Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Olorin28 01:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Overview and other problems

This article is highly revisionist. The problems start in the overview, which begins: Genghis Khan was arguably the most powerful, influential and successful military leaderin world history. Born in Mongolia, he was the founder of the world's largest empire. His success in consolidating his conquests ended centuries of internal conflict. His unequivocal loyalty to Mongol tradition, religious tolerance, multiculturalism, trade and success have all made him a national hero.

There are many problems with it -- he did not found the world's largest Empire, that goes to the British, by about 1.3 million more sq. km. The intro paragraph should mention the massive havok wrecked by the Mongols, like the millions killed in Herat and other cities. He ended "centuries of internal conflict" by depopulating nations and conquering them, not by any political means. He also led to many new internal conflicts in future centuries. Finally, I realize he is a "national hero" in Mongolia, but he is not most famous for religious tolerance and "success" in the rest of the world. The article covers Genghis Khan as more than a barbarian, which is good, but it whitewashes the fact that he was one of the destructive conquerers in history, which is bad.

The second paragraph starts:Many Chinese citizens revere him as the founder of their Yuan Dynasty. Others vilify him for his ruthless strategy of killing entire towns and cities if they resisted invasion. His Mongol armies invaded and killed millions in regions such as China, the Middle East and Central and Eastern Europe. The exact number of people killed during and after his reign is not conclusively known but is often exaggerated.

This begins with a very strong assertion, which begs the question about Chinese citizens revere him? Unless there is a source for this, it is just an assertion - the population of China declined by a 1/3 in a century, yet he is revered in China - please provide evidence. Only by the third sentence of this second paragraph are casualties mentioned, and then those numbers are immediately called exaggerated! Exact numbers may be unclear, but historians provide a range that includes many millions at a minimum - how does the reader know what is exaggerated unless numbers are supplied?

For more, see Matthew White's criticsm. I have made some changes, but this article needs to be a lot more balanced. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sources you're quoting regarding the number of dead neither agree, nor justify the text in the article. The '15 million' figure, as found here is apparently taken from Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, and it's quoted quite clearly that Weatherford does not put much stock in that figure at all. From the page linked (and indirectly from the book): "Later, more conservative scholars place the number of dead from Genghis Khan's invasion of central Asia at 15 million within five years [which] would require that each Mongol kill more than a hundred people." This seems unlikely, given that at least some people on the campaigns would have killed none, or few people ever. We need to be more careful quoting numbers from sources like these. siafu 19:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the rest of the quote goes on to say: "Actually, in my opinion, that's a weak refutation. Killing a hundred people in five years is quite doable." Backing this up, Saunders (1971) wrote of the Mongols that there is something indescribably revolting in the cold savagery with which the Mongols carried out their massacres. The inhabitants of a doomed town were obliged to assemble in a plain outside the walls, and each Mongol trooper, armed with battle-axe, was told to kill so many people, ten, twenty or fifty. As proof that orders had been properly obeyed, the killers were sometimes required to cut off an ear from each victim, collect the ears in sacks, and bring them to their officers to be counted. A few days after the massacre, troops were sent back into the ruined city to search for any poor wretches who might be hiding in holes or cellars; these were dragged out and slain.[1] That doesn't make 100 people in five years seem unrealistic, does it?

Further, the 15 million figure is just for the five year central Asian campaign, it doesn't include China. And even if you don't like 15 million exactly, there is little doubt that the Mongols under Genghis killed millions, Genghis is generally credited with being the only leader to carry out a super-genocide (over 10 million deaths) before the 20th century [2], and Gibbons reported 4,347,000 dead in 3 cities alone. Besides, the article says "up to 15 million" and then warns that figures are uncertain. I don't think we are overestimating the deaths under Genghis, these seem well-grounded, what numbers are you using? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "rest of the quote" you're referring to is an addition from the maintainer of the website, as far as I can tell, given that it's not sourced, and unless it can be it's not relevant to this discussion. The point is that the author from whom you're quoting himself disparages the exaggerated figures. It's quite obvious that any real information on the numbers of people killed by the Mongols is not available, so the value of these estimates is inherently questionable. This is not to mention the reliance on census data from the 13th century, which is inherently unreliable (see the difficulties in taxation in Russia under the Mongols for a good example of how this can be vastly inaccurate). I'm not advocating the position that Genghis Khan was not responsible for a tremendous loss of life, but it does behoove us to show some restraint in this domain, as most of the parties involved in creating the history and image of Genghis Khan have had strong reason to exaggerate. I'm going to go ahead and try and reword the paragraph in question to reflect this a bit better. siafu 22:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the quote is Matthew White's commentary, he has compilled all of the various mass killing statistics. He also points out that the figure is not exclusive to Jack Weatherford, and the other statistics I gave provided backup. In any case, I agree that the figures are likely inaccurate (though probably conservative -- they are just for those 5 years), but I have yet to find a source that does not consider Genghis to be the leader with the largest death toll until the 20th century, so we needn't suggest that just because some figures were exaggerated that Genghis did not cause a massive decline in population. McEvedy, McFarlane, Komarova and Korotaye, Rummel, and others all provide figures of deaths in the tens of millions - definitely a scholarly consensus. I'll await your changes to comment. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so we needn't suggest that just because some figures were exaggerated that Genghis did not cause a massive decline in population

Requoting myself: "I'm not advocating the position that Genghis Khan was not responsible for a tremendous loss of life" siafu 22:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your changes were good, thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possibly the opening paragraph has now swung the other way. When I first saw it, it was suffering from too many adulation. It now has a certain ring of damning with faint praise. Really really really good at killing people. Quite a bit of the over the top stuff seems a relatively recent addition. Yes it struck me as having the ring of being translated from something. The earlier version were much smoother.81.130.114.252Sandpiper 21:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its not about praising, it is about history and NPOV descriptions of Genghis Khan's reign -- he was really, really, really good at killing people, he killed more people than any other leader from prehistory until Lenin. The earlier paragraph was full of factual errors, as you can see in my comments above. The most important historical facts about Ghengis Khan were (a) he united the Mongols and founded a giant empire in a short time and (b) he killed more people than any other leader until the 20th century, depopulating large sections of Asia. The article goes on to talk about positive and negative legacies, but securing the Silk Road for trade for a time, or providing a written language for Mongolia, are certainly not his major historical impacts. Besides, none of these statistics are over-the-top, if anything they are underestimates of casualties, please provide sources giving alternate figures if you dispute them. Also, I am not sure whether you are saying the current paragraph or the previous paragraph sounded translated, but the latest version was not copied or translated from anything. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its not about praising, it is about history and NPOV descriptions of Genghis Khan's reign. The earlier paragraph was full of factual errors, as you can see in my comments above. The most important historical facts about Ghengis Khan were (a) he united the Mongols and founded a giant empire in a short time and (b) he killed more people than any other leader until the 20th century, depopulating large sections of Asia. None of these statistics are over-the-top, if anything they are underestimates of casualties, please provide sources if you dispute them. Also, I am not sure whether you are saying the current paragraph or the previous paragraph sounded translated, but the latest version was not copied or translated from anything. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I understand you strive for NPOV. I am trying to say that the former version struck me as veering towards describing him as god, whereas the new one inclines more towards devil. I am not at all arguing the quantity of people he killed. The issue is whether the single first paragraph gives a neutral impression. I am myself rather sceptical about the initial claim for his brilliance. Having read the article it sounds like he was born into the right family, quite possibly at the right time. Adolf Hitler started out as a housepainter? Ghengis started out as heir presumptive. So it might be he was just lucky. But on the opposite hand I hesitate to load the first para with such a discussion of death. I suspect that abhorance at his total may have much to do with our own views on behaviour. Were all his adversaries advocates of peace and goodwill to all men, or did he live in a time when sudden death was quite the norm? If he had been biten by a snake age3 and died, would someone else have taken his place, would it have happened 20 years later? Was the whole thing revenge by the mongol nation in general for years of oppression?

