Jump to content

Talk:Northern Yuan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Northern Yuan as continuation of Genghis Khan's empire?

Why isn't Northern Yuan considered a continuation of Genghis Khan's empire? The Northern Yuan in its first decades controlled even more territories than Genghis Khan did in 1206. It wasn't until 1387 that Manchuria was lost to the Ming Dynasty.--Choulin (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If we continue that logic, can modern Mongolia be considered a continuation of Genghis Khan's empire, no matter smaller or bigger its territory is? Gantuya eng (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the reason I mentioned its size was just to make a more clear image. But it is not really the size matters, but history does. Just consider the following questions: When did Genghis Khan's empire eventually fall? And when was the modern state of Mongolia established?--Choulin (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The time of the establishment of modern Mongolia may indeed imply lack of continuity. Nevertheless modern Mongolia was established by Genghisids again. And Boghda Khaghan would often say, although jokingly, "I am a reincarnation of Zanabazar, therefore I'm a Genghisid."
The Dzungar Khanate is listed as a successor of the Northern Yuan in addition to the Qing Empire in this article. Then, can modern Mongolia be a co-successor of the Qing Empire (and therefore, of the Northern Yuan again) besides the state of China? :)
As there was Jin and Later Jin, didn't Mongolia reemerge in 1911 as "Later Yuan"? :)
Sorry if my questions sound strange. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Modern Mongolia is the continuation of Mongol founded dynasties as successor state. But it can't be for imperalism. --Enerelt (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Italy a continuation of the Roman Emripe? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As historical state in Italy, the country can be the successor of the Romans. But we should regard their ethnic origin. Not all Italians are the Romans as are not all Mongolians the Mengwu that are written in Chinese chronicles. If some one from Italy read it, I do sorry. But we can't change the history. Historically, Itay had a strong Celtic and German presence in spite of the Romano-Greek culture. --Enerelt (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no northern yuan dynasty

These are Chinese centric viewpoint. There was not such thing as northern yuan dynasty. When Yuan broke, Mongolia was separated and was not under anyone's influence. These are Chinese people trying to make Mongolia Chinese by saying Yuan is Mongolia. You have to be careful about these Chinese editors trying to make Mongolia part of China and by implying that Mongolian history is Chinese history!!!71.237.70.49 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You raised an interesting point. But I think we still need to discuss questions in a scholar manner as Wikipedians. The question is, how did the post-1368 Mongol rulers call themselves? How it was called in English language?--Choulin (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see. I added the Modern mongolian term 'Mongolian Khanate'. This was used by J.Bor and Chuluun. As far as I know, Post-imperial Mongolian Khans had seal with the name of Northrn Yuan. This seal still lies in the National History Museum of Mongolia. --Enerelt (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While the term "Northern Yuan" itself may cause some dispute, I don't really think "Mongolian Khanate" is a good term for this article though, because it seems to be more like a general term referring to the khanate created by Mongols rather than this particular state. I think it's better to find out how this state is usually called in English language as well as by themselves. If it's really true that post-1368 Mongol rulers actually had seal with the name of Northern Yuan, then it will be a more appropriate term for this state. --Choulin (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"Mongol Khanate" and "Northern Yuan Dynasty" are both false and nonexistant, so both of these article should be deleted. There are two main problems with "Northern Yuan Dynasty." 1) POV, this can be extreme Chinese point of view. We can say that China is "Southern Mongolia" or something 2). there is no historical statement that said Mongolia is northern yuan dynasty. Try googling "northern yuan dynasty." Nowhere in Mongolian history there is a name that says "Northern Yuan Dynasty." Mongolia is separate and it came into chaos after the Yuan broke down.

Also credible source is needed and even if there is a credible source, I assume all the sources will be Chinese literature, we have to take into account POV from Chinese side. Period. Until then Northern Yuan should not be in Mongol Empire template. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC) The legitimacy of this article is fundamentally questioned. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think any of the sources given in the article is a Chinese source or literature (you can check them by the way). They are almost all from reliable English historic sources. Also, if post-1368 Mongol rulers actually had seal with the name of Northern Yuan (as already suggested by Enerelt), then how can you argue it's false and non-existant? The argument itself may be considered questionable and POV.--Choulin (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Also note that Mongolia did not come to chaos immediately after the Yuan broke down. It wasn't until 1388 (20 years after 1368) that descendants of Ariq Boke seized power of the Northern Yuan in Mongolia. Even after that, it still existed, though became split in the 15th century. No, it does NOT mean Mongolia WAS "Northern Yuan Dynasty", but its rulers continued to hold the title ruler of the Yuan (and want to reestablish the Yuan Dynasty), and referred to as the Northern Yuan. This has nothing to do with Chinese side per se, though we know that many Chinese sources also refer to it as such. --Choulin (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


