Talk:Yuan dynasty/Archive 2

Dragon boat regatta
This article was cited as evidence for "the Yuan rulers sought to govern China through traditional institutions". It deals with Yuan-era art, and what it actually says is that Khubilai Khan was eager to preserve Chinese traditional institutions, not to govern through them. IMO this is not sufficient support for the contested statement yet, especially when the kind of institutions is not mentioned at all (Military? Academies?) and when we have stuff like the suspensions of the civil service examinations. Yaan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this source: ?--209.183.5.36 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * doesn't look really academic. Temujin son of a poor noble? Yaan (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the resources I have read (many are in Chinese), it seems to be clear that "Yuan rulers sought to govern China through traditional institutions" since the beginning of Kublai's rule in 1260. Wang Wentong (王文统), a previously trusted Han Chinese high official of Kublai, was one of the major figures to establish such a ruling system based on traditional institutions. However, Li Tang (李璮), a local warlord and relative of Wang Wentong, rebelled against Kublai in 1262. When his rebellion was put down in the same year, Wang Wentong, as Li Tang's father-in-law, was also executed. Ever since this rebellion, Kublai became growingly mistrusted Han Chinese. Most Han Chinese officials previously in high positions, such as Shi Tianze (史天泽), the chancellor (prime minister) of Kublai, were degraded. Thus, while he still sought to govern China through traditional institutions largely established by Wang Wentong and others, he employed more non-Chinese officials than Han Chinese in high positions.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This stuff about Khubilai getting more weary of Han Chinese after certain rebellions seems quite well in line with what I read in one of my German sources, which (IIRC) does give a slightly different date, though. Maybe we should add it to the article (esp. the "initially"), and for now give your Chinese and my German source as reference, until someone digs up an English one. It would be nice to also mention at least a ew of these institutions, though. Yaan (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the use of officials of the Yuan, according to the article "Imperial Governance in Yuan Times" (JSTOR, pg. 544), "Qubilai had envisioned a system in which the office of ta-lu-hua-ch'ih would be filled by Mongols, or in the absence of Mongols, by Western and Central Asians, while the offices of the population overseers, i.e., the offices of the general administrators, prefects, subprefects, and magistrates, would be held by Han-Chinese. In reality, and in spite of Qubilai's later reputation as the most effective of the Yuan emperors, his many decrees ordering various offices restricted to certain ethnic groups were often ignored."--209.183.28.101 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But it does not say in which way this was ignored. Probably the lower the administrative level, the more Han Chinese were employed, but at the top you had a lot of Mongols and Central Asians. Currently the article makes it seem as if the Mongols were just not able to find enough Han Chinese for their positions in the administration. Yaan (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chinese sources I read talked about this more. Probably the source above means there were examples of Han Chinese with the position of ta-lu-hua-ch'ih. I don't know who wrote this part of the article, but it should be changed anyway.--209.183.28.101 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

da yuan
if I am not mistaken, the official name of the dynasty was 大元, not just 元 ? Yaan (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the official native name of the dynasty was 大元, just like the official native name of Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty were 大明 and 大清 respectively. However, they were almost never referred to as 大元朝, 大明朝 and 大清朝, except when used in honorific sense (i.e. 大元朝=大+元朝, "Great"+"Yuan Dynasty"). I know this is kind of confusing, but it's the way it is used.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Empire" in the official name, as all dynasties of China before Qing.--Ericyuen (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Great Qing" was still Qing's official name, as were "Great Yuan" and "Great Ming". The title with the Chinese character meaning "state" or "empire" (國) added to "Great Qing" generally appeared since the 19th century, when Qing had to sign treaties with the western countries and regarded itself as a sovereignty country just like the western ones, though this does not mean "Great Qing" was no longer the official name. On the other hand, though not a part of the official name for the empire (as listed in the infobox), the Chinese character meaning "state" or "empire" (國) was sometimes added to "Great Yuan" during the Yuan period also, see the image of a porcelain bottle made in 1352 with Chinese text "大元國至正十二年製" ("Made in the 12th year of Zhizheng of the Great Yuan Empire") here: --207.112.71.179 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

