Talk:Mongol invasions of Tibet

Untitled

Khuden is brother of Khadan. Although, their names sound similar, they have different meanings. That's why I replaced Kadan's name with Köden who invaded Tibet--Enerelt (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mongol-Tibetan relations in the 13th and 14th centuries

The current title is too wordy and misleading. Pre-Yuan Mongol-Tibetan relations is markedly different from Tibet under Yuan administration, when it fell under the "Xuanzheng Yuan" and the authority of the dpon-chen. It would make more sense to split this article into two. A similar analogy would be Foreign relations of the Soviet Union and Foreign relations of Russia instead of Foreign relations of Russia in the 20th and 21st centuries.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pre-Yuan Mongol-Tibetan relations" might do as a section header. We don't have enough material here to split that off into a separate article. And "Xuanzheng Yuan" is completely unsuitable as the title of an article on Tibetan history. We could consider renaming the article something like "Tibet in the 13th and 14th centuries". Bertport (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Xuanzheng Yuan was the official name of the region under the Yuan dynasty, I don't see why it's unsuitable. It could be transliterated into English, but different scholars transliterate the name differently, from what I've encountered in the text. We could also use the Mongol name for the region, if it can be found. And not having enough content is not a valid reason to jam two very different topics into one artifical title.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could title this article the Mongol invasion of Tibet.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I find zero results in English material in a Google search for "Xuanzheng Yuan". None of the multiple books on Tibetan history I checked have "Xuangzheng Yuan" in them. WP guidelines for article titles say they should be based on common English usage. This article is one of a series of articles on Tibetan history, organized chronologically. The material in this article belongs here, on that basis. It is a rational, predictable structure that helps readers find what they are interested in. "...in the 13th and 14th centuries" is readily understood. What do you think is misleading? Bertport (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because you misspelled the title. English academics use "Xuanzheng Yuan" and not "Xuangzheng Yuan". This is why you couldn't find any results. You should copy and paste.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ordering the history of a country by century is not used for any other article, and for a very good reason. It combines two very different periods of Tibetan history together, and gives the reader a false impression that the two are the same. The administrative and military organization of Tibet completely changed under Kublai, in contrast to Tibetan relations with the Mongol Empire under Genghis. This is why it's misleading. See my previous example using Russia.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I can support dividing this article into two, if we can clearly articulate what the two separate topics are, and come up with suitable, meaningful English titles for them. "Xuanzheng Yuan" is out of the question. Bertport (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This article focuses on two subjects. The first is the Mongol invasion of Tibet and the second is the Mongol administration of Tibet under the Xuanzheng Yuan ministry. Xuanzheng Yuan is what English scholars use. If you can find the Tibetan or Mongolian equivalent to that name, I would not object to moving it. But is your opposition just based on the language of the title, or do you have any problems with the content of the article?--SakyaTrizin (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Tibet and Mongol rule in Tibet might be viable. Even if you and I come to agreement on a pair of titles, we should wait a week or so to give other editors a chance to consider and weigh in. Xuanzheng Yuan is problematic for many reasons, including its foreign origin and the extreme rareness of its usage in non-Chinese sources (including scholarly sources). But beyond those, even when it is used, it does not mean Tibet - it means a bureaucratic structure in Peking. Bertport (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise at Yuan Tibet, to prevent confusion with Tibetan relations with the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan, prior to the Mongol invasions. And don't forget, you repeatedly emphasize its "Chinese"-ness, but during the Yuan dynasty, Beijing was a Mongolian city, and the capital of the Mongolian Empire. --SakyaTrizin (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The term Xuanzheng Yuan is Chinese, even if applied to a Mongolian institution. In any case, it is not English, and not commonly used in English by laypeople OR scholars, and does not in any remote sense mean "Tibet". Bertport (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Xuanzhen Yuan, not Xuanzheng, is used in English as a name for the Mongolian institution, here, here, and here. This is not because of Chinese "name imperialism", the Chinese name is used because, presumably, there aren't many Mongolian scholars researching the history of Tibet. But, taking to heart your concerns over the title, I've moved the article to Yuan Tibet.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mongol invasions of Tibet occurred throughout the first half of the 13th century.

• The Mongol invasions of Tibet occurred throughout the first half of the 13th century.
  • Firstly, there is mention of a limited incursion in 1240. No evidence for a 'Mongol invasion' exists for 'the first half of the 13th century'. But, if anyone has RS that affirm this (preferably from Tibetologists, and area historians, please supply the justifications for this strange generalization.