Just name it Post-Imperial Mongolia

the Yuan is of course Chines term. But the Mongol emperors used the Yuan (not Northern but simply Yuan) to ignore the peasents of rebellious Ming. --Enerelt (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "Post-Imperial Mongolia" itself seems more like a general term referring to Mongolia in the post-imperial period (i.e. Mongolia since the end of imperialism), rather than referring to a particular state or entity, and there seems to very few English-language sources actually used this term (and quite informally). Probably Northern Yuan is a conventional term, c.f. Western Xia. --Choulin (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It's called Дөчин дөрвөн хоёр or the Forty and the Four Tumens. Even Lingdang Khaghan referred to himself as the ruler of the Forty Tumens in his letter to Nurhaci. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe Mongol rulers in the 17th century had long suspended (though not necessarily abolished formally) the use of name "Yuan". However, they did seem to use it actively and kept much of its bureaucracy at least 2 decades after the year 1368. Do you have any idea exactly when the post-1368 Mongol rulers suspended or dropped this name? Some sources claimed 1388, while some others suggested Gulichi abolished it in 1402 (though probably restored soon after). Maybe this article should focus on the part when they still actively used this name, and the rest will be discussed in other articles (e.g. the link you gave above).--Choulin (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
By chance I saw a post-1990 book mentioning that so-called Northern Yuan to have existed until they abandoned the attempts to restore the Yuan Empire to include China (pitifully can't remember the name of the book and of the author). Perhaps the term "Northern Yuan" should cover the period until they no longer wanted to regain China. Even Altan Khan of Tumed approached Beijing, but instead of taking it he sent a letter requesting to establish trade. A century earlier, Esen Taishi of Oirat also approached Beijing (mid 1400s), but that was an attempt to resolve the trade issue rather than to reconquer China (though Pravdin discussed they could have conquered China would they be as decisive as Genghis Khan). It seems they understood well "it's easy to conquer the universe on the saddle, but difficult to rule it off the saddle". Gantuya eng (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree please rename it "Post-imperial Mongolia," and then we can go on from there. This is just little wrong having it named northern Yuan. I agree 100% with the name change, and then we can discuss further. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I CHANGED THE ARTICLE OF THE TITLE.

This is not correct. There was no Post-Imperial Mongolia. Historically, the Mongols were divided into four Khanates. The last Khanate to collapse was the Yuan Dynasty established by Kublai Khan. Most of the Mongols who had been living in China had been either sinicized or massacred during the rebellions against the Yuan Dynasty. "POST IMPERIAL MONGOLIA" mainly consisted of the three other Khanates. Not many Mongols who were living in China made it back to the modern-day Mongolia... alive anyways. The Mongols plunged into deep civil war after Genghis died and after the Yuan Dynasty collapsed. There is no "Post-Imperial Mongolia." Around 1370, the Mongols retreated back into the Gobi Desert and modern-day Mongolia and continued their nomadic life. There was no unified stated after the death of Genghis Khan needless to say after the Yuan. In other words, there was no established government and most of the Mongols who lived in Yuan Dynasty either sinicized/intermarried or were massacred during the rise of the Ming Dynasty.

So what happened to the Mongols that made it back to modern-day Mongolia and Russia? They continued their nomadic lives. The Northern Yuan was the last attempt by Mongols who were part of the Yuan to established a second dynasty. Like the first Yuan Dynasty, the Northern Yuan was in deep conflict with the other Mongol tribes and did not allow them to live in their part of China - Northern Yuan. Only roughly 120,000 Mongols lived in Northern Yuan. Source: "China: A New History" by JOHN FAIRBANK. By far, most Mongols were living in the Gobi Deserts as nomads after the collapse of the Mongol Empire.

There was really no more form of government after the 1400s. It was anarchy and tribal. Post-Imperial Mongolia is a false title. Most of the Mongols were living in modern-day Mongolia and did not reside in Northern Yuan Dynasty. Ironically, the Mongols in Northern Yuan expelled the Mongols from other Khanates in order preserve their power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauchy Riemann criteria (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Post-Imperial Mongolia vs. Northern Yuan

The last three headlines circle around whether the name "Northern Yuan Dynasty" is justified or not. There has been a similar discussion at Talk:List_of_Mongolian_monarchs#Northern Yuan which was concluded by a precious commentary by Nanshu who also summarized a Japanese-language article by Morikawa Tetsuo just on this question. It is no perfect answer to the terminological problem, but it is illuminating nevertheless. Anyone who wants to look may follow the link! G Purevdorj (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The above headlines were done in some earlier past. They should not have been done in such a personal style. Still, since "Northern Yuan Dynasty" is the conventionalized English term, we may try to use it as the article title. Thanks for your comment and also Nanshu' remark there. --Choulin (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help with Mongol/Tatar invasions articles

Can you please discuss/help, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mongol_Empire#Excellent_article_and_general_mongol_invasion_conquest_articles 97.118.116.250 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Western/Eastern tumens -- wrong, wrong, wrong

Baruun 3 tumen and Zuun 3 tumen should not be perceived as geographical directions West/East. Geographically the Zuun 3 tumen were in the north while Baruun 3 tumen were in south or south-east. I use the term "the 3 left wing tumens and the 3 right wing tumens" in the article on Mongolian history. The concept right/left in medieval Mongolia comes from a perception that left side is superior. The 3 left wing tumens were superior in the sense that they were ruled by the Khagan while the right wing tumens were ruled by the Jinong. These are no geographical directions at all. Please correct it.