attack vs. invade
I undid the recent change from "In 1372 the Ming invaded Mongolia" to "In 1372 the Ming attacked Mongolia" because you can not attack a mere piece of land (or maybe you can, but the Ming in 1372 attacked something else), and the current state of Mongolia did not exist yet in 1372. It's like saying "Hannibal attacked Italy", when in fact he attacked Rome. This problem does not arise with the word 'invade', "Hannibal invaded Italy" is a rather flawless statement. I also don't really see the neutrality problem, China proper and Mongolia seem to have been distinct enough areas (geographically and culturally) even in the 14th century. Yaan (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the previous usage of "attack" was not correct -- it may be better to say something like "Ming attacked the retreating Northern Yuan forces in Mongolia" rather than "Ming attacked Mongolia". On the other hand, I don't think "invaded" is neutral at all. China proper and Mongolia were previously under the rule of the same entity called Yuan Dynasty. Yuan Dynasty consisted of a few provinces, most were in China proper and another one called the Lingbei Province contained Mongolia, i.e. Mongolia was in the northernmost province of the Yuan. When Ming rebelled in the south, it forced Yuan army to retreat -- from South China, North China, and then inner Mongolia. Finally, Yuan remnants retreated to the Lingbei Province, the northernmost province containing Mongolia, which became its last base. Now Ming wanted to annihilate these last remnants of the Yuan -- so its force came into Mongolia of the Lingbei Province. It may be seen as an analogy to the events in 1949-1951, when the PLA entered (or about to enter) KMT's originally controlled areas such as Tibet and Taiwan, which may be described as normal battles in a civil war. Of course there can be other descriptions/explanations for the events, but calling it a "invasion" in the article is certainly biased.--209.90.146.105 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Yuan
Ayushridar's seal was found in Mongolia. Northern Yuan in old mongolian script was written over the seal. So it proved that the term is not modern. If you arrive Mongolia, please visit Museum of the National History in UB.--Enerelt (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If possible, could you please show a picture of the seal, or any evidence that confirms it? Thanks a lot.--207.112.71.179 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it really true?--Choulin (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An exhibition catalogue from Germany, Dschingis Khan und seine Erben, Bonn 2005 I think, p.176, has a picture and a short description of a seal of Ayushiridara found in Karakorum and dated 1372. Although the term "Northern Yuan" is mentioned twice in the short description, it does not say this term appears on the seal (but, they also don't say it does not). However, they only mention an inscription in Chinese and one (the stamp side) in Phags-pa script, without specifying the language. On the other hand, they say it's the first seal of Ayushiridaya ever found in Karakorum, so I guess it might really be the one that Enerelt refers to? There seem to be two more detailed articles about the seal, one by Eva Nagel in E. Roth et al (ed.), Qara Qorum City, Bonn 2002 or so, and one by Michael Weiers here.


 * In any case, the fact that the seal is in Chinese and comes from some ministry of rites is, I guess, some indication that they tried to keep up some semblance of being Chinese Emperors. Yaan (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading a bit, Weier's article is not that much about the seal. And he also gives no indication this seal would carry an inscription about Northern Yuan. At least at page 6 he mentions that this designation (北元) is was used by the Korean King contemporary with Ayushiridaya. Yaan (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Other khanates
The other khanates seem more like tributary states of the Yuan (since 1304) other than any sort of "provinces", as Temur Khan recognizes they were countries (proved from the Chinese seal) and just wanted to make peace with them instead of fighting.--Wengier (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The other Khanates were not tributary states of the Yuan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.196.26 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They were not "provinces" of the Yuan either. --207.112.124.205 (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheness, if we compare them with both, they seemed to share more properties of tributary states than any sort of "provinces", though not necessarily either of them. --207.112.124.205 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

