShi 2, page 35 even record that in 1260 the Great Mongke still sent a letter to ask Tran King to submit. It is clear that Tran emperor did not submit until 1260.

Vietnam source claim 1258 as a victory because they finally repel Mongol invasion by counterattacking Mongol at Thang Long where Mongol army was weaken by scorched earth policy. Yuanshi claim as a victory for Mongol because Mongol successfully captured Thang Long (capital of Tran). I think it is reasonable to conclude that the first invasion was a military defeat for Mongol, however it still play a part to the submit of Tran Emperor after 3 Mongol's invasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs) 12:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Continual Neutrality Problems
Judging from the talk and editing page, this article seems to have consistent problems with maintaining wikipedia standards of neutrality. The cause clearly seems to be very nationalistic Vietnamese who rely exclusively on pro-Vietnamese histories but ignore Yuan Shi evidence and the pro-Mongol Vietnamese history. There is no detailed source analysis or expressions of ambiguity over what happened.

The first invasion has serious holes of logic. If Uriyangkhadai's army somehow suffered a serious defeat in January 1258 and Dai Viet refused to submit, then they have to explain how it is possible that Uriyangkhadai somehow marched back through Dai Viet territory that very year with a healthy enough army to defeat the Song in several major battles and successfully march the entire way through Song territory. This is directly stated in the Yuan Shi biography of Uriyangkhadai, and part of it is confirmed in the Song Shi (that Uriyangkhadai joined up with Kublai's army at Ezhou after marching north all the way from Vietnam).

Tropical climate / departure to invade southern Song
Please discuss here to avoid an edit war. In response to this, the Haw source (which you removed) states that the implicit original source incorrectly state that the Uriyangkhidai army left due to poor climate, contradictory to your claim.

From Haw: "It has even been claimed that they were somehow forced to withdraw from Annam at this time (1258). This is based on an incorrect understanding of Chinese source material, which says that the Mongol forces, led by Uriyangkhadai, withdrew from the Annamese capital after only nine days, because of the unhealthy climate. Other records, however, state that the Annamese king submitted, and that the army then returned to Yachi (modern Kunming). Shortly afterwards, in 1259，Uriyangkhadai's Yunnan army invaded the Song empire from Annam (Jiaozhi) and advanced towards modern Nanning..."

Furthermore, the claim that The content you added before is not much related to the main content of the article and removed the fact that Mongols suffered failure is false; the move to attack the Song dynasty from the south was the departure of the Uriyangkhidai army from Vietnam and describes the end of the first conflict (this from multiple sources including the Haw paper and An Nam chí lược). — MarkH21talk 21:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So you mean the sources you provided don't agree with the point "The Mongols suffer failure"? But "Annamese king submitted" don't contradict the fact that the Mongol army suffered setbacks. They did this after they beat the Mongols, just like what they did in the two subsequent invasion from the Mongols. But the newest version seems OK. I am not going to change it now. 七战功成 22:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? The Annamese king submitted just means that the Dai Viet surrendered to the Mongol army before the Mongol army turned back north. I still maintain that the previous lead was preferable, since the current one uses the misinterpretation mentioned in the quote. — MarkH21talk 22:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Dai Viet surrendered to the Mongol army before the Mongol army turned back north", this is what the sources (which you provided) said? I highly doubted this. All I have known is that Dai Viet accepted the tributary relationship after the Mongols retreated.    七战功成 22:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Surrendered, vassalized, became a tributary state, however you want to word it, that’s not the point. The point is that the submitted to the Mongol army and the Mongol army departed to attack the Song from the south, which is what the previous version said. The current version also reiterated the misinterpretation of a Mongol defeat due to tropical climate. — MarkH21talk 00:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that you misunderstood what I want to expressed.I am also not aruging about the use of word. I said according to what I know, Dai Viet defeated the Mongols after the Mongols captured the capital city, not they surrendered and the Mongols went to attack the Song China. 七战功成 01:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * According to multiple sources, the Mongol army captured the capital, the Annamese king submitted (i.e. accept/yield to a superior force), and the Mongol army turned north and left. The quote above is pretty straight-forward in this and refuting any claim of his army was weakened by the tropical climate and were later defeated. The lead should reflect this. — MarkH21talk 01:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is quite contradictory to the discussion which written on March 2018 at this page (Almost just above this conversation). You can have a look at it. 七战功成 01:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the SPA in that section misreads Haw’s paper: Haw cited Buell as an example of misinterpretation (not as the source of Haw’s statement) and Haw cited An Nam chí lược (not Yuan Shi) to support one of his statements. A published journal article contradicting an SPA’s personal belief / original research of i think it never happen and Haw . S . G again made up that information is not surprising. Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources, so unless there is a published source refuting Haw’s journal article and supporting the SPA and the interpretation in Buell’s conference paper, I’ll be restoring the lead to its previous version. — MarkH21talk 02:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Annamese king Nhat Qinh Chen Taizong.jpg