Also the sub-article "Restoration" is difficult to understand syntactically. Please rewrite it. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you are confused. Most of scholars use west/east but not right and left in their books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.1.11 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please give me example of those "most" scholars. Also please show those "West" and "East" tumens on the map so that I can believe that they really located on the west and on the east. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

status = Dynasty ???

The infobox has this equation. What does it mean? Gantuya eng (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Split

Please respect what names those emperors use, or it would be POV. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There had been never Uriankhai, Tata empires except in case of Chinese annals.--Enerelt (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. Uriangha is totally not Uriankhai, totally different concept;
  2. It's Gulichi who claimed to be Ta-ta Khan, and ancient Han Chinese respect his title and recorded that. Now it's time for the world to respect him. One's name is the name given by oneself if one did so.
--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Uriangha, you mean the Three Guards or Kharchins?. It is still debated that Gulichi was really emperor of the Mongols. While some says he was, other say he had a Tatar nobelman enthroned as Khagan. Since the dynasty was Mongol one, it is right to follow Mongolian chronicles. According to Saghan Sechen and Lubsandanzan, late emperors, especially Esen and Tayisung, enthroned as Bogd Khagan of the Great Yuan, long after deaths of Orug - Temur or Oljei Temur.

The Four Oirats founded their empires in the late 16th c. In 1402, they were united under Mahamu and his successors as the Dorben Oirad.

The Ming annals call the Mongol khans little princes. So if we follow the Ming chronicle, should we call all the Emperors small princes?.--Enerelt (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the modest size of this article, I see no reason to split it. We would only create several mini-articles, each of which lacking context. I suggest to first expand the sections, and as soon as one of them gets too big, it can easily be farmed out. But there's really no hurry to do that at the moment. --Latebird (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
To Enerlt: Yes, I mean the three guards of Uriangha. Uriangha is not a state but it's still one of the three tribes (Oirats, Tata and Uriangha) of Mongols after Northern Yuan (1402) and before Qing dynasty.
If you think Gulichi wasn't Mongols (give citations!), then did any Khan after Gulichi change back the name of the the state? Perhaps you would say Esen Taishi, but Esen Taishi was an Oirat Mongols, being opposition of Tata, of course he wanted to unified Oirats and Tata-Mongols to "the Mongol Empire", but at last he failed to do that, so there still are 2 states.
"The Four Oirats founded their empires..." Yes, you agree there were 2 states in Mongolia, too.
I did never say "follow the Ming chronicle", I mean, follow the official name of each state. So if you give me evidence that emperors (from Eastern Mongols, not Oirats) after Gulichi use the name "Great Yuan", I'll consider changing my ideas.
  1. We need to follow the official name: the (northern) "Great Yuan", "Oirats Empire", "Tata Empire" and "Guards of Uriangha", it's not a problem about the article's size, but a problem of respect;
  2. We need to follow the de facto state of Mongolia after Gulichi: he abolished the (northern) "Great Yuan" and splited Mongolia into "Oirats Empire", "Tata Empire", you can't say "Tata Empire" is the entire "Mongol Empire", nor can you call it "Mongol Empire";
  3. In ancient times, the changing of the Empire name is considered as supersession of a regime. So "Tata Empire" and (northern) "Great Yuan" are different.
--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems you are confusing the Oirat Urianhai with the Urianhai of Nagachu. The strange names like "Tata Empire" or "Oirats Empire" seem to original research. If there was independent of Oirats, then why didn't their ruler wear a title of Khaan or Huangdi or whatever? They remained Tayishi. They remained vassals of the Mongol Khaan. Oirat rulers (except the short lived reign of Esen, but in a sense of Mongol Khaan rather than Khaan of Oirats) couldn't become Khaans until late 17th century. By the way I tried your "Boljoo" which didnt work. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I think I need to read more before continue talk. So I temporarily removed the tag. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean Boljoo Instand Messenger or Boljoo IME? I tried, both work. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought it would offer one more option to type in the Traditional Mongolian Script, but it shows a box demanding something with cubes instead of letters. I couldn't understand what it was. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the IME. You need to run the "FontRelation" first.
You'd better read the Mongolian help document first: every sentence is a link, and that'll guide you to use it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought you wrote that program. No? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No, if I wrote those programs, I'll change all those Mongolian script (espc. Boljoo Chat) vertically. Personally, I like Menksoft Mongolian IME more. Also, Boljoo IME seems not be popular in China, since I know it as late as today. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All Emperors after Gulichi bear title of Khagan of the GREAT YUAN. Erdeni- in erkhi gives clear information about it. I read that Gulichi abolshied the name YUAN in order to have good terms with the Ming. But I didn't mean he was a Tatar. Instead, he had a Tatar (from the Golden Horde) crowned. According to H.H.Howorth, Gulichi is corruption of Ugetchi Khashika as well as Orug Temur. If it is true, he might be an Oirad or Ogedeid prince. The Guards were wavering between the Mongols and the Ming but they didn't establish own state.--Enerelt (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All=Who? (mention some eastern Mongols.)--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure following khans used Khagan of the Yuan, in accordance with Mongolian chronicles (But they were called Tata khan or little princes in the Ming annal as you said):
As Gantuya said, the Oirat leaders were not called khans until Dalai Lama bestowed the title on them.--Enerelt (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is named after not only the Yuan but also The Forty and the Four.--Enerelt (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you please cite some reference here? Thanks! Also, how about the period between 1402 and 1416, when Tayisung Khan became the emperor? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Following are good references about Da Yuan Khagan:
(original sources)
  • Bluva-bsang-bstan-ʼjin, Nina Pavlovna ShastinaBluva-bsang-bstan-ʼjin, Nina Pavlovna Shastina - Altan tobchi: ("Zolotoe skazanie")‎
  • Saghan Setcehn-Erdene yin Erikhi
  • Lubsandanzan-Altan Tobchi
Secondary sources
  • C.P.Atwood-Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire
  • Willard J. Peterson, John King Fairbank, Denis Twitchett-The Cambridge History of China, p.320
  • Walther Heissig-A lost civilization: the Mongols rediscovered‎ , p.119--Enerelt (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