template box
Please be NPOV when editing. Yuan was both a Mongol khanate and a dynasty of China. There is already a "Mongol Empire" template box there with viewpoint from the Mongol Empire side, so please do not change the "Dynasty in Chinese history" temple box there with viewpoint from the Chinese dynasty side. For this matter, we have to differentiate between real successor and claimant. Northern Yuan, like the Southern Ming (among many others), claimed to be the successor dynasty of China of Yuan and Ming, respectively. However, they did not achieve their goals. That's why they should not be put in parallel with the real successor. We should not add them unless we explicitly state they were claimants. Last but not the least, it was the Chagatai Khanate and not Yuan that ruled Central Asia.--128.100.109.9 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying "According to Chinese political orthodoxy, that there could be only one legitimate dynasty" is also problematic and can cause confusions. It is certainly not that "there could be only one legitimate dynasty" according to this orthodoxy, but "there could be only one legitimate dynasty whose rulers were blessed by Heaven to rule as Emperor of China". For example, Ming did considered Joseon Dynasty a legitimate dynasty (of Korea), but certainly not a legitimate dynasty to take the title of Emperor of China (according to Chinese political orthodoxy, person with the title Emperor of China is the highest ruler in the world, higher than all other emperors or kings). Northern Yuan also claimed the title of Emperor of China and tried to make it real by defeating the Ming, but did not succeed nevertheless. That is why Ming rulers (who practically ruled China) were the real emperors of China, after the Yuan, instead of the Northern Yuan rulers, who did not really rule China but also claimed this title.--128.100.109.9 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased info
The info recently added by someone is clearly biased, and either repeated or incorrect. For example, the first sentence is biased by asserting the opinions of some people only. The class system was already discussed earlier in the article and no needed to be repeated. The last two sentences are also untrue. For example, it asserts that "under Mongol rule, Chinese reverted from paper currency to using simple barter", but the reality was, in Yuan Dynasty, Chinese began to use paper currency (Chao) almost exclusively rather than using coins alongside with paper currency (Jiaozi) as in previous Song Dynasty.--209.90.147.76 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic naming
I presume that it is in Mongolian, or an earlier version of it? Can we have the Mongolian script if there is any. Thankyou. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Official name
As far as I know, the official name of this dynasty or empire is always "Great Yuan" (大元, Da Yuan), originated from I Ching, or "Dai On" in Mongolian (which was a transliteration from Chinese "大元"). It's sometimes referred to as "Empire of the Great Khan", as a descendant empire from the original Mongol Empire, but it's not an official name.--Wengier (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are discussing that cyrillic writing in the infobox, "Ih Yuan" means "Great Yuan", so it does seem quite plausible. However, it would be nice to see a source (maybe I can dig up something next week), and I personally would definitely prefer mongol bichig over cyrillic script. Yaan (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the name. Dadu is Chinese name for Khanbalikh. --Enerelt (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't the name of the city referred to as 大都 (later romanization as Dadu in Pinyin) in Chinese, Daidu to the Mongols, and Khanbalikh to the Turks, according to Rossabi's "Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times", p131? The Cambridge History of China (vol6, p454) also mentions that "the Mongols called it Daidu, a transliteration directly from the Chinese". In such case, the name should remain Dadu, since it's the official name designed by the Yuan (大都路, or Dàdū Lù in Pinyin) to be known by the Chinese and the Mongols at that time, not the Turkic name Khanbalikh.--Choulin (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the name then be Daidu? Certainly no pinyin existed back then, and AFAIK the pronounciation of "大" is not entirely unambigous anyway (as in 大夫) ? Yaan (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a possibility. However, I think we should also consider to use more common terms. According to Google Search, etc, "Daidu" returns significantly less results than other terms like "Dadu" and "Khanbaliq". (see Talk:Khanbaliq for a similar statistics between "Dadu" and "Khanbaliq").--Choulin (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Position of the Yuan
I find it rather misleading to say that Yuan was a khanate of the Mongol Empire, considering the fact that the founder of the Yuan Dynasty, Kublai Khan, was not a mere khan, but a ruler who claimed the title of Great Khan of the Mongol Empire, even though this title was only partially recognized by the western khanates. When Kublai Khan issued an edict to name his empire the Great Yuan in 1271, in theory, as the Great Khan, he changed the name of the whole empire we known as the "Mongol Empire", not just the territory actually controlled by himself. It was the fact that he could not exercise control over the western khanates make the actual territory of the Kublai's Yuan limited to China and Mongolia, and thus the original Mongol Empire became split to four separate khanates during Kublai's reign. In this sense, it's obviously incorrect to state that Yuan was a khanate of the Mongol Empire, but rather, the western khanates became virtually independent from the empire known as the Great Yuan, the name designated by Kublai, the partially recognized Great Khan.

