Talk:Mongol Empire/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What was the flag of the Mongols? I can't find any information about it in Wikipedia articles. --Z 14:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

They didn't have one. They used a

type of banner to represent the different clans. There was a graphic for this article depicting the nine base banners of the empire, but it had copyright issues.--¿3family6 _contribs

15:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, a previous Wikipedia uploader used this as the flag of the Mongolian Empire. A quick Google search of Wikipedia Commons reveals this, this (which apparently has a warning on it), and this website, which gleans information from official Mongolian sepcentennial sources, official Mongolian national museums and the Catalan Atlas. Furthermore, this cites a 1999 AD book called "World Encyclopedia of Flags: The Definitive Guide to International Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns". There is DEFINITELY a Mongolian Empire flag. However, all sources agree that Ghengis Khan's rule never had a flag, just the fuzzy banners. --75.182.18.79 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the early and late Mongol empire depicted a red and blue horizontally striped flag. Perhaps, nothing official but a war representative at least.Royal Society Biologist (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is about the Mongol Empire, therefore discussion of unofficial flags is

not a forum. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 04:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see

) 00:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lal cite

An editor has been clumsily removing text related to the Lal cite in footnote 10, but it does appear that this material is mis-sourced. The source appears to be about Muslim invasions of India, not Mongol invasions. As a result, much of the third paragraph of the intro needs to be removed. I am taking out the text sourced to Lal. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that there has been much strife over the status the

under the Mongol Empire, mainly around the maps based in the time period showing the territories of the Mongol Empire and its successor states. I was hoping to get a mature discussion with other Wikipedians going about this, as it seems as though the editors constantly reverting my edits do not yet seem to be open to communication. Hopefully we can work toward a real consensus about this topic here.

Let me link here the main Wikipedia article talking specifically about this subject: Mongol invasions of Korea. I would like to argue that maps of the Mongol Empire should not include Korea as part of its territory, due to the fact that the Kingdom of Goryeo was never annexed by the Mongol Empire. Cartographic convention is that only annexed states are to be colored as parts of a country on a map, never compulsory allies. Vassal states at most are ever colored in a slightly darker shade of the overlord country's color, which should be the maximum extent that Goryeo should be included on maps of the Mongol Empire. To color in the Korean peninsula completely would historically and cartographically incorrect. The Kingdom of Great Joseon which followed the Kingdom of Goryeo was a tributary state (another way of saying vassal state) of the Ming and Qing Dynasties of China, and yet the Korean peninsula is never colored in Chinese colors on maps based on their respective time periods. The same principle should apply here. See the First French Empire for one of the most famous examples of this cartographic convention in action.

To further clarify my point, I will address the article linked above, the Mongol invasions of Korea. In the very first paragraph, it states that "There were six major campaigns at tremendous cost to civilian lives throughout the Korean peninsula, ultimately resulting in Korea becoming a vassal state and compulsory ally of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty for approximately 80 years." Again, vassal states and allies are not included in the territory of overlord countries on maps by widespread cartographic convention.

Other parts of the same article further elucidate on the fact that the Kingdom of Goryeo was never annexed.

"Although they reached parts of the southern peninsula as well, the Mongols failed to capture Ganghwa Island, which was only a few miles from shore, and were repelled in Gwangju. The Mongol general there, Sartai (撒禮塔), was killed by the monk Kim Yun-hu (김윤후) amidst strong civilian resistance at the Battle of Cheoin near Yongin, forcing the Mongols to withdraw again."

"In 1238, Goryeo relented, and sued for peace. The Mongols withdrew, in exchange for Goryeo's agreement to send the Imperial Family as hostages."

"With the death of Güyük Khan in 1248, however, the Mongols withdrew again."

"The Mongols agreed to a cease fire in January 1254."

"When the Goryeo court sent the future king Wonjong as hostage to the Mongol court and promised to return to Kaegyong, the Mongols withdrew from Central Korea."