You argued about whether mongols or chinese revere him. You have a point about making the statement factually correct, but I quite liked the contrast of the way it was initially written. Some think him a great leader. Others think him a murderer. Which seems to be exactly the situation we have here amongst contributors. The NPOV would be that people hold extreme views?

No, earlier version I saw first sounded translated. Horrible mess, If you think it was bad when you saw it, read how it was before.Sandpiper 09:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the goal is to express what appears to be the general historical consensus that he was a brilliant and often brutal conquerer, and that it is the aftermath and fallout of his conquests that had a massive impact rather than through a wise rule or an enduring empire (like Babur), or cultural diffusion (like Alexander the Great, or the spread of a new religion (like Caliph Omar), etc. The first paragraph mentions his achievements as a leader and unifier, and then talks about his wars of conquest. "Some think him a murderer and some think him a great leader" seems incorrect - nobody doubts that he killed millions, but some people and especially Mongolians point out his good achievements as well. This article does not hide his achievements, but saying that he policed the Silk Road and brought a written language to the Mongols may not seem to outweigh the destruction and liquidation of the inhabitants of Herat, Ning-hsia, Rayy, Sebzevar, Merv, Nessa, the genocide of the Tanguts etc. but those are the facts, we don't need to editorialize.

It is difficult to say whether someone else would have taken his place, it is the old Great Man argument in history. What can be said is that the distinguishing characteristic of his conquest was the scale and amount of slaughter. No other single ruler before him (or after him, until, no exaggeration, Hitler) launched a war of expansion that left such a path of destruction behind him. He was an amazing military leader, and even though his slaughter may have been exaggerated, I have yet to see any proof that the historical consensus is that some relatively even division of people in the world see him as a hero and others as a murderer, or that those who see him as a hero do not also recognize the destruction that was caused. I would be happy to discuss any evidence to the contrary. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dont want to argue this too fiercly, but there is a difference between being a killer and a murderer. A man might kill ten miilion others in a just cause and not be considered a murderer. At least by the ones on his side.

I notice that repeated praise is creeping into the opening paragraphs again. Please you guys, repeated adulation does not produce the effect of making someone sound better. It makes the reader wonder why you are using so many words for the same thing. I stand convinced he did not have the biggest empire ever, and remain to be convinced that he was a better leader than everyone else.Sandpiper 23:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never said he was a murderer -- the only reason that the word came up was in response your quote. He was cetainly a brutal conquerer, and "just cause" seems a little thin for his actions, but, in any case, the article feels strongly pro-Genghis, if anything -- we do not cover the larger atrocities of his rule, the methods of supressing cities, etc. That's okay, but I just wish people pushing the positive would source more of their insertions, as you request -- which historians say that he was the best attractor of generals? (Napolean's generals were great, (eventually) Roosevelt's generals, Jefferson Davis had some great ones, etc.). Similarly, I am doubtful about the army numbers:

J. M. Smith, Jr., in "Mongol Manpower and Persian Population", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 18 (1975), pp. 271-299, estimates that the total population of Outer Mongolia in the year 1211 was approximately 675,000 nomads, rising by 1260 to approximately 850,000. The total population of the Inner Asian Steppe in 1251 was approximately 4,250,000 nomads. This total included approximately 850,000 nomads in Outer Mongolia, approximately 850,000 nomads in Inner Mongolia, a sedentary population of approximately 1,150,000, and approximately 850,000 nomads in Transoxiana, Semirecheiye and parts of Jungaria and the Tarim Basin (but excluding most of Kazakhstan), approximately 850,000 nomads in Central Asia and the North Caucasian and South Russian Steppe, and approximately 850,000 nomads in the Middle East.[3]

Thanks in any case for your help in trying to keep this article from tilting too far one way or the other. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empire Size

What is the evidence for the British empire being larger? Alan 02:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me for making this a new section. The sizes of empires are given in the wonderful and well-researched To Rule the Earth. Bruce Gordon lists the following as the top four (quoted from the site):

1. The British Empire and Commonwealth: The greatest extent of the British Empire was achieved between 1918 and 1922. The figures exclude the eastern seaboard of the United States, which became independent long before the British colonial expansion of the 19th century. 14,157,000 sq. miles (36,666,630 sq. km.)
   1. The British Empire figure is grossly inflated by including the dominions. By 1918 Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa had long been self-governing dominions. Subtracting Australia and Canada, even without New Zealand and South Africa, reduces the British total to 7,163,000. In the 1850s when Australia and Canada became dominions Britain's possessions outside Europe were restricted to India, South Africa, Hong Kong and some Caribbean possessions. If the Commonwealth of Nations is to be regardd as a state then you'd need a fairly artifical definition to exclude the United Nations and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
2. The Soviet Empire. The Communist states were never entirely under a single ruler - Although Josef Stalin probably came closest 1948-53. The main division was between the Soviet Bloc, led by Russia, and the Eastern Bloc, led by China. The area given for the whole Communist world does not include later, semi-nonaligned states such as Angola, Tanzania, or Laos. The entire Communist world 13,800,000 sq. miles (35,742,000 sq. km.). The Soviet Bloc (incl. Cuba) 9,883,591 sq. miles (25,598,500 sq. km.)
3. The Mongol Empire. The greatest extent of the Mongol hegemony was reached in roughly 1238-68. 12,800,000 sq. miles (33,152,000 sq. km.
4. The Spanish Colonial Empire. At its largest reach, roughly 1740-1790 Spain controlled about half of South America, more than a third of North America, and had significant holdings in the Pacific basin. 07,500,000 sq. miles (19,425,000 sq. km.)

It is also worth pointing out that much of Mongolian territory was unpopulated or only loosely-ruled from 1238-1268; it might be better considered conquered territory than formally-controlled empire, ala the British. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was pointed out here that the Mongol empire was the largest Contiguous Empire, which was not refuted by anyone. It might also have covered a larger proportion of the inhabited space?