Later Kubiai's successor made peace with the western khanates and was recognized as their nominal suzerains. Since the title Great Khan was still reserved for Kublai's successors (though this title was merely nominal and they no longer asserted actual control over the western khanates), we now have two options. First, if we consider all the Mongol khanates from this time belonged to a single, and rather superficial or theoretical empire, then the name of this huge empire was the Great Yuan, since this was the name of the empire used by the nominal Great Khans in China. Thus, the territory that was actually controlled by the Yuan court was the Yuan proper, and the western khanates outside the Yuan proper were theoretically also part of Yuan, though not actually controlled by the Yuan. I can imagine why many Chinese people assert that Yuan was the largest dynasty in Chinese history, stretching as far as Eastern Europe. Second, if we don't consider these Mongol khanates, which were in fact independent from each other, belonged to a single and extremely superficial empire, then the empire we known as the Mongol Empire ceased to exist as an empire, but existed individually as four empires or four sovereign states, i.e. the Yuan (or Empire of the Kublaids), the Chagatai Khanate, the Golden Horde, and the Ilkhanate. Among these four empires, the latter three became vassal states or tributary states of the Yuan in the 14th century. One notable evidence is that the Yuan emperor Temur sent a Chinese seal to the Ghazan of the Ilkhanate to certify the latter to establish a country and govern its people, and received tributes from him. Thus, it appears that the Yuan emperor actually recognized the Ilkhanate as a tributary state of the Yuan, similar to other tributary states such as Vietnam, though maintained a more close relationship because of the lineage and history.

To sum up, the Yuan was either (theoretically) the name of the empire we know as the Mongol Empire (if we still consider it an empire since its split, ignoring the fact it was no longer a real empire), or Yuan was one of the four empires (and the suzerain state) after the Mongol Empire ceased to exist as a single empire. Thus, it seems to be completely incorrect and illogical to say that Yuan was a part or a khanate of the Mongol Empire, as some people assert.--Choulin (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny. You make it seem like the Chinese are the successors of the original Mongol Empire. Let's not forget who conquered who. 98.247.97.233 (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, you make it seem as though the mongols were never conquered. WRONG, they got owned by chinese during tang dynasty big time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.128.190 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, this has entirely nothing to do with the question which groups of people are the successors of the original Mongol Empire. Please don't miss the point. As already mentioned above, a lot of Chinese people assert that Yuan was the largest dynasty in Chinese history, stretching as far as Eastern Europe. I can see why they claim so, yet I don't agree with them (the reason was in fact already given above). Again, don't miss the point.--Choulin (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Chinese have been conquered by many different ethnic groups. (Even Tibetan army once entered Tang Dynasty's capital.) And Chinese ARE the successors of many of them, such as Northern Wei and Former Qin. I don't mean Chinese are successors of the Mongol Empire and I don't think Chinese are. What I want to say is that being conquered or conquering is definitely not the criteria to decide who are successors of whom.--Haofangjia (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was raised in China and educated there. I have NEVER heard any history teacher said "China conquered Europe" or "Mongolian history is part of China" or whatsoever. What I learned is this : "Mongol Empire was composed of four big empires and the largest and most powerful one was Yuan Dynasty. The reason why Mongol people were not sinicized was because the Mongol Empire was not only China and it was so large that they had so many different ideologies to rule and Confucianism was only one of the many. So unlike Manchu, Mongol people succeeded keeping their identity." Well, maybe it's not completely correct. But do you guys see any implication that "Mongolia is part of China"?--Haofangjia (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your teachers never told you this, but I've heard a lot of people in China say things implying that "Chinese" armies fought all the way to Europe. I don't know where it comes from. It could be that as it becomes established as the dominant paradigm, changes are taking place in the way the "Zhonghua minzu" ideology is interpreted -- people are taking the ideology to its logical conclusions. Perhaps it's just an extension of the idea that Ghenggis Khan is a "Chinese", therefore China can lay claim to everything he and his successors did. Perhaps it's just a popular "meme". But it's real enough, and it really turns history on its head.