First Invasion:Mongol strategic victory
During the first invasion, the Mongol Empire defeated Tran army in Bach Hac and the siege of Thang Long. Tran king had submitted his vassalized kingdom to the Mongol Khan. There is lack of information about the siege of Thang Long, but in Vietnamese account said "the city was ransacked, it burned for 9 days". -anonymous- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:1096:87F8:F81B:7101 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Mongol and Vietnam in 1258
In this article, there is one paragraph cited from Đại Việt sử ký toàn toàn thư said in 1258 (unknown month), king Tran Thai Tong had a dancing party with the Mongol soldiers: "our Majesty wore  fur coat and drank wine with Mongol ambassador, prince Tran Hoang (Tran Thanh Tong) and prince Quốc Khang tried Mongolian dance with Mongol soldiers and our majesty laughed so fun". So it is could be evidence, in 1258, Mongol still were stationing in Vietnam.

-anonymous` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:1096:87F8:F81B:7101 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mobile trebuchet.jpg

Labeling invasions as "victory", "defeat", or "inconclusive"
It's not true that War result must always be clear, whether it was a victory, a defeat or inconclusive, as you claim. Particularly, when sources disagree on labeling a conflict, it doesn't mean much to apply a label, as is the case here. Furthermore, the clearly listed results already tell the reader what the consequences were. There's no need to apply a game-like "win" or "lose" label. If you want, we can seek broader consensus from WikiProject Military history (I suspect there must have been past discussions on this) or open an RfC.

If you so insist on mentioning the Vietnamese historiography claims of "victory", the general sources do say who labels the invasions as what. For example:
 * "In studies of China or of the Mongols, it is recognized that fighting in Vietnam did not go well for the Mongols. Nevertheless, the campaigns are often treated as a success because tributary relations with Dai Viet were eventually resumed. In contrast, Vietnamese historiography makes much of Dai Viet’s military victories over the Mongols, which support the idea of a Vietnamese people united in their struggle against foreign aggression."

- Chapter 1: A brief history of Annan, Ming China and Vietnam, Cambridge University Press 2016


 * "Despite the extreme difficulty of the tropical heat and the unfamiliar landscape, the Mongol army had success in Burma, Annam in northern Vietnam, and Laos."

- Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (New York: The Rivers Press, 2004), 212.

If it's a suitable compromise, we can say that the invasions are often treated as Mongol successes (since the intentions were to establish tributary relations and not conquest), with Vietnamese historiography claiming Dai Viet / Champa victories. — MarkH21talk 21:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the iteration? In my view, it does the job of being clear on who says what. — MarkH21talk 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The tributary relations of Vietnam with the Mongols had existed before the second invasion begun, even your source claimed that "tributary relations with Dai Viet were eventually resumed". So the second and the third invasions were to "maintain the tributary relations", you mean?


 * However, Mongols' "success" resulted in the event of "Kublai angrily banished Toghan to Yangzhou for life", who was a son of Kublai. If they succeeded in maintaing the tributary relations, why would prince Toghan be treated like that?