And one of the most relevant sentences from that article states the following:

"When the dictator Choe was murdered by the literati party, the peace treaty was concluded. The treaty permitted the maintenance of the sovereign power and traditional culture of Goryeo, implying that the Mongols gave up incorporating Goryeo under direct Mongolian control and were content to give Goryeo autonomy, but the king of Goryeo must marry a Mongolian princess and be subordinate to the Mongolian Khans."

Please let me know what you think. Flamarial (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

First off, no, being a tributary and and being a vassal are not at all the same. A tributary simply pays tribute to an empire. A vassal is considered a part of the empire, and is required to fight in wars.

Now, as to how the maps should depict vassal states: I am certain that there is no standard, either on this wiki or elsewhere, on how to depict vassal states, as it depends on what the map is trying to convey. Right now, the map does not distinguish between the Empire and its vassals. I think that this is unnecessary in this case, as vasssals are a part of the actual empire. Also, Goryeo is the only vassal I've seen complained about. Those who try to color Korea differently on the map do not do so with

Dai Viet, Georgia\Armenia, Novgorod, Pskov, Rum, Bulgaria, Sukhothai, or Trebizond, and, until 1219, Western Xia, all which were also "compulsory" vassals. Because there were so many vassals of the empire, for general maps of the whole empire I don't think we should distinguish vassals with a different color shade. However, you or someone else could create a map specifically to highlight vassal states. That would be okay.--¿3family6 _contribs

13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there User:3family6, and thanks for your input.

Yes, I do agree with you when you say that tributaries and vassals are not exactly the same, but it does seem that many unaware individuals use the two terms interchangeably without knowing the nuanced difference. Regardless, I believe this fact to be irrelevant when looking at the bigger picture, since I would argue that vassals should not be colored in the same fashion as fully annexed and directly controlled territories of an empire would be. As you say, it would be much better if a map displayed these vassal states in a different way, mostly commonly as either a lighter or darker shade of the same color as the directly controlled territories are; it would certainly be more informative, which is why I believe this convention to be a widespread practice. I agree with you there. You are also right when you say that there is no "official standard" on how to depict vassal states on maps (as far as I know), which is compounded by the facts that there are no modern-day nominal vassal states and also that there exists no association that oversees and regulates historical cartography internationally. However, I would argue that - as I mentioned before - it is common (and perhaps preferred) to depict vassal states differently on maps, and it should ideally be the same case here.

You mentioned that "the map does not distinguish between the Empire and its vassals," which is true, but even if this is the case, the maps currently used in this article on the Mongol Empire are still erroneous, not only because they do not distinguish in this fashion but also because not all of the vassals are depicted on the map. Either all of the vassals should be depicted or all of them should not; out of the ones you listed, the current main .gif file does not include the

Kingdom of Goryeo on the Korean peninsula. Combined with the fact that knowledge of Korea, Korean history, and Korean culture was just starting its growth in the West around a century ago around when this map was made (Korea was one of the last -- if not the last -- countries to become widely accessible to Westerners), it is no surprise that Korea is mistakenly colored in on this historical map when the rest of the vassal states are not. I believe the maps in use today on Wikipedia should be fixed to at least be internally consistent, since at the moment they are clearly not. Thanks again for your thoughts, User:3family6; hopefully I've made my position a little bit more clear with what I've written here. Flamarial (talk

) 05:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there should be only one version of a map style. Actually, this map, which is used prominently in the infobox, does NOT distinguish between vassals and non-vassals, and personally, I'm fine with that. I have more of a problem with how it depicts the "empire" in 1279 as one empire, when at that point it was four. The older map that is included further down in the article, and that you linked to above, likewise fails to distinguish that the empire was actually divided into four, often warring, factions. Also, the older map you show is depicting the Mongol holdings, in which vassals ARE included, but distinguished, at a later time period, after many of the territories were lost. I'm saying that I don't care either way, but the ONLY region that I've seen hotly contested is Korea, which was subjugated just like most of Eurasia, and really wasn't a special case at all. The status of Dai Viet, Champa, and a lot of the assorted island territories in South East Asia was far more nebulous than Korea (which is why most map versions don't include them, at least not fully.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Further note: The other tricky part aspect of distinguishing vassals states is that a lot of kingdoms and peoples in the heart of the empire, such as the