MANY THINGS ON THIS PAGE ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. I have corrected them. Please help me improve this page!

1. The Northern Yuan Dynasty was established with Han Chinese and former Yuan officials. The North Yuan DID NOT have ANY people from the other Mongol Khanates. After the collapse of the Mongol Khanates except the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongols became nomads and settled in Modern day Mongolia and Russia. THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE NORTHERN YUAN. This is a BIG mistake. In addition, the Northern Yuan Dynasty had only 120,000 Mongols! Most of the Mongols were not in the Northern Yuan.

2. Its capital was in Beijing and did not contain any parts of Modern Mongolia. The Northern most land that was controlled by the Northern Yuan was a small part of Inner Mongolia.

Some wrote that the Northern Yuan contained modern day Mongolia. THIS IS FALSE. It contained just a small section of Inner Mongolia. Most of the land under the N. Yuan was in Northeastern China (Manchuria).

3. POST IMPERIAL MONGOLIA? After the Mongol Empire collapsed, most of the Mongols from the other Khanates, except China, went back to the Gobi Desert and became nomadic farmers. They did NOT RETURN TO THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED NORTHERN YUAN DYNASTY.

Of THOSE MONGOLS WHO STAYED IN CHINA. They were either sinicized and recognized as Chinese or massacred.

OF THOSE YUAN DYNASTY MONGOLS WHO MANAGED TO FLEE, they founded the Northern Yuan Dynasty along with its Han Chinese loyalists. The Mongols in Northern Yuan Dynasty numbered under 120,000. After the collapse of the Northern Yuan Dynasty, 70,000 were captured alive. These were sent to the Ming Dynasty and who knows what happened to them. Sinicized?

Cauchy Riemann criteria (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Except for one small detail, you have not provided any reliable sources for your claims and edits. You have also broken many links and removed correct information in the editing process. You have also misunderstood the focus of this article, which is only partly about the Northern Yuan. Because of all that, and because it is too difficult to separate any possibly valid additions from the unconstructive parts, I'll have to revert your edits to the previous state summarily. Please feel free to present your arguments and sources on the talk page here in a civil manner. Once there is consensus, you can make the respective changes to the article.
But in a discussion, please don't SHOUT, it is considered impolite. You may also want to drop the "I am right" attitude. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, where you can't just force people to follow your opinion. If you can provide reliable sources for your claims, then they will be accepted. Otherwise, they are just opinions, which we're not interested in. --Latebird (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it back and made it more accurate. I added some historical sources.

This edit is reasonable and it follows more closely to actually history. I believe the main point of Cauchy Riemann Criteria's edit was that the Mongol Empire had four Khanates. One was the Yuan Dynasty of China and when that collapsed, the remnants started the Northern Yuan Dynasty and claimed to be the legitimate rulers of China. The other three Khanates collapses 50 years before the collapse of the Yuan Dynasty. Those parts of the ex-Mongol Empire fled into the Gobi Desert. They had nothing to do with the Northern Yuan Dynasty. Calling this Post Imperial Mongolia is not correct. It was Post-Imperial Yuan.