I see the national hero tag has come back.Sandpiper 08:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It probably was the largest contiguous Empire, although the word contiguous is a bit weird, because it is not clear that the Mongol control over territory was as total as say, Stalin. Much of the ruled area was conquered, but not controlled on an ongoing basis. I don't think inhabited space would be right, by 1238 humans were basically living everywhere on the planet they live today. As for the national hero tag, that seems okay, he is, in Mongolia. As long as we don't cover up the other facts about Genghis. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of the facts I know about GK come from reading this, and I don't plan to start researching him. But now trying to decide which side the evidence here puts him, I start to wonder about the caliber of those he defeated. Entrenched empires have a habit of becoming lazy and complacent. The mongols were dispersed, but I suspect battle hardened by the nature of their existence. So it might be his one great achievement was to unite them. He was in the correct position by birth to do this. So paradoxically, his great ability might have been charisma or cunning to persuade the tribes to unite. Much of the stuff in the article suggests he was very inclusivist about outsiders and new ideas if they could help his cause. Perhaps, once he had them united they formed an unstoppable army virtually by default. Sandpiper 13:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've read estimations of an empire's size and the problem in the West is that the historians and cartographers who draw an empire's size at least from an English speaker's point of view are usually Anglo and European. Hence, when drawing the maps, there is a bit of nationalism involved. If you look at what most European historians and how they draw the mongol empire's map, they exclude the northern reaches of current day asia. I don't know why, but if you really think about it no one back then and no one today lives in the northern wintry lands in Asia. However, without a doubt the Mongols ruled everthing in Central eurasia including the northern reaches - there was no one populating that area except them. However, when they draw the maps for the British and Soviet empires, they include the nortern reaches of Asia or Canada (ie greenland), although no one lives there still. However, oddly or not oddly enough that is used in their estimations of size. Thus, the Mongol empire is less in size if you use this interesting method. Steelhead 04:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Historical Legacy

I made an edit to the historical legacy section of Genghis Khan, and it was deleted w/o any comment. That's not very nice, particularly since I was referring to the impact Genghis Khan's empire had on world history besides the role in Mongolia, and besides the reputation he gave the Mongols. In particular, I was pointing out that it is possible to consider Genghis Khan a contributing factor to the discovery of the Americas, as the Mongol empire brought the Europeans into contact with the East for the first time in history, and they became used to the goods they were able to trade via the Silk road. Only when the Mongol empire was no longer able to provide the Pax Mongolica, and thus caused the Silk road to no longer provide a reliable venue to the East, did Westerners consider travelling to the East by other routes, including Columbus' travel to the West.

This is a major contribution of the Mongols to world history, and cannot be overestimated in it's importance - consider, for example, if the Americas would not have been discovered in the fifteenth century, but only two or three centuries later... Which is very likely what would have happened, because why would the Europeans have considered travelling to China and India if it had not been for the demise of the Silk Road???????

My article on the topic was a little more eloquent and better written than this rant, and so I am a little peeved it was edited out w/o comment.

Maybe I misunderstood how Wikipedia works, but this kind of deletion is rather counterproductive, I think.

--Dietwald 16:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dietwald, I am sorry you are peeved. Let me try to explain the reason for the revert. Contributions are always appreciated, but we need to make sure that all information comes from reputible sources, and are not just our own arguments, no matter how convincing they are. The Silk Road existed long before the Mongolian Empire, it was active from Roman times on, yet the majority of European traders went by sea, especially as, as time webnt, ships could carry much more material than land routes. I would like to see some evidence backing up your view, and even if this is somehow correct, it is hard to see the sea travel potentially caused by the eventual collapse of an empire he founded a legacy of Genghis Khan. It is like saying that Tariq ibn-Ziyad contributed to the discovery of America, because he conquered Spain, and it was only with the collapse of his empire that the Spanish and Portugeuse could afford their voyages of discovery. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see.... Ok, I will try to find a source for that....:) No bad feelings then. Although, you have to admit that the ibn-Ziyad influence is more indirect... In my opinion.... Ok, I admit it, I just really like the old Khan. --Dietwald 02:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)--82.82.133.14 02:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We all do. It's why we're here. siafu 04:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Facts

I saw the True History of Genghis Khan on the History Channel last night, and some facts in this article are contridictory to the show. I have two things I immediately remember (I wish I taped it):

• Khan did NOT enslave massive ammounts of people
• Khan did NOT make others pay higher taxes then the previous ruler he vanquished (sp?)

If you saw that show, and I am either wrong or you find other facts that should be disputed, pleas say so here. Thank you. --Admiral Roo June 29, 2005 19:26 (UTC)

The article does not that he enslaved massive amounts of people, he did use forced labor. From the University of Pennsylvania "The conquered populations endured many hardships from the Mongolian conquests, such as burned and destroyed cities, heavy taxation, and forced labor; once conquered, they had to pay tribute."[4] --Goodoldpolonius2 29 June 2005 19:31 (UTC)

So who is right? The History Channel or the University of Pennsylvania? The show featured an archiologist from PA.

Admiral Roo, first, I am not sure why you are using the disputed tag when you are arguing about two facts in the article, and you are not providing any sources -- typically, this is only used when we reach an impass. I am going to remove it again, the proper procedure is to "insert dubious in brackets after the relevant sentence or paragraph and insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem." -- not to use the disputed tage, according to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute.

Also, I am going to have to ask you to actually provide a source, there was no information on the show on the History Channel site. Please also make it clear what you are objecting to, if it is "Taxes were also heavy, and conquered people were used as forced labor," then even your recall of the program does not dispute that forced labor was used. That leaves taxes as the only issue, Genghis abolished taxes on some classes, specifically clergy and doctors, but otherwise demanded fairly heavy tribute and attacked towns that refused to pay it. This fact may indeed be open to discussion, but you are going to need to provide sources if you have evidence otherwise, remembering a show with no references is difficult to follow up. --Goodoldpolonius2 29 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Corveé labour is definately something the Mongols used (called Ulagha in mongolian), as did all medieval societies. I was not very fun and a lot of people ran away, this is documented in an article by Luciano Petech about the Mongol Census, I forget where it is published, but it could be found in his collected writings published in rome in the early eighties. In any case, I think the Mongol postal system is something that should get more attention. At one time you could mail a letter from Baghdad to Beijing and it would take two weeks, I bet it would take more than that now. The Mongol empire mostly functioned like most pre-modern empires, beat people up until they give you money, then leave them alone as long as the keep giving you money.