Uyghurs and the Karluks, enjoyed a great deal of autonomy for many decades before the Chagatai Khanate absorbed them. So they would be quite similar to vassals in that regard. The trouble is, the Mongol Empire, just like most empires, was a collection of smaller states and peoples, some of whom surrendered willingly and some unwillingly, with some enjoying more autonomy than others. So it gets very, very complicated.--¿3family6 _contribs

03:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, look at the previous version of the page and it says "Capitulation of Goryeo Dynasty". In any case, the Mongol Empire won in that incident, not SK. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@

, which it was before. Now it has extensive detail about some points while removing other aspects of the summary. It now states that the empire is "often identified" as the Mongol World Empire; a quick search of Google Books shows only three uses of that term. Much sourced content has apparently been removed without discussion or explanation, while long paragraphs with little or no sourcing have apparently been added.

Making all these changes at once makes it impossible to follow what the editor has done without a line by line review, which I frankly don't have time for right now. This was a stable article, and no discussion or proposal was made prior to this rewrite. Perhaps the changes were all warranted, but the manner of execution has made it a huge project just to discern what has been changed/removed/added. In the future, I would suggest discussing such a large scale reworking ahead of time, pointing out the problems you see in an article and proposing changes. Then accomplishing those changes in smaller pieces would be preferable, so that other editors may follow what you are doing. The method of this rewrite defeats what should be a transparent process. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

He reverted to a previous version for some reason. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that this is now a previous version of the article? If so the user has reverted the work of many other users without explanation, and I am not convinced that this is an improvement. The user has also apparently chosen not to discuss what was done. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, check this diff with a version back in early 2010! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming this, Plastikspork. Since this is a rollback, the user has reverted many other editors without explanation, while leaving a string of problems as well. The user has not discussed the issue here even after inquiry, so I am restoring the stable version of the page until the user gains consensus here for the rollback. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There are so many images on this page that the layout was already as tight as it could handle. A user is now adding more images, creating a cluttered and unorganized layout, as well as removing useful maps. The maps will need to be restored, and new images will need to go into a gallery to reduce the clutter. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Mongole Empire have never captured Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Minsk and other east slavic cities. Novgorod republic was captured later after Mongole Empire had splitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.17.167.175 (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Novgorod was not captured because it peacefully submitted to the campaign of Batu/Subutai in 1239/1240. Thus it should be considered a vassal and part of the Empire .^[1] Please cite sources that prove that the other western Rus cities were not captured or submitted voluntarily, as Mongols did not normally leave hostile foes in their rear.73.247.69.66 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Baldwin

No. The animated GIF is clearly inaccurate. NO reliable source/historian would ever agree that the Empire - i.e., areas actively occupied by Mongol forces - ever reached that far. All maps agree on the extent of the Empire, with the exception of certain nationalist Korean sources who don't like accepting fact that the Mongols brutalized and destroyed their entire country, reducing it to a helpless vassal and occupied state under the command of the Great Khan of the Mongols. 50.111.1.232 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If we consider the empire was founded in 1206, we have to consider the Mongol Khaganate as its successor state at least. Its size was just same as when Genghis Khan founded the empire in 1206. Mongols just lost their colonies, not themselves nor their homeland. We shouldn't consider the empire was founded in 1206 if we don't agree that the Mongol Khaganate as its successor state. It seems like a chinese editor has problem with it. But history should be written as world history, not a chinese history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't on the Mongols "themselves" or their homeland. It is on the Mongol Empire. It is also not on the successor states of the Empire. Further, copying content from one article to another is improper, particularly when the passage is so lightly sourced that rewriting would be difficult. Perhaps you could begin a new article on that period, but simply copying the material from the main article would still be improper. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said we shouldn't consider that the empire was founded in 1206 if we don't agree that the Mongol Khaganate as its successor state at least. Its size and population were not much different from the Genghis Khan's original Mongol state. A country just lost its colonies and reverted back into its original state? Can we say the country is no longer exist? It is just illogical. At least, Mongol Khaganate should be in the relic state section even if we agree that. The fall of Yuan is very different from the fall of Qin. Manjus lost completely. They assimilated, their homeland and original state is lost. But Mongols just returned to their original size. They still existed as a country and they still had their Great Khans even though the power were sometimes strong and sometimes weak. So let's be logical. This page had information regarding Mongol Khaganate few years ago when I was active but it has changed so much and removed almost all of the old contents. The content about Mongol Khaganate is written well and there is little to change. I don't think it is necessary to write a new article and I don't remember there is any rule regarding duplicated content. Can you post a link? I'll change the article if it is really forbidden to duplicate or excerpt. Uniquark9 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. It is strange that there is no article here about what happened after 1368. Sparta300+1 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But it is better if you summarize it. It is just too long.Sparta300+1 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There are articles about what happened after 1368, including the one Uniquark9 is copying from directly,