 * Goryeo had the same situation with Dai Viet but it failed to repel the Mongols and eventually capitulated. In the end, Goryeo saw itself becoming a vassal state of the Mongols. Would Vietnam be the same if they failed to defend themselves? Or would they be annexed?--NhatMinh1701 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We reflect what the sources say, and the sources clearly say that the invasions were viewed as successes by Western and Chinese historiography. We don’t pick the Vietnamese historiography view because it makes more sense to you.If you read the source and what’s in the article, Dai Viet was a Song tributary prior to the invasion. The collective intent of the invasions was to establish tributary relationship with the Mongols. The first invasion also had the additional motivation and to attack the Southern Song from the south, and the second invasion was particularly motivated to demand greater tributes and to attack the Champa to establish tributary relationships with them.Why did you revert the entire series of edits including the formatting? If you really don’t want to include the position directly supported by these references, we can just open an RfC or ask WikiProject Military History to get broader consensus as I suggested earlier. — MarkH21talk 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Insertion of victory, removal of capital sacking, and changed cited sentences
See the discussion here, instead of changing the article to your interpretation of events and changing sentences that are directly cited to references. You removed Dai Viet capital sacked, which is in the text and cited sources, and then replaced it with Dai Viet victory, which is not directly stated. If it’s necessary, I can add the quote from the Baldanza source to the citation. For example, in, neither of the two directly cited sources (1, 2) say These invasions resulted in a disastrous land defeat for the Mongols in 1285 and the annihilation of the Mongol navy in 1288. — MarkH21talk 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The detailed descriptions and related sources of these two invasions are already in the article, you can't see? It's quite clear that the Mongols were defeated during the second and third invasion. Your words above are also strongly misleading. Vietnam clearly won the war. What's the goal of the Mongol's campaign? Of course it's annexing Vietnam, not just let it being a vassal state. Because Vietnam became the vassal state already way before the second and third invasion. But the Mongols were clearly defeated during these campaigns. They didn't achieve their goal. This is completely different from the situation between the Mongols and Korea. Koreans failed to fend off the Mongols and eventually surrendered. 七战功成 22:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m going to repeat what I wrote above, since it doesn’t seem that you read them. This is directly stated in the article and sources, with quotes like:  and (regarding the background for the second and third invasions): Yes, one might say that the Mongol goals for the second and third invasions were not successful, since they were not able to impose the desired greater demands; in that sense one could label it a Dai Viet victory. However, it’s a bit arbitrary to classify the different campaigns when the results are clearly listed, and only further clutter the infobox. Regarding the other changes though: the capital was sacked, the Mongol goals for the Champa invasion was realized, and you changed sentences in the lead so they no longer reflect the cited sources. Those changes need be undone, so please do so. — MarkH21talk 21:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that it's you didn't understand what others say. I said "Vietnam became the vassal state already way before the second and third invasion", all what you said is about the first. Where is the contradiction? Korea failed to fend off the Mongols, so they eventually surrendered and they had to accept Mongol's orders unconditionally. But Vietnam defeated the Mongols, forcing the Mongols to maintain the previous realtionship and made the Mongols unable to gain any extra benefits from Vietnam. Of course this was a big victory for Vietnam. Which is completely different from Korea against the Mongols. 七战功成 22:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Undo what? You logic is really a little problematic. Yes, the capital was sacked. So? This didn't mean they were defeated at all. Who said that losing some cities means you lose the war? You also see that the Mongols were beaten badly afterwards. I also read some main comments of the books you mentioned, many of them said the contens are actually not quite reliable. I don't think those books are good sources. 七战功成 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The quotes I gave above are about the second and third invasions, not the first. The quote describes how the Mongols wanted to increase the tributes and install a darughachi to oversee internal affairs. You also ignored my comment about it being unnecessary to label each invasion (and really the entire set of conflicts) as “victory”, “defeat”, or whatever.You changed several things in your edit:1. You removed that the capital was sacked from one of the invasion results, despite sources that say it was sacked

2. You changed sentences in the lead that are directly cited to a source. The changed sentences do not reflect the sources that they are cited to.