Actually there is ample evidence that the Mongols enslaved huge numbers of people. First of all they did not understand the free market and so tended to assume people would only produce if forced to. So one of the things they do is force people to remain in their villages and jobs and follow the profession of their fathers. Then they handed them out to powerful Mongols as a cheaper way of paying for government. They intorduce serfdom into the Islamic world and China where it was either not known or not known for years. But they also outright enslave people. The population of northern China drops by about 85% during the Mongol conquests and not all of them are killed. Ogodei, I think offhand, says at one point, when advised to copy the Chinese, that every Muslim had at least two Chinese slaves. There is only one way they could have got them. On top of which when the Mongols do hold exams about a quarter of successful candidates are slaves - which indicates a very high rate of enslavement if so many members of the gentry are slaves. Lao Wai 2 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

As for the taxation the Mongols are a notorious highly taxing group. It is a commonplace in Chinese history for instance. The Ming founder reduces taxes to lower than a sensible minimum because of the Mongol's behaviour. The Persian experience is similar. So much so that the economy of these two regions more or less collapses while the Mongols rule. The world is full of Revisionist historians. Few of them are right. Lao Wai 2 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

=168.253.21.2 and superlatives

Please stop adding in superlatives about Genghis, or at least support them with evidence, otherwise the article sounds very POV. For example, "he is believed to have been a military and administrative genius" cries out for a reference to some sources, especially given the link to genius does not mention what an administrative or military genius would be. We should explain what Genghis did, and not editorialize on his greatness. --Goodoldpolonius2 8 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

I agree. It violates NPOV to endorse as true a statement that is inherently unprovable. siafu 8 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)

(From Above)Ok the thing I don't get is in wikipedia, Napoleon is described as possibly an administrative genius, why not Genghis Khan. What basis do you have to say he is not genius and Napoleon is genius. If Napoleon was genius, Genghis Khan is genius too, don't you see the problem here? 168.253.21.2 (Sig added by goodold)

Well, first Napoleon is described as a military genius, not an administrative one. Second, I didn't write the Napoleon article, and I would want that adjective explained if I was editing it, but two wrongs don't make a right. Third, the superlatives come on top of other superlatives - we already call him a "national hero" and "one of the most successful military leaders in world history" who "used superior military intelligence, tactics and the mobility of his armies to defeat opponents, rapidly conquering more territory than any other single ruler." These things are factual, adding in random boosterism does not make the artice stronger, nor can it be justified under NPOV. But if you can provide some sources, that would also help. --Goodoldpolonius2 8 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

• • • • Ok well you make your point, but my question is why acknowledge one thing and not acknowledge the other. When I was reading about Napoleon, he is "military genius," and I start thinking to myself, why not Genghis Khan, he was much powerful than him. Well possibly two wrongs don't make right, but that doesn't mean one wrong is better than the other. For example, if there was too poor guys, one physically stronger and he beat the other guy regularly, and then there was rich guy who was asking money from these two, and they couldn't pay. In terms of the two poor guys, one guy getting beat by the other alleged poor guy is not just, for the sake of the other poor guy. Please don't argue that it's the relationship between the rich guy that matters, but the relationship among the two poor guys. Don't try to impose something and forget the rest, and one weak poor guy gets beaten to death. You see my point? In other words, don't try to justify things because both of them are "wrong."

Quote from Qazwini

The only Qazwani I can find is Mirza Qazwini who edited and wrote a well-regarded commentary on Juvayni's commissioned history of Genghis Khan. Ascribing the quote to Qazwini seems incorrect, since the comment is clearly from a contemporary source, and I have substituted Juvayni. But even then, basically this quotation says nothing - name any conquest in any period of history, and the vanquished would have said the same things... Personally I am all for removing the obscure "quotation" and just putting it as something that Juvayni said.

The other indisputable fact is that the Mongol Empire was the single largest contiguous land empire in all time. Only the British Empire was larger.

But on the whole the entire article seems to have finally found a balance, safe from random vituperous attacks ... three cheers for Wikipedia.

- User:Mukerjee

Actually let me loudly doubt that GK created the largest contiguous land Empire of all time. First of all he did not control that much. It took until Khubilai until China was conquered for instance. Despite the fact that this article claimed it the Mongols never took Japan, or even Indonesia, and only briefly controlled Vietnam. But by then of course the Empire had broken up. Batu's claimed more or less independence very early on. By the time of Khubilai the Empire was entirely nominal - the Il-Khans only acknowledged a theoretical link and K. spent most of his early career fighting his cousins in Central Asia and Mongolia. On top of which the vast majority of land area - essentially northern Russia from the Baltic to the Pacific - remained out of Mongol control. They could force Moscow to pay tribute but there is no evidence of even trying among the Siberian tribes. When GK died the Mongols controlled Mongolia, they were still fighting over northern China, they more or less controled Xinjiang but of course GK died forcing the Tanguts to remain loyal. They held most of Central Asia but none of India or Pakistan. They had no control over Iran or any part of the Middle East further to the West. They had no control over the non-Russian parts of Europe. This strikes me as being neither very big nor very important. They held a lot of grass land and snow fields. At least the Spanish Empire was land worth having. Lao Wai 8 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

• • I think this is just non-sense. I think they created the largest contigious empire in world history, so would you say Roman empire was the largest contigious. There are non even being close to the size of Mongol Empire even if we take Mongol Empire in conservative numbers. They definitely conquered, Central and Europe, Middle East was done and heading to Egypt, Vietnam is done, they reached until the Himalayas. This is non-sense attack. There were non that challenged the Mongols and was a threat in all the areas.

I take it you are rather young and so I will not judge. I am sorry if you think this is nonsense, but what you think is not important, the evidence is. What is the evidence? I did not offer any alternative to the Mongol Empire but if I had to I would say the USSR was quite sizeable as was the Spanish Empire in the Americas. They did not definitely conquer Central Europe. They raided it. They probably could have but they did not. They were defeated in Palestine and struggled with the Mamluks over Syria for years - but the key here is the time line. By that time the Mongol Empire had broken up. There was no one time when the Mongols controled all the territories you listed. At Chinggis Khan's death he did not control a fraction of that. Vietnam was not done. Like Indonesia they raided, they tried to stay, but they did not. You may enjoy the idea of people who were so powerful none challenged them and everyone was threatened by them, but at a certain point in your life I hope you will not any longer. Either way it is nothing to do with me or anything I have said. Let's start counting exactly what territory the Mongols ruled in 1227. Care to name a high point for the Empire at which it was at its maximum size? Lao Wai 8 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

• • Well my age doesn't really matter in this issue. So you are saying that by the time of Kublai Khan's rule Mongol empire was fractured and they were start fighting with each other. One thing I think is that the Khanates were special entities of the imperial house and were under the control by one Khan. They didn't fight with each other, which makes a qualification for an empire. There was one rule and certain political and economic organization common among all the Khanates and Genghis Khan was revered and were supreme to all the Khanates ideologically. Well you have to provide an evidence to take this sentence down, the largest contigious, and I wasn't talking about whether it's important or not. USSR wasn't under a single rule, Stalin came closest as one person pointed out. There are some things that are meant to be. If I take other empires for example, did the British Empire physically conquer and rule all the lands that they say they ruled, how do you know? What evidence, criteria or any common sense to say who was the largest contigious. My main point is Mongol Empire was the largest, it started separating away from each other by the time of Kublai Khan. Central and Eastern Europe was conquered, because they were raided, the armies killed, territories taken, that conquering and don't try to simplify it by saying they just "raided." China was wholly taken, Korean Peninsula is taken, Middle East is taken, Russia is taken, all under Mongol rule and customs and teachings. My point is if someone came to the area the Mongols "raided," there is non to challenge and they will submit to Mongol "rule," and that's ruling. Genghis Khan didn't conquer all the area, if you read the article carefully, his successors did. Give credit where credit is due. I'm not saying anything, but just number-wise common sense wise, it makes sense. We should study British Empire, Spanish Empire to see how they conquered and took over things. We have to see other sides of the coin, instead of trying to manipulate and mix up this article. 168.253.16.75 9 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