Four Oirat. Notice how these articles do not refer to these periods as part of the Mongol Empire? They have their own articles and do not need to be copied here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk

) 23:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(It also appears that

WP:3RR and to add this helpful agreement. Laszlo Panaflex (talk

) 00:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC) )

Laszlo, So are you refusing to be logical? Don't you answer my questions? How the hell does your logic work? +There is no rule that a content can not be on another page.Uniquark9 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is on the Mongol Empire. There is a different article on the Mongol Khaganate. There is no need for the articles to overlap. Is that clear enough for you? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't you get how illogical you are thinking? Let me repeat we should not consider the empire was founded in 1206 if we don't agree that the Mongol Khaganate was the original Mongol state of 1206.Uniquark9 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This is completely incoherent. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Roman empire was still considered as an empire even after it lost its territories and disintegrated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Empire#Final_partition_of_the_Empire It has only ended when Ostrogoths invaded Italy. We shouldn't have a double standard.Uniquark9 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources consistently distinguish the period of the Mongol Empire from its later successor states. This article is on the Empire, not on its successors. They have articles of their own, and there is no reason to duplicate that material here. You give no reason that it should be, your position is incoherent and unsupported by reliable sources, and you have no consensus for including the period after 1368 here. Please stop adding this disputed content and accept that the successors have articles of their own. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note on copying from one article to another. If it is appropriate to do so, you, can, but you must attribute it, the easiest way being to state in the edit summary "copied from

talk

) 15:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My ancestor was with Khabarov in the Far East. In our family remained his descriptions of the conditions and the national composition of the territories. On the territory of modern Vladivostok lived Russians and Koreans. Russians never conquered Siberia. There all always lived in the same composition as now. No Chinese lived there. The Chinese ventured across the Amur river for robbery and murder of the Kalmyks who lived there. To prevent the Chinese not to go, Khabarov put the border on the Amur.

About Mongolia: the distance from Mongolia to Kharkov city is about 4-7 years on horseback with the wagon train. Roads were good for travel only four months of the year. In between one had to stand and wait. The movement of large forces was not possible –there was nothing to eat for a large army and local militia if willing could easily kill everyone. The Mongols never did any invasions from Mongolia! Moreover, taking into account transport routes, the word "RAID" is nonsense.

KHAN BATU is the commander of the Russian troops, where both Muslims and Orthodox Christians served. Khan Batu is a position, not a person's name! For Muslims he is the KHAN, and for the Russians - DAD = BAT’KA =KHAN BATU. 

The Horde was the Russian army. 10% tax on the Horde was the tax for the maintenance of the army. "To get the label for reigning the Horde" means to have served in the army and come back into the territory as Governor-General. His task was to collect the tax for the army and to organize the defense in cooperation with the army. The task of the Governor-General during the attack of the enemies forces, with local militia was to hold out for a month until the main forces of the army arrived. The decision to fight, defend and counterattack was always taken by officers on the ground without anybody’s  agreement. On the very same principle Russia helped Central Asia. That’s why descriptions that the "400 Russian soldiers captured Bukhara, etc." are left. This is not a takeover, but the arrival of the main forces to help the defense and disperse the enemy; for help the local population sent a messenger!

