Talk:Yuan Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do list for Yuan Dynasty: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand all sub-sections of "Downfall of the Yuan"
  • Add appropriate article-wide image
  • Add more information to "Impact" - their legacy - artistic and intellectual
  • Add sections dedicated to the economics, trade and technologies
  • Add an entire section dedicated to the four-class system
Priority 2  

Contents

[edit] old talk

There seems to be a mistake in this entry: Beijing was built on the site of Dadu. User:Willow4


According to Patricia Buckley Ebrey's "Cambridge Illustrated History of China," Marco Polo acknowledged the discrimination occuring during the Yuan Dynasty. "All Cathaians detested the rule of the great khan because he set over them Tartars, or still more frequently Saracens, whom they could not endure, for they treated them just like slaves." This counters the statement made about Marco Polo describing Khubilai as benevolent.

User:TianLong

Was the dynasty founded by Kublai Khan, as the Kublai's article suggests? If so, why is it not mentioned on the Dynastys' page? -User:Olivier

Quixotic Chinese theory of orthodoxy sounds a bit NPOV. One thing to keep in mind is that Chinese diplomatic theory was also accepted by the Northern Yuan. The Ming denied the legitimacy of the Northern Yuan, but the Northern Yuan also denied the legitimacy of the Ming.

Roadrunner

Why is 劉備 called 先主 instead of 昭烈帝 in 三國志? If ideal conflicts with reality, the Chinese describe the former as history. Isn't this quixotic?

It's no more quixotic than the modern notion that St. Nevis and Kitts has the same amount of sovereignty as the United States or the current notion that Kosovo is still part of Yugoslavia.
Reality is always different from diplomatic theory, and East Asian diplomatic theory was that there is only one Emperor and only one legitimate dynasty. The thing is that this premise was accepted to some degree by all of China's neighbors. After all, the Northern Yuan considered the Ming illegitimate.

If you think it is a NPOV, I withdraw the word "quixotic", but it was a domestic affair rather than diplomatic one.

The whole notion of "domestic" versus "foreign" affairs anachronistically applies current political concepts to the past.

Even today, Chinese politicians stir up diplomatic problems, with no respect, for domestic issues.

Careful here. Just because Chinese acted in one way in 1600 doesn't mean that it has anything to do with how Chinese act today, and vice versa.

--Nanshu 01:58 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Diplomacy is always related over the ages but that is an irrelevant issue. The idea of one-empire per region is well established, after all the emperor is king of kings, but usually the emperor rules the region or holds the neighboring states in tribuary relationships, this was the case generally for China, but there is also regional emperor by respect, where the region admits to one state being the empire, and the others being kingdoms or governors without admitting to lesser soverignty. The signifigance of this is the matter of respect and prestige. Examples of this would be the Holy Roman Emperor, who while he could be called emperor for his rulership of many seperate German states, was usually considered the Latin European Emperor (with the exception of the short lived Latin Emperor of Constantinople). This is an old policy in Chinese history, that the one empire judged to be Chinese would have the emperors, it was contested at times, but generally accepted. Even when other states had emperors many times these emperors would admit the Chinese emperor as the emperor. This is reinforced in historical writings by the idea of the continuality of Chinese history, ie. ever since the Shang or the Xia dynasties there has been one Chinese people and one true Chinese state. Most textbooks approach the matter this way, though they note the Qin was the first true Chinese emperor. When China is divided heavily, such as post-Han and post-Tang, it is often considered an intermidiate period and so no true Chinese empire is considered by the history books, but after things stabilized in the post-Tang enviroment, it was considered that the Sung dynasty was the true Chinese dynasty, despite only occupying about 1/2 of China at times. This goes to the principle, that unless China is highly unstable or a non-Chinese people occupies most if not all of China proper, ie the land occupied by the Han Chinese, the one empire that unites the Han Chinese ruled lands is considered the Chinese empire, or at least this is what I infer from what I learned in school, and I went to a rather orthodox but well-funded and staffed school so I am guessing that this is probably the established version

Nanshu, could you explain the significance of the naming of the Mongols. I don't see the point that is trying to be made.

--User:Roadrunner

Calling another name impresses that they were unrelated to the Yuan Dynasty. --Nanshu 00:45, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

This article needs serious improvement. Colipon 23:45, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] redundency

I removed the following list from the article, because it was almost a repeat of the table above it. The only differences are that the mongolian names and the khan names are inconsistently mixed up. The Chinese names in parenthesis were inconsistently mixed with Temple names and Posthumous names. The following does not contain any extra info than the table.

Name transliteration form Mongolian:

  • Temür Öljeytü Khân (cheng)
  • Qayshan Gülük Hai-Shan (wu)
  • Ayurparibhadra Ayurbarwada (ren)
  • Suddhipala Gege'en Shidebala (ying)
  • Yesün-Temür (tai ding di)
  • Arigaba Aragibag (tian shun di)
  • Jijaghatu Toq-Temür (wen)
  • Qoshila Qutuqtu (míng)
  • Rinchenpal Irinchibal (níng)
  • Toghan-Temür (shun di)
  •  ? (zhao)
  • Togus-Temür (last with era name)

[edit] Note on Recent Update

I was working on this in a personal sandbox - but, due to how busy I am - I may not get the entire thing done. The rewrite encorporates all the original text, with sections and paragraphs added. The mainly unfinished section is the "Downfall". --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 12:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Forbidden City/Palace?