The Khanates were manifestly not under the control of one Khan shortly after GK's death. What would eventually become the Golden Horde broke off first and it is clear that they were not even paying lipservice to the central authorities. It is also clear that Khubilai spent much of his military career fighting his cousins so it is simply not true that they recognised one Khan and that they did not fight with each other. This is not rocket science. This is just reading the simplest most basic texts available. Besides Australia and Britain have never fought and yet that does not make them one country. They even share a ruler. The USSR was also just as clearly under one single government from before Stalin to well after him. If you want to dispute this then you are going to be in trouble. It is clear that the British did rule the lands they conquered (as a general rule - not counting oddities like Antartica) because they administered them. They enforced their own laws in them. And the documentation on this is enormous. The Mongols do not seem to have even travelled to northern Siberia much less tried to rule the region. So you are claiming the Mongol Empire was at its height just before Khubilai took power? Yet the evidence for pretty much all the other parts of the Empire breaking away before this point is pretty solid. If I were you I would not choose that date. The Mongols came to Europe. They killed. They looted. They did not rule. They did not stay. They did not take any territory. They did not even remain in Hungary. By 1279 China is conquered I will agree. Korea surrenders. Parts of the Middle East are conquered. Russia, or at least parts of it, submit. This is all reasonable. Not that it is important but they do not necessarily come under Mongol law even assuming the Mongols had any. Just killing people is not the same as ruling them and notice that in Europe there were others to make a challenge. No European governments were destroyed, no European governments replaced. Lao Wai 12:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Well I don't think you read the article clearly again. When Genghis Khan died, yes he divided the empire among his sons, but it was "joint property of the Imperial house." Does that mean anything to you? "Great Khan" held the overall control, but the khanates were divided so that Genghis Khan thought they shouldn't start fighting after he dies, but it was Ogedei Khan that had the supreme ruler, Kublai Khan had the supreme rule over the Khanates (little lesser than Ogedei I suppose). I agree that they start to move away from each other, but it was under the Mongol Empire and joint property of Khagan. You should read Khagan and Khan. They didn't disintegrate and said to each other, "I'm not going to acknowledge your rule." Well the largest contigious is undisputed by number of high profile historians and it was like that for centuries. I would hate to say you're sell-out to western history and praise European conquests. We should not take one sided steps. Well even without counting Europe and "Siberia" as you mentioned, it's hard for anyone to beat the size of the empire. We should acknowledge the effort and success of the Mongols one way or another. In conservative numbers, it's still the largest. Also I didn't say they conquered Europe at least not the western part of it. I agree your frustration with the Mongols and suffering of Chinese under them, but we should be careful and how many conquests and colonizations that happened besides Mongols were were just looted but still called "ruled" and "administered" and included in their empire map. It's easy to attack one thing and bring it under to the ground without looking at others and relative view points. We should not compare absolute with relative without looking at its counterpart relative. 168.253.21.8 16:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually the phrase "joint property of the Imperial house" means nothing to me for two main reasons, (a) it wasn't and (b) if it was there is no evidence for it. Perhaps you might like to provide a source? The Great Khan manifestly did not hold over-all control. There was a time during which GK's lands were divided up and his offspring co-operated. But that ended very soon thereafter and what had been a nominal separation became a real one. Khubilai, for instance, had little authority outside China and had to fight to retain Mongolia. They did indeed disintegrate and if they did not say they were going to ignore the Great Khan, in fact they did. Name those high profile historians. I will agree there are some high profile "historians" who make this claim but is it true? And manifestly it was not like that for centuries. By Khubilai's time it was not like that at all. Oh please say I'm a sell out to European histories, although I have yet to notice where I praise European conquests. Let's not count Europe or Siberia. Let's say, about half of European Russia, China north of the Yangzi, Xinjiang, and Soviet Central Asia. How big is that? I don't know who you are so it is hard to say what you have said but other people around here have said so. The fact that other people make stupid mistakes leaves me cold as an excuse for us doing it too. Lao Wai 17:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Excuse me Lao. I have nothing to say to your comments. I think you are very prejudeced to make this article wholesome and all-encompassing. There are goods and bads and I agree with that. I don't think you haven't read a lot about history and I suggest you do without being too emotional and get back to this form. It's not about Mongols or Chinese, it's about what they did. I think you are not very familiar with Mongol histories. 168.253.21.8 17:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to make this article wholesome as the subject is so loathsome. But I am certainly working to make it all-encompassing, and more important, accurate. It is not about Mongols and Chinese (although I notice that several people around here want to make it that way including, I assume, you). It is about accuracy. I take it by the mere fact you have turned to personal abuse you do not, in fact, have any evidence for your claims at all? Attacking my knowledge of Mongolian history is probably a mistake. It is, at any rate, unlikely to be a profitable line of argument for you. Lao Wai 17:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't need evidence, the evidence is on the article if you read the article carefully. I don't think you really are familiar with Mongol history, because you don't seem to understand what "great Khan" means "Yassa" was, and especially about the organization of Mongol Empire. Ignorance is easy. 168.253.12.122 01:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mongol Empire and the Silk Route

Apropos Goodoldpolonius2's comments on if the Mongol empire helped the Silk Route -

please see the article Silk Route, which duplicates statements from Mongol Empire#Silk Route such as:

The Mongol expansion throughout the Asian continent from around 1215 to 1360 helped bring political stability and re-establish the Silk Road vis-à-vis Karakorum.

While there was trade for at least five millennia before the Mongol Empire (indeed, Muhammad and Islam rose on the fruits of this trade and the class struggle between the traders and the religious leaders), the volume of interactions were far enhanced by a stable contiguous empire.

As for the largest contiguous empire, this is the consensus opinion in almost any modern history text.

And as for Russia, the central Asian parts of Russia were powerfully moulded by two centuries of Mongol rule. The Cossack people (the word comes from a Mongol/Turk word meaning adventurer, but probably unconnected with Kazak) and the Tartars (or Tatar) played a large role in the Russian empire, and contributed large battalions of irregulars and later regulars and populated the novels of Tolstoy and others - all made possible after Ivan the terrible annexed the remnants of the Eastern Khanate. For that matter a large group of Turks owe their inheritance (and much of their language, see Chagatai language) to the Mongols, and the Ottoman Empire also rose out of the ashes of the Khanate. - User:Mukerjee

Sure, he helped reestablish the Silk Road for a century or so, but your insert said "The legacy of his conquests and the trade (silk route) that was made possible by the empire enabled the first contact between East and West"[5] -- which isn't the case, as you say above. Also, whether the Silk Road was highly influential compared with sea travel around the same time, and whether it made up for the trade loss caused by depopulation, is unclear.

Your second edit was "Also, the laws he promulgated became the nucleus of social structures that emerged across the centuries in China, Central Asia, eastern Russia."[6] Certianly, he was influential but I doubt that his laws were the nucleus for the social structures of China and Russia - the social structure of China predated the Mongols, if anything, they adopted Chinese culture. In general, Mongols were not viewed as transmitters of their culture. If you could provide some sources to back up your point, that would be great.