3. You wrote that the invasion of Champa was a Champa victory, even though the Mongol goal was to establish a tributary relationship, which they did.I never claimed that the Mongols were victors in the invasions because they sacked the capital. I never wrote that the latter invasions were Mongol victories.These books (Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, Ming China and Vietnam, and China's Imperial Past) are academic published sources from the Cambridge University Press, Stanford University Press, and Three Rivers Press, all from academic historians. They’re reliable sources, while you’re going off of what you think. — MarkH21talk 21:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Will you look and think about what you said before? The first quote is directly related to the first invasion. You always emphisize that Vietnam agreed to accpet the Mongol's supremacy so we can't say Vietnam won the war. But Vietnam already became the vassal state for the Mongols after the first invasion, which happened way before the second and third invasion. Maybe the Mongols didn't intend to conquer Vietnam, but at least they want much more from Vietnam by launching the wars. You also mentioned this, right? But what was the result? The Mongols were beaten badly and could only maintain the previous relationship with Vietnam afterwards. They didn't achieve their goals at all. How could this not be called a victory for Vietnam? Is this that hard to figure out? 七战功成 23:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What part of the second invasion was particularly motivated to demand greater tributes and to attack the Champa to establish tributary relationships with them is about the first invasion? What part of In 1283 is related to the first invasion? Also, I didn't say that this was a Mongol victory, but that And what about your three other changes? — MarkH21talk 22:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "The first invasion also had the additional motivation and to attack the Southern Song from the south, " Isn't this what you said? This is right ahead of the sentences you quoted. You can't see? You are only be able to look at a part of a sentence? When did I say that you say it was a Mongol victory? What I want to express is that this is clearly a victory for Vietnam. How many times I have to emphasize? Writing down Champa Victory is also not wrong, as the article mentioned, Champa people waged a successfull guerilla war and eventually drove the Mongols away. Your said that Chinese and western sources regard this as a success for Mongols is also fallacious. What I see is most of them agree that Vietnam won the war, just some of them think the landscape and weather conditions are the main important factors rather than Vietnam's resistance.            七战功成 23:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but that wasn't the relevant part of the sentence to our discussion. We're talking about the second & third invasions, so why are you fixated on what I said about the first invasion? The three sources, directly cited and also linked above, all have direct quotes supporting the statement: The only argument I see from you so far is based on What I see and I don't think those books are good sources.This is why writing "victory" is pointless. The Mongols achieved their goal of gaining a tributary state in the Champa. The Champa were not annexed or further subjugated. There's no sense in writing "victory". — MarkH21talk 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is that not relevant? What's the point of focusing on the second and third invasion? The tributary relationship was established after the first invasion, not the second or third. It's you always want to express this kind of point of view: Since Vietnam agree with tributary relationship, so the war should be viewed as Mongol's success. But this is clearly wrong. I already explained a number of times above. But it seems it's you always can't understand(or pretend to not understand) and constantly shift topics. As for the sources I see, here are some of them: Abraham Constantin Mouradgea d’Ohsson's <>, D.G.E Hall's <>(part 1, chapter 9), Guo ZhenDuo(郭振铎) and Zhang XiaoMei(张笑梅)'s <<越南通史>>(General History of Vietnam), first chapter, first section.
 * By the way, writing "victory" is definitely not pointless. Champa people eventually drove the Mongols away through guerilla war. You might say the Mongols had success because Champa accept the Mongol's supremacy, but without the successful resistance, it's quite likely that the Mongols would demand more, just like what they did to Korea. 七战功成 00:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We were focusing on the second and third invasion, because that's where you inserted Dai Viet victory in the infobox. The entire point of this discussion is about your edit that inserted "Dai Viet victory" in the infobox, removed "Dai Viet capital sacked" from the infobox, and changed sentences in the lead to no longer reflect the cited sources. It also doesn't matter what you suppose the Mongols would have "likely" done. We use reliable sources, not your personal opinion. You can't just declare it a Champa victory because you think that the Mongols would have done more than their stated goal given by reliable sources.Regarding the infobox, I said from the beginning that we shouldn't label any of them as a "victory" in the infobox. Now see Peacemaker67's suggestion below of removing the infobox section and pointing it to the "Aftermath" section. — MarkH21talk 23:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I want to talk about. I clearly think this should be viewed as a victory for vietnam. You don't even understand what I am arguing about? As for Champa, maybe I didn't say it right. This is not a personal opinion. They had military success against the Mongols, of course this can be labeled as a victory for them. 