I'm not sure what is meant by "Forbidden Palace", but I'm pretty sure the Forbidden City was built by the Ming Dynasty (Emperor Yongle?). When Kublai Kahn was there it was not really the same yet, not the same city I mean. I think there is only one building still surviving from the Yuan Dynasty in Beijing, a tower of some kind I remember correct, but the Forbidden City is certainly all still there. Is the palace different/older? NguyenHue 06:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue

The Yuan began the Forbidden City. The Ming extended it and rebuilt many structures. Ditto the Qing. The basic layout dates from Kubilai. The Ming were loathe to recognise any Yuan achievement and tended to take credi for it. Alan 08:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] shortest dynasty

the article says that Yuan Dynasty is the shortest lived ruling Dynasty of a united China. How about Qin Dynasty which lasted for only around fifteen years? Is this correct? Wareware 06:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Yuan Dynasty ruled for 100 years, the Qin ruled for approx. 25 years (not 15, but it's still the shortest). You are correct...orngjce223

The Sui Dynasty also ruled for 37 years, and there were a couple rebel dynasties and as rebel dynasties are overlooked. Generally when considering longest dynasties Qin and Sui are not considered because they are often considered predeccessor dynsties to the longer, larger and more established dynasties of Han and Tang respectively. Of the major dynasties Yuan is the shortest, but to say all this in the article would be confusing and not especially useful to the reader

[edit] Vandalism

This article has recently undergone some worrying vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuan_Dynasty&diff=13908072&oldid=12718220 . Over the period of a month several, seemingly independent anons removed large sections of the article. Could future editors keep an eye out for this? --Oldak Quill 00:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of what I know, they didn't. They ruled for 25 years. That makes the Yuan the second shortest. -anonymous

[edit] contradicts article on Mongol history

Yuan Dynasty (Chinese: 元朝; pinyin: Yuáncháo; Mongolian: Dai Ön Yeke Mongghul Ulus) lasting officially from 1271 to 1368, followed the Song Dynasty and preceded the Ming Dynasty in the historiography of China. While it had nominal control over the entire Mongol Empire (stretching from Eastern Europe to the Middle-east to Russia), China, the Mongol rulers in Asia were only interested in China. Later successors did not even attempt to stake claim over the Khakhan title and saw themselves as Emperor of China.


In the article about Mongol history it says the Mongol Empire was divided between the sons of Ghenghis Khans first wife and their offsprings. Wandalstouring 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

in the section: Aspiration to the Mandate of Heaven

"On his deathbed in 1227, Genghis Khan outlined to his youngest son, Tolui, the plans that later would be used by his successors to complete the destruction of the Western Xia, Jin Dynasty and Southern Song Dynasty."

Do we know this for sure? It sounds like one of many legends on Ghenghis Khan. Wandalstouring 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not contradictory. Khubilai Khan was the son of Tolui, the son of Genghis Khan by Borte; it was under his rule that the Song Dynasty was finally subdued, and he was the one who established his rule as the Yuan Dynasty. After his death, there was no clear Khagan, either, and the emperors of the Yuan Dynasty focussed on China. siafu 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"Mongol rulers in Asia were only interested in China" is the point I do not like. The Empire was divided and what another Khan did in his share of the Empire was of no concern to anybody but the local Khan. This was already the fact during the Imperial reign of Ghenghis Khan and his son Jochi in Russia. We could state that the cohesion broke apart and the successors focused on their given lands. Wandalstouring 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The error is really only with the word "asia", then. It's simply true enough to say that the emperors of the Yuan dynasty were interested in China alone. It's not really true to say that the local Khans had any sort of autonomy during the reign of Genghis Khan; Jochi only disobeyed his father's orders once when he refused to come home when ordered. Even Ogodei was able to dictate the actions of the other Khans when he ordered Hulagu to invade the Middle East. siafu 16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a different formulation: "The ruler of China and the Mongol homeland held the title of Khakhan, official head of all Mongol Khans. But the cohesion of the Mongol Empire broke with the Khans focusing on their domestic rules and aspiring independence." I think this suits the events better and is in accordance with Mongol history. Wandalstouring 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think your formulation is absolutely correct, but I suggest that we can actually make it even more specific and indicate that this transition of Khagan from actual ruler to de jure ruler over the entire empire happened immediately after the reign of Khubilai. siafu 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As for detailing the conquering of the rest of China, this is according to the Secret History. It's not very surprising, though, as he had already delegated someone (Muqali) to complete the conquest of the Jin Dynasty, and many times made it clear that he intended for his Empire to conquer the entire world. siafu 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this accurate enough to simply state or put a refernce to the Secret History. This source also states that the Mongols never opened hostilities, but responded to humilitations and attacks, seeking to solve issues rather with words than weapons. Wandalstouring 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The Secret History does not claim that the Mongols only responded to attacks; this claim is only made in reference to Khwarezmia. The conquest of the Jin dynasty, for example, was unquestionably an act of aggression. siafu 16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but the the Mongols had pretty good arguments for being very hostile against the Jin. Still the Secret history is no objective source and quoting it needs a direct reference. Wandalstouring 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] porcelain production in Europe

Quoting from wikipedia:

European porcelain

Porcelain was first made in China, and it is a measure of the esteem in which the exported Chinese porcelains of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were held in Europe that in English China became a commonly used synonym for the Franco-Italian term porcelain. After a number of false starts, such as the so-called Medici porcelain, the European search for the secret of porcelain manufacture achieved success in 1708 with the discovery by Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus assisted by Johann Friedrich Böttger of a combination of ingredients, including Colditz clay (a type of kaolin), calcined alabaster and quartz, that proved to be suitable for making a hard, white, translucent porcelain, first produced at Meissen. It appears that in this discovery technology transfer from the Orient played no part: Chinese porcelain itself provided the mute stimulus.


the reference that porcelain production was a key innovation China exported during the Mongol rule to Europe needs a claim or I delet it. Wandalstouring 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, this doesn't need a reference as it's rather common knowledge. Marco Polo visited the court of Khubilai Khan in China and brought back porcelain, among other things, but for a specifc ref you can go Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World p. 220-226, where he discusses the trade carried on by Khubilai, including porcelain and silk. siafu 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
please read again: P R O D U C T I O N
I do not argue about the export of porcelain, but the technology of production was never exported. Wandalstouring 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there some reason you think being rude is going to accomplish anything? True, production was never exported, go ahead and remove that word. siafu 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply hate it if I do work on argumentations and I get responses of somebody not reading properly the topic. Wandalstouring 16:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] funny statements