The Mongol Empire was an organized state while the  Russian state of that period existed for the common defense. The Mongol Tatar Empire was a state built on the principles of mutual assistance and collective security against an external enemy. The expansion of the Empire occurred not as a result of the seizure of the neighbors, but due to voluntary accession to the system of security and collective defense.  The word Mongolian does not mean the Mongols, but derives from the words "great" and "much" and "numerous". The map shows the approximate border of the Empire while the Western part should be behind Magdeburg, but not as it is drawn on the map.

There has never been any "Jewish Khazaria" on the continent! It is a Jewish fiction to justify war against Russia by the Anglo-Saxons and Jews. The goal is the seizure of territories of fictional Jewish Khazaria. Jewish Khazaria was invented in the 20th century. The publications were written much earlier, counterfeited by later dates.

Is that not clear to historians?

Reference: When in Potsdam in 1945, the issue on the boundary of the division of Germany was debated by the allies, Stalin and Churchill came to an agreement on the boundary of the USSR zone of responsibility behind Magdeburg - "The Golden Horde" of Russia came to its old border, which the West pushed under Ivan the Awesome known in the West as the Terrible.

The border behind Magdeburg was no surprise for anyone since, for example, the "Magdeburg law" was in Kiev, including the 19th century and the Slavs still ruled on the same "German" territories. http://russ-history.blogspot.ru/2016/10/golden-horde.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antn-Samara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In the words of Sir Belvedere from Monty Python & The Holy Grail: "What a strange person." ^ I've seen quite a lot of bollocks on TP's before, but this is easily in the top ten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.232 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Re these recent changes, it strikes me that the designation Iran is anachronistic here. I haven't reverted, but thought that I would comment here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In 1217 a Chinese title, Da Chao (大朝; Wade Giles: Ta-ch'ao ; English: "Great Dynasty") was adopted by Genghis Khan to refer to the Mongol state, alongside Da Menggu Guo (大蒙古國 ; Wade Giles: Ta Meng-ku kuo), the Chinese translation of the Mongol name "Yeke Mongghol Ulus" (The Great Mongolian State), until Kublai Khan imposed the new name Da Yuan (大元; Wade–Giles: Ta-Yüan).^[2]

• Chan 陳, Hok-Lam 學霖 (1991). ""Ta Chin" (Great Golden): The Origin and Changing Interpretations of the Jurchen State Name". T'oung Pao. Second Series. 77 (Livr. 4/5). BRILL: 253–299.
  JSTOR 4528536. Retrieved 23 May 2014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help
  )

Other sources for 大朝 "Great Dynasty" oe "greater dynasty"

https://books.google.com/books?id=AcObAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&dq=da+chao+genghis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=umPIVI-sH8ScgwTBu4KQAw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=da%20chao%20genghis&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=FVgzAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=da+chao+genghis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wmPIVPnXMYOqgwSWyoCgBA&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=da%20chao%20genghis&f=false

) 04:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol. It has never happened. Your source simply stating that it is a translation of Yeke Mongghol Ulus in chinese, not Genghis Khan or any other Mongols adopted that name. Read your source before trolling throughout the wiki.Uniquark9 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a translation, not a name adopted by Genghis Khan. "The Great Mongol State" was the full translation for Yeke Mongghol Ulus, while "Great dynasty" was a simple translation. Even if it was a translation endorsed by the government for its Chinese subjects, this is not the same as a name officially adopted by Genghis Khan for his empire. --Evecurid (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

All Chinese people think that Mongol Empire was a Chinese state that created by Chinese king

and China must reconquer its "lost land" (territory of the Mongol Empire - 26,000,000-33,000,000 million km2). That is why the Chinese name so important to China. See Han chauvinism, Sinocentrism, Chinese nationalism. Ceithe (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The

talk

) 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinggis Khan did adopt a Chinese title called "Ta-ch'ao" 大朝 (Great Dynasty) around 1217, after the Mongols embarked on the conquest of China. This state name was in use along with Ta Meng-ku kuo until it was replaced by the new name Ta Yüan under Khubilai Khaghan

talk

) 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your previous sources had already made it clear that the "Great dynasty" was a translation, alongside "The Great Mongol State". The claim that Genghis Khan adopted the "Great dynasty" as a name for his empire is only a modern claim. --Evecurid (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The first source is the oldest source, and is the first source I used before finding the other ones.

