Talk:Yuan Dynasty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Yuan Dynasty as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia. |
|
|
edit - history - watch - refresh | |
|---|---|---|
|
||
According to Patricia Buckley Ebrey's "Cambridge Illustrated History of China," Marco Polo acknowledged the discrimination occuring during the Yuan Dynasty. "All Cathaians detested the rule of the great khan because he set over them Tartars, or still more frequently Saracens, whom they could not endure, for they treated them just like slaves." This counters the statement made about Marco Polo describing Khubilai as benevolent.
User:TianLong
Was the dynasty founded by Kublai Khan, as the Kublai's article suggests? If so, why is it not mentioned on the Dynastys' page? -User:Olivier
Quixotic Chinese theory of orthodoxy sounds a bit NPOV. One thing to keep in mind is that Chinese diplomatic theory was also accepted by the Northern Yuan. The Ming denied the legitimacy of the Northern Yuan, but the Northern Yuan also denied the legitimacy of the Ming.
Why is 劉備 called 先主 instead of 昭烈帝 in 三國志? If ideal conflicts with reality, the Chinese describe the former as history. Isn't this quixotic?
- It's no more quixotic than the modern notion that St. Nevis and Kitts has the same amount of sovereignty as the United States or the current notion that Kosovo is still part of Yugoslavia.
- Reality is always different from diplomatic theory, and East Asian diplomatic theory was that there is only one Emperor and only one legitimate dynasty. The thing is that this premise was accepted to some degree by all of China's neighbors. After all, the Northern Yuan considered the Ming illegitimate.
If you think it is a NPOV, I withdraw the word "quixotic", but it was a domestic affair rather than diplomatic one.
- The whole notion of "domestic" versus "foreign" affairs anachronistically applies current political concepts to the past.
Even today, Chinese politicians stir up diplomatic problems, with no respect, for domestic issues.
- Careful here. Just because Chinese acted in one way in 1600 doesn't mean that it has anything to do with how Chinese act today, and vice versa.
--Nanshu 01:58 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Diplomacy is always related over the ages but that is an irrelevant issue. The idea of one-empire per region is well established, after all the emperor is king of kings, but usually the emperor rules the region or holds the neighboring states in tribuary relationships, this was the case generally for China, but there is also regional emperor by respect, where the region admits to one state being the empire, and the others being kingdoms or governors without admitting to lesser soverignty. The signifigance of this is the matter of respect and prestige. Examples of this would be the Holy Roman Emperor, who while he could be called emperor for his rulership of many seperate German states, was usually considered the Latin European Emperor (with the exception of the short lived Latin Emperor of Constantinople). This is an old policy in Chinese history, that the one empire judged to be Chinese would have the emperors, it was contested at times, but generally accepted. Even when other states had emperors many times these emperors would admit the Chinese emperor as the emperor. This is reinforced in historical writings by the idea of the continuality of Chinese history, ie. ever since the Shang or the Xia dynasties there has been one Chinese people and one true Chinese state. Most textbooks approach the matter this way, though they note the Qin was the first true Chinese emperor. When China is divided heavily, such as post-Han and post-Tang, it is often considered an intermidiate period and so no true Chinese empire is considered by the history books, but after things stabilized in the post-Tang enviroment, it was considered that the Sung dynasty was the true Chinese dynasty, despite only occupying about 1/2 of China at times. This goes to the principle, that unless China is highly unstable or a non-Chinese people occupies most if not all of China proper, ie the land occupied by the Han Chinese, the one empire that unites the Han Chinese ruled lands is considered the Chinese empire, or at least this is what I infer from what I learned in school, and I went to a rather orthodox but well-funded and staffed school so I am guessing that this is probably the established version
Nanshu, could you explain the significance of the naming of the Mongols. I don't see the point that is trying to be made.
Calling another name impresses that they were unrelated to the Yuan Dynasty. --Nanshu 00:45, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Editing
This article needs serious improvement. Colipon 23:45, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
[edit] redundency
I removed the following list from the article, because it was almost a repeat of the table above it. The only differences are that the mongolian names and the khan names are inconsistently mixed up. The Chinese names in parenthesis were inconsistently mixed with Temple names and Posthumous names. The following does not contain any extra info than the table.