"Southern Song Dynasty, the world’s most advanced empire at the time"


Read the article about the Southern Song. World’s most advanced empire was suffering from corruption and for many years his emperor did not even know the Mongols were attacking. Offensive military ability to counter Mongol attacks and intelligence were more advanced in India, Egypt or Poland. Less pretentious but accurate would be: "Southern Song Dynasty, with world’s biggest steel production and one of the strongest economies at the time." Wandalstouring 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically, that's "... with the world's greatest steel production...". I heartily agree that we shouldn't simply call it the most advanced, and would even say that it's stupid to try and decide that there is a civilization that is the most advanced in some overall fashion. siafu 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


"The Mongols undertook extensive public works. Road and water communications were reorganized and improved. To provide against possible famines, granaries were ordered built throughout the empire. The city of Beijing was rebuilt with new palace grounds that included artificial lakes, hills and mountains, and parks. During the Yuán period, Beijing became the terminus of the Grand Canal, which was completely renovated. These commercially oriented improvements encouraged the overland as well as the maritime commerce throughout Asia..."

and the article on Chinese history states the casualties of the Mongol invasion:

"The Jin Empire was defeated by the Mongols, who then proceeded to defeat the Southern Song in a long and bloody war, the first war where firearms played an important role. Some scholars estimate that about half the population, 50 million Han Chinese people from the south may have perished in total as a result of the Mongols' invasion and conquest, and about 90% of Han Chinese from the north of China perished as a result of Mongol conquest and rule."

So major parts of the population vanished and there is still enough labor for projects like the Grand Canal? Wandalstouring 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

China was then, as it is now, a very densely populated region. As mentioned on talk pages elsewhere, it's not clear how many people died as a result of the Mongol invasions if for no other reason than there remain many issues on the accuracy of census-taking during that time. The numbers quoted in the article on Chinese history are from the extreme high-end of the estimates (I haven't done any work on that article, just on the Mongol Empire and related topics), but even if those are exactly accurate you can see that there are still some 50 million Han Chinese left alive in the south. Given that the Southern Song Dynasty covered an area roughly similar in size to Iran, and that the population was preferentially distributed nearer the coasts, there is clearly still plenty of labor. siafu 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually such a loss of population corresponds to the results of Soviets and US nuking each other. And the plenty of labor needs food. Most of the population did work in agriculture. I strongly suggest we delete such numbers if they are not secure. Wandalstouring 20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

when they say, "advanced", it has nothing to do with corruption. it had advanced WEAPONS, like fire arrows, cannons, the strongest standing navy, and machinery and siege weapons like trebuchets. corruption is something entirely different.162.84.131.194 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] doubtful statements

"From this period dates the conversion to Islam, by Muslims of Central Asia" writing about the Mongol rule during the Pax Mongolica. Doubtful. Look on Islamic conquest.

The territory of the Caliphate in the year 750
The territory of the Caliphate in the year 750

Wandalstouring 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links

The Korean, Japanese, and Russian links need to be fixed; they are all question marks. I have already fixed the Chinese link. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 19:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent vandalism

I note that this page has suffered from 'vandalism' recently. Rather than vandalism, however, the revisions actually seem to represent a rather clumsy attempt to recast the article to reflect the contributor's view of history.

I am no expert on the history of the period. However, I wonder if a compromise version could be reached, perhaps along the following lines:

The Yuan Dynasty (Chinese: 元朝; pinyin: Yuáncháo; Mongolian: Dai Ön Yeke Mongghul Ulus) is a period in the historiography of China which lasted officially from 1271 to 1368. It followed the Song Dynasty and preceded and Ming Dynasty. The Yuan dynasty was established by Mongol conquerors and had nominal control over the entire Mongol Empire (stretching from Eastern Europe to the fertile crescent to Russia including China). However, the Mongol rulers in Asia were only interested in China. Later successors did not even attempt to stake a claim over the Khakhan title and saw themselves as Emperor of China. In the History of Mongolia, the Dai Ön Yeke Mongghul Ulus followed the Ilkhanate and preceded the Timurid Dynasty.

I appreciate that the Yuan Emperors themselves saw themselves as 'Emperors of China' and posthumously made Genghis Khan the founder of the dynasty. However, this is not necessarily an argument against taking the Yuan as a period in Mongolian history. Chinese historical orthodoxy, with its neat division into dynasties with the 'Mandate of Heaven', is neither neutral nor unchallenged, and historians do not necessarily have to adhere to how a regime positions itself in writing history (I think there are numerous examples of this, but one that might be germane is the Byzantine Empire, which considered itself to be the 'Roman Empire' at the time but is not usually so treated by historians.)

At any rate, the final result should be based on authoritative sources. Since I am not an expert, I would be interested in what more qualified people have to say.

Bathrobe 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details Regarding Ghengis Khan's Life

In the description of GK's (Temujin's) early years, he is described as having been his father's "heir." One of today's more prominent Mongolia scholars - in the English-speaking world - contends that this is simply a Western interpretation of Temujin's heritage; that his family must have been some sort of royalty, or his father a chieftan (Prof. Jack Weatherford). There really is no support for this, though. I realize that this is most aptly a discussion for the Ghengis Khan page, but this is where I first saw the mention. A good source, then, for the topic of GK would be "Ghengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford. I don't have a link for it right now but it should be a snap to research him.

DevinMcGevin 04:14, 15 December 2006 Senior, Macalester College

[edit] Preceding entity

Song Dynasty should not be the preceding entity of the Yuan Dynasty because the Yuan Dynasty had been existed before the end of the Song.--24.18.102.154 05:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So there was a gradual change of power. That still makes them successors when looking at the big picture. --Latebird 09:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, I suspect, one of Chinese historiography. Speaking as a non-expert, it seems to me that the concept of "dynastic succession" involves one dynasty after another taking over control of China. There is no room for 'loose ends' or 'gradual transitions', and if there is more than one state it's preferred that one be regarded as the legitimate one. Chinese historians like very clear cut-off dates even if one dynasty continues to survive after the succeeding one has taken power.