talk

) 16:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that Genghis Khan adopted the "Great dynasty" (Da Chao/Ta-ch'ao) as a name for his empire is an exceptional claim.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Multiple high-quality sources are required. However all other sources you provided stated that it was just a translation. Or is there any decree by Genghis Khan that clearly stated that he had adopted the "Great dynasty" as the name (not just a translation) for the Mongol Empire? --Evecurid (talk

) 16:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101113102742/http://www.ucalgary.ca:80/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/goldenHorde.html to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/goldenHorde.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

:Online 14:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. First time I've contributed to wikipedia at all so please disregard this comment if I'm addressing things in an incorrect manner.

The timeline displayed on the article (that is, this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif) shows Persia as being entirely independent of the Mongol Empire at the year 1227. Unless some argument is made that the Mongol conquest of the Khwarezmid Empire that took place between 1218 and 1221 failed in some way to integrate Persian territory, the map presents a major fallacy. Additionally, none of the citations the map maker credits suggest that Khwarezmia wasn't conquered. I'm simply a bit confused, as this seems like a major yet very prominently displayed error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.121.222 (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

1) in the section "Rise of Genghis Khan," this sentence doesn't make sense, as is: "He thus held the Khan title." I don't know what was intended but it needs changing somehow.

2) The "Early Organization" section contains this: "Genghis also decreed religious freedom...." However, the "Religious policies" section indicates that Muslims and Jews were persecuted, so maybe "Genghis also decreed religious freedom...." needs to at least be qualified.

WikiAlto (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mongol Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217112014/http://islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf to http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/RussianHeritage/4.PEAS/4.L/12.III.5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618031319/http://www.allempires.com:80/article/index.php?q=The_Mongol_Empire to http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Mongol_Empire

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

• https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/RussianHeritage/4.PEAS/4.L/12.III.5.html

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Library had archived version: has been added manually.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20101217112014/http://islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf
• https://web.archive.org/web/20090618031319/http://www.allempires.com:80/article/index.php?q=The_Mongol_Empire

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello With all due respect, I disagree 100 % with the term "Mongol Empire". An empire involves automatically an administration, garrisons in the cities, collection of taxes. And above all, perpetuation of these characteristics for a sizeable period of time. Sheer murder and pillage, idiotically so, because a rudiment of judgment, would tell anyone with half a brain that is better to spare at least a part of the population of a city or region, they could produce new things for you to steal in the future. While with the "Genghis algorithm" all you have is the scorched earth. Also, to be honest, the "cultural exchange", from the Mongol side, was pure myth. Aside the tactic innovation of living of the land and therefore getting independent of supplies convoys, I see nothing of value. Only normal, since the Mongols were basically illiterate and with their policy of utter and total destruction before leaving, most of the time forever, there was really no time for any culture osmosis. PinteaG (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Content "migrated" (read: COPIED) from a user talk over at @TompaDompa:.

The native name was in there for years, all I did was fix the rotation and sure it introduces some "spacing issues" (only superficially) but that's just what happens when a vertical script appears next to a horizontal one, removing it is essentially removing information because "it doesn't look to pleasing" which falls under

) 07:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

My bad 🙅🏻, I saw that another user (from Mongolia) inserted it just before my edit, however my argument still stands. I'll migrate this to Talk:Mongol Empire. --1.55.183.244 (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I this native name based on historical sources or not? --

talk

) 13:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

My objection applied to placing it in the

) 15:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, glad we could've had that resolved. 👍🏻 (Same person, my IP just changes all the time.) --1.55.180.128 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mongol Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050509082004/http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/Mongols/intro.html to http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/Mongols/intro.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222203105/http://steppes.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=board18&action=print&thread=1167258099 to http://steppes.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=board18&action=print&thread=1167258099