Name transliteration form Mongolian:
- Temür Öljeytü Khân (cheng)
- Qayshan Gülük Hai-Shan (wu)
- Ayurparibhadra Ayurbarwada (ren)
- Suddhipala Gege'en Shidebala (ying)
- Yesün-Temür (tai ding di)
- Arigaba Aragibag (tian shun di)
- Jijaghatu Toq-Temür (wen)
- Qoshila Qutuqtu (míng)
- Rinchenpal Irinchibal (níng)
- Toghan-Temür (shun di)
- ? (zhao)
- Togus-Temür (last with era name)
[edit] Note on Recent Update
I was working on this in a personal sandbox - but, due to how busy I am - I may not get the entire thing done. The rewrite encorporates all the original text, with sections and paragraphs added. The mainly unfinished section is the "Downfall". --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 12:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Forbidden City/Palace?
I'm not sure what is meant by "Forbidden Palace", but I'm pretty sure the Forbidden City was built by the Ming Dynasty (Emperor Yongle?). When Kublai Kahn was there it was not really the same yet, not the same city I mean. I think there is only one building still surviving from the Yuan Dynasty in Beijing, a tower of some kind I remember correct, but the Forbidden City is certainly all still there. Is the palace different/older? NguyenHue 06:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
- The Yuan began the Forbidden City. The Ming extended it and rebuilt many structures. Ditto the Qing. The basic layout dates from Kubilai. The Ming were loathe to recognise any Yuan achievement and tended to take credi for it. Alan 08:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] shortest dynasty
the article says that Yuan Dynasty is the shortest lived ruling Dynasty of a united China. How about Qin Dynasty which lasted for only around fifteen years? Is this correct? Wareware 06:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Yuan Dynasty ruled for 100 years, the Qin ruled for approx. 25 years (not 15, but it's still the shortest). You are correct...orngjce223
The Sui Dynasty also ruled for 37 years, and there were a couple rebel dynasties and as rebel dynasties are overlooked. Generally when considering longest dynasties Qin and Sui are not considered because they are often considered predeccessor dynsties to the longer, larger and more established dynasties of Han and Tang respectively. Of the major dynasties Yuan is the shortest, but to say all this in the article would be confusing and not especially useful to the reader
[edit] Vandalism
This article has recently undergone some worrying vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuan_Dynasty&diff=13908072&oldid=12718220 . Over the period of a month several, seemingly independent anons removed large sections of the article. Could future editors keep an eye out for this? --Oldak Quill 00:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Most of what I know, they didn't. They ruled for 25 years. That makes the Yuan the second shortest. -anonymous
[edit] contradicts article on Mongol history
Yuan Dynasty (Chinese: 元朝; pinyin: Yuáncháo; Mongolian: Dai Ön Yeke Mongghul Ulus) lasting officially from 1271 to 1368, followed the Song Dynasty and preceded the Ming Dynasty in the historiography of China. While it had nominal control over the entire Mongol Empire (stretching from Eastern Europe to the Middle-east to Russia), China, the Mongol rulers in Asia were only interested in China. Later successors did not even attempt to stake claim over the Khakhan title and saw themselves as Emperor of China.
In the article about Mongol history it says the Mongol Empire was divided between the sons of Ghenghis Khans first wife and their offsprings. Wandalstouring 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
in the section: Aspiration to the Mandate of Heaven
"On his deathbed in 1227, Genghis Khan outlined to his youngest son, Tolui, the plans that later would be used by his successors to complete the destruction of the Western Xia, Jin Dynasty and Southern Song Dynasty."