This is a 'sinocentric' view of Chinese history, in that the criterion is control of the Chinese heartland, not whether the state in question existed outside China before or after the dynastic period. My feeling is that 24.18.102.154 is fighting a difficult battle because "Yuan Dynasty" itself is a Chinese historical construct. It implicitly accepts the concept of a "dynastic succession" in China and doesn't leave much room for, say, treating Yuan-controlled China as a part of Mongolian history, or for other interpretations of history. It's not easy to challenge conceptions such as predecessor and successor dynasties within this fixed framework. See Dynasties in Chinese history.

These are just my two cents worth.

Bathrobe 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In historical reality, gradual transitions are more the rule than the exception. The Mongols took power and territory away from the Song. How can that not be a succession? Were they supposed to conquer all that enormous territory within one day? --Latebird 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My point is not about 'graduality'; it is about accepting the standard Chinese historical framework. As long as Chinese history is dogmatically carved up into succeeding dynasties, with the focus on deciding legitimate dynastic heirs and "standard" dividing dates, there is very little room for any other perspective. You are right, of course: in the "larger picture" (by which you mean the standard historiography), there is not much use arguing.
Bathrobe 11:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol Empire

Why does this article retell the story of Genghis rising to power for the umpteenth time? We have the articles Genghis Khan and Mongol Empire for that. To the subject at hand, this part is entirely irrelevant. --Latebird 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions for Mongol rulers

Finally I propose naming conventions for Mongol rulers.

Background:

  • There was no consistency in page titles for Mongol rulers. One format was "Emperor (temple name|era name) of Yuan China". "X Khan" was also used and some rulers had duplicate articles.
  • From November 2004 to January 2005, I (Nanshu) attempted to standardize these page titles by the format "X Khan".
  • Around June 2007, Arbiteroftruth made another standardization attempt under the format "X Khan, Emperor (temple name|era name) of Yuan".
  • So I think it's time to discuss the naming convention. I think we should avoid sectionalism by not discussing this problem at either Wikipedia talk:History standards for China-related articles or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian).

Scope of the policy:

  • The beginning of the scope may be either Chinggis or Khubilai. In either case, our policy will be overturned by the violent most-common-names policy with regard to these famous rulers.
  • The end of the scope will be a point of issue:
    1. Toghun Temür. He retreated from China in 1368. According to the framework of Chinese history, it was the end of the Yuan Dynasty although his reign lasted until 1370. The empire after the withdrawal from China is known as "Northern Yuan".
    2. Tögüs Temür. The Khubilaid line interrupted after his death in 1388. Sometimes this is considered the end of the Northern Yuan.
    3. Ligden, the last grand-khan. After his death, his son surrendered to the Manchus. As the successor to the Yuan Dynasty. the Manchus established the Qing Dynasty in 1636. Maybe a radical Altaicist view.

Some basic facts to be taken into account:

  • From Chinggis Khan on, each Mongol ruler was called by "X Khan" in Mongolian tradition, where X can be his personal name or title.
    1. Temüjin (personal name) is commonly known as Chinggis Khan (leaving aside transcription variants). He is never called Temüjin Khan.
    2. Möngke (personal name) is commonly known as Möngke Khan.
    3. Khubilai (personal name) is commonly known as Khubilai Khan, but he had the title Sechen Khan.
    4. Rulers after Khubilai usually had titles in addition to personal names. For example, Temür (personal name) is also called Öljeyitü Khan (title). I can hardly judge which is common because these rulers are rarely referred to in English.
  • Khubilai completed the conquest of China, and in addition to Mongolian names, the Chinese tradition of emperorship was applied to Khubilai and his successors (and antecessors too).
    1. They are usually called by temple name in Chinese. Taizu for Chinggis Khan, Shizu for Khubilai Khan, and Chengzong for Temür Öljeyitü Khan.
    2. But Yesün Temür and his son Ragibagh were not given temple names because of an internal strife. They are called by era name: Taiding and Tianshun.
    3. Toghun Temür, who retreated from China, is commonly known as Shundi (posthumous name) in Chinese because it was given by the succeeding Ming Dynasty. In Mongolia, however, he was given the temple name Huizong.
    4. Rulers after Tögüs Temür (exclusive) did not have (known) Chinese titles, I think.

My proposals:

  1. The scope is from Chinggis to Ligden.
  2. Use "X Khan":
    1. Use titles for X if the rulers had known titles.
    2. Otherwise use personal names.

--Nanshu 08:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you label the most-common-names policy "violent". At least with people who have a non-trivial footprint in English language literature, it should clearly be the first guiding principle. I think that in most cases, this will result in the "X khan" form, which also has the advantage of being clear and concise. "Temple names" are very uncommon in English, so they should only be mentioned in the article. For people with very thin or conflicting English language literature, we'll have to decide on a case-by-case basis. Declaring someone "Y khan" if nobody else has called him so would produce a neologism. In short, we can prefer the "X khan" form if it reasonably often appears in literature, but we can't make it a hard and fast rule. --Latebird 14:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The most-common-names policy makes our romanization inconsistent, mostly because most common names are inherently inconsistent and partly because it is usually applied to each entity instead of each set of entities. In my opinion, inconsistency makes Wikipedia look more amateurish.
Anyway, to settle this problem, we should have some grounds. Can you provide evidence in support of the advantage of "X Khan" in frequency? I admit I heavily rely on papers by Japanese and Mongolian scholars that are written mostly in Japanese and Mandarin. I guess Germany and Russia are/were active in this field, but I hardly think English literature that deals with Mongol rulers after Khubilai (exclusive) is sufficient to determine most common names (I'd be happy if you help me reduce my possible ignorance). --Nanshu 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you're contributing info from sources that would otherwise be difficult to access for english language readers. But as far as naming goes, it is simply not the purpose of WP to impose "consistency" when the existing english language sources happen to be inconsistent. We don't correct reality, we just report about it.
Unfortunately, I don't have many books about this era of Mongolian history (and the local libraries would mostly yield German texts), so I probably won't be able to help much in determining which versions are the most common. My assumption that "X khan" is relatively frequent may or may not be correct. My point was primarily a methodical one, and less one about individual names. --Latebird 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I understood your suggestion was a methodical one, but I wanted to move things forward with something concrete. --Nanshu 07:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol Empire is not Yuan and Mongol Empire is Mongol, Genghis Khan is Mongol