Could this be documented closely by reference to the exact details of 1240, which many sources refer to as a minor Mongol detachment of cavalry's incursive ride to two monasteries north of Lhasa? Otherwise, 'invasion', though it is in a few secondary sources, seems to overegg the pud. The Mongol 'invasions' were operations on a massive military scale, from China, to Korea, to Southern Song, Persia and Hungary, involving huge battles and investments of resources. over whole national territories. There is no evidence that anything of the sort took place in Tibet 1200-1250 as the lead asserts, and of the various POVs, the Tibetan one was that acceptance of 'submission' in exchange for parity, on the authority of a preceptor role for Buddhism at the Khanate (accepted in 1260s), precluded invasion. This too is somewhat rhetorical, but it certainly does not see 'invasion' anywhere, as opposed to a strategic capitulation to a relationship of subordination to an external power. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wylie, in the article cited on this page, dealing specifically with sources on these incidents, dismisses the secondary sources about an invasion in 1253 as 'a political prevarication', and adds 'The Mongols may well have encountered some local Tibetans in the westerly regions of China, but there is no indicationh that they marched against Tibet proper.'

Möngke made Qoridai commander of the Mongol troops in Tibet. In 1252-53 Qoridai invaded Tibet, reaching as far as Damxung to secure Mongke's rule over the area, but stopping short of central Tibet. After finishing the Kingdom of Dali with Kublai, Mongol general Uryankhadai attacked Tibet from the south east, possibly assisting Qoridai. Various Tibetan monasteries submitted to the Mongols and the Mongke Khan divided most of Kansu, Kokonor and the Sino-Tibetan border areas between his relatives as their appanages. All Buddhist clergies were exempted from taxation. The Tibetan Karma baghshi received Mongke's patronage. Kublai Khan was appointed by Möngke Khan to take charge over the Chinese campaigns in 1253. Kublai took Drogön Chögyal Phagpa into his camp.'

The above can be restored to the article with sourcing to a qualified Tibetan-Mongolian historical specialist, i.e. better sourcing, as long as it is narrtated in terms of 'according to some sources' etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The edits in question are primarily those of Enerelt's in 2009. I'll work on it to find some better sources. I remember Wylie characterizing the expedition in 1240 as an invasion, but I'll have to double check. --SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I've read that a bit. A lot of sources are sloppy. And I think a careful reconstruction of the episode according to the best sources would be useful, esp. since careless use of 'Tibet' when you mean a specific area of Tibet, or a cavalry incursion, does not lend confidence to the reputation we desire for wiki, i.e., a highly reliable source for the best available information.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire section is a mess, I'll work on substantially rewriting the entire thing.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I find Wylie's account of the 1240 campaign to be convincing, but he does point out alternative theories. I'll continue working on it later tonight.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It was for its time, and still is, a very good analysis. He uses the word (from memory) 'expedition' several times. I can't remember what he says about the figures. Anyone from my background (classical languages) is told to be very very wary of huge figures, and to make a rapid logistical calculation of type of terrain to be covered, time taken, and available food, and to take a map out and understand the route taken. But of course, one has here to rely on what secondary sources tell us. It would be good if some military historical angle turns up on this. Thanks for the work Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You might like to consider the language of the following (it was an invasion of course, but its dimension is often exaggerated).

• First authenticated foreign invasion of Tibet’ consisting of a ‘raiding force’ Hugh Edward Richardson, Tibet and its history, Shambala 1984 p.33
• Christopher I. Beckwith,Empires of the Silk Road: a history of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the present, Princeton University Press, 2009 p.191 speaks of 'a small force'
• Paul de Buell, ‘Tibetans, Mongols and the Fusion of Eurasian Culture,’ in Anna Akasoy, Charles Burnett, Ronit Yoeli-Tlalim (eds.) Islam and Tibet: Interactions Along the Musk Routes, Ashgate 2011 p.195 includes it as one of the ‘major raids on outlying Tibet, all limited in geographical extent’ from 1238 to 1240
• C. F. Hung, ‘The Tung Brothers,’ in Igor de Rachewiltz et al. (ed.) In the service of the Khan: eminent personalities of the early Mongol-Yüan period (1200-1300), Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 1993 p.646 speaks of a ‘raiding party’ Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are three major theories regarding the 1240 campaign. The first, supported by Norbu and traditional sources (but has been called into question by recent research) is that Godan invaded in 1240, but was saved by intervention of Sakya Pandita, who brought Buddhism to the Mongols and dissuaded them from sending a larger army (after they withdrew in 1241) by agreeing to resume paying tribute. The second, supported by Wylie, was that the attack was a reconnaissance campaign meant to evaluate the regional leaders in Tibet before demanding the region's complete capitulation. And the third, supported by Luc Kwantan, interprets the campaign as a raid or looting party, sent to pilfer the Tibetan monasteries of their wealth. All these theories need to be present in the article. I've written a description of the first one, and I'm currently working on the other two.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And I agree that the campaign was a small one. The 30,000 figure comes from Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa in his Tibet: A Political History (page 61), which is the approximate size of most Mongol reconnaissance forces, much smaller than the full scale invasions against China and Persia. As a comparison, the Mongol reconnaissance campaigns in Georgia (which were similar in purpose to the Tibetan one), only consisted of 20,000 men. I'll rewrite it to make that point clear.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The 1247 event was not an invasion. Sakya Pandita was established as the political leader of Tibet in 1247, and the Tibetans had already capitulated to the Mongols in 1242. No military action was involved. Unless anyone objects, I am removing it from the article.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep up th good work.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

References