七战功成 00:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you think it's a victory for the Dai Viet. My whole point, and 's, is that we shouldn't label it as anyone's victory due to the complicated outcomes, and point it at the Aftermath section where they can be explained in detail. — MarkH21talk 23:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the outcomes are complicated. This is clearly a victory for Vietnam. Why not leave it there? 七战功成 00:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because only you think so. It's contested. — MarkH21talk 23:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in it is complicated? You also said that you agree this is a victory for Vietnam. What else are being contested? 七战功成 00:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I said one could describe it as a Dai Viet victory in a particular sense, but I contested including the label in the infobox for reasons I've described repeatedly. Peacemaker67 also recommended replacing the entire "result" parameter from the infobox with a link to the "Aftermath" section, and I agree. It resolves the dispute while directing readers towards a detailed description of the outcomes. I don't think we need to belabor this infobox issue any further. — MarkH21talk 00:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice your message just now. Ok, it's also a good way to deal with this. 七战功成 00:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I came here via a post on the Milhist talk page. Firstly, both the Cambridge University Press books detailed above are reliable. Secondly, as a project, we have found that putting a result in the infobox in situations such as these causes far more trouble than it is worth, and results in ongoing edit-warring and disputes. Instead of cluttering up the infobox with what is there now, I suggest you use "See Aftermath section" with a piped link to that section, and explore the various versions there rather than trying to summarise what clearly is a complex set of outcomes militarily, diplomatically and politically. Good luck, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay great, that's what I thought was the sensible thing in such a scenario. To clarify, you mean to completely replace everything currently in the "result" parameter in the infobox? I'd be fully in favor.Only one of the three books is from the Cambridge University Press. The others are the wikilinked book from Three Rivers Press and the GB-linked book Stanford University Press. Which book(s) are you referring to besides the CUP book? — MarkH21talk 22:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, replace everything with "See Aftermath section". Sorry, I misread which books were being challenged. The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History looks like an extremely brief summary in what appears to be a high school textbook, and I'm sure there are far better sources for something as contested as this. I would avoid using it. Ming China and Vietnam is clearly reliable, as is China's Imperial Past. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World is not as high quality as the last two, and if its article is to be believed, it has been criticised for mistakes, lacking footnotes, and for being controversial. I would stick to using it for basic facts, but would question whether the authors interpretation (particularly of controversial matters) always reflects academic consensus. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with PM that it's not a good idea to try and reflect nuance in the infobox, and that a linked "See Aftermath section" is the way forward here. Factotem (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Restarted discussion
lol, this mark is a delusional guy. Since when was the consensus a mongol victory? Your one? As far as I know, everyone that has participated on this page agrees it was a Vietnamese victory, except for you who eyes on this page 24/7 to revert it to your biased account. Everywhere I read and go on the internet, everyone believes it was a Vietnamese victory. I don't know why this Mark guy is so obsessed with this particular page for several years now, may well go on to decades. Even he has doubts because he agreed to do a see aftermath section, maybe he is lying but wants to manipulate and work around wiki's rules to create a false sense of his own narrative. Even the sources this marky boi listed are unreliable. If it's a consesus you want, then you are wrong here by majority, mark. It was mongol victory because they sacked the capital? You know in WW2, germans were conquering and occupying russian cities right? But guess who won in the end? So sacking of a city does not facilitate to a loss. Onto the whole tributary system. 七战功成 is correct and more accurate in his answers than your one, mrak. You can cope all you want makr, but the invasions were all meant for conqeuring all of Vietnam. Believing the mongols' victory objectives in conquering vietnam was just for a tribitary system? Something so small just for ambitions to conquer Vietnam? Is that why Kublai was preparing for a fourth invasion when Dai Viet was already a tributary to the Yuan? Vietnam was already a tribitary after the first invasion after the victorious Vietnamese Bach Dang battle. Mrak, the majority votes that it was a Vietnamese victory. That is the consensus. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Read Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks and stop making ad hominems. 2) You said that the majority of the above discussion decided with "Vietnamese victory". Look at the above discussion again. All of, ,  and I agreed on the "See Aftermath section" conclusion based on the presented scholarly sources. Nothing has changed. — MarkH21talk 19:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It wasn't mean as an insult, it was an expression to describe the sheer lunacy of the idea. It may have been exaggerated but it is what it is. 2) Peacemaker and Factotem wanted to stop you from edit warring, that is why. 七战功成 initally disagreed with you but finally succumbed to your incessant editing. The truth of it is, on this talk page it is 3 to 1. 2 to 1 before Peacemaker, Factotem and I came. Possibly 4 to 1 because even Peacemaker is reluctant to even accept your sources. Plus the editing made by other users that you kept wiping out their edits. This means that you clearly violated the consensus agreement to project your own biased narrative with faulty sources. Read the rules next time. 3) 'scholarly', no your sources were already been told as unreliable. Nhatminh, 七战功成 and Peacemaker already said it was so and now so do I. So clearly there is a consensus on the inaccuracy of your sources. A 4 to 1 majority rule that your sources are unreliable and therefore your edits have to be removed.Norewritingofhistory (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a complete misrepresentation of what those users said. Peacemaker67 and Factotem came from a request at MILHIST, Peacemaker67 is the one who proposed the "See Aftermath section" result, and Peacemaker67 said Firstly, both the Cambridge University Press books detailed above are reliable. 七战功成 and Factotem both agreed with the given proposal. NhatMinh1701 is a banned user. — MarkH21talk 21:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * yes he proposed it because he didn't want to see you and others come to an edit war, you being the minority and rest being the majority. Are you going to list all the other sources of yours that he said weren't reliable or are you going to cherrypick and rewrite history? The fact that 3 people voiced against you in the first place on this article and 2 others remained neutral with one of those two being skeptical of the majority of your sources should say something about your role on this partixular article.
 * I just noticed the your mention of me. Thanks for your further clarifiction of the issue. Yes, after reading what you said here, I realized that I compromised too quickly at that time. There were some reasons: I had a lot of things to do and didn't have much time to edit wikipedia, and I also didn't think about the thing quite clearly and just agreed with the MarkH21's solution. I really think the outcome is not complicated and should be treated as a clear victory of Vietnam.     七战功成 23:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This mark guy is now labelling me as a sockpuppet because he couldn't handle my arguments. He didn't even reply to mine or your last comment on this talk page. Even Peacemaker67 found his sources skeptical.
 * Sockpuppet? He made this claim somewhere else on wiki? Oh, that's 100% personal attack. Ironically, he even accused others of "ad hominem". That's really shameful. Maybe we should report this behaviour. 七战功成 23:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely. If he is going to resort to sockpuppetry claims to ban people for being these so called sockpuppets just because they disagreed with him on the talkpage, then they should not be on wikipedia, honestly. Should report him. You know, I wonder if he's done the same thing to other innocent people just because they disagreed with him on the talkpage. He is clearly misuing wikipedia to try to ban people for having different opinions. I'd say he needs to be reported.This is clearly a personal attack from him.
 * Didn't see the message before. Yes, we need to do that. But I haven't reported anyone yet on wikipedia and not clear about how to do that. Maybe it's mainly up to you do it. Besides, I just edited the article a little bit and change something he added. You can check which parts need to be further adjusted. 七战功成 01:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPI is one of the administrative areas that serve as the proper areas for reporting and discussing editor conduct, which is where I opened a case. Cases are reviewed by administrators and checkuser and are not based on pure content disputes, and I do not report cases based on disagreement.this is an article talk page, which is reserved for discussing the content of articles rather than editor conduct. See WP:TALK, which is a Wikipedia guideline outlining this, and keep this page for article content. My warning to Norewritingofhistory was against making ad hominems for content disputes.The pre-existing consensus still had three editors (,, and myself) in favor of the "See Aftermath section" formulation, while only two editors ( and ) are in favor of the "Đại Việt Victory" formulation even after 七战功成's change of mind. I will open an RfC to build a broader consensus on this issue, but the article should remain as it was before until there is a new consensus from the RfC according to Wikipedia guidelines. — MarkH21talk 01:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RfC opened below. — MarkH21talk 02:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)