Discuss the Mongol Empire section in Mongol Empire. Yuan is not Mongol and is never was. It is Chinese. Don't try to confuse between Mongol Empire and Yuan. Yuan is khante of Mongol Empire. It is one of the four sections of Mongol Empire. Therefore I removed the Mongol Empire section. Chinese people don't try to make Genghis Khan Chinese. He is Mongol and will never be Chinese. Mongol Empire is Mongol and not Chinese, never was and never will be. Move all Mongol Empire related stuff to Mongol Empire. 75.166.59.35 06:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC) I have moved all of the Mongol Empire related stuff to Mongol Empire, where it should be. Yuan is Yuan, it is not Mongol Empire. What about Ilkhanate, is that part of Yuan then? No. Mongol Empire is Mongol and will never ever be Chinese. Yuan is below Mongol Empire in terms of control. Yuan is equal to Golden Horde, Ilkhanate and Chagatai Khanate75.166.59.35

I agree that we don't need to repeat the full history of Ghenghis Khan and the Mongole Empire here. On the other hand, many Chinese historians (and possibly the Goverement) today still consider Genghis "Chinese", because Kublai elevated him posthumously to the founder of the Yuan Dynasty. I've met Chinese people who thought that it was the Yuan Empire that stretched from the Pacific Ocean to Europe (apparently that's what they learned in school). To clarify such confusions, we should probably reinclude a paragraph about the distinctions and the different ways to look at it. --Latebird 09:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what the Chinese and the Chinese government want, and that is not accurate. Yuan is Chinese, Mongol Empire is not. Everyone except Chinese thinks Yuan is Yuan, and Yuan is not Mongol Empire. I couldn't care less what Chinese government want. They are losers. If you ask anyone anywhere in the world except Chinese, they will tell you this is all about the "Mongols" and has nothing to with Chinese this and that. Mongol Empire is Mongol people, Chinese are victims of Mongols simple as that. Chinese didn't conquer under Genghis. Khublai became more Chinese that I agree with, but this is Mongols that started out this invasion and conquered it. There is distinction. Chinese are the largest victims of Mongols losing about 60 million of their people under Genghis Khan and his descendants. Frankly I don't think Chinese should be embracing Mongols, because they got destroyed by the Mongols. If Mongols didn't totally destroy Chinese initially they might have had the chance to become a world power or maybe superpower. I think Mongols did so much damage to Chinese culture and civilization and maybe made them a loser civilization against the Europeans and American culture 75.166.61.120 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese editors still don't understand the difference between Mongol Empire and that Yuan. Mongol Empire text should be under Mongol Empire. Mongol Empire is not Yuan. Mongol Empire was founded way earlier than Yuan.!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.136.29 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Keep the Mongol Empire and Yuan article separate. To Chinese people who don't understand history, Mongol Empire is Mongolian and never was and never will be Chinese. Yuan is Yuan and is piece of the Mongol Empire founded by Mongol peoples in Mongolia under Genghis Khan.

(The following is in reply to a comment that has since been deleted) I don't believe Wiikipedia has a policy on excluding posters who don't speak English as their native language. If anything, it is your post that is condescending.
The person posting this is working from a Mongolian nationalist viewpoint, in reaction against editors who implicitly treat Mongol history as part of Chinese history.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo?

Malo Hautus

"lasting officially from 1271 to 1368, followed the Song Dynasty and preceded the Ming Dynasty in the historiography of China."

Shouldn't this be the other way around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malo Hautus (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was Song, then Yuan, then Ming. It's right as it is. siafu 13:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Nominal) Control of the Mongol Empire

This is one of sentences from the first paragraph of the original article:

"... and he (Kublai Khan) controlled the Mongol Empire (stretching from Eastern Asia to the fertile crescent to Russia and eastern Europe) because of his title of Khagan."

However, the main part of the article also state the following:

"... The khans of the Golden Horde and of the Chagatai Khanate did not recognize Kublai khan as the great khan. Hulego, another brother of Kublai khan, ruled his il-Khanate and paid homage to the Great khan but actually established a separate khanate. The four major successor khanates never came again under one rule."

"Like other emperors of non-Han dynasties, Kublai Khan considered himself a legitimate Chinese emperor. While he had nominal rule over the rest of the Mongol Empire, his interest was clearly in China. By the time of Kublai Khan’s death in 1294, the Mongol Empire had broken up into a number of independent Khanates."