Historically, there was around 100,000~140,000 Mongols who had lived in the Northern Yuan and the rest were Han Chinese. Keep in mind that the entire Mongol population was 4,000,000 in 1380 according to the "The Secret History of the Mongols". In other words, Post Imperial Mongolia should refer to period of history after the collapse of all Khanates and including the Northern Yuan Dynasty. Once the Northern Yuan collapsed in 1388, only a few of the 100,000~140,000 Mongols fled back into modern-day Mongolia and Russia.

Northern Yuan Dynasty is not post imperial Mongolia. I'm not sure that it is historically accurate to call it Mongolia because after the collapse of all Khanates, the Mongols had no unified leader or state. They returned to their nomadic life and started their tribal culture again. In fact, most of the Mongols who had lived in the Yuan and Northern Yuan dynasties did not return to Mongolia. Many Mongols had been sinicized and no longer recognized as Mongols. Others were massacred. Keep in mind that the Nothern Yuan Dynasty had only 140,000 Mongols while the entire Mongol population was 4,000,000 in 1380.

What happened after the Northern Yuan? The few Mongols that did make it back to the Gobi Desert started their nomadic lives. The Mongols from the other Khanates were living in modern-day Mongolia 50 years before the collapse of the Yuan Dynasty. They were independent from the Mongols in Yuan Dynasty and Northern Yuan.

Pertook15 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when and which of the Mongols fled back to Mongolia. What puzzles me is "they fled to Gobi Desert". Why should they choose to stay in Gobi when they had a better option to live in the more fertile grasslands of Khangai region mixed with some forest? Gantuya eng (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Whatever Cauchy's intention was, I don't think Pertook15's edit improved much. In fact, most of what he writes here on the talk page seems to be a misunderstanding: the Tatar yoke in Russia arguably continued after the fall of the yuan dynasty, no significant numbers of Mongols from those other khanates returned to what is now Mongolia. The Secret History of the Mongols does not contain any population data for Mongolia in 1380 etc.
Also, I think it is wrong to state that the Northern Yuan had their capital in Beijing, that they did not control much of Mongolia etc: The reason it is called "Northern Yuan" is precisely to distinguish between the period before and after they lost Beijing. And Ayushiridara certainly had control of, at least, Karakorum. Yaan (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
And could the "Mongols" in the Horde, Hulagu state, or in Chagatai state be really called "Mongols". It seems they were alienated from their Mongolian roots, those in the Horde were assimilated among Kipchaks and together with them they became Tatars, those in the Iran were assimilated among Persians, those in Chagatai Ulus were assimilated among the Turkic peoples. Even those who were not assimilated formed new ethnic groups such as the Hazara in Afghanistan. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that as his very first edit, User:Pertook15 defended User:Cauchy Riemann criteria by reverting me, and all of his four edits so far revolve around this topic. Draw your own conclusions. --Latebird (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
MY RESPONSE AS THE ORIGINAL EDITOR

I think there are two terms, which are confusing many people and their careless use often leads to confusion.

Mongolian vs. Mongol. The word "Mongolia" with the Latin suffix attached to it represents a modern nation state. Mongolian, through English interpretation means a person holding citizenship of Mongolia. Hence, they are Mongolian. The word "Mongol" roughly represents some ethnic tribes that lived in the area of modern day Mongolia, Russia, and China.

So please use Mongols as opposed to Mongolian. One refers to a modern nation state while the other refers to an ethnic group with historical roots in the area that includes modern-day Mongolia.

I read your replies.

Most importantly, I would like to state that the capital of the Northern Yuan Dynasty was still located in Beijing. Keep in mind that the Ming Dynasty capital was in Nanjing. In order for the Northern Yuan Dynasty to claim themselves as the legitimate ruler of ALL of China, they officially put their capital at Beijing. I am fully aware that many officials and royalties did not live in Beijing.

Secondly, Northern Yuan Dynasty did not include any areas in modern-day Mongolia; its power existed in the areas that used to be known as Manchuria. The reason for this is because the other remnant of the other Khanates struggled for power in the Gobi Desert and modern day Russia. They had no relationship with the Northern Yuan Dynasty. Historically, there were only 100,000 Mongols in the Northern Yuan Dynasty.

Secondly, I read the "Secret History of the Mongols." In it, it actually states that Genghis Khan once made "sodomy" illegal because of the low population of Mongols and large amount of land that Genghis invaded. After that, it mentioned that after the fall of the last Khanate, the Mongol population was around 4 million.