Do we know this for sure? It sounds like one of many legends on Ghenghis Khan. Wandalstouring 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is not contradictory. Khubilai Khan was the son of Tolui, the son of Genghis Khan by Borte; it was under his rule that the Song Dynasty was finally subdued, and he was the one who established his rule as the Yuan Dynasty. After his death, there was no clear Khagan, either, and the emperors of the Yuan Dynasty focussed on China. siafu 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Mongol rulers in Asia were only interested in China" is the point I do not like. The Empire was divided and what another Khan did in his share of the Empire was of no concern to anybody but the local Khan. This was already the fact during the Imperial reign of Ghenghis Khan and his son Jochi in Russia. We could state that the cohesion broke apart and the successors focused on their given lands. Wandalstouring 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The error is really only with the word "asia", then. It's simply true enough to say that the emperors of the Yuan dynasty were interested in China alone. It's not really true to say that the local Khans had any sort of autonomy during the reign of Genghis Khan; Jochi only disobeyed his father's orders once when he refused to come home when ordered. Even Ogodei was able to dictate the actions of the other Khans when he ordered Hulagu to invade the Middle East. siafu 16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I suggest a different formulation: "The ruler of China and the Mongol homeland held the title of Khakhan, official head of all Mongol Khans. But the cohesion of the Mongol Empire broke with the Khans focusing on their domestic rules and aspiring independence." I think this suits the events better and is in accordance with Mongol history. Wandalstouring 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think your formulation is absolutely correct, but I suggest that we can actually make it even more specific and indicate that this transition of Khagan from actual ruler to de jure ruler over the entire empire happened immediately after the reign of Khubilai. siafu 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- As for detailing the conquering of the rest of China, this is according to the Secret History. It's not very surprising, though, as he had already delegated someone (Muqali) to complete the conquest of the Jin Dynasty, and many times made it clear that he intended for his Empire to conquer the entire world. siafu 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Is this accurate enough to simply state or put a refernce to the Secret History. This source also states that the Mongols never opened hostilities, but responded to humilitations and attacks, seeking to solve issues rather with words than weapons. Wandalstouring 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The Secret History does not claim that the Mongols only responded to attacks; this claim is only made in reference to Khwarezmia. The conquest of the Jin dynasty, for example, was unquestionably an act of aggression. siafu 16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Ok, but the the Mongols had pretty good arguments for being very hostile against the Jin. Still the Secret history is no objective source and quoting it needs a direct reference. Wandalstouring 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] porcelain production in Europe
Quoting from wikipedia:
European porcelain
Porcelain was first made in China, and it is a measure of the esteem in which the exported Chinese porcelains of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were held in Europe that in English China became a commonly used synonym for the Franco-Italian term porcelain. After a number of false starts, such as the so-called Medici porcelain, the European search for the secret of porcelain manufacture achieved success in 1708 with the discovery by Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus assisted by Johann Friedrich Böttger of a combination of ingredients, including Colditz clay (a type of kaolin), calcined alabaster and quartz, that proved to be suitable for making a hard, white, translucent porcelain, first produced at Meissen. It appears that in this discovery technology transfer from the Orient played no part: Chinese porcelain itself provided the mute stimulus.
the reference that porcelain production was a key innovation China exported during the Mongol rule to Europe needs a claim or I delet it. Wandalstouring 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO, this doesn't need a reference as it's rather common knowledge. Marco Polo visited the court of Khubilai Khan in China and brought back porcelain, among other things, but for a specifc ref you can go Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World p. 220-226, where he discusses the trade carried on by Khubilai, including porcelain and silk. siafu 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- please read again: P R O D U C T I O N
- I do not argue about the export of porcelain, but the technology of production was never exported. Wandalstouring 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Is there some reason you think being rude is going to accomplish anything? True, production was never exported, go ahead and remove that word. siafu 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
I simply hate it if I do work on argumentations and I get responses of somebody not reading properly the topic. Wandalstouring 16:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] funny statements
"Southern Song Dynasty, the world’s most advanced empire at the time"
Read the article about the Southern Song. World’s most advanced empire was suffering from corruption and for many years his emperor did not even know the Mongols were attacking. Offensive military ability to counter Mongol attacks and intelligence were more advanced in India, Egypt or Poland. Less pretentious but accurate would be: "Southern Song Dynasty, with world’s biggest steel production and one of the strongest economies at the time." Wandalstouring 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Grammatically, that's "... with the world's greatest steel production...". I heartily agree that we shouldn't simply call it the most advanced, and would even say that it's stupid to try and decide that there is a civilization that is the most advanced in some overall fashion. siafu 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Mongols undertook extensive public works. Road and water communications were reorganized and improved. To provide against possible famines, granaries were ordered built throughout the empire. The city of Beijing was rebuilt with new palace grounds that included artificial lakes, hills and mountains, and parks. During the Yuán period, Beijing became the terminus of the Grand Canal, which was completely renovated. These commercially oriented improvements encouraged the overland as well as the maritime commerce throughout Asia..."
and the article on Chinese history states the casualties of the Mongol invasion:
"The Jin Empire was defeated by the Mongols, who then proceeded to defeat the Southern Song in a long and bloody war, the first war where firearms played an important role. Some scholars estimate that about half the population, 50 million Han Chinese people from the south may have perished in total as a result of the Mongols' invasion and conquest, and about 90% of Han Chinese from the north of China perished as a result of Mongol conquest and rule."