Therefore, as the main article suggests, it is clear that Kublai Khan did not actually control the whole Mongol Empire. He only had some degree of nominal rule over that empire because of his title of Khagan (or Great khan), not to mention that even that title is denied by almost all other khanates during his rule (1260-1294). --207.112.55.146 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Details

There seems to be a general lack of detail regarding what was traded between China and the countries it traded with. What did the people during the Yuan Dynasty sell? What did they want in return for their goods? Information like that would help to round out the article. Raitari (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scuffle over link to Islam in the Yuan dynasty

Two editors are involved in minor revert war over a link to Islam during the Yuan dynasty. One is accusing the other of promoting Islamic articles. While I can understand that Islam under the Yuan dynasty may seem rather esoteric, in fact the Mongols were famous for their toleration of different religions, in a way that was rather different from native Chinese dynasties. Nestorian Christianity, for one, flourished under Mongol rule before dying out under the Ming. I don't think that the link is thus so biased or trivial. That's why I've restored it to the set of links at the bottom of the article. Bathrobe (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also, Other khanates adopted Islam quite early (Golden Horde), and Islam became one factor in the conflicts between the different Mongol khanates - Hulagu's destruction of Baghdad in 1258 was not well-received by the Golden Horde rulers at all. Plus people from Central asia, a lot of whom were apparently Muslim, played an important role in the administration of the empire. So, while Islam seems somewhat less relevant than (contemporary) Tibetan Buddhism, it is far from insignificant or trivial. Yaan (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a clarification, the sentence "in fact the Mongols were famous for their toleration of different religions" is either vague or incorrect. All Mongol khanates by 1300 actually promoted Islam, except Yuan Dynasty. For example, Ilkhanate under Ghazan was not tolerated of religions other than Islam at all (at stated in Ilkhanate article, "Christian and Jewish subjects however lost their equal status with Muslims and again had to pay the poll tax. Buddhists had the starker choice of conversion or expulsion"). I guess the more accurate way to say is “the Mongols in Yuan China were famous for their toleration of different religions".--207.112.100.52 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't be entirely accurate either, because all of the Mongol Empire was religiously tolerant, before the western Khanates switched to Islam. Being tolerant was the rule, only changing in part of the empire as a relatively late development. --Latebird (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, good explanation. The tolerance in the Mongol Empire before its formal division (cca 1260) should be mentioned too. Now I just want to make a small correction to my original sentence: "All Mongol khanates by 1300 actually promoted Islam, except Yuan Dynasty" should read "All Mongol khanates by 1330 adopted and actively promoted Islam, except Yuan Dynasty". As checked with several sources, the year for each khanate of the original Mongol Empire to adopt Islam is:
  • Ilkhanate: in 1295, Ghazan Khan adopted Islam by persecuting all other faiths.
  • Golden Horde: in 1312, Uzbeg Khan adopted Islam as the state religion.
  • Chagatai Khanate: in 1326, Tarmashirin Khan adopted Islam as the official religion.
Thus the Yuan Dynasty was the only khanate that never adopted Islam by 1330.--207.112.100.52 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. --Latebird (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


WRONG, nestorian christianity had ALREADY flourished and dies out under the TANG dynasty which was much earlier than all of this...162.84.131.194 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expeditions to Vietnam

Angelo De La Paz, as for Yuan's expeditions to Vietnam, I saw that you tried to change "twice during Kublai Khan's rule" to "three times". However, there are TWO problems for this modification. To begin with, it's true that Vietnam was invaded three times (in 1257, in 1284/1285, and in 1287/1288) in the 13th century. HOWEVER, note the year of the first one, 1257, which was during the Mongol Empire, not the Yuan Dynasty (which lasts from 1271 to 1368). You could say Vietnam was invaded three times by Mongol Empire (which can be written in the Mongol Empire article for example), but not three times by the Yuan Dynasty (only twice). Secondly, this paragraph is talking about the period during Kublai Khan's reign: "During Kublai Khan's reign he was put under pressure by many of his advisers to further expand the territory of the Yuan through the traditional Sinocentric tributary system", so the expedition to Vietnam before Kublai Khan's reign is NOT relevant here. The original sentence "twice during Kublai Khan's rule" is certainly correct and has been restored.--207.112.75.32 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi!I have learned my high school in Sai Gon, Vietnam before I were living in C.A. And the victories of Vietnam VS Yuan's expeditions were one of the greatest and the most important parts in Vietnam's history and Iwill always remember it!There are 3 periods: 1257-1258, 1284-1285 and 1287-1288. Read Mongol invasions of Vietnam.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the Vietnamese defeated Mongol-led armies three, not two times. However, the first of these defeats was before Yuan dynasty was established, even before Khubilai became Great Khan. This leaves only two Yuan invasions by any reasonable definition of Yuan. Yaan (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Yaan.I appreciate your new edit, that's OK! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Yaan (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
So, it seems that Angelo De La Paz finally understands the difference between Mongol and Yuan now. No insulting, but don't assume you are correct and revert without reading the articles and explanations more closely (e.g. everything you said about the periods had already been mentioned in my original post, with more explainations, but it appears you just ignored and revert anyway).--207.112.75.32 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear statement

Just before the Vietnam invasions stuff, the article reads "During Kublai Khan's reign he was put under pressure by many of his advisers to further expand the territory of the Yuan through the traditional Sinocentric tributary system. However, they were rebuffed...". This makes it seem as if the advisors were rebuffed, but I think Khubilai did actually try to expand the tributary system to Japan. I think what was actually rebuffed were the attempts to establish more tributary relationships, so maybe someone with better knowledge than mine could look into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaan (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what really happened in sequence are:
  • Kublai tried to establish more Traiditional Sinocentric tributary relationships with Japan, Vietnam, ..
  • But these countries (Japan, Vietnam, ..) just didn't listen to him
  • Then Kublai was put under pressure by many of his advisers to punish them by invading these countries
  • Kubliai so tried a few expeditions to these countries
  • These attempts were all later rebuffed

--207.112.75.32 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More information needed

By this time, this article still lacks lots of information about the Yuan Dynasty, such as economics, industry, trade, technology, science, and engineering. The existing info about the artistic and intellectual are also very short. There is actually a large amount of info to say in these areas, such as the extensively use of paper money, the prosperity in economics and trade, the high popularity and flourishing of drama, the advance in science and technology, and much more.--207.112.4.206 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all we need is a volunteer ;) .Yaan (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some problems

  • Ghazan renounced all allegiance - his successor(s?) seem to have been on not-so-bad terms with the Yuan, though: Oljeitu received a seal from Temur Oljeitu Khan, and also seems to have used it (in 1304). This piece of info needs a citation (as would the statements about later emperors not claiming the title of Khaghan)
  • Mongols sought to govern through traditional institutions and the Han bureaucracy - This seems highly dubious. the traditional impression seems to be that the Mongols sought to employ anyone but Han Chinese, especially Persians and other people from the Middle East. While I am at it, it would also be nice to see a citation for Han Chinese were employed more often in other parts of the empire.
  • As if expecting to lose he country - not just because they were greedy? citation please.
  • never affected trade with other countries - not just "never affected trade with other countries negatively"?
  • developed Dadu and built a second capital in modern-day Beijing - Dadu is modern-day Beijing. What is meant is probably Shangdu, but I am a bit unclear about which one was really Khubilai's first capital.