Thirdly, calling Northern Yuan "post imperial Mongolia" is totally wrong. Mongolia is the name of a unified state. There was no unified Mongol state after the death of Genghis Khan. It was many states, some of which had Mongol rulers and royalties. In addition, the single Northern Yuan Dynasty in no way or form represented the ENTIRE Mongol history at that time or any time. The Northern Yuan Dynasty was one of MANY states in the world that had Mongols and it had a Mongol ruler. Calling it Post-Imperial Mongolia is wrong. This single dynasty did not represent all of the Mongols. It only had a population of 100,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertook15 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have some misunderstanding.

1) Mongolia is a nation-state and at the same time the name of a country or geographic area historically and presently populated by the Mongols or Mongolians. As a "Mongolian" myself, I never see any difference between "historical Mongols" and "modern ethnic Mongolians". Why should the grandfather be "Mongol" and the grandchild "Mongolian"? Therefore it is legitimate to use te word "Mongolia" for the country, area or state that existed in history. 2) Mongolia and Gobi Desert are 2 different terms. You seem to be trying to avoid the word Mongolia as a geographic area and substitute it with the word "Gobi Desert". Mongolia includes first of all steppes, while some of its parts include the areas called Gobi. Gobi itself includes various geographic zones some of which are pure sand dunes (perhaps desert) while most of Gobi have green summer full of wild onion. By the way the word "gobi" (говь) is not only a proper name but also a common noun in the Mongolian language denoting a specific geographic zone which is different from both desert and steppe. The word for "desert" is "цөл". Gantuya eng (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC) 3) Are you sure that Secret History you read actually talks about the "last Khanate"? I'm sure you read Secret History and many other books, but we often confuse between them, so many books we have to read. 4 million ethnic Mongol population (in the Yuan Dynasty) is often estimated by modern historians. My estimation based on the number of the tumens was 1.6 million (minimum) ethnic Mongols in the Yuan Dynasty including Mongolia proper. Taking that the number of children in a family was very high, this figure may be higher, but most of them would be children. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all representatives of other brancehs of Genghisids left Kublaids in Mongolia and China. Some of Ogedeids and Chagatayids remained with Kublai. They included descendants of Ogedei's son Goden, Buddhist prince, and 3 sons of Chahatai Khan. During the civil war of the Empire, some of Ogedeids and Chagataids stil wavered between the Yuan and the house of Khaidu. The Chagatyids established their own smal state in Hami which was conquered by Esen taishi and later the Ming. The Ogedeids in North west China challenged against Toghan Temur's late reign and later Four Oirats and Eastern Mongols. Although the Khagan's court forgot their traditional nomadic lifestyle, most of the Mongols of the Empire of the Great Khan remained true nomadic Mongolians. Please read The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy by David Morgan. --Enerelt (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet more confusions by Pertook15.
The significance of the Northern Yuan dynasty is that it was ruled by the Great Khan, this is a difference to all other Mongol states (and similar entities) that may have existed at that time.
Northern Yuan did have control over Karakorum, some years ago even a seal of Ayushiridara was unearthed there (Source: Dschingis Khan und seine Erben, Muenchen 2005, p. 176)
Mongolia is not just the name of a state, but also that of a geographical area. It's a bit trivial to point out that a lot of Mongolian history actually happened in Inner Mongolia or other places. Might as well make a lot of noise over the fact that the Kievan Rus was located in what is now Ukraine. Yaan (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If we want to be picky about words, as our new friends seem to be fond of, we could very well just write Greater Mongolia instead of Mongolia. --Latebird (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Tumens

Are Ordos and Tumed two separate tumens? Don't Kharchin and Khorchin make up one tumen? Does somebody have the complete "Praise of the Six Tumens of Dayan Khaan"? I remember only the verse for Khalkha.
Also we are now having the text and the map contradicting each other. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ordos and Tumed were different tumens. Ordos people and their land were personal appanage of Khagan and later Jinong. Khorchin was first belonged to Uriyangkhai tumen with 13 otogs. I think people usually confused with Kharchin with Khorchin. Yungshiyebu was mixed bag of Mongol tribes and sometimes Asud, Kharchin came under the term Yungshiyebu. After the rebellion of the Uriyangkhai people, the Khorchin's status was not very clear.--Enerelt (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
What source are you using? Gantuya eng (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You can find out many information from History of the Mongols: from the 9th to the 19th century by Henry H. Howorth, The Cambridge history of China, Volume 2 (ed.Denis Crispin Twitchett, John King Fairbank), Christopher P.Atwood-Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, Mongolia's culture and society by Sechin Jagchid, The Jewel Translucent Sutra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century. I like the first three best, but it is just my opinion.--Enerelt (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Tha... Gantuya eng (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Is your baruun gar a western hand as well???

