Talk:Temür Khan

Khaan
Khaan or Khagan (later edit: of the "Mongol Empire") was never his regnal title. It was merely a nominal one or even a portrayal towards some groups of people. Why not just call him "Emperor of Yuan Dynasty" instead?--207.112.124.205 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not logical. For Chinese, he was the emperor, but I don't believe his turk and mongol subjects call him Shihuandi. He was the Khaan. --Enerelt (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that he probably still preserved the title "Khaan" or "Khagan". Actually, the real problem is the scope of this "Khaan". If the scope is Yuan (Dai-On), it should be fine, since he did rule as such to some of his subjects in Yuan Dynasty. That is, Emperor of Yuan = Khaan of Yuan, i.e. they were considered synonymous. This seems to be true according to some historic records. However, if the scope extends to the post-1294 "Mongol Empire" (in reality, the Mongol khanates), then it is clearly nominal or purely theoretical, not a regnal one. Actually, by being "Emperor of China", similar effect happens (Emperor of China was considered the overlord of all surrounding countries, including the other khanates, but this overlordship is nominal or theoretical). That's probably why Yuan rulers seemed to equate "Emperor of Yuan" with "Khaan of Yuan", both will be the de-jure overlord of other khanates/countries. Since we have to differentiate between regnal titles and nominal ones (just like Northern Yuan rulers also claimed the title "Emperor of China", though they did not in fact rule China), we cannot add nominal titles under "regnal titles". In order to solve this issue, I will try to state the scope of this title in the article. Any suggestions, just tell me.--207.112.124.205 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Western Khanates
Isn't "Western Khanates" or "Khanates in the west" (when referring to the three khanates to the west of Yuan) a neutral phrase? What it means seems to be clear in this context and I don't think it's biased towards any side. In comparison, the concept of "Mongol Empire" in this case is more debatable (there are many different versions for its end year, for example; we'd better not stick to one particular version, in order to prevent the neutrality problem). Thus "Western Khanates" or "Khanates in the west" should be preferred, unless someone can indeed tell any evidence of problems (e.g. neutrality? vague?) in these phrases. --209.183.7.93 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the sentence "all khanates were peaceful thereafter", it is clearly inaccurate. There were still wars between khanates during the reign of Ayurbarwada, for example. I think correctness is very important for Wikipedia articles. The section "From Ulus to Khanate: The Making of Mongol States" of the book "Mongol Empire and Its Legacy" also mentioned that the general reconiliation in 1304 was shortlived (p14).--209.183.7.93 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there was also conflict between Yuan forces and Chagatayds during the reign of last khaan Toghoghan Temur. But those events were not serious compared to the civil war 1260-1304. --Enerelt (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some texts in the article are clearly biased towards certain viewpoint. As Temur Khan's "real" reginal title was Emperor (Khagan) of Yuan, this part of texts should be given the most importance (and this was also the part that Temur himself paid most attentions on), but of course other contents such as relations with Southeast Asian countries and Temur's acceptance by other khanates as nominal suzeirain also had their historic significance (for example, the latter showed that the Mongol Empire still at least nominally existed as a whole for some time) and should not be ignored (though they are obviously not the main affairs that Temur himself focused on, compared to its internal affairs and governance). In general, the texts should be in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint (or its due weight as defined in Wikipedia). --207.112.101.208 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

They were still considered Khagans of the entire Mongols in the west and the east.--129.11.202.77 (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I already mentioned that above (and I also said such points should not be ignored). Nevertheless, the khangan relation with west were more or less nominal (as they had no real power there), and Temur and his successors's main attentions and activities were clearly in their own domain and governance in the east. And that's where the article should mainly focus on (the current article however does not have enough text to describe his real reign and administrations compared to the size of the text to describe the relationship with west; which is where the texts in the article becomes "out of proportion"; also note that Temur was only considered nominal suzeirain in the west in his very last years of reign). --207.112.99.75 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Confucianism
If we mention that the Yuan rejected to accept every principle of Confucianism, then in order to be balanced, we should also mention that Temür's administration showed respect for it, and the close tie of the chancellor to the Confucian scholars.--Choulin (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article name
See Talk:Toghon Temür. Should there be a rename of this article? --Evecurid (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)