Sorry for not fixing all this myself, feeling a bit lazy today. Yaan (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
1. Did Yuan emperors other than Kublai Khan ever hold meetings of Kurultai and claim the title of the Great Khan?
(While I highly doubt it, a source is needed if so; but if they did not do so in the first place, then the answers to the following two questions should be obvious).
2. Did Ilkhans since the death of Kublai Khan ever ask approval from or show subordinacy to the successors of Kublai?
3. Did Temur once send Oljeitu a seal represent an alliance, or an authority?

--209.183.5.36 (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't have my books here, but one author I read made the point of mentioning that a certain successor of Khubilai (Ayurbarwada?) ascended the throne without having a kuriltai first, which leads me to believe others did indeed have kuriltais, although I don't have any idea who took part in these (i.e. only nobles from the central khanate or also others).
2. & 3 seems actually a bit controversial, see Antoine Mostaert and Francis Woodman Cleaves, "Trois documents mongols des Archives secretes vaticanes", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3/4 (Dec., 1952), pp. 485f. Yaan (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
btw. do you happen to know whether 大都 would be the correct characters for Dadu? Yaan (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As for the article you mentioned for 2 & 3, I cannot really read French, unfortunately. What is its main argument?
btw. 大都 is indeed the correct characters for Dadu.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The argument is that E. Blochet and M.B. Spuler are of the opinion that the seal used by Oljeitu Khan (the Ilkhan) on his letter to Phillip le Bel in 1305 (and by Ilkhan Abu Said on another occasion in 1320) must have been sent to the Ilkhan by Temur, but that William Hung, and also Cleaves and Mostaert, think that it is inconceivable that the Yuan emperor would send a seal reading "zhen ming huangdi"(?) to his vassal, and that therefore the seal must have been made in Persia. Actually, they are also saying that the appelation used by Ghasan in the seal on his letter to the pope in 1302 is very well consistent with Ghasan perceiving himself as vassal of the great khan (p.484/485), so technically the answer to no.2 would be something like "probably".
The one guy who was mentioned to have ascended the throne without Khuriltai was indeed Ayurbarwada. The only he is mentioned doesn't mean that others did not do the same, but it also seems to imply that some indeed did not ascend the throne without khuriltai. Re. claims to the title of Khan, they at least seem to continued to call their state Yeke Mongghol Ulus at times, see the intro to F.C. Woodman's The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1362 in Memory of Prince Hindu, in HJAS vol. 12 p. 4 ff. Yaan (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So, it seems that the answer to Q1 is still quite vague. Whether Kublai's successors held Kurultai was unknown (but we already know at least one did not, and I don't think we can directly imply others from that guy), let alone the question what kind of Kurultai it was, i.e. global or regional (like Golden Horde). While it is possible that Ghazan may have perceived himself as vassal of the great khan (also unknown), if the answer to Q1 is false, then it was more like a remanent tradition of Ilkhanate, and it cannot be used to imply that there was in fact a great khan still alive. Actually the answers to all of these questions are unconfirmed, at least for now.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
But if the Mongols perceived Da Yuan as identical to the Great Mongolian State (which is what Yeke Mongghol Ulus means, sorry for not explaining that above), then the logical conclusion would be that the emperor of Da Yuan is the Khaghan of the Great Mongolian State. It's so far just circumstancial evidence, but IMO strong enough to put any unsourced statements about later emperors not claiming the title of Khaghan into serious doubt. Yaan (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I already know your opinion from your last message, but whether they perceived Da Yuan as identical to the entire Mongol Empire from that source is not uncontested. See Talk:Kublai Khan. That logic seems to be only a hypothesis. Regarding whether later emperors claimed the title of Khaghan, I think it's still completely unknown. Even if they did perceive Da Yuan that way (a hypothesis), it does not mean they actually claimed the title of Khaghan (they were not the same position, and rituals were different also). Anyway, we should not put statement of either side (did or didn't) to the article, unless and until it becomes more clear.--209.183.28.101 (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Anyway, we should not put statement of either side (did or didn't) to the article, unless and until it becomes more clear." - Couldn't agree more. Regards, Yaan (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't really help, but in Ilkhan Oljeitu's letter to Philip Le Bel (the seal of which has been discussed above), he seems refer to Yuan emperor Temur as "Temur khagan" (German translation in Micheal Weiers, "Die Mongolen im Iran", in "Die Mongolen: Beitraege zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur", Darmstadt 1986, p. 334, a French(?) translation can be found in Antoine Mostaert/Francis Woodman Cleaves, "Les lettres de 1289 et 1305 des Ilkhan Argun et Öljeitü à Philippe le Bel", Cambridge 1962). Yaan (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd better not to comment about this info as it's inconclusive, but just FYI, the temple name (the characteristic title given after death) for Temür is Chengzong (成宗), where "成" is an adjective for "守成的" (meaning approximately "inaggressive", "just keep things working but no great achievements"), and he was also recorded in historic books as "善于守成之君" (meaning an emperor who was good at just keeping things working but did not make any great achievements). He basically did so by continuing Kublai's domestic policy, but at the same time abandoned Kublai's foreign policy, i.e. maintain peace with other states (e.g. Japan and other Mongol states) instead of fighting with them. He was good at maintaining peace of the country (both domestically and to other countries), but never really care about things happening in other countries - it's good as long as there was no fighting.--207.112.72.176 (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
---A new reply---
In fact, the seal sent by Temür to Ilkhan Oljeitu and used in Oljeitu's letter was a Chinese seal (thanks for uploading the image here) which reads "真命皇帝和顺萬夷之寶" ("The seal of Mandate of Heaven Emperor who made peace with all barbarians"), where "真命皇帝" is a typical usage referring to Emperor of China. This reveals that Temür saw himself as Emperor of China who tried to maintain peace with all barbarians ("萬夷", btw, "夷"/"barbarian" was used in traditional Chinese text to contrast with "華", which represents "Chinese" or "China", the supreme entity)); this is also very well consistent with the fact that the temple name for him is Chengzong (成宗) and he was recorded in historic books as "善于守成之君", as discussed in more details in my previous reply. While it is unconfirmed, if sending a Chinese seal from Temur to Ilkhans really means a relationship of subordinacy, then it was in fact a subordinacy of Ilkhans to Emperor of China from Emperor Temur's viewpoint (as can be shown from the seal itself), though it is also possible that from Ilkhans' viewpoint it was still a subordinacy to Khagan, since Ilkhans probably wished to keep traditional relationship.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it seems not really clear whether this seal was sent from China at all, or made in the Ilkhanate by order of Öljeitü (see discussion above, around p. 485 of the paper by Mostaert and Cleaves). Yaan (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have actually already read their argument above, but after seeing the image of the seal (uploaded by you), which clearly reads "真命皇帝和顺萬夷之寶" ("The seal of Mandate of Heaven Emperor who made peace with all barbarians") in Chinese characters, their argument may be safely dismissed, unless the image you uploaded is not a real one. They think it's inconceivable simply because they think Yuan emperor would not send a seal reading such words, and thus claim that the seal must be made in Ilkhanate by order of Öljeitü, but such logic is clearly ridiculous and biased. Their logic is clearly based on the presumption that it's impossible for Yuan emperors to claim Emperor of China, rather than an open discussion. As shown in the letters from Arghun and Ghazan to foreign countries which all used Chinese seals from Yuan emperors, it was a standard practice for Ilkhans to use Chinese seals from Yuan emperors in their diplomatic letters. It's actually much more inconceivable that Ghazan's successor Öljaitü would fake a seal from Yuan emperors in Chinese characters reading "真命皇帝和顺萬夷之寶" and use the fake seal in his letter to Philip Le Bel.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I would not dismiss Cleaves, Mostaert and Hung (or Hong) so easily, nor call them biased. I don't know about Hung, but Cleaves and Mostaert are very well-respected in their fields. Of course it may be possible that their opinion has been superseded by newer research that we are not aware of - the paper is from 1952, and Weiers in 1986 (and 2002) gives no hint of any controversy about where the seal is from. Their argument is not that the Yuan emperors would not claim the title huangdi, but that the Yuan emperors would not let their subordinates bear a seal that only the emperor himself should be eligible for. Their conclusion is that the Ilkhan Öljeitü made the seal because he perceived himself on an equal level to Temür Khan (and, according to the German translation in Weiers, Beiträge, p. 334, indeed Ilkhan Öljeitü refers to himself and the other Mongol monarchs, including "Temür khaghan" as "we elder and younger brothers"), not because he wanted to fake something. Yaan (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I see what their point was really about after reading your new paraphrase of their argument. So there are two possible explanations for the seal as below:
1. The Chinese seal used in Öljeitü's letter in 1305 was indeed the one sent by Temur. Then the points in my replies above will automatically apply;
2. The Chinese seal used in Öljeitü's letter in 1305 was made by himself to perceive himself on an equal level to Temür Khan. In this case, Kublai's successor was obviously not recognized by Ilkhan (at least Öljeitü) as the khaghan (but only one of them), i.e. the Ilkhanate and the Yuan are on an equal status. If this was the case, then it means Ilkhans had formally renounced all allegiance to the successors of Kublai.
Anyway, either case actually means the end of traditional relationship between Ilkhans and Khagans, though in different forms.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kublai's early rule