Zuun Tumen and Baruun Tumen are also called "Zuun gariin tumen", "Baruun gariin tumen". "Zuun Tumen" and "Baruun Tumen" are just shoter versions. This is the proof that the meaning is that there are 3 tumens on the left flank and 3 tumens on the right flank. The ancient tradition maintains that the left side is senior to the right side.
If you favour the hypothesis that these are "western" and "eastern", then please provide a map proving that Khalkha, Chahar and Unriankhai (should not confuse with Oirat Uriankhai) are on the east of Mongolia, and Ordos, Kharchin, Khorchim Yunshiebu are on the west of Mongolia. Any map will show that's not the case. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oirats were inactive in Eastern Mongolia till the 17th century

It is true that the Oirats were still powerful after The failure of Esen. However they became inactive in Eastern Mongolia since then for long. Instead they were busy in their struggle with Mogulistan and Kazakh khans. They competed for the Turfan oasis. The Oirats to hold Karakorum would mean to hold the whole western half of Khalkha till the mid-16th century!? It's absurd. Then where would Gersendz divide Khalkha to his 7 sons? Then Altan Khan to invade Khalkha to sack Karakorum would mean to collide with powerful and warlike Abatai khan. The tone of Erdeniin Tovch makes an impression that the Ordos/Tumet leaders were a bit scared of him and hated him. Altan Khan and Khutukhtai Secen Khuntaiji bullied the Oirats a lot, but never did they dare to conflict with Khalkha. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right! Maybe Altan's descendants wanted to advertise his glory. However, the Ming-shi also says the Oirat leader and Esen's grandson, Ish-Temur, controlled Qaraqorum in the 1460's and defeated Unebolad and Mulikhai. Bek Arslan failed to occupy the city after Ish-Temur's death. It is so pity that there are many different stories.--Enerelt (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Map is incorrect

The main map used in this article has a glaring mistake. The shaded territory is supposed to show the Mongol domains plus their subordinate vassal states by the year 1500. Yet it shades all of China under the Ming Dynasty as part of this category. The Ming Dynasty of China was not a vassal state of the Northern Yuan. That's just simply preposterous; the two were at war since the Ming's inception and neither recognized the other as a legitimate dynasty. Can someone find a better map, please? I'm sure there are other territorial mistakes as well if there's already an error that gigantic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to Mongol Khaganate and redirect this page?