 * And there is a highly vocal minority (and a kind of latent sentiment) among Chinese people that modern Mongolia belongs to China and should be "taken back". I've had many people say things like that to me, partly in jest, perhaps, but as a mentality it is very real.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To Choulin's point: I would need to do more research on the facts of the case, but I think we have to be careful here. It is only within Mongol concepts of the nature of khanal authority and the contest for the title of Great Khan that all this makes sense. It's important to interpret these issues from the point of view of Mongol history. For a leader to assert his right to the title of Great Khan required the approval of a khuriltai, and on at least one occasion a second khuriltai had to be convened on Mongolian soil in order to confirm the right of the person to the title. (I would have to check which one it was). This is quite different from the concept of a "Son of Heaven" ruling all under heaven as part of a succession of dynasties. As a non-expert and without delving too far into the precise details, I would suggest that, to a Mongol, if a brother or cousin ruling China took on the title of Great Khan, this would have no great implications for the status of the Mongol Empire as a Mongolian project. But from the point of view of Chinese history, the question of whether the Emperor in Beijing could lay claim to half the continent of Eurasia as part of a Chinese dynasty is a vital one. In the context of Chinese history, no matter how tenuous that legal claim might be, it sets a precedent for later Chinese history. This can have quite far-reaching implications. Tibet is, as you are no doubt aware, a very sensitive issue with China. Before the Yuan, China had no real control over Tibet. The Mongols changed that, and as a result, even after the fall of the Yuan dynasty, the Ming dynasty tried to maintain the fiction that they followed the Yuan dynasty in exercising control over Tibet. This is now part of the legitimisation of Tibet's incorporation into China in the modern era, under the idea that Tibet "is, always has been, and always will be" a part of China.


 * I think that the scuffle over this issue represents nationalistic sensitivities over this question. The idea that the vast Mongolian steppe empire became a "part of China" because the Great Khan happened to also take on the mantle of the Emperor of a Chinese dynasty is, to reiterate the phrase I used above, "turning history on its head".


 * (To clarify: As Teeninvestor points out below, the actual modern Chinese claim to Tibet is based on the Qing occupation of Tibet, and the act of the Qing emperor in bequeathing this to China. But I think it is correct to say that the historical legitimation of this claim extends far back beyond the Qing, and includes the Ming theoretical claim, the period Yuan control, and even older acts of conquest or suzerainty.)


 * Bathrobe (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a chinese nationalist(immigrant) and I can tell you Bathrobe, the majority of Chinese DO NOT consider Genghis Khan a Chinese. He brought a lot of misery to China, as well as other places(Islam). We Chinese have our own achievements and they are numerous; we do not want to plagarise the achievements of others, and especially not Genghis, who was a destroyer of civilization and a barbarian in the full sense of the word. As to Tibet and Mongolia, the Ming had some control over them, (commandries, commands, etc..), so they exercised Some Soverignty over them. Exactly what soverignty they had is unclear. Earlier dynasties also had some degree of control over the Mongolian steppes. But the conquests of the Manchu Qing dynasty(WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE A LEGITIMATE CHINESE DYNASTY) brought these areas firmly into the fold of China. Since the Manchu emperor bequeath ALL his terroritories to the Republic of China, the representative of China; therefore these regions would be parts of China.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you may be a Chinese immigrant, but living in China I have come across the notion that Genghis Khan is a Chinese, and that the Mongol conquests were "Chinese" conquests often enough to realise that these are widespread views. As for the legitimisation of Chinese rule, I was merely pointing out the difference between Chinese views of rulership, territory and history, and Mongol views of rulership, territory, and history, and why in a modern context these questions might be influencing the way people view this article. (In fact, I was only recently speaking quite casually to a Chinese person about the different way the modern Mongolians view the Qing from the way modern Chinese view the Qing (the official view, not the anti-Manchu view that you and Arilang are pushing), and he literally said to me: "Yuan was a dynasty of China, so the Mongols are part of China, OK?". The reasoning was straightforward, simple, and direct.)


 * Anyway, this is straying into the territory of personal views and I am not suggesting that such views should form the basis for editing the article. I merely wanted to point out why this issue -- whether the whole Mongol empire belonged to the Yuan or not -- might be a sensitive issue.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An anonymous user posted this on my talk page:


 * bathrobe is a brain dead piece of clothing. The reason they are called "chinese", is because they adopted the title "emperor of china" that is why mongol empire period is refered to as "occupation" because there was no emperor at that time. it is a legal distinction which bathrobe cant seem to comprehend, due to his continued POV pushing that southern chinese are not chinese on the Han chinese article. in fact southern chinese are more chinese than northern chinese, northern chinese are jurchen and mongol barbarian immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.164.151 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have much to say about this, but other editors should take note where this particular (ab)user is coming from if he makes further edits.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen to me Nationalists!
I added Northern Yuan Dynasty as the successor of the Great Mongol Yuan. Of course I partially respect Chinese histiography, but if you say only the Ming succeeded the Dynasty it seems that Mongols disappeared from history. But they still live today. --Enerelt (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with you that both Ming and Northern Yuan are successor states of the Yuan Dynasty. Nevertheless, the reason that Northern Yuan isn't there (unlike Ming) is probably because Northern Yuan is in fact contained in the article (instead of a separate article), but not because of nationalism or so. On the other hand, Yuan Dynasty should also be considered a successor of both Mongol Empire and Song Dynasty.--Choulin (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have just created a separate Northern Yuan Dynasty article (though to a large extent copied from relevant sections in this article).--Choulin (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Northern Yuan Dynasty
There was no such thing as "nothern yuan dynasty." When Yuan broke, Ming lost the control over Mongolia. There was no "northern yuan dynasty." Those are Chinese people trying to make Mongolia has something to do with "Yuan." There is no nothern Yuan. You can delete that article. You have to be very careful so that these Chinese editors start making everything Chinese by giving Mongolia name "Yuan." That is nonsense. These Chinese editors are very sneaky by trying to make Mongolia part of PRC. Previously this article stated that Yuan dynasty is the Mongol Empire. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no such thing, where comes this term then? Believe me, Chinese historians called it Northern Yuan only because those Mongols continued to call themselves Yuan though they finally stopped using the term. Actually, real China-centered historians would call the Mongols something like barbarian rather than a formal Chinese name. In fact, I even doubt if Chinese in Ming Dynasty indeed used the word Northern Yuan.--Haofangjia (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think China wants to be associated with Mongolia. Ain't that the reason why the built the Great Wall? To keep barbarians out?108.7.2.108 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Succession box
After some considerations, I think it's a bad idea to put the Yuan Dynasty between Mongol Empire and the Northern Yuan Dynasty in the Mongolian succession box. The Northern Yuan is actually more like a (perhaps controversial) term referring to the the survival of Yuan in Mongolia, rather than a succession of Yuan. The relationship between Mongol Empire and Yuan is not a simple succession of state either. Considering that a template for Mongol Empire already exists in the article, the problematic Mongolian succession box may be removed.--Choulin (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bathrobe and Anon ip who insulted chinese, prepare to get owned big time


The han chinese Tang Dynasty conquered a large area of the steppes of Central Asia, Mongolia, and Russia, and forced the Gokturks, and the Khitans and Mongols into submission and acceptance of Chinese rule. The Han Chinese Emperor Tang Taizong was crowned Tian Kehan, or heavenly khagan, after beating the Gokturks and then the Khitan Mongols in Mongolia. It is not certain whether the title also appiled to rest of the Tang emperors, since the term kaghan only refers to males and women had become dominant in the Chinese court after 665 until the year 705. However, we do have two appeal letters from the Turkic hybrid rulers, Ashina Qutluγ Ton Tardu in 727, the Yabgu of Tokharistan, and Yina Tudun Qule in 741, the king of Tashkent, addressing Emperor Xuanzong of Tang as Tian Kehan during the Umayyad expansion. The Chinese were the first sedentary peoples to conquer the steppes of mongolia, central asia, and russia. They were also the first non altaic peoples to do so. Because of this, the Tang Dynasty was the largest Chinese empire in all Chinese history.

Around 650 AD, the chinese Tang Dynasty captured Lhasa.

Please help with Mongol/Tatar invasions articles
Can you please discuss/help, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mongol_Empire#Excellent_article_and_general_mongol_invasion_conquest_articles 97.118.116.250 (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Back on Topic
The article here is to discuss how to improve the article Yuan dynasty, which I think is quite important. This is not a forum for discussing whether Mongolia is part of China. That claim can be extended as far as Han dynasty(earliest living ethnic group to reside in that area is Han, older ones were killed.) You do not have to recognize Yuan as good! Russia does not recognize Golden Horde as a "golden age" and she still poessesses the volga. Also, for everyone who is debating here, your energies might be better used to contribute to this new article Economic history of China.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess this is still off-topic, but would you say that France or southern Italy or the Crimea are somehow part of Greece? Just curious.
 * Also, do you happen to have some details on Han-dyansty era settlements in Mongolia? I have to admit I know nothing about these, but it never hurts to learn (though maybe on my talk page). Regards, Yaan (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mongolia, tibet, etc... was under some sort of control by the Ming as well as the earlier \han and T'ang.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Yuan was really both a state/division of the Mongol Empire and a ruling dynasty of China. It's better to mention both. --173.206.14.77 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)