The article says "Kublai Khan's early rule involved widespread plunder. As if expecting to lose the country, the Mongols attempted to remove as much money and resources as was possible". What is the time period for that? Does it refer to his regional rule before 1260 or after 1260, when he claimed the Khagan? Kublai Khan's rule after 1260 actually never involved "widespread plunder" (as well as most of his regional rule before 1260). In terms of kindness to the locals, he was much better than either Genghis or Mongke. It should be fixed.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's meant in a more figurative sense, i.e. exploitation of the people for personal gains. Yaan (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Korea?

Did Yuan Dynasty really ruled Korea? According to the Mongol invasions of Korea article, "Beginning with Wonjong, for approximately 80 years, Korea was a tributary ally of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty", which says Korea was a tributary ally rather than a territory of the Yuan, as well as "The Goryeo dynasty survived under Mongolian influence until King Gongmin began to push Mongolian forces back starting in the 1350s", so Korea was more like a vassal of the Yuan, although the control was somewhat more strict than Vietnam or so.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the same. They seem to not just have paid tribute, though, they also played important roles in the Mongol invasions of Japan. Yaan (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"they also played important roles in the Mongol invasions of Japan". It is true, but that just looks like a tributary ally.--209.183.5.36 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

it was a forced ally, they were invaded, and king gongmin didnt push back anything, its because the chinese beat the mongols they were force to retreat from korea.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.131.194 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchukuo was a forced ally (and puppet state) of Japan too. Manchuria was invaded and Manchukuo was founded and even administered by the Japanese, and Emperor Puyi didn't push back anything, it's because Allies beat the Japanese they were forced to retreat from Manchuria. But in spite of the obvious and heavy influence from Japanese, it was not a part of Japan.--209.90.144.38 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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: [1]?--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)

[edit] 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)