--Goodoldpolonius2 9 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

In fairness to that claim, the Mongols took serfdom with them wherever they went so in that sense they did provide the nucleus of the social structure of Russia for a long time after. But not China, as you say, where serfdom remained alien. Of course the big mistake in that claim is the word "promulgated" as the Yasa was secret and no surviving copy exists. The last thing they did with their laws was tell anyone. Lao Wai 17:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Date of Death

Please check for and give a source for his real date of death. August 25th is given by some historical documents. Colipon+(T) 9 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

New changes

I made an extensive addition to the article somewhat and reorganized some of the sections. Do you think "effects until today" sounds biased than "legacy of genghis Khan". If someone thinks it should be changes, please do so, and we need copy edit on the changes I made, someone please do some nice clean up on the texts. Thanks. I'll do some other additions as well soon. Please someone check and rewords "effects until today" that is emphasizing more of his killings and give more negative view? 168.253.16.75 9 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)

• Sorry, I recognise you've done a lot of work, but I'd argue seriously for the article to be reverted. 1. Almost every sentence will need copyediting. 2. Folkloric and mythological material has re-appeared and is not distinguished from other material. 3. Some of the new headings are almost meaningless. Alan 11:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it needs to be reverted at all to the way it was back then. When there are folkic or mythological materials, it should be made clear then, because we need a lot of content in this article because of the importance of this figure. I agree the headers need change, but some of the content is true and is similar to the actual "facts." We don't need to revert and we don't know which ones are mythological either.

I agree with Alan, the work here is extensive, but it is entirely unsourced, and it is not clear what is verified, what is historical guess work, and what is folklore, even apart from the copyediting issues. I have moved the edits to Genghis Khan/temp, and suggest that we try to address these concerns before moving the text back to the main page. There are plenty of good facts to work from, but you need to source them, and we need them to be more grammatically correct, otherwise the new text was a step backward. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok the texts are from German wikipedia, Spanish wikipedia. I used Google translate to translate the text into English. If you want to look at the source, it's at Genghis Khan articles in German and Spanish wikipedias. The reason why I copied it over here is that there are extensive information about the agreement of Mongols, which seems pretty true if not totally accurate of the historical events. Naimans and Merkits seems pretty true, There are some true facts about Genghis using spies that are merchants, and conquests in China and Middle East also seem pretty true, but there are number of assumptions which need to be looked at. E.g. he stopped China because there were pocket of resistance at his flank, which can be true but we need to look into this. There are a lot of information and someone please do what's right with these information. I don't think German and Spanish wikipedias lie, but we need it in American form where we shoot straight. 168.253.21.8 20:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Thanks also goes to the people who look into this and care about this article, like you Goodoldpolonius.

Date of Birth

1162 is the year of birth given by all the Chinese sources I've looked at so far. Please confirm. Colipon+(T) 01:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

GK as an Administrator

There is no reason to include a claim of GK as one of the world's great administrators because there is no evidence he was even vaguely interested in the subject. The fact that all the evidence cited so far is his Yasa, a secret code of laws that may not have existed and certainly does not any more, is proof of his complete and total lack of any interest in the subject. He passed no laws of any relevance to non-nomads, he may not have passed any with any relevance to nomads either, he established no system of government in the areas he conquered. The guy just didn't care what the peasants did as long as they paid taxes. Of course if anyone has any evidence to the contrary I'll not only agree to the change, I'll apologise. Otherwise I think it is best to remove the a-historic absurd claim that GK cared. Lao Wai 13:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure why 168.etc thinks that we came to a consensus on Genghis as not just a good administrator, but one of the greatest administrators of all time. General and leader, yes. But administrator? He seemed to set policies at a very general level, if at all, so it would help to have some evidence backing up this point. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a personal attack on the subject. Just answer me how he conquered such a great land without being a good administrative person. i.e. distributing resource, taxing, freedom of religion, trade, Yassa code, technological study, exploration, Yam. Just answer me that simple question and I'll agree. If you can't answer simply, I don't think you should argue. I think there is so much biases here. Great administrator doesn't have to "pass laws of any relevance to non-nomads" "he just didn't care." Administrator if you look the word up in dictionary, means good organizer of people, resource, time and money in large realm. Genghis was administrator and one of the greatest administrators as well as he was good militarly. You can't conquer such a land without being a good administrator. Have common sense. Good gosh. 168.253.12.122 01:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

168.253, I think you are totally off on this. There have been plenty of great conquerers that have not been great administrators -- Alexander the Great, Timur, Cortes, and many others come to mind. And, even if he is a decent administrator, to say that he is one of the greatest administrators of all time seems incredibly doubtful, or at least rquires you to provide sources. (Which you really need to do for some of your points, Wikipedia:Cite sources is a key foundation to getting your arguments believed). In any case, the people he conquered did not live appreciably better lives under the Mongol Empire (and most lived far worse), and what written code of law did he issue, outside of Yassa, which was a code pertaining to Mongols, not a set of laws? What exploration or technological studies did he sponsor? What were his administrative policies? The burden of proof is on you making the assertion, and this is not about personal attacks, so please refrain from such argument techniques. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Who would then say is one of the greatest administrators? 168.253.12.122 02:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Napoleon? Diocletian? Sam Walton? Take your personal pick, I suppose. siafu 02:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Still this doesn't count, what makes Napoleon greater administrator than Genghis Khan. They were two different leaders in two different time. There is not single ground that makes Napoleon better than Genghis Khan. They were both good leaders in different time. If you make this claim, this is ethnocentric claim. 168.253.12.122 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Still it doesn't make sense at all and in short pretty much a nonsense. What evidence or support do you have to say that Napoleon was better administrator that Genghis Khan, what did he do right? Take a look at ethnocentrism first.