Mongols stopped claiming "the Northern Yuan" since 15th century. Why are we using "the Northern Yuan" to describe the whole period? We have to move the content to Mongol Khaganate and redirect this page, not the other way.193.0.200.136 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the naming issue in this talk page. I personally don't have a strong opinion on what the name of this article should be. But it does not necessarily mean I would support renaming this article to "Mongol Khaganate". In fact, the name Mongol Khaganate can refer to the Mongol Empire or Yuan dynasty too, in addition to the period described in this article. There are no doubt that both Mongol Empire and Yuan dynasty were Mongol Khaganates as well. As for the naming itself, I think there are a few factors which will decide the article titles in Wikipedia. Refer to Wikipedia:Article titles for more information. --Evecurid (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There is already a page "Mongol Khaganate" which redirects to this page. So I am just suggesting to switch them.
1."The Northern Yuan" is a name only used in chinese histography: https://books.google.de/books?id=gGKsS-9h4BYC&lpg=PA494&dq=after%20the%20fall%20of%20yuan%20mongols&pg=PA494#v=onepage&q=after%20the%20fall%20of%20yuan%20mongols&f=false
2.Even if it is used by non-chinese historians only refers to a short period of Toghon Tumur's next few khans.
3.And they didn't even call themselves as the Northern Yuan, but the Great Yuan. Only chinese historians and the Ming officials called them as the Northern Yuan. https://books.google.de/books?id=69EbKf6JrxYC&lpg=PA427&ots=f7dzeIM75i&dq=In%201402%2C%20%C3%96r%C3%BCg%20Tem%C3%BCr%20Khan%20%20abolished%20the%20name%20Great%20Yuan&hl=de&pg=PA427#v=onepage&q=In%201402,%20%C3%96r%C3%BCg%20Tem%C3%BCr%20Khan%20%20abolished%20the%20name%20Great%20Yuan&f=false
4.This page clearly stated that: "In 1402, Örüg Temür Khan (Guilichi) abolished the name Great Yuan": https://books.google.de/books?id=69EbKf6JrxYC&lpg=PA427&ots=f7dzeIM75i&dq=In%201402%2C%20%C3%96r%C3%BCg%20Tem%C3%BCr%20Khan%20%20abolished%20the%20name%20Great%20Yuan&hl=de&pg=PA427#v=onepage&q=In%201402,%20%C3%96r%C3%BCg%20Tem%C3%BCr%20Khan%20%20abolished%20the%20name%20Great%20Yuan&f=false
5.Dayan Khan and Tumen Zasagt Khan, the ruler actually unified the whole Mongolia, didn't claimed the Yuan.
So why are we using this "the Northern Yuan"? It is a name of a real state, it should be named by what they called themselves, not by what chinese historians called them.193.0.200.136 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally think "Mongol Khaganate" should be a disambiguation page that links to pages such as the Mongol Empire, Yuan dynasty and this article. But how this article should be named is a different matter though. If we are going to change the title of this article, for me at least, I prefer other titles including "Post-imperial Mongolia" than "Mongol Khaganate", since the latter has many different meanings. --Evecurid (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
In Mongolian, "Mongol Khaganate"(Mongolyn haganate ulus) is different from Mongol empire (Mongol ezent ulus). Mongol empire (Mongol ezent guren) refers to the period 1206-1368 and "Mongol Khaganate"(Mongolyn haant uls) refers to the period 1368-1691. And since there is already a page "Mongol Khaganate" which redirects to this page, it is not a big change. Also no khans should be written as khan of Northern Yuan but khan of Mongol Khaganate, since Örüg Temür Khan abolished the Yuan title.193.0.200.136 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we should base on how English terms would refer to, rather than how terms in other languages would, even how Mongolian language would refer to, as this is English Wikipedia. In English language as least, "Mongol Khaganate" can refer to both the Mongol Empire, Yuan dynasty, as well as the period described in this article. It's fine for me to write khans as khan of Mongol Khaganate, but in this case it is not necessary to limit the term "Mongol Khaganate" to post-1368 period. --Evecurid (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The "Mongol Khaganate" is already in the summary section and there is already a page "Mongol Khaganate" which redirects to this page. I think it already enough to think that there is a clear distinction of "Mongol Khaganate" and Mongol empire in English. And there is no mention of Mongol Khaganate as Mongol Empire in the article Mongol Empire. 193.0.200.136 (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
How were you so sure that there is a clear distinction of "Mongol Khaganate" and "Mongol Empire" in English? Talking about the summary section, "Post-Imperial Mongolia" is even listed before "Mongol Khaganate" in the article. Why not "Post-Imperial Mongolia" then? --Evecurid (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The order is not a indicator of how well they are received. In wiki, "Mongol Khaganate" mostly refers to 1368- period, I think it is better. Also it is the name of real state according to Altan Tobchi and Erdeniin Tobchi. It is not a name we should arbitrary.193.0.200.136 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
If you search for both terms in Google Book, there are about 43 results for "Post-Imperial Mongolia", but only about 10 results for "Mongol Khaganate". For general Google search, there are about 58,600 results for "Post-Imperial Mongolia", but only about 4,350 results for "Mongol Khaganate". "Post-Imperial Mongolia" is certainly better in terms of common usage. Yes, it is not a name we should arbitrary. But according to common names policy per Wikipedia, "Post-Imperial Mongolia" is definitely better than "Mongol Khaganate" as the article name. --Evecurid (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it seems so. We can add some explanation about it in "Post-Imperial Mongolia" article. How do we change the title? Do we have to call an admin or wait for more people to comment?193.0.200.136 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think auto-confirmed users can change the title. I will change the title in one or two days if no more comments from other users. --Evecurid (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok. That would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.200.136 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Mongols stopped claiming "the Northern Yuan" since 15th century. So the "the Northern Yuan" is politically incorrect name. There was alternative name "Mongolian Khaganate" in old version of this article and i readded this name. I think that "Mongolian Khaganate" or "State of Mongolia" can be the most suitable for this article: 1. The name "State of Mongolia" was mentioned in Post-Imperial Mongolian historical books. 2. An official name of the Bogd Khaganate was "State of Mongolia". 3.Current name of modern Mongolian state is "Mongolia" or "State of Mongolia". Link "Mongolian Khaganate" redirects to Northern Yuan. Khiruge (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Should not we follow the common name policy per Wikipedia? "Post-imperial Mongolia" is far more common than "Mongolian Khaganate" (as shown above), not to mention that both "Mongolian Khaganate" and "State of Mongolia" can mean several things. In particular, the term "State of Mongolia" usually refer to the modern state of Mongolia, not Post-imperial Mongolia. --Evecurid (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, does any Mogolian here knows that Chinese never recognize existence of "Northern Yuan Dynasty" beyond the year of 1388AD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.243.35.121 (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

So? --Cartakes (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Even though "Post-imperial Mongolia" is far more common than "Mongolian Khaganate" as mentioned above, I have found that the term "Northern Yuan" is still far more common than "Post-imperial Mongolia" in English language. User:Khiruge (a sockpuppet of blocked Ancientsteppe) above was in fact simply trying to label the whole Mongol Empire/Yuan dynasty to be "Mongolia", which I have found to not be supported by academic sources. According to Google Books Ngram Viewer ([1]), the term "Northern Yuan" is shown, while it can't even find the term "Post-imperial Mongolia". No word "dynasty" is needed however, similar to Northern Wei etc. --Cartakes (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Yuan/Archive_1&oldid=1137050702"