Talk:Genghis Khan/Archive 2

message: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Empire Size

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: =168.253.21.2 and superlatives

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Quote from Qazwini 

message: :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:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
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.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
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" -- 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." 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)
thread_title:  Mongol Empire and the Silk Route 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New changes

message: 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)
thread_title: Date of Birth

message: 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:
#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.
#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.
#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)
thread_title: Calming down and summing up

message: 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)
thread_title: Archiving

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Let's develop this article

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