So major parts of the population vanished and there is still enough labor for projects like the Grand Canal? Wandalstouring 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- China was then, as it is now, a very densely populated region. As mentioned on talk pages elsewhere, it's not clear how many people died as a result of the Mongol invasions if for no other reason than there remain many issues on the accuracy of census-taking during that time. The numbers quoted in the article on Chinese history are from the extreme high-end of the estimates (I haven't done any work on that article, just on the Mongol Empire and related topics), but even if those are exactly accurate you can see that there are still some 50 million Han Chinese left alive in the south. Given that the Southern Song Dynasty covered an area roughly similar in size to Iran, and that the population was preferentially distributed nearer the coasts, there is clearly still plenty of labor. siafu 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually such a loss of population corresponds to the results of Soviets and US nuking each other. And the plenty of labor needs food. Most of the population did work in agriculture. I strongly suggest we delete such numbers if they are not secure. Wandalstouring 20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] doubtful statements
"From this period dates the conversion to Islam, by Muslims of Central Asia" writing about the Mongol rule during the Pax Mongolica. Doubtful. Look on Islamic conquest.
Wandalstouring 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Interwiki links
The Korean, Japanese, and Russian links need to be fixed; they are all question marks. I have already fixed the Chinese link. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 19:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent vandalism
I note that this page has suffered from 'vandalism' recently. Rather than vandalism, however, the revisions actually seem to represent a rather clumsy attempt to recast the article to reflect the contributor's view of history.
I am no expert on the history of the period. However, I wonder if a compromise version could be reached, perhaps along the following lines:
- The Yuan Dynasty (Chinese: 元朝; pinyin: Yuáncháo; Mongolian: Dai Ön Yeke Mongghul Ulus) is a period in the historiography of China which lasted officially from 1271 to 1368. It followed the Song Dynasty and preceded and Ming Dynasty. The Yuan dynasty was established by Mongol conquerors and had nominal control over the entire Mongol Empire (stretching from Eastern Europe to the fertile crescent to Russia including China). However, the Mongol rulers in Asia were only interested in China. Later successors did not even attempt to stake a claim over the Khakhan title and saw themselves as Emperor of China. In the History of Mongolia, the Dai Ön Yeke Mongghul Ulus followed the Ilkhanate and preceded the Timurid Dynasty.
I appreciate that the Yuan Emperors themselves saw themselves as 'Emperors of China' and posthumously made Genghis Khan the founder of the dynasty. However, this is not necessarily an argument against taking the Yuan as a period in Mongolian history. Chinese historical orthodoxy, with its neat division into dynasties with the 'Mandate of Heaven', is neither neutral nor unchallenged, and historians do not necessarily have to adhere to how a regime positions itself in writing history (I think there are numerous examples of this, but one that might be germane is the Byzantine Empire, which considered itself to be the 'Roman Empire' at the time but is not usually so treated by historians.)
At any rate, the final result should be based on authoritative sources. Since I am not an expert, I would be interested in what more qualified people have to say.
Bathrobe 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Details Regarding Ghengis Khan's Life
In the description of GK's (Temujin's) early years, he is described as having been his father's "heir." One of today's more prominent Mongolia scholars - in the English-speaking world - contends that this is simply a Western interpretation of Temujin's heritage; that his family must have been some sort of royalty, or his father a chieftan (Prof. Jack Weatherford). There really is no support for this, though. I realize that this is most aptly a discussion for the Ghengis Khan page, but this is where I first saw the mention. A good source, then, for the topic of GK would be "Ghengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford. I don't have a link for it right now but it should be a snap to research him.
DevinMcGevin 04:14, 15 December 2006 Senior, Macalester College