I'm not endorsing any of these options as "fact", myself, you simply asked who one would say is the best, and I named three individuals who are well known for passing laws (Napoleon), administrative restructuring (Diocletian), and innovative personnel management (Sam Walton). I say personal, because, as mentioned in my comment below, it doesn't matter what you or I might personally believe. BTW, I'm quite familiar with ethnocentrism-- but I'm confused as to how the idea applies only to Napoleon and not Genghis Khan, national hero of Mongolia? siafu 13:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well said, it is your personal opinion and you can think whatever you might think, but in order to include it in this article, it should be supported and made sense to the naivest individual. But if you say Napoleon passed laws and that's why he is remarkable administrator to Genghis Khan doesn't make sense and is highly ethnocentric viewpoint. What Genghis Khan did in his time maybe passed remarkable law on its own right that was sensible to Mongols. Maybe he didn't say, you shouldn't burn down this building, probably Napoleon might have said it, but that doesn't make him a bad administrator to Napoleon. 168.253.12.122 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm still lost, as it sounds like you're asking me to prove a negative. How does applying ehnocentrism only work on Napoleon and not Genghis Khan? siafu 14:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I was asking you to prove that Napoleon was greater administrator than Genghis Khan 168.253.12.122 14:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Siafu doesn't have to prove anything, he was stating a Point of View, not a fact in the article. We could have an interesting argument about who is a better administrator on these Talk pages, which is fine, but the minute the entry for Napoleon says "he was one of the greatest administrators in history," the person who makes that assertion should be asked to prove it. Similarly with Geneghis Khan - 168.253 may think he is the best administrator, Lao Wai may think he is the worst - it is entirely irrelevant unless someone wants to assert that point in the article. If you do want to do so, then you MUST be able to provide evidence supporting your point, since the article must be NPOV. 168.253 is the only person asserting anything about Genghis's administrative abilities, so it falls to him or her to prove the point, not for anyone else to disprove it. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok well do you think Napoleon was a genius? If not, I want you to delete that line that says "Napoleon was probably a genius" from that article, and whenever someone reverts it you revert it back and delete that line every time. The reason for this is, if Napoleon you think wasn't a genius, it shouldn't be there. This is counter argument. If Lao is thinking genghis wasn't an "administrative genius" she is deleting it, and I want someone who thinks napoleon wasn't administrative genius to delete that line and then we will have equal footing and position in this argument. I think I'm getting attacked for no reason because I brought this up, and you guys haven't really looked into the other article and you disagree with it and why don't you delete it? You delete something you don't agree with, which probably means a lie to you, so you should do that to other articles. 168.253.12.122 23:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not Napoleon, this is Genghis Khan. If you want to challenge the validity of the point regarding Napoleon, I suggest you take it to the talk page of that article. Barring any convincing reason to indicate that Genghis Khan was an administrative genius-- and by "convincing reason" be clear that I mean "convincing reason with regards to an encyclopedia"-- the claim should not and will not be included. It's not about a personal disagreement; if you think that it should be included, provide us with the research that backs it up (not just your own, original, research, as that doesn't belong) and we can discuss that. Until you do, there is nothing further to debate on this topic. siafu 23:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You got to like Sam Walton as an option. I'll agree military conquest and administrative skills do not necessarily go together. And in GK's case most of his policies, both military and civil (in so far as they existed) were simple and copied. What is the big deal about organising your army into units of ten? Nomads had been doing that for a thousand years. To steal from people who make things and give it to soldiers is hardly rocket science either. Every two bit bandit does that. Tax? I am not sure what you mean. Do you have an example of GK ever imposing a tax on anyone? Freedom of religion was the norm in East Asia long before GK and long after him. No innovation there. Trade - it is common to make that claim in the Western literature but again there is no evidence of it in GK's time. It is impossible to say much about the Yasa because it was secret and no copy has survived. Clearly it was not a particularly clever piece of legislation as the Mongols dumped it for Islamic and Chinese law. Technological study? There is no evidence of that at all. The Yam, as its name suggests, was a Chinese invention later Mongols copied. So what? Where is the evidence for any of the claims you (168.253.12.122) are making? Lao Wai 09:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

And in GK's case most of his policies, both military and civil (in so far as they existed) were simple and copied.

I don't think it was simple and copied. It wasn't simple compared to other military leaders. His policies were meaningful and worked a hell of a better in his time. There's nothing to simple and and copied about it, it was sensible. What makes it simple and copied compared to whom? Give me an example. Read ethnocentrism

What is the big deal about organising your army into units of ten? Nomads had been doing that for a thousand years.

Ok they might be doing that for thousands of years, and why can't they conquered land like Genghis Khan. If it was simple and copied, why there wasn't anything like it? You are contradicting yourself. What you say copied and simple and "they have been doing it for thousands of years" doesn't really make sense.

To steal from people who make things and give it to soldiers is hardly rocket science either.

Ok this isn't simple as that. Anyone can steal anything from any people and great leaders have done it in the past. What makes Genghis Khan was he used these resources to expand its power, his support among his people, his knowledge about others that made them much stronger militarily and administraively. Maybe it might be rocket science, but how he has used them. Why did anything did what Genghis Khan did to make themselves powerful. Everyone likes power, don't forget that.

Do you have an example of GK ever imposing a tax on anyone?

This is well documented and well known. If you don't know about this, I suggest you read up on it. He imposed taxes to help out in his future campaigns, collect tribute, if you don't know what that means. It's big word in human history. Every leader has done it and so is Genghis Khan. I suggest you just read into this a tiny bit, if it makes sense.

Freedom of religion was the norm in East Asia long before GK and long after him.

I don't think you can makes this assumption easily. Who was it then? It's just not that simple. Who was the person?

Trade - it is common to make that claim in the Western literature but again there is no evidence of it in GK's time.

Silk Road also I say to you need to read into this. It's well documented and well understood that Silk Road became much more stable under Mongol empire, because local fragmanted rulers didn't start using it for their own benefit before the unified Mongol empire.

It is impossible to say much about the Yasa because it was secret and no copy has survived.

It's true. But I say to you again you need to read into this. Just search "mongols" on google. There are a lot of tidbits on it from Middle Eastern scholars and I don't think they would lie even if they suffered a lot in Mongol conquests. Read into it.

Technological study?

There was a number of them, especially related to military, siege engines. I suggest you read into this.

The Yam, as its name suggests, was a Chinese invention later Mongols copied.

It's not simple as that. Why didn't the Chinese ever used to conquer such a long. I don't know a lot about it, but Genghis Khan expanded to make it more effective for spying and intellgience throughout his empire.

THere's one conclusion I came, and I have been saying this for many times now. You don't know Mongol histories. Stop being so ignorant and biased. I think you are full of ego and feel bad about Chinese suffering under Mongols. I suggest you look and read Mongols without being so emotional. What they did to Chinese is bad and I acknowladge that, please please please write nonsense into this article without being such cocky I beg you. 168.253.12.122 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

All of this is missing the point, really. We could argue all day and night about whether or not GK was a great administrator or whether Bob Schnoblin was a military genius, but what any of us think is not relevant. In order to write in the article that GK was a great anything we need to be able to cite a source that says so. Moreover, we shouldn't be including it unless there's an academic consensus. Otherwise, even if the claim happens to be true, it falls under the category of original research. siafu 13:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is missing the point. My points are backed of by evidence on the web, papers, talks on the web, if you have the time to look into this. I didn't make this up. Conquering an empire that big is one thing, but maintaining it is another so that another 50,000 people tribe attack you from 200miles away while you conquered Iraq 1 hour ago and taking a rest. 168.253.12.122 13:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Even if my claims are false ( i doubt it will be), that doesn't make it right to delete it out of the article. I have evidence, look into the web.