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I personally think three images in the article that show the extent of the Mongol Empire are not enough accurate. One is the dynamic image shows the process of expansion, one is about the territority of the empire under Mongke Khan, and one is about the divisions of the Empire by 1300. It seems that the extent on these images is too large, such as in Europe and Asia. The first two show the empire included much even entire modern-day Belarus and much of northwestern Russia. But many historical evidence indicate that much of Belarus escaped the Mongol invasions and the Mongols never conquered and ruled the northwestern Russia. And the third one shows the empire occupied much of the modern-day Myanmar, but the Mongol force at most once reached the central Myanmar and only ruled northern Myanmar briefly. By the way, these images are also referenced in a number of other articles about the Mongols. I think they may be inappropriate and we need to replace them. What do you guys think? 七战功成 00:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings to all. I will be copy editing this over the next few days. I tend to boldly change; this irritates some people. I will try to make changes discrete, so if you don't like anything it should be easy to revert. Or just ping me and ask me what the heck I thought I was doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. You mean "discreet", I expect. Changes that aren't improvements are what "irritates some people". Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

An understandable (mis-)interpretation, but I meant what I wrote: "discrete". However, I shall also try to be discreet; even making changes discreetly where possible I expect. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I am still copy editing and will have several further run throughs looking for various things, but I really don't want to ask you to voluntarily refrain from editing for any longer than absolutely necessary. If you are unhappy with any of my edits feel free to discuss them here or just revert them - of course, I didn't need to say that; this is Wikipedia! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

1. In the section Death of Güyük (1248), it states "he sought to recuperate his personal property Emyl". This doesn't make sense to me. (Which may be my stupidity.) Would "he sought to recover his personal property at Emyl" read better. Why is "recuperate" used? Would "he sought to recuperate at his personal property Emyl" read better? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
2. "Yuan emperor Temür established a tributary relationship with the war-like Shan brothers after his series of military operations against Thailand from 1297 to 1303." "[B]rothers" seems odd to me; should it read "people"? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Under Early Organisation it states "He exempted the poor and the clergy from taxation." which is sourced. Under Law and Governance it states "Genghis Khan... exempted teachers, lawyers, and artists from taxes, although taxes were heavy on all other subjects of the empire." This has a citation needed tag. Both cannot be accurate and I am incline to delete "although taxes were heavy on all other subjects of the empire" as unsourced. Thoughts? Does anyone have a source for this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongol Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070422025219/http://paradoxplace.com/Insights/Civilizations/Mongols/Mongols.htm to http://www.paradoxplace.com/Insights/Civilizations/Mongols/Mongols.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dragovit: The infobox flag picture would be arguably the most viewed picture in the entire article, and is only meant for the most important national symbols such as the national flag, not any random flag or banner. The Mongol Empire did not have a flag in the modern sense so you should explain how those banners can be a substitute (how they symbolize the Mongol Empire and only the Mongol Empire) before adding them to that position. The fact that they are modern reconstructions, not actual Mongol Empire artifacts don’t help either. Esiymbro (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What an obnoxious, unusable, uninformative gif that is... Is there any way to improve on the useability of the gif? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

how big was the Mongol empire compared to the Eastern Bloc? That'd be Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Mongolia. It seems to me that it'd be larger than the Mongol empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:C002:FD40:85EB:BAB1:EA67:197D (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Go to the Help Desk with such questions. The Talk Pages are not a forum for the discussion of the topic/subject.50.111.1.232 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone verify these sources? The dominant religions at that time were Shamanism, Tengrism, and Buddhism. Shamanism is not a religion. Plus if they say it is, it is probably because of confusion with Tengrism. It's weird to place these two together. Beshogur (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mongol Empire 1257.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We know Uluγ ulus was used for the Golden Horde, but found out that Guyuk's letter to pope also uses the same term for Mongol Empire. Also it's probably not Ikh Mongol Uls (which is modern Mongol) but Yeke Mongγol Ulus.. Another one: Qamuγ Mongγol Ulus.

• kür Uluγ ulus: whole great nation
• Yeke Mongγol Ulus: great Mongol nation
• Qamuγ Mongγol Ulus: united/whole Mongol nation

Opinions? Beshogur (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Gamma (γ) is a Greek letter, so I don't know how that is allowed among Latin letters here. It's the equivalent of the letter (g), so that makes "Mongγol" orthographically redundant. PametUGlavu (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@PametUGlavu: what do you mean? It's used everywhere in academic works. You can not simply use ğ for Turkic or Mongolic languages. [2] [3] etc many examples Beshogur (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Ok, I was not aware that this character was taken from the International Phonetic Alphabet. It still seems a bit out of place. I mean, generally when transcribing languages of non-Latin script into a pidgin form, the letter set is pretty basic. I still don't even know what sound this gamma represents, because the Wikipedia article on the Voiced_velar_fricative was inconsistent. Examples from different languages all produced different sounds. PametUGlavu (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A user has been changing quotes on the page. I have reverted them a couple of times, but since no one else seems to care I am not going to keep doing so. Shoddy business, this. 2601:8C0:37F:8160:D8FB:2DDF:2624:4102 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Users seem to deliberately maintain a quote that has been altered. I'm curious to the reasoning behind this.

• A source can be paraphrased, in which case it can't be presented as a quote. A new text with the same message should be written.
• A source can be quoted, in which case the text can't be altered. Clarifications can be added or parts can be omitted, but this should be clear to the reader.

I'm fine with either option. But a decision should be made. Kardoen (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I've noticed that there's been a lot of discourse in this talk page regarding the current gif map of the Mongol Empire

I've seen comments ranging from the format to the way vassal/allied states are colored. If there's still interest I could rework the file into a more appropiate format such as a static image showing the expansion of the empire throughout the years in different shades. I could also add cities, use a more appropriate projection, add period accurate borders of historical countries, and make a clear distinction between vassal kingdoms and properly integrated areas if you people think thats a good idea.

As of right now I need help deciding between...

...using modern or historical borders for other countries

...adding cities

...using a standard equirectangular or a more accurate projection

If anyone has any other suggestions or comments, please feel free to point them out Cattette (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a poo estimate (next to GDP)? JakeEs (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks. Chewings72 (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"The Mongols also appreciated the visual arts, though their taste in portraiture was strictly focused on portraits of their horses, rather than of people." Citation needed. I cannot find any sources that support this; also, it doesn't seem right. Does anyone here know if it is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8700:A600:5D15:ED5D:5757:4374 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Afirkhan69: Could you please explain how the First Turkic Khaganate, a Turkic kingdom active between 552–603 is relevant enough to be put in the 'See also' section of an article named the Mongol Empire? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: (Because first turkic khanate made a great influence on mongol and made mongol ambitious to create a khanate larger than first turkic khanate.

@HistoryofIran:And it is one of few empire which is stretch from Eurasia to Manchuria Afirkhan69 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:And it is one of few empire which is originated from Mongolia Afirkhan69 (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if there are parallels, it's irrelevant to this article. Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for all of these claims. HistoryofIran (talk)

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/centralasia/gokturk.htm#:~:text=Long%20before%20the%20spread%20of,west%20as%20the%20Black%20Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afirkhan69 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That's just a random site, not

WP:RS. Kindly click and read the link, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 16:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

New discoveries cast doubt on the story about the siege of Caffa, the catapulted bodies, and the spread of plague. For one thing, the bodies smelled, but they did not necessarily spread plague, which was spread by rat fleas. If anything, the fact that the war disrupted the grain trade (rats lived in the grain shipments) delayed the spread of plague by about a year until the grain began to flow again. Milesnfowler (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is silly to think one would confuse this empire with the Mughal Empire, so I am considering removing it. Do you agree? Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that to someone new to History, or one who may have just heard it from word of mouth, Mughal could be possibly confused with Mongol. Cheers! 104.37.211.87 (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

just giving my thoughts, I think its abit silly too Danial Bass (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Think of the children. Besides, "Mughal" is derived from "Mongol". Walrasiad (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There are others, who are older adults, who because they didn't learn of this part of history, do not need to know being elderly in their own age, right? Why should they know this other than knowing it? IrishLas (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why dont spanish empire will be on 2? 213.175.51.4 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Kalmyks were the last Mongol nomads to penetrate European territory, having migrated to Europe from Central Asia at the turn of the 17th century. In the winter of 1770–1771" Wouldn't that be the 18th century? I'm unable to edit this. TWalker1993B (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)