If you have evidence, it would probably be a good idea to bring it forward. This whole discussion began when you refused to cite sourced when challenged by goodoldpolonius2. Still, you've been missing the point so far-- arguing your POV over someone else's is not helpful, just cite your sources and we can investigate what the consensus is. siafu 13:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's my source to argue for my position

[[7]]

You've linked to a list of sources, not gathered for the purpose of demonstrating Temujin's administrative skill. In fact, quoted on that page is the somewhat humorous line: "The Mongols apparently understood their subjected peoples nearly as well as the West understands the Japanese, that is, not very well." You'll either have to be more specific and tell us which of the sources in that list supports your claim, or point straight to one that does elsewhere. (Hint: you don't have to do all your research only on the web. You might have more luck with the library.) siafu 13:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

OK I'll try to response to good old 168's points even though it has sort of passed by. I have tried to edit his edit of my work to make it clear what I wrote. Sorry about that but it was a mess and I couldn't see what else to do. There is no evidence of any sort of complex civil or administrative policy in GK's thought. There is no survivng records that would even suggest he gave any thought to such things. At most he viciously imposed law and order of a fairly simple and brutal sort. Big deal. Doesn't make him a genius. It is not ethnocentric to point out the very basic level of government the Mongols imposed. The units of ten, well, I don't know why other nomads did not conquer as far as GK. I suspect because their leaders were not as paranoid as GK was. They relaxed after a while. Maybe they just didn't want to. Most people do not measure success by body-counts. At least not once they have hit puberty. However being a mass murderer does not make you an administrative genius. As for everyone liking power we are back with people who have not hit puberty yet. Most people find people like that a little worrying. Stealing is not a work of genius. GK did not generally impose taxes. He did, as 168 points out, impose tribute and he also looted a lot. There is a small but important difference. Again no sign of genius here. Any introductory text on East Asian history will make it clear that religious tolerance in the norm in East Asia. I suggest 168 reads a few. If he likes I can recommend a few good ones. Again no sign of genius. There is considerable doubt in the academic literature whether the Silk Road even existed. I strongly doubt trade improved during the Mongol period although I will admit many scholars claim it did. Some scholars have tried to recreate the Yasa but it remains that it was secret and no copy or even fragment has survived. I do not need to google it. GK found slaves to operate siege machines for him? Hardly technological progress much less study. Mongols still found sieges difficult. The Yam remains a Chinese invention and again warfare is hardly a sensible measure of civilisation and achievement. I am sure GK used it more for spying and intelligence. It goes with his whole paranoid approach to life. It is kind of sad that you think I know nothing about Mongol history but stick around and you'll learn. Lao Wai 16:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You know what? Read this ethnocentrism and read this Genghis Khan and see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mongol_dominions1.jpg and think, think, think, think, analyze, analyze and if you are not dumb, you'll understand. And just to let you know, everyone likes power, not just Genghis Khan. Barbarians can't conquer such a land and they were 20,000 soldiers to start off with. Barbarians can't maintain that land once they conquered. Barbarians can't conquer China the advanced civilization for years. If China was so advanced, how come they didn't get conquered? Was it because Genghis Khan was barbarian and he was fierce? No, because he had something that Chinese didn't know how to respond to, and that advantageous, and that takes discipline 168.253.12.122 23:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, we all already know what ethnocentrism is, thank you. Can you please explain its relevance to your point? This is the third time I've put this question to you; if you don't answer it, then I'll have to conclude that you're only trolling. siafu 23:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

We're wasting time and energy debating whether we think that Genghis Khan was X or Y; it's about as useful to this article as discussing the inherent combat superiority of flying shark vs. flying crocodile. The article is not about our personal opinions; if one of us has some deep insight into Genghis Khan's administrative skills the thing to do is write a paper on it and publish it in a history journal for peer review, not include it in the wikipedia. The encyclopedia by force lags behind current thinking as it does not include original research. I'm sure we all know a good deal about the history of Genghis Khan, but the claim of being the greatest (or "one of...") administrator in history is not just about the opinions of three editors and amateur historians. If we're going to place such a claim in the article, it needs to be supported by a consensus of historians, as it is inherently a matter of opinion. siafu 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Calming down and summing up

168.253, I am worried you are feeling under attack, and that you are starting to lash out as a result, which is ultimately a bad thing. You are not under personal attack, and your editing and point of view is valuable. We are starting to bog down, however, on some random issues, and your responses show some frustration. To sum up:

1. We all agree that Genghis Khan was a great conquerer. You assert that he is an "administrative genius." All you need to do to prove your point is to show that some reasonable amount scholarly opinion agrees with you. You have yet to do that. As an example of citing sources, see my response about genocide at the top of the page.
2. It is not ethnocentrism for the editors on this page to somehow demand proof, nor is it ethnocentrism for them to disagree with you. You implications that everyone but you is editing this page to "keep Genghis Khan down" are absurd and are growing annoying. I am not interested in Napoleon, and I am not responsible for balancing every article on Wikipedia, I am trying to make this one as good as possible.
3. Genghis Khan's achievements are impressive - if you feel that any of these are factually missing from the page, then for goodness sake add them in. Your value assertions are not factual, they are your point of view. The idea is a neutral point of view, not your assertions. Facts need to be backed up with sources, otherwise they are assertions.

In summary please provide sources! That is all you need to do to keep this discussion going in a positive direction. Provide specific references, quotes, and authors to support yourself. Otherwise, you are not going to convince people of your points. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello there. I've been watching this discussion for awhile. Just letting everyone know that I archived a good chunk of this discussion. Thanks. --Woohookitty 19:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's develop this article

Ok the development of this article has stopped. We need to start developing this article in one way or another and people please pitch in with your ideas and stuff. This article will not get better if people just keep it copyedited and revert things that doesn't have evidence. We need to insert, revert, insert again, revert if it has to. We need to try different flavors, sections, introductions, conclusions, etc. Anything please enter it. 168.253.23.9 04:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

163.253.23.9 - I would actually suggest the opposite. Wikipedia works on consensus and sources, not on repeated flavors, sections, etc. If you want to make a change that might be controversal, discuss it here first. Inserting and reverting wastes a lot of time, and we are not missing ideas as much as we are missing additional solid facts - the reason for the whole Talk discussion above, which you can still respond to. Why don't you propose some changes either here in Talk or on a Temp page, and provide some sources to back them up, and then we can consider those changes. Articles shouldn't need to be rewritten repeatedly to become better, and a slowdown of development is not a problem unless you can say what the article is missing. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There are couple of major things missing in this article:

Uniting the tribes - section, which needs to discuss it more coherently and detailed, campaigns, tribes, peoples,

Mongol Empire - this section needs to be extended a lot to discuss goods and bads (killings, etc.)

Major campaigns - this section is not clicking and not working with each other. One time he is battling in 1242, and then he suddenly is battling in 1120 for e.g. doesn't flow nicely. The content should be not drastically different in terms of size amongst the campaigns in all those places.

In general this article just needs good copyediting, time tenses, flows, years from 1100 to his death chronology, etc.

168.253.23.9 06:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Nomination for FAC

I was wondering whether we should nominate this article to fac (featured article candidate) for wikipedia. What do you guys think? 168.253.13.24 19:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it has an awfully long way to go before that would be appropriate. siafu 20:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we are there yet. We have yet to some serious problems, like the lack of sources that would indicate what is real, what is legendary, and what is opinion. The article clearly reflects warring POVs, and does not yet read cleanly, and is a little to seperate out what the man did from what the empire did. Take a look at Featured Article Attila the Hun. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)